Transcripts For BBCNEWS HARDtalk 20240713

With stephen sackur. All nations should declare that welcome to hardtalk. Im stephen sackur. Nuclear weapons must be destroyed. Mcdonalds fires its chief executive over a relationship donald trump wants americans to bask with an employee. And in a special interview in the afterglow of the killing Damejulie Andrews tells us of the worlds most wanted terrorist, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. About her years but many are focused on the daily working in hollywood. Developments of the impeachment investigation led by Congressional Democrats. Both Say Something important about the way donald trump conducts National Security and Foreign Policy. My guest is former senior us diplomat richard haass. Trump horrifies the Foreign Policy establishment, but does that matter to American Voters . Richard haass in new york city, welcome to hardtalk. Good to be with you. Would you accept that the killing of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi has given a major boost to President Trump when he needs it most . It has helped him in two ways. In and of itself it is a good thing and, secondly, he was on the receiving end of tremendous criticism from republicans and democrats alike with his recent moves regarding turkey and syria and for many people this seemed and i emphasise that word, and seem to negate or offset that. Why are you putting quote marks around the word seem . There is no question it was a long term american objective to get al baghdadi. They got him and they got him despite what was happening in Northern Syria at the time. We got him, but many of the things that lead us to get him, to put us in a position to succeed were undone by donald trump in the days and weeks before the raid. The close cooperation with the Kurdish People on the ground, the American Military intelligence presence on the ground, that has all now been ended or removed. So while we are now safer in the long run, the real question is whether we have made some of our counterterrorism efforts more difficult at a time when isis is likely to reconstitute itself. But this is where donald trump and his supporters get frustrated with people like you who, i am sure you would acknowledge, you are doyens of Foreign Policy making establishments, the elite. You are thoroughly and consistently churlish about Donald Trumps Foreign Policy but here we are, a guy who hasjust delivered a big win for the United States, and he has done by cooperating with everyone on the ground today in Northern Syria, not last week or last year, but today. He thanked the russians, the turks and the kurds all of whom he said played a role a few days ago. Let me push back ever so slightly. I would not like to think of myself as thoroughly and consistently churlish, i think that was your language, in my reaction to the president. I said it was a good thing that we got Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. The problem is that we have weakened our ability to go after terrorista in syria down the road. The kurds were keeping isis in prison and the turks are clearly not nearly as dedicated to that task. And for the turkish people the Principal Task is to take on the kurds who have been our partners. That is not churlish, i call that being intellectually honest, sorry. Returning to your take on what is happening in syria in a moment, butjust to stick a little bit longer with Islamic State. Is it your contention that the killing of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi will really not make a great deal of difference to the potency of Islamic State in the coming days weeks and years . It will be disruptive in the short run, but in the long run it does not make a fundamental difference because of the nature of terrorism. It is best not to think of it as organisational. It is networked and movement in character. When you get rid of an individual at the top, the organisation morphs and split, it decentralises, new people emerge. The concept of decapitation is probably the wrong way to think about it and just like al qaeda did just fine in the aftermath of bin laden, so too will isis or spin offs of them, will do fine down the road. Let me ask you a question less about analysis are more about impression. It is fascinating to look at the way donald trump delivered the news to the American People of the killing of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and comparing contrasted to how the us public were told about the killing of osama bin laden. Jimmy kimmel mashed up the two and it was very striking indeed. Critics of donald trump have said it is a mistake to use the language he used, that of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi dying like a dog, caught crying, whimpering and screaming. Others have said, you know what . It is a way of both reaching out to the American People to tell them something important has happened and a way of sending a signal to is that they will receive the harshest punishment and retribution come what may. What is your take as a former diplomat . You are right in the sense that the two approaches could not have been more different in character. Whatever else mr trump learned as a young man it was not less is more. It was a highly personal statement, particularly once he began taking questions from the journalists that day. This question of whether it will lead to more recruitment, i fear that is a possibility. It was insulting. I would have let the raid speaks for itself but i am Old Fashioned and establishment. I am always nervous about giving material to others. I also think the president may have stretched the truth a little. No one has corroborated his description of what has happened, the talk of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi cowering and whimpering and pleading. None of the military people involved have supported that contention. So you do not want the credibility of the american president to become an issue here. And i am afraid that mr trump has done just that. Returning now to a strategic overview what is happening in syria. It reaches out to a wider point about what donald trump Strategic Vision for us military power is. He has said