BBCNEWS — BBC News at Ten
20260917 210000 UTC
523 transcript segments
Original Broadcaster Captioning (Enhanced)
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:08] MUSIC
[00:00:17] I'm Caitriona Perry in Washington and this is BBC World
[00:00:20] World News America. King Charles
[00:00:23] Charles urges leading tech bosses bosses developing AI to ensure our
[00:00:26] our humanity remains sacred, as he
[00:00:29] he warns of existential dangers.
[00:00:33] dangers. Those who have created these
[00:00:35] these technologies are now increasingly increasingly warning that AI risks
[00:00:39] risks developing darker capacities.
[00:00:42] capacities. Perhaps even to take
[00:00:45] take life. Possible war crimes by
[00:00:48] by the US that's the verdict of a
[00:00:50] a UN panel investigating two deadly deadly strikes in Iran this February.
[00:00:54] February. The US rejects that report
[00:00:57] report and Canada's Prime Minister
[00:00:59] Minister hails its prospect of associate associate membership of the EU while
[00:01:03] while rejecting US criticism of the
[00:01:07] the alliance. MUSIC
[00:01:18] MUSIC Hello. Hello. You're very welcome to the
[00:01:21] the programme. Let's start in the the UK because King Charles is warning
[00:01:25] warning tech leaders about the existential existential dangers of artificial
[00:01:29] artificial intelligence. The monarch monarch called for more oversight
[00:01:32] oversight on AI, saying that it could could develop darker capacities.
[00:01:35] capacities. He made the comments comments on Thursday during a summit
[00:01:37] summit in Scotland to address mounting
[00:01:40] mounting security concerns posed posed by the technology. Tech giants
[00:01:43] giants including Nvidia, DeepMind, DeepMind, OpenAI and Anthropic were
[00:01:47] were gathered together there for for the first time since industry
[00:01:50] industry leaders called for a co-ordinated co-ordinated slowdown in AI development.
[00:01:54] development. Our correspondent Shiona
[00:01:56] Shiona McCallum has more. Not just
[00:02:00] just another royal engagement for for the King he was hosting Jensen
[00:02:04] Jensen Huang, the boss of one of
[00:02:05] of the world's most valuable companies,
[00:02:08] companies, Nvidia and Sir Demis Hassabis, Hassabis, the co-founder of Google
[00:02:11] Google DeepMind, along with some some of the world's most influential
[00:02:15] influential voices on AI. And as as soon as pleasantries were over,
[00:02:18] over, it was a stark warning. There
[00:02:20] There seems urgency in adequately
[00:02:24] adequately considering the existential existential dangers of such technologies
[00:02:27] technologies falling into the wrong wrong hands. The King addressed an
[00:02:31] an audience that included Tino Cuellar Cuellar from Anthropic, Sarah Friar
[00:02:35] Friar from OpenAI and Professor Chu
[00:02:38] Chu Lang from Shanghai University University in China. A Chinese presence
[00:02:41] presence in the room is significant, significant, too, with President
[00:02:44] President Trump framing AI as a race, race, America must win. The summit
[00:02:48] summit has been in the royal diary diary for six months, but the timing
[00:02:51] timing of it has become part of the
[00:02:54] the story. Last week, a former Anthropic Anthropic researcher said some of
[00:02:57] of the people building AI believe believe that it could kill us all
[00:03:01] all by the end of the decade. The
[00:03:02] The King has asked you here to give give reassurances that this technology
[00:03:06] technology won't harm humanity. Can
[00:03:08] Can you give those reassurances?
[00:03:12] reassurances? It is the responsibility responsibility of the AI companies
[00:03:15] companies ourselves to develop the the technology safely and to properly
[00:03:19] properly test it. As we move from
[00:03:21] from labs to product development. development. The companies have to
[00:03:25] to become much more rigorous in testing.
[00:03:28] testing. But other chief execs are
[00:03:30] are less optimistic. I think that
[00:03:32] that if we all create AI that are
[00:03:35] are able to act autonomously, that
[00:03:37] that can define their own objectives,
[00:03:40] objectives, that can earn money, money, that can own assets, that
[00:03:43] that could run businesses. We're
[00:03:46] We're essentially ceding a new silicon silicon species, which will no doubt
[00:03:49] doubt compete with us for resources resources no matter how much it cares
[00:03:53] cares about humanity and loves us.
