15/06/2013 Dateline London

We will have a full bulletin of news at the top of the hour, now it is

London. The United States is to arm the Syrian rebels.

Evan Cordes to the polls at the G8 summit has addresses tax avoidance

Highlands agenda. -- Iran goes to the polls. My guests today are

Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt. Polly Toynbee of The Guardian. Mina al

Oraibi of Asharq al Awsat. And Brian O'Connell, who is an Irish

journalist. The United States formally concluded

this week what many have suspected. The Assad regime and Syria has used

chemical weapons against its own people. The UN says at least 93,000

people have died. The US is talking of arming the Syrian report is well

Russia is arming the Government. Army faced with a conflict with no

end in sight? In terms of this decision to say that we now think

chemical weapons were used by the regime, what do you make of that?

Will always be suspicions, firstly, after a rack about whether they have

got it right and why they decided to save this week. WMD has a terrible

ring to it, doesn't it? It is not perhaps entirely clear to people

whether your children are being hit by rockets whether it is worse by

gas rockets. Why that is a particular Red Line and they are

also saying it is a small episode, I am not sure. I think the West is in

a terrible state, as you say. After Iraq, there is such fear of

intervening. After Afghanistan, ten years and not a lot to show for it.

The appetite of the peoples in the West, whether in the US, Britain or

anywhere else, is diminished. On the other hand, we look there and horror

that the only people not being supported the of democracy. Weapons

are piling in. Sunni, Shia, Assad and not the secularist Democrats.

Are we going to leave them on arms? It is a difficult question. Nina,

how do you think of the timing of this announcement that they are

going to be arms for the rebels? think there are two clear reasons.

One is what is going on on the ground. Everyone is getting arms and

there was increasing pressure in Europe and on the US to feel they

have done something. Somehow, it seems to be that arming is one way

they can go. We see derision getting closer into a label and the

possibility of fighting them. Also the fact that Hezbollah is now

openly involved. The second is the G8. We have Cameron meeting Putin,

Bama seeing Putin, and the pressure on Russia is that chemical weapons

have been used. While I agree that people getting agreed by -- people

getting killed by rockets or bullets is no worse than being gassed,

however, the issue of chemical weapons instantly makes it an

international security issue. They can press the Russians on that and

get them to try to back the security council. I don't see it working but

it is leverage. Do you think that the timing of the G8 is one reason,

perhaps, but to say that they have chemical weapons, there are those

that think it is a very hard-headed reason. That the fact that Hezbollah

have won battles that the Obama administration which is very divided

over what to do suddenly thought it would go Assad's way. Absolutely. I

think there is a belief that military on the ground to that. Sad,

and those that are supporting him, whether Hezbollah, domestically or

others, still has the upper hand. They know that they have to treat

this, and people keep talking about the military balance. However, to be

honest, the sort of firms they are talking about still would not

necessarily change the military balance. -- the sort of arms. There

are too scared to put in a no-fly zone. It is not really a solution,

as such, but is pushing a bounty. It is also telling the people fighting

against Assad that we have the back. Most people are not convinced

of that. Ryan, you don't foresee a coalition of the willing getting

involved here and whatever, and getting around the UN by seeing that

frankly this chemical weapons then change that completely? I don't

think so. I don't think voters would want that. David Cameron has been

saying, he has been more of the persuasion that we need to do

something than Barack Obama but he has to get through a very difficult

vote in the House of Commons. That is not going to be easy in either

party, not just his own backbenchers. The chemical weapons,

I am sure the Americans knew from the get go that this was being used.

They know what is being going on in the ground. It was as convenient a

Red Line is everything. It bought Barack Obama is little sign. The

battle was the point where they realised Hezbollah was involved and

said they were heading for a Sunni stand-off which could spread around

the Middle East and they had to do something. By not seeing is a clue

what he's going to do ahead the G8, and they can sit down in front of

Britain and say that they have put their cards on the table, but now

they need to do something. What are they both now going to be about?

Short of all this stuff about small arms and heavy artillery and then a

no-fly zone then everything else, he has these diplomatic cards to place

on the table depending on what Putin says to him. Paul Lee's point was

well made. In terms of what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, if

you were sitting in the White House as commander-in-chief, you would

think that you would just tried to get us out of two difficult wars and

not wanting to go into a third. think it would ruin his second term,

absolutely. I do not think there is the appetite in amongst the American

voters or British voters or anybody else for it. While I tend to agree

with you, you have to remember that the strategic environment is

important. America is a leading part in the indispensable powers, as they

call themselves. You can just let people intervene without doing

anything yourself. They have for two years. There are 92,000 people but

died over two years. But do you remember that Obama's original

policy was no intervention? Big power cannot be disengaged anywhere.

