04/02/2017 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

Donald Trump and the hugely controversial travel ban.

Should the President be welcomed in Britain?

And Parliament votes to begin the process of leaving

the European Union - but what kind of Europe will be

in existence in some two or three years' time?

My guests today are Jeffrey Kofman, who is a north American journalist,

Mina Al-Oraibi, who is a commentator on Arab affairs,

Maria Margaronis of The Nation, and Michael Gove, who is a Times

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and

quacks like a duck - it's a duck.

So Donald Trump's ban - and it is a ban, although

apparently temporary - clearly targets people from some

The result - demonstrations around the world and political convulsions

Is this a political masterstroke however,

saying to Trump supporters, you wanted something done

about Islamic terrorism, well, here is something?

Or is it - as domestic and international critics believe -

I would suggest it plays to his own strengths and people who vote for

him. It depend where you sit. Request if you a Trump lover, go for

it Donald. I think what we really see in the first 15 days of the

Trump administration, is what you see is what you got. There are no

better angels here, the Trump we saw in the campaign, a businessman, who

was a TV celebrity is the Trump in the White House, he is impull Si, he

is a bully and he will have his own way, until he pushes it too far. It

is just not clear where this takes us, I think it is very easy, if you

are not an ardent Trumpite to think this is a really dangerous road he

is taking America down. On the people who voted for him. Those

people in business, who are like him, will also see this week,

although he has fewer headlines in the United Kingdom, that he is

planning perhaps to roll back on regulation, on basically on the

quote red tape that is tying up Wall Street: How do you reconcile that

with the little guy, who he claims to speak for, when he is going to

give more power to the titans of Wall Street. The job, I mean

something like that. We shall see. Listen, I think that the real take

away of these first 15 days is, in my eyes, this is a real test of the

resilience of the American democracy. And perhaps, certainly in

our lifetimes, it is the biggest test. Can the separation of powers,

can the checks and balances of that brilliant constitution, that began

in 1789, can they keep this man in check, so that he doesn't become an

autocrat? What do you think is made of it in Arab country, because there

are which have been targeted. And others which seem to broadly welcome

what has been called in other places a Muslim ban, a targeted ban on

certain Muslim countries? It has been interesting, of curse the seven

countries including in this ban haven't once had one of their

citizens actually being responsible for a terror attack in the US. It

doesn't make sense. The names of a Muslim ban or not. Specially in in

Iraq and Syria and Iran there are non-Muslims who are nationals, so

clearly it is not just targeting Muslims and the most populist Muslim

countries are not targeted but the reason we are calling it a Muslim

ban, that is what Trump promised. He said we will have a shut down on

Muslims eninterring -- entering the US. The gulf has strategic reasons

for being excited about Donald Trump because of Iran and because of the

reality that Iran felt much more emboldened during the Obama regime.

I think there is two issues at stake, the strategic interest,

strategic interests for the US is to have Iraq stable and strong, and

this particular ban on Iraqis who see themselves as really having a

wedded destiny with the US a at making sure they can defeat IS in

Iraq are banned, this includes army generals fighting on the front line

against IS who have their families in the US because they transferred

them there for safety. That makes no sense. And then, for the gulf, it

doesn't affect them, so they are OK. You turn on the moral impact. I

think, again, I hold dual citizen, I an Iraqi and Brit. I think it for

the countries who have dual citizens who would benefit, and therefore I

think there is something to be said can we accept that Trump or others

and we have to admit in the US the visa programme was tampered with

from under the days of Obama, treat citizens of the EU for example as

two different classes of citizens. That is problematic because it stabs

at the heart of what nationalism and citizenship means for people in

Europe. It has been a busy two weeks for Donald Trump, hasn't it.

It has been a busy two weeks for Donald Trump and nervous two weeks I

think for all of us watching. He is careful to play to his bases at the

moment. I think the financial deregulation if for those I saw in

Washington in the inauguration going to the ball, there for the rich who

support him, and I think the Muslim ban, it is for you know his more

working class audience, who I think so far, are happy. The things we

haven't heard about so much, in this country, are the fact that he had

the CEOs or Fiat and Chrysler in. He had small business leaders in. He

said to the car manufacturers you make your cars here or we will slap

tariffs on them. That plays well. Is that alliance between the wealthy

Trump porters and the not so wealthy hold? But on the kind of global

picture, do you think that Donald Trump has in his head the

possibility of a war with an? I have to say yes. I am not sure whether it

is in Donald Trump's head or Steve Bannon's head. His chief adviser.

