07/04/2017 Newsnight

The US takes a stand against chemical weapons...

And the American president adopts a different tone.

God bless America and the entire world.

Sounds like a man engaging with the rest of us.

Wasn't he meant to be the America-First president, the one

willing to do deals with Russia and Assad?

The Syrian government thinks America was duped.

I think they fall to the trick, and they have changed

unnecessarily what they thought about Syria.

We'll ask what this means for Syria, the US and the

And, while the world was reacting to that, a reminder of

fraught times - another truck atrocity, this time in the Swedish

I could actually see bodies lying on the street, and

I could see the police covering a body with an orange blanket.

Over three days, a huge shift in US policy to Syria.

A new engagement with the world and, it seems, a fresh approach

to foreign policy that sees America willing to bomb again.

On one account, Trump means business, is willing to act

fast and decisively, and is telling not just

Syria, but Russia, Iran and North Korea to watch out.

On this account, what Trump has done has exposed

the vacillation of President Obama, and despots of the world will now

In the UN Security Council, Nikki Haly, the US

When the international community consistently fails in its duty

to act collectively, there are times when states are

The indiscriminate use of chemical weapons against innocent civilians

The United States will not stand by when chemical weapons are used.

It is in our vital national security interests to prevent the spread

Too soon to call it a Trump doctrine, but there's no doubt,

the launch of 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles in the early hours

of our morning suddenly made the world feel like a more familiar

The US took a forceful stance, Russia and Iran

France and Germany supported it too, as did Israel.

Or was this a Trump just being capricious and inconsistent?

Let's start by talking to the BBC's Middle East editor, Jeremy Bowen.

We should start on Syria, Jeremy. How has this changed the course of

the Serbian war? We don't know if it does yet. It depends if it is a

one-off or it is part of a thought out US strategy, a new strategy, one

that has a clear idea of what victory looks like, a clear idea of

how they get there. That might change things. More attacks might

change things as well, if the Americans choose to use more force.

Actually changing the course of this terrible conflict, I think, will

take more than simply one attack. Let's talk about Syria. We will hear

from the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister shortly. What has been

going on there? It would obviously be very bad for America if it

emerged that they had been duped and it wasn't the Syrians who have

released sarin gas. What would be the theories as to why Syria might

be engaging in chemical warfare this week? The regime absolutely denies

they had anything to do with it, or ever had anything to do with

chemical weapons. That's the first thing. There's one school of thought

that says Assad would have been insane to use chemical weapons at

this point. With his Russian friends, he has scored important

victories, turned the tide of war in his favour, with Aleppo falling at

the end of last year, a lot of bombing going on in Idlib province,

a rebel holdout, in the last couple of months, and particularly in the

last few weeks by the Russians, so why would he do it? Why would he

want to get Trump, who was talking about him as part of the solution to

Islamic State, and then bombing him? That is one thing. Another school of

thought is that Assad and his people knew all of that but they got away

with using chemical weapons in 2013. I say here that they deny they get.

They got away with it in 2013, really wanted to show all those who

oppose them that they would grind them into the dirt and so, as well

as conventional weapons, they thought, what the hell, we have

chemical weapons left over, we'll use them too. Will speak to the

Deputy Foreign Minister shortly. It does seem like a hugely

different Donald Trump to the one that was against bombing

of Syria back in 2013, and who campaigned against US

involvement in foreign wars. Many thought he could end up taking

the US into isolation and yielding much of the world

to the influence of President Putin. David Grossman considers how

significant a shift it is. The eagle in the presidential seal

carries both an olive branch and a clutch of arrows, the power to make

peace or wage war. Before being elected, Donald Trump repeatedly

warned America's real enemy was not the Assad Government but Islamist

terrorism. I don't like Assad at all, but he is carrying the Luke

killing Isis. -- but he is killing ices. He said very bad things would

happen if America got involved. That view has clearly changed. Tonight, I

ordered targeted military strikes on the airfield from which the chemical

attack was launched. Trump has consistently emphasised that the

priority in Syria should be fighting ices and even imply that one point

during the campaign that Assad could be a partner in fighting ices. He

said that Russia and Assad are fighting ices, so shouldn't we as

well? -- fighting IS. The world is now trying to work out what our

Trump 's ambitions and triggers in the region and a purpose for

American involvement. The problems in this attack is limited to the

specific objective of punishing and deterring Assad from using chemical

weapons in the future. I think it will be effective for that limited

objective. But of course, it doesn't deal with the more fundamental

problem that the Assad Government is committing war crimes every day.

