0:00:09 > 0:00:13This is being treated as a major incident involving attempted murder
0:00:13 > 0:00:15by administration of a nerve agent.
0:00:15 > 0:00:17Confirmation that a chemical weapon has been used
0:00:17 > 0:00:19on the streets of Wiltshire.
0:00:19 > 0:00:21Not just a spy and his daughter suffering the effects -
0:00:21 > 0:00:27a police officer is also in a serious condition.
0:00:27 > 0:00:29The stakes have been raised again diplomatically today,
0:00:29 > 0:00:31not least because the use of a nerve agent suggests
0:00:31 > 0:00:34a sophisticated attack.
0:00:34 > 0:00:36And easy as it is to speculate on Russian involvement,
0:00:36 > 0:00:44what does that actually mean?
0:00:44 > 0:00:48An underworld connection may not preclude the involvement of people
0:00:48 > 0:00:52with influence in the Kremlin. And rival factions inside the Kremlin
0:00:52 > 0:00:57operating without direct orders might still be doing so with the
0:00:57 > 0:01:05knowledge of those at the very top. Also tonight...Trade wars aren't so
0:01:05 > 0:01:10bad. Do you understand?The truth is quite the opposite. Trade wars are
0:01:10 > 0:01:15bad and easy to lose.So we will see what happens.
0:01:15 > 0:01:17Trump threatens a new world war - a trade war.
0:01:17 > 0:01:19And the EU don't like it.
0:01:19 > 0:01:21Is this likely to be a significant retreat
0:01:21 > 0:01:28from the globalised world order?
0:01:29 > 0:01:33Word is the age of identity politics leave people of mixed race?
0:01:33 > 0:01:34I am black but I am also white.
0:01:34 > 0:01:37And just because I have one parent that's black and one
0:01:37 > 0:01:39parent that's white, doesn't mean that for me I have
0:01:39 > 0:01:42to pick.
0:01:42 > 0:01:49And a love letter to NME as its printing presses stop.
0:01:49 > 0:01:53You've filtered people into those that read the NME, those that read
0:01:53 > 0:01:57Melody maker and those that didn't read either. People you didn't need
0:01:57 > 0:02:03to waste your time with.
0:02:03 > 0:02:04Hello.
0:02:04 > 0:02:08So we now know, it was a nerve agent that was administered
0:02:08 > 0:02:11to Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
0:02:11 > 0:02:13The case is obviously being treated as attempted murder,
0:02:13 > 0:02:14but also as a major incident.
0:02:14 > 0:02:18A nerve agent, a chemical weapon, used on our streets.
0:02:18 > 0:02:21There's the threat to public health there could have been.
0:02:21 > 0:02:24That's thankfully considered low risk now,
0:02:24 > 0:02:28but also a police officer is seriously ill with the effects.
0:02:28 > 0:02:32Now these chemicals are hard to manufacture.
0:02:32 > 0:02:33They are not remotely something any ordinary
0:02:33 > 0:02:35criminal could muster.
0:02:35 > 0:02:37And that makes it more likely that a state entity was involved.
0:02:37 > 0:02:41It was a nerve agent used to kill Kim Jong Un's half-brother last year
0:02:41 > 0:02:45at the airport in Kuala Lumpur.
0:02:45 > 0:02:49The Americans attribute that murder to North Korea for example.
0:02:49 > 0:02:53Mark Urban is with me.
0:02:53 > 0:02:59Take us through what we learned today?The key thing is this
0:02:59 > 0:03:03determination that it was some kind of nerve agent. I'm told they still
0:03:03 > 0:03:09don't know what the nature of this poison is, but we can come back
0:03:09 > 0:03:15through that in a moment. -- to that. The other key fact was the
0:03:15 > 0:03:19officer being seriously ill. This hardens the sense that you are
0:03:19 > 0:03:23either extremely well organised people or a state. It being a police
0:03:23 > 0:03:29officer who is now also among the victims of this raises the game
0:03:29 > 0:03:34diplomatically.Everybody has heard the phrase nerve agent but no -- but
0:03:34 > 0:03:36most of us don't really know quite what that is and what the
0:03:36 > 0:03:46imprecations are?We have to think outside the box. The obvious ones,
0:03:46 > 0:03:51sarin etc, would have been tested already. The chemical agent
0:03:51 > 0:03:54detectors and other monitors that would have been applied at the scene
0:03:54 > 0:03:59and to the victims, they have come to the determination it is not one
0:03:59 > 0:04:04of those. They are typically betide that work by interrupting the nerve
0:04:04 > 0:04:09connections in the body and breaking them down. It is not a
0:04:09 > 0:04:14straightforward one that the military kits would easily find. So
0:04:14 > 0:04:18what is it? They don't know yet. It is something more exotic. It could
0:04:18 > 0:04:24be a specially developed type of poison specifically for
0:04:24 > 0:04:28assassination. It could be something even like a synthetic form of snake
0:04:28 > 0:04:34venom or shellfish toxin which is a naturally occurring thing which can
0:04:34 > 0:04:38interrupt how the nervous system works, but could be synthesised as
0:04:38 > 0:04:44an assassination weapon.What happens now?Well, self-evidently
0:04:44 > 0:04:47the key thing is whether or not these people survive, whether they
0:04:47 > 0:04:54can determine how to treat them. The EU usual stuff, -- the usual stuff,
0:04:54 > 0:05:01chemical substances which are used when somebody has organophosphates,
0:05:01 > 0:05:04as presumably already been tried. That would've been the immediate
0:05:04 > 0:05:12reaction. Can they be saved? Clearly a lot could be learned if they could
0:05:12 > 0:05:16be. Attention also focusing on who was around them in the minutes and
0:05:16 > 0:05:20hours before they fell ill.We were talking earlier. We have had a rice
0:05:20 > 0:05:29in attack in this country. That was back in the 70s. We have had a
0:05:29 > 0:05:32polonium attack. Hard to think of a chemical attack, in nerve agent,
0:05:32 > 0:05:39being used on British soil.It is. Although I will backtrack to the
0:05:39 > 0:05:43previous answer and say that because this might be some unknown,
0:05:43 > 0:05:47extremely exotic form of poison for assassination, self-evidently then
0:05:47 > 0:05:51it would be an unprecedented use of that type of agent.