Who holds some very strange ideas, you know, there is this book, that

he likes about the cycles of 80 year, we have an apocalypse that

remakes the world. I think we are really facing the dismantling of the

post World War II order, initially. And I think that is, that is the

thing that is most frightening to me. Michael? I think there is a lot

of truth in that. Steve banning, -- Bannan, he is essential to

understand the White House, he has compared himself to Thomas Cromwell,

to Henry VIII's Machiavelli. It tells us about Steve Bannon's style.

He regards him as a court intriguer and it tells us something about

Trump. He is is a President who thinks and will behave like a

monarch, one of the striking things I think about Trump, is if you think

of a liberal position, he will always take the opposite. So a

liberal position on migration, he is against it. A liberal position in

the Middle East. He sides with the regimes which are defiantly ill

liberal with Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia sees in him a potential

ally, because he's profossil fuels and hostile to Iran, so, you can see

that there is an ideology at work there, it is not the sophisticated

ideology of previous orders of his office but it speaks as we have

heard, to particular constituencies in America. But if he is a monarch

he is a 15th century Henry VIII rather than Queen Elizabeth II We

have had a reading from a judge in Washington state saying his actions

are unconstitutional. In some respects to try to understand him,

even though he has deliberately invited comparison with the populist

nationalist President of the 19th century Andrew Jackson, he is less

like previous President and more like a monarch. And war with Iran?

It is not unthinkable, which it might have been a while ago. His

first foreign policy in the Middle East stated in his interview in the

times and repeated, I think given what happened in the phone call last

week with Putin, is to deal with Islamist state. I think his

supporters will want him to see, will want to see him do something

which deals with Islamic terrorism, we had a seal assault in Yemen which

went badly for him and for the people involved, but I think that

his first item of business in the Middle East, is to be seen to be

winning, his famous phrase, against Islamist terrorists in the shape of

Isis. Michael, you have given too much credit, I don't think there is

a strategy. It is shoot from the hip. His interaction with the

Australian Prime Minister is an example of that. Hanging up on hi

him and tweeting your indignation, it is fine to shape up -- shake-up

the old order, to do it that way, what does that come accomplish? I

guess if you are playing to your base, maybe beating up Australia is

a good thing, I don't know, the other thing that I think does come

out of this and talking about Iran, China, is that these are new, these

are uncharted waters to use the cliche, and I think what you are

seeing with a lot of world leaders who would normally stand up with

indignation is let us watch where this takes us. I think the point

that Michael was raising about terrorism, let's be clear, Al-Qaeda

is not the same as IS. What happened in Iraq and Syria that led to the

rice of IS is not the same as what is happening in Yemen. It is

dangerous if we start to think of the US as taking this broad brush

stroke of saying OK, where are the bad guys and we will just, we are

going to strike at them, it will be a success, we saw the first very

unfortunate attack in Yemen, led to the killing of civilians and US Army

personnel. It is dangerous if they are going to take, it is clear there

are those sitting in the White House that are looking at the Middle East

through this very, very naive or very crude approach of pull out the

bad guys and terrorist. It could backfire when it comes to Syria, it

in Syria it is more complicated. You see the relationship between Trump

and Putin very good. It helps to have Moscow and Washington try to

sort out the issues but not in the way that will look at all opponents

of Assad are IS and can die. Do any of you think he should not be

invited to the United Kingdom? I think he should not have been

invited. He should not have been. Having been invited... Now it is

difficult. Does it have to be a state visit. It could be an official

visit. I thought that Theresa May's trip immediately to Washington was

humiliating, and, I mean I felt embarrassed. What should she have

done? You have views on it, but what should the Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom do, when there is a new democratically elected President

