american colleagues claim was used to send aircraft equipped... hello and welcome to 100 days. let's go back to that live press conference. the evidential evidence from witnesses who were at the airport, there were no signs of there being any poisonous chemical substances. i wa nt to any poisonous chemical substances. i want to apologise for this extended commentary but i want to underline oui’ commentary but i want to underline our 100% conviction that if our collea g u es our 100% conviction that if our colleagues in the un or in the hague avoid this investigation, that would mean they do not really want to

prove, to find the truth. but we will continue to insist. thank you. secretary rex tillerson, i want to ask about your conversations with putin about syria. you predicted assad would leave power through political transition, how would you compel him to participate in a political transition that leads to his own departure. our war crimes charges a table and how long will the us wait for russia to come around and four sergei lavrov if i make your government and united states governments seem to be miles on the syria issue, on ukraine and other issues. did you feel you have cleared up any of those issues you mentioned earlier today? since you had those discussions with rex tillerson. we discussed at length the future role for assad, whether it be ina the future role for assad, whether it be in a future political process

or not. clearly our view is that the brain of the assad family is coming to an end. they have again brought this on themselves with their conduct in the war at these past few years. we discussed our view that russia as their closest ally in the conflict perhaps has the best means of helping assad recognised this reality. we do think it is important that assad, his departure is done in an orderly way. so that certain interests and constituencies he represents field they have been represented at the negotiating table for a political solution. how that occurs, for a political solution. how that occui’s, we for a political solution. how that occurs, we leave that to the process going forward. we do not think one has to occur before the other can begin. it will take a pace of its owi'i. begin. it will take a pace of its own. but the final outcome in our

view does not provide for a role for the assad family or for assad in a future government of syria. we do not think the international community will accept that, we do not think the world would accept that. what about the war crimes charges? we discussed the issue that as time goes by and more and more evidence continues to be gathered, it is possible that the threshold necessary to charge individuals including assad may be achieved. as you know this is a very high legal hurdle in order to bring such charges against an individual. sol would not suggest to you that all of that evidence is in place but i think the longer time goes by it is possible that the case will be made and there are certain individuals working to make that case. for my part i would want to say that

ido for my part i would want to say that i do not think that we and the united states are at a distance that is, that we have hindrances that cannot be overcome. we have talked about maintaining and intensifying channels of dialogue both on syria and ukraine. as to the problem of syria, and assad in particular, we have talked about historical things and rex tillerson has said he prefers not to go back into history but to talk about current issues.

but the road is such that if we do not draw lessons from the past we can hardly make progress in the present. a number of states and forced —— first and foremost western states, nato states were concentrated on liquidating this or that authoritarian leader for the sake of removing the former president of yugoslavia, slobbered on the loss of rich, and the war in central europe in 1999 which was the greatest violation of un status, they bombed the tv centre which is a military crime. by any way of interpreting the geneva convention,

residential quarters. the chinese embassy was attacked, bridges and passenger trains for almost three months the bombing continued. and as a result when the ammunition and the targets eve n a result when the ammunition and the targets even remotely would be attributed as a double standard. then they started talking of the un security council, another dictator, saddam hussein, who was hanged after the intrusion, we all know how this intrusion was justified under tony blair. i think he's the only politician who publicly repented. but the dossier was fake and what is now happening in iraq, you know better than i do. then it was

gaddafi, his turn and people were saying this was a politician that should not be governing and look at what is happening now in libya, it isa what is happening now in libya, it is a state of the huge question and we we re is a state of the huge question and we were talking with the italian president trying to restore the libyan state through national agreements, trying to stop the situation where the country has turned into a channel of illegal immigration, slave trade, today there was a story in the media and more recent examples, not too distant examples, the sudan president, russia declared wanted by

international courts but then the obama administration decided that saddam was split into two parts. southern sudan was created. saddam has been split into parts according to the us administration. and a year ago the washington insisted on sanctions against its own brainchild. southern sudan. so this obsession with the change of

