12/06/2014 Newsnight

Hello from New York, the Iraq Government's frantic appeal to the

United States for military help against the Islamist guerrillas who

captured two of the country's key cities is formally under

consideration by the White House. But the former Secretary of State,

Hillary Clinton, says the only reasonable answer at this stage is a

resounding no. No, I agree with the White House's resection and

reluctance to do the kind of military activities that the Mall

Government is requesting, namely fighter aircraft. We hear from

Hillary Clinton why Putin is dangerous and why Scotland ought to

stay in the union and whether women would run the world better than men,

and of course, on whether she will run for the White House herself.

How would America have been different if you had beaten Obama to

the White House? (Laughs) I don't know. And we will never know. You

must care? We will never know Jeremy. We will talk about America's

place in the world with two people who should be concerned, and we will

talk about the Prime Minister of free Iraq.

# Ain't no valley low enough # Ain't no river wide enough

She just put down the book she was reading and walked the entire length

of the law library and said. If you are going to keep looking at me and

me looking back, we better know each other. I'm not some little woman

standing by her man like Tammy Wynette. I could have fulfilled my

profession which I entered before my husband was in public life. I have

so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us

fall backwards. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.

The United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama Bin

Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda. Wait you want me to tell you what my

husband thinks, he's not the Secretary of State, I am. Now, until

last year the latest crisis in Iraq would have been another problem for

the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama took office

promising to end the war on Iraq, well he has certainly withdrawn

plenty of US troops, but the war in Iraq has suddenly got a whole lot

worse, the threat from radical Islam may have been greatly exaggerated

when George W Bush invaded there, but it is real enough right now. In

the last few days radical Islamists have taken two important cities. I

have been to see Hillary Clinton, who has just written her account as

time as America's top diplomat. Mrs Clinton, the Government of Iraq is

said to be appealing to the United States for help in fighting the

problem that it has got with Islamic insurgents. Should military help be

given? Not at this time, no. I agree with the White House's rejection and

reluctance to do the kind of military activities that the Mall

Government is requesting, namely fighter aircraft to provide close

support for -- Almeria Government to provide fighter aircraft to vied to

provide the support. Nouri Al-Maliki has to show he's prepared to do the

job. The army which hasn't been able to hold territory had an injection

of discipline, something the United States has been trying to help with,

Nouri Al-Maliki has to be prepared to demonstrate unequiffly that he's

a leader for all Iraqis not a sectarian slice of the country. But

the White House is saying no option is ruled out? That's what they

should say, because part of what they are trying to do. You think

they should rule some things out? At this time, yes. Because the

conditions precedent have not been accepted or set by Nouri Al-Maliki.

What the White House is doing is making it very clear to him what

they would have to say, and not that they would necessarily provide the

kind of support he is asking for, but the sort of the support that the

United States believes would be appropriate. But it would be

inappropriate to send in ground forces of any kind? Yes, that is not

going to happen. Never, under any circumstances? I never say never,

because one doesn't know the world is so unpredictable. But certainly

not in any foreseeable future that I'm aware of. When you look at what

is happening in Iraq do you feel guilty supporting the invasion? I

made a mistake giving the Bush administration the authority I voted

for. It was not used as I expected it to be used and the entire

implementation strategy was flawed. So, yes, I made a mistake, and I

deeply regret the consequences. That country wasn't broken before the

invasion? It was a broken country, even though it had a dictator. Who

held it together? Hoi who by force and brutally would keep it together.