[00:03:56] us. Warnings like that mean governments governments are under pressure to
[00:03:58] to act. The main thing I want to to assure everyone listening and
[00:04:02] and watching this is that the British British government has been focused focused on it. We have some of the
[00:04:05] the best capability in testing, understanding understanding risks and then mitigating
[00:04:09] mitigating them. We have to take take it seriously. That's exactly
[00:04:11] exactly what we're doing. This debate debate is not only about safety and
[00:04:14] and jobs. The data centres powering
[00:04:17] powering AI require enormous amounts amounts of electricity and water,
[00:04:21] water, placing the tech's environmental environmental issues at the heart
[00:04:24] heart of a cause. The King has championed
[00:04:27] championed for decades the King cannot cannot regulate artificial intelligence,
[00:04:31] intelligence, but what he can do do is use his convening power to
[00:04:34] to get these rivals around the table. table. The question is now will there
[00:04:38] there be anything concrete produced produced from these private discussions
[00:04:41] discussions here at Dumfries House?
[00:04:44] House? This technology appears to to be advancing far faster than diplomacy
[00:04:48] diplomacy is right now. But to gain gain public trust in AI, it will
[00:04:52] will need something more than conversation.
[00:04:54] conversation. Shiona McCallum BBC
[00:04:56] BBC News. Dumfries House. President
[00:05:00] President Trump has dismissed those those warnings about AI safety in
[00:05:02] in recent days. We asked Republican Republican Senator John Kennedy whether
[00:05:06] whether the President would sign sign his bill, which would call for
[00:05:09] for an AI kill switch. Well, if I
[00:05:12] I can pass this bill and it's a big
[00:05:17] big if because I'm sure someone will
[00:05:18] will object, someone who has been
[00:05:21] been put up by. By by probably the
[00:05:25] the AI people will object to this this bill. I don't know who it will
[00:05:29] will be yet, but I think the President President would sign this bill. I
[00:05:32] I think if I sat down and visited visited with him and explained to
[00:05:36] to him how government wouldn't be
[00:05:37] be in charge of the emergency off
[00:05:42] off button, but the companies would. would. But they would be required
[00:05:45] required to have one. I think he'd
[00:05:48] he'd be OK. Well, Kennedy's bill
[00:05:50] bill was blocked by his fellow Republican Republican Senator Rand Paul. Well,
[00:05:54] Well, let's talk some more now about about all of the issues involved
[00:05:57] involved on Capitol Hill. We're joined joined now by Democratic Congressman
[00:06:00] Congressman Don Beyer, co-chair of of the Congressional Artificial Intelligence
[00:06:04] Intelligence Caucus. Thank you, Congressman, Congressman, for joining us here
[00:06:07] here on BBC News. King Charles says
[00:06:09] says humanity is at risk of losing losing control of our destiny and
[00:06:13] and our souls, he says. Do you view
[00:06:15] view it like that? I do, but I take
[00:06:18] take my cue not from the King whom
[00:06:20] whom I respect, but rather from the the founders, the godfathers and
[00:06:24] and godmothers of AI people like like Demis Hassabis and Geoff Hinton.
[00:06:28] Hinton. They've been warning us for
[00:06:30] for 15 or more years that if we really
[00:06:32] really can build an artificial superintelligence, superintelligence, something that's that's smarter than we are, there's
[00:06:36] there's no reason to think that it's it's going to want what we want.
[00:06:40] want. Now you are one of a number number of colleagues from both parties
[00:06:43] parties who've written to the leadership leadership of both parties, urging
[00:06:47] urging immediate action on this. this. Why are we not seeing that?
[00:06:50] that? I'm not quite sure. Sadly, Sadly, we are in the least productive
[00:06:54] productive Congress in American history. history. There are a lot of meaningful
[00:06:57] meaningful bills Democratic and Republican
[00:07:00] Republican together to address AI
[00:07:02] AI to do a kill switch, to pause
[00:07:05] pause the frontier development, to to look to demand on safety testing
[00:07:09] testing of all these things. They They haven't come together yet. I
[00:07:11] I hope they do before the end of of the year. We absolutely need to
[00:07:15] to make it happen. In the first quarter
[00:07:17] quarter of 2027, when I hope Democrats Democrats will be in charge again.
