05/04/2017 Outside Source

Hello, I'm Ros Atkins, this is Outside Source.

Russia and the West are at loggerheads over

who was responsible for the Syria chemical attack that

The turning point of the use of chemical weapons in Syria

was the establishment by the previous US administration

If Russia had been fulfilling its responsibility, there would not

even be any chemical weapons left for the Syrian regime to use.

We've also heard from President Trump.

I will tell you, it's already happened, that my attitude

toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.

Mr Trump's controversial chief strategist Steve Bannon has

been removed from the US National Security Council.

We'll be live in Washington to find out why.

The European Parliament has set out its priorities for Brexit.

And there were some heated exchanges along the way.

We'll talk to Chris Morris about that.

And don't forget you can get in touch with questions about any

of the stories we're covering using the hashtag #BBCOS.

All our contact details are on screen throughout the programme.

Faced with the horror of Syrian children dying

from a suspected nerve agent, the world's most powerful countries

have not been spurred into unified action.

This video show scenes the world was supposed to have

Those affected by this chemical attack in northern Syria are given

assistance. According to one monitoring group,

72 people were killed. The argument here is not about

whether there was an air strike. It's not about whether

or not the suffering It's about where those

chemicals came from. And America and Russia,

with all their might and all their intelligence

operations, have two quite distinct The Americans blame

the Syrian government. And they can't agree on a UN

Security Council statement. So no response to the horrors we

have seen in these videos. Let me play you the views of all sides,

first Donald Trump. At attack on children yesterday had a big impact

on me, a big impact. That is a horrible thing. I have been watching

and seeing it and it does not get any worse than not. And I have a

flexibility and it is very, very possible, and I will tell you, it

has already happened, that my attitude towards Syria and Assad has

changed very much. This is the US ambassador to the UN. How many more

children have to died before Russia cares? The United States sees

yesterday's attack as a disgrace at the highest level, an assurance that

humanity means nothing to the Syrian government. The question members of

this council must ask themselves is this -- if we are not able to

enforce resolutions preventing the use of chemical weapons, what does

that say for our chances of ending the broader conflict in Syria? What

does that say of our ability to bring relief to the Syrian people?

If we are not able to enforce resolutions preventing the use of

chemical weapons, what does that say about our effectiveness in this

institution? The ambassador to the UK said that

Syria had humiliated Russia by making a mockery of the peace

process it had brokered. The Syrian government denies ever

using chemical weapons. TRANSLATION: Everything is geared,

everything is guided by the need to change regime. This obsession with

raging changes what hinders the work of the Security Council. -- this

obsession with regime changes. You're trying to have the Security

Council give the cover of legitimacy to your illegitimate plans.

You should not try to introduce discord to our relationships with

the people of Syria, the people of Iraq and others in the Middle East.

I thought big UK had long ago abandoned these tactics. So once

again I repeat that without truly uniting our efforts through

collective action, we will not resolve the problem of the Syrian

conflict or the problem of sectarianism.

These are long-standing issues at the UN, given fresh urgency by this

attack. After a suspected chemical attack in 2013, President Obama said

a red line had been crossed. That led to an argument with Russia for

Syria to destroy its stockpiles of the weapons. This is a BBC article

from 2014 about all of the weapons supposedly removed from Syria.

Evidently someone still has some. Nada Tawfik is live from the UN.

Let's take it from the Russian side, Howard a defending their repeated

blocking of any resolution on this? -- how are they defending? The UK

Ambassador Matthew Wright Croft as the Russian ambassador back

question. He said what is Russia's plan now after, as you say, repeated

resolution vetoes, the seven vetoes in the Security Council. The Russian

ambassador said their plan is to continue to fight terrorism, that is

how they have been framing what they see as a key problem in the Syrian

conflict. That is in direct conflict to the Western powers on the

Security Council who say that this attack and other chemical weapons

attacks have the hallmark of President Assad. We heard a dramatic

statement from the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, who got up out of her

seat in the UN security council and held pictures of children who had

died chewing this attack and said we cannot look at these faces and

ignore that problem any longer. She turned directly to the Russian

ambassador and said how many children have to died before Russia

cares. It was a really powerful moment but is again showed the deep

divisions that we continue to have on the security council and any

progress on passing a resolution which would hold those responsible

for these attacks and recount. With the American said black and the

Russian said White, who at the UN thrashes out what actually happens?

