03/02/2018 Dateline London

Welcome to Dateline London.

This week, we're discussing

Theresa May in China,

trying to increase trade before

Brexit, whilst trading blows

with the European Union,

and even some of her own colleagues.

Donald Trump delivered his first

State of the Union address

at the end of his first year as US

President.

He vowed to end the era of "economic

surrender in trade" -

who does he mean?

And is it a bad business

for the Middle East if military

leadership is on the rise again?

With me are Bronwen Maddox,

British political commentator,

Abdel Bari Atwan, who writes on Arab

affairs, Italian writer and film

maker Anna-lisa Piras,

and Stephanie Baker from Bloomberg

Markets.

In China, they were

calling her "Auntie May",

but back here in the UK,

she's more an "Aunt Sally",

the target in a long vanished game

at whom players threw things

in an attempt to knock it down.

Her absence from Westminster

was marked by yet another

round of rumours suggesting time

is running out for her premiership.

There was a toy that used to be

advertised with the tag

line, "Weebles wobble

but they don't fall down."

Theresa May doesn't, either.

Why not?

She was there for a reason, she is

one of a few figures, possibly the

only one in the Cabinet at this

point that can bridge both sides of

Brexit. Until it serves either side

to get rid of her, she is there. But

she wasn't there this week, she was

in China for three days, and it was

kind of muted. We had been wondering

whether she would use this as a

chance to make a big, new Britain on

the world stage kind of speech, and

talk about Britain after Brexit,

doing deals with countries like

China and things like that, and she

didn't quite do that. She came away

with 9 billion of deals and she did

give one speech on business but she

didn't come out against human rights

or China's behaviour in Hong Kong,

she didn't sign up on the other hand

for the big Chinese initiative. She

gave them a bit of what they wanted

and not other things and somehow it

wasn't the great ringing vision of

Britain after Brexit.

A bit of a

missed opportunity?

If she wants to

reassert her leadership with some

kind of big vision of what is going

to happen to Britain in the world

after Brexit, this was the perfect

occasion, so why did she not do it?

I think she feels very uncertain

herself about her future. As does

probably the rest of the country.

The big question is why she has not

fallen yet. I think the answer is

because there is no one else on the

horizon that seems to offer a

stronger leadership.

That is quite

telling that she is the strongest of

the options yet the consequence of

how the Cabinet is sword divided is

that she is almost a prisoner of

them.

Definitely she is not strong

enough actually to be a prominent

leader of this country but what is

the alternative, what is the morning

after? Suppose they succeeded to

remove her. I think Britain needs

stability in this time in

particular. Going to China, I think

it was a very realistic move. You

have to prepare for after Brexit. I

know many people criticised her

because she did not talk about human

rights. You cannot actually go and

look for deals with the second

strongest economy in the world and

then the lecture them about human

rights or interfere in their

internal affairs. I think she was a

pragmatist. I think she is trying.

Maybe people say she is a dead body

or something like that, but I think

the alternative would be completely

obscure.

Interesting point about the

choice of going to China. We heard

the former minister under David

Cameron, her predecessor, said it

was good that she was going to China

because too many revisionist as well

seeing -- were saying we will have

deals with New Zealand and countries

like that. China is enormous.

It was

a modestly successful trip. She was

seen to be out there... I think the

issue overshadowing the trip was

this debate about is Britain in a

customs union or not or doesn't have

a bespoke customs union? The

international trade Secretary said

it wouldn't work to have the UK in a

customs union with the EU because it

would restrict written's ability to

negotiate trade deals with countries

like China. This nagging question

that face Theresa May, that she has

refused to be clear on, what is the

sort of end state and what does

Britain look like post-Brexit, it

continues to dog her everywhere she

goes. The reason why she hasn't been

clear is because she's balancing

between Brexiteers and supporters of

soft Brexit, within her Cabinet and

her own party.

Other signs that

perhaps some of the European

countries are beginning to recognise

the dilemma that she and the British

government face? Perhaps there is a

desire that they're going to soften

things a bit. Is any of that going

to happen when Michel Barnier

alive... Arrives in London?

I think

he has been one of the main

supporters of this kind of soft

approach. Countries are starting to

realise that Brexit will happen.

Yes, there was unity, everyone was

saying no cherry picking, no cake

eating, but now countries like Italy

should be the first to open the way

to say, listen, this is going to

happen so why don't we start being

more pragmatic and realistic.

Because the EU could lose bit as

well as Britain.

Yes, countries with

a strong economic bond with the UK

are starting to prepare the ground

to say what if we actually will be

allowed to have our own bespoke deal

with the UK? There are dangers in

this because the moment when

everyone starts having a bespoke

deal with the UK is the moment the

EU collapses, and the single market

cannot allow that. But there is a

real sense that there is more

pragmatism, a favour for more

bespoke deals.

I think it is right

that European countries are changing

their view but I don't think that is

the message Michel Barnier will turn

up with. I think he will be more

hardline.

We will no doubt be

returning to this subject.

The State of the Union Address

brings the separation of powers

on which US democracy is based

to life in one place.

