world news. lam babita sharma. our top story: britain's prime minister theresa may says she will get on with the job of making brexit a success. she's due to meet her new cabinet on monday morning. one of the people tipped to replace her after her disappointing election, borisjohnson, has publicly said he backs her leadership. exit polls suggest the party of the new french president emmanuel macron is on course to win around three quarters of seats in the national assembly. and this video is trending on bbc.com. it's a china eastern airlines jet, which had to make an emergency landing when one of its engines was damaged. the crew spotted the damage after take—off, and the plane returned safely to sydney airport. fortu nately, fortunately, nobody was hurt. the incident is being investigated. stay tuned. more to come. now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk with me, that
zeinab badawi. my guess is you is democratic party insider, jake sullivan, a key adviser to democrat such as hillary clinton, when she was secretary of state, as well as on the campaign trail, last year. donald trump has attracted a lot of criticism at home and abroad over his rhetoric and style of leadership. but is he not proving more effective in important foreign policy issues like the fight against extremists, than the previous democratic administration? —— democratic. jake sullivan, thank you forjoining
us. jake sullivan, thank you forjoining us. as a key adviser to hillary clinton, can give be objective about the trump administration? not entirely objective. i would have to put my bias on the table. i spent two years trade to stop him from getting into the oval office. but i think a lot of the things that we predicted during the campaign about his lack of it as though others have borne out over the last six months. soi borne out over the last six months. so i have tried to take a step back and tragedy is fair—minded as possible and assessing what he is doing. but the zeitgeist was or with within, wasn't it? he was much more injune within, wasn't it? he was much more in june with within, wasn't it? he was much more injune with what within, wasn't it? he was much more in june with what the voters' proteas were. i would argue that he had a lot of a shawville, but when a came to what they cared about, i think it came to what they cared about, i think i do more with hillary clinton and her approach. —— tuned in with their priorities. so
can be seen as a battle between 70 with the policies and somebody who could appeal to voters. just turn into a stream must —— just turn into extremist, donald trump is much more assertive on terror than resident obama ever was. he is more assertive on twitter than president obama ever was. he certainly speaking much more loudly. but is the carrying the biggest it? be truly bigger stick. i would say that the fight against isis in iraq and syria is an extension of the above policy, not a fundamental change in policy. —— the truly. has he added more firepower? yes, but has been on a slow path savaged by president obama. —— started by. you mention afghanistan.
he dropped the "mother of all bombs", as it was known, in april, ona bombs", as it was known, in april, on a site in nangarhar, and it is the largest non— nuclear, the most powerful non—nuclear weapon available. that would sound as though he was very much more assertive than president obama. the dropping of a single bomb on a tunnel complex in rural afghanistan, i don't think is a good indication of the whole policy that he is pursuing. it is true that he did that. would rack obama have done it? he never took the "mother of all bombs" of the table. if an opportunity had made itself available, a bomb that president obama had in his time, he would have used it. the target presented itself oi’ used it. the target presented itself or president trump, and so use it, but i do see that as a departure from american doctrine. president obama seem to be pretty desperate to get out of afghanistan. five years ago, there what 100,000 american troops there,
ago, there what100,000 american troops there, now that it is below 10,000. and we have seen a rise in security incidents in afghanistan is far more than since 2007, and the last year and a quarter or so. far more than since 2007, and the last year and a quarter or sqm far more than since 2007, and the last year and a quarter or so. it is true that president obama troop down from 100,000 to under 10,000, but before he left office, he fixed another. he said he was not earned right down further, that they would keep troops there. not to take a whole territory, but to train and buys afghanistan the security forces. now donald trump is talking about adding a few thousand more, but to carry out the day mission. but he was too said maureen, rather than drawdown, as barack obama did. that was the more assertive. than drawdown, as barack obama did. that was the more assertivem than drawdown, as barack obama did. that was the more assertive. it is interesting, because what donald trump is talking about doing is adding more troops, but he is asking oui’ adding more troops, but he is asking our nato partners to step up and add at least half of them. so even he realises that simply insert a huge numbers of american troops into
