join me every thursday on the alex simon sure and i'll be speaking to us from the world of politics or business i'm sure business i'll see you then. this hour's top stories from r.t. around partially suspends the twenty fifteen nuclear agreement and takes an immediate hit from washington with another round of sanctions in response to terror . reaction in europe sees france threaten iran with sanctions over its part withdraw all other e.u. nations are calling on turn around to refrain from taking any aggressive steps. polls are closing right now in south africa and what's being seen as the biggest election in decades as the incumbent ruling party looks set to hold power we look at how divided political life in the country is and the possible implications of the vote. in the french telecom giant orange is sued for moral harassment with

prosecutors arguing the company created intolerable working conditions that led to thirty five civil sites. in moscow welcome to world news this hour first for you the future of the historic twenty fifteen iranian nuclear agreement is hanging by a thread after a number of twists this wednesday washington's tighten the screws further on iran with a new round of sanctions after terence a powerful withdrawal from the pact the reason being it says to protect itself or stressing that the deal should be saved europe's urge to run to avoid taking any aggressive steps all the more on the latest developments on the political reaction from our correspondents kate partridge in london and kelly morgan in new york. washington is talking about full pressure on iran and we're hearing from washington that there will be new sanctions imposed on iran at some point very soon

furthermore there have been some military developments we've got u.s. aircraft carriers headed toward the region as well as being fifty two bombers now iran has announced a partial withdrawal from the nuclear deal citing the fact that they say the united states has violated the agreement and at this point iran is asking for european countries to compensate them for the damage done by the usas withdrawal they have yet to be compensated so they're waiting for that we have an announcement from iran that they intend to no longer sell off the excessive enrich uranium and have the water that they're required to dispose of if production exceeds a certain threshold and now at this point we've got the u.s. special envoy for iran brian hook saying that terrans announcement on the nuclear deal is in defiance of international norms now iran is basically giving sixty days to european countries it will negotiate with them and move forward and at this

point ideas being widely pointed out that iran has fully complied with the nuclear deal that the u.n. nuclear watchdog the international atomic energy agency oversaw the fact that iran was fully complying with the deal that did not deter the united states from withdrawing this point we've got foreign minister for iran saying that the ball is in europe's court the european countries will ultimately determine what happens next. not the e.u. signature ease have been complying with the opel occasions if they comply with these implications iran will be able to guarantee the future life of the joint comprehensive plan of action while the united states has withdrawn from the j c p o a nuclear conclusion u.s. officials have stated as they have stated before that they would be open to renegotiating and coming up with a new deal that would be more fav. rable to the united states but at this point iran is giving the european countries sixty days they have partially withdrawn from the deal saying that with the u.s.

pulling out a lot of damage has been done to their economy with banking and industrial sanctions that they have basically i want to be compensated for the u.s.a.'s withdraw ok thanks for that let's see what's been happening across the atlantic part which is an r.t.s. london bureau either the trap between the u.s. and iran right now what have we been hearing from europe where europe admits that so far iran has complied with the twenty fifteen nuclear deal but the trumpet ministration clearly think the opposite the germans they believe that the deal is there to be saved and they've urged iran not to take what they call any aggressive acts in the meantime in the hope that this deal can still be saved well at the same time iran is still being threatened by sanctions by jeremy hunt the u.k. foreign minister as he said in his press conference following the meeting with u.s. secretary of state might come pay of iran has agreed to vital compliance measures if they break the deal and there will be consequences in terms of how european powers react so we urge the iranians to think very long and hard before they break

then there was an interesting moment in the press conference when a journalist asked jeremy hunt whose side are you on well the u.k. foreign secretary perhaps diplomatically didn't answer that question but might pump a zero oncet it for him to parlor game that gets played we're on the same side we're on the side of values driven democracy we're on the side of freedom we're on the side of creating a nation for the iranian people where they can have religious freedom and they can have a democracy we're on the side of europe so they can exist without assassination campaigns being conducted its own capitals were on the side together well ever since the us reimpose those sanctions last year it's been biting times economically for the people in iran the european countries have decided to try and find a way to help iran by implementing what they call the. system which was a way of perhaps circumventing sanctions providing humanitarian aid in the form of food and pharmaceuticals that the u.s.

