of soldiers killed in the korean war to the united states. the repatriation of the fallen soldiers was agreed at last month's sinagpore summit between president trump and the north korean leader, kim jong—un. us government officials say more than 1,800 children separated from their parents as they crossed the borderfrom mexico have now been reunited with their families or released. but even though a court deadline for reunions has expired, more than 700 other children are still being held in custody. imran khan — the former cricket star who looks certain to be pakistan's next prime minister — has said he wants to unite the country and run it in a way it's never been run before. he insists the election was clean, but he's willing to investigate his rivals‘ claims of vote rigging. you're up to date with the headlines. time now for hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk with me, zeinab badawi. my guest is the united nations human rights commissioner — zeid al hussein. in this exclusive interview, he tell us why he is stepping down afterjust one term in office. he was criticised for being too outspoken — especially about trump's america. what has this former jordanian diplomat — who also hails from his country's royal family — done to promote human rights globally after four years in the job? zeid al hussein, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. of course, no united nations human rights commission has served a full second term, but why did you choose

to stand down afterjust one term? well it was clear to me, that had i sought a second term, i would have to somehow win the approval of the agreement of the permanent five members of the security council — that is how it was done the first time i was elected. i was dominated by the secretary general following a series of interviews and then he sounded out the permanent five — the us, russia, china, france and uk — and they approved. i had no doubt that virtually none would approve me for a second term. i wasn't willing to try, lest i be drawn into having to compromise. this office needs to maintain its independence, the term of a high commissioner should be limited to one five—year or six—year period and that is it. so you think you would have gotten five straight vetoes — including from the uk and france?

possibly. i irritated all governments over the course of four years. i am not sure that that dumb like they would have approved me. have you not reflected on why that may be the case and that is perhaps — as your critics have said — you have been far too outspoken. russia has accused you of being irresponsible and hopes that your successor will learn from yourfailures. the chinese have said similar things about you. the united states is no fan of yours. hasn't it made you want to scratch your head and think, have i done something wrong? no. look zeinab, we work with all governments, we have offices throughout all the world, we extend our desire to establish a sort of technical arrangement where we can help them with their human rights obligations. but let us be absolutely clear — the governments can defend

themselves, iam not there to defend them, i am there to defend their people who are discriminated again, who are deprived of their rights, who are seeing their freedoms disappear at an alarming rate. those are the people that i am here to defend. were you under pressure to moderate your language and turn down the criticisms, from the secretary general? at various times it was made to us, it is notjust something that i have felt but i think all my predecessors have felt that likewise, that yes, for the rest of the un's system, we can come across as being either too sanctimonious or irritant or disruptive, we don't see it like that. were you asked to specifically to tone down your language? in the beginning, yes i was — it was suggested to use alternative vocabulary — not to turn it down but less terse and aggressive. i still pursued my own way of doing it, irrespective of what was said to me. for example, you called

president donald trump dangerous. yes. did you also call him a bigot? we have called him that. there are a number of occasions where the president and many others have warned beyond what you expect the head of state of government to say, given the human rights obligations that they are supposed to meet. you know zeinab, we have to somehow also attach a discussion about comparative values and how the ideological discussions play out in government from human rights law — which is fixed, which imposes obligations which countries have entered into voluntarily. what we say to them is look, where there are deficits, where you are not abiding by obligations, we will highlight this. the shame is on you. highlighting is one thing, but to use language like that,

for example, you have criticised the rise of the populist right in the us and europe as ideological demagogues and political fanatics who share the tactics of isil. was it wise to share — supporters of donal trump — with a terror group? no. there are two points addressed. one is that they appeal in their narrative to a return to some former time which wasn't affected by the disruptions of globalisation, by the arrival of migrants from other parts of the world that threatened their way of life, the culture, in that there is a similarity. i have made it very clear that the crimes committed by daesh or isil are so repugnant, so extreme, that we separate the two dimensions from each other. but where there is similarity, again — is the use of half truths to spin a particular narrative, to deceive, to make people think that there are is a way out along a particular trajectory which would bring them salvation.

we know... are you accusing, for example, the american government of doing that? i was accusing the populists of being charlatans and deceivers — yes and that is exactly what they are. we are not saying that the conditions which give rise to anxiety and fear — loss ofjobs, loss of opportunities — are not real. those are very real. what we are saying is that the populists play on those fears for self interest and because they know that it generally works. it has worked before in the past in the short term, in the long—term — disastrous. you are a highly skilled diplomat, you served asjordan‘s ambassador to the un, you were instrumental in setting up the international criminal court and have had experience in un peacekeeping.