He had invaded Kuwait and gassed the Kurds. He was no shining example of

sovereignty and territorial integrity. Nobody suggests he was a

nice guy. He was worse than not a nice guy. But that is not the

debate. The debate now is it was done, the invasion occurred, he was

deposed, the Iraqi people were given a chance to chart a different

course, some of them have done quite well, the Kurds in the north have

done extremely well. But the Government that came in through the

elections, which were deemed internationally acceptable has not

done what it needed to do to try to unify the country, bring Sunni and

Shi'ite alike, bring the different factions within together. Compare

Iraq, where there was intervention, with Syria where there was no

intervention? Just shows you how hard it is to make these choice,

which is why I'm calling the book Hard Choices, because I did advocate

for limited but focussed action in Syria to try to vet, train and equip

moderate opponents of Assad. And you were overruled by the President? I

was overruled, in part because of the lessons from Iraq. It is hard to

get a little bit pregnant, so to speak, in being involved in these

countries' internal conflicts, but I did think there was a potential

role. Now of course, what I say in the book was a wicked problem has

become even wickedier. How much was the decision not to get involved in

Syria influenced by the fact that the British parliament held that

surprising vote not to have any military intervention? I'm sure that

influenced it, because that vote was some days prior to the President

having to make a final decision, and it was, there was a series of votes

as I recall what happened in the British parliament. The individual

votes were defeated, but if you had added up all the votes for

everything that would have been a positive, you could have gotten to

that, but for all kinds of reasons and I don't pretend to understand

the intricacies of British politics or parliamentary procedure, it was a

defeat for the idea that there should be intervention. And that

influenced the American decision not to intervene? I believe it did. I

was out of office by then, but it is my understanding that it certainly

was taken into account. Can we talk a little about Russia. You famously

pressed the "reset" button, are you embarrassed now by that gesture? No,

I thought it was a brilliant stroke, which in retrospect appears even

more so, look at what we accomplished, between the Russian

invasion of Georgia in August 2008, which of course torpedoed relations

between the United States and Russia for good reason. We come into office

and for that period of time if you will, Medvedev is President and

Putin is Prime Minister. There were jobs we wanted to get done. We

wanted to get Russia on board with tough sanctions against Iran. We

wanted to have a new start treaty and limit nuclear weapons. We wanted

their help in transiting across their huge country to get things

into Afghanistan. We got all that done. Putin comes back, look where

we are now. He invaded another country. So yes, while we had that

moment we seized it, we used it and succeeded. Do you think Putin is a

dangerous man? He can be. Is he a man who exploits weakness? I think

he acts out of his perceived weakness of Russia. I believe his

goal is to reassert Russian power, he would be perfectly happy if t

Soviet Union could be reconstituted, but he's enough of a realist to know

that is not going to happen. He wants to in so far as possible

control Soviet Republics in central Asia and intimidate those in Europe.

Like any person, of course, with a view that's what power should be

used for, if he sees weakness or disorder, because I think he was as

affected by what he perceived as disorder in Ukraine than by

weakness, he acted in large measure because of what happens happening in

Maiden Square, of course he will explore the boundaries as far as he

can. You made some strong comments about Ukraine, but you would concede

that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence? Of course I

would not. You wouldn't? There can't be spheres of influence in today's

world, particularly post World War ll. Not even the case of Cuba and

the United States? They are clearly not in our sphere of influence. I

talk about that in the book, let's end the embargo and go back with

them. Russia wants a sphere of influence, that is what this is all

about, Georgia don't you dare choose as a sovereign nation that you

wouldn't to look toward Europe. He has legitimate concerns doesn't he?

No he does not, think of the energy he is using to plot and compeer

against the freedom that -- conspire against the freedom the people have

gained because of the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia could be a