is might compare say is in agreement with this as long as it doesn't contravene the rules and therefore if he does with them be subject to sanctions well in the meantime the french have also come up with their response saying just like the germans that urging the iranians not to follow any aggressive moves jadzia refit was in moscow to meet foreign minister sergey lavrov to discuss the iran issue and he said that russia had always backed up iran a stance that was reiterated by saturday lover of. unfortunately this is typical of our american colleagues whether it's in the middle east the persian gulf or in venezuela it's distressing during my meeting with u.s. secretary of state mike from people in finland on monday i called on him to employ diplomacy rather than issued threats when it comes to challenging situations where the question now for all the twenty fifteen signatories is a case of who do you choose who do you go with when you back the u.s. or when you back iran of logical commentator shabbir has an r.v. says europe hasn't lived up to its commitments under the agreement. america has

walked out of the deal and it's literally throwing kerosene and burning the deal by making these secondary sanctions and everything and europe sits there and it makes all of these sort of statements and it pays a lot of lip service to the whole thing but there's no real tangible results coming out of europe the only people that have been giving iran tangible results has been russia and china that have continued transacting with iran and arguably india but europe itself is like it's all wishy washy many european companies who are doing business in iran i've decided they need to leave even vote in states was put in place to help them continue to transact and you know you have all of this double speak going on unfortunately from europe europe has not lived up to its commitments and it really all iran is doing is saying to europe that look you guys have did that for far too long we've tolerated it for a very long time now you need to now you know actually do something because this is just like causing more and more problems. polling stations are closing across south

africa the most being called by some the most crucial election that in more than twenty years a record forty eight posse's have thrown their hat into the ring with three considered as front runners polls published last month suggested the ruling african national congress will stay in power the centrist democratic alliance looks set to put up a good fight people still fall well short and there's also the far left economic freedom fighters who are expected to double their votes since the last election ashraf garda the co-founder of the champion south africa movement says the incumbent president is being given a second chance. it could well be the first sign of the ruling party this one every election since one thousand nine hundred four may well lose hold of the election that means either gets below fifty and be voted out of power or get very close to that and have to form a coalition with another party to stay in power so that is the is the key significant point if the former president of the a.n.c. or the government of south africa president zuma at the time was still in power i

would. you know i'm almost certain the sea of old would fall below fifty percent we've had now the deputy former deputy president still in a pause as the president he was the choice ironically of nelson mandela to be the present of the country all those years ago there's a sense that people are going to give him a chance to see if we can fix up the problems of the party now the point you've raised is not something being silently discussed is being openly discussed from within the a.n.c. there is an agency that needs massive reformation and the sense they selling is that. is your main ruling party's popularity is waning over a perceived failure to address key issues has come under fire for failing to combat high employment that currently stands at twenty seven to thirty percent also the fight against crime has been key to campaigning theft and murder rates have been on the rise there were probably the most contentious issue has been that of land reform seventy one percent of private farmland is in the hands of white farmers and some parties are suggesting they be removed from the land without compensation one

of those who's calling for that kind of reform is a julius malema he's the leader of the far left economic freedom fighters the party i'm a name has previously been convicted of hate speech and inciting violence against the country's white community he's also been expelled from the incumbent a n c for sowing racial divisions back in twenty twelve but he's been back in the spotlight in recent months with some fiery rhetoric. white people you will very much. we are godly to seat do you know what. does. that do you know. who are these supposed to eat. i am a fast that's. why we don't care. why not. why don't you do you know what time i'm saying to you we're not called for the killing of way

people. at least for now i can go over to the future and i must come under fire for stoking racial tensions during his campaigning again says the candidate charged logan's come close to crossing the line. of course speaks of very non racial lines on the one hand but he makes no bones about the fact that he is there to serve the black masses the black this and french ice masses and i think that's absolutely understandable but he feels very close to the wind in making certain comments of the latest one about the seat at the front table i understand the imagery the reality is it could well drum up people to believe literally that's what he means if we don't sit with you we destroy the table and that in a racially charged environment is unacceptable more so as we know on election day. brussels to slam turkey's decision to rerun the mayoral election in the country's biggest city istanbul turkish president's party lost at sea there last month and now the top diplomat among others in europe have stressed that the blocks good

