to re—set the relationship between the uk and the republic of ireland, which has been strained since britain left the eu. in his first major interview since becoming pm, sir keir starmer told the bbc that the previous government "broke" the nhs in ways which were "unforgivable". he said a review of the health service — to be published this coming week — finds the conservatives�* changes to the nhs were "hopelessly misconceived". tens of thousands of left—wing protesters have demonstrated in paris and other french towns and cities against the appointment of michel barnier as the country's new prime minister. president emmanuel macron gave him the post on thursday, ending two months of deadlock, following inconclusive parliamentary elections. that is it from me, i'll be back at the top of the hour. now on bbc news, political

thinking, with nick robinson. should israel's prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, should his defence minister, yoav gallant, face a trialfor war crimes? that is what my guest on political thinking this week is arguing. he is the prosecutor, the chief prosecutor of the international criminal court. he's a british lawyer, who's trying also to bring the leader of hamas, yahya sinwar, to that court — a court that's been derided, condemned for having no real teeth. and it's notjust the two sides in the gaza conflict who he's targeting. he's also said that president putin of russia should face trial for war crimes. karim khan, welcome to political thinking. thank you for having me. now, on the 24th of may this year, you stood in front of a camera and you announced

that you would be applying for arrest warrants at the international criminal court, for crimes committed during the ongoing conflict in gaza. did you have any idea of the row that would follow? well, i knew it was a powerful moment. i knew it was a very divisive issue. it's an issue where emotions are strong and there would be a storm. i'd been told by many states and authorities it would be a nuclear bomb. it would be an atomic bomb. you know, there'd be hell to pay, effectively. but as an officer of the court, you need to look at the law, look at the facts, and apply the law to the facts. and that's what we did and why we submitted the applications to the judges. the reason this is so serious is that if — and it is still an if — arrest warrants are issued, every one of the countries that set up the court, 124, including britain, would be obliged to arrest the israeli prime minister and the israeli defence minister, if they were to enter their countries. well, that's in every case,

whether you're dealing with cases in sudan or libya, or with ukraine and russia. i think this is a particularly difficult moment because of history. we know the suffering of the jewish people, the horrors of the holocaust. we know that without the nuremberg tribunal that gave evidential historical record to the pogroms of hitler and national socialism, we wouldn't have had a yugoslav tribunal. we wouldn't have had an international criminal court. so on so many fronts, the complexity of the situation, the tribalism that exists, the different narratives and competing narratives meant that one was faced with stark choices. states are faced with stark choices, legal principles, and established, valued relationships. and how do you operate in that environment? and as a lawyer, those are beyond our pay grade. we have to simply apply the law with fidelity. you talk about condemnation. these are people saying,

if you do what you don't like, if — to quote a group of republican senators — you target israel, we will target you. you have been warned, they said publicly. and interestingly, the democrats, biden, called your decision "outrageous". blinken called it "wrong—headed action". it sounded like they might work with the republicans to take you on. yes. and, you know, the same mouths and learned minds and statesmen and stateswomen were also very supportive of what the court did vis—a—vis russia, in the ukraine situation. so, you know, sometimes, we have these unfortunate periods where one has great respect for certain countries, and there are moments when the countries live up to those expectations and there's moments, i think, when countries let themselves down. and what we have to do is be different and try to apply the law in a way that is equal. because if we don't and,

importantly, if we're not seen to, we're going to lose the law. we're going to lose all the architecture, notjust the international criminal court that has been built on human suffering since nuremberg, since the second world war. there is clearly an assault under way that's been going on for quite some time, attacking what has been called the rules—based system. and so, it does require a way that the global south, latin america, asia, africa, people in the uk, that they don't just think that we are a tool, an instrument of power, that we take our responsibilities as officers of the court seriously, and we try, in a very imperfect world, to apply the law equally, based upon some common standards. and that's the job of the international criminal court. the big charge that was made against you, and you must have known it was coming — you're notjust british, but you're british muslim — was from netanyahu himself, who said, you take your place amongst the great "anti—semites" in modern times. karim khan, prosecutor of the international criminal court, stands

