>> welcome. you're watching france 24. i am francois picard. coming up, the france 24 debate. >> we did not set a red line. the world set a red line. >> while barack obama takes his case to congress and to stockholm, on route -- en route to the g-20, the french national assembly has a say on syria.

the french president has opted not to put an eventual intervention to a vote before the national assembly. public opinion is against. a moral imperative to strike, or not the west's war? we will ask the panel in the france 24 debate. let's start in the newsroom and say hello again to claire. >> thank you. these are the headlines. it is not my credibility on the line, it is the international community's. on a visit to sweden, barack obama continues to push for military action against syria, which russia still firmly opposes. france backs the u.s.'s plan, with the prime minister defending it at the national assembly. the opposition ump said france should not wait for a vote by the u.s. congress. ariel castro his prison cell. officials say the man who kept three women captive for decades -- for a decade in ohio apparently committed suicide.

we start with russia's latest comments on u.s. plans to strike the syrian regime. latimer boudin says the u.s. congress has --vladimir putin says the u.s. congress has no right to a strike without a decision from the un security council, and doing so would be an act of aggression. the russian leader has accused u.s. secretary of state john kerry about lying to congress about al qaeda's role in the syrian conflict. the russian foreign minister issued a statement showing findings that the weapon used in last month's chemical attack was similar to ones used by a rebel group. a rock obama said earlier this wednesday he hopes putin will change his mind on syria and drop his support of bashar al- assad. this on a visit to sweden ahead of a g-20 summit in russia. the u.s. leader said it is not his credibility on the line, but that of the international community. >> first of all, i did not set a

red line. the world set a red line. the world set a redlined when governments representing 98% of the world population said that the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent, and passed a treaty for the bidding used even when countries are engaged in war. >> the syrian regime continues to deny using chemical weapons on its own people. syria's parliament speaker has urged france to show restraint. one of the few foreign reporters inside syria has more on the comments. >> he was very much making an appeal to the french parliament itself, to its sense of secularism, saying syria was alsoa secularist 8, 1 of the last in the middle east, and any support for a military strike would bethis is the way the govt here sees its opponents. he would be not only supporting

what he called al qaeda and extremist elements, but also strengthening them. he said it was impossible for france to be on the side of such a strike, and also said that if parliamentarians supported such a strike it would mean that they had blood on their hands of innocent syrians and history would not forget them. for a much a defiant message. he said syria was willing to defend itself, and said that if america and france were to start such a war they would not necessarily know how to end it. it could pull the region and even further abroad into a war. he had written this letter just right before the debate today. he sent a similar one to britain. an appeal by the syrian government to try to stop the support for any potential military strike. >> as lucy just mentioned, after the u.k. and ahead of the u.s., it was france's turn to debate whether or not there should be punitive action against syria, but there was no vote.

the prime minister said using chemical weapons cannot go unpunished. >> faced with this barbarity, doing nothing is not an option. not for france, at any rate. not reacting means allowing bashar al-assad to go on with his atrocities, and it will encourage the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. it means abandoning syria and the entire region to chaos. france, with its partners, will assume its responsibility. that is its honor and its duty. [applause] >> after that speech, a speaker from the opposition party demanded a longer debate and a vote, saying it was wrong not to have one when there is no u.n. mandate or military action against the syrian regime. >> if there is no u.n. mandate,

france's president cannot take such a major decision without the parliament voting. france's president has made for himself and institutional trap that is being made worse by the vote in britain's parliament and the u.s. congress. without european allies, can france seriously throw itself blindly to this kind of intervention? we think not. >> here on set with me is our french politics editor. hello. earlier, when christian jacob was addressing the national assembly, you could sense it was pretty tense over there. he said, calling for a vote, if there were a vote is party would vote no unless there is a u.n. mandate. >> yes. that is interesting, because there was a big discussion within the conservative opposition party. some people said, here in france, the fifth republic, the president decides whether to

