walks off to separatist parties want to slim majority in thursday's election while mariano rajoy and says he's open to a new era of dialogue he also says the next catalan government must respect the law . the united nations security council has unanimously passed a resolution targeting north korea's fuel imports a measure proposed by the united states will ban nearly ninety percent of refined petroleum product exports to pyongyang. russia iran and turkey have announced deals covering prisoner exchanges and demining in syria after talks in kazakhstan they've agreed to meet again in the russian city of sochi on january twenty ninth. all in other developments the united nations says that at least sixteen people have died while waiting for a medical evacuation in syria's besieged eastern ghouta region ahead of the un humanitarian task force for syria says many more will die unless the government stops blocking medical and. and south sudan's government

and opposition forces have signed a cease fire deal allowing humanitarian access to civilians the deal agreed after talks in the ethiopian capital addis ababa is the latest attempt to and four years of conflict in iraq today with all of our top stories up front is coming up next i'll speak to you after that in about twenty five minutes time. he's the former somali refugee who now serves as canada's immigration minister under justin trudeau but how good is the canadian government actual record on immigration and asylum issues and what does this minister make of donald trump's. i'll ask him that hussain.

ahmed hussain thanks for joining me on up front at a time when the world is facing massive refugee and migrant crises which have prompted a lot of western governments to effectively close their borders and crack down on quote unquote illegal immigrants canada at least in terms of rhetoric has taken a very different stance a more positive stance welcoming refugees praising immigrants why. well first of all we're also against irregular migration but having said that as a country and as a society we have historically embraced immigration regular and orderly immigration and a well managed immigration system that has delivered so much positive outcomes for

canada and for canadian communities this goes from powering our economic growth but also adding to our skill sets our cultural cultural and social fabric the story of modern canada you know beyond you know obviously looking at our indigenous brothers sisters apart from from that community will you know descendants of immigrants and so canadians truly understand the positive role that immigrants have made to shape modern canada but your prime minister justin trudeau has also been accused of mixed messaging on this issue as any in response to donald trump's first travel ban for example he seemed to suggest canada had an open borders policy by tweeting quote to those fleeing persecution terror and war canadians will welcome you regardless of your faith diversity is our strength hash tag welcome to canada it was a statement he later had to walk back to me that tweet doesn't actually represent

the position of the canadian government on immigration or asylum does it well actually does what the prime minister was saying was if you have a well founded fear of persecution then canada will welcome you as a as a refugee who has a well grounded feel of persecution but if you cross our borders irregularly then we're not in favor of that it's illegal it's potentially dangerous for the person in backing embarking on that journey what we're in favor of is a well managed and regular migration system. the persecution of canadian support so you should let the persecution be should do so in a well merged and regular way no. you should present yourself as a official port of entry or you should be referred to us by the united nations high commission for refugees which we work with very closely in addition to that we're we're we're the only country in the world where a group of canadians or a private organization can actually sponsor refugees you won't find any any other

country that can boast of that kind of very generous private sponsor what would you say program what would you say to critics who say that despite all the sunny and positive rhetoric your government is ultimately when it comes to this issue more concerned about boosting canada's economy and less concerned about providing shelter to the world's most vulnerable people well i would answer those critics by saying that if they look at our immigration plan for the next three years or even this year's plan and previous years when we've been in government they'll see that there's a balance it's not just all about economics or though it's a that's a big part of it it's not just about family vacation although that's part of it it's also not just about refugees it's all of the above and so our immigration system yes it's about welcoming economic and skilled immigrants who come to not only address our labor market shortages but actually create jobs for canadians and increase our economic competitiveness but our immigration system is also about

really reuniting families and yes we also have a very strong humanitarian component within a system that is part of our heritage that is part of our history and yet and their lives are vile if you enjoy in the united ireland to some seventeen went down from fifty five thousand to forty thousand even though the number of economic migrants went up why are you recycling fewer refugees in the midst of an ongoing massive global refugee crisis two thousand and two thousand and sixteen was a an exceptional year because of the syrian refugee response we always knew there would be an exceptional year but. if you take out that year and you compare two thousand and seventeen with previous years you'll see that the numbers are higher in terms of resettle refugees we are number one in the in the g seven in two per capita in terms of the resettle refugees that we select and bring to canada so i

think on that canadians have a lot to be proud of in terms of our record so what would you say to a european counterpart of yours a fellow immigration minister of yours from western europe babs who says it's unfair that canada gets all its praise all this praise for its refugee record because you're a huge country in terms of sheer landmass with a pretty small population you're protected by pretty big oceans you don't face the same pressures or challenges when it comes to migrants and refugees as a greece or in italy or a germany do you well first of all let me pack that question number one we receive we very close to receiving every year we're inching closer and closer to one percent of the canadian population being invited to come to canada every single year as permanent residents i don't think. i mean with the exception of two thousand and fifteen when germany received a million people a lot of european countries yes in absolute numbers we're seeing higher gratian