It means that nothing happens. We continue to have the inaction we

have had, this conflict is entering its seventh year. US Ambassador

Nikki Haley basically warned at the end of her statement that if the UN

cannot collectively, and decide on the unified approach, it would be

time for the US and other members on the Security Council to take their

own action. We have heard a lot from member states who have said that

Russia, Iran, those who have basically said they are the

guarantors of the ceasefire in Syria had to continue to use their sway on

President Assad. Others frame this in the case of fighting terrorism,

but all of those unilateral actions and I think the key here will be how

President Trump approaches the Syria conflict. He has criticised

President Obama this setting a red line and emboldening President Assad

by not doing much. This chemical attack has certainly changed his

calculus, President Trump has said that but his foreign policy is still

unclear and lots of people at the UN are hoping to see a stronger US

response. We appreciate that. Thanks for taking us through that.

The attack happened in the town called Khan Sheikhoun.

It's in Idlib province which is held by the rebels.

Medics say the victims' symptoms are consistent

And this is a tweet from a UK-trained doctor,

Shajul Islam, who is in Syria as an aid worker.

"Do u still doubt that #Sarin is being used on us?

I'll show you what he means - he also posted this video.

This person has very, very small pinprick pupils.

Pinprick pupils are a common symptom of exposure

The horror of this attack - and the international row

that's followed it - has overshadowed a conference

in Brussels aimed at funding and co-ordinating aid for Syria.

Chief international correspondent Lyse Doucet, who has recently been

in Syria, was there. The meeting was arranged before the

latest atrocity to be discussing the future of Syria, including the very

delicate question about when can funds start to be provided, to start

rebuilding Syria. What has happened in the last 24 hours has emphasised

again that it is very hard, if not politically impossible, to start

rebuilding when the war continues and with such devastating effect.

One after another the world leaders arrived this morning, the

consequences of the chemical attack, the repercussions of it, the

casualties it has caused was at the top of their minds, they have called

for a thorough investigation and warned there will be consequences,

the same thing will happen tonight in New York at the UN Security

Council, but the fundamental question is what will be done about

it. What will be done to make sure this time will be done rather than

the other times when nothing happened.

Thanks, Lyse Doucet. Steve Bannon is one of Donald Trump's most trusted

advisers, his chief strategist, no less.

Steven Bannon has been removed from his position

His original appointment to the council was met

Jeff Stein is the national security correspondent at Newsweek.

