09/06/2012 Dateline London

at least 40 billion euros. If you're away from the television

and want to keep up to date - you can now watch BBC News live on the

web. Go to bbc.co.uk/news and click on the link. There will be a full

news bulletin at one o'clock. Now Hello and welcome to Dateline

London. The Syrian government has lost all legitimacy - according to

the UN Secretary General. But what can be done to stop the killing?

Britain and Germany appear to agree on a two speed or multi-speed

Europe. With what consequences? And saving young girls from forced

marriages - by making them a crime. My guests today are Jef McCalister,

the American writer and broadcaster, Agnes Poirier of France's Marianne,

Janet Daley of the Sunday Telegraph and Abdel Bari Atwan of Al Quds al

Arabi. The massacres in Syria suggest either the direct

involvement of the Assad regime or at the very least its utter failure

to prevent the killings. But with Kofi Annan's peace plan depending

on a ceasefire which does not exist and a big international meeting

scheduled in Paris early next month, what realistically can outsiders do

to help stop the killing? And does Syria risk turning into another

Lebanon? Who is doing what? It is very

difficult to know, but deep take at face value that it is terrorists

doing that and not the Syrian Government? Without international

investigation, we cannot have a complete answer about to who is

responsible for the massacres, but it is the fingerprint of the

militia, which is very close to the Assad regime. They hour buried

pitches, they are very ruthless and the to what they like to do,

especially killing children and women and innocent people. It is

their fingerprints but beware. The regime is responsible, either it he

lost control of the militia or up if the he does not provide

protection to his own people. We're facing a dilemma, definitely

sectarian civil war. It has already started. How many years with at

last in Syria? How many thousands of people will be killed? The Kofi

and an initiative come clean the collapse. It is not working, simply

because there is no intervention for the reason we mentioned. The

Russians and the Chinese are threatening to use their veto if

other nations wished intervene, so we are facing a dilemma. How can we

stop this killing? Go is that what Americans and Russians are talking

about, to find an initiative for Assad to step down and surrender to

his deputy and then we have an election. This is the best solution,

but whether Assad will support that of whether the Russians will

support it is another question. This is a moment when if you were a

politician in a democracy and you want to do something, it is very

difficult to know what to do. removed Assad, you would presumably

removed a major part of the problem, but the danger is he is not

complete the in control and then we have anarchy and chaos. Then it is

unbridled sectarian that civil war, in which any intervention is pretty

hopeless. But there are neighbours to this conflict who really want

Assad out, who could be taking more action, like Torquay. Russia

recruiting China on its side, to prevent the removal of Assad,

because they have a vested interest in maintaining his position. Iran

is very much involved in this, because Iran and Syria are very

close allies. This has become much bigger than the horrendous

massacres latter going on in the country. Francois Hollande clearly

wants to take a role, but surely this Paris conference at the

beginning of this month, it is very difficult to see how it exactly you

can move forward. The ball is in the Court of Russia. Francois

Hollande, there are parliamentary elections tomorrow and next Sunday,

so he needs to wait for a large majority in order to push, so he is

on standby at the moment. That is why we have but her to him recently

and also about the euro crisis, but we will come to that later. At the

beginning, the Turkish where saying they wanted to play a major role,

but now they have gone very silent. Now we do not hear them.

silence does not necessarily mean you're not doing anything.

course, but the US sent a top official on Friday and at the end

of the meeting, Moscow said, we are backing the Syria as a matter of

principle. A matter of principle? What? Massacres are a matter of

principle? That is at such a risky strategy that Russia is doing.

Obviously Russia is enjoying its moment, it is holding the West, it

is very powerful, but in the end, it is extremely risky. Also, Moscow

being a traditional part there to Arab countries, it is not going

down very well with the Arab world. But they do not had very many Arab

allies left, they have their Iran, they have Syria, at least there is

something to play with fire them in the Middle East. I did not think

there is really anything else, the notion that that countries can be

deposed because the United Nations wants it. It is a disaster.

could it be a disaster? Syria is a mess, at so severe is a mess.

If Francois Hollande is going to be very quiet for a week until the

parliamentary elections are finished, you can see where I'm

going with this. He might be completely silent until November.

Were his successor. This is one of those problems which does not been

very inviting, any more than any other capital, you can imagine the

drone and comes in. We have a decapitation of the regime, at

least the USA has the technical capacity to do it, but it does not

want to do that. The question of the Turkish, the Turkish have a

Kurdish problem in their border, so if their sectarian civil war or

spilled over it to the Turkish, it would be a disaster for at their

economy. They would lose everything. Especially since the core of

Turkish foreign policy has been for years 0 problems with our

neighbours. Now they have this problem spilling over their border.

When you have Arabs as your neighbours, definitely. Do you see

this as a sectarian conflict now? Yes. I have spoken to Syrians who

say they be the hope it is not. Do you think it is a sectarian? Yes,

it is. In certain areas, you have the mixture of religions living

side by side for years, but now there are a lot of weapons coming

from the outside, asking people to rebuild against the regime. They

are armed to the teeth by the Government, by Assad himself. This

is a recipe for a sectarian war, not just in Syria, but to spread to

their neighbours. It will turn to sectarian violence inevitably.