afghanistan is not a winning strategy. in that way, i think his campaign rhetoric, and what is realised about the realities of this fight, there is a gap between them. if you want to argue that donald trump is different to barack obama in foreign policy, you will get no argument from me. the point i am making is that when it comes to the fight between isis and extremist groups, donald trump is carrying forward barack groups, donald trump is carrying forward ba rack obama's groups, donald trump is carrying forward barack obama's strategy. —— the fight with isis and extra mysteries. under the key issue that president obama pursued during his time, the iranian nuclear deal, resident trump said during his campaign that he would care and other net —— he would turn up on day one. and he is not. that should please you. that does. but our military and partners is in the region, as does the israeli security establishment, they realise that this deal improve security in the
region. psion have is the continuity on this issue and then carrying it forward. but i do worry that some of the stosur donald trump is taking the stosur donald trump is taking the could make a conflict with the reigning state more likely. and that would put american lives and stick —— at risk. would put american lives and stick -- at risk. looking at bashar assad, the president there, very much an ally of iran, but he has been applauding donald trump for his intervention. this following the chemical attack with hundreds dead. was it a good thing that did it? batting was a good thing. but it is a good thing that president trump decided to respond to the chemical weapons attack by the assad regime, striking the airbase from which the chemical weapons were launched. the batting was that it was not tied to any broader strategy and syria
whatsoever. if you breast donald trump today on what his solution is to be syrian civil war, which is the reservoir from which much of the extremism in the region is flowing, he would not be up to tell you. i think after six months, that will be a problem. he has done something is, though. he targeted, he launched the cruise missiles on the syrian government attack. his imposing sanctions on individuals of the scientific support centre, which is involved in the production and supplying arms to the ethnic kurds. so easy is to be quite strong on syria. is interesting the kurdish point, because that too was a decision that resident obama left for him. there was a big that president obama were strongly considering doing, that he wanted to let president trump decide on. donald trump decided to arm the syrian kurds. that is to fight isis, a worthy an important cause, to rust
isis from their capital, raqqa, and to deny the property from which they could lodge a tax on the waves. but thatis could lodge a tax on the waves. but that is not about underlined the syrian civil war, for which the administration still has no real answer. but on the cruise missiles launched, following the chemical attack, michael hayden, the former cia director, cena somebody quite balance, he said that the response was general will —— genuine and add rubble. he said he should have —— he said that president obama should have done that, after, for instance, the two attacks in 13 elected 2013. -- in 2013. the two attacks in 13 elected 2013. —— in 2013. obama didn't do nothing.
and not forgetting the syrian civilians in the country. the fact is, at the end of the day, the syrian region broke that deal, celts stock of chemical weapons, and the writing to the united states to do, once they could, was too big a deal. —— kept some stock. once they could, was too big a deal. -- kept some stock. the drum makes these intemperate comments and act ina these intemperate comments and act in a rational way, but it actually seems that you are agreeing that he does take advice from professionals, from people in the know?|j does take advice from professionals, from people in the know? i think he took advice on the narrow decision of the serious try, which has not been followed by any serious syria strategy. and when you look at other decisions that he is taken, he is com pletely decisions that he is taken, he is completely ignored the advice of every professional around him. his decision to withdraw from the paris clu b decision to withdraw from the paris club agreement is just one important example of where his economic advisers, is to make advisers, they
all said that this was done. —— climate. he went away and did it anyway, and i think he did this were knee—jerk political reasons. anyway, and i think he did this were knee-jerk political reasons. as you know, action on climate change is at both federal, state, and local level. and michael bloomberg, the former mayor of new york, says we can doa former mayor of new york, says we can do a lot of things that business level, local level, state level, to meet our targets. the united states isa big, meet our targets. the united states is a big, diverse, resilient country. we will move forward in this. i think it is folly to say that what comes out of washington doesn't matter at all. of course it does. there would be a parent still it wasn't for presidential leadership and it wasn't for president obama going out and getting the chinese on—board and the indians on and rallying the europeans. that is how we got here in the first place. and there would be the next step up the double of ambition without it. —— ladder of