0:05:51 > 0:05:52Mark, thank you.
0:05:52 > 0:05:54Now it's all too easy to jump to some obvious conclusions
0:05:54 > 0:05:55about who's behind this.
0:05:55 > 0:05:57And no doubt most of us are thinking Russia.
0:05:57 > 0:06:00But there is some nuance here - Russia is not one single agency,
0:06:00 > 0:06:02nor is it synonymous with Vladamir Putin.
0:06:02 > 0:06:04Gabriel Gatehouse knows the country well, and reflects now
0:06:04 > 0:06:12on the complexity within.
0:06:14 > 0:06:20When enemies of the Kremlin are poisoned in Britain...Members will
0:06:20 > 0:06:26have their suspicions.The finger of blame is quick to point...Have
0:06:26 > 0:06:34their suspicions.To Moscow, and with good reason.
0:06:35 > 0:06:38with good reason. Mark Gough was poisoned your own Waterloo Bridge in
0:06:38 > 0:06:431978 by a panel of -- pellet fired from a specially constructed
0:06:43 > 0:06:48umbrella. The KGB organised the assassination. That is the same
0:06:48 > 0:06:51organisation that nurtured and trained the man who is now president
0:06:51 > 0:06:58of Russia. Clearly, the practice of killing its enemies abroad has
0:06:58 > 0:07:04survived the collapse of the Soviet Union. So if today's revelation
0:07:04 > 0:07:08about the possible use of a nerve agent is correct, and there is a
0:07:08 > 0:07:11Russian connection, then who gave the order? There are three possible
0:07:11 > 0:07:22options. Option one is Putin. Under this theory nothing happens without
0:07:22 > 0:07:28his say-so. Intriguingly, in 2006 Russia adopted the law that allows
0:07:28 > 0:07:31the president and the president alone to order the killing of its
0:07:31 > 0:07:40enemies abroad.Putin has two types of enemies. One group, one faction
0:07:40 > 0:07:45is outsiders, those who challenge the system from outside. And the
0:07:45 > 0:07:51other group are those who were part of the system before. And if they
0:07:51 > 0:07:59defect, if they change sides, that is treated as treason. And they are
0:07:59 > 0:08:03treated as traitors.Surrogate script would belong to the latter
0:08:03 > 0:08:13category. -- surrogate Skibo. So did Alexander Litvinenko. The
0:08:13 > 0:08:17investigation into his death included the killing was probably
0:08:17 > 0:08:23approved by the head of the FSB and by Mr Putin himself. Option two is
0:08:23 > 0:08:27organised crime. This is essentially the Mac Mafia theory, people who
0:08:27 > 0:08:31deal in the murky world of secret information are likely to find
0:08:31 > 0:08:37themselves mixed up in dodgy business. The Mac Mafia drama
0:08:37 > 0:08:40series, in which Russian gangsters used London and Britain more
0:08:40 > 0:08:44generally to launder money and settle scores, is, according to a
0:08:44 > 0:08:53minister last month, very close to the truth. But no evidence has yet
0:08:53 > 0:08:55emerged that surrogate script was involved in such activities. And
0:08:55 > 0:09:03poison seems like an unlikely method for an underground hit. Option three
0:09:03 > 0:09:09is it is complicated. The Kremlin is not a monolith.There are different
0:09:09 > 0:09:17weaponised factions, armies, groups connected to the Russian state, to
0:09:17 > 0:09:25the power, that use this force, which used this force, to intimidate
0:09:25 > 0:09:31their own opponents.With the opposition politician and Putin
0:09:31 > 0:09:35critic Boris Nemtsov was murdered just yards from the Kremlin walls,
0:09:35 > 0:09:38many in the West assumed Putin himself must have been behind it.
0:09:38 > 0:09:46But in Russia they know things are a little murkier.The tragic story of
0:09:46 > 0:09:54Boris Nemtsov at least suggests that not every
0:09:54 > 0:10:00not every badly -- every order comes from straight broth. -- above. Putin
0:10:00 > 0:10:03was not directly involved. He even most likely didn't know about it
0:10:03 > 0:10:09until it had happened.Could Sergey Sirotkin Arles, who didn't seem to
0:10:09 > 0:10:14pose any immediate threat, have fallen victim to similar power
0:10:14 > 0:10:21games? The truth could be more complicated still. And under world
0:10:21 > 0:10:25involvement might not preclude people from the Kremlin, and rival
0:10:25 > 0:10:27factions inside the Kremlin operating without direct orders
0:10:27 > 0:10:36might still be doing so with the knowledge of those at the very top.
0:10:36 > 0:10:40Details of the type of poison used may give investigators some clues as
0:10:40 > 0:10:43to the identities of those responsible. It still won't tell us
0:10:43 > 0:10:45why or why now.
0:10:45 > 0:10:48So where does all of this leave Britain's diplomatic
0:10:48 > 0:10:49relations with Russia?
0:10:49 > 0:10:52What, if anything, could or should be done if Moscow was found
0:10:52 > 0:10:55to have been involved?
0:10:55 > 0:10:57I'm joined from New York by Alex Goldfarb.
0:10:57 > 0:10:59He's a Russian microbiologist and was a close friend
0:10:59 > 0:11:00of Alexander Litvinenenko, the Russian defector
0:11:00 > 0:11:03who was believed to have been murdered by the Russian state
0:11:03 > 0:11:09here in London in 2006.
0:11:09 > 0:11:11With me here is Sir Tony Brenton.
0:11:11 > 0:11:13He was British ambassador to Moscow at the time
0:11:13 > 0:11:21of the Litvinenko affair.
