07/04/2017 The Papers


No need to wait to see what's in the papers - tune in for a lively and informed conversation about the next day's headlines.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 07/04/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



His film appearances included The Remains of the Day


Welcome to our look ahead to what the papers will be bringing us


tomorrow. With us are Ben Hsu, economics editor of the Independent


and deputy editor of the website reaction. It's Rachel 's first time


with us. This is as shambolic as it often is! Know? Must be me. Let's


look at the front pages. Some very serious stories on the pages


tonight. We will be looking at two of them in debt. -- in depth. The


Times leads with the warning from Moscow that the United States is one


step away from military clashes with Russia. The FT has a picture of the


Stockholm attack. Its main story is Syria and what it calls the stark


shift in US strategy. The Mirror also leads with Russia's warning to


trump. The male leads on Washington 's message at the UN, that it is


ready to launch further attacks against Assad. They express also


leads on Syria, besides an image of the burning truck in Sweden. The


Guardian says the White House appears to back away from wider


military involvement in Syria, leaving the world perplexed at its


strategy. The Telegraph leads with the horror in Sweden. It says the


attack appeared to target young children deliberately.


These are the two stories that have dominated our news today. We will


begin following the fallout of those cruise missile strikes from the US.


Against that target in Idlib in Syria. I will start with the eye,


which gives over its front page to a photograph of those missiles taking


off from the destroyer. Trump 's message to the world, it says. Down


the side we have a breakdown of the various different aspects of the


story: the tensions between Russia and the US, a threat to the regimes,


not just Syria but also Iran and North Korea. How much of a message


is this? We will have to wait and see. We are hearing about a change


in strategy. I didn't think it is that clear. Trump hasn't a lot of


messages to the world since he became president but this is


obviously his first missile -based one. It's the bus one where he has


really clashed with Russia directly as a result of the fallout from what


is going to happen as a result. It is not clear what his strategy is


towards Assad himself. Busy after a regime change, is it just saying we


will not stand by in the way Obama did? When Assad previously used


chemical weapons against his own people. The message is to some


extent very clear, he is prepared to use military force. In a bigger and


perhaps more important sense, it is very unclear still. It is peculiar


that for some observers, Rachel, when Barack Obama withdrew his red


lines, Donald Trump said whatever you do, do not attack Syria and yet


here we are. -- drew his red lines. It is a complete role reversal. This


is a candidate who laughed at Obama and all sorts of mainstream


politicians at the time for taking America into a costly and Teague


said -- and as he said at the time, costly efforts overseas. Now he goes


straight in with missiles. Many John supporters who voted for him in part


because they wanted a change from the -- many trump supporters, who


wanted a change from the overseas politics. Yes, they wanted something


a bit more isolationist. We had some strong torque from many ambassadors


at the UN today. Is this just a redrawing of those red lines that


the use of chemical warfare will not be tolerated by parts of the


international community? To give trump limited credit, he said there


were red lines and when those red lines were crossed, he acted. Some


would say he was backed into a corner there. There was not much he


could do, having presented this show of strength earlier. He did have to


take action. I think what is interesting about the way the


guardian presents this is that they say the White House appeared to back


away from wider military involvement. I know other papers are


saying that this is just the beginning of further military


tensions between the US and Syria and potentially with Russia. That


mixed messaging of where this is going to lead, I think is presented


in the papers. With regard to the reaction at the UN today, Britain's


ambassador Matthew Rycroft spoke out in support. Russia said the US has


broken international law by mounting the strikes. It has done so


unilaterally and there will be grave consequences. You wonder, how many


other people will feel that Donald Trump is actually -- has actually


done everyone a favour given the UN could not get a resolution. It does


feel like d j vu because we had a similar thing in 2013 when Assad


used chemical weapons and there was, remember the House of Commons had a


vote on it and camera narrowly lost after Labour did not back it. Thanks


to Ed Miliband. Supposedly that put America off doing their own strikes


in response to this. Some unusual people are supporting Trump and what


he has done because he has reinforced a red line which they say


Obama and Cameron and Miller band and everyone, it should have done.


It has taken bizarrely and America first, isolationist, pro-Russian


American president - perceived to be pro-Russian- to actually go out and


do it. The daily Mirror takes it one step further, suggesting Trump is


now one step from war. Warning that the world is in fear. Arguably


Bevan, there are many proxy wars going on already, not just in Syria


but in Iran. There are. -- but in Iraq. Very dramatic language. Trump


himself has been very categorical in his comments on what this


represented as an atrocity. The idea that we are one step behind war, it


seems that a Russian war strip in the Black Sea has been diverted to


the method. -- warship. There is a bit of... Some headlines are getting


ahead of the fax. This is no extra regulation -- escalation in US force


will. For the Russians, they are meant to be protecting Syria. Yet


this attack has happened on one of their bases. What this really shows


is that the big players in the Syrian conflict are the US and


Russia. The Assad regime would not have survived this long if it had


not been fully support of its allies, particularly Russia. Also it


Ron. Vladimir Putin has insisted on keeping that regime. -- also Iran.


It was thought that with Trump being so cosy with Moscow, perhaps that


would not be such an issue and there would be some progress and a


geopolitical solution between those big world powers. Obviously, Trump


is a volatile person and he seems to just throw that out the window here.