[00:07:20] again. There is, as you say, bipartisan
[00:07:23] bipartisan support for a number of of issues around AI, but it would
[00:07:26] would seem that the person at the the top of the Republican Party, Party, President Donald Trump, is
[00:07:30] is not in favour of taking that step
[00:07:34] step towards any legislation at this this point. Do you see your colleagues
[00:07:38] colleagues there being able to exert exert any sort of upward pressure
[00:07:41] pressure on him? Well, I don't know
[00:07:44] know if my colleagues can, but I I think the American public certainly certainly can. And certainly in the
[00:07:48] the last couple of weeks we've seen seen I've seen a tipping point. And
[00:07:51] And the people I represent where where this has become a much more
[00:07:54] more important issue than the data
[00:07:56] data centres or the cost of gasoline. gasoline. You know, it's one thing
[00:07:59] thing to pay, you know, 5 or 5 and and a half dollars for a gallon of
[00:08:03] of gas. It's another thing to think think your children may not be able
[00:08:05] able to grow up. And I'm not a 100%
[00:08:08] 100% doomer there are wonderful things things coming from AI. We just have
[00:08:11] have to make sure that we don't let let it get out of control. Because
[00:08:15] Because the President has said he he views this as sort of a race with
[00:08:19] with China for dominance, and it's
[00:08:20] it's a race that the US must win
[00:08:23] win at all costs. Yes, but I totally
[00:08:26] totally disagree with that. We you you know, if the race with China
[00:08:29] China is a race to see who loses loses control first, that's not a
[00:08:32] a race that we want to win. We also also recognise that China actually
[00:08:36] actually has many more checks and and balances on its AI than we do.
[00:08:39] do. You know, they're a dictatorship.
[00:08:42] dictatorship. They're a fragile tyranny. tyranny. So the Chinese Communist
[00:08:45] Communist Party can't afford to lose lose control. We're a democracy.
[00:08:48] democracy. So we're sort of a mess
[00:08:50] mess all the time. So the race with
[00:08:53] with China, by the way, what that that does suggest is that when President
[00:08:56] President Trump meets with Mr XI,
[00:08:59] XI, that AI needs to be one of their their very first topics. This is
[00:09:03] is something ultimately that requires, requires, you know, the AI equivalent
[00:09:06] equivalent of a Geneva Convention. Convention. And indeed some states
[00:09:10] states here in the US have enacted enacted their own legislation around
[00:09:14] around various parts of this. But
[00:09:16] But how do you get how do you translate translate that on a federal level?
[00:09:20] level? Because of course, while we
[00:09:21] we may see state borders, AI does
[00:09:24] does not. That is very true. And
[00:09:27] And but I think number one is we we can learn from what the states
[00:09:29] states are doing. New York and California California and Illinois and take
[00:09:33] take the best of their attempts and
[00:09:35] and put it into a federal framework.
[00:09:38] framework. I'm impressed with Demis
[00:09:41] Demis Hassabis call for essentially essentially a new organisation that
[00:09:44] that is funded by industry that has
[00:09:47] has regular independent checks, independent independent verification organisations,
[00:09:51] organisations, but nevertheless is is blessed and endorsed by the federal
[00:09:54] federal government so that we actually actually have enforcement power so
[00:09:57] so we can punish people that that
[00:09:58] that don't follow the law and the the regulations. And you mentioned
[00:10:02] mentioned there, Congressman, that that you're hopeful Democrats will
[00:10:04] will be in control of both houses houses in the next Congress if you
[00:10:08] you are in that position and you you are able to pass this legislation,
[00:10:12] legislation, it will still meet a a president who perhaps won't sign
[00:10:14] sign it. So what would happen then?
