Return to Transcripts main page

The Amanpour Hour

Interview with Finnish President and "The Triangle of Power" Author Alexander Stubb; Interview with Former White House Trade Adviser Kelly Ann Shaw; The Day Iran Went Dark; Interview with Former "Washington Post" Editor-in-Chief Marty Baron; The Callous U.S.-U.K. Takeover of the Island of Diego Garcia; Women making a Statement at Australian Open. Aired 11a-12p ET

Aired January 24, 2026 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:08]

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello everyone and welcome to THE AMANPOUR HOUR.

Here's where we're headed this week.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: A collective sigh of relief washed over NATO allies as Trump backed off his Greenland threats. I asked Finnish President Alexander Stubb what Europe will do now.

ALEXANDER STUBB, FINNISH PRESIDENT: So I think we've now de-escalated. But obviously it's not over yet.

AMANPOUR: Then Kelly Ann Shaw, Trump 1.0 economic adviser, joins us with his tariff threats against allies and going after fed officials.

Also ahead, eyewitnesses to Iran's brutal crackdown reveal a blood- soaked truth. We have a special report.

And after the FBI raids a "Washington Post" reporter's home, former editor-in-chief Marty Baron tells me it's more urgent than ever to defend America's independent press.

MARTY BARON, FORMER EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, "WASHINGTON POST": This administration will put no limits whatsoever on its aggressions against the free and independent press.

AMANPOUR: Plus, Trump pivots and now criticizes the U.K. for the deal he approved over the Chagos Islands. From my archives, how Britain cleared out the indigenous population of Diego Garcia to make space for U.S. military bases.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London, where Europe is rallying around Denmark following crisis talks between the Danish prime minister and Britain's Keir Starmer. Already, Europe's show of resolve has stopped President Trump from crossing their red line.

In Davos, he said he would neither use military force nor slap tariffs on allies over his quixotic Greenland campaign.

Later, along with NATO chief Mark Rutte, he said they had come to a framework agreement on security for Greenland and the whole Arctic north.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it puts everybody in a really good position.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How long would the deal be, Mr. President?

TRUMP: Infinite.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Details to follow on this, of course, which is where the devil lurks. But Finland's president, Alexander Stubb, a Trump talker with literally a front row seat to his speech in Davos, summed up for me the allies' cautious relief while also acknowledging that they are not out of the woods yet.

His new book, "The Triangle of Power", is about the shifting world order, and he joined me from Davos.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program, Mr. President.

STUBB: Thank you very much.

AMANPOUR: All right.

So, are you all relieved? Do you take Trump at his word? The most awful thing that could have happened was, in your view, an American military seizure or takeover of Greenland.

Do you believe that's off the table now, as Trump says?

STUBB: Yes. And I do think that we kind of had three scenarios -- good, bad, and ugly. And the good would be to find an off-ramp and create a process to improve Arctic security through NATO. The bad one would be to have a tariff war continued. And the ugly one would have been military intervention.

And I took two positive takeaways from the speech. One was he said there will be no military intervention. And the second one was that he wants to improve Arctic security for national and, I quote, "international reasons".

So, I think we've now de-escalated, but obviously it's not over yet.

AMANPOUR: He said, "I'm seeking immediate negotiations for the acquisition of Greenland".

And then, as you know, he did a sort of what I call a goodfellas thing, you can either do it the easy way or the hard way. Either you agree with us and we'll be really grateful or you don't and we'll remember. So, what next?

STUBB: Well, I hope we have two processes. One process which already began in Washington, D.C. last week when Foreign Minister Lars-Lokke Rasmussen from Denmark and the foreign minister of Greenland met with Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

So, that's a process which is supposed to last three months. They're working hard towards finding a solution.

And I hope that we can create a second process. And this is where Mark Rutte, Secretary General of NATO, would be in the lead, where we start reinforcing Arctic security.

And, of course, as a Finn, I would be all in favor of that and doing it, especially within the NATO framework.

