the us has said it is cautiously optimistic about north korea, after the meeting between kimjong un and the chinese president xijinping. the white house says it feels like things are moving in the right direction following the meeting in beijing — and that its maximum pressure campaign on pyongyang is continuing to work. british police say they've found a high concentration of a nerve agent on the front door of the former russian spy sergei skripal and they now think he and his daughter may have been poisoned at home. and this video is trending on bbc.com. it's the tale of gipsy the cat — who spent three days stuck on top of a power cable in phoenix in arizona. the pet resisted all attempts to entice it back down to earth — before, eventually, a volunteer climbed up the pole to rescue it. gipsy was then reunited with its family, safe and sound. that's all from me now. stay with bbc world news. now on bbc news, stephen sackur is in geneva in the latest episode of hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.

i'm stephen sackur. today i'm at the imposing headquarters of the world trade organization, which is supposed to oversee free and fair global trade, but right now the risks looking impotent and even irrelevant. president donald trump is making good on his promises of tariffs and protectionism. the chinese are threatening to respond in kind. well, my guest today is the boss of the wto, roberto azevedo. what can he do to avert a global trade war? roberto azevedo, welcome to hardtalk.

the wto has been in existence for 23 years. would you agree this is the toughest moment the wto has faced? if not the toughest, certainly one of the toughest, yeah, for sure. ah, given the nature of the challenges before the system, where it comes from, and so on and so forth, so yeah, it is really tough right now. you face the reality of an american president who says the wto has been a disaster, a catastrophe for the united states of america. that is a fundamental problem, isn't it? i think the us clearly has difficulties with the system. they don't think that the system is perfect. i don't think any member of the wto believes that the system is perfect. everybody would like to see improvements. so that's part of life. we have been trying to accommodate these desires to improve the system

and renegotiate things, update the systems, the disciplines, the world has been changing dramatically fast over the past few years. so we need to face that challenge. given what donald trump has said about the wto, he clearly pays no heed right now to your guidance, advice, your role. and that, surely, makes a trade war, a global trade war much, much more likely. the us has been engaging, regardless of all these rhetorical statements that we have seen, the reality is that we have conversations going on now in the wto about, for example, electronic commerce. the us has been very actively engaged. they have been praising, actually, those negotiations, and saying that this is the way

the wto should be going. but with respect, that's a detail. no, it's not a detail. the big picture is donald trump today is taking decisions which run entirely counter to what you want to see and pay no heed to the procedures of the world trade organization. they don't. that is absolutely wrong. theyjust started a dispute about india, consultations with india about the export subsidies that india has been granting. whether or not they're right i don't know. that is part of the conversation. you have picked out a particular detail. but when donald trump slapped those tariffs on steel and aluminium imports, said, and i'm going to quote him, "trade wars are good and easy for america to win," are you saying he did that in consultation with you? i'm saying the us has every right, as every other member does have a right, to take actions regarding trade. but they are supposed to do it through the processes of the wto. was he doing that through your procedures? we don't know.

i cannot tell. the secretariat cannot tell whether a measure is inconsistent with the wto obligations or not. only a panel or the appellate body can do that. what you're saying is a detail is not a detail. it's a fundamental way of working in the organisation. one is negotiations, the other is settlement. they engage both. well, let me quote to you your predecessor, pascal lamy, he said the other day that donald trump's view of global trade is mediaeval. mediaeval. he said the only question right now is whether donald trump is really trying to wreck the entire system. well, you are quoting my predecessor, not quoting me. i never said that. so do you disagree with pascal lamy? i don't have to agree or disagree. i mean, pascal lamy is perfectly entitled to have his views about what the position of the united states is. i deal with facts.

the facts are that when i talk to the us administration we have been engaging, we are trying to find solutions. it's no secret that the united states would like to see changes in the wto. that is no secret. the question is, what are those changes and what are the things other members are willing to do in order to take on board those concerns? it's also a question of how leaders around the world go about trying to engineer change that they want to see and, to quote one particular expert on world trade, robert scott at the economic policy institute at washington, dc, he says bluntly, donald trump refers to negotiate at the point of a gun. every negotiator wants to increase his leverage. that is no secret. whoever has been following, i'm sure that expert has been following trade negotiations and economic and financial negotiations over time. people want to increase their leveraged. that's no surprise. others will respond.

