welcome to sophie and co i'm sophie shevardnadze and today we're talking about syria the u.s. congress is voting on about my proposal to bomb syria an operation he claims will be surgical not intended to instigate regime change that was seen as the full and if we have why aren't we learning. striking syria an absurdity or a righteousness city america's ships sit on the horizon do they carry hopes for a solution or nails for the coffin of assad's presidency. can the west reads the reality of conflicts in the east. the chemical trail poisons it all is syria

the next iraq. is assad then you said. will surgical strikes cure the patient or spreads disease inside the borders and beyond . i guess today is the person directly involved in taking a similar decision to launch an attack on another country without a complete picture jack straw that's one member of parliament and british foreign secretary when britain went into war with iraq. have you with us today. thank you so do you think the congress will approve the strike. i assume that congress will approve the strike if only because it would not make sense for president obama to decide to put this before congress without having. the

numbers in advance on the other hand all of us made that assumption about the british house of commons. about twelve days ago. and the assumption was that prime minister cameron had done the numbers particularly on his own side to ensure that he would win the vote and he failed to do so so. for president obama's point of view it's really rather important that he does win. what effect that will have on the situation in syria i don't stability in the middle east but you've said it you never know for sure what do you think will happen in case of a no vote do you think he will go on with a strike without the support of his people and politicians. i can't see any circumstances in which president obama would press ahead with a military strike if congress voted against that strike you can't go to the

democratic. institution of a government of a country like the american congress asked them for a decision and when you get decision you don't like that ignore it and it would be very serious indeed for president obama were to do that so you have to respect the decision whether it's yes or no just to promise to cameron has done so. now it is a fact that had been advancing against a rebel senate weeks leading up to the august twenty first do you think that maybe informed obama's reaction to the alleged attack. well look i think there is an absolute you know dobbs that chemical weapons were used in this of damascus we wait final confirmation by the u.n. weapons inspectors but no one is seriously disputing that chemical weapons were used on almost certainly it was sarin the second question is were they used at the instigation of the regime by the. evidence is overwhelming although it's not

completely conclusive. one of the reasons why it's not absolutely conclusive is because people are scratching their head and thinking why was any chemical weapons attack in the interests of the asset regime given the fact that in recent months they've been making advances rather than retreating and why would. i work outside the extremely unpleasant and serious regime but it's not irrational why would he decide to risk the rules of the united states when he was making progress in any event however stranger things have happened in warfare what we have syria is. it could have been. a commander down the line who took this action but moreover there is i think very little evidence that the rebels would have any capacity to launch a chemical weapons attack so let's just assume for a moment this was a chemical weapons attack launched by the assad regime and the question then arises

what do you do about it and one of the reasons why there was such hesitation in the british house of commons when we debated this the end of august was because no one was clear and we will suppose that spells out. what the consequence would be we were told that there were going to be. some tomahawk missile strikes that morning president obama had said that this would quote be a shot across the bow of the syrian regime but shots across the bow of token they don't cause damage so the question then was what happens if the shot across the bow doesn't work and. that was never started really except we learned from. communications which had taken place between the head of the u.s. military chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and leading the. grossman that the

united states fully understood that they had no plans and no capacity short of course hundreds of ships and thousands of special forces to take out assad's chemical weapons capabilities so we were left scratching our heads what was going to be the consequence of this action and that remains a worry but one thing for certain is for certain is that if president obama does launch a series of sustained missile attacks then he would have explicitly joined the rebels and there's no way in which he can detach a publishing we're going to get to that in just a minute joining the rebels we're going to get we're going to get to revel in just a minute but just to just to make sure it was i'm sure you understand that we over here are getting a totally different intelligence data do you personally believe the evidence is sufficient it was us who carried out the attack. just your personal of senior intelligence not look are not see the intelligence i think that the high

probability is that it was the assad regime not the rebels for a whole series of reasons but one of the things i would like to see is much better cooperation between the united states france the united kingdom and russia particularly including intelligence sharing about this some of the. mike long experience of handling intelligence is that good intelligence going from one country sources there's likely to be parallel intelligence going to another countries sources. although russia and united states there are a kingdom and france have typically been on quote different sides so it's been plenty of intelligence cooperation as well i think both sides need to sit down and could share the information they have got all between secrecy because we need to know if definite definitively who was responsible however as i say this is the

larger question even if it is the assad regime. does launching tomahawk missiles on parts of damascus and elsewhere in syria what does that help or hinder the chances of peace and a reduction in the number of casualties here you've said that cameron's presentation of the case to parliament was actually quite convincing what do you want to see the vote go differently. we voted for our resolution our resolution was not ruling out military action in respect of syria our resolution was laying down a clear process not least based on the lessons that all of us learned from iraq and that process included waiting for the reports of the weapons inspectors because although they're not allocating blame those reports i'm sure will be very important in terms of others making an assessment about responsibility and then have a. in the matter discussed and brought to a vote in the security council ok on current predictions it may well be that

