08/04/2017 Dateline London

This week we look at the consequences of America's air

strikes on President Assad's air base.

And we discuss the relations between Beijing Washington.

My guests this week are the China Expert Isabel Hilton,

the North American writer and broadcaster Jeffrey Kofman,

and Rachel Shabi, a writer on middle eastern affairs.

The horrific pictures of the gas attack in Syria have brought a swift

Rachel, how is this seen in the Middle East.

It seems to have support for Trump's reports. There was praise for the

courageous move as did other GCC countries. Bahrain, Jordan, Turkey.

Israel, so the allies in the region were supportive. The reaction from

Syrians has been positive but measured. Of course, people welcome

some retaliation for such a horrendous act, a chemical attack

against your own people, Syrian people are going to be positive

about anything that retaliates against that, to show that in an

international community that is not acceptable. It is also measured in

the sense that Syrians would say that is good but why are there no

similar reactions when there is a tax when the Syrian regime throws

barrel bombs on us all when there are chlorine gas attacks? There was

also a reservation in terms of what is this actually mean? Does this

change anything on the ground? Is this a recalculation in terms of US

policy? It has been clear that they have been keen to stress this

doesn't change its policy, it is a one-off strike of retaliation for

those chemical attacks. The trouble with these things is that offer

military attacks have their own calculation. When we look at the

Syria conflict, it is clear half a million people have been killed. 2

million have been injured and over half the population are now

refugees, some internally. Torture is a regular feature from both

sides. It is clear the Syrian regime are responsible for most of those

killings but it is also clear that neither side will be able to

perpetuate this war, were it not for external players and that is the

problem. I saw Jeff shaking his head. American foreign policy

suggests there is some sort of logical strategy here. I think we

have seen this displayed this week. There is no foreign policy. This is

a man who in his speech to Congress said America first, we will take

care of our own and he is doing exactly what Obama and others did.

He was horrified by the images and said, let's trot some bombs. Did he

say it or did others say it? There was a problem when there is no

coherent strategy. It is the lack of strategy. Some believe Obama showed

weakness when he drew his red line. He has brought in people like

Hillary Clinton and Senator John McCain who support what happened.

This is an incredibly domestic policy. What it underlines is we

can't logically calculate where he goes next. That is terrifying. A lot

of people have been saying that this has been a good thing but where does

it go? Who will support Trump? One of the many unanswered questions is

why does it go? That was part of the problem is. There was a proposition

to join Obama for a limited military attack on Assad's chemical weapons.

I still don't hear the answer now. Cameron couldn't answer it then.

There has been revisionism about what happened in 2013. The reason

Cameron lost the Commons vote on white barber was pleased because of

a lack of clarity about what would follow. It seems to be the case

again. You have the something must be done reaction to the horror of

those events earlier this week in Syria. Something has been done.

Assad is still in place. You have this heightened tension with Russia.

I just don't see where it is going. In terms of international alliances,

there have been declarations of support from the British government

and elsewhere but it transforms the US relationships with these

countries. Britain was told, I don't blame America, Britain was informed

a few minutes beforehand. That is a massive contrast with the Blair/

Bush relationship where Blair played a subservient role but was involved

throughout enough -- in Iraq and Afghanistan. Was anyone told

earlier? My understanding is a few minutes before, Britain was told.

Russia might have been told. This is a different operation. The US didn't

need Britain for this operation and doesn't need it for what it says is

planned. It is worth looking at this as a moment in the Trump

administration. We begin to see a bit of maturity not necessarily in

the emotional reaction to pictures of dead babies, because there has

been a lot of dead babies in Syria. If you look at the campaign promises

or the rhetoric Trump had, everyone who understands international

relationships and United States's role in it, rolling our eyes and

dreading what was to come. This week, as this has been going on, we

have had Steve Bannon pushed out of the highest levels of security. They

are ported -- pushing this radical destruction. They are being

sidelined and you have a more experienced security team getting a

grip and explaining to Donald Trump that you do need a policy. Can you

explain to Donald Trump? He is proposing to cut 40% of the State

Department's budget. They enable a lot of the information. I would be

interested in six months' time if we don't look at this moment and think

this could have been a moment where Trump realises that winning it for

an audience in Pennsylvania is not the same as being President. I love

your optimism. Let's agree to reconvene in six months and see. I

think this is a guy who doesn't know history and he's not that curious

and I think he's learning that this is not like running a real estate

company in New York and actions have massive consequences and you can't

control what those consequences will be. I like what you're saying but I

am as optimistic that even with a smarter team, there is the

resemblance of a team taking a hold of foreign policy. I think we are

really vulnerable to these kinds of knee jerk reactions. I agree with

what you say. Chemical weapons are apparent but let's be clear. Assad

has been killing civilians first six years now and to suggest this is

more vile than all those other murders, it's inconsistent. It is

not just Bashar al-Assad. He has only been able to do them because he

has backing from outside players who may read this situation differently.

