Im pleased to welcome both to this table. President trumps visit to france. Earlier today, yell the press conference with emmanuel macron. The tone compared to their initial meeting at the nato conference with the infamous strained handshake did point today to signs of improvement. How do you think the president is viewed in europe at the moment . You can look at the polls and they are pretty clear that President Trumps positions on a range of issues are a stark contrast to the Center Ground of european opinion. He stepped back from advocating that more countries should leave the European Union. But i think his decision with respect to the Paris Climate Accord struck very hard. I think what you are seeing is president macron setting a startling pace in the first 60 or so days of his presidency. He is out there establishing himself with Angela Merkel as a joint leader of europe, the real spirit of hope in europe at the moment. The french minister said britain has chosen brexit. America has chosen retreat. France has chosen hope. There is a real sense of boldness. I think he sees an opportunity in this british retreat for him to establish himself to be a hard power. He is not going to get hit from President Trump on meeting the obligation. The story of the day is partly why President Trump agreed to go but also the entrepreneurship of president macron inviting him in the first place. Do you think there is a strange similarity between president macron and President Trump . Both political outsiders. Both not originally part of a traditional local party. And now in quick succession leading their respective nations. President macron has broken the two main parties of french politics. Both are down to 30 seats each. I dont see immediate similarities. President macron is strongly committed to the united nations. President trump stepping away. One thing that will be interesting when the details come out of their meeting is from a french point of view what President Trump and the administration have been saying about a range of issues with respect to human rights. I wonder how that has been taken on. Matthew, in terms of a clear sense on bilateral relations rather than multilateral relations, is that a mistake . Can he achieve as much as the u. S. Would want to achieve through simple bilateral relations . I think it is both. I will not speak for the current president. My former boss, barack obama, was a great example of how you do both. David mentioned the climate accord. If progress in paris getting all those countries to sign on was spurred on by a bilateral deal between the United States and china. If you do both well, you can get good results. Today, President Trump did suggest there was a possibility in the future the u. S. Would return. That was not his best case. If i could jump in on something david said characterizing the french friends comment about what the United States is doing. I think it is important to say governors, mayors, companies in the United States are not retreating. They are engaging in many of them, in terms of climate, are living up to the targets and doing it for Good Business and political reasons, to protect the air, water, and land they care a lot about. I think we spend so much time on shows like this and everywhere else talking about the current administration. With good reason, i think it is important we do not lose sight of progress happening in other places. In terms of the g20 meeting, he wrote going into it the g20 was set up to address pressing problems and the refugee crisis was crying out for leadership. Did the refugee crisis receive that leadership . In a limited form. There was an important German Initiative in respect to aid for africa. It is massively underfunded. There are four famines threatened in africa at the moment. For the first time, the u. N. Has said it is the worst catastrophe in 40 or 50 years. There are four famines these famines are not because of lack of food but Political Division and conflict. War is producing the conditions that mean people do not have access to food and are not able to grow crops. There was an important g20 initiative around support for africa. If you compare the scale to the marshall plan, there is no comparison. It takes american engagement to turn what could be a marginal initiative into something that is really going to power forward. That is where i think people around the world are asking the question where is america going to put its effort . Is it only going to focus on the home front and put America First or is there room for engagement abroad . Has the u. S. Position on this issue changed since your boss left office . I think so, demonstrably. It is great to be home. I have been living with a selfimposed media blackout. The first few weeks, i went back and read some great books and watched some great documentaries. In late 1940, the brits are getting blitzed. We are staying out of it. Should we come to the aid of britain against hitler . Eight out of 10 americans say, no, thank you. That was the headline then. It is something we should keep in mind now. They asked the same people if we have to pick between coming to a separate peace with hitler or coming to the aid of our british friends, seven out of 10 said yes. Living in kentucky, it is a wonderful mix of republican, democrat, and independents. Sometimes it is lost people can have contradictions within them. Is your take on Public Opinion on this issue . I think it is polarized. People often say how hard is it to work for an n. G. O. At the time of backlash against refugees. In some quarters, theres fear of refugees. For every person the says we do not want refugees moving to our community, there is another part of the community saying we welcome people who are a victim of terror and want to make a new life. We run 26 offices around the u. S. There is polarization. You see that from the polling as well. You see the extraordinary