ambition. it really matters that presidential leadership is lacking on this issue. nikki haley, that the us ambassador to the united nations, suggested that donald trump would be responsible on climate change. she said that just because responsible on climate change. she said thatjust because the us got out of a club, doesn't mean they we re out of a club, doesn't mean they were not there to be responsible. everything about them domestic policies are part has been a revival of that statement. not only did they would withdraw from paris, but they rescinded president obama's actions which would clean up our energy fleet and move towards more renewable energy, and improved full efficiency standards in cars. trump rode all about back. i'm waiting to see what the meat is behind what nikki haley as saying. it has so far, we have not seen. he has not withdrawn from the 1992 convention framework of the change. so will have to see. but you said the
campaign trail that donald trump is temperamentally unfit and unqualified to be the nation's commander in chief. but he has been coveted by key military figures, such as the former nato commander, which the maker has said that he is able to take advice from the first—class national security team is assembled. article is hoped in the early days that when he picked real luminaries, excellent professionals, like general motors, as his secretary of defence, and general mcmaster, as is natural security adviser. but this was somehow help make better security decisions. —— national security adviser. but you cannot advise the president who is fundamentally not normal. i think he would object to that description, but anyway... he might object to it, but you can see any way that he makes decisions, the way that he lashes out, the whether the attacks and the way that he tries to essentially belittle and
divide, that this is not a normal circumstance, and it is really incumbent on all of us to call it out as such. the point on these national security advisers... as it is said to have foreign policy, it is said to have foreign policy, it isa is said to have foreign policy, it is a continuation of obama here or there, actually, the actions don't quite match the intemperate rhetoric. —— as you said just there. a dozen subways. if you take a look back at donald trump is a broader font piracy, you can take it paris agreement as one, you can take what he went and did in europe, where he stood before the 9/11 memorial, which was the one—time in the history of their lives, where article five, the defensive mechanism of nato was triggered on oui’ mechanism of nato was triggered on our behalf, and basically harass
them, and refuse to reaffirm america's commitment to make commitment. -- america's commitment. what did he say? general motors said what they world if we withdraw within our borders, and the americas would do the right thing. within our borders, and the americas would do the right thinglj within our borders, and the americas would do the right thing. i think we have two listen to what is... el one thing, then he resented that. so you can'tjudge what thing, then he resented that. so you can't judge what happens thing, then he resented that. so you can'tjudge what happens in the trump administration by white donald trump administration by white donald trump himself, necessarily, says. you need to look more in a holistic fashion. the president of the united states, showing up in europe, stepping into nato headquarters in brussels, and conspicuously declining to a firm america's article five commitment, at least one person is watching closely. that isv one person is watching closely. that is v putin. and those were several consequences. and nothing james mathison is by days later can iron
ring that bell. at this point, donald trump is that a clear message to our allies and our adversarial is that our commitment to our nato allies is in doubt. that is dangerous. because if it could lead to more instability in europe, and if it could lead to possible conflict, there, it would ultimately be the united states admitted that they would have becoming a sort that out. you imply that he did not want to upset the russians. i did not talk about his motives although i do think there are a number of questions about how he has followed the wish list of vladimir putin. regardless of his motive for doing that in brussels, vladimir putin was watching and that is what he will have taken away. you mentioned the russians and, of course, whether the russians and, of course, whether the russians were involved or not over the hacking, hacking bird hillary clinton e—mail is, that was something that was a major issue at
the time. another major issue of course was the use of hillary clinton's private e—mail account to conduct her state department you were advising her. you used her private e—mail accounts to talk to her about national security issue or state department matters. do you think that was wise in retrospect? hillary has said it was a mistake for her to use a private e—mail server and i think all of us involved would have done it differently. at the time it did not seem out of step with what most other cabinet secretaries, senators and seniorfigures other cabinet secretaries, senators and senior figures were doing. other cabinet secretaries, senators and seniorfigures were doing. at the time it did not occur to us that would be a challenge in the future. now that we have looked at it in the cold light of day, of course we wish we had done differently. why did you use a private e—mail account to talk to her about state department matters? it was the e-mail she was