AMANPOUR: I'm going to ask you whether there's been some miscommunication. The president appeared to believe, and I don't know whether you've had the opportunity to talk to him in Davos, and that's what got him all upset earlier this week, that Mark Rutte and your all -- deployment of military to Greenland. I mean, I know small numbers and some were just attaches.

[11:04:51]

AMANPOUR: You guys said it was to do what Trump wants, in other words, to explore beefing up security. He thought that it was to confront him and stave off a U.S. military intervention.

I want to know what you think about that miscommunication. And is it cleared up?

STUBB: Well, the first point is that I think it was a misunderstanding. You see, we are working on something called Arctic Endurance, a mission which has eight different training exercises with American troops and Americans in the lead under the NATO umbrella.

And the eight countries that sent troops there, they went on a reconnaissance mission which was agreed with us. So, I hope that misunderstanding has been, you know, parked elsewhere.

And as far as the process is concerned, that's what I mean when I say that, you know, we're not out in the clear yet. Now, there's a negotiation process with the Danes, with the Greenlanders and with the Americans. And I'm hopeful that we'll find solutions.

Of course, the Nordic, it is for Denmark and for Greenland to decide about their own destiny. AMANPOUR: I mean, he said it a lot, but his view that Europe is essentially nothing, NATO is essentially nothing without the United States backing and support.

So, then you said -- or before you said that in answer to a question unequivocally, I believe Europe can defend itself. Do you actually believe that? And how?

STUBB: Well, I mean, remember that I come from a country which has one of the largest militaries in Europe. We only joined NATO less than three years ago.

So, we have conscription, obligatory military service. We have one million men and women who have done that. And remember that our military trains only in Arctic conditions. So, we basically have the strongest Arctic military force in the alliance.

So, I always -- you know, I'm a little Finnish in these things. Just calm down. Take a sauna. Take an ice bath. We'll sort this out.

AMANPOUR: But let me just ask you about this because, look, 2025 was the year of NATO and the 5 percent and et cetera. 2026 appears to have started with the year of unrestrained military intervention. Might makes right. The United States does what it wants. Western Hemisphere is mine. All the rest of it.

You have spent a long time in Trump 1.0 and now, appeasing this president, trying to do some of the good things he says needs to be done, but also trying not to, you know, ruffle any further feathers.

So, I'm going to play for you what both the prime minister of Canada and of Belgium said on the stage just before the president's speech.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules-based order is fading. Let me be direct. We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

BART DE WEVER, BELGIAN PRIME MINITER: Until now, we tried to appease the new president in the White House. But now, so many red lines are being crossed that you have the choice between your self-respect. Being a happy vessel is one thing, being a miserable slave is something else.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Oh, I was quite taken by the strength and the emotion of those last words. You know, wouldn't stand for being, quote, "a miserable slave".

And I just wonder, from your perspective, has Europe had enough?

STUBB: Well, I mean, I have to admit that obviously the claims of Greenland have ruffled quite a few feathers here in Europe, to put it diplomatically.

Having said that, I don't like the word "appeasement" or "slave", because that's not what the transatlantic partnership is all about.

But also, what Mark Carney was saying there, I fully agree with him. I think we are looking at a world change in the world order, a little bit similar to the one that we saw after World War I, World War II and the Cold War.

And these orders, they last for two decades, four decades or three decades. And it'll probably take five years for the new order to be built.

And I think the big tension here is between two things. One is multilateralism. That, for me, is the liberal world order, international institutions and norms.

And the other one is multipolarity. And that, for me, is deals, transaction and sphere of interest. And that's why I think we have a lot of Europeans who are in this first camp of multilateralism. Whereas the American administration is driving multipolarity.

And we're trying to make these two things meet. And that's what diplomacy is all about.

AMANPOUR: Ok.

President Alexander Stubb, thank you very much for joining us from Davos.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Straight ahead. What is Trump's real play, especially with constant tariff threats. His former trade adviser joins us.

