hello, i'm nuala mcgovern, this is outside source. as president biden prepares to formally announce the withdrawal of us forces from afghanistan — twenty years after they first went in following the 9—11 attacks — there's concern about what happens next. certainly there's a fear that whilst america public involvement in this war might be drawing down, for afghans the conflict is only going to get bloodier and even more fragmented. a policewoman is to face manslaughter charges, over the fatal shooting of a black man in the us state of minnesota. at the derek chauvin trial — a defence witness — a forensic pathologist, says heart issues and drug use, contributed to george floyd's death. mr floyd had a sudden cardiac

arrhythmia, or cardiac arrhythmia due to his atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease. denmark becomes the first country in europe _ denmark becomes the first country in europe to _ denmark becomes the first country in europe to abandon the use of the coronavirus — europe to abandon the use of the coronavirus vaccine from astrazeneca. even though they see the benefits outweigh the risks. british_ the benefits outweigh the risks. british mps reject opposition calls for prom inquiry into the former prime minister david cameron's attempts to gain government contracts for a business which has collapsed. in a few minutesjoe biden will formally announce the withdrawal of us forces from afghanistan —

20 years after they first went in following the 9—11 attacks. he is expcted to say the us will no longer support afghanistan militarily, but will continue diplomatic and humanitarian work. the united states has spent around two trillion dollars and lost more than 2,000 service members since 2001 in what has been its longest war. at its height, there were more than 100,000 us troops stationed in afghanistan. today, there are around 2,500 us troops in the country as part of a 9,600—strong nato mission. earlier today the us secretary of state, antony blinken, discussed the withdrawal at nato — here's a little of what he had to say. almost 20 years ago after the united states was attacked, together we went into afghanistan to deal with those who attacked us and to make sure that afghanistan would not again become a haven for terrorists who might

attack any of us. and together we have achieved the goals that we set out to achieve and now it is time to bring our forces home. we will work very closely together in the weeks and months ahead on a safe, deliberate and coordinated withdrawal of our forces from afghanistan. but even as we do that, our commitment to afghanistan, to its future, will remain. while afghanistan's president ashraf ghani says afghan forces are �*fully capable�* of defending the country, many on the ground in afghanistam fear a surge in militant violence — with the speaker of the afghan parliament warning that it could lead to civil war. 0ur afghanistan correspondent, secunder kermani, sent us this update from kabul. afghan government officials say they're waiting for meaty

conversations i've had there is a concern that categorically fixing this date in september for the withdrawal of all american forces irrespective of what the conditions are on the ground here at that stage will end up favouring the taliban either by encouraging them to wait things out and push for the military victory or at the very least threatening their position at the negotiating table. the very slow pace we have seen in the discussion so far between the afghan taliban sides suggests it would it will be difficult to reach a power—sharing arrangement by september. there was hope they could have been progress at a major summit planned for turkey later this month but following this announcement that holloman have said they will no longer be attending that. they have reacted sharply to the fact that american troops will be staying on within afghanistan after this made the first deadline which was agreed last year. they had previously talked about resuming a tax on international forces if that deadline was not adhered to. i think given this as short as quite a short extension we are unlikely to see that but we will have

to wait and see. the bigger concern is what happens after september. usa power has been key in holding back the taliban advance. how will the afghan government cope without it? there has already been talk about raising militias and using them to help in the fight against the taliban. certainly there is a fear that whilst americans involvement in the war might be drawing down, for afghans the conflict is only going to get bloodier and even more fragmented. let's ta ke let's take a look now at some of the other figures. the conflict has taken a huge toll on afghan civilians. by 2020, more than 43,000 civilians were estimated to have died violent deaths as a result of the war in afghanistan. 0n the streets of kabul news of the withdrawal has been met with disappointment. translation: of the americans have not risk fulfilled _ translation: of the americans have not risk fulfilled their _ translation: of the americans have

not risk fulfilled their response - not risk fulfilled their response ability to afghans. their responsibility is to ensure a strong government, the rule of law and democracy in afghanistan. and fears of terrorism, drugs, intervention by the countries. i think the us should not leave until it has fulfilled these responsibilities.- not leave until it has fulfilled these responsibilities. let's hear more now about _ these responsibilities. let's hear more now about our _ these responsibilities. let's hear more now about our editor. - these responsibilities. let's hear more now about our editor. if. these responsibilities. let's hear| more now about our editor. if you seak more now about our editor. if you speak with _ more now about our editor. if you speak with the — more now about our editor. if you speak with the people _ more now about our editor. if you speak with the people in - more now about our editor. if you speak with the people in these i speak with the people in these cities, — speak with the people in these cities, mainly they are worried because — cities, mainly they are worried because they have the memories of the 905— because they have the memories of the 90s were many whirring factions were fighting. and if the international troops withdraw without — international troops withdraw without the full control of the government and think about rooting out corruption this will be a big problem — out corruption this will be a big problem for the society, for the achievement they have got nearly two decades_ achievement they have got nearly two decades after 9/11.

