Return to Transcripts main page


White House Targets China Trade, NAFTA; Trump, Putin Held Second, Undisclosed G20 Meeting; Report: Major Cyber Attack Could Cost $53 Billion; U.K. Gender Pay Gap Under Scrutiny; Mexico Tightens Security for U.S. Flights; Arab States Ease Demands to End Qatar Crisis;

Aired July 19, 2017 - 16:00   ET


[16:00:00] RICHARD QUEST, CNN HOST: There's the gavel. Three strong gavels at the end of a trading day on Wall Street that sees records for the

NASDAQ. Records for the S&P 500. Even though there's no record for the Dow it has close the day at the high point of the session. And it is

Wednesday. It's 19th of July.

Tonight, Donald Trump's White House sets the stage to transform its biggest trade deals. The dates have been announced.

The BBC sparks a debate on wage transparency after publishing the amount it's stars get paid.

I'm Richard Quest live from the world's financial capital, New York, where I mean business.

Good evening. We begin tonight with Donald Trump who is trying move on with his economic agenda as his presidency continues to be dogged by

Russia. According to the President, in action is not an option. As he's telling Republican lawmakers not to leave Washington until they managed to

pass health care reform.

However, you can't get away from the fact of what's happening with China. And top Chinese officials are currently in Washington. Part of Mr. Trump's

roadmap with Xi Jinping to establish a dialogue over trade.

You cannot ignore, however, this man, Vladimir Putin. The administration fending off questions about a previously undisclosed meeting the president

had at the G-20 with Vladimir Putin. These three men Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping the entire trade, political, geostrategic importance at the moment

swirling about the relationships between them and who said what to who at which meeting.

Jessica Schneider is in Washington for us tonight. Rarely have we -- if ever have we seen a complex scenario of relationships like this, which then

has to be put on top, Jessica, of the domestic agenda of healthcare, which is a mess is well.

JESSICA SCHNEIDER, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, right Richard. So, President Trump dealing with healthcare right here on the home front. But

now really being dogged, or his White House is being dogged by these questions about this previously undisclosed face-to-face and chat with

Russian President Vladimir Putin. So, the here's how it went down. The White House, they didn't disclose this nearly hour-long chat that happened

on July 7 at the G-20 Summit dinner until just yesterday. And that was only after global consultant Ian Bremmer, he revealed it in a TV interview.

Because some of the attendees of the meeting and the dinner, they were so stunned that President Trump pulled President Putin aside that they wanted

to tell someone about it. That was Ian Bremmer who did reveal it and now we know about it.

The White House though really is pushing back at this time saying it was brief. That it took place in the view of other world leaders, and said --

they put it this way, they said it's not only perfectly normal but also part of the president's duties to interact with the world leaders. That's

the way they're spinning it. However, the White House has acknowledge that President Trump, he spoke to President Putin through Russia's translator,

did not have one of his own. We also know that the President did not have any staff with him. So, of course, this meeting where there's also no

record because no one other than President Putin, President Trump and that Russia translator, nobody other than them was present. There's no record.

So, that is drawing a lot of scrutiny, Richard, at the same time when President Trump is trying to deal with healthcare on the domestic front.

QUEST: So, let's stay with this. As I've read the reports and all the reports of what happened there, it's not even the nature that he spoke to

President Putin or indeed that there was a single Russian translator that was present. It seems to be that they spoke for the best part of an hour.

Which must've been extremely odd for everybody else in the room to watch the two presidents chitchatting at the side of the dinner.

SCHNEIDER: Right, and what's interesting about that is, obviously, they thought it was odd at the time, that was July 7 -- what, that was about a

week and a half ago. So, we know that a few of these people, who were in attendance at the dinner, they then talk to that global risk consultant,

Ian Bremmer, who then revealed it on TV yesterday. So really, once again, the media or media reports forcing the White House's hand to disclose this


[16:05:00] But like you said, this wasn't just a little chitchat. We know earlier in the day, of course, it was acknowledged and we reported on it

that President Putin and President Trump they had that two hour face-to- face. So that was fine. But then of course, like you said, this second encounter later that evening at that dinner, it lasted for nearly an hour.

So, this wasn't just probably exchanging pleasantries. Talking about the weather. This may have been some really substantive issues. But of

course, there's no record on. There was no American or English translator and we have nothing to go on, on this. So really, there's shock coming

from here in the U.S. with lawmakers saying that this was just inappropriate. That this unfolded the way it did. And once again,

Richard, it raises these questions about any potential ties.

