William Hague - British Foreign Secretary HARDtalk

Welcome to HARDtalk. Today's interview comes from the grandeur of

the British Foreign Office. From this building, foreign secretaries

of the past have projected real power across the world. What about

today? My guess is the current Foreign Secretary, William Hague.

So, in Syria, in Afghanistan, how successful, how influential is

today's British foreign policy? Foreign Secretary William Hague,

welcome to HARDtalk. Like you. Let me start with the situation in

Syria. The conflict has cost 130,000 lives, the violence shows no sign of

ending. How acutely do you feel a sense of failure that the outside

world has, in essence, been able to do nothing to stop that violence? We

should all feel a sense of failure, the international community, the UN

to duty council has failed in its possibilities as I have told it on

at least one occasion when I have been there. The world should have

been able to do more about this. It hasn't been able to do so with a

divided UN Security Council, the big constraint. What we do it everything

we can to mitigate the crisis, push it towards a solution. The UK is the

second biggest donor of humanitarian aid. We all have to promote the

political solution required. It points to impotence. I sat in this

room with you a couple of years ago, when the death toll was in the

thousands, not hundreds of thousands. You said this cannot

continue. In particular, President Bashar al-Assad cannot can --

continue. He is not enough it and you look impotent. Actually, the

world has been impotent. The UN Security Council has been divided.

Had it not been per that, this crisis could have been more

successfully addressed. Without that, remedies are against

international law or don't command international support. So you and

the international community count for nothing? It means there has to

be unity internationally, in order to impose solutions on anyone. That

has not been there and is still not there. There is sufficient unity to

bring them together, to make sure there is an attempt going on for a

political solution. Russia has played an important role. Western

countries have played an important role in getting the opposition to be

there, to play a constructive part so far in the Geneva negotiations.

We have to do that rather than be able to say, here we have resolved

the crisis ourselves. But does that process in Geneva and surrounding

the chemical weapons elimination, does that simply not play into a

sad's hands. He has the de facto acknowledgement of people like you,

he still remains the legitimate leader of this -- Syria, and you do

business with him. The last thing you would want is for him to walk

away from the table. There needs to be a political settlement in the

end. Neither side will militarily conquer the country. There has to be

a political settlement. Hang on, why can't a sad win? What's to say,

given the situation today, and a couple of years ago when his tenure

looked fragile, what's to say Assad in his own mind can't be saying to

himself, I can win this? He can't win because 130,000 people have

died, his country has been torn apart. Nobody can lead a country

after that has happened on his watch. It is not possible for a sad,

even supporters of a sad but had to calculate, it is not possible for

him to lead a united Syria ever again after these events. There was

going to be a military victory for either side. There has to be at some

point a political solution involving some elements of the regime and

opposition. That is what is set out in the first Geneva communique. In

the meantime, you say Geneva is the only game in town. Someone your own

side, the Conservative MP Brooks Newmark who has followed this

closely, he says the problem with the Geneva talks is a sad cynically

calculates he can write now get away with more atrocities. We have seen

hundreds of deaths from barrel bombs, he can get away with this

because no one wants to see the regime leave that the negotiating

table. That's the truth. There are many problems for the opposition,

which we must understand. To come to the Geneva talks when these

atrocities continue. Barrel bombs are being dropped, people are being

starved. It is very difficult for them to come under these

circumstances. Which means we have to do everything we can to alleviate

that situation. That is why we need humanitarian access. We are all

pressuring Russia. Then at least some progress can be made in these

talks. There is no getting away from the fact it is the duty of all the

fuss, including all of us on the Security Council, to promote

political dialogue and a political settlement. That is what we are

trying to do. I will talk about humanitarian aid

in a moment. A final thought on the conflict and the British politics --

policy. You were giving limited assistance last year, to rebel

forces. You then stopped giving that aid because a couple of warehouses

were taken over by jihadi Islamists. The Americans did the

same thing but they have now opened up the supply lines again in the

last few days to rebel forces. Will you do that?

We want to be able to do that and there was a good chance. I am not

making an announcement about that today. We want to be confident where

our assistance goes even though it is non-lethal assistance. We need

that confidence to be able to resume supplies. The Americans seem to have

that confidence. We all have to make our own judgement. Alistair Burt

said that right now Britain should be arming the rebels it believes to

be the moderates because he says, without doing that, there is a

fundamental disadvantage to those forces who are taking on Assad. We

wouldn't be able to do that. There wouldn't be a majority in our

Parliament for that. It would require the majority of MPs to

support that. Would you personally support it? We have never judged it

would be right to do so. You don't? We would need such confidence about

what would happen to lethal supplies. I hope we can presume

supplies of non-lethal weapons. I have said we are ready to do that.