the announcements has received a mixed response in washington. a republican congresswoman said in a statement... let's turn to democratic senator bernie sanders. in the past hour white house press secretaryjen psaki has defended the us withdrawal, saying the threats that were present in afghanistan in 2001 have evolved pa rt part of what we have seen is that the threat has become more dispersed, it's metastasized around the world. somalia, the arabian peninsula, syria, it has changed. we

are not looking at the 2001 mindset, we cannot look at things through the 2001 mindset can we have to look at things through the 2021 world. i'm joined now by lieutenant general ben hodges, the former commander of the us army in europe. thank you forjoining us. first of all with your experience what you think of this announcement that we are expecting this hour? in a think of this announcement that we are expecting this hour?— are expecting this hour? in a way i'm are expecting this hour? in a way i'm relieved. _ are expecting this hour? in a way i'm relieved, but— are expecting this hour? in a way i'm relieved, but mixed - are expecting this hour? in a way i'm relieved, but mixed with - are expecting this hour? in a way - i'm relieved, but mixed with sadness and disappointment but this is historic. it's historic but it is sad. �* ., �*, ., historic. it's historic but it is sad. ., ., sad. and sad, that's for that little bit further. _ sad. and sad, that's for that little bit further. why — sad. and sad, that's for that little bit further, why do _ sad. and sad, that's for that little bit further, why do you _ sad. and sad, that's for that little bit further, why do you say - sad. and sad, that's for that little bit further, why do you say that? l bit further, why do you say that? well for me personally there's a bit of a sadness like everybody in the us army and british army and other allies invested time there, we lost

friends but that's not a reason to stay. there is a sadness to it when you think of the afghans and worry about women and children, that will be left behind with the coalition did even though it is not our original purpose we did a lot to improve the quality of life and future for women and children in afghanistan. so we did have some concern about what happens there. i understand and that's definitely a question that is being asked. do you see this as a defeat?— see this as a defeat? some will characterise _ see this as a defeat? some will characterise it _ see this as a defeat? some will characterise it as _ see this as a defeat? some will characterise it as a _ see this as a defeat? some will characterise it as a defeat - see this as a defeat? some will characterise it as a defeat but l see this as a defeat? some will characterise it as a defeat but i | characterise it as a defeat but i felt the secretary was correct. let's remember where we went there to begin with. it was to make sure that afghanistan did not become a lap form for terrorists to attack our european allies or the united states or canada. to be accurate that has been successful. the

problem and the reason it will not be viewed that way is because we took our eye off the ball when we diverted from the original purpose both by going to iraq but also doing all of these other things in the years following when we first got rid of the tile band. and so i think that's what a legacy of what has happened was so hard for any president to say it's time to go. it's quite difficult, i'm sure you find this as well to believe 20 years since the initial incursion. what went wrong? some of the issues there of iraq and one not but shouldn't there have been, so many times for example president obama talked about drawing down troops, what is the lesson to be learned from this war? aha, what is the lesson to be learned from this war?— what is the lesson to be learned from this war? �* ., , ., ~ from this war? a great question. and ve roud from this war? a great question. and very proud of— from this war? a great question. and very proud of my _ from this war? a great question. and very proud of my service _ from this war? a great question. and very proud of my service there, - from this war? a great question. and j very proud of my service there, 2009 and 2010. nick carter was our

commander. it was a primary british headquarters there. we thought we were successful. 2010 it felt like finally the afghans are going to be able to take it from here, the new strategy under general mcchrystal of protecting the population so that afghan governors could be delivered felt like it was working versus just killing the enemy. i felt like it was going to work but the problem is you asked what went wrong, we never addressed pakistan. and as long as pakistan was allowed to give safe haven to tell abandon and other organisations that did not want to see a successful mission in afghanistan we did not do the hard things politically to address that. and of course it means you have to address india also. as long as the india had a safe haven in pakistan, and a thousand years were never going to be able to root them out

completely. that's the biggest mistake. the second thing i mentioned we got diverted from the original purpose. that's that. and i have to say in the united states we did not make the american people, we did not make the american people, we did not make the american people, we did not raise taxes to pay for this. so most people were not, they did not feel it. the of the administrations raise taxes to pay for this war on more people would have paid attention and put more pressure on congress to make sure we did stay focused.— did stay focused. let's see how it all involves _ did stay focused. let's see how it all involves not _ did stay focused. let's see how it all involves not with _ did stay focused. let's see how it all involves not with the - did stay focused. let's see how it all involves not with the future i all involves not with the future foreign policy of president biden. thank you so much for speaking to us. great to have your analysis. there will be more on afghanistan throughout the programme. lets move to minneapolis. and a big development in the fatal police shooting of 20—year—old daunte wright. local media are reporting the police officer kim potter

who shot him has been charged with second—degree manslaughter. she resigned from her post on tuesday, along with her police chief. daunte wright was killed in brooklyn centre — a suburb just outside of minneapolis. police released this body—cam video of the incident. this was the moment mr wright was pulled overfor a minor traffic violation on sunday. police then determined that daunte wright had an outstanding arrest warrant — they attempted to handcuff him, and when he tried to re—enter his vehicle, an officer yelled "taser, taser, taser" before he was shot. police say the officer had intended to use her taser — and that the shooting was "accidental". the family of daunte wright's family don't accept that. and in the past hour we've had this reaction to her arrest from their lawyer, ben crump.