QUEST: Let me put it to you though. In the world of Trump presidency, will Americans care? Or will they just simply say, well, this is just the

media, fake media in many cases, once again getting hot under the collar. It is far better that Trump and Putin build a relationship and you know,

we'll work out in the future who said what, where, when and why.

SCHNEIDER: All right, we know that's the message at least that the President is trying to push. When this came out last night and all the

Cable News Network's or at least ours was talking about this nearly one- hour meeting, the president as he does, he took to Twitter. And he once again blame this on the media saying that we were calling it a secret

dinner. When in fact, at least at CNN, we did not call this a secret dinner. We call this an undisclosed meeting between Putin and Trump.

The question about whether or not Americans care, well you know, I mean President Trump's approval rating it's the lowest of any president I

believe since the polls have been taken. In the low to mid 30s. So yes, his approval rating at least is taking a hit. The question is are

Americans really oversaturated with these details. Are they oversaturated with the drip, drip, drip from this Russian investigation and all things

that come from it? That's probably another question. But we do know that his approval ratings are way down some of the lowest of the low. So, we'll

see how that translates.

QUEST: Lovely to have you on the program tonight. Thank you.

SCHNEIDER: Thanks, Richard.

QUEST: Jessica Schneider joining us from Washington.

We're going to stay in the United States with the Trump administration bashing Mexico and China -- as we talked about -- was a hallmark of Donald

Trump's campaign. Now the White House is taking steps to reestablish and rework those relationships. A date has been set for new NAFTA talks. The

U.S., Mexico and Canada will meet on August 16 in Washington. The Trump administration said its goal is to reduce the U.S. trade deficit with

Mexico. We talked about it last night. To rebalance, if you like, the terms of trade. While at the same time -- so you got there -- at the same

time you've got officials from China, in Beijing, are in Washington where there meeting with Wilbur Ross and Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary.

His part of the hundred-day plan from President Xi's visit to Mar-a-Largo in April.

Now, when you talk about the U.S., Beijing relationship, the Chinese say trade relations are sailing on the right course. U.S. Treasury Secretary

says they must find ways to make things more balanced.


STEVE MNUCHIN, SECRETARY OF TREASURY: We will have open and frank conversations about creating a more balanced, reciprocal trade and

investment relationship that provides a level playing field for our firms. And we will discuss economic and financial policies that will generate

healthy sustainable growth in our countries and globally.


QUEST: Richard Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, also, the author of "A World in Disarray." Which is the focus of an

upcoming documentary of the same name. Good to see you as always. The starting of NAFTA talks -- now we've got a bit of a roadmap. Now we've got

an idea what the goal is. How realistic is it to tinker with NAFTA as their hoping to do? Or is it going to require a full-scale renegotiation

which is not likely to happen?

RICHARD HAASS, PRESIDENT, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, some tinkering is obviously called for. The NAFTA agreement is a quarter of a

century old. It didn't even broach the subject of digital commerce. Lots of labor and environmental issues that can usefully be addressed. I think

so much of it, Richard, depends upon the attitude. Is it a genuine attempt to modernize and adapt a viable agreement? Or is it more attempt to sink

it? And in particular to obsess over the scale or size of a trade deficit. Which I think is an odd way to approach trade negotiations.

QUEST: And that's exactly what we heard there from Steve Mnuchin in terms of the China bilateral deficit. So, how do you answer the argument to the

new administration says is, look, it can't be fair trade. We have these huge bilateral deficits with China and with Mexico and those terms of trade

need to be rebalanced.

[16:10:06] HAASS: I wouldn't focus on the balance. I would focus on specific areas where people feel the playing field is not level. So, if

they're worried about currency manipulation, you're worried about tariff for nontariff barriers. You're worried about hidden subsidies, what have

you. Focus on those things rather than the net balance, which is irrelevant.

QUEST: Do you get the feeling that there is strategy behind these talks with NAFTA and of course, with China. Although, not much is likely to come

of these particular ones. Referring to your recent article on adhocracy, Donald Trump and the danger of adhocracy. They're making it up as they go


HAASS: I think they are making it up. But in trade it has been one of the rare areas of consistency in the administration. And what I think they're

doing is essentially doing a policy of some intimidation, some coercion. They're focusing on trade deficits and imbalances. And they're hoping that

they can get Mexico or China to do things. To essentially compromise uncertain positions less they face some kind of trade retaliation with the

United States.

