the latest headlines 3—1 bbc news. the us house of representatives has voted overwhelmingly for new sanctions on russia, iran, and north korea. only three against the 319 who voted for the changes. donald trump has criticised his attorney general again. he said time would tell about his future. george pell has appeared in court ina future. george pell has appeared in court in a straight or multiple charges of historical sex abuse. the former archbishop of sydney and melbourne insists he is innocent. the details of the charges have not yet been made public. here in london, it is half past four in the morning, which means it is time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk with me, zeinab badawi. few issues are as controversial as abortion when it comes to addressing women's rights. pro—life campaigners believe that women's right to control their fertility does not extend to abortion on demand. injanuary, president trump blocked us federal funding for organisations that provide or promote abortions. one such organisation is the ippf, the international planned parenthood federation, which will lose millions

of dollars as a result. my guest is the ethiopian—born director—general, tewedros melesse. does he believe that the ippf‘s support of abortion mean it is right that it should forfeit us government funding? tewedros melesse, welcome to hardtalk. thank you, zeinab. what does the loss of us funding mean to you? well you know, i take it from two parts. one is that the us has been the greatest contributor to developmental assistance. now, today, the trump is cutting by 17% to 18% all development assistance. and when it comes to sexual productive health and rights, the cut is specific, which is saying that you cannot take our money and with your own money or somebody else money, you cannot conduct abortion. but what does it mean in practice?

what is it — is there anything that you are doing now that you won't be able to do as a result of the loss of us funding? and i think the figures are — your annual budget is about $175 million and the us funding amounts to about $35 million a year. what the issue is, we have never used — in the the previous administrations, we have not used us funding to talk about abortion, or perform abortions. never. because that was a caluse of the us funding. what this administration is telling us, even if it is not with our money, if it is with somebody else money, whatever the conditions, you cannot refer a client for abortion, you cannot advocate for abortion legalisation, you can't do any of that somebody else‘s money. but hasn't that been the case in the past with presidents? ronald reagan introduced in 1984 the mexico city policy, whereby us federalfunding could not be given to any organisation

which promotes or provides abortion. yeah. that has been the case. the difference now here is that it is extending to hiv aids related activities, and to the zika virus, now which is coming. for when we lose... how does it affect the zika virus work that you do? well, they have, you know, the promotion of condom legalisation, talking about, if it's necessary, the health of the mother, or the child is going to be affected, you have to talk about abortion. if the woman wants, you have to be able to refer. so it is going to affect your work on hiv, for example? it is not going to affect the ones that are contractual, it is on course, now. but when it ends, what does it mean? it means losing 100 million over the next three years. when you calculate, although the programme is saying is save lives, it is going to be affecting 4.8 million pregnancies — unwanted pregnancies — and 1.7 million abortions.

mary stokes, the family planning organisation, says that as a result of this — trump's policy, that there are going to be 22,000 maternal deaths in his first term. you don't really have any idea of what the outcome would be in terms of figures like that. they're just startling, aren't they? you just want to make people sit up. you just want to make people sit up. you don't really know. we know it. we have lived it. i will give you some examples. a girl in uganda, she was 16. she become pregnant by a relative. she was raped, forced. and she couldn't tell her family. she couldn't go to a doctor. what happened ? what happened? she took, or you know, call madison, and she died. ——

herbal medicine. her mother didn't know because she did not tell her. and these are the kinds of matters of mortality, in some of the countries you can take. like in mali, it goes to over 500 — 500,000. those are the the kind of maternal deaths in those — in countries where abortions is illegal. there are more than those in which is legally. than backstreet abortions that result in harm to the female‘s health? of course. exactly. but the fact is, of course, that you see this is an imperative that you continue to do the work that you do. but do you not think that there is such a thing as a pro—life lobby, and donald trump is part of that, and he stood for office as a pro—life candidate, and that he is entitled to that opinion? and infact, injanuary, his vice president, mike pence, when he attended a pro—life rally, said "life is winning again in america." i mean, they — they have their views. they are entitled to them. yes, yes, yes, i respect their views, but the thing is you cannot impose them on somebody else. the sense of democracy, in a country that says it's a place

of democracy and an example of democracy, cannot impose a different view on somebody else. but you cannot impose your view on a president who has part of the decision to make on how the his taxpayers‘ money is used? well, you know what? i never agreed. i never agreed that this group is pro—life. in fact, it is us who is pro—life. because we care about the life of a woman. we care about the life of a girl. you know, those who are between ten and 16. there are over 124 million who are not in school because of early marriage, sexual abuse, or uninformed decision to have a baby. all this is we care about the life of a woman. but it's notjust that, is it tewedros melesse,