0:11:21 > 0:11:25Alex Goldfarb, let me start with you. Which theories of the different
0:11:25 > 0:11:33kinds of accounts, which would you be focusing on?
0:11:33 > 0:11:37be focusing on?I do not have any evidence. I would pick the Putin
0:11:37 > 0:11:40theory for the simple reason that he is the only one who had a motive and
0:11:40 > 0:11:46an opportunity, and has been he shown beyond any reasonable doubt to
0:11:46 > 0:11:50be involved in the previous assassination of Little Billing go,
0:11:50 > 0:11:59who was my friend. He has a motive. -- Alexander Litvinenko. Is motive
0:11:59 > 0:12:05is the elections which are coming in about ten days. There is a very low
0:12:05 > 0:12:09turnout expected. And he needs to energise his nationalistic
0:12:09 > 0:12:16anti-Western electorate. So he wants to portray himself as a tough guy
0:12:16 > 0:12:22who can get his enemies anywhere in the world, and who has been
0:12:22 > 0:12:27presenting himself as the only thing that is protecting Russia and the
0:12:27 > 0:12:32Russians from the plotting and scheming of the West.I understand
0:12:32 > 0:12:39why you are positive in that theory. Interestingly though, is this
0:12:39 > 0:12:44attempted murder playing big in Russia? Are all talking about it in
0:12:44 > 0:12:51a election way, or are they basically ignoring it?Well, it's
0:12:51 > 0:12:57bound to play high because it is being reported on national TV and on
0:12:57 > 0:13:05the Internet. And the official response that this is the West
0:13:05 > 0:13:11plotting against Putin, and that is why they killed this guy, MI5 MI6
0:13:11 > 0:13:15have killed this guy, that is what they said about Alexander Litvinenko
0:13:15 > 0:13:21as well. The other half Russians will think that it serves the
0:13:21 > 0:13:25traitor right.What are the lessons you took from the Alexander
0:13:25 > 0:13:29Litvinenko case as to how Britain should respond to something like
0:13:29 > 0:13:34this happening on its soil? If it does have two -- Turner to have a
0:13:34 > 0:13:37Russian connection, it is outrageous. Too big to ignore and
0:13:37 > 0:13:42yet it is hard to know what to do? Well, it is a strong sense of deja
0:13:42 > 0:13:49vu. For ten years the British government refused to admit that the
0:13:49 > 0:13:53Alexander Litvinenko murder was a state-sponsored crime. Up to the
0:13:53 > 0:14:01very public enquiry which happened in 2016, ten years after his death,
0:14:01 > 0:14:11they maintained this is a regular criminal matter. The moment an
0:14:11 > 0:14:14English judge ruled it was state-sponsored murder in all
0:14:14 > 0:14:20probability ordered by Putin, David Cameron went on TV and said, "We
0:14:20 > 0:14:26knew it from day one. " There were trying to keep it quiet, not to
0:14:26 > 0:14:35annoy Putin. And they invited other attacks like this. If the response
0:14:35 > 0:14:40now will be the same, only words without any actions. There will be a
0:14:40 > 0:14:45third and fourth attempt.You blame the inaction last time for
0:14:45 > 0:14:50effectively Russia thinking they can do this again?
0:14:50 > 0:14:57Of course, there is no price that Mr Putin has paid for the murder of
0:14:57 > 0:15:03Litvinenko. This time, Britain can do a lot to respond. For example, in
0:15:03 > 0:15:06my view, they should not recognise the legitimacy of the elections.
0:15:06 > 0:15:12Everybody knows that these are fake elections. The two major opponents
0:15:12 > 0:15:16of Mr Putin, one of them was killed, and another was deprived from
0:15:16 > 0:15:24running. And he is running essentially unopposed. So, everybody
0:15:24 > 0:15:28knows it's not a real election. Every observer for the past 15 years
0:15:28 > 0:15:37said that the Russian elections are not fair and honest. I don't
0:15:37 > 0:15:42understand why... Why you recognise Mr...Sorry to interrupt, but I have
0:15:42 > 0:15:47to move on. Do you yourself feel in danger? Do you think the Russians
0:15:47 > 0:15:54would try something like this on American soil?Well, ironically, I
0:15:54 > 0:16:01don't think that they would put their friend Mr Trump in such a
0:16:01 > 0:16:05precarious position, but that might be wishful thinking - who knows?
0:16:05 > 0:16:11Thank you very much. Let me turn to Sir Tony Brenton. We got the first
0:16:11 > 0:16:16idea for what we do, which is not to recognise the legitimacy of the
0:16:16 > 0:16:20Russian election.We don't recognise elections but governments. We have
0:16:20 > 0:16:23to deal with the Government that this election produces, whatever you
0:16:23 > 0:16:27feel about the quality of the election.We have all jumped on
0:16:27 > 0:16:33Russia. Russia, of course, says, you are jumping to conclusions, it's not
0:16:33 > 0:16:38fair. You've jumped to the conclusion as well.I resist the
0:16:38 > 0:16:41suggestion that I have jumped to the conclusion. I was cautious two days
0:16:41 > 0:16:48ago, but us the bag as the evidence has accumulated that this is a
0:16:48 > 0:16:51sophisticated nerve agent, it points more and more clearly to Russian
0:16:51 > 0:16:56state action. They have both motivation, the victim had already
0:16:56 > 0:17:01been accused personally by Putin of being a traitor, and they are one of
0:17:01 > 0:17:05the very few agencies in the world who deploy this sort of poison,
0:17:05 > 0:17:09actually, as a matter of routine. You were in Moscow at the time of
0:17:09 > 0:17:15the Litvinenko killing. What was going on? I mean, did you feel
0:17:15 > 0:17:21anything worked, or did you feel that kind of, oh, it's not us, how
0:17:21 > 0:17:26dare you suggest we would do such a thing?From the Russians, there was
0:17:26 > 0:17:30a... Once we made the accusation, what we got was denial, but
0:17:30 > 0:17:37following that, a whole spate of false stories - it was the British
0:17:37 > 0:17:42state, it was someone else, enough to muddy the atmosphere quite a lot.