TRANSLATION: This is what the damage on the ground look like, according

to Russian television. TRANSLATION: This is an act of aggression does

that reminds me of 2003 when the US and Britain invaded Iraq without the

agreement of the UN Security Council, a major violation of

international law. This of the photograph the White House released

the president and his team the moment after the missiles it. There

are obvious echoes with his predecessor and his advisers

overseeing the operation to kill Osama bin London. President Trump's

controversial chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is literally taking a

back-seat. Hopefully Trump is starting to listen to people around

him. Steve Bannon has been removed, and many were concerned about him.

He has been removed from the National Security Council. I don't

expect that everything Trump does in foreign policy will be a dumpster

fire. I do think we are seeing a process of some normalisation of the

administration is the people around him start getting their foot in.

Last night's air strike has rather overshadowed another apparent

foreign policy refinement from the Trump administrations an his

attitude towards China. It is a tremendous honour for me and my

representatives... Today, he was posting president Xi Jin Ping. He

once described China as an enemy that was raping the American

economy. Yellow Mikey has backed away from most of the controversial

things he said before taking office, questioning the value of Nato, and

US allies, questioning the US one China policy. -- he has backed away.

He has proved to be much more moderate than candidate Trump. It

reflects the responsibilities of office, in part, and that most of

his foreign policy team are very mainstream. In any presidency, there

are always two processes going on in parallel. The man shakes the offers,

and the office shapes the man. Let's get the Syrian

point of view now. Just for context, it's worth noting

that quite apart from the sarin gas attack this week,

and the ones in 2013, there have been chlorine gas attacks

on more frequent occasions. Last year, the Organisation

for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,

the OPCW, jointly with the UN, did find that the Syrian government

was responsible for at least three of those, while there

was insufficient evidence That may or may not be relevant

to the assessment that the Syrian government was responsible

for the latest sarin attack. Well, a little earlier

I spoke to Faisal Mekdad, I asked him what he thought had

happened in Idlib this week. What happened is that a fabricated

incident of the use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun was made,

and at the end of the game, the United States has come

at the request of terrorist groups in Syria and bombarded

a very important airport from which our planes go and attack

Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra What happened to ignite sarin gas

in Khan Sheikhoun this week? I think the terrorist groups have

hidden these materials, and we have reported this

to the United Nations Security Council, and to the Organisation

on the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, some time ago,

and told them the terrorists groups, including Daesh and Jabhat al-Nusra,

are bringing in chemical materials from Turkey and Iraq in order to use

them in the war against Syria. The real story has not been yet

confirmed because the whole area is under the control

of a terrorist group. Is it your contention, Mr Mekdad,

that the Syrian government has not used sarin gas or chlorine gas

at any point in the In my capacity, as the chairman

of the Syrian National Committee, on the implementation

of our responsibility towards the OPC, the Organisation

on Chemical Weapons, we have shipped all the materials

on British, on French, on Finnish, on American ships, and we send them

to be burned in those We have no whatsoever

any chemical weapons, and the Syrian army has not

and will never use them If we have to say what are the gains

of the Syrian government between using traditional weapons,

or using these chemicals, the traditional weapons

would kill more terrorists So the Syrian army has no interest,

no gains as, I mean, for the use Why has the Organisation

for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in its joint

investigative mechanism with the United Nations found

that the Syrian government was responsible for chlorine attacks

on various occasions, I read the report very carefully,

and they said that they were not able to go to those areas

because they are under the control of terrorist groups,

and they said that there is a possibility that the Syrian

Government may have used chlorine in these attacks,

but there was no confirmation whatsoever of these incidents

in the report given to the Security Mr Mekdad, can you understand why

most of the world simply doesn't believe a word

that the Syrian government says? We have seen the indiscriminate

behaviour in terms of attacking civilians that has been exhibited

in eastern Aleppo, just to take one example, and simply,

your government doesn't have a reputation that

anyone will stand by, and when you say that you're not

behind chlorine gas attacks that other people say you are,

or this latest attack this week. When we were liberating eastern

Aleppo from the terrorist groups, the entire international community

was mobilised against Syria. Recently, in attacks carried out

by the same terrorist groups who occupied eastern Aleppo

against Damascus, the capital of Syria, not a single

incident was reported. During these attacks,

many Syrian civilians, including children and women

in the capital of Syria were killed as well,

but the international community is standing with us strong,

with the mobilisation of the international media,

against the Syrian Government, with the support of certain

governments like those What is your reaction going to be,

to the American attack last night? This is an aggression

against a sovereign country. acting within the charter,

and the role of the Security Council to stop such attacks

against sovereign country. Only a week ago, the position

of the American Government, the Trump administration,

well, it was that Assad is a matter for the Syrian people,

not for the American Government, and effectively this week has seen

a huge change in the approach This attack was fabricated,

fabricated to change the position of the United States,

of the Trump administration, against Syria, and I think

the administration in Washington and other countries were subject

to a misleading information that came to them, or have created such

a thing to change these policies. The Americans are just a victim

here, they have just been a bit dim and fallen for a trick against them,

it's not that they have the best intelligence services

and the biggest security administration in the world,

it's just they are suckers, basically, they've fallen

for a trick. I think they have fall to the trick,

and they have changed unnecessarily In fact, their statements two weeks'

