in the latest development, the acting attorney general, sally yates, who was originally appointed by barack obama, has told lawyers at the justice department not to defend mr trump's executive order on travel restrictions if it is challenged in court. canada's prime minister calls the shooting at a quebec city mosque a terrorist attack, as one of the suspects, alexandre bissonnette, is charged with six counts of murder. and this video is trending on bbc.com: the british actor peter capaldi is to step down from his role as doctor who. he took over as the 12th time lord in 2013. he will remain as the doctor until the end of the current series. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news, it is time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk from nato headquarters in brussels.
i'm stephen sackur. the job of nato secretary general isn't an easy one, this alliance is supposed to worked by consensus. and achieving that consensus just got a whole lot harder for my guest today, jens stoltenberg, nato‘s chief. why? the united states, nato‘s dominant member, is now being led by president trump, who has voiced grave doubts about nato‘s future. so, will trump's assent hasten the demise of nato? jens stoltenberg, welcome to hardtalk. thank you so much. would you agree the presidency of donald trump brings an unprecedented amount of uncertainty into global security policy?
nato is an alliance of 28 democracies and in democracies, people elect different leaders. with different ideas, different perspectives. and nato has been able to handle that for almost 70 years. you have 28 members, one dominant member, the united states of america. the united states of america now has a president who, just a few days ago, declared nato "obsolete". nato is the most successful alliance in history, because we have been able to adapt to change. for a0 years we did collective defence in europe, deterring russia. then we adapted after the end of the cold war. we projected stability beyond our borders and in conflicts in the balkans, kosovo, bosnia, fighting terrorism in afghanistan and we are adapting again. responding to a more assertive russia in the east. how do you adapt to a us president who believes nato to be obsolete?
what i will tell him and what i already told him is that nato is changing because the world is changing. when i spoke to him, he was very committed to nato. he expressed a strong support to nato. i look forward to working with him in continuing to adapt to nato because i don't see any contradiction between saying that nato is important but at the same time saying that nato has to change, nato has to... i understand but let's engage with what he has actually said to the times newspaperjust a few days ago he said that in his new nato had become obsolete. i'm just wondering how you reacted to that. well, i will continue to tell the story about nato and an alliance which has proven, for almost 70 years, able to change when the world is changing. sure... then i will sit down with him and discuss concrete measures, concrete issues where we can do
more, where we can change more. and then i agree with president trump that nato has to modernise. that is exactly what we have started to do. and we are doing that by addressing issues like defence spending and terrorism, the two main issues he has mentioned. we will get to the nitty—gritty of defence spending, fighting terror and strategy, on that front, later. let's first talk values. would you accept that nato only works if the member states of nato share fundamental values about human rights, about freedom, and about security? nato is based on some core values. democracy, the rule of law, individual liberties. and human rights. in our treaty, we mention democracy, individual liberties and the rule of law. that reflects the need to protect human rights. do you believe there is place for torture in a security policy?
no. i'm opposed to torture. torture is against international law. all nato missions and operations activities are conducted in accordance with international law. nato is against that. when donald trump says he absolutely believes that waterboarding, for example, works, how do you respond to that? i've seen his statements, but i've also seen that there is a debate going on in the united states. i also saw that president trump stated clearly that he would consult with the defence secretary and with the cia director. they have both expressed strong... resistance. they are against torture. in your view, was he right or wrong when he said waterboarding works, he said that other people in his security establishment have told him that torture works.
was he right or wrong? i'm against torture. i'm asking you about donald trump who is now the president of the united states, he's the leader of the most important member of the organisation. and i express my opinion and the opinion of nato and i tell you what nato do, what we do in our operations. and missions. how damaging is it for nato, which is a 28—strong alliance which purports to represent key values, how damaging is it when donald trump makes, it seems, a case for torture. particularly waterboarding. it has happened before that there are discussions between allies and within different allies. how damaging is it, secretary general? but the important thing is what we decide, the conclusions that we draw and president trump made it clear that he would not make any decisions about waterboarding or torture before he had consulted, and he mentioned the secretary of defence and the cia director. they have expressed that they are against waterboarding and torture.
