:00:22. > :00:28.This week we look at the consequences of America's air
:00:29. > :00:30.strikes on President Assad's air base.
:00:31. > :00:33.And we discuss the relations between Beijing Washington.
:00:34. > :00:39.My guests this week are the China Expert Isabel Hilton,
:00:40. > :00:44.the North American writer and broadcaster Jeffrey Kofman,
:00:45. > :00:47.and Rachel Shabi, a writer on middle eastern affairs.
:00:48. > :00:56.The horrific pictures of the gas attack in Syria have brought a swift
:00:57. > :00:59.Rachel, how is this seen in the Middle East.
:01:00. > :01:24.It seems to have support for Trump's reports. There was praise for the
:01:25. > :01:34.courageous move as did other GCC countries. Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey.
:01:35. > :01:40.Israel, so the allies in the region were supportive. The reaction from
:01:41. > :01:50.Syrians has been positive but measured. Of course, people welcome
:01:51. > :01:56.some retaliation for such a horrendous act, a chemical attack
:01:57. > :02:00.against your own people, Syrian people are going to be positive
:02:01. > :02:06.about anything that retaliates against that, to show that in an
:02:07. > :02:15.international community that is not acceptable. It is also measured in
:02:16. > :02:21.the sense that Syrians would say that is good but why are there no
:02:22. > :02:26.similar reactions when there is a tax when the Syrian regime throws
:02:27. > :02:32.barrel bombs on us all when there are chlorine gas attacks? There was
:02:33. > :02:37.also a reservation in terms of what is this actually mean? Does this
:02:38. > :02:42.change anything on the ground? Is this a recalculation in terms of US
:02:43. > :02:47.policy? It has been clear that they have been keen to stress this
:02:48. > :02:53.doesn't change its policy, it is a one-off strike of retaliation for
:02:54. > :02:57.those chemical attacks. The trouble with these things is that offer
:02:58. > :03:06.military attacks have their own calculation. When we look at the
:03:07. > :03:12.Syria conflict, it is clear half a million people have been killed. 2
:03:13. > :03:18.million have been injured and over half the population are now
:03:19. > :03:22.refugees, some internally. Torture is a regular feature from both
:03:23. > :03:27.sides. It is clear the Syrian regime are responsible for most of those
:03:28. > :03:32.killings but it is also clear that neither side will be able to
:03:33. > :03:39.perpetuate this war, were it not for external players and that is the
:03:40. > :03:44.problem. I saw Jeff shaking his head. American foreign policy
:03:45. > :03:48.suggests there is some sort of logical strategy here. I think we
:03:49. > :03:57.have seen this displayed this week. There is no foreign policy. This is
:03:58. > :04:01.a man who in his speech to Congress said America first, we will take
:04:02. > :04:08.care of our own and he is doing exactly what Obama and others did.
:04:09. > :04:17.He was horrified by the images and said, let's trot some bombs. Did he
:04:18. > :04:21.say it or did others say it? There was a problem when there is no
:04:22. > :04:38.coherent strategy. It is the lack of strategy. Some believe Obama showed
:04:39. > :04:47.weakness when he drew his red line. He has brought in people like
:04:48. > :04:58.Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain who support what happened.
:04:59. > :05:09.This is an incredibly domestic policy. What it underlines is we
:05:10. > :05:18.can't logically calculate where he goes next. That is terrifying. A lot
:05:19. > :05:26.of people have been saying that this has been a good thing but where does
:05:27. > :05:33.it go? Who will support Trump? One of the many unanswered questions is
:05:34. > :05:42.why does it go? That was part of the problem is. There was a proposition
:05:43. > :05:48.to join Obama for a limited military attack on Assad's chemical weapons.
:05:49. > :05:52.I still don't hear the answer now. Cameron couldn't answer it then.
:05:53. > :05:57.There has been revisionism about what happened in 2013. The reason
:05:58. > :06:01.Cameron lost the Commons vote on white barber was pleased because of
:06:02. > :06:10.a lack of clarity about what would follow. It seems to be the case
:06:11. > :06:16.again. You have the something must be done reaction to the horror of
:06:17. > :06:21.those events earlier this week in Syria. Something has been done.