ago or ten days ago contradict with what they have done today

morning, in attacking Syrians and killing innocent children

and women around Shayrat airport. Do you ever stand back and think

there are a lot of people in Syria Your country has fallen

apart under him. It's in the grip of

a horrendous Civil War. Do you ever think, would it not just

be helpful if this guy stood out of the way or said he was willing

to stand out of the way if there was a peace process, do

you never look at what is happening to Syria, and think "My goodness,

we need to do something here, rather than just stand and fight

and bomb our own people"? After the election of

President Trump, and even in the UK, in France,

people, I mean a lot of people hate his election,

a lot of people hate President A lot of people hate Prime Minister,

the Prime Minister in the UK, but they have never resorted

to the use of weapons to express themselves

as what happened in Syria. In Syria we have a lot of people

who support policies His role in combatting terrorism,

his role in bringing peace back into Syria,

so President Assad was elected, He was not elected in the same way

as the British Government No, what you are saying

is ridiculous because you admit elections in the UK,

but you don't elect, Tens of thousands of people have

gone to the embassy of Syria, in Lebanon to elect

President Bashar al-Assad. He is more legitimate than many

of the European leaders you have, but these are not the questions

to be asked. Faisal Mekdad, thank

you for giving us your time. Between 2013 and 2015,

he was special adviser Good evening to you. Do you welcome

what President Trump did last night. Within limit, I think it is the

right thing to do, to respond and make clear that the United States is

not going to allow the regime to use chemical weapons, and I think

failing to act in some way, would send a message to Assad who was

clearly testing President Trump, go right ahead, use chemical weapons as

much as you like, so I think there was a case for it and I am glad we

did it, but I am also concerned about the consequences and the risk

of slippery slope and this administration is going to have to

be really disciplined in ensure that this doesn't lead us into conflict

in Syria, and discipline is not exactly been the hallmark of this

administration. A lot of people say this is a huge shift, in the course

of a week, from saying Assad is sort of Syria's problem, to getting

pulled in as it is. Do you see this as a major shift, a strategic

change, or do you see this as a rush of blood to the head in a one off?

Well, it is definitely a head spinning change, I mean, I don't

think it's a change in the overall strategy but just? Terms of the

contrast with Donald Trump's position on this issue, for six

year, it is indeed 180 degrees, he has all along from the start of the

conflict been opposed to American intervention, he said Obama's red

line was dumb to have issued and was against enfor forcing it at the

time. You can't just say that well, it all changed because there was a

chemical weapon attack, the chemical weapon attack in 2013 was with the

same sort of substance and it killed about 15 times as many people. So in

that case he was against it, now suddenly this week, he is for it,

only days after administration representatives had signalled they

were OK with Assad staying in power. So in that sense... Are you feeling

more positive, sorry to interrupt, are you feeling more positive about

President Trump. He has done what I suspect President Obama wishes he

has done, back if 2013, hasn't he? Well, I don't know if President

Obama wishes he has done that, he is on the record recently as saying he

thought it came out better than it would have had, and the logic there

is, that is my caution about feeling so good about what happened now,

nobody, we are 12 hours or whatever after the strikes, critics or people

who are concerned about where it leads never thought that the bad

things would happen in 12 hours and President Obama didn't think that

then, the concern is that you feel good about an initial set of

strikes, but then down the road, you know, the others get a vote to. What

does Assad do now and what does Putin do now? I am concerned, even

though I think it was the right thing for the United States to

respond, there will be a reaction from the other side, and I think it

won't be long before Assad is challenging Trump again, maybe not

with chemical weapons but possibly bombing the same parts of Idlib with

barrel bombs and other munitions and killing lots of people and saying,

sorry, you really haven't changed the course of war.

And that will give a dilemma. Do you think the foreign policy is

normalising, under Donald Trump? I wonder whether that is because there

is something of a kind of, not a battle, but there are different

advisers telling him different things and he seems to be leaning

towards, if you like, the more conventional foreign policy add

video -- adviser, is that is what is going on. That is what is going on.

If you set aside the must irand the tweets and the dust that gets kicked

up by what this President sometimes says when you look at major policy

on major strategic issues they are coming out in a fairly convention

Way, the style is far from conventional, you have to

acknowledge that, in contrast to campaign positions, he said he would

dismantle the Iran nuclear deal. It turns out he doesn't want do that.