nato is against torture. all of our operations are conducted in line with international law. torture is against international law. that's my position and i will convey that position very clearly. let's talk about some other values. i'm wondering, again, how you respond to things that the new united states president has said. donald trump has said with regard to the american invasion of iraq, "we should have taken all the oil". "it was a terrible mistake for the united states not to commandeer the oilfields and take that resource from iraq". he's also said in the past that he will consider recognising the russian annexation of crimea. are these values that you believe represent nato‘s values? to accept, for instance, the annexation of crimea will be against nato values and clear nato decisions. again, we have seen many times before, that, especially in election
campaigns, but also after election campaigns there may be different positions. the important thing is that nato, again and again, have been able to reach a consensus, to make decisions together. what you seem to be saying is that you desperately hope that many of the clear statements donald trump has made about global security policy are not what he's going to do. because if they are what he's going to do, you've got a grave problem. we are still in the early days and the important thing is now that we sit down, all the nato leaders, that we consult, that we discuss the issues where we have different views and perspectives. and, once again, proove that we are able to reach common conclusions and make joint decisions. i may be be misreading you, but in your answers to me, i sense a certain degree of apprehension, worry, about what donald trump
is bringing to the table? i am actually very confident that president trump and the new administration, they are strongly committed to the transatlantic bond. because they see that a strong nato is not only good for europe but it is also good for the united states. two world wars and a cold war have taught us that stability in europe is also important for the united states. they know that the only time nato has invoked article 5, our defence clause, was after an attack on the united states. hundreds of thousands of european soldiers, including many from the united kingdom, have been stationed and have been fighting, in afghanistan in a military operation that was a direct response to an attack on the united states. in the united states, they know that nato is important also for them. let's talk about strategic vision. i'm sure you have seen theresa may's
words in the united states just a short time ago where she said we... she's talking about the us—uk relationship, "we will no longer undertake foreign military interventions to remake countries in our own image". now that, to me, sounds like a major strategic rethink, a strategic shift, would you agree? yes, and it is also in line with the thinking in nato. because nato has, of course, has to remain able to conduct big combat operations out of our own area like we have done in afghanistan or in the balkans. but her words are precisely saying, "no longer will we undertake the sorts of foreign interventions like afghanistan, like iraq". that is the history, that is not going to be what we do in the future. there is a big differs between afghanistan and iraq. afghanistan had a clear un mandate and nato operation. with respect, hang on, hang on, she says, "we will no longer remake
countries in our own image". right now, today, as we speak, you and nato are spending billions of dollars with hundreds of personnel continuing to be in afghanistan, to, as you put it, "train, advise and assist the afghan military in resolute support mission". what on earth are you doing there if you are not trying to remake afghanistan in the image of western values? first of all, the uk is very committed to our presence in afghanistan. i've spoken with prime minister theresa may and she and i, we very much have the same approach to how we can strengthen nato and project stability beyond our borders, without deploying nato troops in big combat operations. but deploying nato troops to train, assist and advise local forces to build local capacity. are you not, to use her phrase, trying to remake afghanistan in our own western image? isn't that what the afghan operation was about?
but the character of nato‘s presence in afghanistan has completely changed from a combat operation to a train, assist and advise, meaning that we are there now to enable the afghans themselves to fight terrorism. to stabilise their own country and i really believe that in the long run, the best weapon we have against terrorism is to train local forces. i know that the uk is absolutely behind that idea of fighting terrorism not only by deploying our own forces but more by enabling local forces to fight terrorism themselves. this is the message she conveys and i absolutely agree with her. a general point, did you see just a few days ago that the doomsday clock, which is supervised by a very reputable bunch of scientists, the bulletin of atomic scientists does this thing. it's an indication of how close they believe us to be to possible nuclear conflict. they put that clock forward to two and a half minutes to midnight because they said they had considered donald trump's election
comments, they considered his comments on nuclear weapons in particular and they considered the global security situation. and trump's comments on climate change and all in all, they said we are closer to doomsday. do you agree? no, i don't agree. and i don't see any imminent threat for a large—scale war or a threat against any nato allies. the main reason why nato is strong is that we are able to prevent the conflict. we have a strong, collective defence in nato. it is not to provoke a conflict, it's not to destabilise, but it's to do the opposite. i understand it, i know what you want nato to be doing but i'm asking you, time and again, to consider the impact of donald trump. you can't wish him away, he is here. this is what the former