wage war or not and the parliament can be consulted but should not express itself through a vote. others have been trying to profit from obama's decision to consult congress and therefore letting some time for the parliamentary debate to take place. france tried -- they tried to attack president hollande, but generally france does this if there is a u.n. mandate. in this case, there is no u.n. mandate, and it is unlikely there will be one because of opposition from russia and china to any such action. the opposition is trying to push francois hollande to declare that they should not only be a debate, but also a vote. that is still being discussed within the presidential palace, to see whether after the congress decides on action or not in syria, there should be such a vote in france as to the possibility. although clearly the opposition is trying to really show that

france cannot go alone to war. without support from a broad coalition. for now, there is no such coalition and no such mandate. >> that was an issue in the lead up to the war in iraq. that is something the opposition mentioned. many lawmakers are concerned that there might be a long conflict if they were to get involved. >> yes. a quagmire. this is a buzzword in the u.s. when you speak about the vietnam war. clearly the concern. the opposition leader, christian jacob, mentioned the iraq resident. 10 years ago, the u.s. went into iraq despite opposition from france. today there are still bombs every day, still chaos, not a stabilized country. it is worth asking, are we doing the same in syria? it has been two years of war atrocities, and by no means is the opposition seen as attractive, less and less so

because of jihadist groups making inroads. -- the opposition is asking, are you sure, mr. president, you know what you are doing? you're not only going alone without a u.n. mandate, but you do not know who you will have after bashar al-assad. polls show a majority of the french are opposed to military invention -- intervention and are in favor of a vote in parliament. >> thank you very much, indeed. in other news, for the first time, a german president visited the french village, the site of the worst nazi massacre in france since world war ii. 642 people were killed. the village remains as it was found. joachim gauck and francois hollande stood hand -- side-by- side. there were only six still alive. sentenced to life in prison

without parole plus 1000 years, ariel castro has died. the 53-year-old was found hanging in his prison cell. officials they it is an apparent case of suicide. castro was arrested in may after one of the three women he held captive for a decade escape from his house in cleveland, ohio. here is more. >> ariel castro has been found hanged in his cell. an apparent suicide, almost seen as a relief for some of his former neighbors. >> i think he did those girls a favor by taking his own life. >> according to authorities, castro was not on suicide watch, but prison guards had to keep an eye on him every 30 minutes. the 53-year-old was pronounced dead at hospital after staff tried to resuscitate him. between 2002 and 2004, castro abducted michele knight, amanda berry, and tina dejesus. the three victims were finally

freed last may, and castro was immediately arrested. in court, he pleaded guilty to 937 charges, a plea deal that spared him the death penalty. an investigation is currently underway to find exactly how castro died while and under protective -- while under protective custody. >> the winners this year -- the web documentary prize. the jury picked the story of a reformed guatemalan gang member who attends to rebuild her life. it is by two filmmakers. their documentary and the others on the short list can be viewed on our website. that is all for now from the newsroom. over two francois for the

debate. >> two weeks after the shocking chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of damascus, it was the french parliament's turn this wednesday to debate moral imperatives, legal mandates, and the risks of contagion. there was a debate, but no vote. unlike in london or washington, fred -- president francois hollande opting to risk -- avoid the risk of rejection by lawmakers. the french president well within his rights under a constitution some have at times likened to a presidential monarchy. does this say more about france's constitution, or the tricky place lawmakers find themselves in with public opinion adverse to the prospect of yet another arab world conflict that could spark more chaos if the regime falls. and russia, still smarting from the last time the west intervened in the via. a russia welcoming the world at

the g-20 summit in st. petersburg this thursday. we will also take the long view on where these two weeks will ultimately lead -- leave the west standing. today in the france honey for debate -- is a bwest's fight? a socialist member of parliament, welcome to the debate. also with us from across the aisle, opposition conservative. welcome back, sir. the syrian national committee for democratic change. a huge stake in this, obviously, a personal stake, your brother was killed by the regime. yet you are against western intervention. a point we will pick up on later. i hope, during this discussion. you can join the conversation on facebook and on twitter. our has htag, #f24debate./ francois hollande, is he doing

the right thing by not putting the situation in syria to a vote ? >> it is not about a vote or no. it is, do we have the proof of a chemical attack in syria? the main point to be discussed. not only in the senate, but also for the french population today. this is a question we are asked to think about. it is important -- >> showed an eventual french -- should an eventual french intervention be put to a vote? >> from personal opinion, i think so. it has been said. i think we should have a vote. but i repeat, it is not a question we are asked today. the question is, do we have proof of the chemical attack in syria? first. second, who conducted this attack?