surely you must know that the role of a diplomat is to engage in a constructive manner. the chinese have said that you are due to bound to work in a constructive manner, avoid sovereignty and to avoid public pressure. could you have used that kind of approach, might it not have yielded more? no. i used to be a diplomat, i am not in this position. i am an international civil servant and my mandate is to protect civil rights. my primary constituency is the vulnerable, the victims of human rights abuses. that is how i see my mandate. yes we work with government, i am not saying that our office only occupies itself with being loud and terse and beating governments around the head. we don't see ourselves as doing that. but i will give you an example,

there was a foreign minister who i needed to reach because we were planning to send a technical team to that country. for almost a year, the foreign minister ignored us completely, i tried repeatedly to speak to them. eventually we said that we are going to go public. the very next day he was willing to speak. you don't want to say which country that is? no, because we actually see improvements in that country. you do not want to use the public pressure? yes. exactly. now we are in a situation, you may criticisms of the united states about the migration issues and separating families, nicki haley, the ambassador to the un has accused you of being a hypocrite and ignorant on your attacks on the us, and they have now withdrawn from the un human rights council, which is not under your mandate, but it is part of the united nations human rights family. so when criticisms are so overt, that is what it leads to — disengagement and that is not helpful — is it? i am not sure the two are connected.

the ostensible reason is — and is probably the real reason as well... why the us withdrew. why the us withdrew is that the demands they laid out for the reform of the human rights council had not been met and that triggered then, the withdrawal. it coincided with the issue of the separation of families and yes we did speak out and i said it was unconscionable — and it is, very few countries, if at all, practice that — itjust was a moment in time where the two came together and may have given the appearance that... i tell you what us national security adviserjohn bolton said the reason why the us withdrew was because the council and you, the high commissioner, have fundamentally misdirected and misguided. they don't advocate human rights, they have actually been used by human rights abusers against the united states. it is a remarkable comment.

i knowjohn bolton and used to work with him when i was an ambassador. it is really bizarre. we produce reports on countries which are a world over. we have brought into places where the un had no light cast in these particular parts of the world. for instance, we produced a report most recently on turkey's succession, remote monitoring, exercises we have done the same on kashmir, venezuela — we look at all countries without privilege in any, or discriminate against any. so to say that we are somehow singling out a particular country, many countries say this... it is the council, which as i say, is a body from the general assembly and it's made up of 47 countries and they are elected on a rotating basis, on a regional basis as well. however, it is all part of the un's human rights infrastructure and how they perform, you accept, has an impact on your activities. so when donald trump in september

said it was an embarrassment, there are countries on the un human rights council that have themselves committed atrocities, that makes it difficult for you to do yourjob, doesn't it? it erodes credibility. do you accept that? let's put it into perspective. there was an argument made that only those with the most pristine human rights records could be on the council. that doesn't exist. you don't have a country that is meeting, presently, all of its human rights obligations. at the other extreme, we have those who have severe human rights violations on their ledger and they are not on the human rights council. you don't have north korea, you don't have syria. they are not members. and action has been taken by the membership to prevent them. the vast majority of countries

have a very varied record, many have seen advances when it comes to the rights of women, the rights of children, ending the use of the death penalty, the advances where the lgbti community are concerned. at same time though, we see regression in areas like migration, immigration, treatment of ethic minorities and so forth. it is a patchy record for many countries and where you draw the line on who should be on and who should be off. it is a discussion primarily for the government, as you said, not so much for us. what we insist on... but don't you accept that it does impinge what you do? it does, absolutely. you just mentioned the death penalty now — it has excited a lot of debate in the united kingdom and there have been more than 100 british jihadi's stripped of their nationalities and there are two in particular that the british government said can be tried in the us and if found

guilty they could face the death penalty, held by syrian kurds. would you offer any kind of human rights guidelines on this particular issue? the human rights law where it stands creates an exception when it comes to the use of the death penalty in the sense that the international covenant for political rights prevents it. 0n the other hand, the trend is moving towards the end of its use and that is what we are pushing for. we are pushing for governments that are practising it or who have lapsed back into practising it to basically suspend its use. but if the uk doesn't have the death penalty, yet these two jihadi brits have... you wouldn't support theresa may's government in doing what it says it is going to do? no. we would advocate that