alongside, he said, "those infamous german judges who donned their robes and upheld laws that denied thejewish people their most basic rights and enabled the nazis to perpetrate the worst crime in history." what did you think? how did you feel when you heard that? well, it's sad. i mean, this is the kind of typical invective that, um, sometimes, people retreat to. i know who i am. i went to a synagogue, i think i was six years old, with my late father and my mother in leeds. our dentist, or my father's colleague, dr rudy lever, was beautifully reciting the torah from the balcony upstairs. and i have, you know, engaged with thejewish community in so many different ways, respect the jewish teachings, like i do all religions. so there's not an ounce, not a jot, not a scintilla of truth in the charge of anti—semitism. but one needs to, and i think my responsibility is, i don't agree with the doctrine,

my country, right or wrong. i don't agree with, you know, that one's allegiance somehow prevents, um, an acknowledgement of, you know, there's no such thing as infallibility. and, um, you know, ourjob is to apply the law and not be dissuaded by these kind of cheap shots or criticisms that, manifestly, are false. we'll come back to the criticisms, because i'm sure you'll want a chance to answer them and other people will want to hear them put to you. but let's go back now to yorkshire. let's go back to mum and dad. the roots. god's own country! do you see things... yes, quite. my dad's a yorkshireman, so i know all about that yorkshire pride. do you see in your roots there something that explains that powerful sense that you have now, that you've got to stand up to injustice, that you need to fight it? well, you know, i'm... i think, like every listener, um, when you're blessed with loving parents, i think it's the biggest blessing one can have, with loving families.

um, you know, my father was from pakistan. my mother was a yorkshire lass. i was born in edinburgh, but, um, we moved back down to, uh, to yorkshire when my grandmother, my maternal grandmother, um, finally accepted my father when my eldest sister was born. my father moved back because he wanted the family to be in contact. and, um, you know, those were the days, you know, the �*70s, there were, you know, the uk is always evolving and, you know, "half—caste" and, uh, you know... and in pakistan, it was a white sheep. so i think it's... presumably, the danger was you were rejected by both sides. your father's from pakistan originally and a muslim. your mother's white and from yorkshire... yes. ..and originally christian, though she converted. so the danger was that everybody thought they'd

let themselves down. well, not quite as stark as that but, you know, i think what it taught is i saw the elegance and the sincerity, the love of my mother and father and their truthfulness, their care for people of all communities. they faced persecution, didn't they? notjust because each had married someone from another community originally, but because the muslim community that your parents belonged to after your mother converted is itself persecuted here and, indeed, back in your father's home in pakistan by other muslims. in pakistan, you're right, this community that i belong to. which is? the ahmadiyya muslim community. our motto is "love for all, hatred for none", and are declared non—muslims. it's a crime to call ourselves a muslim, to call a mosque a mosque. many people have been killed. family members have been attacked, shot at. your family members? yes, yes, indeed. so there's been, er, over the period, the community at large is heavily persecuted. and that persecution is felt here in the uk.

yes. your own parents, your own family here. yes. so my parents were very active in the community and we used to have, as a community, we still have very active interfaith. so there was an event i remember, i was down in london, in fact, already, but in batley, and batley town hall, and it was an interfaith event. so thejewish community, hindu and sikh and zoroastrians and others would come, christians. and the police had advised them to cancel it. so it was on the morning. so my mother and my father and my brother, my two brothers and my cousin, who's a local gp, were there just to tell people, you know. and there were these, uh, in those days, this organisation called khatme nabuwwat, which is finality of the prophet. and they'd come down to wembley conference centre and then to birmingham, and they'd go to the areas with concentrations of the pakistani, largely muslim community. and basically, they came in and they started assaulting, you know, my father

and my mother were hit. my cousin was knocked unconscious. and they retreated to the police station. and mullah stood on the ambulance and said, "we'll burn down the police station." and the desire to do international law came, you said, from watching the television, from watching a war, from watching the dreadful scenes after the break—up of yugoslavia. yeah, it did have a profound effect on me because in the �*90s, you'll remember the pictures from sarajevo, or the awful scenes, allegations of rapes and executions and detention camps in the former yugoslavia. my parents did quite a lot with refugees that were coming in, the community also, trying to help, you know, humanitarian assistance. and then you just saw this... i think thatcher had just left and there was basically an arms embargo. and you just saw these awful reports and it seemed that morality, by itself, you know, a kind of idea that never again should demand a different type of response

