Skip to main content

tv   HAR Dtalk on the Road in Eastern Libya  BBC News  August 22, 2017 2:30am-3:01am BST

2:30 am
surprised that he talked tough on pakistan, and even more surprised that i didn't hear him say anything about the russian interference or the rainy and interference. because those outside countries that are meddling in afghanistan are causing many of the problems. this is not a military solution. that is where rex tillerson comes in with the to dramatic ever. —— mackerel, -- iranian —— iranian interference. -- iranian interference. what did you hear? i do hear strategy in there. ido you hear? i do hear strategy in there. i do see, as the general said, a conference of approach that wants to deal with the given what it —— to dramatic plank, the financial plank, as well as measures against those supporting the telephone, and the military one, of course. i also hear a the military one, of course. i also heara sigh of the military one, of course. i also hear a sigh of relief across afghanistan, but also a reality
2:31 am
check. after 16 years of ongoing agony in afghanistan. at the beginning, there was a lot of hope, if you remember. until2005 beginning, there was a lot of hope, if you remember. until 2005 or 2006, when the taliban and re—emerge. and whether they re—emerge from? the same sanctuary is that the president alluded to. centuries in pakistan, support networks, connections outside of afghanistan, and now they have tried to take over as much as they can. what i am seeing is that they can. what i am seeing is that the afghan people tonight, or this morning, afghanistan time, they are realising that for the first time in america is speaking frankly. it has realised what the crux of the issue is. yes, we have problems with other neighbours. we have problems across the region. but i think that if you go to the court of the issue, then you use diplomacy and other
2:32 am
political or geopolitical measures. you can come back to the time not long ago with russia and iran, and china and others, on the american side. i think that we need to capitalise on that. this is the right moment to do so. and probably the last moment, the last chance, for america in afghanistan, and this war. also we heard ambassador samad saying frank talk. we knew we would hear that from the president.” saying frank talk. we knew we would hear that from the president. i was struck by the first several moments of this speech that the president of the united states took the opportunity not to discuss what happened in southeast asia but talked about what happened in cha rlottesville, talked about what happened in charlottesville, virginia. he made the specific reference to any injustice given to any american
2:33 am
citizen is an injustice towards us all. i think this is the first opportunity we have heard the president of the united states addressing the situation in cha rlottesville, addressing the situation in charlottesville, since he has had a difficult week in discussing that. i found it fascinating that he made a lot of talk about talking very tough about pakistan not harbouring terrorists and not nation—building, but at the same time being very proactive and positive towards india. ifi proactive and positive towards india. if i am looking at the capitals of india and pakistan tonight i am saying what do those governments here and perceive, based oi'i governments here and perceive, based on what the president of the united states is saying? is this a new opening for india to be a stronger and more productive partner with the united states, and if i am sitting in pakistan, is the president of the united states giving us a warning shot across the bow if you continue to harbour terrorists, or a perceived as doing such, then we will take a tougher stance with you. and are you talking about the military going across the border to
2:34 am
pursue terrorists in pakistan?|j pursue terrorists in pakistan?” don't think that will happen unless there is clear evidence of an eminent terror threat. the significant amount of money the united states gives to pakistan for security assistance in economic aid, that will now be conditional upon progress on their side to clean up the haqqani network, clean up some of the other challenges we have seen coming from afghanistan. and what would afghanistan make of the idea of india becoming more of a partner? before i answer that i want to follow u p before i answer that i want to follow up on what was said. we had one very interesting example when the taliban leader was droned, to use a more the taliban leader was droned, to use a more tactical, kinetic word, while returning from iran, inside a province of pakistan. and there are intelligence reports that while in iran he was meeting also with russians. so i think that, if you
2:35 am
have evidence that, whether haqqani or al qaeda affiliated groups, or i'iow or al qaeda affiliated groups, or now is cells, the islamic state cells, that have appeared in afghanistan and have crossed pakistan into afghanistan, or are planning anything that will either destabilise the afghan government will be a threat to western interests, that the united states and nato, don't forget it is not just the united states, there are nato plus countries involved in afghanistan and the president has called upon them to support this strategy. coming back to india, he called upon india not to get involved in the security situation in afghanistan. he called upon india to help afghanistan with development in financial and economic aid, which is what india has been doing for the past 15 years to the tune of more than $2 billion. the call has been to pakistan to do the same. to refrain from using radicalised,
2:36 am
extremist militants as proxies for its... whatever conception of geostrategic interests it has in mind. and to let go of that, and to instead engage with the afghans, on theirterms, over instead engage with the afghans, on their terms, over kashmir. instead engage with the afghans, on theirterms, over kashmir. but instead engage with the afghans, on their terms, over kashmir. but let's not mingle afghanistan with other issues that sort of dictate relationships across the board. with afghanistan, we want the taliban to either be defunded, or to be defeated. or the third choice is for the taliban to lay down their arms and let every other afghan group over the last 16 years join the new afghanistan. run for office. if your ideas are accepted, win seats in parliament. and so that is the choice that has to be given to those elements that the president alluded