[00:10:17] then? Well, I think we would actually actually be in trouble, which is
[00:10:20] is why even though I think having having Democratic leadership assures
[00:10:23] assures me that we will actually actually get votes on the floor,
[00:10:26] floor, but we want to do it with with Republicans, this needs to be
[00:10:29] be a bipartisan effort. And I also
[00:10:31] also think that we take this to the
[00:10:34] the President with probably a number number of incidents happening between
[00:10:37] between now and the first quarter quarter of 2027. I think I hope and
[00:10:41] and I believe the President will will move in the right direction. direction. I don't think history
[00:10:44] history is going to give him any any choice. Given how serious all
[00:10:46] all of this is. As you're outlining outlining there, should Congress
[00:10:49] Congress be going on such a big recess
[00:10:50] recess now? Absolutely not. And we've
[00:10:54] we've been encouraging our leadership. leadership. Mike Johnson, the Republican
[00:10:57] Republican Speaker, to keep us in in town or to bring us back to town.
[00:11:01] town. No, it's shameful that we go go home for seven weeks when there
[00:11:04] there are major issues facing the the country. OK, Congressman, thank
[00:11:07] thank you very much for joining us us here on BBC News. That's Democratic
[00:11:11] Democratic Congressman Don Beyer.
[00:11:13] Beyer. Thank you. Now UN investigators
[00:11:17] investigators say there are reasonable reasonable grounds to believe that that the US carried out war crimes
[00:11:20] crimes in the early days of its war war on Iran, the UN's independent
[00:11:24] independent international fact finding finding mission on Iran found that
[00:11:27] that the US may have committed the
[00:11:29] the war crime of launching an indiscriminate indiscriminate attack, resulting
[00:11:32] resulting in the loss of life or
[00:11:34] or injury to civilians or damage
[00:11:37] damage to civilian objects. Now that that report submitted to the UN Human
[00:11:40] Human Rights Council pointed to two two deadly missile strikes in February
[00:11:44] February 1st on a primary school school in Minab and another that
[00:11:47] that hit a sports complex in Lamerd.
[00:11:49] Lamerd. It says at least 178 civilians
[00:11:52] civilians were killed in the two two attacks. The State Department
[00:11:55] Department is rejecting that new new UN report, saying the protection
[00:11:58] protection of civilians is of the the utmost importance to the US..
[00:12:01] US.. The US previously said it was was investigating that Minab strike
[00:12:05] strike and denies the raid on Lamerd.
[00:12:07] Lamerd. The UN experts also found
[00:12:10] found Iranian authorities committed committed crimes against humanity
[00:12:13] humanity during a crackdown on mass
[00:12:14] mass anti-government protests in
[00:12:18] in late 2025 into 2026. Well, let's let's talk about some of those findings.
[00:12:21] findings. I'm joined here in studio studio by our State Department correspondent
[00:12:24] correspondent Tom Bateman. Tom, lots lots of detail here. Let's talk about
[00:12:27] about the US first and what we've we've learned there. Well, as you
[00:12:31] you say, this was two incidents on on day one of the war, the strike
[00:12:34] strike on a school in Minab and also
[00:12:36] also on a sports complex in Lamerd
[00:12:38] Lamerd in Iran. Now the report goes goes through the evidence that on
[00:12:42] on the school strike that the US., US., it believes was using outdated
[00:12:45] outdated targeting. We've heard quite quite a lot about this, and it says
[00:12:49] says because of that, in the words words of the fact finders, this was
[00:12:52] was more than mere negligence. They They say that this was reckless.
