in addition, we also agreed to tackle corruption, which is a threat to society is everywhere. i pointed out in the conversation i had with, with one of the leaders of, well, actually with china. and i was, it was a request me for me not to try to when i was asked what i was going to be doing. after me, you know, like i said, we're going to re establish the strength of american relationships. we can be counted on alliances and suggested that, well, maybe you shouldn't get the quite meaning india, japan, australia in the united states working together. and maybe you shouldn't be pushing on strengthening european union to deal with the west. not just to have it. and so on. and i said, for an american president to every president to be sustained or prime minister to represent the valleys or country. and i pointed out, i mean,

this is certainly we're unique as a country rebuild on where we're unique in the sense that we're not based on the city geography or religion where one nation is. and we organized on an idea. we hold these truths to be self evident that all men and women are created equal. sounds corny, but it's real in any president doesn't act consistent with what the read. the reason they taught for the nation is cannot be sustained that the support of that country. and so what we're able to do is we know that corruption undermines the trusting government ciphers off public resources, makes economies much less competitive and constitutes a threat to our security. so we're going to work together to address issues like the abuse of shell companies, money laundering through real estate transactions. and we've agreed they're going to work together, address cyber threats from state non state actors like criminal ransomware, networks and whole counter countries. accountable that harbor criminal ransomware

actors don't hold them accountable. and over the past few weeks, the nation to the g 7 of a firm that democratic values that underpinning everything we hope to achieve in our shared future that we're committed to put them to work. one, delivering vaccines and, and independent to driving, substantial inclusive economic recovery around the world. 3 in fuel and infrastructure development in places that most badly needed and for in fighting climate change. the only way we're going to meet the global threats that we're is by working together and with our partners and our allies. and i conveyed to each of those my g 7 counterparts that united states is going to do. our part america is back as a table is america's back of the table. the lack of participation in the past and in full engagement, was noticed significantly,

not only by the leaders in those countries but by the people in the g 7 countries. and america is back in the business of leading the world alongside nations who share our most deeply health values. and so the bottom line is i was very pleased with the, with the outcome of the, of the entire conference. and you know, i noticed there was a lot of coverage of my individual comments made by my colleagues about how we were all getting along together. but the truth and matter is we did resent i felt. and what about me is that america, i found a genuine sense in the dues, yes, that america was back in the table and fully fully engaged. and now i'm going to be had not to, to brussels, to nato. and the same many the same people are going to be at that table and in

nato and to make the case we are back as well. we do not view nato as a sort of a protection racket. we believe that nato is vital to our ability to maintain american security for the next, next remainder of the century. and there's a real enthusiasm. i made it clear. and i pointed out, i thank them, you know we article 5 is attacking one's attack on all. well, what americans sometimes don't forget, remember what happened in 911. we were attacked immediately, nato supported us, nato supported us, nato went to, we got been lot, nato was part of the process. and i want them to know, unlike whether they doubt it, that we believe nato in section 5 is a sacred obligation. bottom line is, i think,

i think we've made some progress and re establishing american credibility among our closest friends in our, our values. now, why don't i take some of your questions? and i'm told jonathan i'm supposed to talk to recognize you 1st. i appreciate. i appreciate that. let me, i think we days in geneva, couple of days ago that he believed us russia relations were at a low point. and what concrete ways to summit change that and then 2nd on the same problem you had said previously and then the run up to the summit. you will be unafraid. russian disruptive action like cyber hack ukraine. election interference, but you're not having a joint press conference, but why not take the chance to stand side by side with them and say those things to him with the world watching? well, let me make it clear. i think he's right it low point. and it depends on how he

responds to acting consistent with international norms, which in many cases he has not. as i told him, when i was running, when i got elected before i was, i was sworn in that i was going to find out whether or not he, in fact did engage in trying to interfere in our election. that i was going to take a look at whether he was involved in the a cybersecurity breach that occurred, etc. and if i did, i was going to respond. i did, i checked it out. so i had access to all the intelligence he was engaged in. those activities, i did respond and made it clear that i respond again with regard to i always found . and i don't mean to suggest that the press should not know, but this is not a contest about who can do better in front of a press conference or try to embarrass each other. it's about making myself very clear what the conditions are to get

a better relationship are with russia. we're not looking for conflict. we are looking to resolve those actions, which we think are inconsistent, international norms. number one, number 2, where we can work together. we may be able to do that in terms of some strategic doctrine that may be able to work together. we're ready to do it and maybe other areas there's even talk to maybe the ability to work together on climate. so the bottom line is that i think the best way to deal with this is for united meet he and i have our discussion night. i know you don't doubt that i'll be very straightforward with them about our concerns. and i will make clear my view of how that meeting turned out and he'll make clear how it, from his perspective, how it turned out. but i don't want to get into being diverted by. did they shake hands? how far it? and i taught who talked the most rational, he can say what he said, the media was about, i will say, well, i think the media was about that's,