using. she had taken it from being a senator, transition did to secretary of state. previous secretaries of state had used private e—mail account. john kerry was the first to secretary of state to have an official e—mail account. this was how it was done at the state department at that point in time. once you get into the bright lights ofa once you get into the bright lights of a presidential campaign, things look different. so it was convenience? she said that repeatedly, for her to have one account and one device. again, she underscored repeatedly that it was a mistake and she wishes she had done it differently. that being said, the amount of attention put on this issue, of the type of e—mail account that she was using in comparison to the policy issues and all of the other major questions before the american people last year, was astonishing and completely reckless on the part of the press. do you
think it cost her the presidency? she seemed to think that the entire controversy and the fbi investigation cost the presidency. it is always hard to identify any variable in something as complex as this. i will say this. nate silver, the premier statistician who looks at american presidential elections ran an analysis after november eight and determined thatjim comey‘s rhetoric in late october... the fbi director who wrote a letter reopening the investigation into hillary clinton was only ten days to go in the election, he determined that letter had a material impact that letter had a material impact that was the difference between winning and losing. and james comey of course then quite unceremoniously sacked by donald trump as director of the fbi. right, he was sacked because, in the president's own words, he thought thatjim comey shouldn't be pursuing this russia
investigation the way that he was. described him as a nutjob. he did. he did that privately to the russians in the oval office, correct. he did that privately to the russians in the oval office, and that was the meeting he had with sergei lavrov, the russian foreign minister, and also sergey kislyak, the russian ambassador to the united states. now, there's been a lot of made about what donald trump said to them, or not, about us intelligence in the fight against terror. and it seems as though it's the media who is taking the lead on criticising donald trump on this, not the democrats. i think what the media is doing is digging to get to the bottom of what is a very strange story. it's not so much criticism as it is almost every day they are coming out with some new information. a new meeting between a trump official and a russian official that had previously been denied. a new financial connection... are they the official opposition now, not the democrats any more? they're the ones who are taking the lead, as i said, in being the opposition to donald trump?
as you know better than anyone, as you knowjust from this very interview, the media'sjob is to ask the hard questions. and demand answerers. isn't it also the job of the democrats, the official opposition, to ask hard questions? and i think that's happening. in fact, if you look at some of these hearings where prominent trump administration officials have had to come forward and be held accountable in the congress, democratic senators and democratic house members have been asking the tough questions and have been putting the case to the american people that on the issue of russia, on the issue of the broader question of corruption in this administration, with respect to china, russia and other countries, that there are real questions we have to get to the bottom of. so who is taking the lead for the democrats? joe biden, former vice president? hillary clinton? on the russia issue specifically, the two key people are mark warner, who is the senator... ijust meant generally, opposition. you have the midterms
coming up next year. i think president obama is going to have a very important voice in this over the next two years. obviously, he's taken a step back because as the most recently departed president, he wanted to give president trump an opportunity to hit the ground running. vice president biden will be an important voice. secretary clinton has started a pac where she is helping to support a lot of democratic groups and democratic leaning groups. so all three of them will be active players. can i just ask you, all three will be active players. president obama obviously couldn't run again for office. do you thinkjoe biden might, or hillary clinton? i don't think hillary clinton will. as for vice president biden, you would have to obviously ask him. what i would say is that he has just set up a pac to be able to support candidates in 2018. i think he's going to be devoting all his energy in the next two years, not to thinking about 2020, but to thinking about, how do we take the house of representatives back in 2018? what's your guess? do you think he might run for president, joe biden? i have got completely out
of the business of speculating or predicting on politics at all. so i really couldn't say. the mayor of chicago, the senior democrat rahm emanuel, when asked about this kind of thing on cnn said, hillary clinton has got lots of energy. but you're saying categorically she would not run in 2020? it's not my place to say anything categorically. have you talked to her about it, for instance? i haven't talked to her about 2020 because it's not even in the realm of contemplation. what is in the realm of contemplation right now is what she can do to help young people especially, but progressive groups be able to really effectively operate in opposition to trump, and then to win seats that will help us take back both the house of representatives at the federal level and state houses at the state level. michael moore, the very well—known american director, says one thing the democrats don't understand is that trump was a beloved tv star. he suggests oprah winfrey, chat show host. tom hanks, the famous actor.