relations with turkey are based on core principles. ensuring a free and transparent election process is essential to any democracy and at the heart of the european union's relations with china. was some rallied in support of president decision to go back to the polls others have branded it an attack on democracy recount confirmed a narrow victory for the opposition candidate in istanbul however electoral college is a national the second vote. heard last hour from alan scared an emeritus professor from the london school of economics who told us the position is hypocritical. for brussels to pretend it's a birth free of democracy and likes transparent elections is really ironic every time against in the referendum the country is forced to the second referendum in order to get the royal snows then has to be persuaded to vote yes this was done

when. danes. strict it was done twice to oil and would put it against first fooled the nice treaty in the discipline treaty your first not very democratic we've seen that in catalonia. when you have a referendum the people who want to. suddenly seized by the police and put in jail the trial in greece when they had the referendum with doing the bare crisis the european union ignored it and forced the prime minister to ignore it so the record or democracy is not very good. french telecoms giant orange and several of its current and former top bosses are standing trial in paris they're accused of moral how recent of creating a work environment which prosecutors say led to dozens of employee suicides over ten years ago shoulder to bensky takes a closer look at the case. a decade a wave of suicides helped lift the lid on what was happening in one of france's

biggest telephone companies now known as the global telecoms giant orange x. employees claimed they were subjected to moral and psychological harassment all in a big to make leave the company that was undergoing major restructuring. we will ensure that this trial is not only an opportunity to convict for institutional moral harassment which will lead to compensation for the moral prejudice of the victims but we will also fight to have the question again about the violence that was perpetrated not on dozens but on thousands and thousands of employees at that time and france telecom. that climate it's quite by some as being a brutal is said to have pushed thirty five workers to take their own lives between two thousand and eight and two thousand and nine one thirty two year old woman threw herself from her office window at the paris h.q. another fifty seven. old set temp self alight in

a company car park twelve more attempted to take their own lives including beatrice . i have been in the state of survival for more than ten years especially after my desperate gesture on april twenty six to eleven on the orange internet concent on the same day as my colleague from board who set himself on fire after a long way to their day in court has finally come in senior executives past and present and now facing charges mainly related to moral harassment organized at the company's leadership level while the company doesn't don't know why the suffering of employees does deny having implemented a policy designed to destabilize teams charges if proven could result in a year in prison and a fine of fifteen thousand euros a point that is angered victims and their loved ones. that the term manslaughter

has not been used in view of the damage suffered by the victims what they have experienced and also in view of the low penalties incurred this also could this trial could open old wounds. what do we expect from this trial to try and understand why why they push people over the edge and it mustn't happen again somewhere else we can't accept that policeman a doctor a farmer kills himself because of a job and people need to understand that human beings are more important than money today orange points out that internal surveys show that eighty eight percent of employees say they are proud to work for the company that compares to only thirty eight percent back in two thousand and ten but for many a former employees the dog days are not yet. arty paris. the un stepped in on

a case between the mediterranean island of malta and three teenagers who are facing terrorism charges the african nationals have been accused of hijacking an all time off the coast of libya back in march they are due to appear in court later this month but the u.n. believes the charges don't fit the crime. we call on the authorities in malta to reconsider the terrorism charges laid against three teenagers who were arrested on the twenty eighth of march following the docking of the el his blue one commercial vessel in the country in spite of the fact that two of the miners all three of the accused were held in the high security division of an adult prison after they were reportedly interrogated by the authorities we have made our concerns clear to the maltese authorities about the treatment of the three young migrants and what we believe to be exaggerated charges against them three teenagers accused of hijacking the blue one after the tanker had rescued one hundred african migrants from another vessel but after finding out that they were heading back to libya its claim the suspects ordered the captain to set sail for multi multi special ops lay to gain