0:17:42 > 0:17:45I would expect, if we come to make the accusation against the Russians,
0:17:45 > 0:17:49we will get exactly the same.It did take a long time. We took the right
0:17:49 > 0:17:52amount of time to do anything, because we have to go through
0:17:52 > 0:17:57process, and we don't jump to...It is not just about process. We wanted
0:17:57 > 0:18:00to be absolutely sure we had very strong evidence of Russian
0:18:00 > 0:18:06involvement.Week created the case, the CPS said they thought they knew
0:18:06 > 0:18:10who it was, try to extradite him and they wouldn't. And we impose
0:18:10 > 0:18:16sanctions. We didn't
0:18:16 > 0:18:20sanctions. We didn't really say it was a state-sponsored killing in
0:18:20 > 0:18:26London until 2016.We did not have slam dunk evidence.But you look for
0:18:26 > 0:18:30evidence.We got what we got, and we made that accusation through the
0:18:30 > 0:18:34sanctions we impose. I think the claim that we acted insufficiently
0:18:34 > 0:18:39following the Litvinenko murder is a Miss construction of what happened.
0:18:39 > 0:18:43We chose the sanctions rather carefully, with a view to
0:18:43 > 0:18:50discouraging Russia from doing anything similar again, any kind of
0:18:50 > 0:18:54work for the next 12 years. Of course, in the 12 years, the
0:18:54 > 0:18:57situation has changed dramatically between us and Russia.We have used
0:18:57 > 0:19:01up much of the armoury, so it is much harder now. Looking at it, you
0:19:01 > 0:19:05would think, it can't be Britain on its own boycotting the World Cup or
0:19:05 > 0:19:09anything like this. It's hopeless. It has got to be... The West has to
0:19:09 > 0:19:14say, this is not acceptable. Did you try that?We did at the time of
0:19:14 > 0:19:17Litvinenko. We were keen to get as much Western supporters we could
0:19:17 > 0:19:22get. The Americans were a much better state than they are now and
0:19:22 > 0:19:26were ready to be supported. Our European partners, I regret to say,
0:19:26 > 0:19:30couldn't be seen for dust. They weren't going to have a row with
0:19:30 > 0:19:34Russia about what they saw as a purely British concern.Seriously?
0:19:34 > 0:19:39They did not see this as an attack on an international statement?They
0:19:39 > 0:19:43made statements. We were playing with the idea of excluding the
0:19:43 > 0:19:46Russians from the G8, which happened subsequently, and the Germans were
0:19:46 > 0:19:50entirely negative.What does this tell us about how to deal with thugs
0:19:50 > 0:19:54and bullies that parade around the world at the moment, do stuff that
0:19:54 > 0:19:58is unacceptable? You've got to deal with them because they run big and
0:19:58 > 0:20:01important countries...That's a very big question. Just focusing on
0:20:01 > 0:20:08Russia, we now have what looks like this outrage by Russia and we will
0:20:08 > 0:20:12have to be seen to act as powerfully as we can, but we know that our
0:20:12 > 0:20:17reaction is almost certainly going to be in effect. Russia is enough of
0:20:17 > 0:20:21a rogue elephant and enough unaffected by what the West does to
0:20:21 > 0:20:25go its own way. We will have to act in a tough way, but in the longer
0:20:25 > 0:20:29term, the only way to get Russia back behaving rationally is to begin
0:20:29 > 0:20:35to really incorporate it into sensible international discourse.
0:20:35 > 0:20:38Isolating, threatening and sanctioning it doesn't work. We have
0:20:38 > 0:20:43to begin to rebuild relations. I know that is not what people want as
0:20:43 > 0:20:47a response, but that is what we have to do.Thank you, both.
0:20:47 > 0:20:49It's been a chaotic debate within the White House -
0:20:49 > 0:20:50nothing new there.
0:20:50 > 0:20:53But President Trump is clearly set on pursuing his idea of slapping
0:20:53 > 0:20:55penal taxes on steel and aluminiuim imports.
0:20:55 > 0:20:57He's lost his top economic adviser, Gary Cohn, as a result.
0:20:57 > 0:21:00And he threatens a trade war - the EU today spelt out how
0:21:00 > 0:21:02it might retaliate, hitting US exports of bourbon,
0:21:02 > 0:21:06peanut butter, cranberries, among other items.
0:21:06 > 0:21:10Who knows where it will end?
0:21:10 > 0:21:12Which is one reason why most economists hate
0:21:12 > 0:21:15Trump-style protection.
0:21:15 > 0:21:18Whatever the problem, it's not the solution, they say.
0:21:18 > 0:21:20But in this age of populist disenchantment with globalisation,
0:21:20 > 0:21:22on the left and right, Trump's logic may appeal
0:21:22 > 0:21:25well beyond the US.
0:21:25 > 0:21:27Take his tweet:
0:21:27 > 0:21:29"We must protect our country and our workers.
0:21:29 > 0:21:31Our steel industry is in bad shape.
0:21:31 > 0:21:36If you don't have steel, you don't have a country!"
0:21:36 > 0:21:38It's a logic most countries apply to farms, which would
0:21:38 > 0:21:44die without subsidy.
0:21:44 > 0:21:47Are we about to see it apply to heavy industry?
0:21:47 > 0:21:54Here's our business editor, Helen Thomas.
0:21:59 > 0:22:01When you think about trade and international economics,
0:22:01 > 0:22:05you don't generally think of this.
0:22:05 > 0:22:09But a Trump policy with its roots in America's
0:22:09 > 0:22:12rust belt states has quickly led here, a threat against classic
0:22:12 > 0:22:16symbols of Americana.
0:22:16 > 0:22:19President Trump wants tariffs of 25% on steel
0:22:19 > 0:22:23imports and 10% on aluminium.