QUEST: Stay with me on this issue about adhocracy. Are we seeing a perfect example of which you write so elegantly, with this ad hoc meeting

with President Putin with a single translator from the other side? Which to a neophyte in politics would say, what's wrong with that I'm getting to

know the man? But you say the political world is defined by relationships rather than transactions. And Donald Trump is comfortable with an approach

to winning his presidency on what worked for him in the private sector. That sort of chat work for him.

HAASS: Well, it won't work for him in foreign policy. Because governing is about relationships. And also governing is about tradeoffs. So, if

he's going to be speaking to a Russian leader he's got to think about the full menu of U.S./Russian relations and also U.S./Russian relations don't

take place in a vacuum. It's against the backdrop of North Korea, of Syria, of Europe, U.S. relations with allies. So, I'm not terribly

comfortable with the president of the United States sitting down with Mr. Putin without an American official present, without an interpreter, without

a notetaker and without talking points. I just don't think that kind of improvisation is the way to conduct foreign policy.

QUEST: So, the difficult question to try to finish with to you sir is, we might just have to get used to it. If that's the way he wishes to do it

and he is the president of the United States.

HAASS: Absolutely. He decides what's the style of decision-making and governing in his administration. But also, look at what happened with

healthcare. There are clear limits to this kind of adhocracy, improvisation, call it what you will, and it's not working for him. So

yes, he could stick with it for four years. There's no one that's going to force any decision-making system on it. But at some point, the results or

lack of results are going to speak for themselves.

QUEST: Good to see you, sir. Thank you, we're grateful that you give us time. Much appreciated.

HAASS: Appreciate it.

QUEST: Now, when I saw you at the start of the program I said there was no record on the Dow but there was on the S&P 500. Well, I haven't factored

in that very late surge in the Dow -- get right in there you can see -- that late surge on the Dow which took the market up some 66 points to

21,640. It's a record just by three points. We gained on the NASDAQ and the S&P also, which closed at record highs. The second straight days tech

stocks got the boost.

Peter Tuchman is with me from Quattro M. Securities at the New York Stock Exchange. Now, Peter, when I saw you earlier at the exchange you were very

keen that I understood that today's particular gains are more significant been just a rally in the market.

PETER TUCHMAN, FLOOR BROKER, QUATTRO M. SECURITIES: I absolutely think so. Look, yesterday we had a record close after a nice big selloff due to

what's going on a little bit in Washington and the healthcare problems. Today, we had two choices. We could've hit up against that level as a

resistance and basically faded and rolled over. Or we could have surge through it. Meaning that we are completely sloughing off anything to do

with Mr. Trump or the administration. And that net-net at the end of the day the economy is doing better and we are going to be -- you know, I've

sort of done a little analysis since I saw you earlier. Why does this market keeps surging and surging and surging? It's obviously not been

engaged by what's going on in Washington. What I found out was that it's basically feeling Obama free in all of its way.

[16:15:02] So, even though Mr. Trump's agenda seems to be a little bitten off, our hands are not being tied by what people are feeling was a heavy

warm blanket over the last four years by Mr. Obama. And that no matter at the end of the day perhaps when Mr. Trump isn't focused on healthcare. He

is signing off on a bunch of other things. Infrastructure, tax related regulations things that is basically going to take this market higher,

because -- go ahead.

QUEST: But Peter, we close at records when there is still so much downside risk on the economic agenda, Peter, of their ability to get tax reform

through. So, if I understand you right, the S&P closing up at this level, the NASDAQ sounds the bill for more gains.

TUCHMAN: You know what? It really feels like it. We had every opportunity when we hit record closes that that will be -- people who are

traders, and I'm a trader, OK. Basically, look at these peaks and go, you know what? We've had today, Richard, 26 record closes in the Dow in 2017.

OK. So, basically when people see these kinds of peaks the go, you know what? This should be a shorting opportunity. And we been proven wrong

every single time this year. So, net-net at the end of the day be surges - - a surge like today after a record close yesterday, purports definitely feels like a further gain.

QUEST: I'll see you tomorrow on "QUEST EXPRESS" down at the exchange.

TUCHMAN: Look forward to it.

QUEST: Right.

TUCHMAN: Thank you, Richard.

QUEST: Where you get, of course, your jolt of business news every day, "QUEST EXPRESS." It's when noon is in Europe. Europe's finished. West

Coast is underway with "QUEST EXPRESS."

I do feel obliged because we were talking about the markets there. I do feel obliged to remind you that nothing here was said, of course, was an

invitation for you to buy a stock or sell a stock. We don't give stock tips. We just give you the picture and let you make your own decision.