"while we appreciate that the district attorney is pursuing justice for daunte, no conviction can give the wright family their loved one back. a 26—year veteran of the force knows the difference between a taser and a firearm. kim potter executed daunte for what amounts to no more than a minor traffic infraction and a misdemeanor warrant." live to our correspondent larry madowo, he's in minneapolis. he's been keeping across all development in minneapolis with us. let's talk about this charge and what exactly is the charge against kim potter and do you think will make a difference to the tension in brooklyn centre? we have seen protests over the past few nights.

so kim potter, this 26 year veteran of the brooklyn centre police departmentjust got of the brooklyn centre police department just got arrested, of the brooklyn centre police departmentjust got arrested, been taken into custody and charges will be against her later. she's got this one charge of second degree manslaughter, this carries a maximum sentence of ten years here in the state of minnesota or, and a fine of $10,000. this is unlikely to satisfy those that have been protesting for three nights, there's been some destruction and looting and arrests of people so far. they feel like the attorney and family statement you just mentioned, that this is a light sentence. i just mentioned, that this is a light sentence. ~ , ., , , sentence. i think his line has 'ust frozen sentence. i think his line has 'ust fezen there fl sentence. i think his line has 'ust frozen there for i sentence. i think his line has 'ust frozen there for a i sentence. i think his line has 'ust frozen there for a moment, h sentence. i think his line hasjust frozen there for a moment, but l sentence. i think his line hasjust - frozen there for a moment, but what i want to do is turn over to the reverend al sharpton. he speaking at the moment also about the shooting of daunte wright, let's watch it together. of daunte wright, let's watch it to . ether. , of daunte wright, let's watch it tozether. , , ., ., together. this is what we do. somebody — together. this is what we do. somebody needs _ together. this is what we do. somebody needs to - together. this is what we do. somebody needs to stand - together. this is what we do. | somebody needs to stand with together. this is what we do. - somebody needs to stand with these

victims _ somebody needs to stand with these victims. because they did not plan to he _ victims. because they did not plan to be victims. so we intend to be in minnesota — to be victims. so we intend to be in minnesota with them, attorney will take them — minnesota with them, attorney will take them to bake them funeral arrangements tomorrow. because this is not _ arrangements tomorrow. because this is not atrout— arrangements tomorrow. because this is not about raising money, this is about— is not about raising money, this is about being — is not about raising money, this is about being able to do it so that whatever— about being able to do it so that whatever the families get is theirs. secondly— whatever the families get is theirs. secondly i — whatever the families get is theirs. secondly i want to say that we will be secondly i want to say that we will he in _ secondly i want to say that we will be in minneapolis with the george family. _ be in minneapolis with the george family. i— be in minneapolis with the george family, i will be there three times already— family, i will be there three times already and i will be there for closing — already and i will be there for closing arguments through the sentencing to show the support of our community. let me tell you that many— our community. let me tell you that many years— our community. let me tell you that many years ago a young man was killed _ many years ago a young man was killed named martin lee anderson. in a hoot— killed named martin lee anderson. in a boot camp — killed named martin lee anderson. in a boot camp in florida. i met a young — a boot camp in florida. i met a young fiery— a boot camp in florida. i met a young fiery lawyer, i thought that i would _ young fiery lawyer, i thought that i would not — young fiery lawyer, i thought that i would not see the likes of a johnny cochren— would not see the likes of a johnny cochran again, but i met this young man a _ cochran again, but i met this young man a couple of years later became the lawyer— man a couple of years later became the lawyer for trayvon martin. he has put _ the lawyer for trayvon martin. he has put his—

the lawyer for trayvon martin. he has put his shoulder to the wheel and has _ has put his shoulder to the wheel and has earned the faith and trust of not _ and has earned the faith and trust of not only— and has earned the faith and trust of not only black america but americans all over.— of not only black america but americans all over. that is the reverend _ americans all over. that is the reverend al — americans all over. that is the reverend al sharpton, - americans all over. that is the l reverend al sharpton, probably familiar with him, reverend al sharpton, probably familiarwith him, his reverend al sharpton, probably familiar with him, his national action network and a civil rights organisation and he's very much been one of the most prominent figures, i would say, over the past 20 years or more when it came to police shootings of black men and women. not far from where daunte wright was killed in minneapolis, the trial of former minneapolis police officer derek chauvin over the killing of george floyd continues. the defence has been calling further witnesses today. for several hours, thejury heard from dr david fowler, a retired forensic pathologist, who said he would categorise george floyd's cause of death as "undetermined". so in my opinion mr floyd had a

sudden — so in my opinion mr floyd had a sudden cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrhythmia _ sudden cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrhythmia due to his atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart _ atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease. you can write that down _ heart disease. you can write that down multiple different ways. during his restraint or restrained by the police, _ his restraint or restrained by the police, and _ his restraint or restrained by the police, and his significant contributory conditions. i've already _ contributory conditions. i've already put the heart disease in part one. — already put the heart disease in part one, he would have the toxicology, the fentanyl and toxicology, the fe nta nyl and methamphetamine. toxicology, the fentanyl and methamphetamine. there is exposure to a vehicle _ methamphetamine. there is exposure to a vehicle exhaust, so potentially carhon— to a vehicle exhaust, so potentially carbon monoxide poisoning, or at least _ carbon monoxide poisoning, or at least an— carbon monoxide poisoning, or at least an effect from increased carbon — least an effect from increased carbon monoxide in his bloodstream. 0r other— carbon monoxide in his bloodstream. 0r other natural disease process that he — 0r other natural disease process that he had. all of those combined