these are the two questions we are looking at the moment. >> you say yes to a vote, but it is too early for the vote. >> i think it is too early. we have the g-20. everybody is complaining we did not give a try diplomacy or diplomatic action. that is now, in russia. putin is in front of his responsibility. he said this morning, if we have evidence of chemical attack we will act. we will move. he decided to stop the delivery of rockets to syria. so there is first move. but i repeat, the question is not the moment -- do we have the proof of an attack? how do we manage to demonstrate these attacks have been committed by the syrian regime? >> too early for a vote, you say.

a lot of lawmakers on the benches of the national assembly this wednesday think it is not too late, and they point to the vote that took place last thursday in the u.k. house of commons, and the one coming up in the u.s. congress. >> france's president has made for himself and institutional trap. it has been made worse by the vote in britain's parliament and the u.s. congress. >> the greens are watching with interest what is happening in the united states, where neither the constitution nor the custom of the country forced the president to call for a vote, but he has decided to consult congress. >> you penned a communiqué saying, long live england. is there a bit of england and the on your part at this point? >> i would agree. step-by-step, it is a very compensated situation.

first of all, is it a question of proof? no one can deny there has been a chemical attack. this is very true, unfortunately. we do not yet have the smoking gun. we do not know who did it, really. in the press release i read carefully, you will have clues, and i know we have clues. this is a regime or something else. >> there is a foreign ministry statement out of moscow saying russian experts say the weapons used in the chemical attack are similar to ones made by a rebel group. >> i am very, very cautious. everyone tries to manipulate the others. we have to have evidence in the u.n., when the experts will come back and assess. chemical weapon, what kind of gas, and who did it, very

likely. secondly, there is a very big question. in the national assembly today. the state that uses force without any mandate of the u.n., or without legitimate self- defense under the charter, is an aggressor. never forget that. it is relevant to the international court of justice for war crimes. france, you know, has been putting its diplomacy and having a very strong position for the past decades, left or right. we need a u.n. mandate. if you act without mandate, you are in a very bad situation, especially for a country like france which is a permanent member of the un security council. >> we are going to pick up on

this point of the u.n. mandate. we can go to damascus. lucy fielder, who is based in beirut, which is in normal circumstances a short drive to the syrian capital. first of all, before i ask you about how people are seeing the debate going on here from where you are, how are things in damascus? >> this is a very tense, very quiet city. one that i knew well and always knew to be very thriving and bustling. over the last 24 hours i have seen so many businesses and shops and restaurants close down. the streets are empty. particularly at night, they become completely empty. there are roadblocks everywhere in the center of town. very difficult to move more than a few streets for checkpoints. an atmosphere of great tension,

obviously. enormous concerns about the gathering support for a military strike. also a strange normality. today you could hear rockets sounds booming across the city very loud. mortar and artillery shells landing just on the outskirts in areas. from central damascus you can hear it very clearly. rockets landed in central damascus last night, though they did not cause casualties. it is a strange normality, and yet at the same time things are not normal. this is a very diminished city. >> have you had a chance to speak to officials and other people and ask what they think of the debate we are having year around this table, one we have been having for a few days now? >> we spoke to the syrian speaker of parliament last night. he addressed a letter to the french parliament, urging it not to support a military strike, saying that if it did support a

military strike, they would have syrian let on their hands and history would not forget them. he reminded people of the iraq debate and also stops to remind the french of their secular traditions and to say that syria is also a very secular state. it is true that church and state are separated here, though many accuse the ruling elite of being from one particular sect, the alawite sect. he was seeking to make these claims and to stress the use aspects, but was also defiant. saying syria will defend itself, and if america in particular started this war it would not know how to end it and it become -- could become regional, even global. >> thanks. we continue to check up with you on france 24 from damascus. we are going to look at an