0:22:23 > 0:22:27When we're behind in every single country, trade wars aren't so bad.
0:22:27 > 0:22:30These, very unusually, would be imposed in the name of national
0:22:30 > 0:22:31security.
0:22:31 > 0:22:34But would hit friend and foe alike.
0:22:34 > 0:22:36The European Union has not treated us well.
0:22:36 > 0:22:41It's been a very, very unfair trade situation.
0:22:41 > 0:22:43I'm here to protect, and one of the reasons I was elected
0:22:43 > 0:22:45is I'm protecting our workers,
0:22:45 > 0:22:49and protecting our companies and I'm not going to let that happen.
0:22:49 > 0:22:53Today came the start of the official European response.
0:22:53 > 0:22:55If a move like this is taken, it will hurt the
0:22:55 > 0:22:56European Union.
0:22:56 > 0:22:59It would put thousands of European jobs in
0:22:59 > 0:23:04jeopardy and it has to be met by a firm and proportionate response.
0:23:04 > 0:23:09From what we understand the motivation of the US is an economic
0:23:09 > 0:23:10safeguard measure in disguise.
0:23:10 > 0:23:16Not a national security measure.
0:23:16 > 0:23:18If President Trump acts, Europe has said it will
0:23:18 > 0:23:19respond in three ways.
0:23:19 > 0:23:21First, it will appeal to the World Trade
0:23:21 > 0:23:23Organisation, which will take time.
0:23:23 > 0:23:25Then it will act to protect European markets from a surge of steel and
0:23:25 > 0:23:30aluminium imports displace from the US.
0:23:30 > 0:23:32And it would take other measures against US peanut butter,
0:23:32 > 0:23:37cranberries and orange juice, as well as tariffs on Levi's jeans
0:23:37 > 0:23:40and Harley-Davidsons.
0:23:40 > 0:23:43The trouble is that President Trump has already
0:23:43 > 0:23:46reacted with a threat to slap a tariff on European cars.
0:23:46 > 0:23:49It's exactly the kind of tit-for-tat that
0:23:49 > 0:23:56economists fear, a trade war that leaves everyone worse off.
0:23:56 > 0:24:00The policy started here, America's beleaguered steel industry.
0:24:00 > 0:24:03The aim is to fire up the sector, getting to
0:24:03 > 0:24:07levels that are sustainably profitable.
0:24:07 > 0:24:09But the main problem, a glut of cheap Chinese steel, has
0:24:09 > 0:24:13already improved.
0:24:13 > 0:24:15And gains from previous more targeted steel tariffs
0:24:15 > 0:24:17like in 2002, were short lived.
0:24:17 > 0:24:21Steel mills reopened, new money came into the sector.
0:24:21 > 0:24:24Prices and profitability fell again.
0:24:24 > 0:24:26Tariffs could bring economic costs for the
0:24:26 > 0:24:28US, too.
0:24:28 > 0:24:31If you can increase the price of steel by 20% for your economy,
0:24:31 > 0:24:36then cars, and if it is aluminium, beer cans, the price of them will
0:24:36 > 0:24:43increase.
0:24:43 > 0:24:44And this will reduce demand from
0:24:44 > 0:24:48consumers because prices will be higher, and this will mean
0:24:48 > 0:24:51job loss.
0:24:51 > 0:24:52President Trump's protectionist instincts should not
0:24:52 > 0:24:54be a surprise.
0:24:54 > 0:24:57It was a key part of his pitch to voters.
0:24:57 > 0:24:59Could this be bluster, a negotiating
0:24:59 > 0:25:01tactic?
0:25:01 > 0:25:05Or is it a genuine threat to the rules -based world order on
0:25:05 > 0:25:08trade built over the past 70 years?
0:25:08 > 0:25:12History teaches us that it's a pretty powerful signal when the
0:25:12 > 0:25:14United States unilaterally announces tariffs.
0:25:14 > 0:25:18When it did it in 1930, some would say it caused the great
0:25:18 > 0:25:20depression.
0:25:20 > 0:25:22Not just because of the economic effect, but because when
0:25:22 > 0:25:26the United States says we are not going to abide by the rules, then no
0:25:26 > 0:25:29other country needs to abide by the rules.
0:25:29 > 0:25:33In the 1930s, when it broke the trust of countries
0:25:33 > 0:25:36to cooperate with one another, it is the breaking of trust
0:25:36 > 0:25:38that pushed the world into the great
0:25:38 > 0:25:42depression.
0:25:42 > 0:25:46The WTO, 164 countries, has been bound together roughly by
0:25:46 > 0:25:50the notion that more trade can be better for everyone.
0:25:50 > 0:25:53The US now seems to be striking out alone.
0:25:59 > 0:26:01Helen Thomas there.
0:26:01 > 0:26:03How seriously should we take President Trump's
0:26:03 > 0:26:04language on this issue?
0:26:04 > 0:26:06And how much would it matter if he followed through?
0:26:06 > 0:26:09With me in the studio is Pippa Malgrem, a former special
0:26:09 > 0:26:11assistant on economic policy to President George W Bush.
0:26:11 > 0:26:13Joining us from Washington is Jeffrey Schott -
0:26:13 > 0:26:15he's a senior fellow from the Peterson Institute
0:26:15 > 0:26:17for International Economics, and sits on the President's Trade
0:26:17 > 0:26:24and Environment Policy Advisory Committee.
0:26:24 > 0:26:28Jeffrey, if I messed up the queue, 25% on steel and aluminium, it's not
0:26:28 > 0:26:35such a big industry in the big picture of American national income.
0:26:35 > 0:26:41How serious would it be if President Trump does this?Well, the problem
0:26:41 > 0:26:47of doing this will be that it raises the cost of production of goods in
0:26:47 > 0:26:55the United States, and the downstream problems that that will
0:26:55 > 0:26:59cause for US production and employment, and the reaction from
0:26:59 > 0:27:02our trading partners, as your segment just chose. There would be
0:27:02 > 0:27:05emulation by other countries and possible retaliation, which would
0:27:05 > 0:27:10affect US export.
