later this hour we'll hear some predictions on that from political analyst chris bambery so stay with us. a wide reaching british investigation on why the country invaded iraq alongside with the us is being stopped in its tracks thanks to washington it's emerged that the white house has brought the inquiry to hold as it could expose secret communications between then prime minister tony blair and president george w. bush but as celia now reports there may be more at stake. the report by the independent newspapers cites a senior diplomatic sources and essentially what they say is that washington is playing a key role in trying to block the publication of some classified information which essentially contains the conversation in exchanges between then president george w. bush and you can prime minister tony blair does this will be crucial information for that iraq inquiry that's going on here and i was far as justifications are concerned some of those diplomatic sources say that the us is highly possessive of any information that relates to the president or anyone around them and also t

protests against the country being the destruction site for syria's arsenal political analyst chris bambery told us he should be europe's wealthiest nations to step in here to implement this ambitious elimination plan. my understanding is that they will go to france and i think it's really the onus is on britain or france in terms of the western european powers to deal with this because as i say they do have chemical weapons although we don't advertise the fact that britain and france have stockpiles of chemical weapons they do have the ability to do that the french and the british have the facilities wordly to dismantle these things safely they have the expertise surely that's the better option has abided by this deal the west should really put its money where its mouth is here it's up to this deal it's sending ships in this case norwegian ship to deal with this but the norwegians claiming they don't have the expertise to dismantle it you can see why chemical weapons see the will not to take them in and i think it kind of smacks of resentment over the fact that really in the end this deal

be the host site and norway saying it will help but only with transportation political analyst chris bambery says finding a willing partner will not be easy i want to find incredible words that the norwegian merchant ship company by a norwegian naval vessel which is going to syria to pick up these weapons which is mustard gas and siren and bring them to albania the norwegians say they don't have the expertise mobility to dismantle the chemical weapons i would ask you if the richest one of the richest countries in europe don't have the expertise and knowledge to do this how do you expect the poorest country in europe to do this kind of smacks of a colonial mentality that somehow we're going to dump of these things and being here we're not going to bring them to britain why don't you choose a country such as the expertise for instance in britain that is the aldermaston chemical weapon. facility i would trust that to dismantle those weapons but there was high levels of expertise and also albania must be one of the least stable countries in europe this is not to attack the al billion people but

all with the decision as to where in fact to destroy these weapons the more political analyst chris bambery thinks that e.u. nations are actually disappointed that the deal with syria seems to be succeeding. the norwegians say they don't have the expertise the ability to dismantle the chemical weapons i would ask you if the richest one of the richest countries in europe don't have the expertise and knowledge to do this how do you expect the poorest country in europe to do this kind of smacks of a colonial mentality that somehow we're going to dump these things in albania we're not going to bring them to britain why don't you choose a country which as the expertise for instance in britain there is the aldermaston chemical weapons facility i would trust that and i think it kind of smacks i resent over the fact that really in the end this deal has come or. brokered a deal. and no syria has abided by the agreements over it and i can't feel there's a resentment in european capitals that actually a deal has worked. coming up iraq remains on the trail of daily sectarian bloodshed is every need or

against the country being the destruction site for syria's chemical arsenal political analyst chris bambery says it should be europe's wealthy nations who step in to implement the bishop's elimination plan my understanding is that they will go to france and i think it's really the onus is on britain or france in terms of the western european powers to deal with this because as i say they do have chemical weapons although we don't advertise the fact that britain and france have stockpiles of chemical weapons they do have the ability to do that the french and the british have the facilities would you can dismantle these things safely they have the expertise surely that's the best option has abided by this deal. the west should really put its money where its mouth is he signed up to this deal it's sending ships in this case norwegian ships to deal with this but the norwegians were claiming they do all the expertise to dismantle and up and see what chemical weapons say they will not to take them in and i think it kinds of smacks i resent over the fact that really in the end this deal has come o

take in syria's estimated one thousand tons of toxic weapons for destruction political analyst chris bambery explain to us why the choice of one of europe's poorest countries for the task is controversial and what i find incredible was that it is a norwegian merchant ship accompanied by a norwegian naval vessel which is going to syria to pick up these weapons which it was mustard gas and siren and bring them to albania the norwegians say they don't have the expertise and the ability to dismantle the chemical weapons i would ask you if the richest one of the richest countries in europe don't have the expertise and knowledge to do this how do you expect the poorest country in europe to do this kind of smacks of a colonial mentality that somehow we're going to dump of these things in albania we're not going to bring them to britain why don't you choose a country which has the expertise for instance in britain is the aldermaston chemical weapons facility i would trust that to dismantle those weapons but there was high levels of expertise and also albania must be one of the least stable countries

of protests against the country being the destruction side of syria's arsenal political analyst chris bambery of the week says it should be europe's wealthiest nations to step in here to implement its ambitious elimination plan. my understanding is that they will go to france and i think it's really the onus is on britain or france in terms of the western european powers to deal with this because as i say they do have chemical weapons although we don't advertise the fact that britain and france have stockpiles of chemical weapons they do have the ability to do that the french and the british have the facilities word you can dismantle these things safely they have the expertise surely that's the better option has abided by this deal the west should really put its money where its mouth is here it's signed up to this deal it's sending ships in this case norwegian ship to deal with this but the norwegians queering they don't have the expertise to dismantle you could have been see chemical weapons see the will not to take them in and i think it kind of smacks of i resent over the fact that really