the british—based company accused of misusing facebook information for political gain, has suspended its chief executive, alexander nix. cambridge analytica has been accused of harvesting the personal data of from fifty million users without their consent. the us, british and european parliaments have all asked for explanations. russian diplomats have left the uk in an expulsion following the salisbury spy attack. moscow has denied all involvement, and is expelling british diplomats in response. and this video is trending on bbc.com... for the first time in history french people have bought more american—style hamburgers than their own classic jambon—beurre sandwich. almost one and a half billion burgers were sold last year. that's certainly got people talking. that's all from me now. now on bbc news it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.

i'm stephen sackur. the next couple of months will present president donald trump with foreign policy choices that just could define his presidency. a summit meeting with north korean leader kimjong—un is looming. so too a decision on whether to dump the nuclear deal with iran. and never far from the surface, how to handle relations with vladimir putin's russia. well, my guest is former clinton cabinet secretary, one—time us—north korea emissary bill richardson. what is trump's brand of disruption doing to us foreign policy? bill richardson in boston, massachusetts, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you, stephen. nice to be with you. i want to tap into your wide experience in washington, inside an administration and as a congressman and, indeed, a former un ambassador for the united states. when you look at foreign policy—making in america today, how are the big strategic decisions being made? well, unfortunately, i think they're being made on the fly, on the spur of the moment by the president, by tweets, and i don't like the disarray. i'm a traditionalist. i think diplomacy is a very important statecraft and i worry that we don't have a national security team in place, that the president, while making a right decision to meet

with kimjong—un, might not be prepared, that he's listening to his political instincts as opposed to what's in the best foreign policy of the united states. so i'm very unsettled, yet, at the same time, on this north korea issue, i think the right approach was a face—to—face meeting. but i wonder if we will be prepared? i'm intrigued that you actually approve of the notion that too many people, shocking notion of a trump kimjong—un summit — i want to get to that. but before we do get there, just tell me, in your experience, what does it say that rex tillerson, for example, only learned of that summit, we understand, by reading it on twitter, he only learned of his own dismissal by reading about it on twitter. i mean, what does that say about the way the president operates? well, it says that it's an undisciplined approach.

it says that obviously, tillerson and the president did not have personal chemistry. i think tillerson was more moderate, he wanted to stay in the iran nuclear deal, he wanted diplomacy with north korea a lot earlier, he wanted to be tougher on russia, and theyjust didn't mesh, the chemistry wasn't there. it's very important for a president and his chief foreign policy adviser to basically have confidence in each other. that didn't happen. but i just think the unceremonious way that tillerson was dumped, the unceremonious way decisions are made on personnel, white house staff, there are reports that the national security adviser mcmaster may be next. i know him, he's a capable man, and i worry that the presidentjust wants to have around him individuals that will not disagree with him, that willjust reinforce his views, which, in many cases, i believe, are not internationalist views, are not the best

in the interests of the united states. well, we are going to talk plenty about north korea. but i actually want to start the substance with russia, partly because it's a huge issue in the uk, as a result of the nerve agent attack on a former soviet agent, sergei skripal, in a town in the uk, along with his daughter. that's obviously caused huge tensions between london and moscow. but also, interesting that going back to tillerson and his firing, he chose, after his firing, to very pointedly make these remarks about russia. he said, "much work remains to respond to the troubling behaviour and actions of the russian government," and he warned that russia could face yet greater isolation. do you think that tillerson was pushing donald trump to confront putin in a way that donald trump simply doesn't want to do? yes, i do think he was trying

to push the president in the right direction, which was to stand with you guys, you're our main ally, and the evidence is overwhelming, that this nerve agent was deposited by the russians. you have concrete proof. and we, the united states, should stand behind you. yes, the press secretary should, the secretary of state should, but i haven't heard the president himself say, "we stand with great britain, with the prime minister, with the enormous evidence, and russia should stop. they've interfered in our election, there has been substantial demonstrations of that involvement, certified by our intelligence agencies, so russia, you should stop doing this. you should stop doing this to our allies, to the united states, stop getting involved in elections throughout the world, which they're doing." i didn't hear that from the president.

so i think tillerson was nudging him and, obviously, we still haven't heard it. i want to see the president. i want to see him succeed. i want him to stand behind our allies, like you guys, that are facing this real dilemma in your foreign policy with an important state actor. several points come out of what you've just said. i mean, it should be said the newly re—elected vladimir putin describes allegations that russia — the russian state was behind the attack on mr skripal as drivel and nonsense. so we need to put that on the record. but also, are you being fair to donald trump? i mean, he did, ultimately, come out and issue a joint statement alongside the uk, germany and france, condemning the outrageous attack in the uk. and just last week, the us expanded its sanctions against targeted individuals in russia.