control of the ship and escorted it to the shore the teenagers deny the charges but could face up to thirty years in prison if they're convicted malta's defended the case stressing that it's in full accordance with international law while in an interview shortly after the incident the tankers captain described what happened during the incident at sea they all brought heavy metal tools and started to beat and smash the ship and threaten that they would leave the ship in pieces they attack the cockpit heavily beating on the doors in the windows and they threaten to smash the boats they went nuts and they were screaming and shouting go back go back it was horrible i didn't care much about the boat but the crew members. to discuss all the handling of this i'm joined by political commentator david vance and best who's the former c.e.o. of the u.k. to immigration advisory service telephone welcome to r.t. first of all the case although it might be a smaller risk isn't there a danger that if malta drops these charges there's a concern that it if not give the green light but it might allow others to think

that hijacking a vessel might be a way to get to where they want to go in those desperate circumstances that refugees are in the mediterranean. well i think the maltese of put themselves in a very difficult position precisely for the reason you make if they step down now it's going to make them look weak and also maybe draw some people to the conclusion you just set out but the u.n. is absolutely right in law or in my international maritime law to challenge this i mean let me put on one side the clearly appalling treatment that these young men have treated have been treated to once they actually arrived in malta in the allegations about not being able to get access to a lawyer and things of that put that entirely on one side as a separate issue and look entirely at the whole question of this allegation of hijack the captain of that ship will have been only too well aware of his obligations under maritime law or both under the convention of the law of the sea

also search and rescue at sea convention and the safety at sea convention as world of that he was under an obligation having picked up the these migrants to land them at a safe port my understanding was that he was trying to take them back to libya which clearly was not a safe port and would have been in breach not only of the principle of non reform and for refugees but also in breach of his obligations under maritime law keith overreacting. i think they are overreacting i think they are trying to send a political message just as the italians tried to when they ended monterey nostrum which was the the scheme whereby they were picking up the thousands of people who were trying to get from north africa across and the problems that were faced by the island of lampedusa i think the maltese are doing this for political reasons but

that doesn't sit very squarely i'm afraid with the human rights of the individuals involved david how would you assess malta's handling of this we're talking about youths here too are under-age the people on that ship were showing signs of having been tortured they smashed up the ship yes they were threatening violence it seems against any of the people on board is it right to regard this is terrorism and. literally is terrorism. and you know we're this were this a commercial aircraft would anybody be suggesting it was anything than an act of terrorism and if it's a vessel at sea the logic flow is exactly the same i mean this raises some very fundamental and disturbing questions about the united nations human rights agency agency because essentially what they're trying to suggest is that how actually guess what piracies ok and of course it's not so mulder absolutely within their rights to take this action against these people and as you play it in your report

column at the top of the story i mean this was very violent behavior to take control of the vessel if that's not certainly piracy i mean we could argue the semantics about terrorism but i mean isn't piracy terrorism or perhaps in the strange world of the united nations piracy is ok so long as those carrying out or it claim to be refugees when a natural fact everybody understands that the particular route concerned from libya . to europe is one well travailed by people smugglers so i would suggest that here we have the u.n. enabling people smugglers trying to destroy the rule of law on a no or no basis call and cannot be considered anything other than a scandal that's where we need to direct the questions not to the government of malta. keith most people would equate hijacking with terrorism in this day and age

with my. well. first of all you can draw analogy was aircraft and ships the laws are completely different governing what captain should and should not do and if you look at as i've already mentioned the the law of the sea these people were picked up as migrants they were therefore put themselves into a category recognized by international law of the sea whereby they need to be safeguarded treated carefully and reasonably and furthermore put ashore at a safe location that's all very well documented in our national roar and the captain would have known about that david. i'm the captain and keith the problem is here that the captain having done the humanitarian thing and rescued these and of these individuals from a perilous situation the captain tried to do the right thing and bring them back to

the port from which they had sailed the gratitude sean was to try to hard to hijack his vessel and i don't understand your logic that says hijacking is ok in certain conditions and not in others they tried to illegally take control of this vessel now whether you like it or not keith that is an illegal act just as these were illegal immigrants and therefore it seems really bizarre that the u.n. six to actually alberich it the rule of the rule of law in as far as this area is concerned and that's very disturbing it's almost like anybody who rocks up on the borders of europe can come in and you seem to think that's a good idea i think it's a very dangerous idea and it's one that we should absolutely kick back against. now are not to have are not advocating hijacking of course. where where people deliberately set the souls in a position where they try to take control of any vessel whether it's an aircraft or