:06:22. > :06:29.Assad is still in place. You have this heightened tension with Russia.
:06:30. > :06:33.I just don't see where it is going. In terms of international alliances,
:06:34. > :06:38.there have been declarations of support from the British government
:06:39. > :06:44.and elsewhere but it transforms the US relationships with these
:06:45. > :06:50.countries. Britain was told, I don't blame America, Britain was informed
:06:51. > :06:56.a few minutes beforehand. That is a massive contrast with the Blair/
:06:57. > :07:02.Bush relationship where Blair played a subservient role but was involved
:07:03. > :07:09.throughout enough -- in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was anyone told
:07:10. > :07:16.earlier? My understanding is a few minutes before, Britain was told.
:07:17. > :07:20.Russia might have been told. This is a different operation. The US didn't
:07:21. > :07:26.need Britain for this operation and doesn't need it for what it says is
:07:27. > :07:32.planned. It is worth looking at this as a moment in the Trump
:07:33. > :07:38.administration. We begin to see a bit of maturity not necessarily in
:07:39. > :07:42.the emotional reaction to pictures of dead babies, because there has
:07:43. > :07:48.been a lot of dead babies in Syria. If you look at the campaign promises
:07:49. > :07:53.or the rhetoric Trump had, everyone who understands international
:07:54. > :07:57.relationships and United States's role in it, rolling our eyes and
:07:58. > :08:03.dreading what was to come. This week, as this has been going on, we
:08:04. > :08:06.have had Steve Bannon pushed out of the highest levels of security. They
:08:07. > :08:13.are ported -- pushing this radical destruction. They are being
:08:14. > :08:21.sidelined and you have a more experienced security team getting a
:08:22. > :08:28.grip and explaining to Donald Trump that you do need a policy. Can you
:08:29. > :08:31.explain to Donald Trump? He is proposing to cut 40% of the State
:08:32. > :08:39.Department's budget. They enable a lot of the information. I would be
:08:40. > :08:42.interested in six months' time if we don't look at this moment and think
:08:43. > :08:47.this could have been a moment where Trump realises that winning it for
:08:48. > :08:54.an audience in Pennsylvania is not the same as being President. I love
:08:55. > :09:01.your optimism. Let's agree to reconvene in six months and see. I
:09:02. > :09:05.think this is a guy who doesn't know history and he's not that curious
:09:06. > :09:11.and I think he's learning that this is not like running a real estate
:09:12. > :09:14.company in New York and actions have massive consequences and you can't
:09:15. > :09:21.control what those consequences will be. I like what you're saying but I
:09:22. > :09:27.am as optimistic that even with a smarter team, there is the
:09:28. > :09:32.resemblance of a team taking a hold of foreign policy. I think we are
:09:33. > :09:36.really vulnerable to these kinds of knee jerk reactions. I agree with
:09:37. > :09:44.what you say. Chemical weapons are apparent but let's be clear. Assad
:09:45. > :09:50.has been killing civilians first six years now and to suggest this is
:09:51. > :09:58.more vile than all those other murders, it's inconsistent. It is
:09:59. > :10:04.not just Bashar al-Assad. He has only been able to do them because he
:10:05. > :10:10.has backing from outside players who may read this situation differently.