[11:09:46]

AMANPOUR: And later with an FBI raid on a reporter's home, is America's free press under threat? I speak to former "Washington Post" editor Marty Baron.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

Weaponized tariffs, the Federal Reserve under assault from the White House, and Wall Street's worst day in months. It rose again, of course, once the president took military and economic threats over Greenland off the table.

[11:14:49]

AMANPOUR: It's been a bumpy road for the world and for America as President Trump marks the first year of his second term.

So let's get some analysis from someone who knows. Kelly Ann Shaw was deputy director of the National Economic Council during Trump's first term.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program.

KELLY ANN SHAW, FORMER WHITE HOUSE TRADE ADVISER: Thank you so much for having me.

AMANPOUR: I heard you earlier this week talking about the anticipation of what President Trump might say to Europe face-to-face after all the threats.

You pretty much thought that he would move away from the military and towards negotiation.

So, you explain to us then how -- what a negotiation would look like.

SHAW: Sure. Well, I spent a lot of time with the president and the senior economic team in the first administration negotiating with several different countries, many world leaders. And I can say the ones that are the most successful are the ones that meet the president at the core of his issue.

And in this case, he is specifically raising issues related to national security, to potential threats both now and in the future from Russia and from China. And those are the concerns that the United States has.

But I don't know exactly where this goes. The president has said he wants total control in this very broad term. We'll see where this ultimately lands.

AMANPOUR: But is it worth the complete disruption that we've been witnessing just to get ownership over something you can already control?

SHAW: I mean, if you look at China, and I worked on Greenland policy during the first administration, when the administration was joking about putting a Trump hotel on Greenland.

But behind the scenes, we were having real substantive conversations with Denmark over some of our national security concerns.

And that's because China has created this concept of a polar silk road. It is working very closely with Russia through joint exercises, as well as setting up infrastructure along the northern sea route to try to capture what it thinks is the future of trade and the future of military.

AMANPOUR: How do you think this president, this administration is actually dealing with China?

SHAW: Yes. I think it's a great question. And look, I think from the U.S. perspective, China is the single most significant adversary or competitor, depending on which way you slice this. But right now, we are in this period of a detente. And this is a constructed one-year, 12-month period where the United States and China are going to refrain from effectively going after one another, not just on the rare earth issue, not just on tariffs.

But overall, you can see the Trump administration not specifically targeting China in any way, shape or form other than in these third countries where you're seeing some of this dynamic play out.

But that said, long-term, I think that the United States and China are heading for a much more difficult path. And so, once we get past this 12-month mark where the U.S. is trying desperately to diversify in terms of critical minerals, rare earths and processing and China, for its part, is trying to diversify away from dependence on the U.S. for the A.I. race. We'll see where we are next November when the two leaders again have to renew that deal or not.

AMANPOUR: But I want to ask you about tariffs. I've spoken to many officials over here, including the head of the WTO, who they believe that Trump tariffs are not about trade. They're about a bludgeon about foreign policy, about getting his way.

So, now that -- I don't know what you think, probably not. You probably think differently. But the Supreme Court is presumably going to rule on it. What do you expect to be the result? And where will Trump tariffs land, you think, legally?

SHAW: Yes. Well, let me start with the tariffs themselves, because I actually do agree with some of that. But not all of it. You're right.

I think the president uses tariffs for all sorts of purposes. Some of them are about leveling the playing field, this idea of your tariffs are too high, ours are too low, we need to make them reciprocal.

Some of them are about incentivizing certain strategic supply chains like for steel, aluminum, semiconductors. And some of them are just about pure foreign policy goals.

So, we'll see what the Supreme Court does. We ultimately don't know. It's in their hands. I have every confidence that the administration intends to replace these tariffs with other types of authority. And I think they have a lot of different levers to pull from.

But the story is going to be the same for the rest of the Trump administration, regardless of what authority he's ultimately using.

