brazil's president jair bolsonaro says his government lacks the resources to fight the record number of wildfires raging through the amazon rainforest. global leaders including the un secretary—general and the french president have expressed alarm about the fires. conservationists have blamed the brazilian government for what's happening, saying it's encouraged the clearing of land. president macron of france has told his british counterpart there can be no major changes to the brexit agreement but that talks should continue. borisjohnson went to paris to get support for a new deal. and this video is trending on bbc.com apple has advised owners of its new credit card to keep it away from leather and denim as it can damage them. the card is made of titanium to make it stand out, but apparently it's rather delicate. that's all.

now on bbc news it's hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. donald trump, the self—proclaimed dealmaker extraordinaire is finding the korean peninsula tough going. for all of his claims of friendship with the north korean dictator, kimjong—un, pyongyang seems no closer to giving up its nuclear arsenal, and america's strategic partnership with south korea is looking increasingly strained too. my guest is south korean foreign minister kang kyung—wha. her country is currently out of step with both the us and japan. so how vulnerable does that make south korea? theme music plays.

foreign minister kang kyung—wha in beijing, welcome to hardtalk. thank you very much for having me. foreign minister, i think we have to start — because you are in beijing and you have had meetings with both the chinese and japanese foreign ministers — we have to start your very troubled relationship with japan. we have to start with your very troubled relationship with japan. i'm going to quote to you the words of a financial times newspaper editorial — they says, "the world's been fixated editorial — they say, "the world's been fixated on donald trump's tariffs on china, but a new trade war is emerging in asia, this time between japan and south korea. is that the way you see it? i have seen that article and i have to say that this issue over trade with japan has come quite unexpectedly

and i have to say in a very unilateral and arbitrary manner on the part ofjapan. we are prepared to discuss what the issue is, and keep this as a trade issue, but i think the steps that they have taken have caused a great deal of problems for our industries and i think we want very much to engage with them in consultation so that we can take things back to pre—july i, when they had taken these steps. but if i may say so, it is not clear to me that you really want to lower the temperature, because the chinese foreign minister said to you both — that is to yourself and to the japanese foreign minister — please, resolve this issue quickly, get a dialogue going, lower the temperature, and you, in the same news conference, chose to say, "it is important to

eliminate unilateral and arbitrary trade retaliatory steps," which was clearly a jab at yourjapanese counterpart so you are not really trying to sort these out. so you are not really trying to sort this out. well, we are, in fact. we have offered to engage on the trade issue. it is unilateral, it is arbitrary, it is retaliatory. the japanese rationale for introducing these trade restrictive measures have shifted. initially they linked it to their dissatisfaction over how were handling our high courtjudgements on the issue of forced labour. then they gave the rationale that they found problems with our export control measures and somehow some of these sensitive items might make their way to north korea. they have clarified that is not the case but there have been some inappropriate cases but they have not explained to us as yet what those

inappropriate cases are. we have offered to meet, between our trade authorities, to talk through their issues and to see how we might address their concerns if their concerns are legitimate. we have not had any response from that. let us be candid, foreign minister. this dispute — and we can go into some of the details, but put in simple terms — it has revived some very old suspicions, even hatreds, between the japanese and south korean peoples. and we see people in south korea talking about their outrage, boycotting japanese—made goods, we've even tragically seen two people setting themselves on fire in protest at japan's restrictive trade strategy. this is very, very damaging for what is supposed to be a crucial regional alliance for you.

it is. our relation with japan is extremely important, especially given our need for collaboration and co—ordination as we deal with the north korean nuclear issue, of course, in close consultation with the united states as well. but i think the reaction of the korean public to these trade measures taken byjapan, you have to see in the larger context of the relations between the two countries. as you know, there is a very painful past, and the past has drawn a long shadow over the relations. my government has said, let's deal with the past as past — difficult but let's manage that — but let's move on these other areas of close collaboration, and japan has so far, in this government, have not responded... but if i may interrupt for a second. what you have just said is very

important but it does not seem to square with what is actually happening because when you're courts in south korea started in 2018 to revive the notion that individual south koreans could seek compensation from the japanese for war time forced labour, that seemed to the japanese to run entirely contrary to the treaty you signed with the japanese going back to 1965, which said that all claims had been completely and finally settled. you can't sign a legal document and then reopen the whole concept of compensation. first of all, the japanese themselves have also indicated that individual rights to claim have not been extinguished. that has been their position through the 1990s. they have slightly changed tune in recent years, but the ‘65 agreement is about claims on property rights,