regime here and there after to tell —— a totally dictator, we're fadiman examples, too many. and hardly any of them are positive. —— we have had too many examples. i cannot recall any where a dictator was overthrown and things moved smoothly. so in syria as president putin publicity underlined, we're not making a steak ona underlined, we're not making a steak on a particular personality or individual. as in libya they are trying to focus on this or that leader. the same thing in syria, all the syrians need to sit down and ee, the syrians need to sit down and agree, it has to be inclusive internal dialogue. and the un

security council resolution says syrians themselves should determine the fate of the country. the most important thing is not necessarily to re m ove important thing is not necessarily to remove this or that individual from the political scene but to agree about the future structure of the syrian state. so it is democratically secular, that many opposition leaders are opposing so that all the ethnic groups feel protected and fairly represented. and as soon as this consensus is reached, this needs to be done through the new constitution. the fate of separate individuals will be resolved much more efficiently and without any consequences for the people. question to rex tillerson. have you

discussed today the question of russia and its alleged intervention in the presidential elections in the united states and how do you think the actions of russia in cyberspace are different from the american similar actions. for instance we know the us intruded into iran in the same way. the united states intruded into the missile project of korea. and a question to sergei lavrov, talk about reconstituting the work of the bilateral presidential convention. on the

issue of cyber security and the challenges that it is placing on everyone in terms of a new threat and an emerging threat, i think i make a distinction when cyber tools are used to interfere with the internal decisions among countries as to how their elections are conducted. that is one use of cyber tools. cyber tools to disrupt weapons programmes, that is another use of the tools. and i make a distinction between those. clearly this is an issue that has emerged in ourtime and for this is an issue that has emerged in our time and for which we have yet as the international community come to some conclusion around how we wa nt to some conclusion around how we want to respond to that. and so there will be further discussions and it is on the agenda, it is in the agenda that sergei lavrov asked me for us to have further

discussions in the future. me for us to have further discussions in the futurelj me for us to have further discussions in the future. i can only confirm that we are interested in cooperation in fighting crime in cyberspace. in november 2015 the obama administration has concerns about so—called hacking, that sometimes they were using illegal means without judicial they were using illegal means withoutjudicial procedures between the two countries. back then we said we are not interested in our citizens being involved in cyber crime. and suggested a coordination

and bilateral contacts and the bilateral mechanism to exchange information about who, how and in what way violates existing international norms between russia and the united states. the obama administration rejected a proposal or rather, ignored it. but then at the very end of his term they said let's meet. 0ur colleagues agreed but at the last moment the obama administration changed their minds. they were probably too busy with undermining russian american relations before the new administration came in. so our interest is there, and it is fully

actual and we suggested that we renew contacts both on the level of special representatives of the us administration and russian president as well as on the level of corresponding governmental agencies. we fully support these contacts and we hope that this time the result of these efforts will result in such a channel. and the second question as to the presidential commission, we have not touched at issue. the presidential commission was buried, i hope it might be revived. it was buried by president obama. and the channels in bilateral relations, we hope to create them without a

special umbrella structure, to some people appointed to look at where we have complex issues, problems where we have grievances against each other and look at how these problems can be overcome. primarily those created artificially. secretary rex tillerson, did you discuss today with president putin or sergei lavrov sanctions or other concessions that the united states might make in exchange for a change in behaviourfrom might make in exchange for a change in behaviour from the might make in exchange for a change in behaviourfrom the russian government and also speaking about what you just entered previously, did you present to president putin or the foreign minister specific evidence to russian government interference in the us election and sergei lavrov, if an independent investigation by the assam government attacked his own people with chemical weapons, what will russia do. president putin says there is an effort to blame assad