That's today's picture. QUEST MEANS BUSINESS.


QUEST: The insurance market's Lloyd's of London is warning a global cyber- attack could be $53 billion in economic losses. Which is as much a super storm can cause in the United States. Inga Beale is the chief executive of

Lloyd's of London. She joins me now. This report came about -- obviously, you been very much aware of this for some time. But this report follows

the cyber-attack on the NHS. And I'm guessing you're concerned that you're going to end up on the bills.

INGA BEALE, CEO, LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Well that's if they buy insurance, of course. Now, we've been providing special cyber insurance or the Lloyd's

market has for about 20 years. But this is a growing threat. This is a real increase in the threat of businesses being hacked. And therefore,

we've had to try and get our arms around the exposures that we are faced with. And the exposures that are changing dramatically, and you can only

see by the number of attacks there've been. I mean the most recent one that people are talking about that just goes across countries right

throughout the world.

QUEST: So, it is possible to buy a policy. Say for example, you get a malware -- or you get one of those policies -- your systems are frozen.

So, it is that possible to come to you and then say, sell me a policy to cover me against that.

BEALE: Yes. But quite a few businesses particularly in the U.S. are buying cyber insurance. Global premiums for the cyber market $3.25

billion. That's the latest estimate. And that's due to double in the next three years as more and more businesses around the world are understanding

the threat to their business models. And this is because of the rise in the use of technology.

QUEST: But are you -- how difficult it is it for Lloyd's to price a premium for policy when you're looking at these sorts of numbers. I'm not

being disrespectful here, we've no idea the size and scale of a really brutal, nasty cyber-attack.

BEALE: No. We have therefore got the best experts we can get together, whether they're from the Lloyd's market, whether they're the underwriters

there, or whether they're the brokers. We've worked with a modeling company called Science. Who are really trying to dig into this. Now,

we've spent billions of dollars as an insurance sector trying to understand modeling hurricanes and earthquakes. Now we've got to put our money into

trying to understand this new threat. So of course, this is estimated. We said out of the $53 billion of economic losses we estimate that over 8

billion of that is actually would be insured at the moment. So, there's a huge gap, but businesses if they're not buying insurance the foot the bill

themselves. And what we're --

QUEST: Sorry. If we can move on if we may. Brexit -- I know you're opening a hub in Brussels. I assume that it's moving at a pace. But are

you getting the clarity from the U.K. government that you need at this stage post-Brexit? I know that Prime Minister Theresa May -- we'll be

talking about it in the second -- is having a business council meeting. Is Lloyd's getting the information you need post-Brexit?

BEALE: Well, quite honestly, I don't think the U.K. government knows what the situations going to be post-Brexit. They've got to go through some

very, very tricky and complex negotiations in the next year and a bit. So, what we've done is we said, look, we can't live with that uncertainty and

businesses can't. So, we've had to remove the uncertainty of what the outcome might be and forge our own destiny and set up a subsidiary. And I

really don't think the government can give us much more clue at the moment as to what will actually be decided.

QUEST: It's the fascinating business that you're in. Wherever you look there is just a load of uncertainty. Whether it's cyber, whether it's

Brexit. But the health of Lloyd's itself remains robust.

BEALE: Yes. Look, I mean we've got a lot of interest in being part of the Lloyd's market with the unique specialist insurance market. We've been

around for nearly 330 years and we've always been at the forefront of providing pioneering insurance coverage. So, whether it was the first

satellite that went up into space, or now we're faced with the new threat of cyber all around the world. And that's exactly what we do. We're

there, we want to be there to help businesses protect themselves from any disaster that comes along.

QUEST: Really grateful that you came in to talk to us about this. Thank you, Inga, good to see you as always. Thank you.

BEALE: Thank you.

QUEST: Let's continue with this thought about the post-Brexit environment. British businesses are preparing to tell Theresa May, the British Prime

Minister, what they want. On Thursday, the PM will chair the first meeting of her new business council. Mike Cherry is the national chairman of the

Federation of Small Businesses and he believes and says his members need government help to lobby in Brussels. And the negotiations -- well, I

asked him, it's fine to have demands, but it's a question of what's achievable.


MIKE CHERRY, NATIONAL CHAIRMAN, U.K. FEDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES: The core asks, if you like, are as open and as free access to the European

market as the negotiators can achieve. The right people with the right skills for the right jobs, so there is no cap. It is important that

businesses actually get the right people. And then of course, there's the question about European structural funds.

