storm clouds gathering. war in the middle east could easily escalate. putin's determination to crush ukraine's resistance is undimmed. taiwan's coming election adds to fears of china's intentions. and in america, democracy itself is going to be tested in the presidential race. my guest is alicia kearns, conservative mp and chair of the uk house of commons foreign affairs select committee. is the weakness and vulnerability of liberal democracy about to be exposed?

alicia kearns, welcome to hardtalk. now, you are chair of the uk parliament's foreign affairs select committee. you have to take an overview of what is happening across foreign policy. would you agree that right now the bandwidth of foreign policy thinking is very much taken up by israel, by the war in gaza? absolutely. and this is one of the challenges that democracies have. we need to make sure that we can't say, "well, we only have bandwidth to focus on one conflict," because unfortunately we don't have the liberty to say we have only one to focus on. but secondly, we're not doing enough to stop conflict popping up in other places. so until we are doing that, we don't get to say, "well, we can only focus on israel and gaza for the next month," or, "we can only focus on ukraine." we have to find a way to do both, and that means more multilateral working, more leaning on one another, more dividing and conquering in terms of our assets and what we're focusing on.

and yet such is the humanitarian catastrophe that we see unfold day by day in gaza, it is hard to look elsewhere. yeah. the death toll, according to the hamas—run health ministry in gaza, is now way beyond 22,000. a majority of those, women and children. we see what's happening to the health care systems — the latest reports from al—aqsa hospital talk about 600 patients and medical staff who have simply disappeared. this is something that it is hard to take your eyes away from, isn't it? it is, and we mustn't take our eyes away. i think it's very easy to become normalised to this, and one of my big worries is that when we look back on 2023 we'll say, "it's the year where violence became normalised," because we've lived through ukraine, we've. .. that's become a more standard tempo in our life. and then this has happened at a scale that is so wretched. so my call often, when i meet with constituents, when i go out, when i speak to people, when i talk to other world leaders, is, "do not take your eyes away from israel and gaza."

now, you, from the beginning, were a staunch advocate of, supporter of, israel's right to defend itself after that barbarous attack by hamas militants on october 7th. but that is three months ago. the pain of it still being deeply felt right across israel, of course, and across the world. but nonetheless, what israel has done in those three months, do you think it has been strategically unwise? absolutely. so from the day after those appalling crimes against humanity that we saw take place in october, i was very clear that israel had a right to defend itself within international law. i was one of the only politicians in the world who made that very clear from the start, because i was concerned about what the tempo might be of the response that we saw. and what we have seen is a response that has not been as targeted, as precise, as proportionate, as focused as i know israel is capable of. and that for me is gravely concerning, that we didn't see enough international leadership

of people saying, "israel, you must temper yourself because actually the way you choose to act now will determine your long—term safety, your long—term stability, and our ability to get to a solution where there isn't outright warfare in the middle east." mm. a former defence secretary, a party colleague of yours, ben wallace, said pretty much the same thing, talked about the mistakes he believed israel was making, and he got pilloried... he did. ..by many people inside your party, and also many people in thejewish community in the united kingdom, who suggest that his remarks were "dangerous" and anti—israel — some even suggested anti—semitic. are you, as a politician, now wary of treading on this territory? so i think politicians have long been wary of talking about israel—palestine. so i was the first chair in a very long time to open an inquiry into the middle east and north africa. and the reason i did that was i gave a speech back injune last year where i said we were going to see the gaza crisis of 2023. now, i didn't think we were going to see it in the way we did.

i didn't think it was going to start the way it did. but all the markers were there for conflict. but the problem within the uk politics, and actually even more in america, even more in canada, is that people seem to feel that they have to be divided — you're either pro—israel or you're pro—palestine. and i have tried to fight so hard against that, but it is difficult because people see it as black and white. the history is so complex. i will never pretend to be an expert in the history and what has happened in the past. but also the sensitivities are enormous. and so i've tried to walk a path where i say, "look..." you know, back in march i was saying we had to be a criticalfriend to israel. and we have failed historically to be that critical friend, let alone when we've got the current government in israel who had, what, 100,000 people out on the streets every single week for 38 weeks protesting against neta nyahu ? a government who have put more money behind expanding settlements, a government who were bringing forward a motion that would've said that netanyahu could never face prosecution for crimes or if he was found to be unfit to be a leader. sure. but i'm going to stop you. i mean, this is also a government the uk government describes