and plant evidence, did you present that evidence to secretary rex tillerson today and would russia refused to consider to agree to any circumstance that results in the ousting of assad? we discussed no change in status of sanctions that have been in place with russia as a result of certain actions taken in the ukraine as you know. i think as to the question of the interference with the election, that is fairly well established, the united states and with congress, it is a serious issue, it is one that we know is serious enough to attract additional sanctions. so we are mindful of the seriousness of that particular interference in our elections. and i'm sure that russia is mindful of that as well. secretary of state was not

threatening us with sanctions today. 0r threatening us with sanctions today. or with anything else. we were frank in discussions about the issues on our agenda including those where we have problems. what will happen if the investigation proves that the syrian government was involved in chemical attacks, i believe this question is hypothetical. we do not wa nt question is hypothetical. we do not want any guesses. and like those who raised this hysterical campaign to destroy, to bomb syria, both from the senate and the congress, house of representatives, they followed

the us missile strikes. we do not wa nt the us missile strikes. we do not want to speculate on the very important issues. on the use of chemical weapons, on the efforts to justify somebody or to stage chemical attacks. we want to establish truth in full accordance with american russian legislation, legislation of any normal country. presumption of innocence should be respected and if our official suggestions that were sent for the impartial investigation are hindered, we will draw conclusions about those who hindered these investigations. as to statements

that the united states government are having irrefutable evidence about our intervention into us election campaigns, i should again underlined we have seen not a single fa ct. underlined we have seen not a single fact. i do not know who saw them, we we re fact. i do not know who saw them, we were not shown anything, we were asked, we asked repeatedly please, please present facts that are the foundation of these accusations. i know but a platter of people who wa nt know but a platter of people who want to finally undermine our relationship for their own political ambitions. but this is the game with on a. give us proof and then we will be prepared to respond.

a question to both ministers. the united states sent to the arabian peninsula is tracking group with missile carriers. did you discuss the situation and its risks. and rex tillerson, if this is true to the united states have plans against north korea? we are routinely in the pacific theatre and its movement in the pacific are made in a way that is planned by the military planners. there is no particular objective to

its current course. its sales up and down the pacific routinely and so i would not read anything into its current locations. i can only repeat that among other things, we discussed the situation in the korean peninsula. with all the new a nswe rs korean peninsula. with all the new answers and probably significant a nswe rs , we answers and probably significant answers, we have a joint intention to regulate the problem exclusively for peaceful means to reach denuclearisation of the korean peninsula through negotiations. effo rts peninsula through negotiations. efforts are being undertaken by what

we used to call a six party process. we have several ideas. 0ur chinese collea g u es we have several ideas. 0ur chinese colleagues have ideas. we should unite efforts in trying to resolve the problem through peaceful means. and the final question. before these meetings you said you believed russia was either incompetent or complicit in these chemical weapons attacks. after your extensive meeting with sergei lavrov and vladimir putin, due know which one thatis vladimir putin, due know which one that is and what concrete thing can be done to rebuild that lack of trust. and sergei lavrov, if i could indulge you to answer in english if you would, president trump has called assad and animal, this is the leader your government continues to back, can you tell us how long

russia will be willing to risk the lives of soldiers and spend its money to protect him. with respect to russia and its complicity our knowledge of chemical weapons attack, we have no firm information to indicate that there was any involvement by russian forces into this attack. what we do know and we are very firm and have high confidence in our conclusion is that the attack was planned and carried out by the regime forces at the direction of assad. i can only confirm once again that as much as in the case with the so—called russian hackers and the chemical incident in syria, we really want, apart from verbal statements, to

receive at least some sort of factual evidence. so far we have not had any. and once again i want to say that in syria we work at the request of its legitimate government. the country is a member of the united nations which is under no sanctions of the un security council and where they are to fight terrorism. it is in our interests not to allow through islamic state and al—nusra, militants to rule in damascus. and if you look at the practical side of things the coalition created by the obama administration was never involved in implementing the purpose it was