with all respect? because you are encroaching on ideological territory. you've met stiff opposition, for example, from the catholic church in peru, in latin america. i'll give you just one example of the criticisms that are made. carlos samaniego, director of latin america's population research institute, has looked at groups that you back in these — in latin america — and he says that these groups are using the funding to lobby politicians and change public opinion. you're lobbying, you're advocacy groups, you're notjust involved in providing healthcare. you know, there is a difference between the lobbying and the advocacy. what we do is we work not as — we call ourselves "locally owned, globally connected." in peru, it's not our office in new york which is going there. or we don't go from london.

it's the peruvians. it's the peruvian association. but they're affiliated with the ippf, the international planned parenthood federation... yes. ..of which you are the director—general... oh, yes. so these are groups acting with your blessing. yes, we are connected. but the thing, you know, zeinab, a woman's movement, is — its prerogative is — it started in europe, america, india, africa, everywhere — to tell me today it is the west that is bringing something else, it is really very arrogant. i didn't say the west. not you! but the way it is presented is a foreign ideology... no, i didn't say that, and i should make it clear the ippf has about, what, 170 countries as members, and you are — you work in partnership with the united nations. you are a very bona fide organisation. yes, but the question is, are these doing it to fight for the right of a woman to make a choice, to be informed of what is the consequence of having unwanted pregnancy,

knowing that she can use contraception? is it a crime to legislate that a woman, taking into account her personal condition, her social condition, has a free choice? but there are people that have a different opinion... yes. ..from you, so all i'm saying is, you may disagree with them, but do you respect their point of views and say, "ok, president trump, i understand why you have taken this decision. we will either find a different way of doing what we want to do, but we respect your decision." do you respect people who have a different point of view to you? you know, you can respect, but you can disagree. and we have to fight because there is a reason. so you'll still lobby people like... are you still lobbying people like president trump? are you lobbying? i don't say lobby. advocacy. advocacy and showing. you know, what is amazing, zeinab, is, in the united states, abortion is legal.

why should this administration say "no, it can't be legal in ethiopia, or in peru, or in chile"? keep your democratic institutions, respect our decision. democracy — the basic essence of democracy is to respect one another. so is your american chapter, then, trying to change the mind of the trump administration? trying to change, getting the alliance correctly, and getting as many people to back them as they can. because this is a fight. you know? in the fighting, there is not nicety, unfortunately, be we will respect the laws of the countries. it is notjust abortions that you have issues with. you work to promote women's sexual and reproductive rights. you also campaign against things like early marriage, for instance, which is very common in your native ethiopia. you know, the effects of the fgm, female genital mutilation, and so on...

but in trying to tackle all these problems, you are trying challenging deep religious and social conventions. it is very, very hard to do that. believe me, it is not as hard as it is. because the communities, they know. for example, in pakistan, we are working with religious groups. they are the ones who are teaching them what the rights of a woman is. how challenging it is for an early marriage. it doesn't mean there is no opposition. but there are religious leaders from the christian side also. from the catholic church. i visited a monastery, which is run by nuns. in pakistan, you mean? no. you have moved from pakistan, then? the religious leaders at the ones

teaching how to respect a woman's life. so your point is you are getting some religious leaders on your site to say, look, early marriage is not good. you know. it is not that difficult. it is the politicians who are competent in the thing and trying to gain support. in america, people believe in, you know, their own religion. the american constitution respect the right of the individual and the woman. but you do meet challenges along the way. in africa, for instance, a woman seeking contraception is seen as promiscuous, and not accepting the will of god if she is not married and having as many children as she may be able to have. i prefer to look at these positive side. there are challenges. look, in southern africa, and eastern africa, the contrast of prevalence rate is over 35%. if you go to the south, at this gets you 50% or 60%.