British Prime Minister David Cameron held a convivial meeting

with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and appeared to agree that

the answer for the eurozone's problems was "more Europe" as

Chancellor Merkel puts it - at least for those in the euro. But

the implications are obvious - a multi-speed Europe with an inner

core, some on the outside, and others - including Britain -

circling from a distance but still within the EU. Is this really the

future? And is it simply a recognition of reality? It is funny

to have this conversation in London, an offshore territory. That is why

we can be so objective about it. What is amazing is that Angela

Merkel should talk about what effect is a political union. We're

talking about something going back, at the moment I'm reading a book

written in 1849, where he talked about their United States of Europe.

And look where that got us? We're talking about fiscal union, banking

union, but soon we will have to elect the president of Europe. This

is not fantasy. It is quite clear that Angela Merkel talks about more

Europe and she thinks about germinate running Europe.

question is is it possible, but can we be one federation? Do people

want it? A referendum in any European country, try holding one

in Germany and see what they said. The French people are very French

and Germans are very German. could say that in the United States,

then New Yorkers are very New York. We're talking about a federation.

It sounds fantastical, but you cannot talk about achieving all

these economic targets and not talk about a Europe without am leader.

The analogy with the United States is completely wrong. The colonies

of the United States and the stage which formed into a federation were

not hundreds of years old with ancient hatreds and long histories

and linguistic differences. I am sorry, but it is not the same. They

all existed by it 20 minutes by comparison to that. David Cameron

and George Osborne are advocating fiscal union of a kind that no

British politician would ever advocate for Britain. Any British

politician who advise such a thing would be vaporised. They would not

be a politician, they would be a stand-up comedian. It is ridiculous

to say that other countries which have quite strong, it slightly

shaky, democratic histories, but for the most but Beazer very old

democracies, the idea that they should pull their sovereignty and

pool their debts, with the idea that Germany should pay for

everything. You would have to put paid 10 any notion of democratic

accountability, because the pupils of those countries to not want it.

The genius of the European Union was to prevent a war between France

and Germany, and it has done that very successfully, but the other

bits added on at causing problems. But to achieve that major aim, to

prevent a war between Germany and France, and to Germany and Britain,

you have to sacrifice some things and you have to be patient. The

Germans are saying, we do not want a federation, we once our identity.

But he did not have British cars or British buses, none of that is

there any more. What I want to say honestly is that there should be a

lot of sacrifices in order for this European federation to work. It is

true that as in the Mediterranean are the lousy ones and this union,

because we love drink and we love dancing, but why not? You have to

be patients and you have to it pool money for them. The political union

worked well enough to accomplish the goal of no bloody wars in

Europe, but the question is what is the direction of travel. The euro

was at political project with an economic loss, but now comes the

question, is it going to be the political union that there creators

of the EU know wanted? All the list entreaty efforts, nobody really

cared about the mechanics. Now we have people having to get to the

European Union through the misery of a potential depression and

banking crisis. There is no enthusiasm. You feel European, you

feel proud to be European, but in Britain, I do not detect any of

I have a solution for Britain, joined the Arab League. I tell you

what, it might happen. In terms of, if you ask the people, the people

violence, for example, they gave what they call the right answer

last week. In previous referendums, they give the wrong answer. That

would be the same in France. depends what is on the table. And

what is the alternative? Bankruptcy, aback to the Frank? Why not? We

have to be logical. We cannot have fiscal banking, eurobonds, etc, and

have nothing on the political side. That is logical. He will not have

Euro bonds. Germany will not accept that and for good reason. Is that

logical? Is the logic, as everyone says, that you cannot have this.

Yes, that is why the whole thing has been logically flawed from the

outset. What was possible for political leaderships and political

elites to decide among themselves was not going to be acceptable to

the democratically accountable. The electorate will not accept it and

cannot accept it because the constitution of Germany does not

permit the kind of money printing that everybody is now demanding.

They cannot underwrite the debts. Next weekend, the people of Greece

will vote and maybe Greece and Britain and a few others will end

up joining the Arab League. They are faced with the prospect of a

government which says that we have to renegotiate the terms, and some

people think that means that you are out of the new role. Why not? -

- out of the Euro. You cannot say we will take Greece and then

suddenly wanderer troubles, we do not want them any more and it was a

mistake. -- when there are troubles. We have to be patient. We have to

stand by them and encourage them to integrate. Without threatening them

of not being in, you are the bad boys, your corrupt, you do not pay

taxes. You don't! It they have received 1.5 times their GDP in

European aid in the last two years. The Europeans have not done nothing

for Greece. It still does not solve the fundamental problem. But hold

on, we have had the President of the US telling the Europeans had to

get their house in order, which seems a bit odd. Really? The night

estates does that all the time! the President is running for re-

election. He is preparing to spend money. It is a trick, loved by all

sorts of leaders! It is inherent to blame Europe for the fact that

America's economy is in the tank, just as Gordon Brown blamed America.

