ron klain will be chief of staff in 3 biden white house. he first worked for the president—elect in 1989, when mr biden was a senator. more recently, he oversaw the 2009 economic stimulus programme and the response to the ebola outbreak. while president trump still holds back from conceding defeat in last week's election, the state of georgia has announced its first ever vote recount. joe biden leads there byjust 1a,000 out of the five million votes cast. officials there will recount all of the paper ballots by hand. pro—democracy lawmakers in hong kong have resigned en masse from the legislative council, after four of their colleagues were expelled for backing independence. it comes after china granted the authorities new security powers, to quell dissent. beijing said only those it regards as patriots can serve. now on bbc news, hardtalk.

welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. donald trump hasn't yet accepted it, but he will be out of the white house in january next year. gone — but not forgotten. his legacy can be seen in a divided body politic, strained international alliances and deep uncertainty about america's geopolitical ambition. my guest today, hr mcmaster, served as mr trump's national security adviser until he was fired in 2018. in terms of america's role in the world, will the trump years be seen as an aberration or a marker of underlying change?

hr mcmaster in stanford, california, welcome to hardtalk. stephen, thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to have you on this show. let us start with what is happening in the united states right now. your concern, your professional concern throughout your life has been american security. with a president who has lost an election but is refusing to accept defeat, does that feel to you like a period of real vulnerability for the united states? well, stephen, ithink it should be a period of celebration with the vast numbers of americans who voted, and then a recognition of the strength of our constitution. we had the benefit of our

founders having lived through the english civil war and the violence of the 17th century in england. so when they wrote up our constitution, they thought, how can we prevent the worst and so, the executive branch has no say in the transition. of course, the president can file lawsuits and so forth, but the executive branch of government will have no say in the transition. it will be a smooth transition. it is, though, regrettable that the president, i don't think, is going to be gracious about the transition, apparently. do you think the people around him, and you have served him very closely inside that white house, do you think they are telling him today, "mr president, the game's up, you've got to concede, go with some semblance of dignity"? well, you know, that's not donald trump's style, right? he's very combative and competitive. and so i think he's going to let these lawsuits run their course. and, of course, stephen, this is not unprecedented. it was it was a similar

circumstance in the election between president george w bush and al gore. i think that litigation went on for over a month. so we've been through this before. and i think it will show the... forgive the interruption, but i'm just thinking — up to a point, we've seen it before. but donald trump uses words like "an election stolen", "cheating", "fraud", "corruption". he paints a picture which is very different from anything we've seen from a defeated president before. and i'm very mindful in your recent book, battlegrounds, you reflected on the health of america itself and you said the polarisation of america's polity is destructive. we need leaders who can bring us back together, generate confidence in our identity as americans. that is precisely what america lacks at this moment. i agree with you, stephen. i am very much encouraged, though, by president—elect biden‘s comments, which i think have been just dead on in terms of what's needed.

and i think it's now it's time for all americans to help the elected president succeed. i mean, i think it's fine for us to be divided politically. a lot of people make a big deal about that. but if we were all united, we'd have a one—party system that sounds kind of like communist china to me. so i think it's ok for us to be divided politically, but we need leaders who will who will bolster and maintain our confidence in our democratic principles and institutions and processes. and sadly, the president's undermining those at the moment. i hear your words about president—elect biden, but i'm also mindful that he is not in office and has no real power for another 70 days. let us just reflect on what president trump — and he's still the president — what he's been doing in the last few hours and days. for example, he's just fired defence secretary mark esper, "terminated", in the president's words — it looks to many people like an act of vengeance because esper refused to agree with the president's inclination to deploy active

duty troops to america's cities during the summer during some of the violence surrounding the black lives matter protest movement. do you believe that the removal of esper at this particular time sends a dangerous message? i don't think it's dangerous. it's regrettable. it's, you know, it's true to form, stephen, right? but, you know, there are extremely competent long—term civil servants and military officers in the pentagon. i'm not concerned about any kind of danger. i think it's... ..again, though, it's regrettable and it's not particularly gracious of the president during this transition period. you're sounding as though you're pretty sanguine about it. but there are media reports quoting sources suggesting that the president is toying with the idea of firing the cia director, the fbi director. he also, according to the new york times, is perhaps considering military actions before he leaves office, particularly

targeting iran. now, to a lot of people in the outside world, president trump considering these sorts of decisions at this time, it strikes many as deeply dangerous, notjust for the united states, but for the world. well, i mean, this is where i think we have to be grateful for checks and balances in our system. the president does have significant authorities in the area of defence under article two of our constitution, which covers the executive branch. but there are checks in the congress, and i think that we have the people within our departments and agencies who are going to give best advice to members of the president's cabinet. but as you said, i mean, i think that this period should be one of smooth transition. and it seems as if the president is determined to make it as turbulent as possible. isn't one of the problems — and you found this yourself — that the president simply doesn't listen to those who are paid to offer him rational analysis and advice?