to civilians being targeted. i think it was just very obvious. i think everybody who could see that moment thought, this can't be allowed to happen again. and yet, it did happen, against all odds, the united nations. that was a moment, after the berlin wall had fallen, where people, a new world seemed very possible, driven by these higher principles, these normative values, and against all odds, with all the stalemate on political concrete solutions, the united nations security council created the yugoslav tribunal. and, you know, i was incessant in throwing my hat in the ring. so that brings us, then, to the decisions you make after you become chief prosecutor of the international criminal court. but before we get to israel and gaza, putin — the first big controversy that means that karim khan is in the news is the decision to issue an arrest warrant for notjust a world leader,

but the leader of one of the five permanent members of the security council. how difficult a decision was that? well, i'll go back. i met the prosecutor general of ukraine in december 2021, and i told her at that time i didn't have any intention of opening a situation. we didn't have resources, and ukraine had not ratified at the time. and we had so many other responsibilities. and i personally did not think, you know, i'm not a political analyst. i didn't think it made any sense for the russian federation to go into ukraine. but when it did and we saw, you know, the allegations that were coming from that area and the various risks involved, i thought it was quite straightforward that we should, you know, open an investigation. ithink, again, applying

the equal yardstick of the law, it wasn't complex because you just look at what's said, you look at what the law requires, you look at what's done, you see what's not being done, and it leads to a conclusion. it's not a, you know, um, equation, simultaneous equation to balance, but it, you know, they're difficult, knowing the consequences. you've got to... it's very sad. permanent member of the security council. russia's a great country. literature. music. founder of the united nations. um, an important role against fascism. gave no joy. didn't give a thrill. it's a sad day when a permanent member of the security council, the leader of a government, has to be subject to an application for arrest. did you think... do you think now that they'll ever see the cord, that they'll ever actually face a trial? i am not as pessimistic as people say, but at the same time, ourjob is to apply for the warrants and states have to try to execute it.

yes, president putin yesterday went into — or day before — went into mongolia. they didn't execute the arrest warrant. he didn't travel. he, in the end, did not travel to south africa. but we've seen... just explain to people who don't know, you're the prosecutor. you're not thejudge. you've either got to get thejudges to agree to an arrest warrant, and then you've got to get individual states who are members of the international criminal court to carry out the arrest, to deliver whoever it is to the hague, to the icc. absolutely. and mongolia, at the first test, invite putin and do nothing. absolutely. and by the same token, it's the first time he's travelled since the warrant to a state party, since the warrant was issued by the judges. but to the main question. people really laughed or, you know, um, thumbed their noses when the yugoslav tribunal sought warrants for karadzic and mladic, never mind milosevic. they looked away

as a fool's errand. when the special court of sierra leonejudges issued warrants against president charles taylor. but history has shown that those individuals who were very powerful in their countries, in their regions, they did see the inside of a courtroom. so history does show, with persistent... hissene habre, in the african special court. you know, there are many examples also that the space for doing what you want of untrammelled power, unfettered by some higher responsibilities, is becoming a smaller space. and what we have to show is that compliance is in the interests of the international community, but ultimately, for the people that hold power in these moments in time. so to be clear, you're saying, in effect, milosevic of serbia, karadzic, the leader of the bosnian serbs, they were prosecuted. there is every reason to think — to hope,

at least — that one day, president putin will be in the international criminal court and found guilty? nothing is permanent. life is transitory and every political life ends in failure. as the saying goes. so these things sometimes are functions of politics, but also, of stamina, collective will and a demand that is something above us. and before we move on, have you spoken to the leaders of mongolia? the court is in communications with them, and i think on that, i will leave it because this is a process that is under way. let's turn back, then, to israel and gaza and remind people that you did, of course, announce at the time you sought arrest warrants against israel's prime minister and the defence minister that you were also seeking arrest warrants against three leaders of hamas, two of them now dead. one of the criticisms that was raised against you then was a false equivalence, the german government said your actions gave a false impression of equivalence. now, this was an argument or narrative that was peddled. the idea of equivalence, um,