of the US. She should wait. We are getting into a whole other can of

worms. He wins with Trump because he is anti-EU, as the EU tries to beat

her up, she has Trump on her side. I agree there is an impetuosity to

Trump, which means sometimes he doesn't act on his own and certainly

not in America's broader interest. Because of that, I think it was a

good thing for the Prime Minister to go, and the day after she left

Washington, the Baltic states and Polish Governments thankeder for

securing from the President a guarantee of support for Nato. If

the, and I believe the Prime Minister can, she can nudge,

encourage or pin down the President on areas like support for Nato, then

that has to be a good thing for the west. In terms. He said pledged

hundreds % support for Nato can we trust that? You can't say he

shouldn't be invited to the United Kingdom. If he is, there will be

people who like America, want to see a strong transatlantic arrangement,

and really worry that here is going to be the Queen and the President of

the US that many people in Britain dislike and it puts the Queen in a

difficult position. He will do her job and it will fine. I think the

Queen has had to welcome into her home all sorts of people who if she

were a few citizen she might not have wanted to invite. She will do

it with grace and dignity. Are you going to be working at the Foreign

Office as a diplomat? What do you think? It is difficult to disinvite

somebody. It doesn't have to be a state visit. Say this is an official

visit, there is an important relationship and again we have to

remember in Trump, he is not everything that America holds,

America is not entirely Trump, when he coming on a state visit it is him

being feted. He doesn't need to be feted. There will be massive

demonstrations. There will. It was like when George Bush came in and

London was in shut down. Imagine what it will be like when Trump

comes in? He may end up playing golf in Balmoral. This was an early

invitation, I don't think it has happened before that a US President

has been invited in the first two week, it smacked of desperation,

really. OK, let us move on. Britain voted to out

of the European Union - That is the continuing

refrain from the government as the Prime Minister tried

to encourage more European But with discontent

about migration across Europe - could we be witnessing the slow

unwinding of the Schengen zone, of the euro, and perhaps

even of the EU itself? Do you think, I mean it is going to

be a traumatic year,er we have elections in all kinds of place, we

have far right candidates who might win, who knows and people who are

really opposed within Holland, within France, particularly, France

in particular, to the EU itself. I think that the foundations will

shake as never before but I suspect that the principles of the direction

Europe has been taking will remain, so I think in France, because of the

implosion of the Conservative candidate in a corruption scandal,

we are likely to have Marine Le Pen in the final two, against probably

Mac-Ron, I suspect he will win, he is very strongly pro European, but

Marine Le Pen will put in a strong showing. That will really challenge

the direction but not fundamentally change it. Somebody will happen in

the Netherlands. Maria, from the Greek perspective, the green crisis

is not over. There are rumblings from within the Trump administration

that theure bro is a jer ran racquet. A way of keeping German

exchange rates low. Yes, I wouldn't get too excited ant the latest Greek

crisis, I may be wrong but there seems like a recurrence of a set of

old symptoms that, the IMF has mephedrone believed the Greek debt

is sustainable. The European Commission for political reasons

will not you know, reduce the debt, and the IMF according to its rules

can't be party to this, if we can hold on until September and if

Angela Merkel gets reelected in September as we hope she will, at

least I do, then I think things will kind of rumbles on. There is a lot

of uncertainty in the Greek Government too, that I have been

sending out contradictory signal, that is not new. What about the

bigger point. Surely many Greek people thinking not liking the Trump

administration but thinking it is a racquet. It has been a racquet. You

know, Europe has as we know Europe... It is not necessarily a

sustainable racquet for anybody, but the current sort of international

crisis could go one of two ways for Europe. Europe is under threat, you

know know it is like jokers to left and clowns to the right. It is, we

have Trump on the one hand. Putin on the other, interested in dismantling

the European Union, supporting ill liberal forces in Europe, and I

think geopolitically this could be a moment when Europe has to come

together, to resist those forces, you have Erdogan as well where Mrs

May went immediately after seeing Trump or it could unravel, that

identity for Europe as a political liberal union rather than as a

financial economic one might see some sort of revival. How do you see

this year for 2017, for the EU? Well, in 2016, February 2016 if you

asked me would we have Prime Minister May and President Trump, I

would say absolutely to way, so it is very hard to make predictions but

I would say absolutely it's going to be a roller-coaster and there are

going to be even greater schisms in society emerging,er there those who

see the ills of the EU as being greater than the merits of the EU. I

would argue that what we have in Europe and having had peace at the

heart of Europe, to for over 70 years should not be ignored or taken

for granted. I think one of theish issues has been complacency, whether

it is in Europe that we may disagree but there is peace, that is a hard

one and the EU has been instrumental this. Sometimes it is hard to

believe that the EU has won the Nobel Peace Prize. I think what

happens in the US affects liberal democracies round the world, we will

see this push for ill liberal force, nationalism with an ugly side rather

than patriotism coming up, that will affect Europe and how it goes forth.