my concern is when that kind of interaction, where you take an action or threaten to take an action and somebody else threatens a response, and you are completely ignoring the consequences of that, that is what... is that what donald trump is doing today? that is what i have been warning people to be careful about. but is that what donald trump is doing today? i do not know what he is doing. you have to ask him, not me. you do know what he is doing. i know what he has announced. what he has announced — the purpose or the intention of those announcements is speculation. you can speculate as much as i can. well, you view matters more than mine. if we stick, for now, to the detail of the metals tariffs, that is the 25% on steel and the 10% on aluminium, are those, in your opinion, and your view, illegal under the rules of the wto? the only body that can answer that question is the is the dispute settlement body of the wto. question is the is the dispute until that body offers an opinion or finds or makes a determination on that, no one is entitled to say whether those are consistent or not

with wto obligations. we haven't come to that point yet. it is very interesting to me that you refuse to condemn what so many other observers and experts in world trade have said is quite clearly an abuse of the wto rules. well, i am the only director general of the wto. none of them are. they are free to say whatever they want. they do not have to observe the rules of the organisation, i do. i neverfinger pointed a member before that member was found to be in violation of the wto agreements. and that can only be done by a panel or the appellate body of the organisation, which will be a finding of the dispute settlement body. until that point in time, as director general or the organisation, i have no right to say whether a measure, whatever measure

it is, from whichever member, whether that measure is or is not in compliance with wto obligations. so what you think of the american decision to continue with the steel and aluminium tariffs on the chinese and a couple of other nations, but to say to a bunch of other nations, including the european union, your own home country of brazil, and a few others, that they will suspend the imposition of the tariffs on those countries if those countries, by may i, come up with, quote, satisfactory alternative means" of addressing this national security threat", by which, it seems, they wish brazil, the eu, canada, these other nations, to take their own measures against china. ie, the united states is encouraging the will to gang up on china. once again, you are speculating about the outcome of that conversation. i do not know what the outcome of that conversation will be. all i know is the united states is having with those countries and those countries are expecting to find a solution. some elements, for example, which is the root of this problem, which is the oversupply of steel

and aluminium in global markets is already under consideration in the global forum for steel, in the oecd. so that conversation involves a loss of actors who have to discuss and figure out the solution for this. that conversation, by the way, i have been saying this for a long time, the way out of this is to have a conversation, is to have a dialogue, put everybody around the table, and to find a solution. a dialogue yes, but you said this the other day in the press, you said quote "unilateral actions could lead to a global trade war". so, today, as you look at what donald trump has done, we talked about steel and aluminium, but we can talk about the bilateral measures taken against china, do you feel more worried that unilateral actions could lead to a global trade war? i said that one.

there is no reason to take it back. i think unilateral actions can take us in that direction. do you characterise donald trump's actions as unilateral. i do not characterise anybody‘s actions. they know what they are. what i am concerned about... it doesn't matter. you seem to be abdicating any responsibility to show leadership. it doesn't matter. it doesn't matter whether you find that a measure is unilateral or not, the fact is that when you announce certain types of measures and others deem that those measures are not in compliance with their obligations and threaten to retaliate, that is a problem. that's where we are today. the whole thing is a problem. how big a problem is it? it's a big problem. i have been saying this for quite some time. it is a big problem. and i don't think anybody believes that this is something minor. even in the us administration. and the reality is these conversations are now ongoing. that was not the orioginal announcement. so, the truth is... the conversations are ongoing precisely because people are beginning to understand, i hope,

how serious this is and the kind of impact this will have to be global economy. so this isn't really any more about the threat of a global trade war, we're in a global trade war, aren't? i don't think we are there yet. we are seeing the first movement towards... what more would it take for you to declare? the measures and countermeasures are not in place to begin with. there are still conversations ongoing, negotiations are ongoing. there are announcements. that doesn't mean we should downplay that. you don't want to be in the war. we want to avoid the war. so if everything we can do to avoid being in that situation, that is what we must be doing at this point. if you say what is the brink of a trade war becomes a full fledged trade war, what is that mean for the global economy? it will mean a severe impact on the global economy. we begin to see the economy coming back and growing at healthier rates right now. global trade is part

of that as well. it's beginning to pick up. a 3—point percentage expansion rate at this point in time. if you have that kind of thing, it would go down very quickly, i would suppose. and how far? by how far it would depend on how big that war is. if it is limited to steel and aluminium, that is one thing. if we're talking about hundreds of thousands of products, it is a completely different thing and the impact would be significantly different. you said you couldn't opine on the merits or otherwise on the us case on steel and aluminium or the bilateral trade actions on china, because, you said, in our procedures it needs to go through the appellate court, it needs to be considered by the judges that we have in the world trade organization. isn't one of the fundamental problem is that the united states is holding another done to the head of the wto because it's blocking the appointment of newjudges and, very soon, when the nextjudge quits, that core won't