AMANPOUR: And finally, about the Supreme Court. As you know, they're hearing arguments in the case against Lisa Cook, who is a governor on the board of the Federal Reserve Governing Board. Trump made a move to fire her, and the Supreme Court allegedly looks a bit sort of skeptical about that.

But also, in the room was the Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who's also, you know, under investigation by the DOJ, threatening a criminal indictment, and he's pushed back very significantly against that.

I guess my question to you is, all of this is unprecedented. How does that serve America in terms of its economy, in terms of its growth, in terms of its credibility at home and abroad?

[11:19:52]

SHAW: Look, the president and the administration are trying to take a generational swing at both the global trade and financial systems. And they're also doing it on the domestic policy front as well.

So, these are massive swings. And I think you mentioned before, these tariffs rocking the boat, causing disruption with the NATO alliance. I think it is disruptive, but it is not destructive.

AMANPOUR: Kelly Ann Shaw, trade adviser to Trump 1.0, thank you so much indeed for being with us.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Still ahead two weeks since a brutal crackdown in Iran, thousands are dead as fears of executions grow.

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh with a rare account from the inside.

[11:20:33]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back.

Significant U.S. military assets, a U.S. aircraft carrier is arriving in the Middle East more than two weeks since a brutal crackdown in Iran crushed mass nationwide protests. Thousands have reportedly been killed, and there are growing fears that some of those arrested could now face execution.

With the internet still shut down, the regime has made it nearly impossible to hear directly from those who were there. But some vital voices are getting out.

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh hears from eyewitnesses and explains why this crackdown was so deadly.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT: It was 8:00 p.m. on Thursday, January the 8th. Just as these incredible images were emerging from protests in Tehran and other cities, Iran went dark.

Under the cover of the digital darkness it imposed, the regime launched one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of the Islamic Republic.

KIARASH, PROTESTER: I saw the army and they were attacking us. I saw shotguns, I saw heavy guns. They didn't allow many of the injured bodies to go to the hospital.

KARADSHEH: This protester spoke to us from an undisclosed location after leaving Iran. Kiarash is not his real name, but for his safety, we're not identifying him.

He's one of the countless Iranians who joined the protests.

KIARASH: The blood was all over the streets. Three bodies collapsed. A girl on my left hand. Another girl, just two steps, she was near me, and a guy was like four meters away.

KARADSHEH: Kiarash took to the streets again, after a day spent in Tehran's largest cemetery, where scenes like this played out.

Surrounded by grief, anger and chaos, he searched through the dead for the body of Nassim, a family friend who was shot in the neck.

KIARASH: I saw two layers of dead bodies. In my eyes, I can say minimum 1,500 up to 2,000, just in one warehouse. And small bags. I realized that, oh, my God, these small bags, they're children's, many of them.

KARADSHEH: His harrowing account is consistent with other testimony and verified visual evidence collected by CNN and human rights organizations from various reported protest sites across the country, pointing to a widespread coordinated armed attack by regime forces, turning the streets of Iran into something that resembled a war zone.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were shooting at us from the top of the building and the Ashrafi Esfahani Bridge. They were aiming with lasers and the shooters were shooting people in the face. They massacred people.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We started hearing gunshots and feeling tear gas from behind. In Iran, we call this the scissor. They sent forces to the back of the protests to start hitting people from the back and the front.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: From 12:00 a.m. Thursday night onward, the type of injuries changed. The live rounds started. I've never seen anything like this. The sound of heavy machine guns in the city is something you only see in movies.

KARADSHEH: The little video that has broken through the regime's wall of censorship not only captures the horror, it also shows the forces and weaponry deployed to suppress protest in major urban centers like Tehran and Mashhad, a tactic not previously seen on this scale outside of minority-dominated border regions.

This is a regime that has never tolerated dissent, one with a long history of crushing protests violently. But this was like nothing anyone had ever seen before.

MAHMOOD AMIRY-MOGHADDAM, DIRECTOR, IRAN HUMAN RIGHTS: It's a completely different level of violence and brutality.