[00:12:55] reckless. And because of that, the the Americans either knew or should
[00:12:58] should have known that this was no no longer a military complex, that
[00:13:01] that it was actually a school. And And therefore it says there's reasonable
[00:13:05] reasonable grounds to say that this this was a war crime committed by
[00:13:07] by the Americans. Similarly, with with Lamerd it calls this an indiscriminate
[00:13:11] indiscriminate attack and also reasonable reasonable grounds to say that this
[00:13:14] this is a war crime. So, you know,
[00:13:16] know, a very strong finding. The
[00:13:18] The State Department completely rejecting
[00:13:20] rejecting it. They say that the human
[00:13:23] human Rights Committee Commission Commission at the United Nations, Nations, which appoints this fact
[00:13:27] fact finding mission, is anti-American. anti-American. They say the report
[00:13:30] report is not credible. Does anything anything happen with those findings
[00:13:32] findings now? Well, I mean, the issue issue here is that all of the judicial
[00:13:36] judicial bodies that could take on on further investigations of course, course, disempower the Americans
[00:13:40] Americans say that they. They don't
[00:13:43] don't have jurisdiction over the the US for a start. So there's no
[00:13:47] no sort of chance of this being moved, moved, for example, to the International International Criminal Court. And
[00:13:50] And the Americans would say they they themselves investigate their
[00:13:53] their own military. Now, there weren't weren't findings, not only not just just about the US there were findings
[00:13:57] findings as well about what Iran Iran has been doing. Absolutely. Absolutely. And this was a very lengthy
[00:14:01] lengthy part of this fact finding finding report about late last year
[00:14:04] year into the new year. Remember Remember the huge uprising of protests
[00:14:07] protests in Iran? The report says says that the Iranians carried out
[00:14:11] out unlawful killings, enforced disappearances,
[00:14:14] disappearances, torture as they brutally brutally cracked down on these. They
[00:14:16] They say the official finding of of 3000 dead that the actual death
[00:14:20] death toll is likely to be far, far
[00:14:22] far higher and say this was a systematic systematic attack. And they go into
[00:14:25] into some very chilling details describing, describing, for example, security
[00:14:29] security forces armed with assault assault rifles, positioning themselves
[00:14:32] themselves on rooftops and elevated
[00:14:34] elevated positions and shooting into into crowds of civilians protesting,
[00:14:38] protesting, say that at least 220 220 children were killed, some of
[00:14:41] of those as young as two years old. old. OK. All right. Tom, thank you
[00:14:44] you very much for that. That's Tom
[00:14:46] Tom Bateman. There are US State Department
[00:14:49] Department correspondent. Now, let's let's stay with matters in the Middle
[00:14:53] Middle East, because Iran's delegation delegation will be allowed to enter
[00:14:56] enter the US next week for the United United Nations General Assembly.
[00:14:59] Assembly. That is according to some some confirmation from a spokesperson
[00:15:02] spokesperson for the US State Department. Department. However, two Palestinian
[00:15:05] Palestinian sources have told us us here at the BBC that the US is
[00:15:09] is denying an entry visa to the Palestinian Palestinian Authority. President
[00:15:12] President Mahmoud Abbas, for the the Assembly. That's the second year
[00:15:15] year in a row that that's happened.
[00:15:17] happened. The US had recently renewed
[00:15:20] renewed sanctions against Palestinian Palestinian officials, without naming naming Abbas, accusing them of failing
[00:15:24] failing to live up to peace process process commitments. The US accused
[00:15:28] accused the Palestinian Authority Authority of what it called glorifying
[00:15:31] glorifying terrorism and attempting
[00:15:33] attempting to internationalise the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
[00:15:37] conflict. Palestinian officials reject reject those claims, calling the
[00:15:39] the visa sanctions an unjustified
[00:15:42] unjustified measure. Abbas will instead instead make a video address once
[00:15:45] once again to the annual UN gathering
[00:15:47] gathering in New York City. Now the the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark
[00:15:51] Mark Carney, says Canada and Europe Europe are stronger together. He
[00:15:54] He made those remarks in an address address to the European Parliament
[00:15:58] Parliament just one day after the the European Commission president, president, Ursula von der Leyen,
[00:16:01] Leyen, had announced plans to make make Canada what she called the first
[00:16:05] first associate member of the European European Union. Welcoming the invitation,
[00:16:09] invitation, Mr Carney said the EU
[00:16:10] EU and Canada would create a beacon
[00:16:13] beacon for other democracies. Europe.
[00:16:17] Europe. We are not fair weather allies.
[00:16:20] allies. We do not pursue a zero sum
[00:16:24] sum deals. Our commitment to the
[00:16:27] the rule of law and our unyielding
[00:16:30] unyielding defence of human dignity,
[00:16:33] dignity, individual freedom and democracy
[00:16:34] democracy share the same deep roots,
[00:16:37] roots, the same unwavering dedication.