american generosity coming through. People do come around with the cookies when they move in. You also have fear and loathing. As someone who is not an american, it is sad an issue that has been bipartisan for so long should now have this taint. America has been the leader in Refugee Resettlement for the last 60 years. Even after 9 11, the Bush Administration insisted it will be the place that welcomes people from around the world who want to go through the vetting and make a new life. I think it is very important. If the Trump Administration goes through with its plan to reduce to less than 50,000 the number of refugees let in, that sends a terrible message around the world. Uganda has one million refugees from south sudan. The average salary is 952 per year. Uganda is saying we will take them and look after them until they can go home. There is an important lesson there. In terms of something ive seen you talk about recently, the level of the issue you feel is underestimated because the length of displacement people experience has risen sharply. The average refugees out of the country for 10 years. Issues of employment and education become essential. The humanitarian sector does not invest in education. Less than 2 of the global humanitarian budget goes to education. You have millions of kids displaced from their homes by conflict and they are not able to get education. One of the things we argue for is we need more aid but we also need a better aid system. I think it is important to say those together. President macron has said he intends to keep an open dialogue with president putin and has had meetings already. Do you see the tone improving either way . No, because there are too many divided interests. The european interest is in finding ways to stand up. There are members of the European Union equally threatened by what they see as aggressive russia. I think tone matters. But substance matters more. I think we are at a dangerous time because the global system has been built over the last sunday five years and had an american anchor. It also had other multilateral institutions like the European Union. If you pull up the anchor, the boat starts rocking. That is the danger. It creates space. When the american anchor in the global space is not there, when there is unpredictability, if you are a small country is a good thing to have up your sleeve. If you are the worlds anchor, credibility is very important because you are the benchmark against what everyone else establishes their behavior. Especially with the russians, you do not want them testing you out. You want them to know in advance what your own positions are. Some of the difficulties of the Previous Administration were around the. I think it is important the russians do know europe is not going to put up with interference and is going to maintain its position on ukraine. That predictability from great powers is really important. At the risk of mixing maritime metaphors, i think ballast is a better one. I think a ballast in a ship can provide stability. I think anchor is not the right one. Anchor is fixed in time and place. I think the reality of our world in 2017 is it is not 70 years ago. A lot of things have changed. Sometimes i see people wanting a certain kind of American Leadership from the good old days. I think the kind of leadership needs to change. President obama was a wonderful example of how to manage change and provide stability through change. I like the ballast idea, but it becomes a dead weight. The agility you are speaking to is really important. The commitment has got to be there as well. That is where the multilateral and bilateral have got to reinforce each other. It will be a great pity if the u. S. Administration only sees the International System as one of bilateral transactions. It cannot be. It has to be a system that has its integrity. Charlies sailing viewers will be enjoying this show particularly. Iraqi forces recapturing mosul and the ceasefire of the last few days starting to be established in syria. Is that a groundbreaking change for that region in terms of progress, particularly in terms of what you look at the refugees or is it just a small start . Not yet. It is not yet groundbreaking. We have about 1200 people on the ground in syria. We have another several hundred in iraq. More in jordan and lebanon. I was in mosul in march of this year when some people were fleeing. Two things struck me very strongly. The people coming out of mosul are traumatized. They have lived for two and half years under tyrannical rule in fear of death. The level of trauma, physical trauma and mental bombardment. The second thing that is really important is if there is not serious politics that sunni communities in the middle east can buy into, if sunni communities feel ostracized or under pressure from shia militias and others and there is not a political route to defend themselves in iraq and syria, i am afraid there is going to be Fertile Ground for isis 2. 0 or isis 4. 0 to build on. That is why it is not a landmark. It will be a landmark when there is a credible sharing of power. In terms of how we got to this position in the first place, your former boss, tony blair, has refused to admit outright the war was a mistake and cause for the situation. Is that something you do admit . I think it was certainly a mistake. It was a mistake because of the fact the weapons of mass destruction were not there. It was also a mistake because strategically it did not take into account the position of iran. I am afraid to say it was a military mistake because the war in afghanistan was not finished. I think it is wrong to believe everything that has happened in iraq over the last 15 years is as a result of the invasion. But it is hard to explain anything in iraq without some recognition of the tumult caused not just by the war but the building of the piece was a terrible failure. I wanted to switch focus