27/01/2018 Dateline London

Hello and a warm welcome

to Dateline London.

The conversation has already begun.

I'm Jane Hill.

This week we ask -

was anything achieved at

the World Economic Forum in Davos?

What do the British Chancellor's

comments there tell us about Brexit?

And the situation on the

Syria-Turkey border -

what is the US going to do

about its muddle in the Middle East?

My guests this week -

Eunice Goes, the Portuguese

writer and journalist.

Henry Chu, Europe bureau

chief of Variety.

the British political commentator

and author, Steve Richards.

And the French-Algerian

journalist, Nabila Ramdani.

Welcome to you all.

We start in the Swiss resort

of Davos, where Donald Trump

was the first US president

to attend the World Economic

Forum for 18 years.

His presence attracted an enormous

amount of attention,

just as he likes it.

But was there just a shade less

protectionism in his speech

than had been anticipated?

You'd have thought the gathering

was all about Trump.

Of course, the world's political

and business elite was there too.

Emmanuel Macron of France called

for greater co-operation -

so did Germany's Angela Merkel.

But was she overshadowed by him?

And as for Brexit,

while Theresa May was keen

to discuss the issue of internet

reform, her Chancellor

was ruffling feathers,

not least in his own party,

when he suggested that actually

after March 2019, divergence

between Britain and the EU

would be pretty modest.

We will come onto Brexit in a while.

Let's begin with the bigger picture,

everything we heard at Davos. Henry,

let's start with you. We will start

with the president, the first visit

for nearly 20 years. Was it more

conciliatory than the audience

anticipated?

I think people were

anticipating a nativist speech, the

kind of rhetoric we are used to from

Trump. It was more temperate. Said

America first, but not America

alone. The first president to visit

for many years. He had never been

invited before as a businessman

until now, as president. You always

have to be careful about rhetoric

and policy with Trump. He is hard to

nail down. He says one thing one

day, and his administration does

another the next day. He said at

Davos, we are not protectionist in

the scary way the press are

portraying, and yet at the same time

tariffs have been slapped on solar

panels, washing machines, allies

from South Korea. It is hard to

marry his rhetoric with the actions

sometimes.

Did you pick up on a sigh

of relief from other countries? What

was your take on how he was

received?

I think he was -- it was

clearly made an effort to sound

conciliatory. He made an effort to

address that particular audience

businessmen, plutocrats etc. But he

couldn't help but make a few slights

against the media and that didn't go

down well. I think people were, as

Henry said, perhaps expecting a more

nativist speech. That didn't come

through. He is the president of the

United States and maybe there is a

bit of the expectation and --

expectation that he is becoming

house-trained, getting into the

wording and the style of becoming

president of the United States. But

as Henry also says, there is what he

says and what the administration

does.

In terms of his attack on the

media, he is still aware of his base

back at home. Being at Davos, with a

crowd plutocrats, oligarchs, people

with vast amounts of wealth,

different from his core voters, he

has to also make some sort of show

that he still keeps those folders in

mind. Attacking the media is very

popular with that base, as well as,

I think he said, we should not

forget those who have been left

behind and forgotten. He had to make

some concessions in his speech.

It

was a well constructed speech. I

don't know if he wrote it or

somebody else did. It was still full

of contradictions. He put a huge

focus on the fact that he despised

regulations and was getting rid of

loads of them. But he is a

regulator. Immigration and his plans

for that will involve bureaucracy

coming out of the United States'

years. He praised tax cuts and

condemned government. And yet he has

pledged to be one of the biggest

spenders apparently on

infrastructure and capital spending

of any president. Like a lot of

outsiders, he is not alone in this.

His actual ideas, even in a

relatively coherent speech, are

wholly contradictory and confused.

Is there not a valid point though

into the broader point when he says

a thriving, prosperous American

economy is good for the global

economy? He is effectively saying

everybody benefits.

I must say Davos

is always conciliatory. There is

something about the beautiful

surroundings and the sense of

varnished privilege that makes

everybody relaxed and happy. Donald

Trump in particular sounded as if he

wanted to get on with everybody, to

be nice and civilised towards

everybody, and he was exceptionally

fawning towards Britain, continually

saying what a great country he

thinks it is. I think he feels a

visit to the UK is very important to

his legacy and he wants to be loved

here. But the truth is that many

millions of Britons view him as a

pariah and will let him know this

when he eventually visits. I think

the only group that Trump expressed

his usual venal prejudice towards at

Davos was the Palestinians. At the

time he was sitting next to his

ideological ally and close friend,

Benyamin Netanyahu, and the

effectively said he wanted to stop

millions of dollars of aid to

Palestinians because the Palestinian

Authority showed disrespect towards

Mike Pence, his vice president,

during his recent visit to Israel.