And George Osborne blamed Gordon Brown. Thank Gordon Brown for not

being in the Euro. All one thing he got right. I'm sure, having

listened to this conversation, you would like Britain to be a full

member of the central speed lane of the Euro. 0 I would like Britain to

be part of it. I think that was a historical mistake. -- I would like.

He said he wanted the United States of Europe. He had good reasons to

be reluctant after what happened. Either we go back or we go forward

but we cannot stay where we are. It does not make any sense. We cannot.

It is logically impossible. But you cannot go forward without scrapping

the Democrat accountability of European governments. That is the

choice. What about universal suffrage? At least the British do

not ridicule the French any more as they used to do. We leave that to

the American's! I think the British ridicule the French all the time.

On that note, let's move on. There are between five and 8000 forced

marriages involving British people every year according to the Home

Office, mostly involving girls whose families come from south-east

Asia. The British Government wants to outlaw the process, but will

this place more pressure on young girls to report their families to

the authorities. It is agreed that this is a terrible thing, forced

marriage, but some say criminalising it is a mistake. What

do you think? I am not sure I understand the point of the

legislation. Forced marriages a form of slavery which has been

banned for a couple of hundred years in this country. Physical

coercion and threats are also grim acts, so what is different about

this? Saying that forced marriage is illegal just makes it extremely

difficult to legislate because how do you legislate between force and

arranged marriage? A lot of women are taken back to Pakistan and

introduced two cousins who were 20 years older and the families get

together and there is more on the emotional pressure put on the woman,

is that a range or forced? Obviously, if she is beaten up or

her something, that is different, but that is already illegal. I know

you have family experience of this. Yes, I have cousins who were forced

to marry. It is a disaster. It is very painful. It is a miserable way

of life. It is a tradition, unfortunately, but when we talk

about Britain, it is not the same. We're talking about the first

generation of immigrants to this country, but now with a second and

third-generation, actually it is different. It is very small, a very

small percentage of people who are actually indulging in this.

Personally, I'm against criminalising this kind of process.

There is no clear cut to order between arranged and false marriage.

We have to talk to these people and solve this problem. In these

education, not just the sort of criminalising this and that, we

have to be patient, it is not a perfect institution, or whether it

is a range or forced or Elle of marriage. It is a huge problem. We

have to be patient and saw that with scientific ways and with lots

of talk and effort. But where are the Imams and community leaders in

this? Surely if it is people who have arrived recently, there are

people who should be able to say that this is not the way we do this.

Surely they could say that this is not how we do things in Britain and

this is unacceptable? I in a a community very well. -- I know the

community. There are huge efforts to teach the people that this is

not the way. And now we have younger generations who do not

believe in arranged marriage. I cannot tell my daughter that I have

found her a nice grim. It is out of the question for her. Now they are

highly educated, Westernised people and they do not accept the

traditional ways of their families. We have to be patient. It is going

to disappear very soon. Is this a problem in France? As you mentioned,

forced marriages take place in the South Asian community mostly, and

you have a bigger proportion of people coming from that region in

the UK, so we do not have as much of their problem at all. But what

is interesting is the perception. I was struck 15 years ago when I

first came to London that we were talking about honour killings.

There was so much, compared to France, of cultural relativism. In

Britain, things that are just crimes are considered, well, it is

cultural. You do this in your country, fine. And I thought there

was this tolerance for something that should not be tolerated.

terms of the secular French Republic, on an your traditions,

and how you view the hijab and other things, it is totally

different. It is. Perhaps we consider universal values. It was a

crime before. I do nothing we need a lot, because it was a crime

before and it still remains a crime. Calling it by another name...

British have this tolerance for something that should not be

tolerated. British tolerance is not admirable in that way. Many things,

it is cultural, so therefore I wash my hands of it, but actually

culture is political as well. You need to do something about it.

agree that fundamentally the problem is cultural. This is a

cultural marker that says that we do not permit this. If you are in

trouble, you can get help. In the same way that when domestic

violence was not taught about, and the police would not go after a has

been to beat his wife, or a guy who beat his girlfriend, everyone now

knows that this is illegal and wrong. -- a husband who beat his

wife. If he set up another cultural marker who says -- that says that

this is a line we do not cross, it is part of the educational effort.

I am all for it. Even if nobody is prosecuted? They probably will be

high profile cases interpreted in their own way. It will be difficult

for a child to bring her own parents into prosecution, or maybe

a cousin. But sometimes this happens and if it does, it will

send a message. But the domestic violence analogy is appropriate.

You did not have to make a new crime out of wife beating, you just

have to get the police to enforce the law. But symbolically, you're

saying that we are taking this seriously. It is a symbol for the

Government. But making law is not about sending signals, it is about

making laws that can be properly applied. The law was changed about

rape. I think these things made a difference. All the things that are

happening connection with forced marriage are already illegal and

all it takes is proper enforcement. It might make the Muslim community

feel more or... These are very small cases. If thousands a year,

8000 this year. We should not talk about it as if it is a disaster.