that's how i'm going to handle. ah, i'm sorry, i'm going to get in trouble with staff. i don't do this right. well, jennifer, jacob bloomberg china, you sorry, trying to be doing exactly what it wants to do with regard to hong kong. with regard to jean jang with the south china sea and many other issues, despite pressure from you and from allies. the final language in the g 7 communicate does have some mentions of china, which is different from past years. but i know it's not as tough as you and your team wanted it to be. we thought we saw draft of the communicate and it's not quite as tough. so why isn't as tough? there isn't very much action in it. there's some calls for trying to be respectful . but why isn't that communicate a little bit tougher? are you disappointed in that? and what can you do to change some of these actions by china?

so 1st of all, i think it as, you know, last time you have met, there was no mention of china. but this time there is mentioned in china, a g 7 explicitly agreed to call out human rights abuses. and seeing jang and hong kong explicitly to, to coordinate a common strategy to deal with trying to non mark and policies that undermine competition. it agreed, and that's under way now, how to do that 3 to take serious actions against force labor in solar agriculture in the garment industry because that's where it's happening. they've agreed we will do that. the launch. what i said earlier, i, i really feel very strongly, i propose that we have a, a democratic alternative to the belt road initiative to build back better. and they've agreed to that and that's underway is details with that we agreed to

put together committee to do that and come up with that. and 3rd that we're going to assist on high standards or to be for climate friendly, transparent alternative to the belt road initiative. and, but in the meantime we're going to move forward. look, i think it's always we put this way. i know this going to sound somewhat prosaic, but i think we're in a contest with china per say. when a context with autocrat autocratic governance around the world as to whether not democracies can compete with them in a rapidly changing 21st century. and i think how we act and whether we pulled together as democracies is going to determine whether our grandkids look back to 15 years now and say, did they step up?

our democracies is relevant as powerful as they hit man. and i walked away from the meeting with all my colleagues, believe me, that they are convinced that that is correct. now to not, i should say now, not just because of me, but they believe that to be the case. and so i think you're going to see just straightforward dealing with china. and again, when i'm looking, as i've told she's paying myself, i'm not looking for conflict where we cooperate, will cooperate where we disagree stage, frankly. and we are going to respond to actions that are inconsistent. for example, we talked about trade. it's one thing to talk about whether or not our agriculture policy makes sense. another thing to say, by the way you're demanding is if i do business your country, i've got to give you all my trade secrets and have the the chinese partner have 51 percent of that. no, not us. are you satisfied with what came out in the are you wish or were tough or

do you wish there was more nation on china? i think there's plenty of action on china and there's always something you can. i'm sure my colleagues are seeing surveys think they can improve that they want it, but i'm satisfied. steve holland, reuters communicate cited a variety of friends on china. everything from human rights, the origin, the code virus, taiwan. what you think china needs to do to ease tensions? i think china has to start to act more responsibly in terms of international norms on human rights and transparency. transparency matters across the board. and i think the idea that for example, one of the things i raise and others raise, i one, the only one raises the g 7 is that we don't know, we haven't had access to the laboratories to determine whether or not i have not

reached the conclusion because our intelligence community is not certain yet whether or not this was a consequence of a, from the marketplace back in her face. she was which way with animals in the environment that caused this, this, this over 19, or whether it was an experiment gone awry in the laboratory. it's important to know the answer to that because we have to have access. we have to build a system whereby we can know what when we see another transparent lack of transparency. what might produce another baxa, a, another pandemic. we have to have access the world us to have access. so we're trying to figure out the g 7, whether we could put together an international basis upon which we could have a bottom line with what the transparency accounted for. and you mentioned that the

the argument behind the scenes, if you had not mentioned china in 3 years and one of these communication, what did you argue behind the scenes to try to bring people to the point where they got the answer that question. there's no it as without sounding self service. let me just say this, i just laid out what i thought was the need for us to be consistent to protect our economies and to see to it that other struggling economies needed help got to help. and we're not held captive by other nations. but you might ask that to others, i'm a trend. the wise guy and wall street journal enter. as you said, the g 7 countries committed to send 1000000000 rhonda virus doses overseas. but the

world health organization says 11000000000 doses are needed. how are you going to bridge that gap? will the u. s. commit to send additional doses overseas? and given the gap? is it actually realistic to end the pandemic by 2022. it is, may take for longer the worldwide, but the united states is going to continue. i think there's a possibility over 2022 going to 2023, that we will be able to be in a position to provide another good us. but that's not done. yet i only, i've been very careful as i've dealt with this pandemic, to tell you what i know and say what i thought could be done when i'm announced that i've gone and done it. but i don't want to do is be getting too far ahead. and suggesting that we can do things and i can do things the united states can do things that i don't have done yet. so i, there was a clear consensus among our colleagues in december and this wasn't the end. we were going to stay added the tour, able to provide for able to provide for the needs of the whole world in terms.