Senators, members of the House

of Representatives, and the justices

of the Supreme Court gather to hear

the President of the United States

take the temperature of the nation

and deliver his manifesto

for the 12 months ahead.

Donald Trump, who in so many

other ways is re-defining

what presidential means,

maintained the tradition

and stuck to the script.

That was Tuesday.

On Friday, it was back

to the bear pit of US politics,

as President Trump authorised

release of information alleging

the FBI had misled a judge whilst

carrying out surveillance

of his presidential

election campaign.

What is the state of

the presidency right now?

Yes, we have the full view of

American cable news. It reflects the

deep divisions across the country

and in Washington which is now

consumed with news of this memo that

Trump has authorised to be

declassified, written by Republicans

on the house intelligence committee,

accusing the FBI and the Justice

department of misleading a federal

judge in their application to spy on

Carter Page, a former Trump campaign

operative. The FBI director and

justice department officials fought

against the release of this memo,

saying that the memo cherry picked

information and presented a skewed

picture of how they went about

getting permission to carry out

surveillance on Carter Page. I think

the issue here is you now have this

unprecedented situation where the

White House is basically at war with

its own justice department and its

hand-picked FBI director. Trump

picked Christopher Ray, the FBI

director, he picked Jeff Sessions

and Rod Rosenstein.

And they'll came

in after the election so they can't

be blamed.

We haven't seen a split

like this since the Nixon era,

Watergate, really. And so people are

saying it is trying to undermine the

FBI and the Russian investigation,

whether Trump's campaign colluded

with Russia. The Republicans are

saying it shows that there FBI is

politicised and cannot be trusted.

It is remarkable that you have the

Republican Party, the party of law

and order, attacking the

intelligence agencies and feeding

into this conspiracy theory. The

memo doesn't show that the FBI

cannot respond without revealing

sources and methods. They can't say

they didn't just rely on this

dossier written by a former British

spy, which had been paid for by the

Democratic party. Because they would

reveal sources and methods. The FBI

got intelligence from British and

Dutch intelligence agencies and that

started the FBI investigation into

Russia. And as a result of another

Trump campaign operative George

Papadopoulos. Carter Page had been

under the FBI's watch three years.

-- four years -- for a number of

years. I think it is disheartening.

The Democrats want to release their

own memo in response. When I read

this memo I asked is that it? It is

three and a half pages. I later read

that James Qaumi thought the same

thing. It is pretty thin stuff. --

James McAvoy one.

It

cut the president could change the

narrative.

Nothing about this is

good for him. There is less in this

particular memo then you might

think. He needs to get the focus

onto the economy, wages, jobs. It is

interesting that at first he was

quick presidential at the state of

the union address. We had about 48

hours and then all of this descends.

This is the normality for the Trump

presidency. The constant fighting.

The Republicans are broadly taken

his side on this. So it is not going

to split them away from them coming

up to them at the elections, they

are not come to try to distance

themselves from this very unusual

president. And so there is all that.

There is nothing about Trump and

Russia that is good for Trump.

It is

midterm elections in the US.

Everything must be seen through the

prism of the party battle.

15 years ago, as the drum beat

of war beat louder ahead

of the US-led invasion of Iraq,

the then US President

and British Prime Minister hoped it

would be a catalyst for change

in the Middle East, that their model

of democracy was what ordinary

people were hungering for.

Seven years ago came

the Arab Spring, a wave

of protests that dislodged some

of the long-standing dictators,

including those who seemed

to still be wearing uniforms

under their civilian suits.

Are the military men

stealthily returning to power,

or did they never go away?

The Middle East is a huge mess

nowadays. The people now are really

starving. The problem is when the

people seven years ago went into the

streets they were looking for

democracy, human rights, equality,

fighting corruption. Now the Middle

East is completely different. If you

look at Egypt, a major country in

the Middle East, now it is ruled by

a dictator, a military dictator.

Until the closing hours of the

election, one hour before that, he

managed to find an opponent for the

elections.

Making the point that for

democracy elections are necessary

but not sufficient in themselves.

He

is looking for a scarecrow. The

reaction among the people is very

muted. You cannot see a very

aggressive reaction. Why? 40% of the

people in the Middle East are under

the poverty line. Less than $2 per

day. People are looking for food.

Seven years ago we witnessed an Arab

Spring for democracy. Now we are

actually on the edge of a hunger

spring. People will revolt for food.

The entire area, everything seems to

be going really badly wrong. There

are a number of interlocked and

interconnected crises which are

going to degenerate in the years to

come. That is why it is very very

urgent in my view, and it is a

subject of a film I have spent some

time on for the past two years, to

pay more attention to the global

strategy of the EU, because what we

need to do is stop looking country

by country and try to have a

strategy for the region. What has

happened in Tunisia has been

interesting. There has been massive

investment in civil society and

especially in women. People spoke of

Tunisia as the one bright spot in

the Arab Spring. There is not the

same kind of strategy for the rest

of the region. So we see the

multiple collision of sectarian

violence.