truly great country, not a bullying country, not totally dependant on

oil and gas and using it to intimidate its neighbours but he has

made a different voice choice, and it is regrettable for Russia. Every

country has vital interests doesn't it? Absolutely. Isn't the security

of Ukraine a vital interest for Russia? No it is not. I mean Ukraine

is a customer for Gazprom, Ukraine has Russian ethnic, Russian

speakers, so there are cultural connections, but Ukraine became an

independent country. Of course Russia can try to partner with

Ukraine, but Russia should not feel that it can give orders to Ukraine,

and if Ukraine doesn't abide by those orders it can take aggressive

action. That is not acceptable. When you were running American foreign

policy, you must have thought what are America's vital interests here,

and you must have thought about something else. Now at the time the

British were the imperial power in the world someone like Palmerston

could have given you a one-sentence definition about what the British

Empire was about. What is America about in the world now? We are

certainly not about an empire, we never have been about an empire, it

is one of the very important differences that sets us apart. We

do take military action as you know, and then we go back home. But what

we are about is promoting our values, absolutely. I believe there

should be a contest of values. If Russia believes its system is better

than the west's, that Ukraine should not be part of the European Union,

getting to make choices for itself, let the people of Ukraine hear both

sides, and figure out what they want to do, not have it imposed. I hope

what we can return to is that kind of debate about the future in the

21st century. The United States will certainly be a vigorous proponent of

what we believe and want to see happen. How would you summarise what

the vital interests and values are? It starts with security, number one

for any Government, we need to protect our people and friends and

partners and allies around the world. Secondly we have to promote

global prosperity and a rules-based order that needs to be updated to

fit the modern conditions in the global economy, to promote

broad-based inclusive prosperity. Thirdly, we want to promote and

protect human rights, we think that is part of our DNA, our mission. So

when you look at our promotion of our values, our pursuit of our

interests, and the protection of our security, we have to all the time

try to figure out which is first, which is second and which is third

in every situation. You say in the book that there was a shift of

emphasis in American foreign policy, you are less preoccupied with what

Rumsfeld called "the old Europe", you are less preoccupied with the

transatlantic relationships and alliances and more preoccupied with

things going on in Asia and other parts of the world. Does that mean

that Europe is less important to you now than it used to be? No, I try to

make very clear in the book that I thought we needed to renew and

rebuild the important alliances that we have in Europe. Europe are our

partners of first resort. This is where we really live, however, when

I became Secretary of State I quickly learned that Asia thought

the Bush administration had totally neglected it. And we have vital

interests there. We have defence treaties, we have promised to defend

people. So it wasn't moving away from, it was pivoting towards

without losing the importance, because I went to Asian in February,

Europe in March and made the case from the very beginning. What about

the boring old cliche about the "special relationship" is that worth

anything nowadays? It is worth everything to me and our country,

I'm a big anglophile when it comes to special relationship, and partly

because I think we see the world very simply. I worked with two

foreign secretaries, one Labour, one Tory, I had so much in common with

both Ed Miliband David Miliband and William Hague. We can talk about

things in an easy fashion, despite political differences between them

and our own country, there was a base of understanding that is so

understanding. And comforting. Do you think the United States will be

enhanced or diminished in their relationship with the UK if we hold

a referendum on Europe. You are drawing me into dangerous waters.

You are clever enough to deal with it? That is a political decision at

the very core of it. Europe needs Britain, in my opinion. I think

Britain brings a perspective and experience that is very important to

Europe, especially post-economic crisis. So Britain will have to

decide if they agree with that. And what about whether Scotland is

intergrel to Britain? I would hate to have you lose Scotland. I got an

honourary degree from St Andrews. You are perfectly happy to interfere

in British politics on the question of the union, why not other matters?

I hope that it doesn't happen. I don't have a vote in Scotland, I

would hope it doesn't happen. Why? Because it just seems like. They are

entitled to their freedom as much as Ukraine? Well if there had been a

real referendum as opposed to a rump and intimidating event. It will be a

proper referendum? It will be because there is legal process

associated with it, we will see what the people of Scotland decide. You

know I would think it would be a loss for both sides, again I don't

have a vote. Can I ask you about your personal ambitions, you say in

the book you have not decided whether you are going to run for the

cy. Other factors are going to decide it for you what are the other

factors? They are both personal and political, I mean personally I'm

about to be a grandmother in the fall. I'm very excited about that. I

want to relish the experience, I don't want to be passing through it

and looking forward, I want to be right in the middle of it. A

presidential campaign, if one decides to do it is 24/7,

all-consuming, I'm not ready for that. The most important thing as I

say in the end of the book is not the questions, will you run? Or can

you win? What is your vision for America and can you lead it there?

We are going through one of our periodic, political mess, lots of

dysfunction, lots of finger-pointing, inability to reach

consensus and compromise. I want to be sure as I evaluate this decision

going forward that you know I, number one know where I want to lead

the country, and number two that I think I can make that happen. You

know that? I don't. You know what you can offer the country? I know in

general terms and I haven't said exactly what is my economic policy,

we are having a hard time creating jobs what are we actually going to

do about it and how can I put together the political coalition,

and unlikely partners to achieve that, I haven't done any of that

work. I have been focussed on writing the book and talking about

the foreign policy and national security issues. How would America

have been different if you had beaten Obama to the White House!

(Laughs) I don't know. And we will never know. You must care. Whether

you know is not quite the same as whether you care? I stopped caring,

when I lost and he won that was the end for me, I ended up actually

working for him. Do you think that is good for America, was it good for

America? Of course it was, are you kidding, absolutely. It was so

fortunate for me after the hard, long intense campaign that I got to

support somebody with whom I had so much in common, even though we had

differences, we agreed on much more than we disagreed on. I don't

rummate -- ruminate, I'm not sitting around and thinking about what might

have been, that is not my thought process. He won, I pledged my

support, I helped him in every way that I could, and he asked me to be

Secretary of State. It is a very unusual path, but one that I have

quite enjoyed. We are roughly the same sort of age. Oh good, you are

so young! Exactly, we are both past that great water mark, and I just

wonder why on earth anybody would want to go back into the White

House, given your experience of the torrid time you had there last time?