because look, it's not just the right thing to do and from a, from a how can i say it from a memorial standpoint. but it is also the correct thing to do in terms of our own health, our own security. you can't build a wall high enough to keep out new strength so you can't do that. and so i think this is going to be a constant project for a long time. and there may be other pandemic, we again, setting up a system whereby we can detect before he gets out of control. one pandemic that may be on the horizon. the virus is important, so we are not going to as long as there's a nation's in need that be able to be vaccinated. we in fact, not, not only that we've been engaged in helping, which i've made clear and most of our my colleagues understood it. i mean, not understood, it knew it from trying to themselves. this is

a gigantic logistical effort. it's one thing to send nation x, x number, y number of axis low thing to have the people that can actually get it and somebody's on. and so we are also providing the ability for other countries to manufacture their vaccines. we've all agreed on that. india has the capacity to do that. they don't have the material capacity thus far to do the manufacturing. but there's a lot going on to provide, not only to quote, give vaccines, but to provide the ability of the countries in question to produce their own vaccines. i'm not going to answer it. no. joking. last question. peter alexander m b. c. news. thank you very much. about bottom are putting in your meeting this week, as you're well aware of the u. s. has been slapping sanctions on russia for years

for its malign activities, and russia has not stopped. so what specifically will you do differently to change vitamins hooton's behavior? first of all, there's no guarantee you can change a person's behavior favors. country autocrats have enormous power and they don't have to answer to a public. and the fact is that it may very well be 5 responding kind which i will, that it doesn't dissuade him. he wants to keep going, but i think that we're going to be moving in a direction where russia has, has its own dilemma, is less and dealing with its economy, dealing with its dealing with cove, it and dealing with not only the united states, but europe writ large and in the middle east. and so there's a lot going on where we can work together with russia. for example,

in libya, we should be opening up the, the task to be able to go through and provide, provide food assistance in economic, i mean, vital assistance to a population that's in real trouble. i think i'm going to try very much hard to it is, and by the way, there's places where i shouldn't be starting off and go shooting and public. let me say this way. russia has engaged in activities which are, we believe are contrary to international norms. but they have also bitten off some real problems. they're going to have trouble julie not. and for example, rebuilding of, of syria of, of libya. you know, this is their, their, and as long as they're there without the ability to bring about some order in the

region, you can't do that very well without providing for the basic economic needs of people. so i'm hopeful that we can find an accommodation that where we can save the lives of people in, for example, in, in libya, that consistent with the interest of maybe for different reasons, but reach it for the same reason. and this the, the same result. i'll ask you about how about the bi reporting said today, but why do you think he hasn't changed his behavior? in spite of everything, the u. s. has done to this point. he's ladder imprudent. i'm not going to get into much more than that because i've got to sit down with him and i'd be happy to talk to you after that that include today. he said that russia would be ready to hand over cyber criminals to the united states. if the u. s. would do the same to russia and an agreement came out of this meeting coming up. so

are you open to that kind of a trade with vitamin? yes, i'm open to if there's crimes committed against russia, that in fact are and people committee, those crimes being harboured in the united states. i'm. i'm committed to hold them accountable. and i heard that i was told as i was flying here, that he said that i think that's that's potentially a good sign and progress. thank you all very, very much. i know you're, you know, i mean get in trouble. my press my stamp. yeah. go ahead but not bring, pretend that issue. you didn't leave out americans back. yeah. at the same time, you kept in play some trump era steel and aluminum sanctions. and i wanted to ask you, when you were having these conversations with european allies were very concerned

about the sanctions. how do you justify that? and what are your plans 20 days? gimme a break. the time. all right, that was the president biden. speaking of the end of what he described as an extraordinary collaborative and productive meeting, we rallied the well as democracies to deliver. he said he was keen to push the message that america is back at the table. let's get some analysis from our diplomatic get us of james base who is in cornwall in the u. k. close to the summit . very. what did you make about james? well 1st thing to say is after 3 days, well actually is 4 days because before the 7 summit he was sitting down with barbara johnson for bilateral summit in the u. k. u s. president biden sounded to me a little tired. there were a few slips at the beginning, is talking about the kovacs fun, which is to provide kevin 1900 vaccine countries around the world. and he kept

scolding copays at one point that you may not have heard of coverage. but of course, we may not have kofax, but i think all of us have heard of cove it. and then at the end he was being pushed on his meeting, which is coming up very important meeting with me, posted at one point. he said, i shouldn't be negotiating in public, i think probably repeating what some of his age told him before the press conference not to do. but there were significant comments, certainly on that meeting with putin and saying that the relations between the us and russia were at a low point. and it depends what the president putin does and how he reacts that meeting. they're not going to have a joint news conference. he was asked about that. he said, no, it's better not to do the sort of things in public with regard to the, the g 7 summit. he's talking a lot about this b 3 w, which is the alternative to the belt and road initiative that certainly the americans came up with that idea and it is in the final communicate. but interesting. when we heard the conference of the, the session president,