there but in terms of the permanent residence that they invite every year it's nowhere close to one percent so we are very generous and ambitious second we focus on not just settlement but integration we invest a lot of money to make sure that people can restart their lives in canada and succeed because we know their success is also contributing to canada success this year alone we've invested almost a billion dollars in language training in job supports for newcomers because we believe that yes it's a huge investment but it pays ok way more down the road we can't really have a discussion about immigration without. what's going on next door to canada in the united states your close ally and neighbor in fact one of the reasons justin trudeau often looks so good to the rest of the world is because he's contrasted with president trump next door do you regard president donald trump's travel ban which restricts access to the u.s. to migrants from six muslim majority countries as

a muslim bomb. look maybe i'm going to just prefix this by saying every country in the world has the right to decide who comes into their country because doesn't i'll just tell you what our approach is our approach is we are unapologetic in taking the position that as the many countries in the world close their doors to immigrants to refugees two to two people who want to both. seek protection but even those who want to seek a better life and a better opportunity for themselves and their families we welcome those people and we will be unapologetic in that regard and we will not only be unapologetic will be ambitious going to me rephrase the question to really where is a great leader louis maine if we will remain an example ok we may remain an example of a diversity and inclusion if you're conservative opponents in canada many of whom admired his ban were to bring in a similar policy propose it would you call it a muslim ban to ban people from these six muslim majority countries i would call it

a wrong headed policy if the opposition in canada propose such a measure but i don't think they would i think there is so it's not only little known complete and you'll. look at. my look i'll take take my counterparts word on this when i met with secretary at the time and i put that question to him his response was that they were looking at a number of countries that. they felt they had to engage to do more in terms of improving their document integrity their border controls and that this was a process that the they felt they had to do i'm not in a position to determine what it does for the united states i'm virtually an enemy grossly minister and i would rather than as an immigration minister i'm sure you discuss an immigration meeting you enjoyed taking the word of your counterpart let's just talk about your counterparts when you hear the president united states referring to refugees from syria as snakes the u.s. housing sector behnken carson comparing them to wild dogs what's your. response to

that kind of rhetoric how does that make you feel both as an immigration minister and as an immigrant a former refugee yourself i completely disagree with those sentiments i believe. immigrants all immigrants including refugees make a positive contribution to the host communities these has this has been proven exhaustively by so many studies we value the contributions of all newcomers including refugees and the numerous studies have shown and i do want to talk about a lot of viewers watching this may not be aware of your own back story your personal journey from somali refugee to canada's immigration minister has been a pretty inspiring and impressive one in the eyes of many people so what's your message today to new immigrants who are arriving to settle in the west about how to succeed how to overcome the challenges of integration and simulation and racism too well first of all i'll say one thing that to me is very obvious that may not be obvious to your viewers my story would only be possible in

a place like canada so my story is actually speaks volumes about canada and not necessarily about me it's because of the settlement and integration services there were available to me as a young refugee a young immigrant that enabled me to restart my life in canada and succeed and secondly it is also a point of pride for me and many canadians that form a refugee can settle in canada get an education work hard be helped by the generosity of canadians and all timidly have canadians being open minded enough to vote for that person to join parliament and ultimately become the minister of immigration i think that speaks volumes about canada ok and do you think that story is there for you said it only in canada does that mean you don't think france or britain or the united states would ever have a black former refugee as an immigration minister. i don't know but i just think

the chances are higher income of in many of these other countries that's all and you were quoted recently saying i wanted to be canadian i didn't want to be the somali guy i still don't do you think to truly be in i still don't want to do thing to truly be canadian you have to give up all your other national and cultural identity if you can't be canadian somali isn't that what multi-colored knows all about so i'll tell you something canada is one of the few countries in the world where you can be a proud canadian and have your heritage and celebrated in fact our government and our constitution and our charter encourages us to do that having said that when we're in the public space we were talking about being a public official i represent one country and one country only which is canada this is my country this is my country of citizenship and i am very grateful to canada for all the opportunities. that it gave me and i think i see the same determination to succeed from newcomers who come to canada and embrace this country

and in return embraced by canadians to send thank you for joining me on up front. the united states claims the war against eisel is one of the most precise air campaigns in history and says that only one in every hundred fifty seven airstrikes in iraq results in a civilian death but a recent new york times investigation found that civilians in iraq are actually dying at thirty one times that rate and of course iraqis have been dying in iraq from war terrorism and sanctions for decades now but why do so many of their deaths remain uncounted and if the u.s. military lying about the impact of its airstrikes in iraq joining me to discuss this as i'm a card the co-author of the new york times magazine investigation the uncounted unjoin tyrann executive director mit center for international studies and author of the the book. deaths of others the fate of civilians in america's wars thank you