You cannot allow Hezbollah and Iran and the rush of Dom -- Russians to

call the shots without having one of your calling card on the table. What

Obama is after, I suspect, is not much to win the war anything like

that. The supply of weapons is not going to do that. But think of

Geneva. He wants to stop a far from winning and creating an incentive

for him, perhaps, to join a diplomatic negotiation and appear at

the Geneva negotiating table. are very few people who think that

Geneva can get of the ground. supposed already happened. You don't

know. That might cause a sad, fun however, two double see it.

should Assad wants to negotiate? He is winning. That is the idea. You're

not supposed to help the insurgents win the war but to make it

impossible for Assad toured. But the insurgents want it at the table was

a sad anyway. There is such an impasse that, as you say, it is...

On top of that, then, the weapons that he gets, that is no certainty

where those weapons are going. The opposition is a whole disparate of

Jihadist and every thing else. separate groups. How can the

Americans be sure they know where these are going? As an American, you

cannot appear to be not doing anything and allowing other players

to hold sway. Is doing something, if it is the wrong thing, better than

doing nothing? The degree of intervention is so quite clearly

did, not be big and cause too many mistakes. I'm sure those who think

it will be a calibrated response, in other words they will be dipping the

towing. There will be some weapons, see how it goes and then there will

be more weapons. This brings us back to a point that we discussed over

intervention in Libya. This is one of those occasions where you feel

quite sorry for the politicians. There is no easy answer. I think

that's right. I think we should all be glad that we are not the ones

having to sit there and because the pollen call. It is dreadful to watch

good people with good motives being a buy-back will. -- said they are

and make this terrible call. Had it not been for Iraq and Afghanistan,

the Syrians, the secular insurgents in Syria are paying the price of the

errors that were made in the past. think it is also interesting that

everyone makes the reference to these countries. Very few make the

reference to Bosnia. One of the issues here is that if there was

going to be intervention, the sooner the better. Actually, this kind of

gradually putting on weapons are gradually helping only means that

the killing is prolonged. It also means that although we are

protesting, if weapons start going to the rebels it will take a few

weeks. What does that say to the Assad regime? Ramp up militarily.

Trying to give these lifelines makes it worse rather than bringing the

conflict to an end. If the difference not that Syria suddenly

looks epic, huge. It suddenly looks like it will be a conflagration

involving most of the Middle East. Terrifying. Bosnia seemed to be

quite specific and manageable. True, we went in earlier which was

important. I think Tim has a huge part in this. Let's move on. The

people of Iran have been going to the polls to elect a new leader.

While anything really changed as a result? This does look a very odd

process, doesn't it? Maybe some Iranians think it is the only way

their voices can be heard. But when you have six candidates, selected by

the people, and you have to choose from a very narrow ground, it is not

really an expression of public opinion. -- chosen by other people.

I think we can say that about many US primaries also. Money does count.

Money counts. I think you're absolutely right and the fact that

this is not the sort of democracy that everyone would aspire to.

Having said that, I believe it is better than nothing. Also, I don't

think there will be a change overnight with who wins as

president. However, there is some hope that there could be a change of

tone. Shades of reference. That could actually help what seems to be

a complete deadlock when it comes to nuclear weapons, Syria or anything

else. I think, rather than hope that this is a new path to democracy or

for the ringing people themselves -- or that the Iranian people

themselves could get better lives, we will think of this strategically.

If Hassan Rowhani was to win, his tone is much more consolatory. He

did say that when it comes to nuclear weapons, in an interview

with my newspaper, that we cannot seek nuclear weapons. That nuclear

weapons is a writer first. Definitely much more consolatory. In

terms of nuclear power, or weapons, actually, pretty much every Iranian

politician I have ever heard that agrees with that. Do you think it

makes a difference if it is Hassan Rowhani as opposed to one of the

others? I think it does for two reasons. Firstly, the renamed

people. Most are probably fed up with the way the economy is, the

rate of inflation, the devaluation of currency. This is because of the

effect of the sanctions. This is the first thing. Secondly, because they

know that they have had two terms of their president trying to bounce off

the west and getting nowhere. The Morsi opened his mouth, the worst of

God. There has to be a better level of engagement with the West for

anything to happen, before sanctions and the economy can improve. I think

it probably all comes back to the economy. Well, the economy, but also

if you were sitting into Iran and worried about the price of bread, as

many have been, and see a lack of economic development and Iranians

rostering around the world but not at all might also think that we are

getting involved in another foreign adventure in Syria, you may not be

too happy. Citizens in that country will wonder what rights are in the

citizens in our country will wonder what the price of intervention is.

It would mean this, not on a nuclear bases, but on the question of who

ran stalking the fire of foreign conflicts by going in there, that

needs to be solved. Then, the Lord of the citizens and their daily

lives comes into it straightaway. -- the way of the citizens. That way,

Iran could keep its nuclear policy and evolve a new measure to have a

relationship with the West. Whether it will happen a lot we do not know.

The supreme religious readership sits above the president. It is hard

to divine who calls the shots. In Western eyes, presidents are the

supreme figures. To have one step above them. This needs to be sold.

We need to have a direct indication of who calls the shots when it comes

to foreign intervention, when it comes to improving the lot of

everyday life and until that has been answered, the outcome of the

election will be a riddle inside an enigma.