allegedly created for. this is bbc news. you have been watching a live press conference between the russian foreign minister and us secretary of state in moscow. after that the us—led coalition was striking only some positions of the islamic state. al—nusra was always, we had a firm suspicion al—nusra is being saved so that for assad with plan b to overthrow the assad regime by force. and the consequence of that i have already been talking about. we've seen the same in iraq and libya. and i hope people who have drawn lessons from history will prevail. as to who commits which

crimes, and as an american colleague re ce ntly crimes, and as an american colleague recently said, time comes for everything and there should be priorities. and priorities result from washington that islamic state isa from washington that islamic state is a priority number one. and we are capable of overcoming islamic state without touching assad and his regime. everyone is convinced this isa regime. everyone is convinced this is a much more serious threat than the assad regime. so we are thinking in the same way and we should look for the common thread. and if

islamic state could be overcome and destroyed without a change of regime, with the change of regime we could lose two islamic state. so let us could lose two islamic state. so let us be ruled by common sense and pragmatism rather than emotion. dear colleagues this concludes our press conference, thank you very much. we've been listening to a press conference between sergei lavrov the russian foreign minister and rex tillerson the us secretary of state. the press conference went on by my reckoning for about 50 minutes, partly because sergei lavrov gives long answers but also a reflection of the fact they have an enormous amount to discuss. they talked about syria of course, the future of assad, rex tillerson said it was the american dude that the reign of assad is coming to an end. sergei

lavrov talked also about ukraine, they touched on the russian elections. and cyber security, rex tillerson saying it is possible that assad could face war crimes, sergei lavrov also said he thought there we re lavrov also said he thought there were considerable prospects for peace and that the distance between the two countries was not so big that it could not be overcome. so a huge amount for them to talk about, clearly having come out of almost four hours meeting, then another two are meeting with president putin, touching on all the complexities of the relationship and sergei lavrov living a long lecture at one point on history to his american counterpart saying we must learn the lessons of yugoslavia, iraq and libya and we must be careful what we wish for in syria. let's get more from our correspondent in moscow. the two things you could take from this that matter in the immediate

term, this idea from sergei lavrov but they are prepared to restore the sft agreement which of course is crucial over syria so there are no accidents. and he says there is a readiness of us colleagues to support an investigation into this searing gas attack. this evening in the un security council there is a boat on a draft resolution for an investigation into the chemical attacks. the question is will russia support it. as far as as farasi as far as i heard comments by the russian representatives, they are not satisfied with the proposal made. this reminds me of the situation with the boeing flight that was shot down over eastern ukraine, the west accused russia of putting theirair ukraine, the west accused russia of putting their airjet down and bosco just called for an independent investigation and this was going

back and forth for months. this might be the case again. russia would call for an investigation and it would go back and forth for months. what is obvious is that moscow is very interested in dialogue with washington and is interested in cooperation because it has invested so much in the syrian campaign. but they need to find common language with washington. read the tea leaves for us with that press c0 nfe re nce . read the tea leaves for us with that press conference. you have listened to sergey lavrov many times. is the kremlin feeling under siege in the light of the attacks in syria or is that not what you heard from the press conference? definitely, the kremlin is under pressure because of the chemical attacks and what has

been mentioned by washington. but vladimir putin never steps back under pressure, never surrenders. what they often do is issue counter offe nce. what they often do is issue counter offence. they always come with counter arguments and accusations and that is what mr putin did. what was interesting for me was the contrast between statements made by putin and his harsh language accusing washington and statements made by the russian foreign ministry. sergey lavrov was quite soft saying there were quite a lot of things called common ground that can repairthe of things called common ground that can repair the relationship and it seems that the kremlin is playing the game of good and bad policeman trying to attract washington for further cooperation because definitely there are a number of issues that they want to solve. thank you very much forjoining us.