excerpt of what bashar al-assad said in an interview earlier this week. but this idea, in the words of assad, sort of a veiled threat that france will feel the repercussion if there was a strike. what do you feel about that? >> i am not concerned. by the declaration. i am concerned by the reaction of the syrian people. it is more important. assad can declare something today, and tomorrow you have another declaration. for that, the most important thing now is, the most important question in syria is, what about tomorrow? >> does the west appear weaker when we have a debate about whether or not to vote over, whether to have a vote in parliament, a debate about whether to strike. does the west seem weak? >> some people take consolation

from what happens here. on the other side, we can speak about the global evidence -- what gives the syrian reactions? these are not dependent of what happens here. most of the syrian people can speak about the majority of people inside syria. they are against any aggression because they know they are also victims, not only the regime. you can not attack syria in a surgical operation. and shoes, this oneness -- this one is civilian and this one is from the army. the attack would be against syrians, not against the regime. the majority inside syria is against. but outside syria, many refugees, you can find many people who say we must finish, we must finish, if you find a

solution outside. you know, it is a reaction position. but it exists. our position as political responsible, from the beginning, was against any foreign military intervention. from jihadist, from hezbollah, from french army, from anyone. the most important thing for establishing a democracy is with a balanced force inside the country. >> the fear of collateral damage , that was the term employed in previous conflicts, this fear of civilians bearing the brunt of any outside intervention. >> i would like to come back on the point about the u.n.

two points. the team of inspectors trying to determine the use of chemical weapons. it is not to seek who sent the rockets and who used the gas. this is the first important answer about the role of the u.n. as you know, france, in its tradition, has always -- whether the government is socialist, right wing -- tried to use the u.n. to find a solution. today, still last week it was said by our prime minister this afternoon that france tried to push a resolution. it is may be the 10th trial to go forward with a solution in the u.n. it is draw -- block.

at one stage you have to take a decision and make a step forward. is it without the u.n.? i do not know. the question is on the table, but we cannot be blocked totally by the u.n. at the moment. >> on twitter, this reaction -- >> you need to reply to human casualties in case of action. that is why when you were speaking about the vote, today we are looking for solutions. u.s., turkey as well, the league of countries, to vote -- to avoid collateral damage. >> i do not want to be too provocative, but you cannot -- >> let's get to reactions. the first on twitter.

it is too early for a strike. the truth is not known yet as to who used the gas. that should be established before any action. a second, by the french foreign minister, who was interviewed on breakfast radio this wednesday. he said, the road to damascus no longer passes through diplomacy alone. >> if you want a political solution, we have to find a way of moving things along. if there is no sanction, bashar al-assad will say, that is fine, i will continue what i'm doing. >> to you agree? >> i think they are playing god. >> but when the french foreign minister says, he says that if you keep talking and keep talking -- >> what it means, now we are sure that chemical weapons have been used. and the russians, because that is key, have signed the same

convention and ratified it. the 1993 convention on banning chemical weapons. that the americans did not ratify. did not ratify. and this convention, in a former life i started the negotiations on this chemical convention. the russians were very keen to have a convention. of course, they tried to defend their interests and their views, but they have signed the convention. this is a fact. i know the iranians are against chemical weapons because they suffered from saddam with the help of the americans and the french. so there is a new approach, a new situation in which the russian, the iranians who support bashar, are very reluctant for chemical weapons. this is maybe a chance. this morning, putin decided

not to deliver air missiles because of those facts. i think we have maybe a chance to make things move on. otherwise, i am sorry to say, this international community, this is a syrian war. it is not a perfect society, but on which basis are we going, we french, or americans, saying, i am the lone defender and will impose this and that. this is, unfortunately, a civil war. we cannot make things worse than it is today. >> when we come back, we are going to pick up on this point and hear what the russian president had to say. stay with us. you are watching the france 24 debate.