to cause _ that he had. all of those combined to cause mr floyd public death. live to our correspondent larry madowo — he's in minneapolis. he was talking there about george floyd's hard, and whether heart disease with the contributing factor in his death. tell our viewers why this is significant, particularly from thejury and this is significant, particularly from the jury and how it this is significant, particularly from thejury and how it might contrast with what they have heard so far. , ., , , contrast with what they have heard sofar. , .,y ,. ., so far. the testimony is critical to the defence _ so far. the testimony is critical to the defence of _ so far. the testimony is critical to the defence of derek— so far. the testimony is critical to the defence of derek chauvin - so far. the testimony is critical to - the defence of derek chauvin because the defence of derek chauvin because the prosecution brought six medical experts, the witnesses all told the jury experts, the witnesses all told the jury that george floyd died because of oxygen deficiency which caused brain damage and caused his heart to stop. they went into extreme detail that was very technical but the jury paid attention to most of it. doctor david fowler is saying the exact opposite. he telling the jury that that's not true. what led to the death of george floyd was his

underlying health problems, his use of drugs, they found fentanyl and met the vitamin is a system, with the exhaust of the carbon monoxide from the car that he was lying in and only a little bit of the restraint. this is also an contradiction of what the coroner ruled after an autopsy on the body of george floyd. the medical examiner here said repeatedly that the manner of death was a homicide. the manner of death is what led to the death, how the death occurred to come and doctor david fowler has told the jury that this is undetermined. it is possible to determine because of those factors combined. in plain language he saying that the exact moment that derek chauvin was kneeling on george floyd public neck these other factors conspired to kill him. i have to say, listening to it and whatever may or geologist the other day seem to give a different description of events. there's an

awful lot for people to pick through. i'm curious, we saw a little bit of al sharpton speaking there going back to daunte wright, and you think his presence, his speaking out in addition to benjamin crump will make a difference with yellow al sharpton is black america's pastor, and benjamin crump has become their lawyer. and the role of intertwined because they do this repeatedly. every time there's another experience of a black family having to deal with a trauma and the pain of losing their family having to deal with a trauma and the pain of losing theirfamily member is always al sharpton prep praying with them and calling forjustice. and often met with her representing them in court or get a civil settlement and call forjustice. and i think their combined attention of these cases it helps raise the national platform and help galvanise some action. the problem and issues that the black lives matter protesters last summer raised are the exact same. that the trial of

derek chauvin and the death of daunte wright have brought up again. the think there is systemic racism and american needs to confront the racial bias of police of and also other aspects of american life. i've the uk opposition labour party has lost a vote to set up a parliamentary inquiry into former prime minister david cameron's lobbying of ministers on behalf of the now failed financial services firm greensill capital. labour leader kier starmer has accused the prime minister of presiding over what he called a return to "tory sleaze". borisjohnson said he shared the concerns raised but insisted the review he's ordered would get to the bottom of the issue. here's our political editor laura kuenssberg. calls for alarm? labour thinks it is onto something. after weeks of claims about an all too close relationship between politics and those trying to turn a profit it was borisjohnson's turn to answer.

question to the prime minister. it was revealed that the man who used to stand in his place argued for the interest of a now failed back to those in every day there is further evidence of the sleaze that is now at the heart of this conservative government. does the prime minister except there is a revolving door, indeed an open door, between his conservative government and paid lobbyists? mr speaker, this is a government and party that has been consistently tough on lobbying, and indeed we introduced legislation, saying that there should be no taxpayer funded lobbying. the opposition leader tried tojog his memory. the greensill scandal is that bit of the iceberg. dodgy contracts, privileged access, jobs for their mates, this is the return of tory sleaze.

we are having a proper independent review and if he has any allegations to make about what has taken place he should make them to the eminent lawyer who has been asked to do it. david cameron worked for him and texted and called ministers and government now on his behalf. lobbying, the art of trying to change government mines, is not illegal, but it is meant to be done in daylight, formal and transparent, for all to see. one of david cameron's former colleague suggested it is not as it should be. i think there was ample evidence from what has happened that there is a gap between the current law about what people can do by way of lobbying, once they have left office, and the public perception of what is appropriate. de former cabinet minister told me what is shocking about david cameron is that what he was doing is considered normal, sometimes, around here. successive governments have tried to grapple with the awkward fact that contacts can be used as currency but the relationship between money

and politics can be toxic. but the opposition sniff an opportunity to make this about the here and now. there is worry on the tory benches. it is no doubt a tasteless slapdash and unbecoming episode. it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as so many have said were better than i could, it tarnishes us all. but will they vote with labour for a public investigation? if we vote against it, as the prime minister has told you all to do, then i'm sorry to say, that they too will be part of the government's attempts to cover up tory sleaze. not this time. the noes have it, the noes have it. a separate committee of mps will still hold public hearings on the next few weeks. the business of politics once again in the glare. don't forget you can get in touch with me and some of the team on

twitter. thanks for watching committed to stay with the bbc. hello there. it's going to be another cold night tonight with some clearer skies developing. when we did have the sunshine earlier on today, there was a bit of heat in that sun this time of year, so it felt quite pleasant. but just to show you how the weather's changed here in south wales — same location, but move things on into the afternoon and there's much more cloud around. we had cloud building up today, producing 1—2 showers across more southern and western areas, even though we've got high pressure in charge, it's keeping most parts of the country dry, and it will do again tomorrow. any showers, though, fading away later this evening, and overnight we'll have clearer skies, some patches of mist and fog, maybe a few showers coming in off the southern north sea onto the coast of east anglia and kent. it'll be a cold night, widespread slight frost for the most part. lowest temperatures in northern england and southern scotland, down to minus 4—5 celsius.