so when you compare trump with obama, is trump doing so much less on russia than obama did? well, in my view, he's not doing enough. yes, he made thatjoint statement. but i want to hear him, also with our election. i mean, it's very strong evidence by our intelligence agency of enormous involvement in the election. maybe it didn't decide the us presidential election. i've yet to hear the president, in very strong terms, condemn what russia did. the president himself. and, yes, all right, we're making joint statements, but i want to see that outrage, because vladimir putin was re—elected, you know some say with 107% of the vote — i saw that — maybe he will now recognise that he has got to be a world leader again, that is responsible in the next six years. but their continued interference in so many activities around the world, and elections, it's incomprehensible. yes, russia wants to get restored

as a major power again, but not at the expense of human rights and people and possible nerve agent killings and syria conspiring with assad. maybe now, putin will change. i doubt it, but that's my hope. don't the democrats need to be careful right now, mr richardson? because the way that they are pushing the notion that donald trump stands not just accused, but in many democratic eyes, guilty of collusion with the russians over the last presidential election, isn't that essentially hamstringing the us administration's ability to really direct a coherent russia policy right now? well, what is important here, stephen, is, one, this mueller investigation needs to keep its course. let him come up with whatever the facts are. number two, i think it's important

that we, as democrats, not just attack the president. let's find the facts, but at the same time, let's come up with a message that eluded us in the last election. and i think elections in the united states are moving oui’ way. in pennsylvania, we won an election in a district that president trump won by 20% — we won that. so the public is turning towards a democrat slowly, but we have to just be positive about our vision. we need an economic message. people want to make more money, they want higher wages, they want the working class to do better. i think that escaped us. but i think on this russia issue, i don't think the democrats are wholesale saying there was collusion. i think there's enormous suspicion about it, but this is why this investigation and mr mueller needs to be concluded. and the president needs to stop attacking that investigation.

right. after some extremely strong condemnation by tweet from donald trump about the mueller investigation over the weekend, there, again, is speculation that the president might even fire bob mueller. if he did, what would that produce in washington? well, one senator said it would start the end of his presidency. i don't know. i think it's up to the republicans who, iwould hope, looking at our past history, watergate, would say this is untenable. this shouldn't happen. and that this would be contested enormously. democrats would, but remember — republicans have the majority in the house and senate. but also, the american people, i think, would find this enormously troubling and there would be demonstrations in the streets like you've never seen if this happens. i'm not sure it's going to happen. i don't know what the president is going to do, but he's obviously

in a very contested fight with mueller, notjust publicly, but i hope he is not plotting to terminate him. i think that would be a huge mistake for him, a disaster. i tell you what's weird — we're talking about this, and it will unfold over the next few weeks. at the very same time, coming back to foreign affairs, the very same time that donald trump is going to make, as i said at the very beginning, two key decisions. now, let's get to north korea, which you're one of the very few americans who knows what it's like to negotiate with north korean officials in pyongyang. it, therefore, intrigues me that you say you approve of trump's decision to go mano a mano with kim jong—un. why do you think, given trump's character, that is a good idea? well, stephen, i've been involved with this issue for many years. i've been there eight times, negotiated with the north koreans. i've never seen the korean peninsular so tense, so troubled, so potential

of the conflict, either missile or nuclear. so i think what the president did was, as we say in america, he threw a hail mary pass, a game changer, which hopefully will reduce tensions. and my worry, though, stephen, is that we're setting unrealistic expectations that we're going to expect north korea to denuclearise. they're not going to do that. but that doesn't mean we don't have these talks to talk about freezing or slowing down missiles and nuclear activity and conventional warfare and finding ways to diffuse tension. so i commend him for the trip. what i worry is that we are not ready with a strategy. i confess that your position now leaves me puzzled because we know that the north koreans regard a meeting president to president as one of the ultimate prizes for their diplomatic strategy,

so why give them that prize when you say to me, "look, we can't expect them to eliminate their nuclear weapons programme and they won't denuclearise." so in essence, you're saying, "we give them the prize and we get, really, nothing substantial in return. " well, we did get something in return, stephen. we got them to agree that we will continue our military activities with the south koreans. they are not shooting any missiles or any kind of nuclear activity. so they have made concessions too, i agree. meeting with president to president is a major concession because it legitimises what kim jong—un has been doing, but at the same time, it shows a boldness by our president. my point is that the negotiations should notjust be about denuclearisation. they should be about freezing missile activity. they should be about three americans detained in north korea. they should be about the remains of soldiers from the korean war, about conventional weapons pointed at south korea, about chemical weapons that north korea sends to syria, about missile exports and nuclear exports that north korea sends to pakistan and other rogue states. so i think there's a lot more, and denuclearisation, if it happens, should be a goal, but it's got to be very long range. it's going to take a long time.