We got a lot done, I'm proud of what happened in the country and proud of

what President Obama has done. If you take the eight years of Bill

Clinton and Barack Obama, and you compare it to the eight years of

Regan, the eight years of Bush, the country was so much better off with

progressive energetic democratic Presidents, the economy was

stronger, our fiscal house was much better ordered. We are starting to

get healthcare, something you all take for granted. We did positive

things for the American people in those years. All the intrusion into

your personal life? I mean there is hardly anything left! It will make

for pretty boring reading if it continues! So that hasn't put you

off? No, no. It hasn't. In part because I have a pretty good idea

that this is a contact sport, as we say, politics in the United States

at the moment in our history is very rough and tumble because there are

big stakes. Unfortunately people sometimes engage in unsavoury,

negative name calling and the like. That is part of it, I understand

that. If you are not tough enough to get into that arena then truly you

should not even put your toe in, because it is quite a gauntlet. You

can hit me for asking you this? I may! Do you think you would ever

have become Secretary of State had you not been Mrs Clinton?

Absolutely. Yeah, I think that question ended when I ran for the

Senate. When I ran for the Senate and I ran first against a very

dominant figure, then mayor Guliani, then I ran against a young

Congressman with a lot more money rushing into his campaign. The fact

that the people of New York elected me ended that debate. I'm very

grateful that I learned a lot and I continue to learn from my husband's

political acumen and decision-making. I think what caused

the President, President Obama to ask me to be Secretary of State was

actually that campaign, because until you go through that sort of

ordeal and you know how hard it is for the other person, you don't know

what they are really made of, and the President told me, I watched you

under the most difficult circumstances and you are the person

I want to represent our country while I'm dealing with the economic

mess. I asked the question because while I'm dealing with the economic

there is a deficit of women at a high level in politics. I would be

very interested high level in politics. I would be

response to this, which is do you think women at the highest levels of

politics behave differently to men? I think that many do, I'm not going

to over-generalise and say all do. It is my experience working with

women heads of state and Government that on issues affecting family

life, children's well being, women's opportunities, there is a much

greater immediate recognition of the importance of those issues. Now that

again I say as a generalisation, and not all fit into that category. When

I sit down and talk with the President of Brazil, or the

President of Chile or the President of a country in Asia whether it be

Mrs Bhutto before ousted or assassinated or anything else, the

conversation about some of these social issues is very much embedded

in the political discourse, and an awareness of how hard a lot of the

decision making is for awareness of how hard a lot of the

today in many parts of the world. Hillary Clinton, thank you. Thank

you Jeremy. So where stands America in the world, Obama is being

increasingly criticised for not doing much in foreign affairs. Let's

see what the political columnists with me, let's see what they make of

it. Let's start with Iraq, she was pretty unambiguous, but a high-risk

game? She seemed frighteningly jolly throughout the whole interview, she

laughed an awful lot, didn't she. It was a tight laugh. But, her position

on Iraq is kind of surprising since she has been an interventionist at

almost every turn in the past. What do you deduce from that? That she's

running for President. That was going to be my next question? Let me

ask you what did you make of her position on Iraq? It is clear she's

running for President, she had a vote that she cast several years ago

that put her at odds with a lot of folks in her own party and I think

she's doing everything she can to protect her left flank and avoid a

substantial primary. But I think it is very clear from that interview

that she's running for President. You seem pretty certain, both of

you? Not 100% certain, you can't be in American politics, and no matter

what she said to you, I know that public life has taken a real toll on

her at times. You know when she was out stumping for her healthcare plan

in 1994 there was a day in Seattle where people were cursing her and

spitting on her and it took a while for her to recover from that. What

sort of a candidate is she going to make if she does run for President,

what do you think Katie? I think the unique thing about Hillary Clinton

is that she is just a political animal to her core. I think you know

from the first time that Bill Clinton ran for office back in

Arkansas, you know, politics has really driven the decisions that