financial rights, debts and credits. what the courtjudgement, the recent courtjudgement, has said that that treaty between the two countries stays. we are not saying we are breaking that or we're asking to renegotiate that. but the courtjudgement said that the context of illegal occupation, either colonial rule, and the war of aggression, occupation, ie the colonial rule, and the war of aggression, illegal acts directly connected to that context, have not been covered by the ‘65 agreement. so you really think it is healthy to encourage south korean citizens to seek here, in 2019, seek compensation for the tragic and terrible things that happened during the japanese colonial occupation? it really is worth reviving and digging through all of that?

it is not the government encouraging. these are individuals who are living survivors. who have lived through that terrible time and personally experienced the forced labour. you've heard the chinese say, look, you guys — south korea —japan — must get together and resolve this because it is very bad for regional trade, it's jeopardizing the hopes for a free—trade agreement across the entire east asia region. and the japanese, of course, have put their restrictive export controls on some key goods that normally are exported from japan to your country — and we will talk about that — but you, in your turn, do seem to be very petty in this dispute. for example, your government has just announced it's going to double the amount of samples and the frequency of tests and inspections on radioactive substances coming in in food and agricultural produce from japan. a sort of throwback to the concerns that we heard

after fukushima in 2011. but this is 2019. why are you suddenly reimposing or putting on new, very tight controls on these japanese agricultural and food products? well, there is still concern on the part of our public about the fisheries products and the agricultural products in the vicinities of the fukushima plant. and i think, you know, we of course have to listen to the concerns of our public. it is only now that you are in a bitter trade war with japan that you have decided you suddenly need to impose these extra tests. you could have imposed them years ago but you didn't. it doesn't look good. no, i think — however it looks, i think we do our policy reviews and take steps in accordance with our concerns for the perception, the public concern for their safety and health.

and given the release of a recent report on the possible releasing of contaminated waste water into the sea, we have asked japan for explanations about this. i think we will continue to engage them on this issue. but that has raised a lot of concern on our public and therefore i think it is the government's legitimate response. a couple of more quick ones onjapan before we get to the whole korea peninsula strategic issue — if i may, onjapan, are you now saying to the japanese that, not only economic ties but security intelligence and strategic partnership ties are at stake? we want to minimise the issues. and i think, given the japanese rationale now, the trade control issues are really technical on the part

of their export industries, we are saying, 0k, fine, let's discuss it at that level and work through the technical issues. we have not had any response from the japanese on that. 0bviously, evidently, it is tied to their displeasure over our courtjudgement. this is thejudgement of our highest court. we absolutely have to abide by that. no self—respecting democracy that abides by the rule of law and the independence of the court, would not do otherwise. that is the situation in my country. the japanese position is that everything was settled by the ‘65 and so we are trying to find a way forward that helps us to resolve this issue. and we have thought through very seriously on all the options. we have offered a way that's not been a seriously —

even seriously considered byjapan. we remain committed to open discussions and consultations on all of these issues. where does this end then? because if one looks at the economic battle that's playing out right now, to be honestjapan is a bigger, more powerful economy than yours. you depend on some key strategic tech components and materials for your biggest companies, like samsung — excuse me — that come from japan so frankly outsiders would think thatjapan holds more of the cards than you do, particularly as your export businesses right now are suffering already and this is going to hit them hard. the south korean economy looks vulnerable, you look vulnerable in this battle with japan. exactly. exactly, i think we depend on the japan. exactly, i think we depend onjapan. our trade with japan has always been in the minus for us and it isjust — of all of the export items

that we get from japan, it had been those three critical items that are critical to our semiconduct industry that they put a restriction on, and to think that a country that has so mutually interdependence, people to people exchanges and growing, that they would do this without prior notice, without prior consultation, very unilaterally, and just three days, mind you, after the g20 in osaka committed the countries to free, fair, non—discriminatory, transparent and predictable trade — to have this on us three days later i think is completely unacceptable so we are asking, through consultations, let's find a way to roll things back to pre—july 1. you sound very angry. we are. i think we are — there's the latent

