Dominique de Villepin - Prime Minister of France (2005 - 2007) HARDtalk

built to cope with rising birthrate is and immigration.

Welcome to HARDtalk. Is a military strike against the

Assad regime in Syria in the offing or not? Two weeks after a report

urged of a Parap chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb. My

guest is the former prime minister Dominique de Villepin. His country

joins ready to join an attack on the Syrian regime, but who would

question the British parliamentarians voted against a

diligent, now President Obama is putting his military case before the

US Congress. Is this anyway to HARDtalk. It is two weeks since we

got these horrifying reports of what appears to be a chemical gas attack

in the Damascus suburbs. What do you make of the western response to the

news? There is a lot of hesitation uncertainty about this response. The

less we can say, it is a difficult situation. There are no easy

options. There are no good options. We might be forced to take the less

worse options and in this situation I don't believe that force is the

answer. Looking at the way it has been handled in Washington, in Paris

and in London, are you surprised at the level of uncertainty, confusion

that we have seen? I am not surprised because things have gone

too fast at the beginning. Beginning by saying that they were going to

use force, showing the muscles, was not the right thing to do at the

beginning, after the massacres. In such situations, you should be more

cautious. The first thing is to establish a case to show the proof,

and then afterwards to ask the international community for a

resolution in the UN, and afterwards to decide whether your use force or

not. I think we have gone the wrong way. And today we are paying through

hesitations. Let's do it your way. Let's talk about the evidence, the

case. A very simple question, you have looked at what French

intelligence have produced, I'm sure you've looked at what has been

produced in London and Washington as well, you personally convinced of

what the intelligence services say, which is that the of blame can be

placed direct league toward the Syrian Assad regime? I believe there

are a lot of presumptions, a lot of indications of Assad 's

responsibility in this massacre. Does that make proof? I'm not sure

at this stage. Your own intelligence services it does. I believe what my

services says. But to go from presumption to an absolute proof is

something else. I'm not sure this is the main factor, because we all know

that the regime of Bashar al-Assad, as well as the regime of his

father, is a criminal regime. is nothing new. There is something

new. If you say you accept the case that it is the Assad regime that

used chemical weapons, that is what is new. Four, he has not used

chemical weapons on this scale. It is argued that he has used this

before. There has been previous use at least four times in the last few

months. This report killed more than 1400 people, according to

intelligence. Including more than the intelligence services are

presenting, John Kerry has likened Bashar al-Assad to Hitler and Saddam

Hussein has leaders who have fragrantly broken beat Tobu on using

chemical weapons -- broken the taboo. There are at least 20,000

people who were dead in such massacres before. They were used in

1988 I Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. The Iranian people do

remember such massacres. We have two remember that in history, it is

always difficult to compare situations, there have been wide

massacres by Japan -- in Japan by the US. John Kerry says that we

cannot turn our back on responsibilities here and grant

impunity to a ruthless dictator who can continue to gas is people, those

are the stakes involved, you are saying here is simply overplaying

his hand? No, he is just giving the wrong out. I totally agree with the

fact we should react. Of course we should react. It is the best

reaction to use force, or do we have an alternative? What I'm saying is

we do have an alternative. Force should only be used as a last

resort, when it is needed. We have to take the lessons of the last 13

years. What happened in Afghanistan? We have been using force. What is

the situation of gas tank was like they are in the middle a civil war.

The same happened in Iraq and the same is happening in Libya. The

question is, facing such massacres of course we need a reaction. But

should we use the military and says the answer, or can we react in

another, more appropriate or better way? You say there are alternatives,

and if the idea is that Assad has to be deterred from using chemical

weapons again, if it has proven he used to them, what is your

alternative deterrent, apart from military. The touring from used

chemical weapons is one objective. There is a bigger object. Trying to

deter Assad from continuing the spiral of violence. Dying of a

chemical weapon is something, it is a tragedy. Not dying of any kind of

other weapons is something horrendous also. -- but dying of any

other kind of weapon. The solution must be diplomatic. During the Cold

War and after the Cold War, we have been facing deadlock situations like

the one in Syria. We have found options that were better than

force. Dividing countries, for example. That was the solution in

Germany, it has been the solution in Korea. With respect, dividing

countries usually happens after the application of force. Millions dying

in the Korean War, of course. But we have had enough. People dying in

Syria. The situation we are facing is that we have three different

zones in Syria. Shouldn't we think about trying to freeze the situation

in the country? Not dividing for long, of course, I don't think it's

an option in the long-term. But freezing the situation might read

the situation today, if we want to avoid... When you're not in power,

it is quite easy to see things like you want to freeze the situation.