He questioned a China policy as the transition and he is meeting with

the President of China and sticking with the one China policy, he said

he would move the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, then decided it wasn't

such a great idea. He questioned Nato's utility and sent his Vice

President to Nato to say good things about it. You have gone from quite

radical unconventional challenging positions, to much more mainstream

and then as you say the personnel is becoming more mainstream as well.

General Flynn was a radical, he lasted 24 days. He has been replaced

by a much more conventional national security adviser, the Secretary of

Defence, Secretary of State. It is moving in a much more traditional

direction. We still have a President who is impulsive and as we saw

yesterday can change on the dime as if his previous positions had no

meaning whatsoever. Thank you very much indeed.

And again, it was a vehicle that was used as a weapon to cause death.

It really seems that this has become the default method for those

In this case, a beer truck was used, which had been hijacked

There was panic in the streets of Stockholm today, as shoppers

in the centre of the city ran from a suspected terror attack.

A lorry smashed into a department store, before bursting into flames.

The Swedish Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven spoke this evening,

to express the nation's shock and anger.

Thoughts, concerns and condolences have reached many of us

And we are grateful for the many warm expressions

We are determined never to let the values that we treasure,

democracy, human rights, and freedom to be

It's been a little confusing this evening, with the suggestion

that the police had picked up a suspect, but followed up

by a claim that they were still looking for the killer.

BBC correspondent Dan Johnson is in Stockholm, and just

before we came on air, he brought us up to date

Well there is a strange atmosphere here tonight. Swedes are

contemplating what happened here earlier and what it may mean for the

future, now, the Prime Minister was clear that he said this had all the

hallmarks of an acts of terrorism, but at the moment we have had

nothing more officially about who may have been involved in this, or

what their motivation may have been. We know the police are questioning

one man and they are urgently seeking another. They have put

images out tonight of somebody they want to talk to, and we know there

are extra police on the streets of this city, and across Sweden, and

there are extra border checks in place too. Now, there are

potentially big questions raised by what has happened here today. It is

a huge challenge for security services, here and everywhere

really. How to keep people safe when they are walking through a city like

this, if someone is prepared to kill, using an every day object,

like a delivery truck, that is what was driven through a bed ran niced

street today at shopper who had to run to save their live, we know that

four people died and 15 are being treated this evening, nine of them

seriously ilk and there will be questions in the future about

exactly what was behind this attack and that will raise issues perhaps

about what extra security measures need to be put in place. Sweden has

a proud history of being an open society, that embraces all, but we

will have to wait for more detail on exactly what could have been behind

this attack before we know the true impact it will have.

Just before coming on air, I spoke to Peter Wolodarski,

broadcaster and editor of Dagens Nyheter, a liberal-leaning

I asked him what the mood was in Sweden tonight.

Tonight people, I think, feel a sense of they want

We also saw that in the afternoon, an outpouring of support to each

other, with transportation, with letting in people

That was also part of the reaction today.

I mean, we have seen events of this kind,

I mean, very close to this, in Berlin, in Paris,

Clearly it looks like a terror incident, and it bears resemblance

to what we've seen in other places in Europe.

We can talk about it before it happens, but when it happens,

it's very dramatic, and you can never be fully prepared for that.

But do you think this will contribute to a sense

of uncertainty about the direction that Sweden is taking?

I think it's too early to draw a conclusion like that.

It will definitely affect our political discourse.

If it affects our way of life, I'm not that sure.

We actually, we had a terror incident in 2010, a suicide bomber

No-one was killed at that time except the suicide bomber,

so it was not the first time that terror strikes in Stockholm.

We know that Donald Trump made some comment about Sweden

and the difficulties it was having, and there was a certain sensitive

I mean, everybody in Sweden noted that he said Sweden was this problem

country that had let too many migrants in.

I just wonder whether those words will be echoing to some extent

around Sweden this evening and people will feel

frustrated to some extent that the President said that.

From some corners in society we will definitely hear that.

What Donald Trump did was to spread false information

about what was happening in Sweden, the day before he was talking.

But we'll see who is behind this, if there is any link to immigration,

or to refugees, or the situation in Syria, who takes responsibility

I think it is too early tonight to draw conclusions

about what we can - who is really behind this.

Does it matter who it is, that is the perpetrator?

We had acts of terror from the right-wing in Sweden as well.

It was not that widely reported throughout the world but we have

Jihadism is a serious problem in Europe, and Sweden

Let's wait and see what this really is.

The perpetrator or the perpetrators might still be at large,

Peter Wolodarski, Thank you very much.

Lovely weekend in store for many of us.

It'll start off a bit chilly on Saturday morning,

but it will warm up very quickly in the sunshine, and as you can see,