It is part of our duty to keep a moderate opposition in being,

however we can. Different countries can help in different ways.

have a political solution. Is your greatest fear, not of Assad staying

in power, but Syria becoming a breeding ground for Islamist

terrorists who might bring their terror to the UK? Those things go

together. Assad has been the chief recruiting sergeant in effect for

extremism. It is the conditions he has produced in Syria that has made

it a place that has attracted extremism and again this is why...

Is that your greatest fear when you look at Syria today? My answer to

the question about priorities is, you have to tackle both at the same

time. Which is why we have to keep a moderate opposition in being. There

is no point falling for the government rhetoric that we have

just got to be dinner with extremists. It is not possible to do

that successfully without a solution in Syria. Assad is the great

obstacle to that. It is his policies producing the extremism. This

conversation seems to be going around in circles. Saying and

impotence, that in essence is what you seem to be saying. Tony Blair

said, Syria is becoming a breeding ground of extremism more dangerous

than Afghanistan in the 1990s. Do you share that sentiment? It is

difficult to compare one country and one period with another. I wouldn't

put it exactly like that. It is certainly the fastest growing threat

to international security. There are many hundreds of foreign fighters

who have gone there. They may be a danger to many dangers including the

UK. At some point, intervention will have to be back on the table. It was

taken off the table last summer but it will have to come back if you

believe what you have told me? That would be the case if we all thought

that intervention would solve the problem. And if there was sufficient

democratic political support in Western countries to do that. Any

observer would have to seriously question that. We have to deal it --

deal with it in all the possible ways we can. Does it keep you up at

night, the fact as we talked through Syria, there is absolutely no good

option, indeed everything we say is about how terrible, awful, and

acceptable, the situation is? This, sadly, is what foreign policy is

like. The choice of lesser evils, mitigating consequences. There are

some areas where we can aspire to higher ideals. Does it keep you up

at night? This is a hugely preoccupying crisis. We haven't, the

world has failed, you are right, the world has completely failed to

resolve it. The UK has a very strong record in helping the people

affected by it. Assist in Lebanon, Jordan. We are feeding a third of a

million people a day. Germany for example has agreed to take more than

10,000 of the most seriously injured people. Few countries can compete

with what the United Kingdom has done. He wouldn't quarrel with those

figures on how many Syrians, the most badly affected, tortured, some

rate, abused in terrible ways, we say you will take a few hundred. I

haven't set a figure. You won't commit to a figure. Germany had

taken 10,000. The United Kingdom has given nearly $1 billion of

assistance, it is one of the most generous nations in the world. There

are a million people getting water a day because of us, a third of a

million getting medical consultations. We are a big hearted

and generous nation and showing it again in this crisis and will go on

showing it. The situation of the Syrian people is desperate, getting

worse. We have to get more of the aid I have been describing into the

besieged parts of Syria, that is one of our priorities. I was struck with

your words, you said, so much of foreign policy making is dealing

with terrible intractable problems, and finding the least worst

solution. I guess that would apply to Afghanistan. How did you react

when you saw the newspaper article this last weekend in which the

President of Afghanistan was asked by British journalists, with the

situation in Helmand have been better if British troops had not

gone in? His answer, one word, yes. How did you feel about that? We

don't agree with that, that was a regrettable thing to say. I note

that the Afghan spokesman has distanced himself from that and

President Karzai has underlined his feelings and sympathies for the

families of British personnel. One mother of a frozen British soldier

said, it was disgusting, he might as well have spat on my son's grave. I

am pleased certain corrective statements have been made. This is a

man we still have thousands of troops propping up... Doing a vital

and proper -- vital job. But how can we tolerate that if you said it

would have been better if we hadn't been in his province. President

Karzai has often spoken to me and the Prime Minister about what

Afghanistan owes to the United Kingdom, the British troops. He made

that clear when he came here to the United Kingdom. He had chipped

visitors? -- duplicitous. How would you characterise your

reaction? It is something which has to do be

put right and we need them to continue to do so. I don't want to

put words into your mouth but were you outrage? I am going to put it in

my own way, I am pleased I have heard him say positive and different

things. You have not heard him say sorry for that article. I wonder if

you have been on the phone and had a very frank exchange with him? We

have many frank exchanges with him, not since then. He has made clear

some different things since then, and that is important. Do you worry

about what happens after this deadline set by the United States

and other NATO forces still there, saying they will all be out by the

end of 2014? I have spoken to Robert Gates who thinks that is going to

lead to a very difficult situation post-poll out. Another senior

general has talked about AIDS danger of a new civil war -- talked about

the danger of a new civil war inside Afghanistan. Are you confident that

all troops can come out and Afghanistan can still be secured? We

have said we will end combat at the end of 2014. Decisions have still to

be made by the United States and others about forces that remain. We

want to leave a residual British force? We have said we will run the

officer training academy in Afghanistan. That is one form of a

continuing British presence. We are also very committed to the funding

of the Afghans' own forces, as many other forces are. Britain will be

present in many ways but we will end a combat role at the end of 2014,

that has been clear for some years. Decisions by the United States are

held up by the failure of Afghanistan to sign the bilateral

security agreements with the United States. We hope that they get on and

sign and ratify that agreement. Sorry to interrupt, setting that

deadline for the end of 2014 was a terrible mistake, wasn't it? Not at

all, it is a very necessary process. It plays into the hands of

the Taliban. They can watch and wait and they know that come the end of

2014, the battlefield will be theirs. They also need to know that

the Afghan security forces in that time have been built up enormously.