joining us now for more on secretary tillerson's trip is matthew rojansky, director of the kennan institute at the woodrow wilson center. 0n the issue of syria and the future of the assad regime, where does moscow stand at the moment? of the assad regime, where does moscow stand at the moment7m of the assad regime, where does moscow stand at the moment? it was fascinating listening. and endurance sport for all of us, especially for rex tillerson. people ask what the releva nce rex tillerson. people ask what the relevance of his experience in negotiating with the russians was, you saw it there. he said what he wa nted you saw it there. he said what he wanted to say, didn't talk about anything he didn't want to talk about even as sergey lavrov went on about even as sergey lavrov went on about other things that he didn't wa nt to about other things that he didn't want to talk about. i thought he handled himself very well and stuck to his talking points. i don't think the russian position on syria has

changed one inch. this thing about a un investigation is a play for time. they've got a problem with assad. russians have no love for this guy bashar al—assad but on the other hand, as soon is they say, he's got to go, where is their leveraged? they are playing for time. why don't they make him behave better? i'm not sure they can. i think the collective russian frustration has been, we deal with autocrats all around the world. this is part of reality. why are you such a bloody minded one who despite that can't win the war, why are you making it so hard? win the war, why are you making it so hard ? they win the war, why are you making it so hard? they have played a week and relatively well, it has got attention off ukraine which is a good thing for them. it has brought the united states to the table

whereas the message under president 0bama whereas the message under president obama was isolation. at the end of the day, this is a big problem for the day, this is a big problem for the russians, more of a liability than a benefit. part of the strategy that seems to be coming out from the white house is that you are in a cul—de—sac, a club of iran, syria, north korea. we are offering you a way out or you can go back into isolation. a meeting with putin that lasted two hours, that's pretty positive, isn't it? i read from the fa ct positive, isn't it? i read from the fact that it was strangely concealed, although the russian press was reporting it for 2h hours before it happened although it was never formally confirmed. this quite substantial meeting and press conference, i think it is a gear up toa

conference, i think it is a gear up to a trompe— putin summit. that is where business is going to get done. in the russian system, all ears perk up, what is vladimir putin's position? when he comments publicly about where the relationship is going, that is when the russian bureaucracy gets into gear. there is a longer list of issues than syria. syria is a tragedy that can remain unresolved. there is cyber, nuclear, ukraine and security. then there are these incidents in the baltic and these incidents in the baltic and the black sea, the eastern mediterranean that literally risked starting world war three. non—magic —— not negligible issues that need sorting out. it was interest during that conversation, sergey lavrov and rex tillerson, another issue on top of what was mentioned was the issue

of what was mentioned was the issue of the american election. there was an example of rex tillerson's discipline. he really stuck to the minimum when asked about it. he said it was a serious issue and could merit further sanctions but didn't wa nt to merit further sanctions but didn't want to talk about it. you have a texan in rex tillerson, the body language, you could see it in the handshake, it needs a bit of work. they are not very close at the moment. you would have that with president putin. they are big strongmen. texan testosterone against moscow machan. they are going to get a marriage guidance counsellor in, setting up a working group to try and deal with all of these issues. america has a problem with stuffing in the state department, they have to find the staff because this needs to be fixed. sergey lavrov is a wily fox.

in the opening remarks he had a dig at rex tillerson. he said there is confusion in the relationship but thatis confusion in the relationship but that is because you have got no staff. that has been a criticism of the secretary of state, he doesn't have any staff at the state department. interesting games go on in the background. we have got to get other news from around the world. a lot going on. a football match in germany. it shouldn't be remarkable but it is. the rescheduled champions league quarter final between borussia dortmund and monaco follows an attack on the german team. monaco won that match 3—2, by the way. we brought you news last night that dortmund's team bus had been targeted with three explosives. the prosecutor said today that metal strips were put in the devices. the precise motive for the attack is still not clear but police are treating it as a terrorist attack. we've been speaking to our correspondent, jenny hill, in dortmund. notan