That is the problem. Let's talk about Russia. Whether US assures

this is a one-off retaliation for the chemical attacks, Paschall

Assad's supporters might see it through a different lens and they

might choose to retaliate by escalation. That has always been a

problem with this conflict. The Syrian regime can only do what it is

doing. It controls a third of Syria and it can do that because it has

support from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and Shia militia coming in from

Afghanistan and Iraq. Without that, it wouldn't be able to hold the

grounds that it does. We also have to accept that the opposition is

only able to maintain its opposition because of outside players. That is

the worry. Russia might see this as a need to bolster its support for

the Syrian regime. It could have terrible consequences on the ground

for the Syrian people. The opposition might see this as an

opportunity to use it for leveraged for more weapons pouring into the

region. That is what we don't want to happen. We don't need military

escalation in Syria. The only thing that can possibly work is a

de-escalation on military terms and that is something we are not seeing

Trump and his team engage with. There is a different layer to this

and that is American/ Bush and relationships. Trump was talking

about a reset and he has used this embrace of Putin and the lack of

questioning of prudent's tactics. Now he has thrown a Tomahawk

missiles in the middle of that relationship. The reason I think it

would be a one-off is it will become a huge pressure on Trump. What

really generated his emotional response was the TV pictures, the

chemical weapons were the triggers but it was the emotional pictures on

TV that meeting want to do something. He will be under pressure

to respond if there are equivalent pictures through other means other

than chemical weapons. Once a line has been crossed, it is difficult to

say, "I am not doing anything this time. It was a one-off." There is a

danger of this escalating without clarity as to where it is going to

end. We will end this part of the discussion. I'm sure we will be

coming back to it. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall

at Mar a Largo this week. President Trump's Florida

White House where he met Was anything achieved, particularly

over troublesome North Korea. All of that was disrupted by what

happened in Syria. I know you want to move on but it is hard to

separate them. This was meant to be a relationship building exercise and

this unilateralism by Trump changed the agenda and changed the message.

I think it is a question of what the lingering effects of Syria and back

unilateralism are between the relationship between them. We have

this 100 day plan. Expectations were low and settling over China, we had

fingers crossed to make sure nothing goes horribly wrong. You have

mismatched sides. You have a Chinese President who hates surprises.

Everything he does is choreographed and prepared long in advance. He has

a difficult political year this year. He has a party congress in the

autumn which he needs to consolidate his grip on power. It is always a

challenge in China. He doesn't want to be put in any embarrassing public

position. They've sat through Chinese rhetoric for months and

things like questioning the one China policy and stop from his

perspective, what they had to do was present an image to the domestic

audience that the President is treated with dignity and can manage

this lunatic in the White House. That was successful. They were

unhappy about Syria and China is a big ally of Syria. If you look at

the Chinese press this morning, Syria is buried on page eight and

images of a harmonious exchange of front and centre. For the domestic

audience, that's fine. In terms of substance, there was nothing much to

be achieved in this period. What they needed to set in place is what

are the structures of this relationship going forward? Things

like the climate exchange, which was extremely promising. That has gone.

The 100 day on trade is the beginning of a new structure of

routine exchanges in which what the Americans will be trying to do is

get some concessions they can present to the voters back as having

an impact on the economy. The Chinese have things to give in terms

of market access in China. It won't make a substantial difference to the

condition of the American economy which has problems for other

reasons. On career, they can agree that they are both equally

concerned, even if they have different solutions. Steve, you are

my widening out man. The relationships, those meetings at the

White House will have been watched closely because of the relationships

between America and China are really important. They are and on the

biggest gale what happened this week was rather in the same way as when

to Reza went out to sea Trump. It was more symbolic than anything

else. She had to get through it without some catastrophe in the same

way the Chinese leadership had to get through this without some terror

feel -- terrible thing going badly wrong. They had to get through this,

common ground is going to be around trade and trying to do something

about career. It was completely overwhelmed by this unilateral act

in Syria, with the implication is that however much you discuss and

seem to get on superficially with the President of the United States,

unilateral act could follow which calls into question relationships

and alliances. This was absolutely wiped out, the significance of this

embryonic opening and potentially difficult meeting. The reaction of

the Chinese to the action in Syria. Publicly they have said very little

about it. There has been some commentary that this was a signal to

North Korea and I would hope he would have taken Donald Trump aside

and said, "Do not strike North Korea." Syria doesn't have the

capacity to hit Japan or South Korea or the United States. North Korea

has back capacity. The problem with North Korea is the development of a

nuclear programme which you cannot guarantee to wipe out in one strike.