So elections are a, but what happens after elections, we saw the Brexit

referendum here and there were huge divisions in society. Nobody has

worked out saying how do we still live together and how will Brexit

work for Britain's identity going forward? The same is true for

Europe, having to think what is the EU like if you have the UK out of it

and if you have large numbers of people going out to vote as being

against immigrants or being against what EU policy stands for. But the

migrant question is at the heart of a lot of it as it was with Brexit,

people are fed up. With austerity and they look round and they see a

society that is changing rapidly and produces discontent, and whatever

the compassion was maybe a few years ago, towards Syria, there is

compassion fatigue even in previously liberal countries. You

see a problem of absorption, countries resisting, how to absorb

massive changes in their pluralistic society. I think to pick up what

Mina was saying when we looks at 2017, I think be prepared for the

unexpected and I don't know what that is, but when you have bans on

Muslims, citizens from seven dominant Muslim nations from the

United States, that is a propaganda victory for anti-western,

anti-America Muslim force, that mean there's is potentially something or,

or there are many things brewing that could unsettle us in terrible

ways. We saw the luef attack this week which fortunately was thwarted.

This is is a man who governs by playing to our worst, he tweets out

jihadists in Paris, six Muslims killed in Quebec city. Not a word.

By a white nationalist, Canadian, and Trump says nothing. I mean, you

know, this is glaring. This is a man who is playing to our worst. I think

there is a stit stick in the Middle East, if that, if you are a young

Muslim citizen in the Middle East and you see autocratic ruler,

whether in Egypt, Saudi or in the golf, saying this ban is right, it

will only drive a sense of rage towards those rulers, wealthy,

insulated pro American, not standing up for your Muslim brother, I agree,

whatever the intent and America has the right to control its border,

what it risks is handing a propaganda victory to those who want

to radicalise not unite. They weren't necessarily saying the ban

is right. Nuance is important, what they are saying it is a sovereign

right, we have done it and they are doing it because as we were saying

earlier, it was understandable. They weren't saying it is right, that is

what should happen. Gets the approach of these autocrats, I mean,

what is wrong with this picture? But also the fact that he would, you

know, decide that Syrian refugees have to be stopped indefinitely and

there is no charity. The fact we had a -- clarity. People have created a

life for themselves in America, holding green cards, not knowing if

they can go or not. There is this thing of we will clarify and make

exceptions even though they are people who... It may, the, it may by

I hate to use the word clarifying, polarising might be a better word,

but not in the way we imagine, I am sure that Justin Trudeau is more

popular in Canada for differentiating himself from Trump

and I suspect in France, they may benefit by becoming the anti-Trump,

more than anyone else. I was going to make that point. Supporting

Macron wane, supposing the Netherlands, supposing we have

another few years of Angela Merkel, the EU itself will still have to

change, not just because Britain is pulling out but because of the

resentment. The EU has deep problems, the way the euro has

worked is a deep problem. We have had this meeting in Malta with

rather than talking about the rev GCSEs who are already in Europe, you

know, European countries promised to resettled is 00,000 people in

September 2015. They have taken 10888. We had three deaths in the

camp in Lesbos from the conditions in cold. They are discussing another

very difficult issue which is what to do about the people drowning in

the Mediterranean, coming across from Libya, but again, the

discussion is mostly in terms of how do we protect borders not what do we

do about these people, and that is where rage and resentment and

justified anger build up. We are missing in that picture, I think you

paint accurately, having spent time, is no-one is watching the source.

And global policy right now, the geopolitical order is ignoring what

the anarchy and Libya, you want to stop the flow? Restore order and, of

governance in Libya but nobody.... Dots. But the Trump critique is you

threw a rock into a hornet's nest. The Trump view it is the result of

people like the British and the French Governments, attempting to

virtually signal and create a new regime in Libya. There was a... I

supported the intervention. People in America who support him, would

say the lesson of intervention it makes things worse not better. I

want to second the point. Where is the source, why are people having to

leave? Partly because of failures in policies and failures in countries

that we can't deny. Targeting the citizens of those countries won't

help matters, and a final point, if anyone talks about a war in Iran

talk about more refugees. That's it for Dateline

London for this week. You can comment on the programme

on Twitter @gavinesler We're back next week

at the same time -