right. and of course, he's the elected president, he doesn't have to listen. but i've felt it was my duty to present the president with best advice from across the departments and agencies and to always give him multiple options. and i found that worked until, stephen, ijust got kind of used up in thatjob, because in any administration, there are those who define their responsibilities that way, to help the elected president determine his or her agenda and then to assist with the implementation of all of the president's decisions, but then there are also those in an administration who want to manipulate decisions consistent with their own agenda. and then there are also those who define their role as maybe you're saving the country and the world from the president. you know, this is the so—called anonymous op—ed and book writer, for example. well, hang on, you... i think the latter two groups are actually... you make a very interesting

point and you cite others in the white house who've written about that notion of saving america from donald trump — is that, if we are honest about it, what you felt you were doing for much of that one year, that you served as his national security adviser? no, stephen, i really felt like it was my duty to present the president with best advice and multiple options. and i think we delivered pretty decent outcomes in those 13... across those 13 months. and of course, i did, as i mentioned, i got used up in that process and i was at peace with that. i was still an active duty army officer at the time, steve. and this was my fifth commander—in—chief under whom i had served. what do you believe has been donald trump's impact on america's national security strategy? well, i'll tell you, stephen, what i wrote about in battlegrounds is one of the most significant shifts in us foreign policy since the end of the cold war. and that's the shift away from this assumption that china, having been welcomed into the international

community, would play by the rules, would liberalise its economy, and as it prospered, it would liberalise its form of governance. 0bviously, that's not the case. and therefore, we needed to recognise that china is a rival strategic competitor. and i think that has been a profoundly important shift in policy, really, notjust by the united states, but across the free world. so i think recognising great power competition with china, who is attempting to take centre stage in the world, and if they succeed in the aggression that we're seeing, especially in the midst of a pandemic, the world will be less free, less prosperous and less safe. and then, of course, we have to worry about vladimir putin's russia. right. but my question really was whether you believe donald trump had a coherent strategic vision. now, you've alighted on two policy challenges for the united states — china and russia, where, frankly, at different times, mr trump's message has been all over the shop. yes, he's been very confrontational with china on trade. at the same time, according

to john bolton, your successor, he's offered little deals to china. he said he'd go easy on their repressive policy toward the uighurs if china would give him a sweetener on trade for american farmers. 0n russia, we know that donald trump for years refused to make any sort of personal condemnation of vladimir putin. nobody could figure out why. so i come back to this question. you work closely with him. was there any sort of coherent strategic vision behind trump's instinctive, gut policies? i think there was at the outset, stephen, but i think the biggest problem in the trump administration foreign policy was this now, you know, predisposition toward withdrawal, toward retrenchment, pulling back as he did quite suddenly from the middle east, this halting withdrawal, although we still have special forces units there in syria and in iraq. and then i think the biggest failure of the trump administration foreign policy

is this approach toward afghanistan and prioritising withdrawal to the extent that we actually partnered with the taliban against the elected afghan government. i think that's a real travesty, stephen. and i think what we're already seeing is the beginning of a humanitarian catastrophe in afghanistan, and we may be back on the path toward the taliban and jihadist terrorists again controlling territory, controlling the narcotics trade, and then vastly expanding their threat to all civilised people. so i'm very concerned about this penchant toward disengagement but what i'm concerned about also, stephen, is that a biden administration might continue in that direction. so, i think what americans need at this point is they need a leader to articulate a sensible and sustainable approach to foreign policy and to recognise that when we work together with our allies and partners, we share the burden and we can advance all of our interests together.

i want to come back to that point about convincing allies that america is serious and responsible as a partner. but before we get there, i just want to reflect not so much on the different strategic geographical arenas where us policy has been at play, but also on the process itself of decision—making and what has happened to us institutions. for example, under donald trump, it became quite clear that people like you presenting policy papers... i believe you wrote him, very early on in your tenure, you wrote him a major national security overview document, and it is plain that he never read it. it's also plain that he had no interest in filling key positions. for example, in the state department, many, many posts went unfilled. do you think donald trump has left a damaging, maybe corrosive legacy in terms of the institutions of american foreign policy and national security policy—making ? well, stephen, ithink what we need is a restoration

of confidence in our institutions and our departments and agencies. you might recall that president trump ran really against the government, against the establishment, and at times appeared to be at war with his own administration and even, for example, his own white house or national security council staff. how did you feel...? he didn't come up with that idea himself. general, sorry to interrupt, but how did you feel when you knew he wasn't reading your briefings? he didn't even read your key national security document that you wrote up to give a vision of what the trump administration should be about. why didn't you approach him and say, "mr president, "you have got to get serious about this stuff"? stephen, that was his document. i spent a lot of time with him on that, went through the entire document with him. he loved it and he was the only president who actually gave the speech unveiling the national security strategy. i mean, sadly, ithink he's walked back from some