nato ambassador from the united states, said the other day. ivo daalder. "we are now entering an upside down world, donald trump is more critical of nato, the eu, germany, all close allies, then he is and has ever been of putin and russia, that is an upside down world". we are seeing clear statements from president trump but also his security team, that they will remain committed to nato. you're ignoring all the other comments from trump? in addition to that, we see that words are followed by deeds. they are now deploying forces, new us forces, to europe, more now than in many years. we will have a new us brigade. those were all decisions taken under barack 0bama. but it has strong bipartisan support from both the republicans and the democrats. and they have promised to continue to follow up on, for instance, increased us presence in europe. i promised you we would talk specifics about some
of donald trump's particular grievances with nato. one is very much about finance. he says, "we are getting ripped off by every other country in nato". he says, "unless countries front up and pay the required 2% of gdp on their military spending, the united states will consider walking away from the nato alliance". right now only five countries meet that 2% threshold, that means nato is in grave danger, doesn't it? well, what we have seen is that nato allies in europe have started to increase defence spending. how much is germany going to be spending in the next financial year on its military as a proportion of its gdp? it's 1.2% or something? 1.296. that's almost 50% below what donald trump says they have to spend, if he's not to consider walking out of nato. i agree with president trump that
european nato allies have to spend more, that's the reason why i increased defence spending, more investment in defence has been my main message since i took over. what is your message to chancellor merkel? it is that germany has to spend more and that the good news is that they have decided to increase defence spending and had started to, and for the first time in years we saw in 2015 that the cuts stopped, and 2016 we saw a really increase in defence spending. exactly. these are being words for years and years, i've been coming to nato for years, and heard secretary generals tell me that we will get to the 2% threshold any time now for the last ten years. that hasn't happened. well, it is starting to happen. but now it's an existential crisis. if it doesn't happen now, donald trump is clear that the us will not keep paying for other people's bills. the big difference is that for many years we have decreased tensions, and defence spending went down after the end of the cold war.
now tensions are increasing again and we need to prove that we are able to increase defence spending. nato leaders made the in september 2014 to stop the cuts, to gradually increase funding and to aim at 2% of gdp for defence. within the decade. how worried are you by the russian threat to nato‘s eastern flank right now? we see a more assertive russia, we have seen a significant military build—up but we don't see any imminent threat. nato has responded, that is the reason why we have for the first time had troops in the eastern part of the alliance. we have increased forces so we can respond rapidly if needed. we do more exercises, we respond also in cyber and other domains.
but we don't seek confrontation with russia, we don't want to renew the cold war so we combine strength and a firm approach with open channels for dialogue, with russia. to keep tensions down. donald trump has described vladimir putin as smart, talks about his admiration for him and said i start off inclined to trust both putin and merkel, but let's see how long that lasts. it may not last long at all. ie, there is an equivalence in his view of angela merkel and vladimir putin. how do you feel about that? do you see putin as smartand admirable? i met putin many times, and i have been able to do deals with the russians and the prime minister and i think one of the lessons i learned from being a politician is that it is possible to have a pragmatic relation with russia. it is possible to be a neighbour to russia as long as you are strong, as long as you are firm, as long as you are predictable. and that is what norway has been able to be,
not in spite of nato but because of nato. so i believe this dual track approach, strong, predictable, but at the same time open channels for political communication, for dialogue, to try to find ways to reduce tensions. russia is there to stay. russia is not going to disappear... the question is whether nato is really offering a deterrent to russia. a study by the rand corporation recently said russia could overrun estonia, latvia and lithuania in three days. what kind of deterrent are you really offering? i think that 70 years of nato has proven that we are providing... you talk about the past but i'm talking about the present and future. but we have proven in almost 70 years we are able to provide credible deterrence. estonia's prime minister doesn't believe that, he has demanded that nato troops be permanently stationed in his country, are you prepared to exceed to that request? we are now deploying four battalions. including one to estonia led by the united kingdom. that will be a presence. that is a few hundred troops.
around 1000 troops. do you know how may troops the russians can call upon to be in the baltic states in no time at all? hundreds of thousands. by invoking national presence in the baltic countries, that sends a very clear signal that an attack on one of the baltic countries will trigger a response from the entire alliance. on top of the increased military presence, we have established new high readiness forces, which can be deployed very quickly if needed, to reinforce. this is part of a chain of different elements which all adds to much higher readiness and increased collective defence, the biggest enforcement of collective defence of the end of the cold war. cyber security, not least because of allegations about russian interference in the us election, there is a big focus on cyber security, in germany, too. where angela merkel said she believes the russians are interfering in german politics.