if they are vulnerable to the use of the death penalty, we would very much advise against it. there is nojudiciary on this planet that is mista ke—free, that can discharge it's judicial functions free of mistake. so long as that is the case — quite aside from the moral arguments that you can bring into this — what happens to their families of those who are executed? the children who suffer for the rest of their lives? those within the administration of justice system who are traumatised for years and years — all of those arguments can also be brought in, but ultimately no, they should not be exposed to the penalty. another issue that generates a lot of debate in the united nations is the issue of the israeli—palestinian conflict and that is one aspect that the united states criticises

the united nations for when it comes to the un human rights council, it singles out israel like no other country. out of more than 300 specific resolutions the council has passed in the last 12 years, 76 deal with israel, 27 with syria and 20 with myanmar. do you accept there is an anti—israel bias in the un, including the human rights council and perhaps even your own office? in the council, it is 47 countries that collectively make decisions. i have repeatedly asked for investigations. for instance, in venezuela, and they haven't been met by the human rights council. i've asked most recently for an investigation into what's been happening in nicaragua. we've had no response. i've had to spend three years lobbying for an investigation into yemen. we onlyjust got it. i was asking about anti—israel bias. i'll get to this point. the thing is, we can, you know,

put forward a request. ultimately, these governments, 47 governments, have to make the decision themselves. i mean, i'll give you an example... but you yourself are being criticised, for example, by the pro—israel watchdog, un watch, which says all the united nations has an anti—israel bias. but it says about you, your tenure is one of almost complete disregard when it comes to fighting anti—semitism. i don't really accept this. look, if we look at what it is that that i have said about anti—semitism or islamophobia, racial discrimination, usually we cover all these issues in the same context. it is the case that anti—semitism is very evident now, notjust in europe, but in the arab world, part of the world where i come from, and in other parts of the world, and it is toxic and it is very alarming. we can do better on all these

particularfires, there is no doubt, but i don't accept the fact, the suggestion made that somehow i am anti—semitic or my office is or all the experts we deal with human rights are. yes, i find that repugnant. you say it's incumbent on states to maintain human rights with their citizens. so what's your response to the recent move by the israeli knesset, where a slim majority approved the law that saying that onlyjews only have the rights to self—determination, downgrading arabic as an official language for the 1.8 million israeli arabs. what was your view of that? it is clearly discriminatory, i don't see how else you can describe it. it certainly privileging one part of israeli society over another. and there is no other way to describe it. and i don't know how one would argue otherwise. looking at your own region, the middle east, but also obviously the wider muslim world, there have also been criticisms that perhaps you haven't done enough to promote freedom of speech when it comes to expressing religious beliefs

and we saw one particular case in your nativejordan where a journalist was shot dead where he was going to stand trial for blasphemy. have you done enough in this area? we have, in the sense that, the problem we have with the way the blasphemy laws are conceived and applied, they are often so ill—defined that they are used for political reasons to silence those who have expressed dissent, as you rightly point out, or political opponents of a government, journalists, bloggers and so forth. we have spoken about this. we have seen vigilantism in pakistan and bangladesh. i've spoken about this publicly in indonesia. we've seen similar manifestations in aceh. i mean, clearly, we can always do more and i can speak more forcefully but i think we have done enough in terms of highlighting the problem and asking governments to take the appropriate action. the kashmir report that you published this year,

first ever report on human rights violations in both indian and pakistan—administered kashmir, indian government very cross about your actions, accused you of ulterior motives, the deputy permanent representative to the un says the report reflects the clear bias of an official, that's you, acting without any mandate whatsoever, and relied on unverified sources of information. water off a duck‘s back? i don't know how to respond to it. i mean, look, it's ridiculous. the claim is ridiculous. let's go back tojuly 2016, when we first had this massive disruption, let's put it this way. i mean, unrest, where the use of pellet guns was in such evidence that the home minister in india had to intervene and to put a stop to this. if you look at the development of this, at the very beginning of the crisis, we said we want access to both sides of the line of control. we demanded and requested it.

let's say requested, not demanded, unconditional access to both sides. the pakistanis gave us conditional access, which were not in favour of. we did not avail ourselves of it. the indian side did not. now we have all this invective, this emotion and hysteria, that i'm biased, that i'm jihadi, working with is, it's nonsense. i mean, complete nonsense. most of the sources were indian sources, from indian institutions. 322 footnotes referencing, basically, much of it comes from indian institutions, publicly available material. so, i...it‘s not argument. edward mortimer, who worked as the director of communications for kofi annan, said the international climate now has become notably less favourable when defending human rights. would you agree with