to memories of your time in the United Kingdom and ask your view on what difference it makes of having a separate head of state to head of government as the u. K. Has and specifically your memories of her majesty, the queen. Happy memories on that front. In your wonderful country, you have a different head of government and state. I was more reminded of how we in this country project onto our president aspects of both. And that is why you see the reaction of people who did not like my former boss and people who do not like the current president , they bring more to that in just policy disagreements. It gets to identity and lots of emotion. That is why i think it is really importantly never forget people always say, what do you think . It is important we ask how people feel too because that is a big motivator for all of us in our democracies. I got into trouble because i said out loud something you dont say to her majesty. I messed up. I think there may be double jeopardy. I dont think i will get in trouble for saying it again since i messed up once. There was this wonderful moment during my presentation of credentials. I used to work in the internet industry. We talked about technology. I commented because i came in with a top hat and coat, unusual for an american, all these people snapping pictures. The queen said they always used to have cameras to take a picture, but now it is really different. They have these phones and they always stay over their eyes. She said i miss seeing their eyes. That really struck me. Looking at that, you could think this is a oneway thing. The head of state and people snapping pictures. But there is a twoway connection happening and that connection matters. That really stuck with me. That is a wonderful memory. David, the leader of your former party it is not my former party. Questioning the relevance of the monarchy, would it be a mistake to get rid of the monarchy . The remarkable thing about the queen is how she has become this extraordinary figure of respect across every conceivable spectrum of british life. I would be amazed if anyone seriously entertained it. It reminds me of when i was getting briefed to present my credentials to the queen. This nice gentleman was telling me what would happen when. I was sitting with my wife. He said we like to tell all republicans. I must have set up the way you we acted you were referred to as a former member. He said i do not mean that kind of republican. I mean you people from republics. It was hilarious. We do not think of ourselves as americans as from a republic. You have spoken finally of your former boss wife, michelle obama. If she chose to run, would you choose to help her . I have no inside knowledge. I think she has ruled it out and so has your wonderful husband. I will add my voice to the chorus of people who think that would be a fantastic idea. David, youre still a member of the labour party. You might reenter british politics again . Some People Choose local parties because of what they believe in and not a career move. There is a danger for the u. K. In the discussion we have had is that we become the country that gets talked about for its monarchy and weddings and funerals and is not part of the International System. We both saw the power the u. K. Has in being part of the European Union with meetings a year after the brexit referendum. The brexit negotiations are running into terrible trouble. I think it is important for a Global Leader to hear from an elected representative that the u. K. Needs to play a part in Global Structures if it is to remain more than an object of friendship. It needs to be an object of partnership. It seems that is what is at issue in the serious stakes in the next 18 months when brexit gets negotiated. A closing thought. Is the United Kingdom and United States relationship weaker than it was between David Cameron and barack obama . David touched on an important point. Theres a funny metric the state department has. It is the measure of how many official visitors come through the capital. When i was sweden, it was not a big number. I think we had 24,000 official visit nights per year coming through london. It speaks to the depth of just the official government relationship. Forget the two heads of government and how they might get along. It is the intelligence services. It is our militaries. It is all of these things. That is just official government business. Then you layer on the economic ties and social and cultural ties. Those things are real and strong and they exist in the millions. And they are the ballast for this relationship. We are out of time. It has been a pleasure to speak to you. Mr. Ambassador, david, thank you very much. Charlie he once said the artists job is to be a witness to his time in history. For six decades, he served his role working across media including painting and photography. A new exhibition brings together more than 250 of these works. The retrospective was organized by the curator of painting and sculpture at the museum of modern art who joins me to talk about robert rauschenberg, one of the artists ive had the great pleasure to have known. When you think about him and his art and someone having this kind of retrospective or exhibit among friends within the other great artists like jasper johns. And john cage and trisha brown, the list of people he collaborated with is so fundamental to what we think of in terms of culture today. That is how we approached the project. We wanted to show he is an artist who made work in dialogue with other people, and together they laid the foundation for the art of our moment in time. Charlie what do you hope we will experience as we walk through this exhibition . A lot of things. One thing is i have always been skeptical about the idea of individual genius, that you go off and sit and think by yourself and have ideas alone visited by a female muse. That is not the way it works. That