You would create a massive crisis on that peninsular and on the whole of

North Asia. You would spend years regretting it. Trump has said he

will take on North Korea. This is really frightening about what has

happened in Syria. Trump has done a 180 on his policy towards Syria in a

matter of days and has done things where he has condemned others. North

Korea is a much more geopolitically more menacing presence. Simple

solutions to that problem not going to work and will create a domino

effect. You have to hope that Trump got that message. China can sit

quiet over Syria despite it being an ally. They cannot sit quiet over

North Korea. That is right on the border and there is no easy solution

in North Korea. Do you want the collapse of North Korea? North Korea

does not want that and borders China or South Korea. China doesn't want

South Korea on its border. South Korea doesn't want to pick up the

mouse -- mess. Rachel, how do you see it? I found this meeting was

interesting in terms of reminding me about the meeting with Angela Merkel

stop Trump has been dissing China throughout his campaign. Terrible

China, responsible for America's trade deficit, provocative in its

own region. Gaming the economy. All kinds of things and insults he

hurled at China. Much the same way that a hurled Angela Merkel in the

way she was running her country. They then have to come and meet him.

It is absolutely the case that if he is then going to do these U-turns on

his policy, it does throw into question the point of these lines of

diplomacy in the first place. He obviously doesn't hold them in much

regard. Jeff, what happens now? Are we going to move into a more

Serbia's presidency? No. I think we are starting to see him discover

that swagger doesn't work. That is clear. Perhaps it is too much for us

to be reading into television images and photographs. He just looks like

he doesn't want to be there. When he is in the real White House, it is

like as a lion in a zoo in his cage pacing back and forward with CM and

on. -- CNN. I don't think we should assume that we are going to see

inconsistencies. Is he dangerous? It is uncertainty dangerous. There was

this wild erratic February press conference he gave where at one

point he said, "I suppose you will have to call me a politician." To

give him credit, no one can accuse this victory of going to his head.

It is as if he thinks it is a downgrade from being this business

leader because it involves politics and being political. He regards

these things as almost with a degree of disdain. It is fascinating

because most people, if you become President of the United States, at

the very least, you think, it's not bad. I think he now thinks he is

involved in politics. He doesn't like failure and he has had a number

of huge failures. He will not admit that it is his fault but he will

change his team and I think we are beginning to see that. He is

beginning to understand that if he is not to repeat these pay years --

failures, he needs to have a structure in place. We hope we can

be contained in a structure that can now be built. One of the questions

that comes up is how long will he be President? Is he going to be

President for months? Years? Eight years? Or even 12 years? Will he

extend? It is an interesting game. Like Venice Wailea -- Venezuelan,

will you try to change it? He doesn't like the responsibility and

doesn't want to be seen as a loser. There is a scenario that says he

could actually step down at some point and say, "I've done what I

wanted to do and have pivoted the country and set it on a new course.

Then he ensures that he is not a Then he ensures that he is not a

loser. He writes his own exit lines. It is an interesting theory because

the question is, he is 71, 70 two. Does he have the drive to actually

do a really hard job? Some say he is one of the healthiest presidents.

One of his doctor S Max says this. -- one of his doctors says this. In

the time I have been covering politics, it is the most uncertain,

unstable, unpredictable period that I've covered the quiz in all kinds

of areas from China, the Middle East, it is hugely uncertain. Let's

not talk about if any length of time because we spend our lives doing it.

Brexit is another example of it. The presidential election in France is

another extraordinary moment. I have never... Jonas -- journalists

exaggerate dramas and the significance of fleeting events.

This all seems to me to be very unstable and turbulent in quite an

President way. Rachel. If you are in any way progressive, what is

interesting as watching the reaction and the opposition to that in one of

the disappointing thing is that makes me more worried is even

looking at the way people who have consistently said, Trump is

dangerous, unstable, we can trust. They have switched to support is

action on Syria. That lack of consistency worries me. We have run

out of time. Dateline will be back next week

same time same place. But as this is my last time hosting,

I want to thank all of our guests Hello. If it is warm weather and

sunshine you are after, the rest of this weekend will come up with the

goods. The day started off like this in Essex. That