>> welcome back, or welcome if you are just joining us will stop let's give you a sample of the stories. not my credibility on the line. that of the international community. barack obama speaking in sweden em rpite to the -- en route to the g-20 summit. as he tries to drum up support for an eventual military strike in syria. the first-ever visit by a german president to the site of a massacre at the hands of the nazis. he did so in the company of his french counterpart. the migration of -- in our duration of mali's new pr esident.

after the election followed a rebellion, a coup, and intervention to oust islamist from the north of the country. authorities say a probable suicide -- ariel castro found dead in his prison cell in ohio. the man who kept three women captive for a decade apparently ended his own life. those stories and much more at the top of the hour, right here on france 24. welcome back, or welcome if you are just joining us. this is the france 24 debate. the french parliament has been debating, but not voting, on eventual intervention in syria. looking at it with a socialist member of parliament, a conservative member of parliament, and a guest from the syrian national committee for democratic change. we were talking about remarks made by syria's president. he granted a wide-ranging interview to a french daily

newspaper. warning he was the sole rampart to terrorism. there was no credible alternative. he said, the opposition has no popular base in syria. it is made in france, made in qaratar, but certainly not made in syria. >> he is speaking about others. we cannot say the same thing about the syrian national coalition. national court nation for democratic change. we are inside the country. >> but you are a half -- having a hard time making your voice heard. that is the problem. people have been saying, one of the big difficulties is, if you ask assad come a what is the alternative? >> we are the opposition, not

the opposition of five stars hotels. assad cannot say the same thing about us because all people in syria -- we must come back to the discussion. he gave his apporach --approach about the question. i participated in four missions, about 85 missions all over the world. i know what is the reglement ation. i was in new york in the debate about this mission in syria. the delegation of usa was against a mandate. why? because it was about assad, adn

-- and we know he is not the regime, but the terrorists of al qaeda. because we spoke about the responsibility of the regime, you limited the mandate. and france and u.k. did not say anything. russians and chinese were for a great mandate. this is very important to know. now we say this mission does not have the right to speak about, because of you. it is not because of russian or chinese. and because of this idea that it is the terrorist people, they say in western countries that than free army and we are supporting terrorist. >> let's pick up on that point. >> the second point -- if you have a position, i have all the respect for you.

but now, what is your position? your position is wait. the american congress, and decide. you are behind the american decision, and all you say about chemical weapons and ethics and morals, the question is still the very bad reality that you do not have your own decision. your decision is dependent of the states and of the congress. and i hope that the deputies of the people in france do not accept to give a mandate to the congress for this action. >> i fully disagree on the facts of the french assembly. let's be realistic.

who is today the main power in the world? u.s. i do not have the pretension to say that france will be able to go to syria alone. >> the french president has said that if the congress' decision is not positive, france will not act alone. >> it has been said today, we have turkey as well looking at a solution. i fully concur with what was said. it seems today, looking at all the evidence we have, the information we gathered for months and months, the only option consists in trying to seek for a political decision is not sufficient anymore. we need a push, and maybe a push is an armed solution. we are looking at serious. what is behind it?

it is a french position. the risk of proliferation. we cannot look at the debate alone. syria is today the main theater of risks. if we do not give a clear signal to assad today, tomorrow, what will be the answer to iran, potentially, north korea, and potentially other countries? >> that is a point barack obama made in a different version earlier this wednesday. divisions in the united states congress mirroring those in britain and france. divisions that go across party lines. >> this is something the united states as a country needs to do. i am going to support the president's call for action. i believe my colleagues should support this call for action. >> while we all feel the actions

by the assad regime are reprehensible, i do not think any of us are willing to support the possibility of having combat boots on the ground. >> let's go to our washington correspondent. does barack obama have the votes on capitol hillresolution for in syria? >> the straight answer right now as this will be a very tight vote, probably in both houses, the house of representatives and the senate. it is too early to say now, but time is running out. congress reconvenes on monday of next week, the ninth of september. there is the possibility we could see a first vote in the senate on the military intervention in syria as early as that monday when the senate reconvenes. what we are all doing in washington is coming up with our own with count. trying to cap two might be leaning no, who might be leaning yes. you heard that from john boehner.