To Lizzie was a successful

example but what can you do if your

neighbour is Libya for example? A

failed state and a lot of militias

fighting each other. And when you

have a million unemployed people,

Libya used to absorb 50% of them,

now half of weddings are outside

their country looking for jobs. --

half of Libyans.

The European Union

has proposed strategies but

countries are competing with each

other, having diverging economic

interests and so you could

perpetrate chaos like in Libya.

It

is not like the region has been

without European and American

attention for years. It might not

thank us for that attention. You

have the economic unravelling you

have described, which with all the

consequences of hunger and migration

and all these things. And you have a

lot of sectarian conflict, one group

against another, which demonstrates

how hard it is to stop the winner

taking it all.

The economy needs

stability. If you have at least five

failed states in the Middle East, a

war in Yemen, Libya, Syria, how can

you have proper economic growth and

find jobs for people? This is the

dilemma. And so they need to promote

peace before economy or anything

else. You need the infrastructure

for the economy to be established.

If you compare Egypt and to Lizzie,

you can compare the Western response

to both countries. Tunisia has

embraced democracy and elections

more forcefully. It struggled much

more economically. It has been

supported by the IMF. But the

conditions imposed by the IMF on the

loans have resulted in austerity

which has resulted in widespread

drug test and violence. The Western

-- widespread protests. The Western

response is different in Egypt. I

don't think Obama was effective in

his strategy at Trump is perhaps

making it worse. Abandoning US

policy towards promoting human

rights. The Egyptian leader has used

the war on terror for as excuse for

his crackdown. And you have Western

leaders either saying nothing in the

face of this, or present Trump

calling him a fantastic guy.

What

about other countries like Lebanon

and Iraq, which are democracies and

arguably have a stronger democracy?

We have to make crucial elections,

one in Iraq and one in Lebanon. The

backbone of this thing is

sectarianism. These societies are

divided. Civil society is actually

deteriorating. A positive note about

Tunisia, as I am the only man at

this panel, I would like to say that

the woman into his ear actually

played a major role to keep civil

society. I met the president of to

Lizzie and he told me that he is

here because of women. -- the

president of Tunisia.

He got a rough

ride a few days ago because of the

levels of poverty you were talking

about. You were plugged into the

foreign policy thinking in the early

part of the century with Blair and

Bush. They were convinced that if

people were given the Western model

of democracy they would jump at it.

Is it possible there are parts of

the world where people feel more

confident in strong leaders however

unattractive they become?

It depends

what state they are in. If their

country is in turmoil, a failed

state, no food, maybe they might say

that. I haven't come across many

places in the world where people

wouldn't want democracy if it was

going to lead to a better life. You

take Iraq. This seems to be the

mistake that Tony Blair and George

Bush made. With a lot of the

American foreign policy behind them,

they thought that bringing democracy

in Iraq would be fine, it would look

something like American democracy,

and what he got was a winner takes

all. You got the Shia majority who

had been suppressed under Saddam

Hussein suddenly finding they are in

the majority, running the

government, and they then clamped

down on the Sunni minority.

What

about the model in Lebanon were you

say sectarianism is here and it is

real but they force power-sharing

with all elements represented.

If

you can, it is great. But it is so

hard to get stable power-sharing.

Look at Northern Ireland, which

doesn't at the moment have a

government. If you cannot, it you

have to say the thrust of the policy

in the last few decades is to

separate people who can't stand each

other.

That would be rewriting the

map.

Sectarianism is the most

dangerous concept in our part of the

world. It is how Islamic State,

Isis, emerged, because of Sikh

Tyrian Iraq. -- sectarian Iraq. We

have to give stronger roles to the

woman, to Lizzie and success can

apply to other places. -- Tunisian

success.

In Libya there has been a

very positive outcome in investing

in local administrations in civil

society. You are right in saying

that we shouldn't find that good

idea of redrawing borders. You

should remember that those borders

were drawn very artificially at the

end of the Second World War.

And

some of the other countries in the

Middle East at the end of the First

World War.

Local administrations,

civil society, these are things that

need to be invested and much much

more.

It is hard from what you were

saying that now, whatever lessons

the could have taken from the

neo-con area in Washington, they

have to roll up their sleeves.

Trump

hasn't even appointed a permanent

Undersecretary of State for human

rights. There is just an acting

woman in place there now. His

message has been consistently that

his main concern is security and not

democracy or human rights. What

message does that send and how does

it encourage leaders to act? You can

say it is not like he is giving

blanket permission in Egypt for a

crackdown, but those messages do

count. They realise that if there is

no application for the actions they

take, they feel a licence to go

ahead.

The problem is that American

policy is a huge shambles. Trump's

speech, he said, we will destabilise

Iran. We are going to keep our

forces in that part of the world, we

are going to stick to moving our

embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He

is upsetting most of the people. How

can you have a stable Middle East

while the biggest and strongest

power has no human policy?

Thank you

all very much and thank you for

being with us.

Please do join us again next week,

same time, same place.

But for now thanks for

watching, and goodbye.