as a partner and a staunch ally. so israel is a partner and a staunch ally. i have sat in military bunkers when we were working to defeat daesh, where i sat alongside israeli soldiers and we worked incredibly well together and they were so capable. but this specific government in israel can be a partner on some issues, but there are also times where as a partner you have to be a criticalfriend. if this was the us, we wouldn't hold back in telling them to do better. to quote ben wallace, the former defence secretary, "israel has lost its moral authority," he says. do you agree? i do. lost its moral authority? yes. and when it comes to some members of netanyahu's government, thinking of bezalel smotrich and mr ben—gvir, who's the national security minister, both of them arch advocates of massive expansion ofjewish settlement in the west bank, accused in some quarters inside israel of being openly racist toward the palestinian arab community, do you believe that there should be sanctions against those people who are actually inside netanyahu's government?

so i think i've been very clear that the current israeli government are the ones that have lost the moral authority because of the way they've chosen to speak about this, the way they've chosen to pursue it. i think we do — we've seen the us, for example, put in place sanctions against extremist settlers... and the uk government. that is something which we did, indeed. i wish we'd done it with them at the start to show thatjoint working. those, i think, are the right measures to put in place. we cannot lose our ability to have leverage over the israeli government. and so, unfortunately, you have to really be careful with which levers you deploy, when and where. so at this point i don't think that would be appropriate. but this is very pressing. i'm quoting the times of israel now, from the 3rd of january. mm. mr netanyahu, the prime minister of israel, told, apparently, according to this newspaper in israel, told his own likud faction that he is working to facilitate "the voluntary migration of palestinians in gaza to other countries." yeah. now, to the palestinians this sounds like... forced displacement. ..another nakba. indeed.

that is the mass displacement of palestinian people from the territory in which they live. what should the british government, other western and world governments be doing if this indeed is an agenda in israel? if that was in any way to look like it was a formal policy, we would have to act in some way, because it would be a forced displacement. let's not take this language of voluntary displacements as if it's some sort of genuine offer or concept. the government would have to take action to stop this. but, again, when rishi sunak was in front of the liaison committee back injune, two of my three questions to him were about israel—gaza. i said to him, "what are you doing about settlements? "what are you doing about my concerns about a gaza crisis, "a third intifada ? " not enough was done to put pressure on the israeli government at that time to reduce its settlements. but not enough was done also to look at the crisis on the ground and the fact that hamas were rearming and all the activities we've seen. to put it very bluntly, is there a certain fear of confronting israel in the british government? i don't think it's unique

to the british government. i think within the west, because israel—gaza is such a complicated issue and there is no one right history, there is no black and white to this, and i think increasingly, as i've grown up and gotten older, people have searched for an absolute dichotomy. they want to be certain because the psychological kind of confusion of the grey area, the reality of most foreign affairs, makes people feel uneasy. it makes people uncertain. so they do force themselves to two extremes. and you've seen governments around the world do that. you've got some governments who, the way they speak about israel is outrageous, the way they talk about israel's future, absolutely appalling. but then you've got some governments who aren't willing to be a critical friend when actually that is what our role is to be to our allies. and just a quick thought about the wider context in the middle east, the uk has deployed navalforces to the red sea. we know i2% of global trade passes through this narrow strait, the bab—el—mandab strait. grant shapps, the defence secretary, has said, "the houthis," who have

been firing missiles at shipping — and they claim they're aiming at israeli shipping targets in the strait... "the houthis should be under no misunderstanding. "we in britain are committed to holding malign actors accountable for these unlawful attacks." how concerned are you about the very real risk of an escalation that takes us into a much wider mideast war? so from my perspective we are already in a regional conflict. i really struggle to see how this isn't, whether you've got lebanon or whether you've got what's happening in syria, what's happening on thejordanian border, let alone what's happening with the houthis in the red sea. but what we don't want is for it to get hotter, for it to escalate even more. the houthis... we need to look at iran. we need to look at iranian influence. but we also have to stop talking about certain groups like the houthis as if they are controlled completely by iran, that every action they undertake is determined and essentially given to them as an action to carry out. but we do have to protect waters. the uk is one the best navies in the world. we have a particular duty to help do

so, but it is all about tempering and planning for how we get to the day after. there's a lot of people talking about what happens when we get to what's called the day after, when the conflict stops. but no—one�*s talking about how we get to that day after, and that's something that i've been absolutely urging a focus on. because we have limited time i'm going to move on. you... last year, before october 7th, you were very loud, using your platform to talk a great deal about ukraine and the need for the west to step up to continue to back ukraine with both finance and military assistance. would you accept that the west's message on ukraine has become tangled ? we talked about the defence of international law, the holding of vladimir putin to account for so—called war crimes. now much of the world sees the most pressing need for defence of international law being in gaza, sees the need to hold israel to account for what it is doing