this was not the case 20 years ago. to achieve the goals, many countries have committed their resources. during the recent family planning summit, at the ugandan government, the zimbabwean government, the ethiopian government, the nigerian government, they have committed themselves to making family planning services available. is it enough? no. worldwide, there are millions of women who don't have access to contraceptives. no, but the commitment is is there. the commitment is there by the government. there are challenges. there is the issue of accessibility, information, affordability, the training of people, the choices of individuals. so you have a positive attitude? 0h, oh, yes. is your attitude so positive that it takes you to conflict areas where you also champion women's rights, but you find yourself in

an uncomfortable position. for example, in syria, you've been working with government forces to help women with their sexual reproductive health rights. and yet we hear about the rape cases in syrian government prisons that take place. so are you not collaborating with a government, a regime, that is actually responsible for the degradation and abuse and exploitation of women? we are not partnering with the government. what we are saying is... but you are operating in government—held areas. yes, and even outside we are working for those displaced in jordan, those in lebanon, for the syrian refugees. but in areas of conflict. you say you want to help women in crisis, including in conflict, so you are working in government—held areas in syria. including those areas controlled by the opposition. you mean so—called islamic state? the red cross agree, the red cross, red crescent, agree with any government, what it is doing, but operating in a country which is in conflict to make services available, including for women who are raped, to give them

counselling and therapy. you mean in areas held by so—called islamic state? i don't know what the islamic state controlled area, but rebel groups, let's call them that way. they might be... they might be. ..islamic state. so you have no problem with working with so—called islamic state when we know they have been selling women, yazidi women, as sexual slaves and so on? we are not endorsing the group. what we are saying is those displaced women, girls and young boys, they need education. the torment they go through. how do you operate in practice, though, in such areas? in areas that might be controlled by is or by the syrian government? the difference between us and other organisations is... we don't fly from london. they are there. the community there. and those people, they operate within the context of their country. we are not interested in providing and supporting emergency or disaster situations, but we are forced to act in such a situation.

we are providing for over 3 million people, you know, just until 2016 — i mean the displaced populations. i want to look at another controversial area where the ippf has worked. you worked with a chinese family planning association, right through beijing's one child policy. you yourself in fact visited china in 2013 and met the prime minister li keqiang. yes. did that not make you feel uncomfortable, though? no. a country that's got a one child policy, forced abortion? we state clearly our position. when we met the prime minister of china, we put clearly what we call vision 2020, which puts very clearly the choice of the individual and the woman is very important and sexual productiveness has to be of free choice. he endorsed that and he said, you will move on forward. immediately after that we'll set the two child policy. that was changed in 2015.

yes. we made it in 2013. you made a statement welcoming it. exactly. what we are saying is we are not working with all the governments that we agree entirely. we engage with them, we make our positions very clear, our associations, even the fact that choice, individual rights, they are written on a placard in the clinics, that we provide services to immigrant populations in china. but women in china have no choice. you say, look, i went in 2013, i met the prime minister, i said you shouldn't have this one child policy, it changed in 2015, that's fine. but you know what your predecessor, as director—general, jill greer, did and what she said in 2009, in china. this is what she called china's one child policy. "it's very conducive to china's development in various aspects, "including in the realm of health—care services." that's not a statement which is wise to make, is it, really? well, you know, the thing is,

the chinese government has come up with that position. we have expressed that we don't agree. but she sounds like she's endorsing it. well, she is putting rather the contextual situation of the country. you know? but, for us, the choice of the woman getting the appropriate information... our engagement with them has made a transformation, a change. we have contributed to change. is it enough? is it adequate? no, we have a long way to go, even in countries where the whole democracy there... like in dublin, northern ireland. but you are cooperating or in partnership in a way with china, even though you say you don't agree with what they say and what they're doing with their one child policy. this is what a women's group called

women's rights without frontiers has said. it's an international organisation. this is a view. while posturing as a champion of choice, the ippf has in fact been working hand—in—hand with the population control programme in china almost since its inception. forced abortion is not a choice. we have never agreed... i will never agree with forced abortion. that's very clear. but, do we engage with governments with whom you disagree? yes, we do. do we agree with 160 countries around the globe? no. there are areas where we don't agree. but we protest and go and pack and go. it's not like we are going from london. it's the local... no, i understand, it's the local family planning association. exactly, and we engage with them. but forced abortions are still operating... it is not the association which is doing. no, no, i know, but, in china,

forced abortion under the two child policy is still in existence because there is a two child policy now. well, do you want us to go to exile? no. we fight in the country where we stay. we don't go to exile because we don't agree with the government. we engage with them, we lobby parliamentarians, we advocate, we explain to the health providers, we engage with the government officials, the minister of public health, the national population commission. for government, the national population commission and the minister of health have merged together. there is a change. what we forget is, even in the west, some of the countries in the ‘70s women were not allowed to vote. in the western countries! in switzerland, when did they start voting? the ‘70s, yeah. yes. so, why don't you give the space, give the engage? so are you engaging with the chinese authorities now and saying, look, you have moved