more showers on the way for tomorrow, and it looks like the north—easterly breeze will push them in towards east anglia and the southeast of england. elsewhere probably going to be dry, cloud building up, some sunny spells, a small chance of showers in pembrokeshire and cornwall, but large parts of the uk will be dry. cool breeze filtering in those showers across southeastern areas of the uk, so temperatures here will be a bit lower than they were today. elsewhere, around 12—13 celsius could make a degree or two higher than that and western parts of scotland. those temperatures again will fall away very quickly during the evening, as skies tend to clear, we've got those showers moving away from southeastern parts of england, so it's turning dry overnight once again. and we still have high—pressure in charge of the weather as we move into friday — and for the time being, at least, it's keeping these weather fronts at bay out in the atlantic, and keeping mild air away, as well. bit more of a breeze perhaps developing in northern ireland, western scotland, a southerly breeze, a bit of a breeze through the english channel. elsewhere the winds are light after a cold, frosty start.

a sunny start will see the cloud holding up again, spreading out over inland areas with the best of the sunshine around coastal parts, but probably a dry day everywhere on friday with similar sort of temperatures, as well. heading into the weekend, these weather fronts will finally make a move into scotland and northern ireland, increasing the cloud, more likely to get rain in the northwest during the second half of the weekend. elsewhere for much of the uk, the weekend will be dry. we will see temperatures rise a bit across eastern parts of england, and it shouldn't be quite as cold overnight.

president biden formally announce the withdrawal of us forces from afghanistan 20 years after they first went clear met plane from afghanistan. our objective was clear, the cause was just, our objective was clear, the cause wasjust, and our native our objective was clear, the cause was just, and our native allies partnered beside us. find wasjust, and our native allies partnered beside us.- wasjust, and our native allies partnered beside us. and i supported that alone partnered beside us. and i supported that along with _ partnered beside us. and i supported that along with an _ partnered beside us. and i supported that along with an overwhelming - that along with an overwhelming majority of the members of congress. more than seven years later in 2008, weeks before we swear the oath of office, president obama and i were about to swear, president obama he asked me to travel to afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in afghanistan. i flew

afghanistan to the coup in our valley, a rugged mountainous region on the border with pakistan. what i saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country, and that more and endless american military force could not create or sustain a durable afghan government. i believed that our presence in afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place — to ensure afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. we did that. we accomplish that objective. i said, among with others, we would follow osama bin laden to the gates of hell if need be. that's exactly what we did, and we got him. it took us close to ten years to put president

obama's commitment in the form, and that's exactly what happened. i was ten years ago, think about that. we stayed in afghanistan a decade sense. since then, our reasons for remaining in afghanistan become increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat we went to a fight has evolved. the terrorist threat has evolved. the terrorist threat has missed out dust metastasized around the globe. also bob in somalia, al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, isis is attempting to create caliphate and establish affiliates in multiple countries in africa and asia. with the terror threat now in many places keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated injust thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year. it makes little sense to me and to our

leaders. we cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in afghanistan hoping to create ideal conditions for withdrawal and expecting a different result. i am now the fourth united states president to preside over american troop presence in afghanistan. two republicans, two democrats. i will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth. after consultant closely with our allies and partners... with congress and the vice president as well as with mr gandhi and many others around the world, i concluded that it is time to end america's long war. it is time for american troops to come home. when i took office, i inherited a diplomatic agreement,

duly negotiated between the government of the us and the television, that all us forces would be out of afghanistan by may one, 2021. just three months after my inauguration. it's perhaps not what i would've negotiated it myself, but it was an agreement made by the united states government. that means something. so i'm keeping with that agreement and the national interest, so the united states can begin our final withdrawal on may one. we will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit, but we will do it responsibly, deliberately and safely, and we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners who now have more forces in afghanistan than we do. we will defend ourselves and our

partners with all the tools at our disposal. ourallies partners with all the tools at our disposal. our allies and partners have stood beside us shoulder by shoulder in afghanistan for almost 20 years, and we are deeply grateful to the contributions they have made to the contributions they have made to our shared mission, and for the sacrifices they've borne. the plan has long been in together, out together. us troops as well as forces deployed by our nato allies and operational partners will be out of afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous act on september 11. but we will not take our eyes off the terrorist threat. we will reorganise our counterterrorism capabilities and substantial assets in the region to prevent re—emergence of terrorists and threats to our homeland from over the horizon. we will hold the television accountable for its commitment to not allow terrorists

to threaten the united states or its allies from afghan soil. the afghan government has made that commitment to us as well, and will focus our full attention on the threat we face today. in my direction, my team has defined our national strategy to monitor and disrupt significant terrorist threats not only in afghanistan but anywhere they may arise, whether they are in africa, europe, the middle east and elsewhere. i spoke yesterday with president bush to inform him of my decision. while he and i have had many disagreements on policy throughout the years, we are absolutely united in our respect and support for the valour, courage and integrity of the women and men of the united states armed forces who served. i'm immensely gratefulfor the backbone they've shown for nearly two decades of combat deployments. we as a nation are

forever indebted to them and their families. you all know that less than 1% of americans serve in our forces, the remaining 99% of us owe them. they've never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them. i've witnessed their bravery first hand during my business to afghanistan. they've never wavered in their resolve. they have paid a tremendous price on our behalf. and they have the thanks of a grateful nation. while we will not state involved in afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue. we will continue to support the government of afghanistan, we will keep providing assistance to the afghan security forces. along with our partners, we have trained and equipped a standing force of over 300,000 afghan personnel today and hundreds of thousands over the past two decades.