they have made as a family and the decisions that she has made. I think

she always saw herself with a political career post-White House,

and was very calculated in all of the decision that is she made. I

don't think we have seen anything that's come out of this book that

indicates that this is any kind of real biography or real tell-all of

her time as Secretary of State. It is very clearly an opportunity to

start a campaign before a campaign starts. Somebody said to me earlier

is it was an attempt to explain to the American people where she has

been for the last few years? Right since Americans do not follow

foreign policy at all, unfortunately. But it seems to me

that she has, she's on a very clear path here, and there are an awful

lot of things that she doesn't write about in the book. And there has

been an awful lot of scrubbing going on here. But I think that she would

be a good candidate, not as good as her husband who was the best I have

ever seen. I think that she will face a challenge from the left-wing

of the Democratic party, especially on her positions towards Wall Street

which have become very controversial because of her husband's positions

towards Wall Street. Do you think, given that elections are all about,

or usually, providing it is not a second term selection, they are

about changes of direction. She represents continuity, doesn't she?

She sure does represent continuity, and I think if you look at her

policy positions, she's a whole lot more like Barack Obama than she is

like Bill Clinton, you know Bill Clinton comes from a small town in

Arkansas, kind of a country boy, he really understood how to connect

with real people. I share Joe's view that he was a brilliant politician

and knew how to connect with working people. I think coming out of the

gate with this book tour, you know she's had some real stumbles in

conveying herself as somebody that left the White House broke and she's

going to be a very different kind of politician than her husband was. I

think we will see her continue the policies of the Obama administration

as we saw in the interview. He had a few gafes too, I seem to recall.

Different kinds. That is the biggest problem she face, historically it

has been pretty tough for politicians to essentially run for a

third term after they have, George HW Bush did a pretty good job of it,

but Ronald Regan was phenomenally popular, and even Bush got into some

trouble, he said he wanted a kinder, gentler nation, and Nancy Regan said

"kinder and gentler than what"? What about this question of America's

standing in the world, you hear people say a lot that because Obama

is low-profile in foreign affairs that some how the country is

diminished. Is that a widespread view? I think there is certainly a

widespread view among the American people that our place in the world

has been some what diminished, I think certainly with the rise of

Putin, and I was very surprised to see her so whole heartedly embrace

this reset strategy as a brilliant move. I don't think that is where

the American people will see it. I don't think that foreign policy is

something that drives the American vote. But I do think that the

American people feel like we are weaker than we were. I disagree, I

think that our standing in the world is certainly higher now than it was

when George W Bush, who didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a

Shi'ite invaded Iraq. That wasn't the question, it was is that how the

American people view it? I do think the American people are really sick,

including most of the Republicans I meet in the country, are really sick

of us going in and imposing our will in places that were... He has a

short-term problem in Iraq, if that is taken over by a bunch of Islamist

nutcases? It isn't going to be, for the same reason we shouldn't have

gone in the first makes because Iraq is not a country. It is three

different satraps from the out Monday Otteman empire. The problem

is all the straight borders you Brits drew years ago. There is a

time you have to stop blaming your great, great, great-grand parents?

It is not me, it is the people who live in the area who want to

determine where their countries are, and they don't go with the straight

line borders. Is this a huge problem? Huge over the next 30

years. Of course it is going to be a big problem, the American people I

feel regardless of what the tactical solution is in Iraq today, the

American people want to view our country as strong. They take a lot

of pride in that. I don't think what has happened in Russia in the last

several years has been viewed as something that has been taking a

strong position against Russia. Thank you very much indeed. That is

it from New York, let's return to the story of Iraq and join Kirsty in

London. So President the story of Iraq and join Kirsty in

indicated that the US is prepared to take military action to prevent

Jihadists gaining a foothold in Iraq, not ruling anything out.

Judging by the relenties advance of Isis on Baghdad, after securing

broad swathes of Iraq, the country is already in danger of fracturing.