a resolution put to the security council by for example us here in front of us would fail as a result it would be so by either or both russia and china but we don't know that for certain we don't know what the terms of the resolution would be and in any event we need to see what the argument is when there is a prospect a vote so we wanted both of those to happen and much clearer statement about the strategic objectives if there is little being forthcoming. including clear evidence about covered the couple ability that labor could have supported not saying would could have supported military action but those weren't forthcoming and instead we had this extraordinary situation where the labor opposition motion was voted on it then went to the government of the government bear in mind it's got a big majority normally in the british house of commons that then gets voted down

as world our leader ed miliband simply stood up for what's called a point of order after that vote and asked mr cameron whether you could give an undertaking that he wouldn't put british forces into action without a further vote that was all he asked mr cameron used that to speak to read from a prepared text to say words to the effect that he was not to bring about a back the house of commons at all so this is a situation afraid that mr cameron has brought on himself so well but just in a nutshell where are the big holes in cameron's case and his presentation what first of all was in the timing we were brought back from our recess our holidays four days before we were due to go back anyway so what he's thinking what's the urgency here is there about to be a missile strike launched over the weekend are we to be presented with. six significant intelligence. that we never offered

a proper explanation so people were brought back without proper explanation and they were left wondering why that was secondly we were we were brought back before the weapons inspectors had reported thirdly before that been any discussion on a resolution inside the security council that we were given an abstract summary of some intelligence which didn't say any more frankly about culpability then one could read in the newspapers that simply use the phrase that it was very likely that they are said regime. was responsible the difficulty is that in the case of iraq we had much better intelligence than that and we had a very clear baseline of all the holdings of chemical and biological weapons that the saddam regime had held without any question. but because of iraq the bar that has to be overcome for decisions like this is now much higher. after the break we'll continue to ask them what can be won and what have we learned can we be

a friend to your friends or enemy states. this is a. very very. well. with that area right there.

let's. play a. little bit. of the. ok . i do have a crock a while going to ten and you're all of virginia it's a little while in the middle of the chesapeake bay kind of a genocide. county. pain here all in the chesapeake bay probably one of the best there isn't going to fall for it. this is a picture of ten year island before the channel was cut through oh here. they are.

as going. right here are some of the headstones from the graves it for you this is a fruit that's that's what we don't want happen to taint your all and we want to get some protection and make sure that we don't go into the chesapeake bay like uppers did in other communities. i know c.n.n. m s n b c fox news have taken some not slightly but the fact is i admire their commitment to cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate. that was funny but it's close and for the truth and might think. it's because one call attention and the mainstream media works side by side the joke is actually on you.

and our teenagers we have a different brain. because the news of the world just is not this funny i'm not laughing dammit i'm not hi. i'm. you guys sort of the jokes well handled that. welcome back to the show we're looking at the perils of the attack on syria with jack straw your foreign secretary at the time of the iraqi war great to have you back all right so it seems to me that many british public oppose this this attack on syria the british parliament doesn't want it in particular who doubts.

well it's certainly the case that there is a very high level of opposition once the british public much higher i think than most parliamentarians including myself and to separate it and we've drawn attention to the votes at the end of august in the british house of commons with that. british governments have to take responsibility so does the british parliament so if we in parliament were convinced about both the process for decision and the need for a decision in favor of military action in respect of syria then we would take it notwithstanding the fact that it was going to be unpopular and i can tell you that in my own constituency parliamentary district the military action against iraq wasn't popular at the time it was taken but i made every effort to explain why i thought it was right and i subsequently had my position endorsed in the following election so you

can take unpopular decisions indeed as part of the responsibility of government but you've got to be able to explain them and that has so far not been the case but if you could if you were in charge would you order a strike. not as i'm sitting here today. no because i would need to have much more information i also needed televisions which i don't get. out of the opposition i do have a much clearer idea. about what the consequences would be all of us are shocked and. very upset about the fact that there's been a chemical weapons attack in syria and the consequences of the deaths of some hundreds of if not thousands of people including women and children and the elderly so that shock is. regardless of anybody's political or religious opinions but shock and anxiety is not enough to make

a policy and the question is this which is got to be answered. if there are missile attacks. of any kind. how does that advance the cause of peace and i hope both sides the other point is here i understand the importance to chemical weapons of course i do but it is fair enough for some people as they did in the british house of commons to point out that the west has been relative in its condemnation of the use of chemical weapons and notoriously when the iraqis with saddam backed by the west used various chemical weapons against the iranians against innocent iranians there was no hullabaloo from the west at that time and that is very much in the balance and i'm sure it's something producing such

a lot of cynicism in some quarters in the middle east. you know what i'm thinking this for i'm saying that it is being framed in western terms but it's not a western warrant out and decisions are still being taken on basis of western perception rather than proven facts as of now we are still learning from the damage of such orientalism watching libya aren't we. well i won't do libya is concerned is that it was right for france united kingdom the united states and others to take the action that we did in libya i understand that it's a cause of some very great concern in russia that the russian government felt that they were blindsided in the security council but that. it's not a view we accept it is also the case that it was a very clear mandate from the security council which russia had endorsed in favor