here's a question that taps into your experience of the way government works. which side, as we approach these talks, which — if they happen, it's still an if but if they happen, we're expecting by the end of may — which side do you think is better equipped to conduct the highly complex, detailed negotiations? is it a trump administration which currently has no ambassador in south korea, no undersecretary of state responsible for arms control, and has just lost the top state department north korea expert, joseph yun? or is that the north koreans who've been thinking about little else but how to get into this place where they have talks with the us president, on the other side?

which side is better equipped? well, i think we're better equipped because we have japan on our side, we have south korea on our side, we have china, most of the time, on our side, but yeah, i do worry that we ‘re not prepared in terms of our personnel, our strategy, but we do have 60 days. now, i've negotiated with the north koreans, they're disciplined, they don't think like us, stephen. they don't believe in quid pro quos, they believe in cult of personality, and everything they believe in, everything they say, has to happen. so there are going to be some very tough negotiations, but we do have time. what i worry about is this opening that you made about iran. may 12th is the deadline that the president has to say whether we stay in the iran deal. i hope we do because i think iran has complied on nuclear agreement, has been terrible on terrorism, has been terrible on getting involved with syria and yemen, but i do think that if we pull out of it may 12 and we're negotiating with the north koreans,

the north koreans are going to say well, how can we negotiate with an american president if the next president might pull out of another nuclear deal? so i'm very concerned about that decision too. well, let's talk about that iran decision because it seems to me, again the democrats have to face a difficult question here. the problem with the deal going back to 2015 was that barack obama in pushing the deal, and it was a signature policy for him, he never got a truly national consensus around the deal. the republicans in the congress, almost to a man and woman, opposed it vehemently. all of the republican candidates

who ran for president in 2016 said that they would trash the deal, so in many ways it is no surprise that donald trump, with a mandate, it has to be said, is following through on his promise to undo what he says is the worst deal in america's history. well, stephen, i believe that it makes sense to preserve the nuclear deal, which is 15 years. iran does not have a nuclear weapon, serious deterrence on their enriched uranium. now, the possible compromise might be a missile deal that europe — your country, european allies, push iran to limit or reduce that terrible activity that they do with their missiles. so, uh... yeah, but do you not take my point... i do believe when i was talking... crosstalk. bill richardson, do you not take my point that donald trump does have a mandate for this particular element of his foreign policy? well, it's not exactly a mandate.

i think there were republican supporters, rex tillerson wants him to keep it. most of the american foreign policy establishment and republican senators think it should be kept. you know, it's divided, there's no question, and i wish that we'd gotten more with iran on their subversive activity, their terrorism support, what they're doing in yemen and syria, their threats on israel. look, i, i... it could have been maybe a better deal but still, iran has been complying with the nuclear side and we don't want two nuclear actors, north korea and iran, on the world stage, and that's my worry if this iran deal is terminated. no, i understand what you're, saying but you know better than i that the deal actually, in terms of its long—term outcome, it allows iran to begin again its nuclear enrichment programme full—scale, but in a period between six and 13 years from now. so it's not a finite end to the large—scale uranium enrichment, and at the same time,

the iranians are allowed to continue missile testing. so to many people in the united states, and indeed to key allies like those in israel, it looks like a deal that, at best, simply kicks the can down the road. well, the problem, stephen, is in the midst of a possible negotiation with north korea, you have to admit that the north koreans are going to say "why should we make a deal with the united states if from one president to another they pull the plug on this deal?" the timing is very unfortunate, may 12. so... and there's no possibility of delaying that decision, so i'm very concerned. i just think that the north koreans — i know how they are, they think of every avenue, they're going to find a way to use this potential disruption of the iran deal. and i'm not a fan of iran, i didn't openly support president obama's deal, i wanted more done. but i worry now, the timing and this colossal, important, good decision to meet with kim jong—un, that these two decisions are going to hit each

other and it's not going to be resolved in our interest — that's my worry if the president terminates the deal. ok, i want to change tack a bit and ask you something that's very personal to you. you were asked by aung san suu kyi in myanmar to be part of an advisory committee looking at what had happened to the rohingya people and the exodus of so many of those people across the border into bangladesh. you agreed to be part of the committee, then it seems you had a stand—up row with aung san suu kyi herself about some of the activities of the myanmar government and you quit your post. how disappointed are you in aung san suu kyi right now? well, i'm very disappointed in her.