[16:25:00] Whether or not we can ensure that the British business bank can replace those funds with something that is meaningful and gets right

through to the small businesses who after all are some of the main beneficiaries of those structural funds. And then of course what does it

mean for the regulatory burden post-2019.

So those are the core views of our members. And clearly as you may recall, FSB members, well actually, we split almost down the middle on whether or

not we stay in the EU or come out of the EU. So, it's important that their views are clearly heard wherever that voice needs to be delivered, and

tomorrow is one of those big opportunities that we can ensure that happens.

QUEST: The reality, of course, is that many of the things you want -- I mean, for example, transitional arrangements. Where do you stand on that?

Do you want long transitional arrangements? Two-years for example, supposedly favored by the Chancellor. Or would you go for a shorter

transitional as the Brexit secretary wants?

CHERRY: Well, clearly, we don't want a cliff edge when we haven't got some of the details sorted out. We don't want to revert, if possible, to the

WTO tariffs, which would be damaging to most of our members. And let's not forget that about third of our members actually deal in some way with the

European markets either exporting directly to individual countries or indeed, importing from some of those countries.


QUEST: Small businesses and Brexit. It isn't only the U.S. that's moved forward. A series of strong earnings reports pushed the Europeans stocks

higher. All the major indices ended the day with gains. The CAC was biggest of all. And Reckitt Benckiser shares surged after the consumer

goods company sold its food business. The price was $4 billion. As you can see there, the best of the day comes from Paris.

At first it was 13 demands and a hard deadline of 10 days to meet them. Now there appears to be more wiggle room. Saudi and its allies relaxing

their terms for an end to the embargo on Qatar. We'll talk to the Qatari ambassador in Washington about the demands and how far they'll move.


[16:30:00] QUEST: Hello, I'm Richard Quest. There's more QUEST MEAN BUSINESS in just a moment. I'm going to tell you about passengers flying

from Mexico to the United States and how you should expect tougher security checks as part of new U.S. rules. And the debate on pay transparency is

reopened after the BBC reveals what it pays its biggest stars.

Before that this CNN and on this network the news always comes first. The Trump administration is taking another hit over is controversial travel

ban, the U.S. Supreme Court says grandparents and other relatives who want to visit in the U.S. can do so. The decision left the decision by a

federal judge in Hawaii stand. The justices did give the president a partial win on a separate issue related to the ban.

President Trump is asking Republican senators not to leave for their August recess without taking action on Obamacare. He discussed healthcare reform

with lawmakers at a luncheon on Wednesday, the president told them he intended to keep his promise to repeal and replace President Obama's

affordable care act.

An amendment to grant the terminally ill British baby and his parents permanent residency in the United States has unanimously passed the U.S.

congressional committee. Charlie Gard remains at t controversy surrounding whether he lives or dies, he has a rare disease and is being kept alive on

life support. The amendment will now need approval from the full House and Senate.

In Saudi Arabia, a woman detained by police after appearing in a video wearing a miniskirt has been released without charge. The Saudi woman told

investigators that the video clip that went viral was published without her knowledge, under strict Islamic law Saudi women are not allowed to wear

such clothing in public.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are on the second leg of their trip arriving on Wednesday in Berlin, a tour of Poland and Germany is seen as a

soft power approach to diplomacy as Brexit negotiations get underway. After meeting for lunch with a German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, the Royals

visited Brandenburg Gate.

An Audi advert that compares women to used cars has sparked outrage. It set off a social media firestorm in China, even threats of a boycott.

Sherisse Pham reports from Hong Kong.


SHERISSE PHAM, CNN MONEY CORRESPONDENT: This Audi commercial just backfired in China. A mom inspecting her son's bride making sure that she

is up to snuff, she gives the A-OK, but still disapproves of one detail. And then the ad changes to this, an important decision must be made

carefully says the voiceover. The commercial ends with a plug for secondhand Audis. Now a growing number of Chinese are slamming Audi for

likening women to used cars. Some threatening to boycott the carmaker.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It makes me feel very uncomfortable, I won't have good impression is of or any interest in that

vehicle anymore.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (through translator): It is so disrespectful no matter if it is the bride or groom being inspected, I think it is totally


PHAM: Audi cannot really afford this speedbump, sales in China are down about 15% so far, this year. A spokesman for the car company told me, the

ad was produced by the used car division of Volkswagen's joint venture in China. Audi is owned by Volkswagen. The joint venture company did not

respond to a request for comment. Sherisse Pham, CNN.