2:37 am
to within the taliban. one of the interesting things about his speech, of course, was the fact he admitted he changed his mind. said he has gone from going with his instinct, which he likes, to a new strategy with afghanistan in the seven months since he took office. let's listen to what he had to say again. my original instinct was to pull out. and historically, i like following my instincts. but all my life, i've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the oval office. in other words, when you're president of the united states. so i studied afghanistan in great detail, and from every conceivable angle. after many meetings, over many months, we held ourfinal meeting last friday at camp david, with my cabinet and generals, to complete our strategy. i arrived at three fundamental
2:38 am
conclusions about america's core interests in afghanistan. another aspect is integration of diplomatic, military and other power towards a successful outcome. someday, after an effective military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement which includes elements of the taliban in afghanistan. but nobody knows if or when that will ever happen. america will continue its support for the afg ha n will continue its support for the afghan government, and the afghan military, as they confront the taliban in the field. well, we know that president trump
2:39 am
has spent months deliberating on this, but it is interesting that he has evolved, to use one word. what do you think made him change his mind? i think the complexities of the situation on the ground changed. there is no question that it is easier to campaign as a candidate for president of the united states and to talk about how you would change your strategy if elected to office than ultimately assuming office than ultimately assuming office and meeting with generals and folks in the military and looking, frankly, at what is america's geostrategic interest here at play? what i believe happened is that the president of the united states spent time with his national security council stuff, spent time with his military officers, obviously, and spent a lot of time looking at what is in the best interests of the united states and our allies in this region... and trying to chart a new path forward —— staff. what i found disturbing was the labour little bit of blame on his predecessors. he was deliberate in saying he has been dealt a bad and complex hand. i
2:40 am
wa nted dealt a bad and complex hand. i wanted him to speak more about a strategy moving forward in the future, of how he would leave his country, as opposed to looking back on casting blame and aspersions against his predecessors in office. can you pick up on that point? he is not the first president to do that, or to change his mind from campaign thomases when they come into office. president obama campaigned on getting out of iraq and by the end of his administration he was pouring troops into iraq. not only is it the pressures of the office but also conditions on the ground change, and you have to adapt. i think, as was mentioned, his generals said your view of afghanistan may not have been as clear prior to being president. let us explain to you what is really going on there and why it is in the national interest to perhaps change some of the points you made in 2013, which are, by the way, he changed in 2015. he also made it clear that america
2:41 am
was no longer interested in nation—building. he said we are here to kill terrorists. others two thoughts compatible? yes and no. america has been involved in some sort of nation—building in afghanistan, not very sort of nation—building in afg ha nista n, not very successfully, u nfortu nately, afg ha nista n, not very successfully, unfortunately, for a lot of reasons, a variety of reasons. let's remember that the afghanistan project or the afghanistan mission is notjust an american mission. america is the big elephant in the ram, but europeans have a lot at stake. they have spent billions of dollars in afghanistan. the japanese, countries in asia, in europe, in other places, have all invested in afghanistan. and i think if, let's say, the americans stop supporting certain aspects of what is called nation—building, maybe others were picked up. and this is where i think american diplomacy can come in and help put a more comrades of strategy in place, beyond the
2:42 am
american strategy. we have touched on the role of russia and iran in this. how unstable is the region at the moment, and if america was to withdraw at all, what sort of opening would russia and iran have? until a couple of years ago, in that pa rt until a couple of years ago, in that part of the world, the taliban and their affiliates, and before that al qaeda while it was at the zenith of its power, were seen as the spoilers and destabilises and the bad guys. for the past two or three years we have seen the rise of what is called daesh or islamic state. that has changed to some extent the modalities, and it has changed the way other countries are looking at afghanistan, are looking at the us presence in afghanistan. our engaging their own interests, and are actually co—ordinating certain activities with each other. i think tonight's speech sent a very clear message to afghanistan. it also sent
2:43 am
a clear message to others who can play hopefully a more constructive and positive role, whether it is russia, or iran, even, to some extent, or china, and even arab countries. who have, in the past, had a role to play behind closed doors. it was some money has flowed from arab states to taliban and systems in afghanistan which have enabled them to keep going with the war effort. so i think the messages that are being sent across the region and beyond have to be listened to very carefully. and america now has to use diplomacy as well, to make sure it is well understood. mr trump also said a major pillar of his new approach would be a complete change of approach towards pakistan, but what he had to say. we can no longer be silent about the safe havens in pakistan and other
2:44 am
groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond. pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in afghanistan. it has much to lose by continuing to harbour criminals and terrorists. in the past, pakistan has been a valued partner. our military ‘s have worked together against common enemies. the pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. we recognise those contributions and those sacrifices. but pakistan has also sheltered the same organisations that try every single day to kill our people. we have been paying pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. but that will have to change, and that will change immediately. no partnership can survive the
2:45 am
country's harbouring of militants and terrorists whose target us service members and officials. —— who target. it is time for pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order, and to peace. i want to bring in my colleague now. he was the bbc‘s correspondent in afghanistan and the region during the search, the obama surge, when an extra 100,000 troops were deployed to afghanistan —— during the surge. did you detect any major changes of policy that will make a difference? it was interesting in that clip, a stark warning to pakistani, where he said that we are giving money to a country that harbours those terrorists, and that is going to change. i would terrorists, and that is going to change. iwould be terrorists, and that is going to change. i would be interested to see how that will change. the pakistani military will balk at something like that. there was talk about the
2:46 am
sacrifices that have been made by their own military in fighting insurgency, but there is to give evidence to suggest that they have in many respects supported the calibre of afghanistan, because ultimately what pakistan wanted, and this is a strategy which goes back many years cut the security agencies wa nted many years cut the security agencies wanted and afghanistan that was on pakistan's side. and potentially, if they supported the taliban, and ended up bystrom was forced —— ended up ended up bystrom was forced —— ended up bystrom was forced, they would have that. —— ended up the strong as force. again, we are not entirely clear about our all these things he says we clear about our all these things he says we are clear about our all these things he says we are going to see achieved will be achieved. he said we are talking about results as opposed to arbitrary timelines. we have not had
2:47 am
the details yet. i was interested that he started his speech by heading off a lot of the criticism heading off a lot of the criticism he knows he's going to receive, having been somebody right through the obama years who was critical of a war in afghanistan at all. i was interested that he started by saying 1. my interested that he started by saying " my instinct was indeed to bring the troops home, but now i am behind the troops home, but now i am behind the desk in the oval office, have to rethink things. there is a sense in terms removal of the cap on the number of troops, and this attitude to afghanistan, there does appear to be something that has changed, but it is interesting to look at how things are going to change. we have not seen that so far. is this a reset, briefly? i think in
2:48 am
not seen that so far. is this a reset, briefly? ithink in those sensors, it is. but he was clear to say this was a reset because it was not about nationbuilding. this was about america's security priorities. and i suppose, in some senses, that isa and i suppose, in some senses, that is a change in focus in afghanistan and of course in the way he was talking about pakistan. although i have to say the above administration had also wanted to be tougher on pakistan. i suppose it is something. —— the obama. pakistan. i suppose it is something. -- the obama. ultimately, it is up to the people of afghanistan to look after their future, to govern their society, and to achieve an everlasting peace. we are a partner and a friend, but we will not dictate to the afghan people how to live, or how to govern their own complex society. we are not
2:49 am
nationbuilding again. we are killing terrorists. i want to go to ryan christie. we are talking about a reset, a change of policy. —— ron christie. how easy going to sell the change of heart to his base? this is a difficult position he's in right now. there is a of scepticism. this is being our longest engagement. we have lost soldiers, we have lost contact us. now he has the opportunity to go to the american people and say these objectives are exactly in specifically why it is important that america has a voice and a presence in the region, and thatis and a presence in the region, and that is what i am going to do. i think there will be some scepticism. as the general noted earlier, there has been no mention of troops, no mention of really how he is going to go about his new strategy. i believe
2:50 am
our service men and women are also going to say, mr president, how will you achieve those objectives that you achieve those objectives that you have outlined ? you achieve those objectives that you have outlined? ambassador, there is an issue of trust, here. do the afghanistan people trust the us? trust has been eroded over time. partly because of afghan conditions. partly because of afghan conditions. partly regional issues. but partly also beware the international community has handled afghanistan. there is been a lot of ways, unfortunately. there has been mismanagement. but i want to say that there is a difference a dream nationbuilding and state building, andl nationbuilding and state building, and i think that what afghanistan wants more than anything else is state building. this is where the international community can be of a lot of help, including the united states. and it has held quite a bit. we are a nation, a very old nation, a country with history, culture, with shared experiences. we were not
2:51 am
created just 40 or 50 years ago, out of the blue. we have lived with each other, the afghan communities that make up afghanistan, for thousands of years. so what we are looking at is mostly state building, and making sure that afghanistan takes care of its own affairs, eventually. security number one. the economy comes after. hopefully we are rich enough under the ground to appeal to that to our advantage, and others who come in to invest can also take advantage. i think it has all those issues in mind. —— i think the president has all those issues in mind. it isjust putting it into practice and making sure it happens on the ground. we need a partner in afghanistan that is reliable and reform at it. and we hope they deliver. talk about partners, donald trump is made a lot about wanting to