So essentially Donald Trump accuses

the Palestinians of not being polite

enough, as they land is stolen, as

they are routinely murdered in their

thousands, imprisoned in their

hundreds, and undergo in all manners

of human rights abuses. There was no

mention of the incredibly

provocative decision to move the US

Embassy to Djourou so, while

completely ignoring the Palestinian

right to east Jerusalem as the

capital. -- embassy to Jerusalem. I

found it unsettling the way Trump

threatened to wash his hands of the

entire peace process are making out

he had enough of the boorish

Palestinians, while suggesting they

should accept their fate and be

polite towards the billions of

dollars poured into Israel to ruin

their lives.

And we will certainly

talk about that on another day.

Davos is the World Economic Forum.

That is what it is. That is what it

is therefore away from Trump, is

this a glorious talking shop? Is

this just an opportunity for people

to get together and network? Does it

achieve anything?

I think it is the

place where politicians present

their visions. It is worthy

plutocrats of the world feel about

themselves. For three days they will

discuss inequality, refugees, all

the problems of the world that very

often they have contributed to

create, but they are there

discussing potential solutions. For

the politicians it is the perfect

platform to talk about their

visions. That was clearly the case

of Emmanuel Macron, the French

president, who used the opportunity

to say that France is back and it is

a France that will lead in Europe.

Very different for Theresa May, the

British Prime Minister. She seems

really out of place in Davos. It is

a place of posturing. She is not the

Prime Minister who likes to posture.

She feels very uncomfortable. She

looks very uncomfortable. She is

also not a visionary. That has been

one of her greatest handicaps as a

Prime Minister. And she doesn't seem

to like the attention, which is

something very strange for a

politician who reached the heights

of political power. Normally

politicians are very vain. And

sometimes in a very good manner.

You

could say it is quite striking that

she is like that.

Absolutely.

It is

fascinating because what her

Chancellor said in Davos caused all

kinds of ructions back here, the use

of the word modest. It is

remarkable.

Yeah, and Theresa May,

that is very perceptive. In Britain

and the United States we tend to

elect actors as Prime Ministers.

They love the performance of

politics and the art of politics.

They spend a lot of time reflecting

on their own role on the stage. She

is a publicly awkward, shy figure,

who clearly doesn't like that side

of politics, and it's unusual in

Britain to have that kind of Prime

Minister. On Philip Hammond, in

fairness to Hammond, body said does

not necessarily contradict the

government's position. It is still

so vague on Brexit. Virtually

anything can be said and could fit

in. So what he said, he subsequently

defended by saying, but we are

hoping to have as close to a

free-trade agreement as possible

with the rest of the European Union.

But what isn't clear is how that

becomes possible. So he can pop up

and say, don't worry, things can be

pretty much the same. That is true.

That is the government aim. But they

still are at the have their cake and

eat it phase of their objectives.

Equally you could have another

hardline Brexit minister say, we

must have the right from March of

next year to start trading with

other countries as a separate

country outside the single market,

outside the Customs Union. That

implies a very big break with the

rest of the European Union. So we

are more or less a year away from

this happening. And actually, you

could have two wildly different

interpretations from different

senior Cabinet ministers of what

will happen. They can both claim it

is close to government policy

because government policy is so

imprecise.

This circle is right back

to Theresa May. If you had a strong

enough Prime Minister was able to

exert discipline and have a unified

vision for a cabinet, it doesn't

mean you have no dissent, but it

means you can manage it in a way she

hasn't, we wouldn't be in this

position and we would be further

along in terms of negotiations than

we are. The fact that anyone can say

anything and it somehow seems

consonant with government policy

means you don't have a policy at

all. If you are a policy of

everywhere, you are a policy of

nowhere, just like she said of

citizenship.

How much longer until a

decision has to be made? It has to,

grow down one way or the other,

ultimately, doesn't it?

It looks

like Theresa May is hoping to get to

March 2019, she will be going

through the transition period that

might take three years, without any

clear vision of what Brexit actually

means. This is what I think she

hopes her.