is nato, in any sense, prepared for the systemic, organised cyber security attacks would may come from countries hostile to the western alliance in the future? yes, we are. because we have invested a lot. we have strengthened our cyber defences a lot over the past couple of years. we have seen that the cyber threats poses a new challenge for the nato alliance. and for the member countries. do you buy the intelligence services in russia or authorised from the very top, according to us intelligence chiefs, russia has been responsible for systemic hacking in the united states? in germany, as well? of the politics of those countries? because if you do believe that, and presumably, right now, your mindset is to view russia on various different fronts as "the enemy". i trust the reports we have seen from many national intelligence services, including from germany
and the united states and others, that russia is behind many of the cyber attacks. we have seen the same pattern against, for instance, nato‘s own cyber networks. that's the reason why we are stepping up, for instance, we have decided to establish cyber as a domain military operation, alongside air, land and sea. in a sense, these are hostile acts from the russian state against your members states and indeed against nato‘s organisation itself? yes. and we have seen the same pattern, we saw it in 2007. we saw a very big attack against estonia. that was one of the reasons why we started to strengthen our own cyber defences. which brings me back to where we began an donald trump host of donald trump admires putin, says he is smart, says that working closely with putin would be an asset to the united states. i come back to ivo daaler‘s point,
this is the world upside down. but at the same time, he has expressed strong support for the transatlantic partnership, for nato. we will sit down and work with each other on how we can continue to strengthen and adapt to change the security environment. the final point is more philosophical, donald trump is quite plain in his approach. it is all about america first. he is, and i don't think he would mind me saying it, a nationalist politician. we've seen nationalism on the rise in many different countries, one can certainly say vladimir putin is a nationalist politician. in this global context, the emergence of nationalist leaders who put their countries first, what role is therefore a collective cooperative organisation like nato? strong nato is in the interest of the united states. to have stability and peace in europe. we have seen that for the united states it is a great advantage to have
friends and allies. i will tell all the americans i meet that you have to make sure that you see the value of having close and good friends and allies as you have in the north atlantic. and if they don't? i am certain they will, partly because they have expressed strong support of nato and partly because they have learned the lessons from two world wars and the cold war that nato is also important for the security of north america. and partly because they are now increasing their presence, the us presence, with troops, equipment, repositioned supplies in europe to make sure the transatlantic bond remains strong. jens stoltenberg, thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you. hello.
in a week when our weather's turning wetter and windier, let's celebrate a bit of sunshine and the best of that again on monday was in scotland. contrast scenes like this with a view on the south coast of england and for tuesday we're going to narrow these differences. it's this sort of weather that's going to win out as this weather system works very slowly from west to east across the uk. not a huge amount of sunshine on offer but plenty of cloud and most of us will see rain at some stage. quite a wet start to the day in northern ireland although here something a bit drier and brighter for the afternoon. down the eastern side of england where you start dry eventually we'll get to see some outbreaks of rain moving in. a lot of the rain will be light but some heavy bursts in scotland, especially in the southern
iplands and grampians. maybe some highest routes could be slippy as we see some sleet and snow and rain falling onto frozen ground but conditions will gradually improve. a lot of the cloud is low cloud so there's hill fog around too. eastern england starting dry, many of us here, but cloudy and feeling quite cool in the breeze. where we've got milder air already into south—west england, starting to move through more of wales as well, eventually into northern ireland. but it is a messy picture for tuesday as we take outbreaks of rain gradually further east. again the heavy bursts into scotland and drier and brighter weather for northern ireland into the afternoon. again all the while taking something a bit milder into the uk from the south—west. 11 in belfast. but it is going to feel qute cool in eastern scotland and eastern england with the cloud, outbreaks of rain and breeze. more rain to come in parts of england and wales especially on tuesday night and into wednesday morning. clearer spells into scotland and northern ireland. so some spots getting cold enough for a touch of frost and a few fog patches.
england and wales, though, with all this cloud around, temperatures holding up. on wednesday the weather system dragging its heels, especially into england and eventually the rain pulling away from the east quite late in the day. a bit of a brighter interlude between the two weather systems before another one comes into northern ireland to parts of wales and the south—west of england later on wednesday. and again, some of us getting into double figures. on thursday, it looks like a windy affair, some bright and sunny spells around but bands of showers, some may be heavy with the risk of hail and thunder spreading north—east across the country. and the winds looked like picking up further towards the end of the week and into the weekend. still a lot of uncertainty about the detail but look at this, there's the growing sense some of us will be facing some quite stormy weather by the end of the week and into the weekend. we will, of course, keep you updated. i'm rico hizon, in singapore. the headlines: a challenge to president trump's travel ban:
the acting us attorney general tells justice department lawyers not to defend the measures in court. police in quebec charge a french—canadian student over the shooting dead of six muslim worshippers at a mosque. i'm babita sharma in london. a special bbc investigation reports on the traffickers selling baby chimpanzees from west africa. and singaporean film maker kirsten tan talks to us about her win at this year's sundance film festival. from our studios in singapore and london, this is bbc world news — it's newsday.