really is conjured up. i mean, i've been to those kibbutzim, i've spoken to the families of those that were ripped from their homes, who've lost their loved ones, whose family members remain hostages. and those vile acts require investigation, and that underpins the applications for warrants. but the truth of the matter is, what could i have done if one had applied for warrants for hamas and not against, uh, looked at the evidence? if the evidence compelled action in israel. when at that time, 30,000 plus, 40,000 people had been killed in gaza, they'd say, well, this is a weak court that is influenced, a weak prosecutor, influenced by power dynamics. if one had applied for warrants in relation

to israeli officials and not for gaza, they'd say, well, this is an obscenity, that how on earth is that possible? i think we did what was right. we had evidence that we carefully scrutinised. we put in place additional measures, you know, in terms of the rigour that was required, the threshold determination that i must be... that i found was met, that the panel i appointed found was met, and we applied on that basis. so i think, nick, i think that that argument really is, um, a degree of subterfuge, it's raised by those that don't want any action at all in the situation. well, the other criticism that is made, as you know, and has recently been made by a coalition of lawyers who speak up for israel here in the uk, is that you're ignoring new evidence. that when you talk, for example, of a total siege of gaza, they say, not true, border crossings have been

opened for aid deliveries, and that you should present this new evidence to the court, to thejudges, before they make theirjudgement. yes, i saw that. i mean, i had my first letter from the bar standards board of england and wales that regulates barristers. because just to explain, this was effectively a threat, saying that because you weren't doing what they said you ought to do, you should be disbarred. yes. as a barrister in britain, if you ever choose to come back and operate within the law. yes. no, i mean, i had one complaint. i was notified that the bar standards board dismissed one from some others, but on broadly the same lines at the beginning of the month. and, yes, this was a threat. we know our ethical responsibilities under the bar code of conduct, also as the elected prosecutor of the icc. um, we have submitted evidence. we've considered evidence. we have a duty to investigate incriminating and exonerating evidence equally.

you see, nick, i have one advantage, at least. hopefully, even they will concede. i've seen the evidence. they haven't. the application is not public. it is confidential. well, it's an interesting point you raise there because you're saying the evidence you've presented to the judges is private. um, but here you are, in a television and a radio studio. you're a very public figure. and there are some people who are sympathetic to the international criminal court, people who believe in internationaljustice and say, the problem with karim khan, the chief prosecutor, is he's too much in the spotlight. he shouldn't be so public. people shouldn't know. he should just be doing this privately with the courts. and they accuse you now of trying to even put pressure on your own judges in that court to do what you want them to do. well, i think if anybody knows the judges of the court, they will know that they have experience and they've been elected by states

in the same way that i have. but... there's been 13 previous cases where announcements were made by my predecessors before warrants were issued. it happened by the first prosecutor in libya, in kenya, in sudan and in others. i did it in georgia and there wasn't a whisper. i take the view generally that if there's an immediate arrest opportunity, there's a very strong argument for filing confidentially because there may be an arrest opportunity. when there's not, the balance should be in favour of deterrence. the new british government, the new british prime minister, of course, like you, a former prosecutor here in the uk, he's changed his attitude to your court, the international criminal court, hasn't it?

the british government under rishi sunak said, we don't approve of this approach. keir starmer has said he does approve. how important is it, this change in the british government's attitude? well, the former government was very supportive on a variety of work and, for example, i attended ministerials in london and in the hague with the foreign secretary and the deputy prime minister then supporting what the court was doing, what i was doing in ukraine. yes, there's a difference of tone and i think of substance in relation to international law by the new government. and i think that's welcome, because my own view is that this country that i love as a brit, as an independent prosecutor, is a country that is defined by doing the right thing, by founding conventions, whether it's the european convention of human rights or being a founding member of the international criminal court, and be seen striving to be better, to be constantly being a better version of itself. it's not easy. sometimes, it brings

you in conflict. very often, both sides of an argument will detest you, hate you, or be unsatisfied. but that quest to have a compass, a moral compass, a legal compass which is of general application, i think that's what we need to, as a country, to have a leading voice in the world. i think it's what's needed by all permanent members of the security council, and i think it's definitely welcome as prosecutor of the icc. what finally about you, karim khan, what about your family? we talked about the warning that you face. there has been well—documented evidence of israel's security services trying to spy on you and your staff. president putin has a track record, we know, of targeting people abroad who he doesn't much agree with. how frightening a position is it for you to be in? you know, um, i don't take it as frightening, and one is concerned about the organisation. one is concerned about the mandate and staff and family. um, again, maybe it's a function of experience orfamily.