Thank you for your time, many people predicted this, did you see it

coming? No, I don't think many people saw it coming but there is a

lot of chaos in the White House so we just can't predict, day to day or

hour to hour, what will happen. Trump's some time confidant, Roger

Stone, had been tweeting or writing in the last 24 hours that Jared

Kushner, the son-in-law of the president, had been trying to oust

Bannon from the security committee, I think you have the right church on

the wrong pew. It appears to be the general McMaster, the head of the

National Security Council, got a piece of gum out of his hair in

removing Steve Bannon from the principal's committee of the

National Security Council. Some people would describe this as

flexibility and willingness to listen from the president, others

say it is weakness in his inability to hold a position. What is your

analysis? I don't buy into that. I would say this change somewhat

cosmetic. It removes some annoyance, the International Security Council,

in that Bannon could sit in and bring a political points. He will

still be up political adviser in the Oval Office and know what is going

on in the NSE. Moreover the White House is putting out a cover story

about this saying that he never attended any of the National

Security Council meetings, they say that his work was done there, his

principal job was to keep an eye on the ousted national security adviser

Michael Flynn. Why he needed to keep an eye on general Flynn is not

explained. It is hard to pass. I think we will have to let the dust

settle and see how this plays out. Some would see this as the latest

stage in an interesting relationship between Mr Trump and the security

establishment and the Republican establishment. Would this be one

push back the security establishment? I think there is

almost giddy joy right here in the swamp, which is to say the permanent

establishments in the intelligence community currently intelligence

agencies and the Department the feds. There is some relief on

Capitol Hill, mainstream Republican senators like John McCain will be

overjoyed at this news. It is a pushback. There is an intense desire

on behalf of mainstream Republicans, not to mention Democrats, to bring

order and cohesion to the national security question. Lots of that will

depend on the president, what he tweets, if he quiets down and lets

the normal process of diplomacy and the deliberations of the National

Security Council take their course, as per usual. This shake-up, as it

has been called, I'm not sure if it is to return to the status quo here

in Washington. Thank you for your time. In a couple of minutes we will

look at some of the heated exchanges in the European Parliament, not so

much featuring Jean-Claude Junker Bert Nigel Farage and Guy

Verhofstadt. Labour's ruling body

the National Executive Committee will review Ken Livingstone's status

in the party after his comments about Hitler and Zionism

and his suspension for another year. been grossly insensitive,

and he has caused deep offence But Jenny Manson, a Labour Party

member who is Jewish, and gave evidence at Mr Livingstone's

tribunal says she doesn't think the former London Mayor's

comments were anti-Semitic. There is a Jewish tradition of

justice, and a very important national tradition of free speech.

In my view, nothing Ken Livingstone has said or done has been

anti-Semitic. As to mentioning Hitler and Zionism, it may offend

some people, but I have been offended by something is such as

describing their being rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

-- I have been offended by some things such as.

This is Outside Source live from the BBC newsroom.

Russia and the West have clashed over who is responsible for a deadly

gas attack in Syria which left 70 people dead.

The Russians blame rebels, the Americans and the allies blame the

Syrian Government. Russia's Supreme Court

is considering whether to ban the Jehovah's Witnesses religious

movement. They would be the first registered

religious movement since the Soviet Ecuador's President-Elect has told

Julian Assange to stop meddling in the country's politics

after he mocked a rival candidate who had vowed to expel him

from the London embassy. Pepsi have removed their brand

new commercial from YouTube and are halting any further roll-out

of the campaign following The ad featuring Kendal Jenner drew

criticism from some civil rights advocates said it trivialized recent

unrest across the US. The European Parliament has set

out its non-negotiables on Brexit. They include equal rights

for EU citizens in the UK If you want to get full details,

there is a press release on this website. It tells that it has ruled

out making any decision on trade with the UK ahead of settling other

terms and Brexit. Some of the Parliament's main

characters were to the fore - You think we are a

hostage, we are not. TRANSLATION: I am trying to give you

the chance to speak and 71 to say, that if you're going to speak about

the matter, I find that unacceptable.

APPLAUSE I do understand, Mr President,

National sensitivities. I will change it to gangsters. And

that is how we are being treated. Next Mr Farage's long-time foe,

European Parliament lead I am convinced in 100% sure about

one thing, that there will be one day or another, dear colleagues,

that there will be a young man or a young woman who will try again. Who

will lead Britain again into the European family once again.

APPLAUSE And a young generation...

APPLAUSE A young generation that will see

Brexit for what it really is. A catfight in the Conservative party

that got out of hand. A loss of time, a waste of energy and, I

think, a stupidity. Both men are nothing if not consistent.

Guy Verhofstadt is the lead Brexit negotiator for

Earlier I got some analysis from Chris Morris.

I asked whether any of this mattered, given

the European Parliament wouldn't actually be involved

It matters that eventually the parliament has a real role in this.