aspects of that approach. but that was his strategy. but over time, as happens with any president, any president is an object of those who want to influence his decisions. and there is a strong movement, stephen, toward kind of a neo—isolationist sentiment in america. donald trump didn't invent it. he, in large measure, tapped into that dissatisfaction with us foreign policy and the unanticipated length and cost of the wars in the middle east and in south asia. so i think this is a dynamic that's going to carry across multiple administrations. and although we talk about donald trump a lot because, you know, it's hard not to, i think this is a phenomenon, this movement toward retrenching or disengaging, that cuts across both political parties. and i want to pick up that point with you and discuss where you thinkjoe biden‘s going to take us strategy injust a moment. but one more personal question, cos i think people around the world are going to be fascinated with it. you served for more than 30

years as a us army officer, getting to the very top. you had a strong reputation for sort of integrity. then you went to the white house. you worked for donald trump for a year. you were involved in some very difficult situations. for example, when trump clearly gave to lavrov, russia's foreign minister, some confidential intelligence information he shouldn't have given, you were in the room. trump then made you go before the press and say that everything that president trump had done was, in your words, "wholly appropriate" when it clearly wasn't. and many former military colleagues of yours said you made a terrible error. you trashed your own reputation by covering up for the president rather than resigning and telling the truth. why didn't you do that? well, because that's just wrong, stephen. actually, what the president did tell lavrov was wholly appropriate. you know, the whole idea was that he had maybe in some way compromised sources and methods.

during this conversation the president didn't even know what the sources and methods are. and he shared information with lavrov that had already been shared through normal channels. it was counterterrorism information. and the only time that the source and method was leaked is it was leaked by somebody who gave that to the press, even though it wasn't even discussed in the meetings, and i'll tell you, stephen, i mean, you know, i've been shot at for real, like in real combat. so i wasn't worried about, you know, the internal politics of the west wing of the white house. let's then think about where america goes from here. it strikes me that in many ways, one of the biggest challengesjoe biden has got is convincing america's long—standing allies that he really is going to turn the ship around, that there is going to be a very different approach to national security and foreign policy—making under a biden administration, because in many ways, america first, trump's mantra, looked a lot like america alone. he didn't seem interested in his european allies. he didn't seem interested in nato.

do you think biden can and will change the dynamic with allies? oh, i think so. i think that's inevitable for two reasons. first of all, i think president biden will have a less offensive approach. of course, some of the key issues will remain in connection with defence — burden sharing, for example, or the nord stream 2 pipeline vis a vis germany and giving up its really coercive economic power to russia. some of the issues will remain, but the style and the form will be will be much more conducive to cooperation. but the other big factor, stephen, is we're facing some real threats. i mean, if you just look at the navalny poisoning, the infiltration of russian troops into belarus, or if you look at the aggression of the chinese communist party from this wolf warrior diplomacy, from the effort to take over communications and key logistics infrastructure in the world, bludgeoning indian soldiers to death on the himalayan frontier, aggression in the south china sea,

threats to taiwan, as you mentioned already, the concentration camps in xinjiang and the repressive actions broadly across china but now in hong kong, hey, we have real threats and we have to work together. so, i think that i think the pendulum is swinging back in favour of much, much closer alignment with our allies on key issues. and this should include iran as well. and we can talk more about that if you like, but i feel good about it. i think our relationships are very strong already. i want a word about iran and north korea before we close. but running like a thread through this interview has been you bringing the conversation back repeatedly to china. it sounds to me like you are saying that that the united states and indeed its partners, maybe in europe and elsewhere, need to prepare for an indefinite form of long—term hostility across the world with china. is that what you're saying? i would say competition rather than hostility and really,

we have to recognise, what china is waging is this campaign of co—option, co—opt us with the lure of profits and access to their market and chinese investments. but then once we're in, to coerce us to adhere to their worldview. and what china really wants to do is create servile relationships that allows it to recreate the tributary system and to do so in a way that profoundly disadvantages us, not only from a security perspective, but from an economic perspective as well. so i would say the key word is that we have to recognise we have to compete and to do so, that we have to make ourselves better. we have to make ourselves stronger. but we also have to confront these aggressive chinese economic practices and the overall aggressive policies of the chinese communist party. i think there's some been some very positive indicators, especially with the uk and sweden's decision to ban huawei, this communications company that wants to control all of our data and send