of that military action and i think that libya is a better place than it was before and will become an even better place so i don't think it's a parallel with libya but. what you had in libya was massive a population pretty united against a very small pretty corrupt elite around the gadhafi. in syria you've got a very much more complicated situation it is multi sect multi religious so you've got the alawite sheer the christians on one side and the sunni on the other side but it's even more complicated than that as well you know you've also got different. interests in that country including historically that of france after the carve up of the middle east at the end of the first world war they got. what we came to syria and you've also got russia which has seems

to me perfectly legitimate interests in its naval base and as a traditional ally of syria so you've got that complexity and you've got the neighbors turkey on one side and iran on the other both of which have separate but the gist of it interests and it's for this reason that about the others that we feel not that we want to see it through the russians are as pretty as our eyes but we need to examine the strategy through the eyes of what is best for the people of that benighted country and the neighbors and have been calls very recently the british house of commons not only to be a friends of syria which is friends of syrian rebels but for there to be a contract a contact group which brings together the western interests with russia and with iran particularly some of the gulf states to see whether we can finally produce

some solution to this crisis because how many people are killed or maimed in gassed in the end there has to be a political solution to what is happening in syria a lack of threats from syria to attack israel i mean she. certainly there will be unplanned consequences if this strikes take place well this is this is one of my great concerns about this i have no military action where some of the consequences of not being unintended i may be wrong but i've seen no. reports from israel that they are pushing for an immediate strike by the americans on the syrians and that's understandable some of the reports are. exactly it's all the reports i've seen suggest that although there was no love lost between the israeli government and the assad regime. at least that he was the devil they knew and was reasonably predictable. here's another question why do you think the west cautiously is waging military campaigns against secular leaders when we know if

they are toppled right or wrong because toppling dictators is obviously a good thing but in this case the only alternative that you know the western policies or your policies can create are hard line islamists is that there is that is like simply what sort of policy contrary to best interests. it's not it's not automatic that you get islamists. but one of the reasons why. such caution by the british government as well as the british house of commons about providing lethal support weaponry to the rebels was because of concerns as to the nature of the rebel course now some of them. perfectly respectable secular people i'm told that that is the majority but there are as we now know people who are equated to the taliban and even more extreme people behind them salafist people attached to al-qaeda so this is another part of

the complexity of the syrian situation personally i mean if you take the egyptian situation. you know i thought it was quite right that we backed elections in egypt and i believe that the west as well as a real should have described what was happening before our eyes which was a military coup against an elected government albeit one people disagreed with the muslim brotherhood in those terms because people's confidence in the idea of democracy is undermined if they think that those. not least people in the west. want to have it both ways so they should be free and fair elections but when and if they are free of. the results comes through then removing that government doesn't seem to be to be in the long term very sensible but in this

particular case is it possible to undermine the assad regime without playing into the hands of the radical islam. the way to undermine the our said regime would be for its external allies particularly russia and iran to. give president assad council and advice is very strong about his need our sides need to see a political settlement which would not result in the destruction of the our white interest and we know what the what assad and his. clan fear which is that if they give up any power then that. they want some protection and i'm just going to just make sure do you really believe that if president putin were to say to president assad you need to go he will just get his stuff pack it up and leave well it's not it's not that simple but but i do believe that if there were

a level of engagement by the west and an understanding by the west of russia's own needs in the area and legitimate interest russia has a base in syria well russia russia has a base in syria united states has bases in the gulf kingdom has a base number of sovereign base areas in cyprus so you know all the old great powers have got interests in that area including terrorists some territory of interest these people are understanding about that they need to be understanding of russia's own high levels of anxiety about the possibility of islamism feeding. further into the caucasus into their own backyard and destabilizing southern part of russia so we need that we need to an understanding about iran's role as well not least because we now have the optimism following the election of dr hassan rowhani president and i'm not saying that if president putin picks up the telephone

to present as that president assad will jump i am saying however that the assad regime is very sensitive to russian influence it relies a lot on russia for problem and maybe in terms of financial support i don't know if as well certainly international political support it receives russia is absolutely critical and if putin president putin were therefore to say you need to do this you need to start to moderate your attacks on the rebels and to start to take part as it were geneva two and get the iranians in there as well then i think we may be in a more optimistic situation all right unfortunately that's all the time we have for today this was jack straw former u.k. foreign secretary thank you for being with us here and we'll see you next time.

london. the whole world is. free to hear of the original one the one on the end. of the point about building at the end of the street another one of the more transparent society get the money or look at the tears because we see. and false is mobilized against the people who blend into the city the city the more people trust electronic devices the more. fear that it looks.

like. a pleasure to have you with us here today.

build a new. mission to teach.

a foreign intervention an idea put forward by u.s. secretary of state john kerry. but shortly after john kerry made that statement in london the u.s. . saying it was never intended as a real offer. for a new term in office but opposition. refuses to concede defeat calling for a mass rally to demand a recount.