to the people of gaza. is that a problem for you and the message that you want to continue to send about ukraine? so i think there are difficulties, and josep borrell from the eu has said that what's happened in israel—gaza has undermined the eu's position, for example, globally. but for me i think... the hypocrisy problem ? but i think there's a real challenge, the hypocrisy point, which is as i've travelled around the world trying to convince countries to support ukraine, too many of them were unwilling to do so. too many refused to call it russian aggression, refused to say it was an illegal invasion. too many of them stood by and said, "well, actually, we're not going to comment on russia's activities." those same countries are now being the most outspoken about israel. so i think we can all spend lots of time shouting at each other and calling each other hypocrites. i'm not interested in that. i'm interested in actually what we are doing to stop conflict, to stop people suffering, and to focus on long—term solutions. and i think on whether you want to say the two sides, the global south and the western allies, as people call it, on both sides there are real

questions around the way in which people have conducted themselves. but i actually don't have much time for this argue about hypocrisy because i've spent months, if... well, now two years, trying to stop some countries who were hypocritical when it came to russia from doing exactly that. well, hypocrisy or not, what we see is a real sign of ukraine fatigue in many western capitals. the united states is stuck in a political game where funding for ukraine — 60 billion that biden wants — is now stuck in the us congress. there's no sign of it emerging from the us congress. we see governments in europe, some of whom have backed away from support for ukraine — indeed, some governments have changed and have now got a populist leadership which doesn't want to support ukraine, thinking of slovakia as well as hungary. do you worry that the west marched up a hill, gave its staunch backing to ukraine, said, "we will back you, come what may until victory," and is now going to march right down that hill. so i think you have to be concerned about that at all points. for me, it's about moving away from the language of "however long

it takes" to "whatever it takes." so i'm hoping to be in dc next week. i'm hoping to travel with seven other chairs of foreign affairs committees from across europe. and we are going to make the case to our american counterparts that, yes, there of course are difficult conversations to be had domestically, but the amounts of gdp that the us is committing to support ukraine is nowhere near as much as countries like lithuania are using, countries like estonia... but do you seriously think american politicians, particularly in a presidential election year, are going to listen to people like you? oh, i hope they do, and in the past i've been able to have very blunt conversations. in fact, the last time i went to dc i remember my american counterpart saying, "guys, if the brits are saying this, we should be listening." and we saw only a few weeks later more agreements made to support ukraine. we do not have a choice. ukraine is fighting for all of ourfreedoms. let's not repeat the mistakes... i saw yesterday the transcript of a conversation between yeltsin and clinton way back when, when yalta happened, where he said, "give europe to russia." they're making the same asks now. we cannot allow this to continue, this irredentist foreign policy

that we are seeing a rise of. we're seeing the same thing in the balkans and repeating the same mistakes of the �*90s. we have to stand by ukraine. it's not an option. well, you say that, but the reality on the ground is that vladimir putin believes he can outlast the west. yes. the west is full of complex democracies. vladimir putin, as we will see this year when he gets re—elected with at least... yeah. ..probably 80% of the vote, vladimir putin doesn't really have to worry about public opinion at home. isn't that the strength of not just his authoritarian regime, but other regimes that you've spent a great deal of time analysing? yes. i'm thinking in particular of your concerns about china. there is a strength to that strand of authoritarianism, which we judge against sometimes the weakness and the vulnerability of the democracies like the one that you sit in. there is no question particularly it comes to foreign policy. autocrats have the endurance, they have the durability, but also they have the ability to throw a whole of state effort at whatever they want with no interest as to the cost

to their people or the cost to their, you know, their interest and assets. i mean, you want to believe that democracies have levers that can overcome that authoritarian strength. i mean, i'm mindfulthat you are the politician who said, on march 2022, just after the invasion of ukraine by putin, you said russia is now going to feel the "titanic force of the west's economic muscle." well, you were sort of wrong, weren't you? the russian economy actually grew last year and sanctions are clearly not working. so i think sanctions are working in some way, but where we failed is that there is currently too much sanctions evasion taking place, in central asia, for example. russia has been able to rebuild its defence industrial capability, and that is where it's building its economy. but we have seen mass migration away from russia. we have seen reduced confidence in putin. but we have to go further. and that is why, before the nato meeting in dc, i do want to see a plan for how we're going to seize russian assets. it should be russian frozen assets paying for not only