KARADSHEH: Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam has spent his life documenting atrocities committed by the Islamic Republic. He says this crackdown is unparalleled in scope and lethality.

[11:29:50]

AMIRY-MOGHADDAM: Everywhere we have had witness testimonies. They have been going -- doing it the same way, you know, using live ammunition, military-grade weapons, with the aim of killing as many as possible, even those injured on the ground.

KARADSHEH: Iran's leadership has admitted that thousands were killed, but blamed the deaths on rioters and agents of Israel and the U.S.

They've released video like this on state media, claiming to show violence committed by protesters. The regime has long used the narrative of a foreign plot to justify its crackdowns. This time, it had an exiled opposition and a U.S. president urging a revolt.

AMIRY-MOGHADDAM: I think that the regime has never been closer to a fall, to a complete regime change. They are doing it for survival, but also to prevent more protests in the coming years. The aim is to traumatize a generation.

KARADSHEH: Even for those who know the regime's brutality all too well, this is just too much to bear.

I'm so sorry.

AMIRY-MOGHADDAM: We have no other option. Those who have lost their loved ones, but they still speak out, and that inspires us.

KARADSHEH: The world may never know the real scale of the loss and pain as a scarred nation slowly emerges from the night Iran went dark.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Now, despite the bloodshed, so many people say their hopes for change have not been snuffed out.

When we come back, protecting the truth back in the United States. Pulitzer Prize-winning "Washington Post" executive editor Marty Baron talks press freedom in crisis, next.

[11:31:50]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

Now, the year's only just begun, but already there are so many stories to report, especially in the United States with ICE crackdowns, counter protests, threats to allies and foes alike overseas, leading the news all over the world.

But the American reporters telling those stories are facing extraordinary pressure in the midst of President Trump's second term.

Just this month, "Washington Post" journalist Hannah Natanson had her phone and her laptop seized in an FBI raid on her own home. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, claimed they contained, quote, "classified material" regarding our foreign adversaries.

So I turned to Marty Baron, former executive editor of "The Washington Post", to ask if a line has been crossed. He is perhaps best known for leading "The Boston Globe" and its spotlight investigation that triggered a global reckoning on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, and for the slogan he chose for "The Washington Post" that "democracy dies in the dark".

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Marty Baron, welcome back to our program.

BARON: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

AMANPOUR: You know, we've alluded to this "Washington Post" reporter who had her home raided. How much do you know about that story? I know you are still vigilant about what happens. And how unusual is it?

BARON: Well, it's extraordinarily unusual. In fact, it's unprecedented to actually raid a reporter's home, to go into a reporter's home as part of a national security investigation. That has never happened before.

And it demonstrates that this administration will put no limits whatsoever on its aggressions against a free and independent press.

This is an escalation of what's been happening since the beginning of this second term. You know, there have been baseless lawsuits against media organizations with Trump using his power as president to extract settlements. There have been threats to rescind the licenses of TV stations that are affiliated with the major networks. There have been incessant attacks on the media.

So, this is -- this raid on Hannah Natanson of "The Washington Post" is really an escalation and shows that there will be no limits, and I suspect he will do more.

AMANPOUR: Marty, you know, also, I don't know whether you agree, but it seems that this is a particularly fallow period for courageous ownership of the press. In other words, all these business people, including the one who owns "The Washington Post", Jeff Bezos, have seemed to have bowed to trying to please Donald Trump.

So, Bezos has remained completely silent in the face of one of his own reporter's home being illegally raided. He chose the famous "Washington Post" motto, "democracy dies in the darkness".

And when you were there, and even in 1.0, you said Bezos, and he certainly did, always protected independence despite the pressure from Trump.

What has changed?

BARON: Well, I think they fear Trump as more vengeful in his second term. And he's turned out to be exactly that. So, I think that accounts for the change in behavior on the part of

Jeff Bezos, who, during my time there and in the years -- in the immediate years afterward, was, I think, a very good owner, spoke up very eloquently on behalf of the press and resisted enormous pressure from Donald Trump.