For the next 18 months or so you could say there will be shouting

from the sidelines of it because they are not at the negotiating

table when Britain and the EU sit in a room together. But eventually they

get vote on the separation agreement, so smart people on the EU

side and in the UK Government know they have to key Parliament onside

because they can create trouble. They have just sent out a few

warning shots saying we are watching this, this and this, don't forget

us. Three elements of what was said, one is the insistence that we will

negotiate the withdrawal and then the future relationship. In reality,

aren't those two going to intertwine? To a future extent, but

that there Adjapong is what we saw from the European Council, the draft

guidelines produced by Donald Tusk. There is an insistence on the

European side that we have to do those things first, look at money,

the divorce Bill, the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens

in Europe. Ireland has been mentioned. You are essentially

creating a new external border for the EU with what will be a third

country, we know the sensitivities of the border between the Republic

of violence in Northern Ireland as part of the peace process. If we

can't create that sense of trust between the two parties, how can we

know where we will go with the future relationship, not just on

trade but on a whole host of other things? The UK want to talk about

trade straightaway because that is what it is all about in the end, but

I do not think the EU will stick to that. We saw another sharp exchange

between Nigel Farage and some of his colleagues in parliaments, does any

of that impact on how the parliamentarians do the British

Government or do they see the two as quite separate which, of course,

they are? I think they see them separately. We need to bear in mind,

as the process goes on, we will get to massive stumbling blocks and

crises but on both sides the governments genuinely want to reach

a deal. Some people around the margins probably don't and probably

would not mind if the whole thing fell apart, but the governments want

to reach a deal and we should remember that when we talk about a

crisis in the talks, they will push very hard to reach and sort of

arrangements. They are neighbours, they had to get on in the long term,

they will not turn into enemies. It will be very hard disentangling this

incredibly complex relationship, but they will try very hard to get it

done. You will be aware that Donald Trump wants to build a wall along

the border with Mexico. The deadline has passed

for those companies wanting to build Donald Trump's wall

on the Mexico border. It's reported hundreds of companies

have submitted bids. Only a few will now be selected

to build prototypes. Let's bring in Michelle Fleury, live

from New York. The figures involved, the amount of money you could make

from it are pretty sizeable? Estimates of the cost of the full

wall range from $12 billion to more than 20 billion. To be clear, the

part companies are bidding on right now, the deadline you are there

into, this is to build a prototype and we are told by officials that it

will be constructed in the San Diego area, that would cost closer to 200

or five in bears and each, not the full sum of money. -- close to 200

or 500,000 each. Several companies have lots of ideas about what the

potential border wall could look like. How does that scale up to the

point where the whole thing gets done? Just this small area, some of

the ideas involved, from what we understand, because the process at

the moment is fairly secretive, as is normal, I should point out, what

we understand from some companies there is talk of a solar wall, a

sustainable structure built out of recycled shipping containers. What

that looks like translated across the whole border is hard to see.

Forget the engineering challenges, you have the political challenges,

who will pay for it? It is not yet clear, that has not been agreed.

Donald Trump has made a huge deal about building a border wall on his

campaign Trail but has not yet got agreement from legislators as to

whether money will come from. There are lots of unanswered questions,

the only thing we know for sure at the moment is the focus on the

prototype, I guess it is one step at a time.

Thank you, Michelle. I suspect we will talk about that for quite a

while. German ministers have approved plans

to fine social media firms up to $53 million if they don't remove

fake news and hate The new law would give companies

just 24 hours to block content Our technology desk editor

Leo Kelion explains. Germany already has very tough laws

against people who post hate speech. If you deny the Holocaust, for

example, you can face a prison sentence. The issue is there is not

a lot of prosecutions in those online cases and the Government once

the social media companies to do more to take it down. Under the new

rules, what you would find is that if something was obviously criminal

they would have to take it down in a day, after seven days if the post is

offensive but needs a little bit of investigation. That will take a lot

of people to investigate. Facebook was saying they have around 700

people in the country. The concern in the statement that they gave to

us was that they should not be the ones judging what is or is not

against the rules, but should be up to the courts or some other

regulator. Thanks to Leo. I will be back in a couple of