sense of injustice because i think japan has not fully come to terms with the past, and so that has meant that the people, the living survivors in particular, who have lived through those difficult days, has a deep—seated sense of injustice, that they have not been given their due claims about the harms done to them... if i may, let me stop you there, because your position on the sour relationship with japan has become very clear in this interview, but there is some thing else very important i need to talk to you about and that is the strategic and diplomatic position of your government with regard to north korea and, in particular, donald trump's continued effort to make what he has always described as the big deal, grand deal of denuclearising north korea. he describes kim jong—un, president of north korea,

as his friend, a man who writes him beautiful letters, and yet all of trump's diplomacy, frankly, thus far, appears to have achieved nothing. are you worried about the donald trump strategy? we are in a bit of a lull. i think the lack of an agreement in hanoi has been disappointing. the north koreans have not been ready or prepared to come back to the negotiating table. the north korean leader promised president trump at their brief meeting in the dmz in latejune that they would come back

to the negotiating table — they haven't — but indications are that they by now perhaps may be ready. i think there is communication, context between the us and north korea to set the agenda, to set the date and the place for their working level negotiations when they take place. to say this has been a failure or a disappointment, no progress has been made, i think, when you look at things on a day to day basis, or a week to week or month to month basis, things look different but if you look in the larger perspective, it is a huge step change to where we were two years ago and i think we should take a deep breath obviously... yes, a huge step change in that

donald trump has given all sorts of diplomatic prizes to kim jong—un but he appears to have got little in return. you particular, you in south korea appear to have been cut out to the entire korean diplomacy. the north koreans the other day said that they will never talk to you again. they said that the idea they could have meaningful talks to you was — would make the boiled head of a dead cow laugh. they‘ re not interested in talking to you. donald trump does not seem to be want to talk to you very much either. he's keener to talk to kim jong—un direct so you seem irrelevant now. i wouldn't say so. i think our collaboration with the us at all levels is extremely close and the north korean challenge in fact brought us even closer. it may not be visible but i think the number of meetings my president and mr trump has had, the phone conversation, my own interactions with mr pompeo has been extremely frequent and very close. we do things based upon a very close us—south korea co—ordination. for the north koreans to think they can cut us out of this is a bit ludicrous. i do not think they understand the reality. we also know that north korea's diplomatic behaviour is very unique, to put it mildly, and some

of it is quite unacceptable... but surely the point is this — kimjong—un — sorry to interrupt again, it's a difficult line — but kimjong—un has donald trump precisely where he wants him. he does not need south korea coming in and complicating that relationship. so the north korean message to you guys is quite simple, unless you are prepared to ease economic sanctions and offer economic assistance to north korea and unless you are prepared to end your strategic military partnership with the us, north korea has no interest in talking to seoul, so over to you. are you prepared to consider north korea's requests of you? i don't think, you know, our strategic alliance with the us is something for the north koreans to demand anything of or comment on. we are absolutely confident about the strength of the alliance and the strength of the day to day co—ordination. you also have to distinguish between north korea's rhetoric and what their internal

calculations are. i think, in all of these matters, we share the analysis, the information, very frequently with the united states so in fact, in many ways, the alliance is a stronger than ever. i wonder whether your words about the strength of your partnership with washington will convince anybody around the world, when we look at the reality of donald trump, in recent days, questioning the point ofjoint military exercises with your forces in south korea, saying, "i don't like paying for them, we should be reimbursed for them and i have told the south koreans that." the he went on to say, "south korea has agreed to pay substantially more money to the us in order to defend itself

from north korea." something which you then said actually had not been settled yet. what is it the truth here? is there a big dispute with the united states about how much you are prepared to pay to have the us help defend you ? this is not a dispute. this is an issue that we will work through in the spirit of the alliance. we have worked through ten rounds of this cost—sharing agreement and we will work through the next round. i think president trump has dialled his tweets. we read them very carefully. we also look at it in the long term, in the larger policy context of the united states...

hang on, you are being very diplomatic, minister, and i understand that's yourjob but how did you feel when donald trump first of all mimicked in a rather offensive was a south korean accent at a private meeting and the he was reportedly as saying, jokingly, it was easier to get a billion dollars from south korea than to get a few hundred dollars from a rent—controlled apartment in brooklyn. this is the man that you want as your strategic partner? you are trying to instigate me and i won't fall for that. i won't comment on the words and actions of president trump. i think his — overall his determination and his political will has been instrumental, together with my president, to bring us this far on the engagement with north korea. but that, i think, is also then supported by the policy establishment of the united states as represented in the state department and the defence department.