[11:39:52]

BARON: But anticipating his return to the White House, he then started to capitulate, I think, in various ways.

Number one was deciding not to publish a presidential endorsement for Kamala Harris. That decision was made 11 days before the election in 2024.

And then he appeared on the stage during the inauguration. He bought a so-called documentary about Melania Trump that she's the executive producer of, paid almost three times the price of the next highest bid, acquired the rights to -- Amazon acquired the rights to "The Apprentice" TV series of Donald Trump, which essentially is money directly in Donald Trump's pocket.

That said, "The Washington Post" newsroom continues to do a really excellent job of holding this administration to account and providing really good coverage.

That is why this administration raided the home of one of its reporters because they were concerned about the reporting that that reporter -- the reporting of that reporter and of the newspaper overall.

You know, "The Washington Post" talked about this as being a censorship via search warrant, and that is really what the administration wants. It wants to intimidate reporters, suggest that they can go into their homes, seize their devices, extract everything they want from those devices.

And so, the objective here is not just to obtain the information, although that's a priority of theirs, but to intimidate reporters to instill fear.

And not just in reporters, by the way. The real objective here is to intimidate any potential sources.

You know, one thing I would like to point out is that for so long, starting with the first Trump administration, Trump has said they have no sources, they're just making this stuff up, et cetera, it's all fake news, they invent that.

Well, obviously, they have sources because the administration is going to extreme means to obtain the identities of reporters' sources.

AMANPOUR: You know, which is very encouraging for all of us. And of course, you know, "The Washington Post" has a storied history, but even today, I'm reading that there are potentially a whole another tranche of cuts coming, staff and budget cuts of "The Washington Post".

The leadership now is trying to resolve and low newsroom morale, rather, declining readership. You know, long-time staffers are leaving of their own accord, not even being downsized or whatever, retired, so to speak. That's bad.

BARON: So, we've seen a real decline in activity on news sites. The advertising market is incredibly competitive. All of that is a factor.

At "The Washington Post", I think there's an additional factor, and that is that there's been a concern about ownership and leadership and whether it really stands for what it says it stands for, what it says in its motto, which is, "democracy dies in darkness". Are they being the true advocate?

I think, in the newsroom, the news department, which is separate from the opinion department, they are, in fact, doing that. I've been disappointed with what I've seen on the editorial board where Bezos has decreed that it should -- a big change in the posture of the editorial page.

And I think they've been timid and tepid in their editorials and their criticism of this administration, completely unwilling to use the word "abuse of power".

They constantly resort to the word "overreach". Well, it's not overreach. It's an abuse of power. And they should say so. And they should say so clearly.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And of course, our constant struggle and vigilance for press freedom continues.

Now, after a break with all this talk about taking over Greenland. from my archives, how the U.K. ruthlessly pushed out a native population in the Indian Ocean to make way for a U.S. military base.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What they did to us, they should rectify. They should -- they should look after us.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[11:43:52]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

Before cooling off his most aggressive threats to seize Greenland, President Trump told Davos that it was no more than a large lump of ice. In his words, "very cold and poorly located". No mention of the people or their rights. President Trump also called it an act of great stupidity that his

British allies recently returned the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius, despite having championed it from Washington just last year.

One of the islands, Diego Garcia, has been a joint U.K.-U.S. military base since the 1970s and remains so under the new deal. But Diego Garcia's residents have a bitter experience to share with the Greenlanders.

So from my archives, a report on the indigenous people at the heart of it all, and who always pay the highest price.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: Four decades ago, when the United States and the Soviet Union were racing to get footholds in this region, the U.S. discovered Diego Garcia, a coral island in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

The Americans had asked the British, their long-time allies who still had colonies in the region, to find them an uninhabited island for their base.

[11:49:52]

JAMES SCHLESINGER, FORMER U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: It's always preferable not to have inhabitants around. It reduces any risk of intelligence operations against the base, and the possibility of sabotage.