the u. k prime minister bars johnson giving his news conference no mention of that whatsoever. clearly some of the more important things from the some have related to russia, china, and him saying he said that there was a contest between autocracies and democracies in the 21st century. his grandchildren, grandchildren will ask us, did we fight, did we step part? and i think that is the overall theme. i think of the biden administration foreign policy at this stage. it's working very closely with allies and we have a much more conventional looking g 7 meeting on this occasion compared with the 4 years of trump. all of the allies make your point of how well they get together. of course, they're all sorts of disagreements. for example, with the european countries in the u. k, over northern ireland and breaks it. but overall they're all working together and all of them except the u. s. as a leader. but of course, in the previous 4 years,

that wasn't the situation, the u. s. was very much the outsider, particularly on the issue of climate change and with his america 1st policies. president trump didn't really want to be the leader of this group. diplomatic. it's a james based that lives in cordele at the z g 7 summit. that's bringing the brit britain, president of situation room consultancy, and former director of global engagement in the white house on the president obama . he's in washington. good to have you with a spread. what did you make of the ok or a tire president by that, but such a contrast is prednisone certainly, and biden has brought america back to the world stage. he is tried to repair some of the damage, but it is considerable. and i think he heard in that press conference and we've heard over the last several days just how much work there is. and biden's approach

is a very pragmatic one. he's trying to find areas where both this group, as well as with russia and even china, there can be some collaboration in coordination. and let's not forget, foreign policy really doesn't get top billy in the white house these days. it's backburner issue and he's mostly been focused on things here in the united states. so, you know, he's trying to keep a lot of those global problems at bay. he's off to what tomato next. he said that we see nature as a vital tossed ability to maintain american security. what can we expect from the nato summit? well, his challenge at nato is perhaps even greater than it was at the g 7. because the power of deterring that nato has represented for decades was very badly shaken under president trump. so biden has an enormous task when he hits the ground

in brussels to convince our allies. and perhaps more importantly to convince our adversaries that we are going to back up countries when they are under threat as a native alliance is still strong. and let's not forget hughes decision to pull the united states and nato out of i've got this. don has raised a lot of questions whether or not the western alliance still has the will to fight . and then of course, once that a major, somebody's done, it's off to the, the meeting with president vladimir putin, of russia in geneva. put in that correct press conference, he just said, has not abided by its national norms, were not looking for conflict with russia. i'll be very straightforward with him. i'm looking to resolve those actions that we think are inconsistent with international norms. what will you be looking for in terms of body language and rhetoric from that meeting?

well, i think biden is coming into this meeting with the wrong approach that the policy you're stated by the white house is that they want to predictable and stable relationship with the kremlin. the only problem is wider, mere putin depends on being unpredictable and on instability. so what you're seeing fide and trying to do here is essentially a strategy of containment. how do we keep these to slow boil so that they don't create major problems, whether it's in countries like syria or across rushes near abroad? i unfortunately think it is bound to fail and we try this when i was at the white house and it simply didn't work. but unfortunately, you know, at this stage, fight in is just trying to send a message to porton, look, we've got to create more manageable meddling. and that, i think is not a recipe for success. getting back to the, the g 7. the final communicate highly critical of china. they appeared when he list

you to, to president biden's, rundown of what they discussed. they appeared to have achieved a lot in this, this 3 day summit. what do you think, what was it a success? well, i think they laid a foundation. this was not certainly going to build a bold new infrastructure for international relations. but you know, there were a lot of potholes on the road that that had to be filled in. there had to be some areas like with china that just some basic fundamental principles were agreed upon and that's what you saw in the communicate. but it is going to require a lot of follow up work and is still very uncertain whether or not the united states is going to be able to lead the g 7, let alone the broader international community towards more progress towards a harder line on beijing. really good talk to you, brett. many thanks indeed to that separate group. now. president of the situation

room consultancy and for director of global engagement and the white house on the president obama. thank sir. brett president biden has left the g 7 a new key. now he's just boarded the air force one on his way to brussels. this is our 0. let's bring you up to speed with this house top stories. 2021 should be a turning point for the world. was the main message from all g 7 lead us. if they wrapped up the summit in the u. k, that joint communicate, they made a series of climate commitments that include achieving that 0 compet emissions by 2015. covered 19 was of course, a major focus with the group pledging 1000000000 vaccine doses for developing nations. they came down hard on china coating on bay jing to respect human rights. i know this going to sound somewhat prosaic, but i think we're in a con.