from a one—child policy to a two—child policy, but actually that still involves a large degree of forced abortions, so would you stop that? because, i mean, there is still going to be... in 2016 the us state department said they were 23 million abortions in china, and we don't know how many of those were forced or not. so still a huge number going on under the new policy. you know, quite interesting is 37 countries where abortion is illegal, 37,000 for those aged between 15 and 44 is happening, in countries where it's illegal. even in countries where it is illegal, even those which are illegal, there are a lot of abortions taking place. is it the provider's error, is it misinformation? or is it a constraint imposed on the woman? that has to be investigated

and checked out. but because we have a certain attitude about china, we can'tjust make, you know, a generalised declaration. is there any government he would work with? no, because... except if they impose their view on us and tell us, you can't speak about this. then that's a problem. you have this passionate commitment to women's sexual reproductive health rights and yet obviously you are man. why this passion and interest? the first thing is before i became sort of conscious about these issues, i used to observe my grandmother, whojust had one daughter and my grandfather's family were really terribly upset. she gets only one child and she gets only a girl? it was like a revolt. she was almost sent to a mini exile

within that from the rural area. and my mother was almost forced to be given for a marriage when she was 13. i grandmother took away and she said, "i've not give to those. she wanted to get somebody while going to school. i don't know how, and she identified my father, a teacher. she gave my mother for a wedding when she was 16. i observed what my mother has lived through, having seven children. when i was in school i was observing girls disappearing suddenly. because they were pregnant. because they can't be with their family, they can't be in school until they delivered, they give away, or they throw the baby and come back.

that was a very tough situation. then i came to europe and realised what it means and that is the commitment, both personal and the passion. i like literature and poetry, so that makes me passionate and a woman gives life. tewodros melesse, thank you very much for coming on hardtalk. thank you. good morning. there's rain in the forecast for the next few days, but i think the important message is, it's not going to be raining all the time. that's certainly the story for today. some wet and windy weather for a time, but not all the time. we have low pressure pushing a band of cloud in from the atlantic and that will bring some outbreaks rain eastwards through the day.

with that wet weather some fairly strong and gusty winds. so we start the morning in northern ireland and western scotland, wales and the south—west with this rain. they then move across the midlands, north—east england, east scotland, eventually rain into the south—east, but by this stage the wet weather quite light and patchy. behind the rain band, things will brighten up. there will be showers across northern ireland and scotland into the afternoon. some of these will be quite heavy and the wind is still fairly blustery. notice the persistent rain holding on across the far north and east of scotland right through the afternoon. brighter skies into wales. a fairly cool and fresh feel to the weather. 19 in cardiff. similar in plymouth, with patchy cloud and sunny spells for the afternoon across the south—west of england. we come further east across hampshire, berkshire, into london, kent and east anglia there will be a fair amount of cloud through the afternoon. some outbreaks of rain, fairly light and patchy, extending through the coast of england. further west some bright weather developing. in the evening the cloud and patchy

rain will be chased away to the east. a lot of dry weather through the night, however, some hefty showers developing across northern ireland and western scotland. there could be the odd rumble of thunder here. temperatures overnight about 11—15 degrees. into thursday and low pressure still the dominant feature. this isn't what we expect to see on the weather charts at this point in late july. some tightly squeezed isobars, meaning there will be strong winds and some heavy showers. most frequent up to the north—west, but even further south and east we could catch the odd heavy shower and maybe a rumble of thunder. some sunny spells in between. but those temperatures no great shakes, about 16 in aberdeen, 18 in cardiff, 20 in london. another day of showers on friday. some sunny spells between the showers. then late in the day more persistent rain pushing in again across the south—west and wales. but that should move its way through on friday night and into the early hours of saturday.

so the weekend is certainly not a complete washout. there will be some spells of sunshine and some heavy showers as well. some rain in forecast, but not all the time. this is bbc news. i'm david eades. our top stories: the us house of representatives votes overwhelmingly for new sanctions on russia, iran and north korea. moscow says it will "complicate relations." after the migrant crisis, europe's top court to decide if refugees must file for asylum in the first country they reach. another milestone for green motoring: the uk's set to ban new diesel and petrol vehicles from 2040. and i'm rachel horne. and in the business news: after the disappointing growth outlook the uk received from the imf last week, today we get some real numbers for the british economy. and after "emmissionsgate" is a new scandal brewing for vw? if so this time it's not alone, all the main german car makers