QUEST: If you are flying from Mexico to the United States, longer security lines are going to be de rigueur, the check started today, they are

screening any electronic device larger than a phone. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly last month announced new security measures for all

U.S. bound flights. Renee Marsh is in Washington, and joins me now. We know that there was first of all -- we could put to one side all those

countries, the nine or whatever it is that had to personal electronic bans. This is something different, this is enhanced security devices that are

going to be rolled out worldwide. Why starting with Mexico, do we know?

RENEE MARSH, CNN GOVERNMENT REGULATION REPORTER: I do want to say this that we are talking about here today is all a part or in response to what

Secretary Kelly announced June 28. Yes, we are seeing this rolled out, I think many airlines have been rolling this out, because as they are able to

get the changes that DHS, Department of Homeland Security said they need to put in place, they are announcing them. There may be others beyond Mexico

that just haven't decided to put on a press release about it. But the bottom line is if you are an international flyer and you are getting on a

flight that has direct service to the United States, you should expect longer than usual lines.

[16:35:00] Because this is a 21-day mark where Secretary Kelly said to all of these airlines, this is a list of things that you have to put in place.

And now we are starting to hear from airports and airlines that they are doing just that. Mexico is just one of them.

QUEST: Now, give us an idea what is involved here because when I actually think about boarding an international flight, and I probably do it more

than most back to the United States, certainly from the U.K. and elsewhere. How much more can they do? The already search the hand baggage. You are

already removing shoes, what else is going to be involved here?

MARSH: We do know especially in the case of Mexico, they say that special scrutiny will be given to people carrying anything larger than a cell

phone. But really, I want to say this, When Department of Homeland Security did lay out all of these enhanced measures, they left it up to the

airlines to figure out how they would do it. They told them what they had to do and they left it to the individual airlines to determine how. It is

going to vary, and your experience flying on one airline may be different than the other. Besides extra scrutiny on your electronics, expect to see

more canines, but the bottom line is whenever these airlines are choosing to do to meet the standards set by TSA and the Department of Homeland

Security, it is going to make the process a lot longer.

QUEST: Renee, next time come with some good news.

MARSH: I'm sorry.

QUEST: Longer lines, just what we all wanted to hear. Thank you, Renee. Lovely to see you as always, thank you.

The BBC, the British broadcasting Corporation has revealed the salaries of its highest paid stars, and never mind how much they are paid, the wave of

criticism of the BBC is the disparity between women and men. In a moment.


QUEST: Welcome back to QUEST MEANS BUSINESS. Four Arab nations that cut ties with Qatar, now want the Gulf state to commit to six broad principles

on combating extremism and terrorism, if it wants the isolation to end. The new list includes preventing the financing of terror groups, denying

them a haven, and halting what is referred to as acts of provocation which could incite hatred or violence. This new list shorter is in contrast to

the original demands which Qatar rejected. Thirteen specific actions with a tight deadline. Which included shutting down Al Jazeera's news network

and reducing ties with Iran.

Sheikh Meshal bin Hamad Al Thani is Qatar's ambassador to the United States, he joins me from Washington. Ambassador, it is very good to see

you, so now six broad principles on combating extremism and terrorism. Will your government be able to sign up to those principles? And

therefore, put an end to all of this?

[16:40:00] SHEIKH MESHAL BIN HAMAD AL THANI, QATAR'S AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES: Thank you, Richard, for hosting me to discuss this act of

aggression carried out by Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt against my country. Allow me to just take a step backward and remind the viewers

that the whole crisis has erupted because of a cyber-attack against the Qatar news agency. That led to posting of the story, false and despite the

fact that my government issued multiple statements to clarify the situation. Unfortunately, the blockading countries continued to deal with

this matter as a true story.

QUEST: Ambassador, yes, I hear what you say, of course, the UAE and others deny that. Let's get down to it, sir. These relate its requests, demands,

call them what we will, is this the beginning of a meeting of minds that enables this entire incident to be settled and solved? Do you believe?

AL THANI: The state of Qatar has demonstrated its constructive approach to resolving this crisis, and we have called many times for a meeting to sit

and discuss this based on proof and evidence. Now it is up to the blockading countries to decide and come to the table.

QUEST: How damaging has always been to the economy of Qatar? Obviously, Qatar Airways has suffered because it has to have different flights. You

are obviously, having to import more food from say Turkey or Iran. But how damaging to the economy do you believe this is?