General Dunford, the ISA chief, says the Afghan security forces not ready

to be self-sustaining until 2014. They have led most military

operations in recent months including in Helmand, they have

acquitted themselves extremely well and they are going to receive more

than $4 billion a year of financial support in order to make sure they

continue to be able to do that. If we hadn't set a deadline, a time, I

think it would have been very difficult to persuade Afghans to

take on that responsibility. They have known that there will be a time

from the end of 2014 when they take on fully that responsibility, they

have been getting ready for that for the last two to three years. This

has been our objective in Afghanistan. That Afghanistan is

able to provide for its own security, and it has been necessary

to put a time on that. Is there any part of you that fears that the

Afghan strategy over the last 13 years or so is actually failed? When

you look at Afghanistan today and compare it to 13 years ago, and the

danger it presented some of the people who were there and what they

were doing presented to the rest of the world, that has been dealt with

to a very large degree. We are safer, the world, the UK, European

countries, the United States, many other countries are safer from

events in Afghanistan now than then. It would not be right to say the

policy in Afghanistan had failed. Do we have fears for future

instability? Of course. But that is why we are committed to the

development and support of the Armed Forces. To make sure Afghanistan can

look after its own affairs. We don't have so much time left and there is

a couple of more important policy areas I want to get through. One is

Israel-Palestine. The Americans are going to blitz their plan for a two

state solution very soon -- publish their plan. John Kerry warned that

if they intensify the push for peace, it will intensify calls for a

do you see Israel's isolation becoming more complete? He is right

to warn about that and I have warned Israeli leaders that the world will

see this as a last chance on a two state solution. I really pay tribute

to John Kerry and the energy and commitment that he has put into

this. Many observers will say, if it doesn't work, but if John Kerry,

with all of the weight of the United States, his experience and

standing, cannot bring the two sides together to reach final status

agreements, then who can? In talking of isolation of Israel, Kerry put

Israeli government ministers' backs up. One said in response to carry's

words, Kerry is holding a gun to Israel's head. Is the EU, with its

own boycott of Israeli businesses that have operations in occupied

territory, is the EU putting a gun to Israel's head? We don't have

boycotts, have guidelines. You are blocking loans and grants... That is

a different thing from a boycott. Nobody is putting a gun to

anybody's head. What the EU is offering with our strong support is

an unprecedented package of economic partnership and assistance, to work

with Israelis and Palestinians, if this is successful. If it is not, is

the EU going to go further? If it doesn't happen, if there isn't

agreement on these things, it will be a very dark time, both for

Israelis and Palestinians, for both sides, actually. There are terrible

consequences to fear. Certainly it would bring a great deal of

international pressure on Israel, including at the United Nations.

There will be many moves for Palestinians to seek rate a

recognition at the UN, which would command a huge rat of international

support -- to seek greater recognition. From Britain? Britain

has not committed itself. The situation will be difficult for

Israel but for our destiny and is as well. Without embracing a two state

solution and achieving one, their situation would be pretty desperate

as well. A final thought goes back to the beginning, we talked about a

sense of failure. You were Frank, you said the entire international

committee has failed the people of Syria. Are you at a point in your

political career, having served the best part of four years in the

Foreign Office, where the difficulties of getting things done,

and that sense that there is so much you would like to do and simply

can't do given the realities of international affairs, it gets to a

point where it grinds you down and you don't want to do it any more?

No, no. This is British diplomacy and all the ministers are very

busily, positively engaged in what we are doing. This year I am going

to host the most important summit ever held on preventing sexual

violence in conflict, which is one of those areas where I think we can

achieve a lot that improves the condition of humanity. Next week I

am going to host the conference here on preventing the illegal wildlife

trade. There is not only a moral outrage but it is now funding

criminal and terrorist gangs. The United Kingdom is going to host the

NATO summit later this year in Wales, which will be a key moment to

set the future of NATO, after all the things we have been discussing

in Afghanistan. We are achieving a lot around the world, at the same

time as expanding British diplomacy. By next year I will have opened 20

new embassies and consulates. We are achieving a lot in the world,

despite all these issues. We won't lose any energy here in the British

Foreign Office. Right! We will leave that as the last word. We have to

end there but thank you very much for being on HARDtalk. Thank you

very much. 'Let's bring you the news...'

'The latest headlines...'