0:27:11 > 0:27:14affect US export.-- as your segment just showed. What would have to
0:27:14 > 0:27:20happen for this to be if not the 1930s, to at least be a big reverse
0:27:20 > 0:27:24to trade and globalisation?I think the 1930s example is a little
0:27:24 > 0:27:31exaggerated. But I think your segment, your reporter, laid out the
0:27:31 > 0:27:35scenario is very well. There are a couple of steps that the European
0:27:35 > 0:27:40Union can take that are consistent with WTO rights and obligations,
0:27:40 > 0:27:44calling for consultations and dispute settlement, and imposing
0:27:44 > 0:27:47protections against the deflection of trade back to the European
0:27:47 > 0:27:53market. But taking retaliatory actions without prior authorisation
0:27:53 > 0:28:00from the WTO would be more clearly illegal of WTO rules than what the
0:28:00 > 0:28:06United States is doing. The tit-for-tat can grow, and where it
0:28:06 > 0:28:13stops, nobody knows.Pepper, is that the problem here? It's not just
0:28:13 > 0:28:22steal, it's the world down of a world rules -based order.Possibly,
0:28:22 > 0:28:27but I've just finished a job on leadership, and he was the first
0:28:27 > 0:28:30thing about Trump. First committee throws a punch, and when his
0:28:30 > 0:28:35opponent is thrown sideways, then he says, let's talk. We are confusing
0:28:35 > 0:28:38the style that he negotiates with, and let's face it, he is a property
0:28:38 > 0:28:44guy, so with him everything is negotiable. On the day that this is
0:28:44 > 0:28:47announced, no coincidence, you also have the three most powerful men in
0:28:47 > 0:28:52China in Washington, DC, and within 24 hours, the North Koreans agreed
0:28:52 > 0:28:55to come to the table on the nuclear negotiations, and I think there's a
0:28:55 > 0:28:59chance that the way Trump is looking at this is, he's connecting these as
0:28:59 > 0:29:04all one thing. Again, who is he throwing a punch at? It wasn't just
0:29:04 > 0:29:09on steel, it was a message to everybody.Your scenario would be
0:29:09 > 0:29:13that this is big talk, everyone is going to sit around, it won't be as
0:29:13 > 0:29:19bad as it sounds on the day.Let's face it, what we have so far is
0:29:19 > 0:29:23nothing formal, no policy statement. What we have is a tweet. You know,
0:29:23 > 0:29:30until we have something substantive. Let's face it, we announced in the
0:29:30 > 0:29:33Bush administration steel tariffs and it took one year from the formal
0:29:33 > 0:29:38announcement until anyone had any details.Jeffrey, give some advice
0:29:38 > 0:29:40to the Europeans so-called Islamic State our last discussion on Russia
0:29:40 > 0:29:47was about how to deal with a thug or a bully -- gives some advice to the
0:29:47 > 0:29:51Europeans - our last discussion on Russia was about how to deal with a
0:29:51 > 0:29:55thug or a bully. But that the Europeans do? Do they just say,
0:29:55 > 0:29:58though, have your silly tariff and we will not play this game, or
0:29:58 > 0:30:03should they retaliate?
0:30:03 > 0:30:09There really is no good response. Pippa is right about Trump wanting
0:30:09 > 0:30:12to create a sense of unpredictability. He prides himself
0:30:12 > 0:30:18on that. And so a lot of people here and abroad don't know what he is
0:30:18 > 0:30:23going to do. But the rumours are the expectations are that he will
0:30:23 > 0:30:28announce an action tomorrow, and that that action is going to be
0:30:28 > 0:30:34effective in two weeks. So this is not something that will be pushed
0:30:34 > 0:30:39off for a long time, paper, this will be implemented soon. What is at
0:30:39 > 0:30:44issue right now, still under debate, is whether some countries will be
0:30:44 > 0:30:50exempted and whether some products will be exempted from the coverage.
0:30:50 > 0:30:56Very briefly, you found it very difficult to try and get someone to
0:30:56 > 0:31:02defend it on the programme this evening, except the voters. The
0:31:02 > 0:31:04voters are shying away from globalisation. They may say, we
0:31:04 > 0:31:09would like to pay more for steel and have a steel injury.What is more
0:31:09 > 0:31:13ironic is that China still has become more expensive and American
0:31:13 > 0:31:16steel has been remarkably competitive by comparison. In a way
0:31:16 > 0:31:19what the president is doing is fighting a fight that is ten years
0:31:19 > 0:31:24out of date. The Chinese are investing in US manufacturing
0:31:24 > 0:31:28facilities. It is pandering to a particular audience that is maybe as
0:31:28 > 0:31:32out of date as the president. I have my doubts that we will really go
0:31:32 > 0:31:34down this road. Thank you both very much indeed.
0:31:34 > 0:31:36For several years now, identity politics has been
0:31:36 > 0:31:39dominating public discourse.
0:31:39 > 0:31:44Whether it is race, gender, or sexuality, the rights of,
0:31:44 > 0:31:46and respect for, different groups has been a prevalent
0:31:46 > 0:31:47theme of our time.
0:31:47 > 0:31:50But there are those who don't fit into the most obvious categories.
0:31:50 > 0:31:53Bisexual people are not gay and are not straight, for example.
0:31:53 > 0:31:55And then of course, there are people of mixed race.
0:31:55 > 0:31:59Now, that term didn't appear on the census until 2001,
0:31:59 > 0:32:03but it is now the fastest growing ethnic minority in the UK,
0:32:03 > 0:32:05with the number of people of mixed race expected to rise
0:32:05 > 0:32:10to 2.2 million by 2031.
0:32:10 > 0:32:13So, how do they feel about the term mixed race and the rise
0:32:13 > 0:32:14of identity politics?