recently that in regard to both afghanistan and Northern Syria that he is not interested in continuing to engage in endless war, as he puts it. He also says he is not interested in laying down american lives to defend thousands of miles of empty sand. On both counts, again, it seems to me that those are concepts that chime with feelings of many of his core supporters in heartland america. Notjust with the core supporters but with others. I think he is tapping into a few things. One is intervention fatigue after these long and expensive and not very successful interventions in both afghanistan and iraq. There is a sense among Many Americans and this cuts across party lines. A lot of what he says you see echoed by several democrats. A sense that we have done too much overseas and not enough at home. He is tapping into the wellsprings of american isolationism. America first resonates with Many Americans across party lines. But there are a couple of problems. One is what happens thousands of miles away, as we learnt on 9 11, can affect us. This gives us no protection in an age of globalisation whether we talk about the fires in california or climate change, global terrorism, we could struggle with disease one day. So this idea that we can somehow protect ourselves if we pull back from the world, i would argue is fundamentally flawed. It is a popular point of view but it happens to be inaccurate. It does not have to be inaccurate. If you are a little more realistic and savvy about who you are prepared to work with. It seems to me that what we are left Northern Syria is donald trump putting a lot of faith in the russians and the turks to ensure that there is no resurgence, for example, of Islamic State. And if we were really honest about it, possibly he is even putting some faith in the syrian president to deliver some sort of stability alongside the russian and iranians in that part of syria. Maybe that, while it sticks in the throat of Many Americans, maybe that is just a savvy way of looking at the future of syria. Good luck with it. I dont see anything about the behaviour over the years of the Syrian Government or the turkish government or the russians, for that matter, that leads one to have any confidence that they will be consistent, robust participants and protagonists in the effort against groups like isis. It was the behaviour of the Syrian Government backed by iran and russia that led to the great swell and support for groups like isis. What worries me is that we could be returning to that type of situation. One other thing, back to your previous question, the cost of what we have been doing in syria was minute. There were a tiny number of American Special forces, we were working with the kurds who were providing infantry against isis. They were the jailers and it was working. So were taking enormous risk for what . For a talking point that you brought americans out or back. Some are still there guarding oil, for whatever reason. But we had something that was working extraordinarily well at a low cost and if it aint broke dont fix it. I think this president has taken an enormous risk because it is possible, particularly if he is re elected, on his watch American Forces will now have to one day re enter parts of area that they had left. You smiled when i called you a long time player in the Foreign Policy making elite but nonetheless, sparing your blushes, you are well connected. Answer me this. Who do you think donald trump, the president , is listening to when he makes deeply and profoundly important decisions on Foreign Policy like the one he took to withdraw forces from Northern Syria . My own view is that he is his own expert. He is his own National Security adviser and his own secretary of state. He has tremendous confidence in his views on people have told him all along that he would never get anywhere in politics in the last i saw he was elected president three years ago. I think he has tremendous confidence in his own views. He has not surrounded himself with Foreign Policy, with people with a big Foreign Policy reputation and he has surrounded himself with people who have a diminished reputation. I take that as a sign that the main person he listens to is himself. Brett mcgurk, a big player in the administrations Counter Terrorist strategy until 2018, he said the other day that donald trump is not a commander in chief. He makes impulsive decisions without knowledge or deliberation. Are you of that school of thought . He is commander in chief. The point he was making. That he is not fit to be, that is what he meant. Again, he has essentially dispensed with process. There is less process in National Security Decision Making now than there has been in any other point in the post world war ii era. I would not say he is surrounded by people who have great stature in Foreign Policy and those who do have some stature seem unwilling to use it or to put it at risk. So if you ask me, sure, i am worried. He will end up being one of the most consequential president s in american history. Do i think he will hand off to himself or to someone else, a world that is in better shape than what he inherited . No and no by a long shot. So, yes, iam concerned. So if we can, lets get inside the fallout and the implications of the impeachment investigation that the Congressional Democrats are undertaking. That all centres, of course, on Donald Trumps strategy towards ukraine, a particular phonecall onjuly 25 to the new ukrainian president that seemed to suggest that donald trump was looking for the ukrainians to put some resources into investigating the son of his potential political rival, joe biden. You say donald trump has dispensed with many of the norms, the machinery of Foreign Policy making. What specifically are you seeing come out from the ukraine impeachment investigation that feeds into that . Well, a couple of things. One is it is not special or new to use leverage to get your way in Foreign Policy. Every government does it, or tries to do it. What is qualitatively different here is using the leverage that derives from, say, office of white house visits, from 400 million in aid using those not to advance Americas National interests, but to advance