both for joining me up front why did you set out with your co-author on and go poll to conduct this eighteen month investigation into civilian casualties in iraq what prompted you and what did you think you would find well it wasn't just the scale of bombing or the tens of thousands of airstrikes in both iraq and syria that have been carried out since august twenty fourth we didn't hear a lot from civilians and the coalition itself was not investigating on the ground and so both on and then i really wanted to do a systematic sample looking both at those airstrikes that successfully hit legitimate isis targets and those that resulted in civilian casualties or deaths and so by going to three different isis territories downtown downtown shura and the modern district of east mosul three areas that reflected typical isis held territories we were able to case the site of every single airstrike in each of these areas and determined that one in five of those airstrikes resulted in

a civilian death now this is thirty one times higher than the numbers that the coalition has admitted to if you study its reports and what we found is that in about half of the total airstrikes in this one hundred three sample that resulted in civilian deaths of those civilian death airstrikes half of them were the result of poor outdated intelligence most likely we were unable to discern an isis target nearby is that lack of transparency because of an indifference to civilian casualties on the part of the u.s. military is it incompetence when it comes to recording them or is it sheer brazen dishonesty they're lying to us about the extent of the civilian death toll what do you think is there any one of those i came to the conclusion that many internally know that these numbers are vastly wrong and have done very little to try to correct them ok jordan chairman for years you've written about the loss of civilian lives in u.s. wars from world war two. to korea to vietnam more recently in afghanistan in iraq

some might say john far fewer people are killed from precision guided quote unquote u.s. missiles today the more killed in the fire bombing of dresden or during the second world war in the paddy fields of vietnam is that fair well certainly that's that's true although it depends on what the strategy is so for example then korea. in one nine hundred fifty fifty three we basically leveled the whole of north korea. with strategic bombing that was intentional act and it was called in fact in those days it was called terror bombing. so it depends on what the military is actually trying to do but it's true that the technology is better today but i think the results of bombing the actual consequences on the ground for strategy. has not measured up to this so-called precision that is the reason we even have an

islamic state kind of phenomenon is because of the toll that was exacted in the iraq war beginning in two thousand and three that is this is a reaction to the remarkable devastation brought on by that invasion and occupation as your eighteen month investigation covered both the end of the obama presidency and the beginning of the trump presidency all things worse under trump in terms of the quantity of airstrikes and the sheer number of civilian casualties in iraq by the numbers yes but to attribute that to the trumpet ministration is tricky and here's why part of this spike that we've seen in civilian deaths is certainly a result of the pace of operations and the fact that mosul was being retaken part of that is a change in rules and just to to be very clear there was a change in december of two thousand and sixteen under president obama that allowed . more ground commanders the authority to call in airstrikes or to approve

airstrikes that happened under obama and many believe that these directives have been a part of that spike that we've seen in civilian deaths now just even with doing don't try and also do that made it in may twenty seventeen trump said he gave his commanders quote total authorization to make complex combat positions which some of attributed that but when you look at the actual when you look at the actual directives there are really only two there is one in december of two thousand and sixteen and one that occurred the day that he came into office those are the two that i have confirmed through credible reporting now certainly there's a lot of rhetoric that comes out of president trumps mouth about what he intends to do but when you actually look at what's happening the military is in charge here but in through the course of my reporting and through nearly two years of investigation i also found mass casualty incidents that happened under the previous administration i would say that the press is now paying more attention certainly more people who are not politicized about airstrikes under the previous administration are now paying attention john you've been covering the deaths of

civilians in iran for many years now long before i still turned up on the scene you one of the people behind the famous law subservient to civilian casualties from the war in iraq which estimated six hundred fifty thousand excess iraqi deaths related to the war in the occupation how do studies like that one compared to journalistic investigations like asthma what's a more reliable way of counting the dead in a war zone like iraq to measure total mortality in a society that you need to do a broader survey because looking at one district or two districts. does not tell you what you're missing in other places in the country. so what we did what i commission and what was done by johns hopkins researchers was one household survey a randomized household survey of the entire country of iraq and that way through estimations you get a fairly good picture not

a totally accurate picture that is you don't have a single number you have a range that you estimate of what mortality has been and that has been confirmed by other surveys a fairly broad range but it's in the hundreds of thousands in iraq which includes civilians it's just what do you say to critics who even a decade later think the study and others like it the other seven as you mentioned inflated the death toll in iraq for political reasons they question the methodology the sample size the mainstream us a lot of people pushed back against the time and the charge that it was a politically motivated. is because the numbers were so high and people had to react to this in some way president bush was asked after the survey was released the next days said that the that the methodology was not credible and the real number was about fifty thousand but the military of the u.s.