I think psychologically

Brexiteers will insist something

very big happens in March 2000 and

19. The indications are that very

little will happen in fact Britain

will continue to muddle through a

transition period while there is no

certainty in the meantime. There is

no concrete policies. This to me

shows what a vague concept Brexit

always was. There has never been an

impression of Britain ending its

dealings with the European Union.

I

think people who voted to leave knew

what they were voting for a good use

a politically it is not?

I think the

in and out referendum, for many, was

possible. Britain is redefining its

relationship with the EU, which is

very different from leaving the EU

completely.

In fairness to Theresa

May, even if she was replaced, and

there is talk about that, it is

beginning to happen again among

Conservative MPs, it is very hard to

see, even if a Titan who, enjoyed

the theatre of politics, and had a

clear form of -- idea of what Brexit

-- what form Brexit should take,

could get a deal through this

particular House of Commons, now it

might be in the end that she gets

quite a bad deal. And it still gets

through the House of Commons because

of various factors. But if the deal

is defeated in the House of Commons

then the United Kingdom is in an

extraordinarily -- extraordinary

constitutional crisis. A hung

parliament is not impossible. I

think if she were to be replaced

that would throw the negotiations

into complete disarray. There would

be a Tory leadership contest.

There

are presumably lots of people making

that point in the party? You talk to

people in the party in Westminster

all the time. Are people saying that

would be more disruptive than what

is happening now?

There would be

some Staring saying this is going so

badly wrong that we have to act. But

most I speak to still say it would

disrupt the negotiations. The

Brexiteers, some of them say, that

might jeopardise Brexit, which is

what they have been waiting for

since they were six-month old. --

six months old. If we do this, that

could happen etc. It is not that

unusual with British Prime

Ministers. Quite a few have been

kept in place for many years for

fear of the alternative being worse.

That keeps in place for now.

Politics is Sophie Bradley in the

United Kingdom as in many other

countries, that could change very

quickly. -- politics is so febrile.

It means at the moment she keeps the

job.

She has no full majority of her

party in the House of Commons

because she chose to cause an

election -- call an election which

effectively lost, and now we are in

the situation we're in. It goes back

to her again, doesn't it?

There is

no doubt the election is the context

of everything. It is very unusual

for a leader to lose a majority for

our party and stay on. She stayed

on. It explains the sort of enhanced

authority of Jeremy Corbyn. The

election of last year changed

everything in the UK. And of course

it is the context of the precarious

Brexit talks. She had a big

majority. -- if she had a big

majority she could basically tell

her party what form Brexit should

take. And she lost it.

It does seem

like a particularly precarious

period at the moment.

Thank you for now.

For the last week, Turkey has been

sending tanks into north

western Syria to fight

the Kurdish YPG militia.

Though Turkey is sheltering three

million refugees from the seven year

long civil war in Syria,

it is alarmed by the YPG,

which it regards as terrorists

linked to the banned PKK,

carving out land along the long

border between the two countries.

Turkey is the US's Nato ally.

The Kurds have been a support

to the US in the drive to eliminate

so-called Islamic State.

The US, therefore, appears to be

on two sides in one war.

What happens now?

President Erdogan on Friday

actually declared he might

expand this offensive?

First off, the US role in this, is

it in a model? What does it do to

resolve it?

I think we can spend

plenty of time working out how

Donald Trump gets out of a model.

The truth is everything about him

seems to be based on confusion. He

is arguably the most inconsistent,

confused and thoroughly unprincipled

US President in history. That is

saying something. Muddling along is

a phrase that suits him perfectly.

His policies are based on pettiness

and mood swings. The reality is that

the Kurds are the decidedly unusual

ally to Trump's ally. -- America.

They want to get rid of borders. And

they are anti-Islamist, which has

become a byword for anti-Islam.

Anybody who is any -- anti-Islam is

OK by Donald Trump. That is why he

ended a up supporting Britain first,

although he has apparently

apologised. Turkey is a Nato ally.

And America will be duty-bound to

support them, even though the Turks

generally view the Kurds as

terrorist. You mentioned the PKK. It

has been calling for an independent

Kurdish state within Turkey for

decades. But it is also lending

military support to the Kurds

currently fighting in Syria, but

also in Iraq. It is a listed

terrorist organisation, not just by

Turkey, but also by several states

and organisations, including Nato,

the US and the European Union. The

fudge is that Kurdish militia groups

come in a number of different

varieties. America will continue

backing what they view as the good

Kurds to try to wipe out groups like

ices. -- Isis. We have to remember

that America have been paddling up

to fight a common enemy. More

recently in Libya, they supported

the rebels, many of whom were

affiliated with Al-Qaeda. We also

must bear in mind that a lot of that

logistical support that will be

provided in theatres of war will be

covered. Donald Trump's America will

be offering logistical support

without anybody, let alone the Turks

knowing about it. He will keep

instructing his commanders to do

what they have to do.