A warning this film contains images that some viewers may find

disturbing. So Isis consolidates his hold on

Mosul, it has issued religious edicts, insisting on five prayers a

day and Islamic modesty, and it is pressing its fighters south towards

Baghdad. The Government's response? There have been air attacks on Mosul

and Tikrit, precisely the type of tactic that alienated so many Sunnis

in the first place. But is the Sunni community solid, or could more

moderate leaders be lured away from Isis. One of the generals who helped

split the Sunni insurgency against the coalition thinks it could be

done again. One of the most significant things that happened in

2006 and 2007 is certainly large numbers of the tribal elders

particularly in western Iraq got thoroughly disenchanted with what

Al-Qaeda is doing. One the risks that Isis runs at the present time

is creating exactly the same effect amongst some of the more

conservative parts of the Sunni population. There are also secular

moderate Sunni who don't want to be any part of this. By no stretch of

the imagination can it possibly be said that Isis speaks for the Sunni

community. Al-Qaeda in the land of two rivers, Iraq started when

Jordanian Jihadist swore allegance to Osama Bin Laden. As he gained

followers through spectacular attacks and beheadings, he became

make's top target in Iraq. After they killed him, the Jihadists

regrouped and in September 2006 relaunched themselves as the Islamic

State of Iraq. But their fortunes waned, Sunni tribes were turned

against them, coalition Special Forces killed and captured

thousands. One of those detainees, Al-Bagdadi, released when the

Americans withdrew, emerged as a powerful figure in the Syrian Civil

War. In April last year he formed the Islamic State of Iraq and

AlSham, meaning Syria, Isis. He takes names like Al-Husani, which

aims to say he's descended from the Prophet Mohammed's family. He calls

himself names that says he's from the same Arab tribe as the prophet

comes from. There is no doubt he's projecting himself as the legitimate

successor to those from early Islam. Couched in 14th century language,

Isis has brought 14th century justice to the Syrian town it has

controlled for months. There has been crucifixions and beheadings,

churches descrated. What is so woeful about the Mall malfailure is

it has disregarded key aspects of the successful coalition approach.

Some of the mill ligses hired 60,000 Sunni insurge -- back in 2008 when

we filmed them, members predicted that the Shia led Government would

get rid of them as soon as the Americans had gone. That is exactly

what happened. Back in Dura this spring, we were told that what was

once an awakening force of 1500 policing the district had now shrunk

to one dozen. In its place Government police mostly Shia

outsiders. The defence of Baghdad could now depend on Shia militias

with Iranian support. While in the north Kurdish fighters have assumed

control of the city of Kirkuk. That growing sectarianism makes it all

the heard to lure Sunni support away from the Jihadists again. The

insurgency as a whole is a lot more dominated by Isis than back in the

days of the Iraq War. I mean Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Islamic

state of Iraq were important, but I think there was a lot more variety

in terms of the insurgent groups and their strains. Where as this time

I'm a lot more sceptical. I would apply the same analysis to Syria,

where really we have seen the anti-Isis rebel movements, they have

really failed to roll back them in any meaningful manner. We see Isis

making gains in south eastern Syria. Isis is strong then and survival for

the Mall -- the Mall mal-Government could have been feeding the most

formidable foes. Joining me from his home in Kingston

upon Thames is former Iraqi Prime Minister. Good evening. First of

all, you are just back from Baghdad. Is there a real feeling there that

you are facing the break up of the country? This is a possibility. I

hope it will be a remote possibility of the Iraqis don't pull together

and form a unity Government. To get out of the current mess. Otherwise

my fear is that potentially the danger does exist on dividing the

country. Is this the worst you have seen in 30 years of Iraqi politics,

the worst in terms of holding the country together? Definitely it is

worse. It is quite dangerous. We have been losing around a thousand

Iraqis per month for the last year or so. Killed by terrorist groups.

Unfortunately the Government was not able to control this, definitely the

political process itself is not an inclusive political process it is

being built on sectarian levels and sectarian drives. This has been

quite painful to the country. So when you hear that President Obama

does not rule out military intervention, not boots on the

ground, but military intervention, does that fill you with hope or more

concern? I'm more concerned, I think this would add fuel to the fire,

unfortunately. I know that the United States has lost its

capabilities in Iraq, and indeed in the Middle East, the greater Middle

East. We know that there is no clarity in the policy where the

American policy is heading with regards to the east. We know the

peace process is being stagnant now between the Arabs and the Israelis.

Afghanistan, North Africa, Horn of Africa, Syria. There is an increase

activities of Al-Qaeda and indeed now it is in Iraq also. To stop this

regional conflict, because it is as you say a regional conflict, if

there was to be a pull together of Iraq itself, Hillary Clinton says

Nouri Al-Maliki has to be more incluesive, something that you agree

with. We heard that Lieutenant curl national Robert Fry saying that

actually the Sunnis themselves need to be divided off because of course

not all Sunnis are part of any kind of extremist grouping. How do you

reconcile, do you have a role to play, are you going back? I'm going

back in two days time. Tomorrow I'm going back. The problem of Sunnis

and Shias is an oversimplification. Never existed in Iraq this problem

before. Yes there are pockets, definitely, who do behave in a

sectarian way, but by and large the Iraqi people rejected and never

thought of along the sectarian lines. What we have is a fight

between extremism and moderation. Throughout the greater Middle East,

not only in Iraq. And unfortunately there are people within the Sunni

block who are extremists and likewise in the Shia group also we

have extremism. Likewise on the Kurdish component we have extremism.