0:32:14 > 0:32:17Do we expect people of dual heritage to self identify as mixed race
0:32:17 > 0:32:20even though that is itself a mixed category?
0:32:20 > 0:32:24Or do they have choose one side of their ethnicity?
0:32:24 > 0:32:27Newsnight producer Scarlett Barter, who has a black mother
0:32:27 > 0:32:31and white father, has been examining her own mixed identity,
0:32:31 > 0:32:38and reveals that it is much more complicated than it may seem.
0:32:38 > 0:32:43My parents met in Plymouth in the '80s, when they were both studying.
0:32:43 > 0:32:45I think they were very awware that they
0:32:45 > 0:32:49were maybe slightly unconventional, being an interracial couple.
0:32:49 > 0:32:51They really encouraged us to embrace both
0:32:51 > 0:32:56sides of our heritage and both sides of their cultures.
0:32:56 > 0:32:59I mean, I am black, but I'm also white.
0:32:59 > 0:33:01And just because I have one parent that's black and
0:33:01 > 0:33:04one parent that's white, it doesn't mean that,
0:33:04 > 0:33:06for me, I have to pick.
0:33:06 > 0:33:08It means I can be both.
0:33:08 > 0:33:09Congratulations from all of us...
0:33:09 > 0:33:12But can't mixed race people really navigate both sides of their
0:33:12 > 0:33:15identity?
0:33:15 > 0:33:17Meghan Markle identifies as mixed race, but many have still
0:33:17 > 0:33:21tried to pigeonhole her as white or black.
0:33:21 > 0:33:26Is it time that society just accepted that some people feel both?
0:33:26 > 0:33:31I definitely feel very other at times.
0:33:31 > 0:33:35I definitely feel like I'm quite unplaceable in people's minds.
0:33:35 > 0:33:37And I think that that makes people quite uncomfortable.
0:33:37 > 0:33:38People...
0:33:38 > 0:33:41Lots of people, not everyone, feel much
0:33:41 > 0:33:44more comfortable when things are much more sort of clear-cut -
0:33:44 > 0:33:46you know, you're gay, you're straight,
0:33:46 > 0:33:47you're white, you're black, and I've
0:33:47 > 0:33:54never really felt like I can be so easily
0:33:54 > 0:33:58defined, and I think that people do struggle with that.
0:33:58 > 0:34:00But no two experiences of being mixed race are
0:34:00 > 0:34:01the same.
0:34:01 > 0:34:041.2 million people were recorded as mixed race in the last
0:34:04 > 0:34:07census.
0:34:07 > 0:34:10That's 1.2 million different ideas of what it means to be mixed race.
0:34:10 > 0:34:13Even people within the same family can have totally different
0:34:13 > 0:34:19feelings about their identity.
0:34:19 > 0:34:20So, you guys are twins.
0:34:20 > 0:34:22You know, you have the same background, the same
0:34:22 > 0:34:25parents, - why is it that you think you identify so differently?
0:34:25 > 0:34:27I personally identify as mixed race.
0:34:27 > 0:34:30I know that some people try and identify as black or white, one or
0:34:30 > 0:34:33the other, but I think it's quite hard to determine, especially at a
0:34:33 > 0:34:36young age, where you fit in and who you are.
0:34:36 > 0:34:39And I think some people try and categorise you as one of the
0:34:39 > 0:34:43other, or you feel like you need to make a decision, but I think I got
0:34:43 > 0:34:46to the stage where I thought, I'm mixed race, I am both black and
0:34:46 > 0:34:47white.
0:34:47 > 0:34:48I'm slightly different.
0:34:48 > 0:34:52Whilst I know I'm mixed race, that's what I tick on forms, I think it's
0:34:52 > 0:34:55too broad a term for me, and I identify mainly as black.
0:34:55 > 0:34:57I think what's probably caused it is, we went
0:34:57 > 0:35:00to very different schools.
0:35:00 > 0:35:02I think there were less than ten people of
0:35:02 > 0:35:06colour in my whole school, and so, it's kind of a cycle, coming to
0:35:06 > 0:35:09terms with who you are.
0:35:09 > 0:35:11I always stuck out like a sore thumb, really.
0:35:11 > 0:35:15And I was always "the black one".
0:35:15 > 0:35:18So, that's what I've grown up with, and I'm embracing that now.
0:35:18 > 0:35:20I'm happy to call myself black rather than mixed race.
0:35:20 > 0:35:22I had a different experience.
0:35:22 > 0:35:25I went to a different school to my sister, but
0:35:25 > 0:35:28it was predominantly white and Asian, but I felt that I had
0:35:28 > 0:35:29a lot...
0:35:29 > 0:35:32Rather than feeling very much black, I think there was a lot of,
0:35:32 > 0:35:34but you're not black, and you're not white.
0:35:34 > 0:35:36You're kind of somewhere in the middle.
0:35:36 > 0:35:38It was quite weird. Sometimes it's based on...
0:35:38 > 0:35:42People base those judgments on not necessarily the heritage of your
0:35:42 > 0:35:44parents - it's more about who they perceive you to be.
0:35:44 > 0:35:49I've always had my blackness questioned.
0:35:49 > 0:35:51And that's always hurt quite a lot because I feel like you're
0:35:51 > 0:35:59questioning my relationship with my mum, and a part of who I am.
0:36:00 > 0:36:04Lots of times, I've had people come up to me and say, oh, you're not
0:36:04 > 0:36:05black really.
0:36:05 > 0:36:09Or, you're not really white, or whatever it may be.
0:36:09 > 0:36:11And that, that can be painful, yeah.
0:36:11 > 0:36:19It feels like I'm being forced by people to pick a side.
0:36:19 > 0:36:23Some people do just identify as white or black,
0:36:23 > 0:36:27and that can make the term mixed race difficult.
0:36:27 > 0:36:29I don't like the term mixed race at all.