:10:11. > :10:14.That is the problem. Let's talk about Russia. Whether US assures
:10:15. > :10:19.this is a one-off retaliation for the chemical attacks, Paschall
:10:20. > :10:22.Assad's supporters might see it through a different lens and they
:10:23. > :10:28.might choose to retaliate by escalation. That has always been a
:10:29. > :10:33.problem with this conflict. The Syrian regime can only do what it is
:10:34. > :10:39.doing. It controls a third of Syria and it can do that because it has
:10:40. > :10:44.support from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shia militia coming in from
:10:45. > :10:48.Afghanistan and Iraq. Without that, it wouldn't be able to hold the
:10:49. > :10:54.grounds that it does. We also have to accept that the opposition is
:10:55. > :11:03.only able to maintain its opposition because of outside players. That is
:11:04. > :11:10.the worry. Russia might see this as a need to bolster its support for
:11:11. > :11:14.the Syrian regime. It could have terrible consequences on the ground
:11:15. > :11:21.for the Syrian people. The opposition might see this as an
:11:22. > :11:24.opportunity to use it for leveraged for more weapons pouring into the
:11:25. > :11:30.region. That is what we don't want to happen. We don't need military
:11:31. > :11:34.escalation in Syria. The only thing that can possibly work is a
:11:35. > :11:41.de-escalation on military terms and that is something we are not seeing
:11:42. > :11:46.Trump and his team engage with. There is a different layer to this
:11:47. > :11:52.and that is American/ Bush and relationships. Trump was talking
:11:53. > :11:59.about a reset and he has used this embrace of Putin and the lack of
:12:00. > :12:03.questioning of prudent's tactics. Now he has thrown a Tomahawk
:12:04. > :12:13.missiles in the middle of that relationship. The reason I think it
:12:14. > :12:18.would be a one-off is it will become a huge pressure on Trump. What
:12:19. > :12:22.really generated his emotional response was the TV pictures, the
:12:23. > :12:27.chemical weapons were the triggers but it was the emotional pictures on
:12:28. > :12:31.TV that meeting want to do something. He will be under pressure
:12:32. > :12:38.to respond if there are equivalent pictures through other means other
:12:39. > :12:42.than chemical weapons. Once a line has been crossed, it is difficult to
:12:43. > :12:48.say, "I am not doing anything this time. It was a one-off." There is a
:12:49. > :12:55.danger of this escalating without clarity as to where it is going to
:12:56. > :12:58.end. We will end this part of the discussion. I'm sure we will be
:12:59. > :13:00.coming back to it. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall
:13:01. > :13:04.at Mar a Largo this week. President Trump's Florida
:13:05. > :13:06.White House where he met Was anything achieved, particularly
:13:07. > :13:19.over troublesome North Korea. All of that was disrupted by what
:13:20. > :13:25.happened in Syria. I know you want to move on but it is hard to
:13:26. > :13:30.separate them. This was meant to be a relationship building exercise and
:13:31. > :13:38.this unilateralism by Trump changed the agenda and changed the message.
:13:39. > :13:43.I think it is a question of what the lingering effects of Syria and back
:13:44. > :13:49.unilateralism are between the relationship between them. We have
:13:50. > :13:57.this 100 day plan. Expectations were low and settling over China, we had
:13:58. > :14:02.fingers crossed to make sure nothing goes horribly wrong. You have
:14:03. > :14:08.mismatched sides. You have a Chinese President who hates surprises.
:14:09. > :14:12.Everything he does is choreographed and prepared long in advance. He has
:14:13. > :14:18.a difficult political year this year. He has a party congress in the
:14:19. > :14:22.autumn which he needs to consolidate his grip on power. It is always a
:14:23. > :14:28.challenge in China. He doesn't want to be put in any embarrassing public
:14:29. > :14:32.position. They've sat through Chinese rhetoric for months and
:14:33. > :14:37.things like questioning the one China policy and stop from his
:14:38. > :14:42.perspective, what they had to do was present an image to the domestic
:14:43. > :14:47.audience that the President is treated with dignity and can manage
:14:48. > :14:52.this lunatic in the White House. That was successful. They were
:14:53. > :14:58.unhappy about Syria and China is a big ally of Syria. If you look at
:14:59. > :15:06.the Chinese press this morning, Syria is buried on page eight and
:15:07. > :15:11.images of a harmonious exchange of front and centre. For the domestic
:15:12. > :15:15.audience, that's fine. In terms of substance, there was nothing much to
:15:16. > :15:19.be achieved in this period. What they needed to set in place is what
:15:20. > :15:28.are the structures of this relationship going forward? Things
:15:29. > :15:35.like the climate exchange, which was extremely promising. That has gone.