AL THANI: I can assure you that there is no damage to our economy. Qatar is solid on its economy and we are comfortable, and we can't continue like

this forever. However, my government is looking forward to have this crisis resolved and very quickly, because we believe this is

counterproductive for everyone. And specifically, for the fight against terrorism.

QUEST: The meeting or the shuttle diplomacy of Secretary of State Tillerson went to Qatar, sign an agreement, an antiterrorism or at least an

agreement in Qatar, then went to the Saudi's and talk to others, but was it worth it, did anything come from that, is there progress do you believe,


AL THANI: We have to address this issue differently, what has been signed in Qatar is a bilateral agreement that supports the US led efforts towards

fighting terrorism and if it's in the spirit of the conference. Therefore, as for the issues that are related to the crisis, I believe that our

position was very clearly stated by the secretary when he said that we are reasonable, and we are engaging in a very productive manner. The question

is, are there other countries being engaging in a constructive matter, this is a question that needs to be answered.

QUEST: Right. You are right, that is a question for them. But is it you're feeling or the feeling of your government that actually the other

side, particularly Saudi, wants a resolution, wants to put this to an end? Or is there a bigger issue at stake here, one of dominance, arguably, point

of threatening as you would see it, your sovereignty? And frankly, there is no agreement to be reached?

AL THANI: I think that it is in everyone's best interest to find an agreement on this crisis, I think again I would use reiterate that this is

not beneficial for anyone. This is counterproductive. I believe Qatar has demonstrated its seriousness in finding a solution, we need to understand a

few other countries are serious to find a solution on this crisis.

QUEST: Final question though, Ambassador, the longer this goes on, the more difficult it will be for everybody to row back and save face. Would

you agree?

AL THANI: I think we have to be engaged in a very positive matter that will enable us to resolve this crisis as soon as possible, rather than

having it stalled, a limit that would be difficult for us in the future to address these concerns.

16:45:00] QUEST: Ambassador, delighted to have you on the program, quest means business, thank you.

AL THANI: Thank you, sir.

QUEST: The question everyone wants to know and no one wants to ask, how much do you make, come on, it's between the two of us. You show me yours

and I will show you mine. Well, the BBC was ordered to publish data on its highest paid stars. The government demanded more openness at the publicly

funded broadcaster. The BBC revealed that on average it's a male staff earned 10% more than the women.

It is not just the BBC that is forced into the open, next year all British companies with more than 250 employees will have to publish data on gender

and pay. We will be able to see who's doing the best and who is doing worst on pay equality.

Elena Gitter is an assistant professor of human resources at Cornell University joins me from Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. If we get rid the pure

prurience in all of this, I read this this morning and I used to work at the BBC some years ago. Of course, my first thing was how much of my

former colleagues getting, and how does that compare to me. But there is a serious issue here, isn't there? And it does go down to gender pay


ELENA GITTER, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, CORNELL UNIVERSITY: It is, first of all thank you so much for having me, Richard. So how much do you learn?

QUEST: I think that is between -- I am glad you asked me that. Shall we move on? Let's talk about the reality is men earn more than women, and

this sort of legislation or HR practices will make that clear. Is that helpful in your view?

GITTER: Yes, it is. Pay transparency allows to know how much others earn. But it also allows employers to discriminate based on gender, based on

race, based on your color of the skin. So, when you know how much others get paid it does allow employers to make the pay system fair.

QUEST: What about the privacy issue? That suddenly you can pretty much work out, which you certainly get to the upper echelons, the higher paid

staff, you can pretty much work out who was earning how much.

GITTER: It is true. So, when I asked you how much you learned, you didn't want to answer, right? And no one wants to answer. But it allows us as

employees, it allows us to be empowered, because if you know how much I earn, let's say, we work in the same organization, you can negotiate a

better salary. You can know what your performance, allows you to know that your paid unfairly or not, whether it is based on performance are not.

QUEST: OK, I can certainly see that the significance of this, but you do have to be careful, don't you? That just because a man or a woman earns a

different amount is not necessarily gender pay inequality.

GITTER: It might be. Or it might not be. So, you need to know that, but if you make it secret and you don't know whether it is fair or not, how

will you know weather is based on discrimination or not? What it allows employers to do is whatever they want.

QUEST: Good to see you, thank you very much for joining me, you asked how much I earn, and I am happy to tell you I earn -- sorry, was in microphone

not working on that one. Dreadfully sorry about. I would repeat it again but we need to move on.

For the Kim Kardashian's and the David Beckham's of the world, privacy is a rare commodity. A new fashion company claims it can help keep the

paparazzi at bay with clothes that ruin the pictures. We are going to put this to the test, get back, get back.