that and, if so, why? yes. we are seeing, as i've noted at the beginning of this interview, we've seen huge advances over the last 60, 70 years when it comes to women's rights, child's rights. trying to end the practice of torture, enforced disappearances, trying to improve the climate for migrant rights, the rights of persons with disabilities. that is undeniable, that has happened. we are now moving in a different direction. the attack is on the international system as a whole. we have the exiteers, the firsters, the ethnic nationalists, the chauvinistic nationalists, who are trying to create policies on a very narrow agenda. and the vanguard is donald trump? is that what you're saying? i would say it is the prime minister of hungary, viktor 0rban. on his own? leading this huge global movement that you describe? he said back in march, he said in a public statement, "i don't want people

of my colour to mix with people of another colour, " right? clear racism, clear racism. when you look at hungary, a country of almost 10 million people, do you know how many afro—hungarians there are? there are about 1,300. sure. the population that has now voted in fidesz again, right, how xenophobic it is? i mean, there's a reality... you are saying that viktor 0rban is spearheading... not spearheading, in europe he is providing an example of what seems to be a workable logic in political terms in terms of securing and maintaining power. his foreign minister, peter szijjarto, rejects your comments which you have just laid out, saying, unworthy of your position and you should resign. that's their position. i respectfully disagree with the foreign minister. finally, what do you think you have done in your time to advance the cause of human rights globally?

do you think you've really made a change? what i've been able to do is continue the trajectory that i inherited from my predecessors. that is, give voice, without fear or favour, in support of those most vulnerable. those who need the voice of an office like ours. we simply cannot treat all these disasters as if they were the product of some natural phenomenon. a flood here, force majeure, an earthquake. much of the suffering of people is caused by humans and it's not just that we need to focus, you as the international media and ourselves, the plight, the grievous suffering of individuals. we need to look at who is causing the suffering and say to them, look, you're not getting a pass.

you are not getting a pass. we are going to speak, and we're not going to let you forget this. we have lived through too much trauma in the 20th century to begin to relive it again. we believe that there is so much energy out there, there are so many people who believe likewise, we have to mobilise them in the last direction. zeid ra'ad al hussein, thank you very much indeed for coming on hardtalk. thank you so much. hello. a very good morning to you. for most places i think the heatwave has reached its peak. but what a peak it was. temperatures during thursday got up above 35 degrees at wisley in surrey. 35 on the nose in central london. even further north in edinburgh, we were looking at temperatures of 27 degrees. however, that heat started to spark off thunderstorms,

some of which will continue during friday. and then for the weekend things will feel much fresher. the fresher air lies behind these bands of cloud, atlantic frontal systems heading our way. where you see this clumpy cloud, here, well, that is where we saw some thunderstorms breaking out on thursday evening. as we start friday morning those temperatures will be pretty high. 16 in belfast and newcastle. 20 in the heart of london. still some showers and thunderstorms around, particularly eastern areas. things may be dry up for a time around the middle part of the day and then it looks like showers will return later on. 0ut west we will see cloud moving across northern ireland, western scotland, some western fringes of england and wales, a little bit of patchy rain here. but across the far east of the country another hot day. 32 in norwich. but further west something just a little cooler and fresher. now during friday night we could see some really vicious downpours and thunderstorms pushing across eastern england and eastern scotland. could be some travel disruption. this heavy band of rain could also have some thunder and lightning included.

still pretty warm and humid for many. but signs of something a little fresher pushing into the west. and that is a sign of what is to come. these various frontal systems continue to drift through on saturday. so there will be rain around at times on saturday. some sunny spells as well. but as we chase all these rain bands away to the north—east we will bring in some further showers but we will also bring in some cooler, fresher air. so temperatures on saturday afternoon well down on where they have been, 17 to 25 or 26 degrees. quite a breezy day as well. now, sunday looks like a pretty windy. this band of rain pushing north and east. this is a very different weekend compared with what we've been used to recently. some spells of sunshine coming into the west later on. but have a look at the winds. much, much windier than it has been for quite some time. and those temperatures, well, actually on the low side. 20 in belfast and glasgow. 21 in london.

that is your lot. and we stick with that slightly fresher feel for the start of the coming week. it looks like there will be some spells of sunshine. then later in the week it looks likely to warm up again. hello. this is the briefing. i'm ben bland. our top story: coming home at last. the remains of soldiers killed in the korean war are being returned to the united states. a deadline passes for the us government to try and reunite families separated by donald trump's zero tolerance policy. thousands protest in poland — angry at the government's latest moves to reform thejudicial process. look to the skies. why the latest total eclipse of the moon will be the longest of this century. coming up the business briefing — closing in on a trillion dollar valuation. amazon sales surge again — and so does the wealth of the boss — already far and away the richest person on the planet.