and they will continue to fight valiantly on behalf of the afghans at great cost was up till support peace talks as we will, support peace talks as we will, support peace talks as we will, support peace talks between the government of afghanistan and the taliban facilitated by the un, and we will continue to support the rights of afghan women and girls by maintaining significant humanitarian and development assistance. and we will ask other countries in the region to do more to support afghanistan, especially pakistan as well as russia, china, india and turkey. they all have a significant stake in the stable future of afghanistan, and over the next few months, we will also determine what a continued us diplomatic presence in afghanistan will look like, including how we will ensure the security of our diplomats. look, i know there are many who will loudly insist that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust us military

presence to stand as leverage. we gave that argument a decade. it's never proved effective. now we have 98,000 troops in afghanistan, and now we are down to a few thousand. our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm's way, us boots on the ground. we have to change that thinking. american troops shouldn't be used as a bargaining trip to microchip between warring countries and other partnerships. there that is nothing more than a recipe for keeping us troops in afghanistan indefinitely. i know also many will argue that we should stay fighting and afghanistan because there withdrawal would damage america's credibility and weaken america's influence in the world. i believe the exact opposite is true. we went to afghanistan

because the teller of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. i cannot explain why we should remain there for 21. we have to focus on there for 21. we have to focus on the challenges that are in front of us. we have to trap and disrupt terrorist networks and operations that spread far beyond afghanistan since 9/11. we have to shore up american competitiveness to meet the stiff competition we are facing from an increasingly assertive china. we have to strengthen our alliances and work with like—minded partners to ensure the rules... ensure technologies that will shape our future are grounded in our democratic values, not those of the autocrats. we have to defeat this pandemic and strengthen global health system to prepare for the next one, because there will be another pandemic. we will be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors over the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20 years, not the last 20. and

finally, the main argument for staying longer, as with each of my predecessors have grappled with, they insist now is not the right moment to leave afghanistan. in 2014, nato issued a declaration that afghan security forces would from that point on have full responsibility for the country's security by the end of that year. that was seven years ago. so when will be the right moment to leave? one more year, two more years? ten more years? ten — 30, $1 trillion more years? ten — 30, $1 trillion more than we've already spent? not now? that's how we got here. there's a significant downside to staying passed may one without a clear

timetable for departure. if we pursue the approach where america, the us exit is tied to conditions on the us exit is tied to conditions on the ground, we have to have clear answers to the following questions— just what conditions require to allow us to depart? by what means and how long would it take to achieve them if they can be achieved at all? i've not heard any good answers to these questions, and if you can't answer them, in my view, we should not stay. the fact is that later today, we should not stay. the fact is that latertoday, i'm we should not stay. the fact is that later today, i'm going to visit arlington national cemetery, section 60. in that sacred memorial to american sacrifice, section 60 is

where our recent war dead are buried, including many of the men and women who died fighting in afghanistan and iraq. there comforting distance in history at section 60. —— there is no comforting distance. the grief is raw, it's a living reminder of the cost of war. for the past 12 years, ever since i became vice president, carried with me a card that reminds me of the exact number of americans killed in afghanistan and iraq. that exact number, not an approximation or around off number, because every one of those dead are sacred human beings who left behind families. an exact accounting of every single solitary one needs to be had. as of the day today, there 2488 us troops and personnel who have died in

operation freedom and our afghanistan conflicts. 20,722 have been wounded. i'm the first president in 40 years who knows what it means to have a child serving in a war zone. and throughout this process, my northstar has been remembering what it was like when my late son was deployed to iraq. how proud he was to serve his country, how insistent he was to deploy with his unit, and the impact it had on him and all of us at home. we already have servicemembers doing their duty in afghanistan today whose parents served in the same war. we have servicemembers who are not yet born when our nation was attacked on 9/11. war and afghanistan was never meant to be a multi—general undertaking ——

multi—generational. we've achieve those goals. with bin laden dead and al-qaeda integrated into the ground, it's time to end the forever war. thank you all for listening, may god protect our troops and may god bless all those families who lost someone in this endeavour.— in this endeavour. we've 'ust been watchin: in this endeavour. we've 'ust been watching president _ in this endeavour. we've 'ust been watching president joe _ in this endeavour. we've just been watching president joe biden - in this endeavour. we've just been watching president joe biden as i in this endeavour. we've just been| watching president joe biden as he watching presidentjoe biden as he was announcing details on the withdrawal of us troops from afghanistan, also mentioning that he will go to arlington cemetery a little bit later. let's go live to gary o'donoghue who is in washington, dc with us. quite a lot that was said there, and one thing that was said there, and one thing thatjust that was said there, and one thing that just struck me that was said there, and one thing thatjust struck me towards the end, thatjust struck me towards the end, that there are young servicemembers in afghanistan that were not born when this incursion began 20 years