[00:16:41] dedication. We hold common values
[00:16:43] values for which we have always fought
[00:16:45] fought and in whose defence we must
[00:16:48] must always remain vigilant. We believe
[00:16:52] believe that a strong economy is
[00:16:54] is not an end in itself, but a means
[00:16:57] means to a just society. European European Commission President von
[00:17:01] von der Leyen's proposal to deepen deepen the relationship with Canada
[00:17:05] Canada received a standing ovation ovation from European lawmakers on
[00:17:08] on Wednesday. But while the majority majority of EU governments support
[00:17:11] support closer ties with Canada,
[00:17:13] Canada, some are questioning the the practicalities of associate member
[00:17:16] member status. It could take years
[00:17:18] years for the bloc to implement such
[00:17:21] such a label. US President Donald Donald Trump on Wednesday suggested
[00:17:24] suggested that the EU allowing Canada Canada to become an associate member
[00:17:27] member could be a hostile act towards
[00:17:29] towards the US.. He said any bad bad intention would be met with very
[00:17:32] very heavy tariffs on European goods. goods. Prime Minister Carney said
[00:17:36] said on Thursday that no one other other than Canada could decide who
[00:17:40] who it would strike international international agreements with. Well,
[00:17:43] Well, I'm joined now by Matthew Levin. Levin. He is a former Canadian ambassador
[00:17:46] ambassador to Spain and Andorra and and adviser to the Institute for
[00:17:50] for Peace and Diplomacy. Thank you you very much for joining us here
[00:17:54] here on BBC News. Now, the idea of
[00:17:56] of an associate member of the European European Union doesn't currently
[00:17:59] currently exist in EU legislation. legislation. It would have to be
[00:18:02] be essentially invented for Canada
[00:18:04] Canada to take part. But is that that an indication of the value of
[00:18:08] of the relationship that the EU is
[00:18:10] is proposing to go to those lengths? lengths? Yes, I think that's exactly
[00:18:13] exactly right. I think the importance
[00:18:15] importance of the suggestion of associate
[00:18:18] associate member status, as you point point out, it has no legal standing.
[00:18:21] standing. And what it might mean
[00:18:23] mean in concrete terms is, is largely
[00:18:26] largely unclear. But I think it's
[00:18:29] it's important is as a symbol, as
[00:18:31] as a statement of intent, as a signal.
[00:18:34] signal. And those things, of course course are very important in international
[00:18:37] international relations. But the
[00:18:40] the hard work of deepening and strengthening
[00:18:43] strengthening Canada's relations
[00:18:45] relations with European Union, of
[00:18:48] of course, would will require making
[00:18:51] making progress in, in substantive substantive concrete areas of co-operation.
[00:18:55] co-operation. So I think the suggestion suggestion of a associate member
[00:18:58] member status, it does send an important
[00:19:01] important political signal. I note note that the Canadian side is using
[00:19:04] using different language alliance
[00:19:06] alliance for the future and has kind
[00:19:09] kind of not not seemed at least to to me enthusiastic about this notion
[00:19:13] notion of a kind of formalisation formalisation through something like
[00:19:16] like associate member status. But But substantively, I think the positions
[00:19:19] positions of the two sides are quite
[00:19:20] quite are quite in harmony. They're
[00:19:24] They're both there's a genuine interest interest in a political commitment
[00:19:27] commitment to strengthen the relationship. relationship. Indeed, Mr Carney acknowledged
[00:19:30] acknowledged it but didn't sort of of formally accept the suggestion,
[00:19:33] suggestion, did he? But it has inflamed inflamed President Donald Trump.
[00:19:36] Trump. Is there a way at this point
[00:19:38] point at all to improve that relationship relationship between Prime Minister
[00:19:42] Minister Carney and Donald Trump? Trump? Such a key one next door neighbours, neighbours, of course, and linked
[00:19:45] linked in so many ways. Yes. Well,
[00:19:49] Well, of course for Canada, the relationship
[00:19:52] relationship with the United States States is indispensable in geography
[00:19:55] geography determines it. But many many other things have contributed
[00:19:58] contributed to it. It's, I think,
[00:20:03] think, hazardous to say about what what Prime Minister Carney might
[00:20:05] might or might not be able to achieve
[00:20:07] achieve with President Trump. I mean,
[00:20:09] mean, I think Mr Carney, like all
[00:20:12] all leaders, struggles with kind kind of erratic and unpredictable
[00:20:15] unpredictable nature. Mr Trump's
[00:20:18] Trump's behaviour, his statements statements he can swing fairly quickly
[00:20:22] quickly and fairly dramatically between between quite hostile remarks. And
[00:20:25] And there's been no shortage of those
[00:20:29] those in his comments about Canada,
[00:20:31] Canada, but also expressions of warmth warmth and appreciation for Mr Carney,
[00:20:35] Carney, of which he's also had quite
[00:20:36] quite a few. So I don't think one
[00:20:39] one can exclude a kind of recovery
[00:20:44] recovery or some degree of stabilisation
[00:20:46] stabilisation or at least improvement improvement in the personal relationship relationship between Prime Minister
[00:20:50] Minister Carney and President Trump.