you can only take your own diplomacy so far. when john bolton, trump's national security advisor, suggests that in the future south korea should pay all five billion dollars‘ cost of the troops in south korea, how do you feel about that? as we have not yet started serious negotiations, that's for sure. they have a team in korea for the first round of initial sounding out. the serious negotiations will begin in september. we have yet to see where this leads to, but we will certainly go to the negotiating table on the cost sharing, based upon our position of arriving at a reasonable level that is acceptable to us, that is, that we can handle and that we can pass through our national assembly. minister, we are almost out of time. can you remember a time in the recent past when south korea looked more economically and politically vulnerable? we have talked about the impact

of a trade dispute with japan on your economy, but frankly, strategically, you are in dispute with japan, the north koreans won't talk to you, your relationship with trump is, shall we say, troubled to say the least. you have got china and russia, which have ambitions in your region which don't necessarily match yours. south korea is in a lot of trouble. well, we have lots of challenges. i wouldn't call our relations with the us "troubled". i think we have our disagreements, all relationships do, but we are in an alliance of 65 years and we have been able to work through difficult issues in the past in this spirit of the alliance. we have our challenges with japan, we have our issues with china and russia, but one

fundamental goal we share is that the korean peninsula must be wholly denuclearised, and we must find lasting peace on the korean peninsula. we very much have that goal in our sights, and we must deal with daily challenges as they come. foreign minister, i thank you very much indeed forjoining me from beijing. thank you for having me. hello there. just when we thought it was all over, it looks like summer is set to return. temperatures rising across the country over the next few days, really hotting up in the south—east of england where we will find the peak of the temperatures. last time we had 30 degrees was back in the heatwave at the end of last month. no heatwave this time

and at the moment, around this area of high pressure, we've still got some moist atlantic winds and that weather front bringing some rain in the far north of scotland. that moist atlantic wind means all the cloud we start the day with around some of these western hills may well be a bit damp and misty. that mist and drizzle will tend to lift and the cloud thin and that rain across northern scotland should clear the mainland and head up towards the northern isles. sunnier skies coming in across southern england and wales and the midlands, lincolnshire and east anglia, giving a step temperatures a boost, up to a high of 27 or so in the south—east of england. further north we hung on to more cloud, those temperatures will be nearer 20 or 21. for the second day of the test match at headingley, it looks like it should be a dry day this time but for most of the day, there will be a lot of cloud around. cloud only really breaks up later on in the evening session.

we got the cloudier skies then and they will continue to push away northwards with the clearance coming in from the south. still got a bit of rain threatening the far north—west of scotland, perhaps northern ireland as well. look at the temperatures by the time we get into the weekend and again, they are sitting at 1a or 15 degrees. it continues to heat up during this weekend because it got warmer hour coming in around that area of high pressure, pushing its way northwards. still that whether front is hanging around in the north—west corner of the uk and it threatens to bring one or two showers into the north—west of scotland for a while and perhaps even across westernmost parts of northern ireland. elsewhere across northern areas of the uk, they will be more sunshine on saturday we had the sunny skies further south in heat continuing to build its way northwards, maybe getting into the mid—20s in the central belt of scotland, 27 or 28 with the midlands, east wales and 30 in the south—east of england. still the chance of the odd shower in the far north—west of scotland, more cloud but northern ireland. temperatures are never going to be as high here but sunny skies elsewhere, that warmth pushing further north into scotland and with the peak of

the temperatures on sunday around the london area, 30 or 31 degrees. into the beginning of next week, there is some uncertainty. eventually, the weather is going to change, the really high temperatures are going to be stuck in the south—east on monday. there's the potentialfor some thunderstorms from the near continent. it's ain from the north—west that is more likely, perhaps on tuesday.

this is newsday on the bbc. i'm sharanjit leyl, in singapore. the headlines: brazil's president says his government doesn't have the resources to fight the record number of wildfires raging across the amazon rainforest. france's president macron tells his british counterpart there can be no major changes to the brexit agreement. boris johnson remains optimistic. i'm rico hizon, in london. also in the programme: the buses bangladesh hoped would repatriate hundreds of rohingya refugees — but nobody would get on board. and countdown to tokyo — as japan prepares to host the 2020 paralympics, we investigate just how accessible the city is