it back to beijing. and i think we'll see similar actions in france and germany and across europe. so i think it's already happening, stephen. we're almost out of time and i do want a very quick thought from you on two specific policy challenges where i wonder whether you thinkjoe biden should be reversing donald trump's policies — number one, iran. do you think biden should take the united states back into the so—called jcpoa, the agreement with iran to control its nuclear activities? and number two, north korea. should biden end the policy that trump began of engagement with kim jong—un? give me a brief answer on both of those challenges. 0k. no, the biden administration should not go back into thejcpoa or the iran nuclear deal — it was fundamentally flawed. what i think a biden administration can do is begin to negotiate a better deal but while keeping the sanctions in place, sanctions that

are appropriate based on iran's four—decade—long proxy war they're continuing to wage against us. 0n north korea it's very important, i think, to keep in place this campaign of maximum pressure to test this thesis that kim jong—un can be convinced that he's safer without the weapons than he is with them. what would be a tremendous mistake would be to return to the failed pattern of previous efforts, which is in response to a north korean provocation, which i think is reasonable to predict about this time in between now and when president biden is sworn in onjanuary 20th, to respond to that with a big payoffjust for the privilege of talking to the north and then a long, drawn—out negotiation process that results in a weak agreement that then is immediately broken. i think we don't want to do that again. so i think it's very important to keep the sanctions in place and to place additional pressure on china and others to enforce those sanctions. let me end by bringing you back to the beginning.

we began talking about what is happening in terms of president trump and his inability to accept electoral defeat. now, your recent book, battlegrounds, was subtitled the fight to defend the free world. is not the truth that the biggest problem in any fight to defend the free world right now is the weakness, the internal weakness of the united states of america, the polarisation, the division, the sense that american — the public and politicians — have a real problem figuring out where they want to take the nation. isn't that the biggest weakness of all? well, stephen, i think it's the greatest cause for concern. i think america is much stronger than we appear. i think that our political elites are more polarised than the vast majority of americans. i think our media in many ways is more polarised than the vast majority of americans. but what i argue for in battlegrounds is we have

to come together as a people. we need civil discussions about our greatest challenges and how we can overcome them. and i have confidence, stephen, that we're going to emerge from these four crises of a pandemic, a recession, the social divides laid bare by george floyd's murder and this vitriolic partisan political season. and so i feel good about the election. so many americans voted and i think our confidence is going to grow and be restored in connection with our democratic principles and institutions and processes. well, i'll tell you what, we'll meet again in a year or two and see whether that optimism is justified. but for now, i thank you very much indeed, general mcmaster, for being on hardtalk. stephen, thank you. it's a pleasure.

hello there. the weather will quieten down for a day or so before it turns more unsettled as we move towards the end of the week and the weekend. but today's dry and settled weather is thanks to a ridge of high pressure. but it won't last long as cloud and showers start to push into western areas. now that's the overnight wind and rain clearing away from the east coast. this ridge of high pressure settles things down briefly before the next low pressure moves into the west of the uk through the afternoon. so we could have a hang back of clouds and showers for a time across the east, hanging around shetland pretty much all day. and much of the country is dry with plenty of sunshine around, but you'll see the clouds thickening up out west. outbreaks of rain pushing in here, more prolonged rain pushing in for western scotland

by the end of the day, along with the strengthening winds. temperatures down on what we had yesterday, 10—13 celsius. now it's dry for much of central and eastern parts of the country as we head through the course of the night, but this band of rain, some of it heavy, and strong winds slowly pushing eastwards followed by some blustery showers. very windy conditions across the northwest of scotland, but a pretty blustery night for most areas. those temperatures generally in single figures — high single figures, mind you, we could see 9—10 celsius across the south of england. so this is the pressure chart for friday, low pressure to the north west of the uk, lots of isobars in the northwest, so very windy here. but it will still be quite gusty with this band of rain lying through central parts of the country for friday morning. that should eventually clear way to the north sea, and skies will brighten up for most of the afternoon. but there'll be lots of showers rattling into northern and western areas — some of these will be heavy and quite frequent with rumbles of thunder across the northwest

of scotland. those temperatures 10—13 celsius, and with the wind it will feel on the cool side, despite it being fairly mild. the low pressure really dominates the scene as we head to the weekend. you can see lots isobars on the chart, particularly across the south of the country, and plenty of weather fronts indicating some rain. after the last few cool days, it looks like it'll turn milder again into the weekend, particularly on saturday. something slightly cooler pushing in from west as we head through sunday, especially across the north of the uk. so a pretty wild weekend in store, some heavy rain around, strong winds, gales across the south coast. very mild for a time on saturday, feeling a little bit fresher on sunday.

this is bbc news: i'm sally bundock with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. us president—electjoe biden names a key appointee to his administration — longtime aide ron klain will serve as white house chief of staff. the tigray region of northern ethiopia orders its people to be ready to fight as violence rages between the region's troops and federal foces. virus cases climb in russia — while the big cities are prepared, the poorer regions feel the pressure. one day off to celebrate 70 years of duty. the uk gets another national holiday for