0:36:29 > 0:36:32I don't identify as mixed race, but I also
0:36:32 > 0:36:37think it's a really problematic term generally, because it kind of...
0:36:37 > 0:36:44It reinforces the idea that both black
0:36:44 > 0:36:48and white, if we're talking about black
0:36:48 > 0:36:52and white mixed raceness, are kind of neutral and natural racial
0:36:52 > 0:37:00categories that exist. You can't be half white.
0:37:00 > 0:37:04The racial construct white was not invented to allow
0:37:04 > 0:37:07entrance to people who are half white.
0:37:07 > 0:37:11You're either white or you're not white.
0:37:11 > 0:37:14So, I often find it...
0:37:14 > 0:37:20Interesting and slightly irritating when people ask about, um...
0:37:20 > 0:37:23People ask about choice, and they say, oh,
0:37:23 > 0:37:26like, you are choosing...
0:37:26 > 0:37:30The idea that you're kind of choosing the
0:37:30 > 0:37:32black side and you are erasing your white side.
0:37:32 > 0:37:36You're not given the choice.
0:37:36 > 0:37:39Mixed race people are held up as sort of this example of a
0:37:39 > 0:37:42post-racial society, but actually, the reality is is that mixed race
0:37:42 > 0:37:45issues and mixed race people can often be very much
0:37:45 > 0:37:51overlooked and misunderstood.
0:37:51 > 0:37:54The rise of identity politics can mean that your
0:37:54 > 0:37:56background is becoming more and more important, but so much
0:37:56 > 0:37:58about forming your identity is about where you
0:37:58 > 0:38:05grew up and how you are perceived rather than your ethnic mix.
0:38:05 > 0:38:08Certainly, when I was growing up, there were like a handful of other
0:38:08 > 0:38:14mixed people that I knew, but whereas I was quite happy to
0:38:14 > 0:38:18identify as black and felt really proud of being Nigerian and stuff,
0:38:18 > 0:38:23some of the other people, they were trying to distinguish themselves
0:38:23 > 0:38:27from just an ordinary black person and be like, no, no, no, but I'm
0:38:27 > 0:38:29half white, like, I'm better than these other black people,
0:38:29 > 0:38:33and that's something that just makes me feel...
0:38:33 > 0:38:35That's something that makes me feel like really uncomfortable.
0:38:35 > 0:38:39I don't want to try and distinguish myself
0:38:39 > 0:38:42from blackness, to put myself that little bit closer to whiteness,
0:38:42 > 0:38:48and I think that's one of the reasons
0:38:48 > 0:38:50that I so emphatically like identify, identify as black.
0:38:50 > 0:38:53I think that sometimes it can feel like, if
0:38:53 > 0:38:57you're mixed race, sometimes it feels like people don't...
0:38:57 > 0:38:58Don't understand what that means, and they
0:38:58 > 0:39:03don't sort of engage with it in the way that
0:39:03 > 0:39:06maybe you'd want them to, so sometimes it can feel like you're
0:39:06 > 0:39:09not really anything because you're not really seen as black and you're
0:39:09 > 0:39:15not really seen as white.
0:39:15 > 0:39:19But I would like to be seen as both, because that is what I am.
0:39:19 > 0:39:25As the number of people with dual heritage grows in the UK, will we
0:39:25 > 0:39:27become more accepting of those, like me,
0:39:27 > 0:39:35who want to be seen as mixed race?
0:39:37 > 0:39:38Reflections from Scarlet Bartra.
0:39:38 > 0:39:40There was something of a cultural moment today.
0:39:40 > 0:39:42NME, the New Musical Express magazine, announced it
0:39:42 > 0:39:49will publish its final print edition this Friday.
0:39:49 > 0:39:52so we brought together two people this evening who loved the magazine
0:39:52 > 0:39:54- writer David Quantinck and former editor Connor McNicholas -
0:39:54 > 0:39:55to bid it farewell.
0:39:55 > 0:40:03Goodnight.
0:40:04 > 0:40:09I grew up in Bradford and the NME and Melody Maker were my only access
0:40:09 > 0:40:14to the world of music. It was so precious when it turned up on a
0:40:14 > 0:40:18Wednesday. When I was looking after it I had a mental thing -- picture
0:40:18 > 0:40:23of some poor sap who had a Saturday job in Doncaster and this was their
0:40:23 > 0:40:26only contact with the outside world of music. That is the person I wrote
0:40:26 > 0:40:34before.The NME filled a gap. Records were pressed and deleted,
0:40:34 > 0:40:39you couldn't get old records.You filtered people into those that read
0:40:39 > 0:40:41the NME, those who read the Melody Maker and those who didn't read
0:40:41 > 0:40:47either, the people you didn't need to waste your time with.For me the
0:40:47 > 0:40:50enemy has always survived when there is a popular white guitar book. --
0:40:50 > 0:40:57NME.All bands would say it didn't matter if they were featured but it
0:40:57 > 0:41:04did.The cool bands hated doing an interview. You felt like saying, you
0:41:04 > 0:41:07are getting free advertising for free. It was like being on top of
0:41:07 > 0:41:13the Pops. It was the thing you did. It was a rite of passage for a band.
0:41:13 > 0:41:18Anybody in a band read the NME when they were younger.
0:41:18 > 0:41:22What was great about the NME is it was a conversation, people talking
0:41:22 > 0:41:27to other artists every week about politics, music, everything. The NME
0:41:27 > 0:41:31did die years ago. It has kept going in loads of different forms. But
0:41:31 > 0:41:37what it was hasn't existed for a very long time.Everybody knew at
0:41:37 > 0:41:40some point the paper publication was going to go. I knew that in the
0:41:40 > 0:41:44years that I was there. You could see it was going to happen. But
0:41:44 > 0:41:47publishing in the digital space is inevitably just a completely
0:41:47 > 0:41:53different experience than what the NME was previously, and in a way I
0:41:53 > 0:41:54suppose we all get the