AMANPOUR: But there was just one problem. There were inhabitants on Diego Garcia, and they had been living there for more than 200 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The children here do not have all the toys that some children play with.

AMANPOUR: This old British newsreel shows a thriving community of about 2,000 people who worked on the island's coconut plantation.

But the British didn't see that as a problem. To make way for the U.S. base, They simply moved all the inhabitants 1,200 miles away to other tropical islands, Mauritius and the Seychelles.

Back then, when the island was a British colony, Marcel Maulen (ph) managed the coconut plantation. It was he who was ordered to ship the people out.

In order to have their base, what did the Americans want you to do with the island?

MARCEL MAULEN, COCONUT PLANTATION MANAGER: Total evacuation. They wanted no indigenous people there.

AMANPOUR: How did you evacuate?

MAULEN: Well, when the final time came and the ships were chartered, they weren't allowed to take anything with them except a suitcase for their clothes. The ships were small and they could take nothing else. No furniture, nothing.

AMANPOUR: The people of Diego Garcia say they left paradise and landed in hell when they were dumped here in the urban slums of Mauritius. They had brought no possessions. And as islanders who had lived off fishing and farming, they had no real professional skills.

No one helped them resettle or paid for the homes they lost. They simply were forced to become squatters in a foreign land.

Before the final evacuation, the British had cut off the ships that carried food and medicine to Diego Garcia. Jeanette Alexis' family was one of the last to leave.

JEANETTE ALEXIS, EVACUATED FROM DIEGO GARCIA: My father was told that we had to leave the island because the Americans were moving in, and it wasn't safe to remain on the island anymore.

AMANPOUR: They say they didn't force people off the island.

ALEXIS: I mean, if you stop feeding me, if you don't give me work, you bring in ship and you tell me that this is the last trip. Otherwise, if I stay back, I will starve to death. What other force do you need to get me out?

AMANPOUR: The islanders say the other force that got them out was fear. When British officials ordered their pets to be exterminated, they were gassed with exhaust fumes from American military vehicles.

It's hard to believe that people would do that.

ALEXIS: Yes. In fact, it did happen. And you can imagine the pressure that put on the -- on the population there. It was -- it was just terrible for people.

It's an important base, I agree. But at the same time, they should have realized that people are -- people are also important.

AMANPOUR: Do you think you have any chance taking on America, taking on Britain?

ALEXIS: The Americans and the British always talk about the champions of human rights. There we are. What they did to us, they should rectify it. They should -- they should look after us. You know, they should do what they preach.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: But 23 years after that report, by the way, when I was proud to work also for "60 Minutes", as we said, the Chagos Islands' sovereignty is being transferred to Mauritius with a 99-year lease for the U.K.-U.S. military base. And that means a return or resettlement to the island by those people of Diego Garcia is still out of reach.

Greenland -- be warned. When we come back from fashion to protest -- how women at the Australian Tennis Open are making their mark.

[11:53:50]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

And finally, at the Australian Open in Melbourne, women are making big statements on and off the court. Naomi Osaka arrived in veil, parasol and a butterfly and jellyfish inspired outfit, a design she helped create and a tribute to the moment a butterfly actually landed on her face during her third-round match against Ons Jabeur at the Open back in 2021.

45-year-old Venus Williams became the oldest woman to compete in the singles main draw there, a reminder of her endurance before being beaten in the first round. It's the effort that counts.

And Ukrainian qualifier Oleksandra Olinekova sent a message that resonated far beyond tennis. The 25-year-old wore a post-match t-shirt bearing an appeal. "I need your help to protect Ukrainian children and women, but I can't talk about it here." A plea that skirted tournament limits on political speech.

That's the kind of Ukrainian resilience we've all come to know over the last several years of this war, and a remarkable display of courage on and off court.

And that's all that we have time for this week. Don't forget, you can find all of our shows online as podcasts at CNN.com/audio and on all other major platforms.

[11:59:50]

AMANPOUR: I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Thank you for watching.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN breaking news

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for joining me this Saturday.