ago, calling it the forever war. what's the reaction in washington, dc and what do you think will particularly penetrate from what he said? i particularly penetrate from what he said? ~ �* , , said? i think there'll be elements ofthe said? i think there'll be elements of the opposition _ said? i think there'll be elements of the opposition that _ said? i think there'll be elements of the opposition that will - said? i think there'll be elements of the opposition that will react i of the opposition that will react very angrily to this. we've already seen some of that in preview with the senate republican leader mitch mcconnell talking a bit about the americans wrapping up afghanistan and paper and americans wrapping up afghanistan and paperand handing it back americans wrapping up afghanistan and paper and handing it back to their adversaries there. other republicans will be less forceful than that because a number of those do believe that america gets bogged down in these kinds of wars and needs to get out of them quickly, and that certainly was the previous president's view who signed the agreement with the taliban to withdraw american troops by may the 1st. so there will be a range of reactions, i'm sure there will be

relief that after 20 years, those troops will be coming home. but there are lots of questions as to whether what's been achieved will now be undone when america leaves, or the taliban, which is already on the rise again in afghanistan, taking territory — will it suddenly find itself back as the government in afghanistan in a period of time? what will that achieve? present biden also talked about disrupting and degrading al-qaeda and afghanistan, i think most would agree with that, of course, but we saw in 2011 when america left iraq that they believed the job had been done there and it created a vacuum to which isis, after a period of time, came and took over most of syria, most of her rock and sparked another conflict which the us had to get involved in, albeit without necessarily large numbers of troops on the ground. but they still had to get back involved with it. all sorts of questions raised by this, as

well. i of questions raised by this, as well. ., , of questions raised by this, as well. . , ., ~ ~ of questions raised by this, as well. ., . . . well. i was saying earlier aca eia re ort well. i was saying earlier aca eia report saying _ well. i was saying earlier aca eia report saying that _ well. i was saying earlier aca eia report saying that in _ well. i was saying earlier aca eia report saying that in fact, - well. i was saying earlier aca eia report saying that in fact, this - well. i was saying earlier aca eia report saying that in fact, this is| report saying that in fact, this is not the right time and it could cause a risk to you as security. i'm just wondering, is this war in afghanistan at the front of americans�*s mines? i afghanistan at the front of americans's mines? i think the troo -s americans's mines? i think the troops are _ americans's mines? i think the troops are at — americans's mines? i think the troops are at the _ americans's mines? i think the troops are at the top, - americans's mines? i think the troops are at the top, and - troops are at the top, and incredibly emotive subject in america, and incredibly important politically for all sides to have strong views in these areas, and most politicians do want to bring troops home as a sort of standard political mantra, if you like. in terms of the establishment, i think the cia director, from what i've seen, was questioning whether or not america would get the same kind of intelligence out of that region without having that kind of

personnel on the ground, saying that that might prove harder. but their argument is that they can do it by other means, it may take longer and not be as full, but they do have other methods in place, and that global terrorism in the shape of people like dutch organisations like al-qaeda and isis were not the fret they once were. this is not my observation but it's worth repeating, they'vejust observation but it's worth repeating, they've just published the annual assessment of the global threat generally to the us security, national security — 27 pages released yesterday, just one page on global terrorism. you can see the focus of this country is moving away from groups like al-qaeda and isis to more focus on china and russia, and other threats like that from iran and north korea, as well. gary, thank ou iran and north korea, as well. gary, thank you very _ iran and north korea, as well. gary, thank you very much. _ iran and north korea, as well. gary, thank you very much. mr _ iran and north korea, as well. gary, thank you very much. mr biden - iran and north korea, as well. gary, thank you very much. mr biden also saying that the us needs to focus on terrorist threats that have emerged elsewhere, as well as an assertive china. thanks so much, gary. we have

several important development on europe's vaccine roll—out. we are told deliveries are expected at the end of the year have been brought forward. you might render that that eu faced delays in its supply of vaccines, so this announcement by the president of the european commission has been welcomed. this contract will foresee the delivery of 1.8 billion additional doses of vaccines over the course of 2022 and 2023. and it will entail not only the production of vaccines, but also the essential components — all of that will be based in the

european union. last week, the european regulator the ema announced a possible link between the astrazeneca jab and rare blood clots. but it said the risk of dying of the virus was still much greater. today, denmark became the first in europe to stop using the vaccine entirely. in a statement, the danish health authority said... however, it did not rule out using the astrazeneca vaccine again at another time. denmark was the first of several eu countries to postpone use of the astrazeneca vaccine last month. most eu countries have now resumed vaccinations with astrazeneca but mainly for older population groups. and the ema says it's up to individual states to make their own risk assessments and decide how to administer the vaccine. here's denmark's national health board explaining more about their decision.

we have now today chosen to continue our vaccine roll—out without astrazeneca. it is not because we believe it is a bad vaccine — we agree with the assessment of ema. our decision is contextual and specific to the situation in denmark, knowing that we have vaccinated most of are at risk population, we have a rolling out of our vaccines with a very high volume, even despite without the astrazeneca vaccine, and we also have very good control of our epidemic. well, the ema is also making a recommendation on the safety of thejohnson &johnson jab, which has also been linked to blood clots. we should stress that these events are extremely rare. yesterday, the us health authorities recommended pausing roll—out in america after it detected six cases out of 6.8 million who've had the jab. remember that — six out of 6.8 million.