the defeat of russia, but the rebuilding of ukraine. so it's not easy and democracies will always struggle and have a harder time to do this, but i believe it's our duty to redouble our efforts and keep working harder. and you have seen — i mean, we gave, what... with three storm shadow british missiles, the ukrainians have managed to force a retreat yet again by putin's fleets. you know, we are seeing them push back, we are seeing progress with the naval... it was never going to be easy. sure, but they're now suffering from severe ammunition shortages... yes. ..and even their air defences are being badly stretched by putin's continued determination to lob missiles into ukraine. the fact is, whichever way you look at it, russia, china, they have a strategic determination... absolutely. ..which is lacking in the west. so i don't think the determination is lacking, but it is more difficult for us. but imagine if we hadn't helped ukraine, imagine where we'd be now in terms of moldova. imagine where we'd be in terms of poland. imagine where we could be with other neighbouring countries.

the fact that ukraine is still largely independent against one of the biggest militaries in the world is a sign of western resolve. so, yes, i will keep fighting because that's my duty, to make sure we don't forget ukraine, we don't stop fighting in ukraine. i'll be taking my committee, i hope, at some point, to ukraine this year. and if this year of elections includes an election in november in the united states which sees donald trump re—elected, then politicians like you telling me that, yes, you can wield influence in washington, well, that influence is going to disappear very quickly, isn't it? it becomes more difficult, but i don't think the influence of the uk disappears. imean, for example, trump did give weapons to ukraine, despite the fact that nobody thought he would do so. now, i am no trump supporter, and when i go around capitals and the conversations i have with world leaders is, "what are we doing now?" so that we don't... aren't sat here, saying, "well, what happens with a donald trump victory?" stop giving ukraine enough to survive the next three months or six months — we wouldn't do that to a business, let alone a country at war defending our values. mm. give them enough to win. and that's difficult.

and we will have to make difficult compromises at home, like the estonians who gave every single howitzer they had. we have to make decisions and it's difficult, but this is not one where we can fail to have that resolve. a quick thought about you and your personal situation, given your determination to confront what you call authoritarian regime terror around the world. you've talked about the cyber attacks that come from russia, and indeed from china. you've talked about china being a hostile state which the uk government needs to take much more seriously. and there have even been stories in the press about spying sponsored by china, which has reached the house of parliament itself, perhaps, according to some as yet unproven allegations, been conducted inside your own office. so you know all too well a price that can be paid if you take on these regimes. how has it affected you personally? so when i stood for election,

i think i said in my maiden speech, "i will always be a voice for those who others seek to silence." and i think we in britain have a privilege of being able to be a voice that is heard around the world. do you believe you've been spied on? i know i've been spied on, whether it be cyber attacks on my emails at work, which have come from both russia and from china, whether it be other attempts that i've been made aware of... human intelligence? because we know of those allegations as well... yeah. ..just a few months ago about your office being a target, and that one particular individual, who's adamantly denied any knowledge of it, but one individual was accused of spying on the premises of westminster. so i've always been very honest and transparent about everything, but obviously when there's an active police investigation ijust cannot put that at risk and i'm not going to do that. but there is no question. you know, i was put on a no—fly list to russia even before i was an mp, when i was working at the foreign office training the ukrainians how to counter russian disinformation and working against russia's interests in syria. you know, the chinese have been very clear as to their view on me. there have been all sorts of comments. i was recently put back in september

on yet another russian list. i can't remember exactly what it's called, but yet another sign. the serbian president threatened me back injune. this is what happens. but i'm very fortunate because when these people try to attack me, the physical threat is not as high as it is to those within their own countries. and therefore i do have a duty to be brave. and it is... of course it's difficult at times. just a final thought. and it's about british politics. you represent the conservative party. the conservative party is lagging in the polls, and to say lagging is to put it politely. it looks as though the party could be almost wiped out at the next election, which is going to come within pretty much the next calendar year — it's bound to. in response, it looks like the party is tempted to lurch to a sort of new brand of populism, perhaps best signified by this idea that the government wants to send illegal entrants, migrants into the country, to rwanda rather than have their asylum claims processed in the united kingdom itself. are you a supporter of that policy? so i don't support the rwanda policy and i've been very

outspoken about that. but offshoring is not the same as the rwanda policy. 0ffshoring has been proven to be legal. and the labour party — as we know, tony blair... yeah, sure, but i'm actually very interested in the rwanda policy itself because it seems to symbolise so much. yes. you know, taking one of the richest countries in the world's migration problem and offshoring it to a country like rwanda in the middle of africa, many people say that it contravenes basic international norms and human rights. the supreme court in the uk has basically said it won't fly. rishi sunak says he's going to pass new laws to ensure it does fly, and the suggestion is he might even refute a ruling from the european court of human rights. where would you, as a tory mp, sit on that if he chose to do that? so i've said i don't support leaving the echr. i've also said i don't support the rwanda policy. i will continue not to support it because i don't believe that it is a safe country for certain types of asylum seekers. some tories feel so strongly on this that they say it could be a resigning issue.