[00:20:54] Trump. But it's something I think think given the given the pattern
[00:20:57] pattern that's taking place over over the last two years, I think
[00:20:59] think it's something that Canada Canada feels it can't rely on and
[00:21:03] and has to pursue other options without
[00:21:07] without forgoing its interest in in achieving that. And we've seen,
[00:21:11] seen, of course, beyond the leaders leaders relationship, a lot of Canadians
[00:21:14] Canadians themselves taking matters matters into their own hands, not
[00:21:16] not travelling to the US for their
[00:21:19] their holidays, not buying US products.
[00:21:21] products. Do you think that that
[00:21:24] that sort of customer level relationship relationship can be reversed in the
[00:21:28] the future? I do think it can. I
[00:21:31] I mean, the longer this state of
[00:21:35] of sort of hostility and really egregious
[00:21:39] egregious commentary by President President Trump towards Canada, the
[00:21:42] the longer that goes on the longer
[00:21:45] longer it will take to go back to
[00:21:47] to a status quo ante. Having said
[00:21:51] said that, beyond the President and
[00:21:52] and perhaps several members of his
[00:21:55] his administration in the broad scope scope of relations between Canada Canada and the United States, whether
[00:21:59] whether people to people relations relations but also political relations
[00:22:03] relations between Canadian premiers
[00:22:06] premiers and their counterparts. counterparts. Counterpart governors
[00:22:08] governors in US states, but at all
[00:22:10] all political levels. Actually that
[00:22:13] that relationship has remained as
[00:22:16] as it has been friendly and supportive. supportive. OK. All right. Well,
[00:22:19] Well, we'll see what happens next. next. Whether Canada is leaning towards
[00:22:23] towards the EU or the US. Matthew Matthew Levin, former ambassador
[00:22:26] ambassador Canadian to Spain and and Andorra, thank you for joining joining us here on BBC News. Thank
[00:22:30] Thank you for having me. Now, President President Trump says the US is working
[00:22:33] working to set up a new military military base in Poland, saying it
[00:22:37] it would be a historic step for what what he called our great US Polish
[00:22:40] Polish alliance. Despite concerns concerns in Europe, though, that
[00:22:43] that an ongoing US review could drastically
[00:22:45] drastically reduce troop levels there.
[00:22:48] there. This was the scene in Poland
[00:22:50] Poland earlier on Thursday. Air raid raid sirens after a Russian attack
[00:22:54] attack near its border with Ukraine. Ukraine. Two Polish airports temporarily
[00:22:58] temporarily closed. Now no Russian Russian aircraft crossed the border,
[00:23:00] border, but Poland's Prime Minister Minister warned that Russia would
[00:23:03] would likely step up its aggression
[00:23:05] aggression in the coming months against against Poland and other nations
[00:23:09] nations supporting Ukraine. Nato Nato Secretary General said Russia's Russia's drone strikes near Poland
[00:23:13] Poland were evidence of Russia's Russia's desperation. Mark Rutte
[00:23:16] Rutte was in Britain meeting the the Prime Minister and the Defence
[00:23:19] Defence Secretary there for the first first time. Political editor Chris
[00:23:22] Chris Mason reports. Eastern Poland
[00:23:27] Poland this morning, sirens blaring
[00:23:29] blaring Russia's war in Ukraine sounds
[00:23:32] sounds near drone strikes over the
[00:23:34] the border far too close for comfort.