on tuesday, johnson &johnson announced it would pause roll—out of the jab to the european union. and there's been some confusion among member states over what to do with the doses that have already been delivered. some have indicated they might still continue with their roll—out. belgium, for example, has 36,000 doses and plans to use them unless the european medicines agency says otherwise. other countries, like spain and portugal, have said early to pause thejohnson &johnson vaccine, sweden has chosen another route. it's announced it would pause plans to startjohnson and johnson vaccinations pending the ema review. it has 31,000 doses. both the johnson & johnson and astrazeneca vaccines work by a similar method, known as adenoviral vectors. here's one medical expert from germany on what might happen next.

translation: basically, the signal we are getting | from the us regulator in the case ofjohnson &johnson is exactly the same we saw weeks ago for astrazeneca from the european regulator. it is something really positive as it means that people can rely on the fact that the regulatory bodies look at the rarest of intricacies and then take measures. it has now been decided that there should be a pause while the six cases of thrombosis are minutely researched. and of course, it's about the question of whether the mechanism can be compared to the astrazeneca vaccine. here in the uk, a major trial looking at whether covid vaccines can be mixed has been expanded. adults over 50 who've had their first dose of pfizer and astrazeneca can take part, and their second dose could be the same, or a shot of moderna or novavax. here's one medical expert on why combining vaccines could help our immune response. because all the vaccines that are currently licensed

are all directed against the same part of the virus, they are all engineered to target the s—protein, the spike proteins, then they all will elicit a very similar immune response. so it makes a lot of sense to test this combination of vaccines. and here's another expert on the benefits. we have this really interesting study that'll see whether it's just the equivalent in terms of are we getting the same immunity from using two different vaccines, or perhaps there may be some benefits? and also, of course, to look at side effects. it provides us with some really useful information that we can then use to either make the vaccine schedule easier, we don't have to worry about which vaccine people get or perhaps if there's an issue around the safety of one vaccine, we can shift another — for example, in those patients under 30 who received astrazeneca. at the moment, we are still saying to take astrazeneca for your second dose, but perhaps the study might show that you can switch to a different vaccine and get a different effect.

so it provides options and, you know, aside from the fact that it's useful for the uk, worldwide this will be external useful information. 800 volunteers are already taking part in the trial. we're told the trial will check for any side—effects or unwanted reactions. for more on here's the bbc�*s medical editor fergus walsh. i don't think there'll be any safety concerns, but you've got to do a trial like this just to rule that out. and quite good scientific, theoretical evidence that actually it will boost your immunity. i would predict that maybe a year or so from now, the idea of mixing and matching will actually be accepted. and i was there in february in london the day these trials began, and the huge enthusiasm from the volunteers. so this�*ll be a hot ticket, a lot of people will want to sign up for this trial.

let approved made the announcement he had received his second he made the announcement that he'd received it at an event later, and told reporters how he was feeling. translation: i was vaccinated ten minutes after— translation: i was vaccinated ten minutes after entering _ translation: i was vaccinated ten minutes after entering the - translation: i was vaccinated ten minutes after entering the room. i minutes after entering the room. no side effects or anything. i don't feel that i had any vaccine at all, everything is fine. i did some sports in the morning, then got the jab. by the way, as the doctor said, there is already a good immune response after the first jab. there is already a good immune response after the firstjab. back response after the first “ab. back to the derek * response after the first “ab. back to the derek chauvin _ response after the first jab. back to the derek chauvin trial, the officer charged with the killing of george floyd.

pathologist doctor david fowler is being questioned by attorneyjerry falwell. d0 being questioned by attorney jerry falwell. , ., . being questioned by attorney jerry falwell. ., ., falwell. do you agree, doctor fowler, that _ falwell. do you agree, doctor fowler, that the _ falwell. do you agree, doctor fowler, that the position - falwell. do you agree, doctor fowler, that the position on l falwell. do you agree, doctor fowler, that the position on aj falwell. do you agree, doctor i fowler, that the position on a 60 falwell. do you agree, doctor - fowler, that the position on a 60 a is placing a person into a position that restricts the ability to ventilate the lungs or position the head in such a position that it, you can't give the airways open? that is correct, can't give the airways open? that is correct. yes- _ can't give the airways open? that is correct. yes- -- _ can't give the airways open? that is correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. - can't give the airways open? that is correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. andl correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. and at the end — correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. and at the end of— correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. and at the end of the _ correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. and at the end of the day, _ correct, yes. -- asphyxiation. and at the end of the day, and - at the end of the day, and position... at the end of the day, and position. . ._ at the end of the day, and position... at the end of the day, and osition... . , , ., ., position... that is 'ust one of the key points _ position... that is 'ust one of the key points there — position... that isjust one of the key points there in _ position... that isjust one of the key points there in that - position... that isjust one of the key points there in that trial. - key points there in that trial. we'll continue to keep a across it. joe biden has formally announced the withdrawal of us troops from afghanistan by september 11 this year, he promises there won't be a

hasty rush to exit. stay with us here on the bbc, thanks for watching.

this is bbc news. i'm james reynolds. the headlines at 8 o'clock. the david cameron lobbying row, how far did he go to help us australian finance third whose company is now in trouble. this is the return of tory sleaze. the noes have it. mps have rejected labour calls for a parliamentary inquiry into david cameron's attempts to gain government contracts borisjohnson has already ordered an investigation. boris johnson has already ordered an investigation-— investigation. they were having a ro er investigation. they were having a proper infinite — investigation. they were having a

proper infinite review. _ investigation. they were having a proper infinite review. about -