i mean, all of us know that. i mean, george bernard shaw said, the tragedy of man is a genius tethered to a dying animal. we're all going to end up in a grave one day. i think it's trying, in the moments we have, to, with all the fallibilities, with all the missteps and stumbles along the way that's part of being human, trying to do the right thing. and in the end, i think, you know, public life at large, whether one is a politician or whether one is a domestic prosecutor orjudge, human rights defenders around the world are facing difficulties. it's about having an opportunity to do something that counts. karim khan, chief prosecutor of the international criminal court, thank you forjoining me on political thinking. no, great honour. thanks so much. "i am just a lawyer,"

he says, "i'm just looking at the evidence. i'm just trying to ensure that international law is carried out, thatjustice is done and seen to be done." that is what he says. but of course, if he does get his way, if ever, benjamin netanyahu and his defence minister, if putin, if the leaders of hamas are arrested and face trial for war crimes, he will change politics, change the world dramatically. thank you for watching. hello there. it's been a cool and misty start to the weekend along the east coast of scotland, and that haar is moving inland through the central belt. other parts of scotland and northern ireland enjoyed a lot of sunshine again on saturday, and temperatures into the mid—20s. for england and wales,

the weather is changing. this area of low pressure moving up slowly from the south brings the threat of some rain, which could be heavy and thundery for a while, and we've got this wetter weather developing in the midlands, heading northwards into northern england. some further rain in wales and the south—west. the midlands and eastern england may be brightening up with some sunshine — that could trigger one or two thundery showers, mind you. some rain coming into the south—east of scotland and there will be more cloud for scotland and northern ireland, so temperatures aren't going to be as high. a noticeable change in that northerly wind for northern ireland. much cooler here, where we get some sunshine in england. temperatures not too bad for the time of year. that area of low pressure bringing the threat of some rain, then starts to move away overnight and into monday. we're left with a lot of cloud to begin the day for eastern parts of england. a little rain in that that's retreating towards the south—east. other areas seeing some sunshine for a while, before we've got some cloud and patchy

rain into the far north of northern ireland and western scotland later on in the day. but it's cooler, fresher air. it's not going to feel as humid and temperatures are going to be lower across the board to start the week. and if anything, the winds are going to strengthen. it will feel cooler still as we move into tuesday. this deeper area of low pressurejust running to the north of scotland, bringing some wet weather into here through much of the day, and a weather front will sweep down across england and wales on tuesday. short spell of rain here, followed by some sunshine and some showers up towards the north—west, but the winds are going to be stronger on tuesday. the strongest winds will be in scotland, in the north and north—east of the country. the winds could be gusting 50, maybe even 60 miles an hour. that, of course, will add to this cooler, fresher feel. so temperatures are ranging from 13 to 18 degrees. and that north—westerly wind, once it arrives, is going to be with us really through much of the week ahead, bringing with it an autumn chill, maybe even a bit of snow over the top of the scottish mountains. huge change from the mid—20s that we've seen in scotland and northern ireland, and that colder air moves its way further south across england and wales.

live from london. this is bbc news. sir keir starmer meets with his irish counterpart in dublin aiming to reset their countries�* relationship post—brexit.

in his first major interview since the election, the pm tells the bbc the tory government "broke the nhs". everybody watching who has used the nhs know that it's broken. they know it's broken. it's unforgivable, the state of the nhs. the last government broke the nhs. re—affirming the special relationship — the us secretary of state is to head to the uk on monday. post office campaigner sir alan bates marries his partner suzanne on sir richard branson�*s necker island. and the sweetest of sounds — did the sugababes turn it "round, round" at radio 2 in the park? hello, i'm kasia madera. it's five years since a british prime minister visited the republic

of ireland, after tensions over