not an awful lot of detail from the police but they are focusing on these mysterious letters. they are. prosecutors say that they found three letters at the site of last night's explosions. base a the contents night's explosions. base a the co nte nts of night's explosions. base a the contents of those letters point to a potential islamist terror motive for the attacks. they are being examined, they say, by islamic experts. letters are said have contained a man's that german tornado fighters are withdrawn from syria and that germany closes its army base at ramstein. a twist to the investigation at this point but these letters appear to be the focus of the investigation at the moment. the reaction from the town. it's been fairly impressive. the team is

resilient, playing their match. stories of fans from the opposing tea m stories of fans from the opposing team buying each other drinks. sounds like a town that hasn't given into the attacks. absolutely. people would say that this is the spirit of football. germany's national game. away fa ns football. germany's national game. away fans were put up by many of their rival fans in away fans were put up by many of their rivalfans in a display away fans were put up by many of their rival fans in a display of solidarity. speaking to people before the match began, a real sense that no one wants to be cowed ideas attack. it looks like a deliberate targeting of the dortmund team. no one wants to give into that kind of terror is what people are saying to us. one man was alongside his young son, eating their sausages on the way in, they said ford paul is stronger than —— football is

stronger than —— football is stronger than —— football is stronger than terror. they speak for many. does it get any better? sadly for dortmund, it didn't go too well. they lost 3—2. quite an exciting finale with two late goals but they go into the second leg losing. not surprising given what they've been through over the last few days. it should serve as a warning to anyone in the public eye. never compare the actions of hitler or the terror of the holocaust to the present day. the white house press secretary sean spicer, got himself into an awful mess yesterday, with this in his daily briefing. we didn't use chemical weapons in world war ii. you have somebody as despicable as hitler who didn't even sing to using chemical weapons. you have too, if you are sure, is this country and a regime that you want to yourself with? and during the jewish

festival of passover. what is worse is that in his immediate clarification which he was asked for at the same briefing, he walked further into trouble. when you come to sarin gas, he wasn't using it on his own people in the same way as assad is doing. i appreciate that. he brought them into the holocaust centres, i understand that, i saying the weight assad used them, in towns, dropping them in the middle of towns, the use of it, i appreciate the clarification. that was not the intent. sean spicer who have not learnt that when you are in a hole stop digging. a written apology was later issued by the white house but such was the reaction on social media — the anne frank centre called it an "evil slur" — that spicer, was sent out to make a full apology on the

evening bulletins. he has been speaking again today at a news forum in washington. i made a mistake. there is no other way to say it. got into a topic that i shouldn't have and i screwed up. it is painful to myself to know that idid it is painful to myself to know that i did something like that. it was not my intention. to know that when you screw up, you offend a lot of people, i would ask for forgiveness to understand that i should not have tried to make a comparison. there is no comparing atrocities. a pretty good apology. united airlines could probably learn a lesson from that. there are perils. his is not a job for the faint—hearted. he has to stand there defending the president. that's not easy because sometimes the president says things without evidence to back it up and he has two supporting. you just can't get

away with a comment like that, can you? i think the way he came out and apologised from this white house and president who doesn't like climbing down. it made me think he had the direction of the president and the 0val office behind him. i saw a tweet you sent out last night about the relationship between the president and steve bannon. he is irked by the idea that it is president bannon and he is the fall quy president bannon and he is the fall guy tagging along. can we show what is said in the new york post? as far as as faras i'm as far as i'm aware, tell me if i'm right, steve bannon won it for him at the end, didn't he? he was the

campaign chairman. if your editors ever say to you, i like you but, listen to the butt bit of the conversation. never a good sign. my bet is the but bit is more important at the moment. steve bannon not an very solid ground. for the past few months we have been telling you the french election is a two horse, possibly a three horse race. the centrist emmanuel macron, and the front national‘s marine le pen lead the polls, with the right wing francois fillon trailing in third. but things have shifted. and suddenlyjean luc melenchon, of the hard left, is in the frame. for most of the campaign he had been dismissed as a distant no—hoper but according to these latest polls he has surged into the top four,