We have likewise moderation and I think this conflict is widespread

throughout the greater Middle East and I believe that when the

Americans invaded Iraq, unfortunately they dismandled the

state of Iraq, not -- dismantled the state of Iraq, not just Saddam

Hussein, the whole state. They wanted to create a new state but

they failed to do so because they had no post-conflict policy. Thank

you very much for joining us. Brazil opened the World Cup with a

hard-fought 1 victory over Croatia, despite the excitement and

razzmatazz, there is persistent signs of protest which came to

police firing tear bullets and teargas and not extinguishing it.

Hours before the tournament kicked off, demonstrators tried to march as

close to the arena as possible. Among the protesters is a protestor

whose anger at the World Cup has been channelled into her YouTube

video I'm Not Going to the World Cup. This is flavour of her film

seen by four million people. Some think the World Cup is the incentive

for the country to get better. So we will be paying taxes all these years

for what? What country needs an incentive to take care of its

people. Suddenly there is all this money to build stadiums and the

population is led to believe that the World Cup is just the change

there needed for their lives to get better. But the truth is that most

of the money that comes from the games in the stadiums goes straight

to FIFA and we don't even see it. I'm joined now by Carla. That hard

fought victory does it bring any bit of excitement from you, do you think

it will diminish the protests? Hi there, it actually doesn't bring me

any excitement. I think all that I have been through with the veto and

everything it is hard to separate the protests from the games, even

though the game is a good thing. In my thing it is hard to separate, I

can't do it any more. I didn't actually watch the game. Now in

terms of protests I think, I don't think it is a matter of the result

of the game, but the repression that is going on right now, it is

carrying people, it is scaring people, I was there today, was

insanely violent. They were putting children at risk, older people, all

sorts of people. People that were not even trying to march or do

anything. There were two protests, one was the Metro, people from the

Metr they were protesting and then there were the people protesting the

World Cup specifically. At some point the protests were combined.

The police were repressing the first one, the World Cup protest, the

other one was completely just staying in a certain area. But the

police didn't want the protests to even start. It was insanely violent

and... The President, I mean, there is a lot of military hardware out

there, there is helicopters, there is friget, a lot of military

activity. But presumably the last thing Brazil wants is to be seen to

be heavihanded when so many people from the outside world are there. So

do you think, one, there will be a harder crackdown, or do you think

more people will be out on the streets as a result of anger at the

crackdown today as a result of anger at the crackdown today. We didn't

know how it was going to develop, and a lot of people got upset at the

repression, there is no doubt they will go to the streets again. It is

scary, very scary, because compared to the force the police has, the

protest is small. It is not a well prepared police, they don't have the

intelligence to deal with the protests the right way, so they end

up involving people there protesting peacefully. It is really funny that

after the protests I went near the stadium to get some images because

I'm shooting a documentary, and when I get there there was the march for

Jesus Saves, they were there with their signs and that seemed to be

OK. Now the other protests couldn't there, I don't see why. A lot of

people will be upset and they may come back to the streets, it is very

hard to predict. It was scary, I have a friend who was helping with

first aid for the people who were hurt and more than 35 people were

hurt, two went to the hospital. But is there not an element of hope,

from your point of view, that so many people from other parts of the

world are in Brazil, and they are seeing the favelas and the poverty,

thank in a sense might jolt Brazil into action? I hope so. Yes. I do

hope so, but my fear is that people will forget all of this with the

game. I hope they don't. And I think the game is still important, despite

disagreeing the way it was made, the way they organised it, but I just

hope people don't forget the rest. So they can watch the games, yes, of

course, and I think they have the right to, but my fear is they will

forget the rest. I have to stop you there, thank you very much for

joining us. That is all we have time for tonight, from me and Jeremy in

A day of contrast today and tomorrow, lots of shine across

England and Wales to start the day. Patchy cloud into the afternoon, it

will be warm again. Further north rain around, particularly through

the morning, a wet start to the day. In the afternoon the rain becomes

light and patchy, not much left over in Northern Ireland through the

middle of the afternoon. Temperatures 16, 17. The rain easing

off from the north and west of Scotland. Keeping it pretty damp for