that is a big republican voice. he is very much on board. that is not necessarily mean all republicans will follow him, as ashley in the house controlled -- especially in the house controlled by republicans. one thing that has been interesting is senator john mccain. she is very much for a military intervention in syria -- he is very much for a military intervention in syria, but he is not for the resolution as we speak now. he wants a bigger intervention, an intervention that might be able to change the momentum in area. other members and senators want a smaller footprint and certainly no boots on the ground. others do not want the united states to intervene at all. there are a lot of different opinions, all of which will mean this is going to be really tight vote and a big moment for barack obama. >> how torn is public opinion on this? >> not really.

the polls keep on confirming that over half of the u.s. population does not want the united states to intervene. what we're hearing from members in the house and senators is they are fielding a lot of calls from constituents. almost all of them telling them to vote no. to vote against a military intervention in syria. senators and members in the house are really under pressure now. they have been put under pressure by barack obama. he said, you will have to say what you believe in. you will see all the senators and members giving their opinion in the next few days. possibly as early as monday. that is when they will be showing their cards. you do not -- constituents do not want the united states to go into another war or intervene militarily. others say -- the united states will not be going into a war, just a military intervention, but a large part is against

this. >> ghosts of afghanistan and iraq weighing on this debate. thanks for that. >> i perfectly understand the public opinion. the way hollande or obama said they will intervene, they said we are just targeting a few sites, etc.. >> what do you think of john mccain's position? >> this is it. this is a main point. what will happen? the united states and france -- if there is no u.n. mandate, a big mistake. you will see that bashar is still there, that the syrian army is not broken.

the opposition say you have to carry on because he does not understand the signal. step-by-step, you will go up. that is very dangerous to where it goes. because when you use force in the international situation, you know when you start. you never know when you finish it. the most difficult thing is how to handle war. we have seen that in lebanon. we have seen that in afghanistan. we have seen that in iraq, which has been a chaotic situation. one million dead. saddam has maybe killed many people, i agree. but the poor iraq he people have suffered that much. >> we heard complaints about the prospects of inertia, doing nothing, what that would do. >> i do not say we should do nothing. pi think that since the u.n. experiment, they are going to

establish chemical weapons. then it will be the duty of the security council to say what we do. i am pretty sure the russians will move. they cannot accept that. otherwise they will lose, you know, a lot of things. never forget also that we have to consider the entire situation everywhere around. this is true. we have to do something. >> you have been to moscow several times over the past two and a half years. do you think the russians are really going to change? >> i do not think so. i was asked, what was the role of russia in the crisis? the libyan crisis? i said to him, zero percent. he asked me what is the place of russia in the syrian crisis. i said to him, at least 50%. he said, how do you ask us to

change our politics now? >> so they are still angry about libya? >> i think the opposition is still very strong. the russian position -- we are very sad because in 15 months, tell me what they did for geneva. nothing. they did not contact us. the most important thing was the question. give us a list of weapons. give us a list of humanitarian help and how to send people to help the syrian army. at least 25. this is the mistake of france.

>> to say that for now there is no sign russia is going to change the vision. a comment on twitter -- how can we think it is not the west's work when the american president says he should defend u.s. national interest in the region? on his way to p -- st. petersburg, the u.s. president was asked about his decision to reverse himself and go to congress to consult. he replied, similar to what you were saying. all about the conflict that could yet come still. >> under international law, security council resolution, self-defense or defense of an ally provides clear basis for action. but increasingly what we will be confronted with our situations like syria, lycos above, like rwanda, in which -- like kosovo, like rwanda, in which we might not always have a security

council that can act. yet we have all these international norms that we are interested in upholding. >> do you think the russians are going to move? what happens if they do not? he is saying, what if -- what if the russians do not vote? >> sorry, mr. obama is not the sheriff. we are no longer in the time of suez. no longer in the colonial period. the world is not obliged to obey mr. obama. when he said -- he said something absolutely wrong. in the question of the rwanda there was a decision of the u.n. because it was a genocide. france moved along because it was a u.n. decision. >> let me interrupt you about rwanda. that decision came late. >> the americans did not want to move. >> bill clinton described it as the single biggest regret of his presidency. many of obama's top aides are from the clinton administration.