QUEST: This scarf makes you look stylish in person, and when worn properly it will hide your identity in flash photography. Why is this scarf so

significant? I am going to tell you because in the world of celebrity and paparazzi, this is the secret weapon.

Secret weapon introduced by Saif Siddiqui, the founder of Ishu Fashion. Tell me what this is all about.

SAIF SIDDIQUI, FOUNDER ISHU FASHION: It is the first anti-flash technology which basically lacks out unwanted pictures, Snapchat's, Instagram pictures


QUEST: Why do you care about this? These celebrities want to be seen.

SIDDIQUI: Not everyone, all the time. Not all the time.

QUEST: You have created a scarf and an umbrella as well, that if used judiciously will block out the picture?

SIDDIQUI: Correct. It goes completely black.

QUEST: We are going to put this to a test, you do realize this?

SIDDIQUI: Yes. Please, go for it, it is known as the invisibility cloak, anti-paparazzi scarf whatever you want to call it.

QUEST: How has it been doing?

SIDDIQUI: It has been a crazy ride, I launched it about a year and half ago and ever since that it has been very interesting. I am here now.

QUEST: Here we go, here is the first test. The first test is without a flash, take a picture without a flash. This is what the picture looks

like, 1,2,3. Is this what looks like when we look at it, there you are, you can see me, I am standing there with the Ishu scarf.

Now we are going to take the same picture but this time with my invisible cape. And this is what it looks like. Well, we can still see a bit of it.

SIDDIQUI: You have to show the pattern, that's why.

QUEST: Right. Here we go. Let me show the pattern. So, I'm ready to be seen, I don't want to be seen. Get away.

SIDDIQUI: Good enough, let's try it one more time.

QUEST: We can try with the umbrella.

SIDDIQUI: There you go, hold it behind you.

QUEST: I'm sorry.

SIDDIQUI: Hold it behind you,

QUEST: Give an example.

SIDDIQUI: Hold it like that.

QUEST: Just like this?

SIDDIQUI: Yes, sir.

QUEST: I don't want to be seen, we will take a picture first of all without flash from our nasty paparazzi. Who was insisting -- all right,

here we go.

SIDDIQUI: Without flash?

QUEST: There we go, and now we take a picture with a flash. And suddenly, oh, that's good.

SIDDIQUI: There you go. Pretty interesting, aye?

QUEST: Why am I standing here with an umbrella? What sort of interest have you had about this?

SIDDIQUI: Everything, businesses, governmental, paparazzi, politicians. We do lining on the inside of jets, museums.

QUEST: What is the point of it all at the end of the day? Surely paparazzi have a job to do, they have homes and children to feed. And at

the same time stars crave it when they want it, they want to switch it on, they want to switch it off.

SIDDIQUI: Yes. It is scarf, is not a tattoo, so you can take it off whenever you want. If you want to be seen then don't wear it. But in

certain locations if you are in a bar or restaurant and don't want to be seen at nighttime, you have a drink or two with mates and then just put it


QUEST: One last test, yes?

SIDDIQUI: Go for it.

QUEST: One last test to see if this thing works, back to my paparazzi, I do not want to be seen as we head to the break. No, get behind me, you

nasty man.

[16:55:00] SIDDIQUI: It is very effective. It is beautiful.

QUEST: Thank you very much for coming in.

SIDDIQUI: Thanks for having me. Appreciate you, thank you so much.

QUEST: Thank you very much indeed. We will have a Profitable Moment after the break, get your back, get back.


QUEST: Tonight's Profitable Moment, NASDAQ, the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones industrials all closed at record levels today. And it is fascinating

because there have been multiple occasions in 2016 that we have seen all three indices finishing at all-time highs. Apart from the Dow it is

something like 26 so far, this year. And you have to go back to 1999 to actually see those sorts of dates again where you actually did get the

markets closing out these high levels. The issue becomes now whether or not the market will sustain or a bit like my invisibility cloak, are we

about to see things disappear?

If Peter Tuckman is right, then things are going to get better because the S&P 500 has broken through a support level, and that usually suggest things

are going well. We can say one way or the other, but what we can say is if you take 2016, even with all the problems of Trump, economies geopolitical

issues, the willingness of this market to hit record highs tells us that something is going on.

And that is QUEST MEANS BUSINESS for tonight, I am Richard Quest in New York. Whatever you are up to in the hours ahead, I hope it's profitable.

I will see you tomorrow.