It is not just

the US though, is it? All Western

nations, if they had to pick one

primary aim in that region,

everybody wants to eliminate

so-called Islamic State. That is

something an awful lot of countries

agree on.

Absolutely. Knowing your

enemy is the famous saying about the

art of war. It shows how difficult

it is to identify your enemies

nowadays. We have got into such a

complicated, you know, the world is

so complicated, especially in the

Middle East, where it is hard to

identify where the alliances like,

and we have increasingly mass,

groups substituting for traditional

armies.

I want to talk about Rex

Tillerson's speech.

We need to think

about what triggered this reaction

from Turkey. It is essentially the

United States going back on promises

made a few years ago of our support

of the Kurdish militia is only going

so far. In recent weeks we have the

US announcing they are going to

build a 30,000 strong border

separating Turkey from Syria. And

that is essentially seen as a

massive threat by Turkey. If we add

to that the US' recognition of

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel,

this is something that profoundly

irritated Turkey. Turkey was quite

instrumental in taking sure there

would be a vote against the United

States at the United Nations. There

is quite a lot of dissonance between

Turkey and the United States. Turkey

is becoming very strategic and its

relations with Russia as well. And

of course they are, and you would

think the Trump administration would

understand that, the way they see

it, they are securing their border.

You would think the administration

in America would understand the

importance of a border.

Not by --

not that I ever feel like absolving

the Trump administration of

anything, but it was under Obama

that we first started to support the

Kurds as our proxies in that fight.

The US choosing questionable allies

to the cost -- to prosecute the war

against Isis has been true from the

beginning. We have also partnered

with Islamic radicals in the region.

The good ones, we some I decided.

This dates back before the Trump

ministration, no Trump finds himself

in the middle of this morass.

Rex

Tillerson has been talking about it

again this week. Did you detect any

shift in US policy? Did it become

clearer?

I didn't detect a shift in

US policy overall. The Obama

administration was looking at this

as a longer term project. It was a

shift from Donald Trump's own vision

of no more foreign entitlements,

being much more isolationist. Roger

Rex Tillerson say was that we are

going to be in there for the long

haul, diplomatically and militarily,

to help build Syria. This is what

Donald Trump said he wanted to get

us out of. Whether they have devoted

resources to that is another story.

Do you have a strategy? I'm not sure

they do. This is all part and parcel

of wider American, not just Trump,

wider American confusion in that

region and getting ourselves into a

quite admire that we haven't figured

out how to extract ourselves from.

If there aren't the resources to

back up what Rex Tillerson said,

they're hoping to bolster regional

actors?

I think... What we know is

that these allegiances can and do

change over time. Just look at how

Gaddafi was a close ally of the West

before they turned on him. If I were

the Kurds, I would be very guarded,

that the US may turn on them as

well. Once they feel their job has

been done. Historically, powerful

nations have always used other

groups as cannon fodder. There is

nothing new there, frankly.

And with

President Erdogan on Friday saying

this could intensify, the tanks will

keep rolling across the border, this

continues with the world watching

on?

I think it's going to be quite

dangerous if he continues pushing.

Unfortunately, in the wider context

of US Turkey relations, they haven't

been worse in a long time. Besides

this conflict, there is a sense in

Turkey of a conspiracy on the part

of some in the US of trying to

overthrow the Erdogan government

because there is a cleric who

resides in the US who was probably

behind the coup that was put down a

couple of years ago. I think this

whole situation is now adding point

where nobody really kind of knows

how to get out it.

It'll be

interesting to see how the member

states of will react.

With a defence

Turkey? The results of the European

dimension. That is also fraying. The

cooperation between Turkey and the

European Union is fraying. Will

London and Paris, to help or at

least support Erdogan? That is

something we will watch in the

coming weeks.

Thank you very much to

all of you.

That's all we have time

for on Dateline London this week.

We'll be back with more passionate

debate next week at the same time.

Thanks for being with us today.

Goodbye.