in france, we have a precept in the law, non-assistance to people in danger. at what point -- you have 2 million refugees. >> refugees are refugees. >> at what point is there a moral imperative to act? >> first of all, you do not speak of morality. you speak of international law, and realities or it -- realities. it is a big mistake. i am absolutely upset by this kind of thing. we are going to make war in the name of human rights. at the end, you kill 10 times more people. you have to be realistic. this situation is awful, i agree. but it is also true we have means to act, and i'm sure that this international situation -- people are fed up by war.

i agree with you. the only answer which is possible is geneva 2. even the iranians. people do not want to invite the iranians, who can have a lot of influence over bashar. we fear that if we invite them they will deal the nuclear program. what does this mean? this is rubbish. >> invite the iranians? >> we have to bring everyone around the table. >> if you want to find a political solution, everybody should be able to sit down to find a solution. let's be real estate as well. france did not walk from geneva 2. i do not have the feeling that this type of government and the previous one did not try to find

a solution. i fully concur, the libyan precedent. the fact we used this resolution adopted in 2005. the liability of states to protect their own people. i remember at the time when we said, ok, we will organize the no-fly zone, it is not to hunt qadhafi. if you look at chinese and russians, if you look at the months and weeks of action in libya, the mandate from the beginning was not enough. in terms of relations, i fully understand the position of russia and china being a bit reluctant. saying, you said the same in libya. >> you do not want to be trapped again. >> we are in a position where we need to reconstruct confidence

among partners. that is where we are, where we stand. >> let's hear what the russian president hattie -- have to say. a question put to its president in a interview with the associated press. >> as for video footage showing dead children allegedly killed in the chemical attack, it is horrible. the question is, who is to blame? he footage does not give answers. >> what would russia's position be if you became convinced the government of syria question mark would you agree to military action? >> i do not exclude this. but i would like to draw your attention to one absolutely key aspect. in line with international law, only the un security council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state.

any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state is inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression. >> same thing in georgia. oh, pardon. >> you say russia is not going to judge -- but. a little wiggle at the beginning, but let's go back to the u.n., stick with what international law says. basically saying he is very averse to any outside intervention. what happens now? >> i met mr. lavrov four times. i saw the russian delegation in the hague last week.

i know how they tried to propose to us something. i met also the minister of foreign affairs in china twice. they said to us, everything inside the u.n. we will be ok. >> u.n. resolutions. >> yes. all the time, the example of geneva communiqué. they said, when we had a geneva communiqué, immediately we use it in the security council. seriously, that is the most important position from russia, more than the states. the states asked me one time to tell russia that they stop -- >> they veto resolutions.

>> we will go again to geneva. >> they keep vetoing resolutions. they veto resolutions that are watered down. >> yes, exactly. we must call a cat a cat. when he has his text and poses this text as it is and say, you vote or not, not only the russian delegation -- >> the use of chemical weapons does change things, and perhaps -- you are saying there was a change on the part of iranians. also, the russians. turkey's prime minister does not think it is about chemical weapons. he thinks chemical weapons are only part of this issue.

>> it is very interesting that putin says he would support an operation if asasad used chemicl weapons. i would like to underline something. it is a crime to kill people, regardless of the type of weapon used. that is a crime against humanity. does that mean you can kill with jets, helicopters, tanks, snipers, and that would not be taken as a crime? and when chemical weapons are used it is suddenly a crime? >> going to this g-20 summit, as we go into what will be a raucous vote on the u.s. congress next week, does he have a point? >> he has a point. the other point, is france, u.k., u.s., international community, a red line

formulation for the use of chemical weapons? today we are there. i fully agree with what erdogan said. we have 100,000 dead already, two point 5 million refugees, not killed by chemical weapons. we cannot say nothing. we cannot stay mute looking at this. at one stage, it is a responsibility. either we say we do not act or we take action. it is a question. at one stage we should try to stop to discuss. >> we will have to leave it there. i want to thank you, and thank you for joining us here. we will continue to follow developments in the buildup to the g-20 that starts thursday in st. petersburg. stay with us.

you are watching france 24.

 ♪ >> a more frail landscape. the g-20 summit deals with a more uncertain economy as syria and monetary policy debates dominate. >> in times square, new york. samsung unveils its smart watch, besting rivals in the race to break up in another market outside the saturated smartphones