somebody that people love, is what he says. donald trump was the outsider, the anti—politician, he became president. what about michael moore's idea? i wouldn't rule out someone who doesn't have a career in politics running for president and being really good. you can also not have a career in politics, run for president and be really bad, and i think we're seeing that play out in living colour. and there are some tremendous public servants who have served in politics who would be great candidates. so i wouldn't rule out people who have served in public office, and i wouldn't rule out people who haven't. i think we should have a free for all, and then let democratic primary voters decide who the best standard bearer will be in 2020. jake sullivan, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. thank you. showers overnight continue
into the morning across parts of scotland and northern ireland in particular. all linked into an area of low pressure pushing across northern scotland. as it clears away however into the morning there is a slight tightening of isobars and that means that wind strengthens a little bit during the morning rush hour. northern england, ireland, the central scotland in particular. there could be a few restrictions on the bridges and maybe on some of the ferry services, but the further north you are across scotland, the lighter winds to start the day. stills and showers around among central and western areas. a few showers to catch you in northern parts of england but again they should be lighter than we saw during
yesterday. further south, should be lighter than we saw during yesterday. furthersouth, isolated showers, the vast majority will be dry. a bit of cloud in places and there will be sunshine breaking through. a blustery wind but we will see more in the way of sunshine break through as we head into the afternoon, particularly through southern and eastern areas. by the afternoon, very few showers around, mainly in the western parts of scotland in north—western england will be much drier brighter day then we saw through sunday. with the wind coming in from the west, 1a, 15 degrees in some spots but the eastern coast could hit 19 to 21 degrees. it will finish the day on a dry note. it could lead to a few mist and fog patches, look cool in places compared to the last few nights. into tuesday morning we see cloud return to parts of northern ireland and western scotland, western parts of england and wales. all linked into these weather fronts. but they are running to an area of high pressure which is trying to expand across the country. what that tends to do is squeeze our
weather fronts a little bit. not a huge amount of wet weather around, maybe the odd shower in scotland, light rain or drizzle and parts of northern ireland. most will be dry. we will see hazy sunshine in places, could hit 18 or 19 degrees again. the temperatures rise in the south—east. into wednesday, there are southerly winds touching gale force in the southern highlands. a dry day for most of us on wednesday and by this stage the warmest day of the week. it could see 20—22 across eastern scotland, possibly 26 or 27 in the south—east corner. that is the warmest day of the week. it will turn cooler through the rest of the week. the breeze returns as well and patchy rain may be limited to the north and west. a small risk on thursday morning of thunderstorms. i'm babita sharma in london. the headlines: britain's prime minister, theresa may, appoints her new cabinet and insists its business as usual. what i'm feeling is that actually there is a job to be done.
and i think what the public want is to ensure that the government is getting on with the job. exit polls after the first round of parliamentary elections in france suggest president macron‘s new party is on course for a landslide majority. i'm rico hizon in singapore. also in the programme: president duterte denies asking the us to help fight islamist militants, as philippine troops struggle to recapture the city of marawi.