:15:36. > :15:40.The 100 day on trade is the beginning of a new structure of
:15:41. > :15:44.routine exchanges in which what the Americans will be trying to do is
:15:45. > :15:51.get some concessions they can present to the voters back as having
:15:52. > :15:56.an impact on the economy. The Chinese have things to give in terms
:15:57. > :16:00.of market access in China. It won't make a substantial difference to the
:16:01. > :16:05.condition of the American economy which has problems for other
:16:06. > :16:08.reasons. On career, they can agree that they are both equally
:16:09. > :16:17.concerned, even if they have different solutions. Steve, you are
:16:18. > :16:21.my widening out man. The relationships, those meetings at the
:16:22. > :16:25.White House will have been watched closely because of the relationships
:16:26. > :16:31.between America and China are really important. They are and on the
:16:32. > :16:39.biggest gale what happened this week was rather in the same way as when
:16:40. > :16:43.to Reza went out to sea Trump. It was more symbolic than anything
:16:44. > :16:46.else. She had to get through it without some catastrophe in the same
:16:47. > :16:50.way the Chinese leadership had to get through this without some terror
:16:51. > :17:01.feel -- terrible thing going badly wrong. They had to get through this,
:17:02. > :17:08.common ground is going to be around trade and trying to do something
:17:09. > :17:13.about career. It was completely overwhelmed by this unilateral act
:17:14. > :17:18.in Syria, with the implication is that however much you discuss and
:17:19. > :17:22.seem to get on superficially with the President of the United States,
:17:23. > :17:29.unilateral act could follow which calls into question relationships
:17:30. > :17:34.and alliances. This was absolutely wiped out, the significance of this
:17:35. > :17:41.embryonic opening and potentially difficult meeting. The reaction of
:17:42. > :17:45.the Chinese to the action in Syria. Publicly they have said very little
:17:46. > :17:51.about it. There has been some commentary that this was a signal to
:17:52. > :17:59.North Korea and I would hope he would have taken Donald Trump aside
:18:00. > :18:04.and said, "Do not strike North Korea." Syria doesn't have the
:18:05. > :18:08.capacity to hit Japan or South Korea or the United States. North Korea
:18:09. > :18:12.has back capacity. The problem with North Korea is the development of a
:18:13. > :18:18.nuclear programme which you cannot guarantee to wipe out in one strike.
:18:19. > :18:22.You would create a massive crisis on that peninsular and on the whole of
:18:23. > :18:30.North Asia. You would spend years regretting it. Trump has said he
:18:31. > :18:34.will take on North Korea. This is really frightening about what has
:18:35. > :18:39.happened in Syria. Trump has done a 180 on his policy towards Syria in a
:18:40. > :18:50.matter of days and has done things where he has condemned others. North
:18:51. > :18:53.Korea is a much more geopolitically more menacing presence. Simple
:18:54. > :18:59.solutions to that problem not going to work and will create a domino
:19:00. > :19:06.effect. You have to hope that Trump got that message. China can sit
:19:07. > :19:11.quiet over Syria despite it being an ally. They cannot sit quiet over
:19:12. > :19:16.North Korea. That is right on the border and there is no easy solution
:19:17. > :19:21.in North Korea. Do you want the collapse of North Korea? North Korea
:19:22. > :19:25.does not want that and borders China or South Korea. China doesn't want
:19:26. > :19:34.South Korea on its border. South Korea doesn't want to pick up the
:19:35. > :19:39.mouse -- mess. Rachel, how do you see it? I found this meeting was
:19:40. > :19:44.interesting in terms of reminding me about the meeting with Angela Merkel
:19:45. > :19:49.stop Trump has been dissing China throughout his campaign. Terrible
:19:50. > :20:00.China, responsible for America's trade deficit, provocative in its
:20:01. > :20:05.own region. Gaming the economy. All kinds of things and insults he
:20:06. > :20:09.hurled at China. Much the same way that a hurled Angela Merkel in the
:20:10. > :20:16.way she was running her country. They then have to come and meet him.