she has not fulfilled, i think, her commitment as a champion of human rights. she won a nobel prize. i've supported her for 30 years as a public official with my foundation, i did everything. we had a good, strong relationship, and i'm disappointed she's not speaking out against own military on the human rights situation of the rohingyas, and this human rights commission she set up, i found out the first day we met that she didn't want any frank advice. i wanted two journalists released, i said "you should release them. this is important." do you think — look, wwe don't have much time, but i want to be clear. she... i want to be clear about one thing. do you believe she has become an apologist for state ethnic cleansing? well, i won't say an apologist. she's become an accomplice because she's become a politician

that wants to stay in office, she doesn't want to upset the military that is extremely powerful in myanmar, but she should because she's the head of state. final thought, and this takes us away from specific foreign affairs to the future of your country. you ran for president — and failed, it has to be said — i don't know if you're interested in running again, but a lot of people are speculating about where the democrats are going to find a candidate capable of hitting donald trump in 2020. he is a man, like him or loathe him, who dominates the american political scene. and you can talk about your elizabeth warren or bernie sanders, but frankly, there doesn't seem to be anybody on the democrat side. how and where are the democrats going to find someone to beat donald trump?

well, the good news is we have three years. the good news also is i believe that it's a — donald trump is not doing well with voters. he is going to be formidable, but i think the democratic party realises it can'tjust be a progressive, liberal party, that we have to talk about economic issues — like we did in pennsylvania, where a moderate, conservative democrat won, and we have been winning in a lot of elections recently. look, it's either going to be thejoe bidens, those candidates with experience, or a new face, but the good news is we have three years and i believe that we will find a strong candidate, and count me out, i'm done. but i think at the same time, we have a real opportunity to win short—term in these congressional elections, i think we win the house of representatives, maybe not the senate, and then we recapture the presidency. i believe that's what's going to happen but we'll see. we will see indeed. but bill richardson, for now, thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you, stephen. hello again.

tuesday brought us some beautiful, sunny weather across northern ireland and scotland. that's where the best of the sunshine was, and what a beautiful it was to the day during the scottish islands with the sun setting in the west. some changes working in for wednesday. thick cloud in the north—west of the country. so, for scotland and northern ireland, a cloudier start to the day. some rain on the charts edging in for scotland as well. for some, a damper start. further south, england and wales,

clear skies overnight. for early—risers, something like this to be widespread frost, even in towns and cities. the countryside, a cold start to the day. temperatures down as low as —6 in wales. cold, but beautiful sunny skies in england and wales for most of the morning. into the afternoon, cloud thickening from the north and west. sunshine will make the sun hazy elsewhere. but the outbreaks of rain in western scotland fairly quickly in the day. rain not lasting long in northern ireland. eastern scotland will see occasional bright spells through the afternoon that the temperatures were lift into double figures, the warmest spot in the uk. crucially, we will lose the wind. even further south, temperatures going up. the weather picture for thursday. a decent start to the day for many of us. bright and sunny spells. weather coming in from the atlantic bringing heavy rain the western

areas later in the afternoon. south—west england and wales, gales around the coast later in the day. the end of the week, cloud and rain pushing across the uk. another area of low pressure set to swing in off the atlantic and moving to the south—west of the uk. some uncertainty about how far north the band of rain gets. we may see a stronger area of low pressure develop. and if that happens, the rain might not get that far north. that is a possibility for friday. 9—11 for most of us. the position of that rain is really important for the weather we will have in scotland and northern ireland on saturday. at the moment, the forecast is rain. but if the low pressure develops, it could be clear and a decent day on saturday with bright or sunny spells. a little bit of uncertainty at the moment, as i said, but we will keep you posted.

welcome to newsday on the bbc. i'm mariko 0i, in singapore. the headlines: facebook‘s problems get worse. politicians in europe and the us demand answers about alleged misuse of personal data. a bbc investigation finds rohingya girls who fled violence in myanmar now trafficked into prostitution in bangladesh. and the last male northern white rhino in the world is gone —