would you? i won't resign the conservative whip because i continue to believe that a conservative future is the right future for this country. the way in which we approach managing... even if he walks away from the european court of human rights? i don't think he will. i really do not believe that rishi will do so, and i will fight — with a substantial part of my party who absolutely do not want to do this. look, we are having a debate within the conservative party about this. i believe the majority of conservative mps do not want to leave it. but also they don't need to. look at the ruling, read the ruling. it does not say that the echr is responsible for why the rwanda policy was rejected, so therefore those colleagues saying we should leave the echr, on what basis? because that is not what the ruling said. just a final thought. do you believe that a sort of nationalist, populist message, that we've seen in some other european countries from italy to the netherlands — maybe we're going to see it soon in germany too — is that a pathway to success for the british conservative party? no, in my perspective, it's not. but i'm a proud one—nation

conservative, so i want to see us stand solidly on our conservative values, but also grab that centre. that is how you win power in this country. and i am a sensible, moderate, one—nation conservative. that's where i want my party to go and i'm going to work my hardest to make sure that happens. alicia kearns, we have to end there but thank you forjoining me on hardtalk. hello there. this time last week, low pressure dominated the weather story and it was all about relentless flooding rain. this week, high pressure controls the story and a quiet, colder theme, but also a sunnier one. in fact, the western isles had the lion's share of the sunshine on tuesday. so, plenty of sunshine around today as high pressure dominates clear skies across central and southern england. that's where we'll have the best of the sunshine. but it will be another cold start, with temperatures below freezing. not as widespread, the cold as we had this time yesterday,

and there's certainly more cloud. now, the cloud is thick enough across eastern scotland and northern england for the odd spot of light drizzle. could be some icy stretches first thing. south of that will see more cloud pushing into north wales. but we'll keep some sunshine and we'll also have some sunshine once again in the northwest of scotland. now, temperatures around 5—7 degrees, might be a degree or so warmer underneath the cloud, but it perhaps won't feel like that because you've lost the sunshine. now, we keep that cloud as we go through wednesday night, and once again could be thick enough for a little bit of drizzle, particularly on exposed north sea coast. best of the clearer skies further south of that, that's where we're likely to see patchy frost and fog forming as temperatures again dip below freezing. so as we move into thursday, it will be a similar story. we'll have some clearer skies into sheltered western scotland and also some sunshine across central and southern england. but cloud will tend to come and go into northern ireland, northern england for a time, and some of that cloud may welljust

push that a little bit further south as the wind changes to more of a subtle northeasterly by the course of thursday. once again, temperatures between 5—8 degrees our overall high. now, as we move into friday and the start of the weekend, we keep this quieter theme. it's still going to be on the chilly side. but again, there'll be a lot of dry weather around. but as we go into next week, there are signs of the weather story changing, the wind direction coming to more of a northerly. we could see some wintry showers even at lower levels in scotland. and look at this, towards the middle part of next week, there will be a frontal system, as it bumps into that cold air that's been sitting with us now for over a week. there is the potential on the leading edge to see some snow. a lot of uncertainty about that at the moment, but it's an early heads up, something to look out for.

welcome to newsday. reporting live from singapore, i'm mariko 0i. the headlines. armed men storm a live tv programme in ecuador — a day after the president declared a state of emergency to tackle prison riots. donald trump claims that he should have immunity from prosecution at

a court hearing in washington. is a court hearing in washington. a very sad thing tha happened is a very sad thing that's happened with this whole situation, when they talk about a threat to democracy. that's your real threat to democracy. i feel like as a president, you have to have immunity — very simple. records "tumble like dominoes" as european scientists confirm that 2023 was the warmest year on record. america's top diplomat antony blinken says the daily toll on civilians in gaza, particularly on children, is "far too high". live from our studio in singapore — this is bbc news. it's newsday.

thank you for being with us.