government simply don't have a way. for mortality is all not know joe let me ask you this in the early days of the afghan war one of the top u.s. general tommy franks famously said we don't do body counts should the u.s. military and you all of you do body counts have some formal way of recording civilian deaths that's public accessible checkable by journalists research is human rights groups. it shouldn't be done by the military the military has other obligations they also have interests that can muddy the waters and should be done by an independent agency of the u.s. government using a number of different methods household surveys and other things that will give us a more accurate picture and really be able to tell the american people and people world what the costs and the consequences of these wars are not going to come in i want to jump in here yes so i just just to be clear what i've heard from people

internally who both are at centcom at the air force and others is that you know when they calculate before an air strike they do a collateral damage estimate a cd as it's known and they determine you know what the likelihood for civilian death is before an airstrike if they were to make those numbers public and those collateral damage estimates are classified their numbers would very likely reflect what we found on the ground in our investigation and in fact would show those collateral damage to be you know as they call them significantly higher even when you have civilian deaths in iraq at the hands of the u.s. and its allies on the level we've seen in iraq and the level that's documented by us about is it not just a gift to groups like doesn't a war in this way that kill so many civilians just perpetuate the threat from quote unquote terrorist groups who hate the u.s. who hate the west who are looking for grievances in order to justify their narratives and recruit new members yes i'm afraid so and i think that the even the phenomena of the islamic state is attributable to the destruction of the two

thousand and three war the. the devastation is not just about people being killed it is also about them being displaced losing their livelihoods losing their schools their hospitals their clean water. and so on i mean it's a it's a very vast. structure that the sets these societies and of course they're not going to like us as a result they don't care about the the rationales for war but they do care about their daily lives are just to jump in here at least in terms of the united states if you're talking to iraqis on the ground and their perspective on the united states when it comes to these civilian deaths that ship has sailed that is done many there is very little reputation for the united states to salvage in iraq when it comes to just the country an anti american is and what you do have though what

you do have is disenfranchisement and and strong feelings of resentment towards the the national government and as a result with these populations that were incredibly angry about the political process they were more susceptible to takeover by isis so unless you're resolving those political differences or this feeling that their own government is not accommodating them you're very likely to see the ability for a group like isis to to hold sway with them again and let me just see if we run out of time you talk about the iraqi public what about the american public many would argue that you know the average americans are now being desensitized to these foreign wars and these bombing come but they just kind of indifferent apathetic sixteen years into the so-called war on terror do you think you've got to change the whole so minds in the united states. well one of the big reasons why there is a relative apathy isn't just that it's been sixteen years it's that we don't have troop surges so certainly at its peak when the united states was sending large hundreds of thousands of troops to iraq and afghanistan there was

a very strong resistance by many americans but now when this is conducted largely via the air and as many american soldiers are not dying in this war many people aren't as interested ok so let me ask you this john last question to you is it simply the case that when it comes to fighting american wars abroad you've been documenting them for the many years is it simply the case that black and brown lives don't matter racism does play into it i don't think there's any question other factors play into it but i think it's the unwillingness to confront the horror of what has occurred on the ground that creates this turning away and indifference basically. we'll have to leave it there thanks for joining me in the arena. show will be back next week.

the offense being a journalist the crime practicing journalism. mahmud for sane detained for three hundred sixty five days without charge. journalism is not

a crime. for sane is not a criminal. free mahmoud for sane. we're living through a technological revolution but all the machines taking over if a piece of machinery goes wrong is there a chain of litigation through which was preparing a legal system to their oxford university professor of machine learning stephen roberts talks to all diseases at this time. oh i maryanne demasi in london here's a round up of your top stories on al-jazeera. president says he'll no longer accept

the u.s. as mediator in the middle east peace process saying it cannot be relied upon to play an honest role mahmoud abbas called for europe to play a stronger role in peace efforts instead after meeting french president in one electron in paris as asked about reports from paris. it was no surprise that the palestinian leader greeted the french president warmly as he arrived at the elise a palace emmanuel mccaw has been a staunch critic of the united states decision to recognize jerusalem as the capital of israel off the talks on the crisis mahmoud abbas's said the palestinians could no longer accept a u.s. peace plan a good reform of the united states is no longer a credible mediator in the peace process we will not accept any plan on the part of the us because of the parties feeling and because of this violation of international law. mccraw has stepped up efforts to mediate in the.