[00:23:37] comfort. Is this yet another example example of a dangerous escalation
[00:23:40] escalation in this war? It's clearly
[00:23:42] clearly an example of increasingly
[00:23:45] increasingly reckless behaviour by by Russia and its president, but
[00:23:49] but also evidence of him being increasingly
[00:23:52] increasingly desperate. Should Nato Nato intercept Russian drones that
[00:23:55] that are over Ukrainian territory territory if they are approaching
[00:23:58] approaching a Nato border. There There is a limit to what I can go
[00:24:02] go into in a public interview, but but I can assure you we do everything
[00:24:05] everything to make sure that Nato Nato stays safe. Nato territory stay
[00:24:09] stay safe, that we can defend every every inch of that's happening again.
[00:24:12] again. I can never get into those those operational details. I was
[00:24:16] was told afterwards drones were not
[00:24:18] not at least yet intercepted by Nato
[00:24:22] Nato while still over Ukraine. How How worried are you? How worried
[00:24:25] worried should we all be that Russia
[00:24:27] Russia will attack or invade a Nato
[00:24:30] Nato country in the coming years? years? If you're willing to sacrifice
[00:24:34] sacrifice 1.2 million of your own own people in this crazy, unprovoked
[00:24:37] unprovoked fight, let's not be naive naive about what Putin could do,
[00:24:41] do, but we are stronger. I mean, mean, in. Other words. It could happen. happen. It could happen in the coming
[00:24:45] coming years. No, I don't think so. so. Because we are strong. So strong
[00:24:48] strong that he will not try. But But we have to make sure of is that
[00:24:51] that we are strong in two, three, three, five years from now. You've
[00:24:54] You've been here meeting the Prime Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary,
[00:24:58] Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, Secretary, as you all know, the Chancellor, Chancellor, John Healey, the former
[00:25:02] former Defence Secretary, resigned resigned because he wasn't certain.
[00:25:04] certain. No, he didn't think the the previous government would get
[00:25:07] get to 3% of national income on defence
[00:25:11] defence by 2030 and said that was was essential. The new government
[00:25:13] government hasn't yet explicitly explicitly committed to that. In
[00:25:16] In the conversations you've just just come from, are you confident confident they're going to manage
[00:25:20] manage that? I'm totally confident confident about what this government
[00:25:23] government wants to do. That is to
[00:25:24] to reach the 3.5 and 2035. Also understanding understanding that cannot be that
[00:25:28] that you stick to 2.6, 2.7 now and
[00:25:31] and then in one go in 2034, you would
[00:25:34] would go to 3.5. So you've long been been a sceptic to be a. Credible
[00:25:37] Credible path. Yeah. Sounds like like they've not managed to be specific
[00:25:40] specific and reassure you that that
[00:25:42] that 3% target by 2030 is actually actually going to be met. I'm absolutely
[00:25:46] absolutely confident that when it it comes to the 3.5 they are there.
[00:25:49] there. I'm absolutely confident that that when it comes to the yearly
[00:25:52] yearly increments, they totally take take it and accept it that they have
[00:25:55] have to be there. But exactly the the pathway will be we will see next
[00:25:58] next year in the spending review. review. Secretary General, thank
[00:25:59] thank you. Thank you very much. And
[00:26:03] And that is it for World News America America for today.
[00:27:35] mid 40s. Take care.
[00:29:40] tech. Is it time to take the threat threat as a national security priority?
[00:29:42] priority? That's this week on Talking
[00:29:44] Talking Business here on BBC News.
[00:29:52] News. MUSIC
[00:30:05] MUSIC
[00:30:20] I lost my sight completely when I
[00:30:25] I was eight years old. Clive, this this is a moment in the history of
[00:30:29] of the United States. My name is is Gary O'Donoghue and I'm the chief
[00:30:32] chief North America correspondent correspondent for the BBC. When I
[00:30:34] I started out in journalism, it was was still legal to discriminate against
[00:30:38] against disabled people. I was told told you can't be a reporter if you're
[00:30:42] you're blind. People really hadn't hadn't done what I was trying to
[00:30:44] to do before me. As you can see,
[00:30:46] see, we're on the ground behind our
[00:30:49] our car, which is not ideal, but but that's the shelter we have at
[00:30:51] at the moment. During the Trump assassination assassination attempt, I think my
[00:30:55] my blindness was an interesting factor factor because one of the central
[00:30:58] central interviews we got was with