be able to operate. well, we have some time before that situation paralysis of the appellate body is in place. i think it is six months. i think you're wrong. it think it will be more than that. well, how many more months? i will not share that calculation with you. we have calculation is inside our heads here. with respect, donald trump has been in power for more than a year. you're telling me you have a matter of months to change the us policy on blocking... no, i don't have to change... well, because they're blocking new judges being appointed. and what we have to do is figure out two things, the first one is whether we can solve that blockage, that is on that we're trying to address. that requires the us also to sit at the table and figure something out with the other members, which is something we are trying to do. the other thing is, if the blockage goes on, do we have alternatives, we have other will way is? there are two tracks here. mr azevedo, what is your opinion of the united states continuing to block the appointment of newjudges here at the wto? i think the us puts the system

in a difficult position. and it is not something that helps the system. it is not something that helps the global economy. because the moment that that part of the system stops functioning — it is not the case yet, as i said — but the moment it does, then there is no resort to dispute something. the result is once you take an action, the only option that is left to the other side is to respond in kind. and that is precisely what we are trying to avoid. and that will take us to the domino effect we do not want to see. so what you are saying is that by blocking the appointment of newjudges, the united states is, in effect, risking the breakdown of the entire wto system. if we don't fix that, that is a risk, yes. we do not have much time left.

and there were a few other issues i wanted to get to. one is just a simple thought about the the way in which world trade negotiations, and where the power sits in these negotiations. it seems to me that there is a really difficult thing to read right now. whether world trade is now going to be governed much more by regional blocs than by the wto system that use it on top of, with its 160 or so member states. we have the european union, of course, which is a very powerful economic bloc, we also have, despite donald trump, we have the ttp, moving ahead without the us, we have an african continental free trade area, which wants to speak for all of africa, eventually. we may have nafta, with donald trump reforming it in a different way. our regional blocs the way in which global trade is to be governed in the future? i think they have always been there. and the more we have of them, the better. really?

that is the nature of the organisation and the way it has always been. it is easy to manage somethings regionally rather than globally. what has historically happened is that those blocs negotiate new tariffs and disciplines, and then they are brought to the wto, and you try to harmonise them with the other members. that is the way it has always been. that's not new. what is newer is the new initiatives. but the dynamic is the same. really it is just about leverage. really the two biggest economic powers in the world, the united states, and the new urgent dynamite economy in the world, china, they have leverage. they can negotiate on their own terms because they are the two most powerful economies in the world. does it seem odd to you that the uk is walking away from the european economic club at this time?

in the wto at least, i think negotiations are never about one power convincing everybody else, ‘cause that does not exist. today, alliances are formed and they are changed and they geographically are very fluid. so, for one particular issue, you have alliances with these groups and these countries, and then you form a group, then you try to convince another group. it is very fluid, very flexible in the way that you do it. so it is notjust about the size of your economy or your power. it is about how many allegiances you get. right. and what kind of allegiances? britain is cheating is allegiances with europe. —— changing its allegiances. it is exiting the european union. we don't know the basis of a new trade deal will be. and you have spoken it in the past, and about "a bumpy road ahead"

for britain as it exits the eu. as you look at the state of negotiations today, how bumpy is that road going to be? it's difficult to tell. it's really difficult to tell. i don't they are where they will end up in march next year. you have still a transition period that is looking forward toward a future. we don't know at this point it time what that future is going to be. how bad will it... it's going to be bumpy. no matter what, it will be bumpy. and the less bumpy it is, i think, the better it is for the global economy and for the other commercial partners. do you think the british — the goverment, the people — understand how difficult it will be if they do leave the european union without a fully negotiated trade deal, and to coin one of the phrases being used, go towards a hard brexit based pre—existing wto rules and relationships with the former members of the same club, the european union? i think few people in the world understand the complexities of the impact that those things would have.