How on earth do you freeze the situation? It can be the major

subject on the table during the G20. What is fascinating when you look at

the international community today, we are going to see the opening of

the G20 and discussing about options and not discussing that these can

discuss on Thursday. I think there is more courage and having Barack

Obama discussing with Vladimir Putin and other leaders in a firm way,

rather than discussing military options. Having an international

conference, having the discussion over how can we at least ceasefire

in Syria and maybe for a while freeze the situation on the ground.

We have to recognise the fact that we have a Kurdish region today. We

have an a la white -- Alawi region. You understand international

political realities. The reality is that Barack Obama has staked his

credibility on a strike against a side. He talked about the Red Line

-- against Assad. He says the line has been crossed. He asked Congress

to back him. He has staked the authority on a United States

government of giving a response, a military response, to Bashar

al-Assad. Should we have a military escalation, and in war to walk. We

have all ready an awful situation. He says limited, tailored, no boots

on the ground. I know that. Should we go and intervene militarily in

Syria for US domestic reasons, for the sake of Barack Obama? Should we

go there because we believe that we should show our muscles in order to

give a lesson to Iran? Are we talking out of Iran -- I were

talking about Iran, US domestic policy, or Syria? Are you saying

that Barack Obama is used cynically using this for domestic policy at

home. You are saying here is under pressure because he has no other

option today. He believes, and he said it again on the last few

moments, that chemical weapons represent a Red Line. It is that

threaten the region and ultimately threaten the interests of the entire

international committee. We all do believe that we should respect

international law and convention. There is a protocol of 1925, a

convention of 1993. If they do respect these conventions, but we

cannot separate the use of chemical weapons to the situation of Syria,

which is a situation of civil war. If we cannot separate the situation

of the country Syria, from the regional situation today, we're on

the verge of a sectarian war the Islamic countries. We are on the

verge of a war between Sunnis and Shi'ites. You cannot treat one

aspect of the conflict and forget about the rest. We must be

responsible. What if we are going to intervene militarily on the

situation gets worse was to mark what if this is going to be an

encouragement... Because of your fear of provoking even worse

conflagration, you are in effect offering Assad a green light to

continue his current strategy and soon Syria? I am trying to be more

imaginative. I'm trying to be more inventive and trying to see whether

there is another option than the use of force. The use of force, Ltd,

narrowed, we know that this strike is going -- not going to change

anything in Iran. John Kerry is saying we must seriously degrade

Assad 's regime. I think this must be a turning point in the war in

Syria. For two years, the west has been looking with a lot of

indifference the situation. Now we have a chance to act, both

politically, and we have to use the G20. We have to put Russia in front

of its responsibility. I believe we can have a very strong and hard

conversation with Vladimir Putin. The second factor we can play is the

humanitarian side. We have 2 million people refugees in the neighbouring

countries of Syria. 4 million people displaced. Have we done something is

an international community to help the situation? No. Why don't we try

to work on science and corridors. Why do we go to work on no-fly

zones. I do not like the use of military intervention because it is

too easy and it is a blind solution. We are going to play in such a

dangerous situation, and look what is going to happen. Let's stay with

France through moment. Former French has the authority to take authority

right now and there are many people on the centre right in the French

parliament who are demanding a vote before he takes France into military

action. The Constitution does not make an obligation to the President

to go for such a vote. Under the circumstances, the circumstances are

absolutely unique. It has been lasting for a couple of weeks, we

have time to consult them and I believe he President might feel

strongly asking for a vote. I think we can make an exception and ask

this year, he became convinced that force should be used to defeat

insurgents in Mali and he did that, using his authority and power. A lot

are showing the ability to take action now. Why should he not do it

again? Two reasons. The first one is, because nobody is sure this is

the solution. It might be a good solution... The point about this

reaction is that someone has to show... The second point is that Mac

such a situation? I am not sure. said a year ago that force may have

to be part of the great equation. He should get off the back foot and get

onto the front foot. A year ago you gave this advice. Britain was Arab

newly erected -- elected president. Vladimir Putin. You know better than

I that the UN is incapable of taking action because of the security

council. I have made a strategic decision that they will not

the United dates. You give them control of this entire crisis?