He has to take the advice at some point from his defence staff and


national security staff. Relations are ruined, as Ben said. How helpful


is this to Donald Trump, given that he has been accused of being far too


close to the Kremlin. This certainly pushes them further apart? The


cynical way of looking at this action, and it is cynical is that


Donald Trump has had an abysmal couple of weeks. His ratings are


historically low for a president at that point in his term. The


investigation into Russian interference in the presidential


election has really brought up contacts between the Trump team and


Russian officials. He has been taking criticism from all sides,


even from Republicans. Suddenly he gets the opportunity here to take a


very strong stance and to, I guess, show that all the rhetoric on the


campaign trail but he could be strong and be the one to protect


America, that he can put that into action. The fact it is the complete


opposite action and he said he would do on the campaign, that does not


seem to matter to him. He is getting a taste of what it is like to have


two lead, to make decisions. When you are on the campaign trail, there


is no reality to it. Look at the Daily Mail. Trump hit Assad again.


Congress are divided on this. Some on Capitol hill are saying, we


should have been asked to authorise this. What's Trump was arguing when


he was just a rich businessman in 2013 was that Obama, if he was going


to strike Syria, needed Congress 's approval. He has obviously done it


without Congress 's approval. The reality is very different when you


are in a position of power. What is interesting despite the fact he did


not go through Congress algae UN, is that he did seem to do it relatively


by the book. -- Congress or the UN. He informed Russia. He did tell


people what he was going to do. Which is actually somewhat out of


character for Trump. You know how impulsive he is and how many things


he has done not by the book. Do you think that implies he was taking


advice? He probably had some advice. We must mention there has been a


very important visitor trying to get Trump's attention. Ordinarily we


would be talking about the Chinese president meeting Trump and not


getting a look in. No, actually that is a crucial meeting for America.


China is in some ways America's most important bilateral ally. They were


going to talk about North Korea and some of the trade issues that have


been very close to Donald Trump's heart. This has been completely


overshadowed by what has been going on in Syria. The response of China


to the US strikes is actually really interesting. They did not come out


and condemn it quite as much as Russia did, but they did speak


against America's use of force. It's not like Trump is sitting there in


his golf resort in Florida, with an ally on this. That is actually quite


intense relationship right now. The Times has an headline saying Xi


Jinping loses face. I think it would sue China pretty well to have this,


because they do not want a big row with Donald Trump about trade. They


want to get on with things and not talk about North Korea. They want a


state visit that looks good because that's what plays well in the


Chinese media. Let's go to the Telegraph and talk about the other


big story of the day, this truck attack in Stockholm. Still a great


deal of confusion about who the person or people who are responsible


are. Two people have been asked questions was arrested. -- and one


was arrested. 15 injured, four dead. We do not know a lot at this stage


but what we do know is that it is the fourth vehicle -based attack on


civilians in European cities in under a year. Let's show the


headline on the Daily Telegraph. People spoke of the men's speed with


which he drove down the street. -- the immense speed. A lorry that had


been stolen earlier in the day from Newbury. They highlight -- from a


brewery. It seems to be that they targeted children. Infants by these


were sent flying through the air. Some horrific images there. As Ben


said, this is not the first time we have seen an attack of this kind of


nature. I also, reading it, I thought... This is slightly


flippant, but this is something Donald Trump almost predicted a few


months ago where he made a comment about what is going on in Sweden and


obviously there was nothing going on in Sweden at the time. I think it is


tragic that two months after that, he is alternative fact is, at the


time, have come true. The Daily Mail also has the story, using a picture


the police issued of a man they wanted to question. They were


questioning someone who resembled the man in this picture. Is this the


face of a terrorist? We don't know yet. There are some suggestions the


arrested place after the man now in custody had taken a train out of


Stockholm. The question is, what was the purpose of this attack? Whether


it is in fact, a terrorist incident. If it is terrorism, how do you go


about defending yourself against this kind of low-tech, horrific as


it is, it is not very sophisticated kind of attack. The perpetrator


seems to just have hijacked a lorry and driven it at people from not


very far away. Very difficult to defend against. You can't begrudge


barriers in every single high Street on the world. -- you can't put crash


barriers on every high street. Some experts saying it was only a matter


of time until it happened in Sweden, despite its appearing very safe.


Reports were saying that the intelligence has been there but the


legislative framework has not. Extremism in Sweden which is


considered a very tolerant and open country has been rising. I think it


is interesting that this attack took place actually close to the scene of


the last terror attack, or attempted terror attack in Sweden in 2010.


Thankfully that was a suicide bomber who did not manage to injure anyone


other than himself. This tension has been brewing for a while. In terms


of defending against it, it was the Daily Mail who after the Westminster


attack, of a similar nature, put forward a spread saying, we found


instructions of how you can use a car or truck to kill people. I was


thinking, you don't need instructions for that. It's obvious.


Anyone has these tools. That's what makes it so difficult to defend


against. That's it for the papers for tonight. Just the two stories


dominating the headlines of course. Don't forget you can see me from


pages online on the BBC News website. There are seven days a


week. If you mist the programme, you can watch it later on I play. I hope


you will come back, Rachel! You have taken to it very readily, hasn't


she, then? Thank you very much, both. Coming up next: the weather.


Download Subtitles