in this case the president s own political interests, by pressuring the government of ukraine to provide dirt on one of his political would be opponents. That is something qualitatively different. The way they are going about this is qualitatively different, essentially running around rather than through Foreign Policy professionals, so the ambassador to ukraine gets sidelined. Instead we have the former mayor of new york, mr giuliani, essentially running what would normally be called a rogue operation, except clearly its an operation that has been co ordinated with the president. So both what theyre doing and how theyre doing it is anything but traditional, and the question is, is it illegal . And thats ultimately going to be a political and legal question, initially for the house of representatives, and then for the senate to weigh in on. But i guess what i want to get into with you is the impact of what appears to be deep dysfunctionality at the heart of the Decision Making process. Because what we have seen in recent days is two former ambassadors to ukraine, also a seniorfigure in the National Security council, the point man on ukraine policy, all of them testifying albeit behind closed doors, but we have a rough idea of what they probably said all of them testifying about their deep misgivings about what trump was doing with ukraine policy. So for you, as a Foreign Policy expert, how corrosive is all of this going to be to the president and his teams relationship with the officials that actually do the hard graft in terms of National Security and Foreign Policy . Well, its beyond corrosive, and its going to make it hard to recruit, much less retain, talented people. The president already had a terrible relationship with the intelligence community, so i think its bad on that side. It poisons, also, relations between the executive branch and congress. But theres one other set of relationships that worries me, is between the United States and other governments. And i think all this does is raises fundamental questions about how reliable we are, about whether you can believe what you hear from american officials. So this is. Foreign policy is tough enough, stephen, in my experience, without trying to conduct it this way, where people dont know who to take seriously and who to believe. We have got to be reliable, we have got to be dependable. People have to think that when we say things, they are to be believed, they are honest, they are backed by facts. And what this president is doing is raising fundamental doubts about whether the United States should be taken seriously. Lets just flip this round for a moment. And i dont want to keep harping on about it, but it seems to me that, you know, you, with your long experience inside government and Foreign Policymaking, are probably typical of many who donald trump would see as in his phrase never trumpers, people who are prepared to join and want to join this what he calls a lynch mob that is trying to destroy his presidency. And when you have, for example, 90 former diplomats signing a joint letter praising the whistleblower who kicked off this whole investigation, it does feel like theres a bit of a pile on here, that there is a mindset in government, parts of government, particularly state department and maybe intelligence, which is profoundly anti trump. Well, it is, and the reason is that donald trump represents a radical departure from the post world war ii, post cold war american policy mainstream. And if you think that what we have done over the last 70 or so years was essentially right, its not surprising that, now that someones come along who thinks that its all essentially wrong, that theres going to be a lot of pushback. Now, i havent signed those letters, and when on occasion i agree with what president does, i will say so. For example, i think he gets some points, and this is widely shared, for raising questions about the policy towards china. We had hoped china would get integrated into the international system, according to rules and norms that we had promoted. Clearly it hadnt worked out that way, and the fact that this president has called china on it, a lot of people are saying, ok, it was about time to do that, good on you. So i think people are prepared to support him when they think he is right. But, on balance, i dont argue your point. Most of the Foreign Policy establishment thinks he is wrong most of the time, and i think youve got to begin with the fact that he is an outlier, so that shouldnt come as a surprise to you. Well, except maybe people need to be a little bit more careful. Otherwise they play into a narrative that trump tells of what he calls a sort of deep state bias against him. Well, look, hes going to say that. I cant stop him from saying it, and hes going to say it because politically it helps him with his base and with his supporters. But the other day, by the way, it was the quote unquote deep state that provided the intelligence that made the successful raid against mr al baghdadi possible. It was career military people who carried it out. So again, he is selective in his attacks on Foreign Policy professionals. Your answer was interesting when you said, look, there are certain issues on which i can see donald trump has shaken things up in a way which may be positive, and you mentioned china, and trade policy, i guess, is a part of that. Maybe it goes further than that. Maybe trumps message that the United States in future should look at its relationships around the world in terms of interest rather than alliances may have something going for it. Because trump would say the allies of the United States, over a very long time, have tended to take the United States for a ride. They havent paid their way for the protection that the us offers them, and maybe it is time to acknowledge that. You never did, in your career, but maybe donald trump is. Obviously hes looking at it that way. I think he looks at it way too narrowly. When i look at the last 70 years, i say we have got an enormous return on our investment in the world. These alliances have kept the peace in europe and asia during that time. During that time, we have thrived economically. Much of the