Without the UN... That is why I think the best option is... We were

facing the situation in the Cold War, when we tried to have real

dialogue with Russia and China. I think it is better to have a

solution that is going to be a solution bike and dancers.

Unilaterally we will make the decision to use force. Is there not

an opportunity here for France. I am looking at the words of a reputable

retired general, he says, Great Britain can no longer be considered

a credible military power. This indication is that France has an

opportunity to step in to forge a new relationship with the which

actually can change the way we feel about the dynamic between the United

States and Europe 's. We are not competing to be the best friend of

the US. We have had some difficulties in the past. Do give

you some letter to hear John Kerry referring to France as being

America's oldest ally? It is true. We would in independence war. But

that does not mean we should compete with the British. I consider that

the decision of the British Parliament doesn't change anything

concerning your relations with the US. It is an important decision. It

does not change the strong relationship, the strong ties that

you do have with the US. Let me put it this way. You talk with the

strong relationship with the United States. I want you to tell me how

Barack Obama should be judged in his handling of the Syrian situation.

think he has a chance to rethink. I think the next days are going to be

very important. You think that thus far, he has had it the wrong way?

Yes. The most important thing and at the start is to establish a case and

then to make a judgement. They have gone, both in France and US, same in

Britain, you have gone the wrong way in deciding force before trying to

explain the different problems we are having. I believe this was

wrong. But today, we have to really think whether using force is the

best answer. It cannot skip the fact that on Thursday, Barack Obama is

going to meet with Vladimir Putin. The key to the Syrian crisis is in

Moscow. We need to reassess this fact. We have been to easily working

with Russia in the last years. Now Russia is blocking us. We need to

work with them and find the right answer stop what makes you think

that the Western find a magic formula to bring Vladimir Putin to

eight cooperative position? Because I believe in the long run, Putin

will not do nothing. He is not doing nothing, he is staunchly supporting

Assad regime troops. They must do something on the humanitarian front

and on the end... Why must they? This is typical French bluster. The

realities of the situation are quite clear. Russia is a loyal friend of

Assad. The west has compelling evidence that assays used chemical

weapons. Obama calls it a red line. Russia is not going to get onside.

So the west faces a choice, you make good on what you have said about red

lines and international law, or you don't. Putting red lines is not the

best way to deal with international issues. The question is not whether

we should strike, whether this is good for the Syrian population. This

is the question. In the long run, the Russian regime, Vladimir Putin

's regime, cannot not see that they have to find a solution as well.

want to quote you the words of a doctor who had to deal with the

injuries to young people who are hit by incendiary bombs were dropped on

a playground inside Syria. Those who oppose intervention should just then

one day in a civilian area under constant shelling. They should watch

their warplanes dropping their bombs on civilians. Maybe you should think

about that. We have seen that in the past. I remember the launching by

the US planes when they bombed Vietnam. I remember the bombing of

Iraq. Around 700,000 people, up to 700,000 people to 1.4 million

people, died in the Iraqi war. You should remember that also. We should

not compare situations. We should be aware of what is the less worse

situation. Maybe there were solution could see Jihadist army becoming

more powerful in the area. Unless you send us stronger military

supplies, you are heading the field to get up high either interest. --

Carder interests. Maybe it is too late for that. Today, helping

bluntly that position made by the radicals... Maybe your staunch non-

interventionism will support the west 's biggest enemies. At the

start of this situation, we might have seen that. But now it is

different. There is a risk of a rat the colonisation of all these

movements. -- radicalisation. You will not create a better situation.

We have been listening to them for years. What we have seen in the