:20:17. > :20:20.It is absolutely the case that if he is then going to do these U-turns on
:20:21. > :20:26.his policy, it does throw into question the point of these lines of
:20:27. > :20:33.diplomacy in the first place. He obviously doesn't hold them in much
:20:34. > :20:42.regard. Jeff, what happens now? Are we going to move into a more
:20:43. > :20:46.Serbia's presidency? No. I think we are starting to see him discover
:20:47. > :20:54.that swagger doesn't work. That is clear. Perhaps it is too much for us
:20:55. > :20:58.to be reading into television images and photographs. He just looks like
:20:59. > :21:06.he doesn't want to be there. When he is in the real White House, it is
:21:07. > :21:22.like as a lion in a zoo in his cage pacing back and forward with CM and
:21:23. > :21:31.on. -- CNN. I don't think we should assume that we are going to see
:21:32. > :21:36.inconsistencies. Is he dangerous? It is uncertainty dangerous. There was
:21:37. > :21:43.this wild erratic February press conference he gave where at one
:21:44. > :21:48.point he said, "I suppose you will have to call me a politician." To
:21:49. > :21:54.give him credit, no one can accuse this victory of going to his head.
:21:55. > :21:58.It is as if he thinks it is a downgrade from being this business
:21:59. > :22:04.leader because it involves politics and being political. He regards
:22:05. > :22:10.these things as almost with a degree of disdain. It is fascinating
:22:11. > :22:14.because most people, if you become President of the United States, at
:22:15. > :22:21.the very least, you think, it's not bad. I think he now thinks he is
:22:22. > :22:26.involved in politics. He doesn't like failure and he has had a number
:22:27. > :22:30.of huge failures. He will not admit that it is his fault but he will
:22:31. > :22:33.change his team and I think we are beginning to see that. He is
:22:34. > :22:39.beginning to understand that if he is not to repeat these pay years --
:22:40. > :22:45.failures, he needs to have a structure in place. We hope we can
:22:46. > :22:52.be contained in a structure that can now be built. One of the questions
:22:53. > :22:56.that comes up is how long will he be President? Is he going to be
:22:57. > :23:05.President for months? Years? Eight years? Or even 12 years? Will he
:23:06. > :23:14.extend? It is an interesting game. Like Venice Wailea -- Venezuelan,
:23:15. > :23:17.will you try to change it? He doesn't like the responsibility and
:23:18. > :23:24.doesn't want to be seen as a loser. There is a scenario that says he
:23:25. > :23:27.could actually step down at some point and say, "I've done what I
:23:28. > :23:30.wanted to do and have pivoted the country and set it on a new course.
:23:31. > :23:38.Then he ensures that he is not a Then he ensures that he is not a
:23:39. > :23:45.loser. He writes his own exit lines. It is an interesting theory because
:23:46. > :23:55.the question is, he is 71, 70 two. Does he have the drive to actually
:23:56. > :24:06.do a really hard job? Some say he is one of the healthiest presidents.
:24:07. > :24:12.One of his doctor S Max says this. -- one of his doctors says this. In
:24:13. > :24:19.the time I have been covering politics, it is the most uncertain,
:24:20. > :24:29.unstable, unpredictable period that I've covered the quiz in all kinds
:24:30. > :24:34.of areas from China, the Middle East, it is hugely uncertain. Let's
:24:35. > :24:41.not talk about if any length of time because we spend our lives doing it.
:24:42. > :24:46.Brexit is another example of it. The presidential election in France is
:24:47. > :24:53.another extraordinary moment. I have never... Jonas -- journalists
:24:54. > :24:58.exaggerate dramas and the significance of fleeting events.
:24:59. > :25:08.This all seems to me to be very unstable and turbulent in quite an
:25:09. > :25:11.President way. Rachel. If you are in any way progressive, what is
:25:12. > :25:14.interesting as watching the reaction and the opposition to that in one of
:25:15. > :25:22.the disappointing thing is that makes me more worried is even
:25:23. > :25:28.looking at the way people who have consistently said, Trump is
:25:29. > :25:33.dangerous, unstable, we can trust. They have switched to support is
:25:34. > :25:35.action on Syria. That lack of consistency worries me. We have run
:25:36. > :25:38.out of time. Dateline will be back next week
:25:39. > :25:42.same time same place. But as this is my last time hosting,
:25:43. > :26:26.I want to thank all of our guests Hello. If it is warm weather and
:26:27. > :26:31.sunshine you are after, the rest of this weekend will come up with the
:26:32. > :26:32.goods. The day started off like this in Essex. That