few people. and every time these few people want to explain things, they are deemed to be bored or they are just too technical, people don't want to listen. it is a much more political, a much more emotional conversation, at this point in time. you think the british people don't realise? i don't think anybody does. it is dependent on the specificities of the agreement. these are extremely complex deals. i think they have, to be fair, a general understanding of where things are going to end up. but i don't think the particularities or the details of the conversation — which could be big in terms of economic impact... of course they could! ..are fully absorbed by anybody. one particular detail that is exercising people both in britain and the european union is what to do about that border between northern ireland, which is of course in the united kingdom, and the republic of ireland, which continues to be a member state of the eu. the government seems to say that it can leave the customs union,

the european single market, but it still can ensure a — quote — "frictionless border between northern ireland and the republic of ireland." does that make sense to you ? it will be technically challenging. i really don't know what the answer for that would be. i think there will also be a big political component. we'll have to see what that is. technically there is a very challenging proposition. i don't know how to answer that. can you of any neighbouring countries with a significant border that are notjoined together in some sort of economic union, customs union, which have a frictionless open border? can you think of a single example? not really. it seems to be very specific in that situation. and i think that's why i keep saying that, you know,

political elements are going to be very important, because whatever the decision is, it will take political commitment to find it. otherwise, technically, you are just looking at it from a technical perspective. i can't see any easy solution. finally, i want to go back to your overview of the world trade organization. your predecessor pascal lamy said very recently, in the light of what has been happening in washington and the souring trade relationship between the us and china, he said "it is time to consider what the wto would and could look like without the united states, if donald trump decided to walk away from the wto." have you begun to think about what that might look like? i have absolutely no indication that the united states is walking away from the wto at this point in time. zero. there are problems. we don't discount that.

we don't underestimate that. and they want to find solutions and other members want to sit down and find solutions as well. as far as the us is concerned, they are a member of the wto, and will be treated as such. you don't have a plan b? if donald trump is serious about saying that the wto is a disaster for the united states of america, do you not need a plan b? we have no indication that it will happen. his words are an indication. i've heard nothing from the united states that they are walking away from the wto. i didn't hear that. point to me where that came from. i didn't hear that from any of the sources that i spoke to. when someone looks at what has happened over last month, and say this is the beginning of the end for the wto, what do you think about? it is a catchy phrase. it is ok. it is far from the reality.

the reality is the tougher the situation is, and the more challenging it is, the more the wto is needed. the us itself mentioned that if the wto didn't exist, it would have to be invented. i am not making that up. they have said that publicly. so we need the wto — and, by the way, we should be thankful that it is out there, because if it weren't, we would be in a trade war years ago. particularly after 2008. roberto azevedo, we have to end there. but thank you for being on hardtalk. it was a pleasure. hello again good morning.

the easter weekend will not be a washout but quite mixed weather on the way as we saw yesterday the rain in england and wales eventually clearing the way to give a little more a little more sunshine. over the easter weekend we will see some spells of sunshine around. however, there will also be some spells of rain that could be heavy at times and cold enough for snow over the northern hill. temperatures are disappointing for this time of year. weather starting to come in from the south—west where the pressure is lower in this area will remain dry. an all—weather front is sitting to the north—east of scotland between a frosty start and clear skies it will be a bright and sunny start, but this weather is pushing up and moving north and east across england and wales. a few showers breaking ahead of that that sunshine as well. still cool and damp in the north—east of scotland. some snow over the high ground. heavy rain further south will work its way northwards during the

evening and overnight. then it sort of stops, really, around the borders of northern england into northern ireland. the rain tending to peter out. not as cold on friday morning but there is more rain arriving perhaps into the far south—west right at the end of the night. it may move to the north more slowly but we are looking at some wet weather again to dry up across inward and wales. bright skies further north and once the earlier rain or drizzle and hills now tends to peter out, that lets the sunshine in because the wind is coming in from the east. never a good direction as you saw, 7—9 degrees, nothing good at all. weather front will move northwards and peter out. this low pressure area moves away. on saturday it should be a drier day for wales, the midlands and southern england. there will still be rain and drizzle and hills in scotland. mainly for eastern areas. should tend to peter out more through the day but there will be a lot of cloud around and again, temperatures struggling in northern

scotland and southern parts of england. not regular sunshine as we head into easter sunday. we are between the weather systems so this is probably the quietest day of the next few and there will not be much rain around. it will still probably be a lot of cloud, mind you. north—west scotland see some sunshine across southern counties but generally dry and cloudy and generally disappointing temperatures again so we can't even make double figures through the central belt of scotland. as we head into monday where we have some strengthening wind, rain coming in from the south—west followed by showers on tuesday. i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines: after kim jong—un‘s secret trip to beijing, chinese officials head to south korea for key talks. poisoned at home, uk police reveal a deadly nerve agent was on the former spy‘s front door. i'm sharanjit leyl in london. also in the programme: facebook cuts links

with data brokers and overhauls its privacy settings, but is it enough? and pakistan's christian community prepares to celebrate easter and adopts some muslilm traditions. live from our studios in