a ship or indeed land transport and try to force it to do their own bidding then that clearly. it's a question of whether it's terrorism or hijacking or it can come under a variety of different. categories but they're there are they are illegal categories like setbacks entirely but you have to actually look very carefully at the facts here these people as david you rightly say were being rescued by the captain now i don't know and i don't think you know where that captain was actually aiming to take them that will have to come out as we see a full inquiry into this even the cattle killed himself and you you heard i understand. they kept him in so was was was was actually saying yes they were indulging in violence and one deplores that but but nothing more than that. but of course you know that i think perhaps kate we have the common ground it

clearly was an act of piracy to take control of a vessel that sea from the lawful owner of thought vessel it is piracy so there's no ambiguity about it that night as regards what the captain tried to. walk to the shores of. david just let's take it stage by stage you say it's an act of piracy yes it can be an act of piracy yeah but you will also be aware that where people are in a particular category i mean these people didn't set off with sort of bomber jackets and armed up to the teeth in order to deliberately hijack a ship these were people who were principally fleeing now whether they are true refugees or not within the meaning of the convention is something on which i would have sinned adjudication yes a higher saying say that but but but these people are in a different category where is recognised in international maritime law.

but to put keith with with all due respect you well i think you actually have admitted that you have no idea or have i who are these people came from because presumably ours is the kids are not part of the world passports and other forms of identification were not were not readily available on them so so we have these people with no proven identity seeking to take control illegally of a vessel in the mediterranean the captain tries to bring a vessel back to the shores of libya which is where they came from and we're even having a debate on this of course it was lawful for the calcuttan to do that but i mean should the captain let me pause at this scenario to you kate would you have prepared preferred that the captain of the maltese vehicle just let them draw on but that have been preferential no big because again as you well know david that would be contrary to international law or humanitarian law apart from anything to do with with the law of the sea so what hijackings let's just apply how do i know

and just let's apply a little bit of common sense here i mean these were people who were leaving their own or of north africa in a high class speed boat armed to the teeth with the deliberate intention of trying to hijack a vessel these people were in a very poor craft which had to be rescued they had to be rescued by the captain he wasn't going to go and rescue them if they provided by smugglers flying flying the jolly roger and saying we're going to board you and actually possession of your ship of course not you have to apply common sense but the issue. but common sense case can be applied in a different way commonsense and this scenario can be applied and insofar as these individuals you're suggesting you know they just somehow you manage still appear in the mediterranean no that is a that particular route is much used by treaty by people smugglers who i'm sure you and i would disagree we would believe absolutely deplorable and also lawful of

course and who also there was a little easels along the road this was a. let me finish keith i didn't interrupt you there you go let me finish there was no interrupt me this was a rate much used by people smugglers and it seems to me that you and the united nations seems to think it annoyed ridge that a legal maltese vehicle number one off for them humanitarian help and their sinking vessel which no died cause them many thousands of pounds each i think it's two and a half thousand points keith per one way trip if you want to check the facts in this one the second instance brought them back to try to bring them back to libya before being hijacked in no world is hijacking anything other than criminal on lawful and against any standard of international law i'm surprised i have to tell you this hijacking isn't or was case against along you this is a point for me david you made the point for me you know thousands of people sadly have drowned in the mediterranean trying to escape some genuine refugees are those

economic migrants but nevertheless trying to escape you know some fairly foul regimes by crossing over from north africa law you made the point for me you said it's a route well trodden by people smugglers well who are the people buying or smuggling smuggling they are refugees they are people who are fleeing from other people know that of who don't know that i'm different you're assuming or have the right know you're not of their case examine gentleman just know it's illegal immigrants don't care if gentlemen just quickly just to get some final report from you. i would like to i don't know if illegal immigrants if there are asylum seekers. are you know the law wrong not eventually and if i could just get this to wrap up quickly david i wanted to ask you the captain must of respond however way he could with whatever read.