world became democratic. We avoided anything that looked like a major great power war. So i look at the last 70 years compared with, say, the first half of the 20th century, stephen, and i go, not bad. Weve got an amazing return on investment. So when donald trump basically stands up and says weve gotten hurt by trade agreements, our allies are taking us for a ride, i go, slow down, slow down. Dont disrupt, dont destroy anything, unless youve got Something Better to put in its place. I dont see that he has anything better to put in its place, so i worry about the consequences of his Foreign Policy. Yes, you have written in the past, going back quite a long way, about your vision of the United States in the world being a sort of international sheriff not intervening everywhere, butjust trying to use its power to ensure that its interests and its allies . Interests are protected. Do you think that that notion of the us as international sheriff has any long term viability now . Well, not with the current administration. Donald trump falls squarely in that small group of american president s who wants to dial down or back americas involvement in the world retrenchment, america first, isolationism, choose your label. But the time will come when medium and large powers begin to get more capable and more menacing, when global issues begin to get more threatening to us, that i believe you will see a revival of americas role in the world. Because again, the truth is, no matter what this president says, that what happens in the world can and will affect us, potentially for the worse. And, unless we take the lead in dealing with these challenges, these challenges will not be met. No one else is going to step into our shoes. The world will not organise itself. Global issues will not be managed. North korea, iran, china, russia, have to be one way or another contended with. If we dont do it, its not going to get done, so we will have to do it. What im worried about the terms and the circumstances will be worse, because were wasting time now. Yes, the impeachment investigation, of course, raises renewed questions about whether were going to be looking at a one term, or even shorter than one term, or a two term Trump Presidency. If you look at this from outside, if you think of the interest, say, of xijinping or vladimir putin, or even of president erdogan in turkey, do you think they would prefer to see a two term trump or a Trump Presidency that is cut short . My own view is they would probably prefer to see a two term Trump Presidency, because his disruption, in many cases, works in their favour. And my concern is, quite honestly, theyre going to try to take advantage of it. And i fear that what china might do in parts of asia, with the south china sea, or maybe taiwan, or russia may do in parts of europe, using some of the techniques they have used in Eastern Ukraine elsewhere. They saw how we have pulled back from the middle east. So i worry that this is a moment where our friends are feeling unnerved and our actual or would be foes might be feeling that there is something of an opportunity, and they want to press on. All right, richard haass, we have to end there. But i thank you very indeed forjoining us from new york city. Thanks for having me. Hello. Not too many weather changes on the way this week, with low pressure staying in charge. It was somewhat quieter on sunday, but plenty of evidence out there as to how wet its been recently. And this week will deliver more rain at times, so that part of the forecast isnt changing. But theres something new it will be turning colder as we go through the week. Now, why is it unsettled . Low pressure in charge. One area of low pressure with us as we start the week. Now, by mid week, there will be a brief lull, allowing colder air to move down from the north. But that lull is all too brief, as more weather fronts come in later in the week, and that means more rain coming in later in the week. Lets see how monday is shaping up. This is how were starting off. There could be a few mist and fog patches around parts of northern ireland, Northern England, southern scotland, for example. This area of rain is slowly feeding its way northwards. As it clears away from the midlands and into east anglia, probably a lot of fine weather to come during monday. Southern england into wales with showers. Some of those could be heavy and thundery. No doubt about the wettest weather, that is into eastern scotland. Persistent and heavy rain here. A strong, gusty easterly wind, with gusts up to 50mph along the coast. These are average speeds. Elsewhere, certainly not as blustery as it will be in eastern scotland. I think north west scotland, western isles, northern isles, staying mainly dry. Temperatures around 10 13 degrees celsius. Out and about on monday evening, there will still be that rain in eastern scotland. So theres a chance of seeing some flooding there as those totals start to mount. But overnight, its the south east of scotland keeping hold of the rain here. It will turn a bit drier at least across north east scotland. Therell be some areas of rain and showers around elsewhere in the uk, the chance of seeing some fog patches this time, especially the further south you are. Then on into tuesday, well, north north easterly wind taking that colder air south across the uk. West is best for drier, brighter weather. Still either some outbreaks of rain or showers, mostly across the eastern sides of the uk. And more of us across the northern half of the uk topping out in single figures. Heres the big picture, then, as we go from tuesday into wednesday. This is the brief lull in the weather. Itll mean frost in places as wednesday begins. Some fog patches too, but here comes the next set of weather fronts. After the chilly start, increasing cloud, some outbreaks of rain starting to feed in from the west on wednesday. A bit of uncertainty about the timing. As that bumps into colder air, we could well see a bit of snow falling on the Higher Ground across parts of Northern England and scotland. Its apparently the time of year. 00 27 58,320 4294966103 13 29,430 thats your weather. 00 00 00,094 4294966103 13 29,430 proud of its local son