2:52 am
step up to the plate, and for others to do theirfair share. what step up to the plate, and for others to do their fair share. what do you think america is allies —— america's allies are going to think? there are 41 different nations inside afghanistan, now. they are looking at night's speech to make a determination of what they are going to do. if the president had said america's mission is over, we teddy deserved to nato, i think nato would save the same thing: our mission is over. i think this speech will give the allies the determination to convince their own people to stay in afghanistan longer. and with additional time, i think the president is going to ask additional support. particularly in those areas where other countries were better than the united states, though special skills, such as ministry of the interior capability. and i want to ask you and ron this question,
2:53 am
but he talks about not wanting to micromanage from washington. he obviously listens to his generals. is that a good thing, speaking as a general, that he would give them so much authority, or is there a danger here is abrogating his responsibility as commander—in—chief?” responsibility as commander-in-chief? i don't think he is abrogating. in previous days, the white house had this election are specific cornets, timeframes, very specific cornets, timeframes, very specific engagement. he is trained to reset the chain of command so that iran has a proper role, authority, and responsibility, rather than try to pull that into the white house. —— specific auditors. we have certainly seen this with the vietnam conflict, where it was micromanage. ——
2:54 am
co—ordinates. you want the troops on the ground and the command structure to have the ability to assess the situation and react accordingly. i think that is a very important we saw in his speech today. so an open—ended commitment, or at least no specific timeframe. what does that mean to you? i would characterise on the criticisms that he was not specific in terms of troop numbers or length of time. there is some value in strategic ambiguity. i believe his gut feeling is that we have been too transparent in our troop movements or troop numbers. what we are willing to do and how we are willing to do it. so his advisers said, probably quite well, that mr president, we don't need to be so transparent that not only did the american people understand what we are going to do
2:55 am
and how we're going to do it, but that enemies no dissent. ambassador, in the short time that we have left, a you pleased that there seems to be a you pleased that there seems to be a commitment to the long haul?” a you pleased that there seems to be a commitment to the long haul? i am. the afghan people i am sure are. as you mentioned, there would be the vacuum, and that would have a disaster. and the final word to you, ron. do you think this will be a ha rd ron. do you think this will be a hard sell? i think it is important that the president gave the american people and our allies around the world the impression that we will win this war, but that we will not set artificial deadlines or targets. thank you all very much forjoining me to discuss the president's speech. as you can find more on the new strategy in afghanistan at our website, along with all the day's news. i'mjenna
2:56 am
website, along with all the day's news. i'm jenna ryan. website, along with all the day's news. i'mjenna ryan. thank you website, along with all the day's news. i'm jenna ryan. thank you for watching. —— obama. ——jane —— jane o'brian. the cloud is sitting quite low in the atmosphere. anything positive to be set? the temperatures will be about 14—17. that is a mild start to the day. but a slow start for many. if you're on the move is first thing, as i say, some of this is sitting low in the atmosphere. it is going to take time before it leaves some of this size to break up. a little bit of heat coming through, and i think that will trigger some showers, some hefty across northern ireland. the odd trip and drab there to be had. as we move towards the central belt and the brightness there, temperatures will be about 19. further south than that, there is a chance that the heat of the day, and
2:57 am
it will be warm, will spark some showers into the north—east. there could be the odd one floating into north wales. further south from that, few showers to report. i assure widely here you will see 23, possibly 24. but if we do get that sunshine pouring on through for any length of time, i am sure that somebody is going to score 26 or maybe even 27. all of that humid air is trapped between those two weather fronts. once the cold front has worked across the british isles, as the world on wednesday, we expect to see behind it somewhat fresher conditions. that will take some time. the northern portion of the front is quite active. a miserable morning across the greater part of scotland. the trendy portion of that no more than a bed of cloud. that is what is going to eventually sweep away the heat from the south—east. —— the trailing portion. in the south—east, 15 degrees when the
2:58 am
change comes through, but we could peak at 24 before that. we see another portion of the waterfront moving through northern ireland on thursday. what have you done to deserve that? elsewhere, the rain is still there through orkney and shetland. further south, a mixture of conditions. the tops on both thursday and friday will be about 21 or 22. welcome to bbc news, broadcasting to viewers in north america and around the globe.
2:59 am
my name's mike embley. our top stories: donald trump spells out his new policy for afghanistan. no nation—building but no let—up in the battle against the taliban. we must ensure they have every weapon to apply swift, decisive and overwhelming force. our troops will fight to win. we will fight to win. the us navy temporarily suspends operations worldwide after one of its destroyers collides with a tanker near singapore. spanish police say they've shot dead younes abouyaaqoub, the main suspect in the barcelona terror attack. and lights out. millions look to the skies to witness a rare event, the total eclipse of the sun.
3:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on