Maybe this is a bit of an clenching going on. If you are an optimist,

you have to believe that peoples, under whatever form of restrictive

government and dictatorship, essentially want freedom. If he wins

in Iran, people are going for the option that expresses that desire.

One has to believe that the people of Iran want to be much more free.

And they won't be constantly stirred up into fear of foreigners as a way

of oppressing them. I think one has to be optimistic and hope for the

best. We have had some people from

Hezbollah going to a Sydney mosque in Syria and putting up a flag. We

have some Egyptian cleric is. The sectarian divisions which have been

held in check in most countries where people tend to get on,

including Lebanon, for many years, they are very strong beneath the

surface for some people. sectarianism is worrying, it has

become blatant. Things that people said behind closed doors -- closed

doors have become accepted. Let the man, when they had the civil war, it

has been building up. -- Lebanon, when they had the civil war. It is

hard to see how people step back when everyone is feeling very

vulnerable. Like you said, when you have things like mosques being

attacked or based solely on sectarian identity... But let's not

forget, Syria is not about sectarianism. Some people say it is

a minority, or might -- or a majority, but it is not about that.

Sadly it has been used by political opportunists to become sectarian so

they can find a doorway to people 's emotions. It is so emotional. The

sectarian identity seems to be one way that you can get arms and

support. Foreign forces use this to their

advantage, Hezbollah being on the Shia site, and Russia. There is a

proxy war going on as well as the sectarian divide using different

camps to promote their own names. That is the uncanny aspect, the

sectarian conflict which has suddenly been erupted and used by

outside forces to stoke the fires of the problems some more. Saying you

have to go in because everybody else is in, it could be a good reason for

standing back. The intervention of Hezbollah has

not suddenly made with a sunny-macro/sheer-macro issue. The

Gulf state have been involved for some time.

The G8 summit in Northern Ireland will discuss coordinated efforts to

close tax loopholes. Some businesses legally find ways of paying no

corporation tax in areas where they make enormous profits. So will the

tax lawyers always find one way of playing one side against another,

especially as naming and shaming always seems to be an issue. But

some companies have been named without being shamed. They looked

quite sheepish when they were being done in by a wonderful Margaret

Hodge in the Public accounts committee, and she said, you do

evil. The people from Amazon had no answers to her questions. And

Starbucks had seen their profits in this country drop since some of us

were campaigning in their shops saying, pay your taxes. I think the

public mood will get to them. You can't avoid Google, pretty difficult

to avoid Amazon, but Amazon is under attack I people like John Lewis and

other retailers, saying that we cannot compete with people who don't

pay their taxes, it is not fair. The politicians on the whole, David

Cameron and the Labour Party have been a bit behind the curve in

catching up. I think the G8 is only the first step, but Britain has two

put its house in order. These dependencies of hours, they are

dependent on us. The Channel Islands, the Turks and Caicos,

Bermuda, the whole lot. When Monaco was stepping too far on tax

avoidance, the president put his troops that the border and turned

off their water supply. Why don't we do the same thing? We could turn off

the banking supply, say our banks cannot deal with tax havens until

they abide by our rules? I thought Amazon and the others said

they had an answer to the problem. They said, change the rules. You are

the lawmakers, we are just using the law. Fair point. I wonder why they

keep hammering these companies rather than looking at themselves

and wondering whether they should change the statute and make it

impossible for them to say they are obeying the law. The ball is in the

Court of the politicians, no doubt. That is where Northern Ireland might

be helpful. The rules that govern the British

Virgin Islands and the Turks and cake are some things were set up

years ago when Britain was more of a trading nation, they needed that

type of thing. They don't now. But David Cameron is in no position to

start trying to force these people. One of the biggest beneficiaries of

the British Virgin Islands are Chinese companies, for example.

There is a lot of stuff that is visible to the British government

which if it were driven elsewhere and written... British Crown

dependencies controlled between ten and 20% of the tax havens in the

world, there is an awful lot of other places that people can go to.

And Ireland itself, this is a slightly different issue. Ireland

compete by having a lower level than elsewhere in the European Union, and

pretty much every other country, while respecting the difficulties

Ireland has with the economy, hates it. Yes, they do. It is particularly

difficult for Northern Ireland right across the border from somewhere

where there is a corporation tax half the level that you will have to

charge. As Eric Schmidt said, the boss of Google, we don't make the

rules, we just abide by them. You can't blame companies for trying to

optimise their tax benefits. I have to declare an interest, I do some

work for Concern Worldwide, they are campaigning with around 200 NGOs to

try to get more tax transparency, particularly with companies

operating in sub-Saharan Africa, quite simply because of those

companies paid governments in Africa what those governments are during

court on tax, whatever the rate, 10% or 20%, it would make it much easier

for them to develop their economies and make it much easier for the

British taxpayer not to have to pay. Tax avoidance members in other

countries... This is on the agenda for the G8, nobody is expecting a

miracle by Tuesday lunchtime or whenever they finish in Fermanagh,

but it is on the agenda. That itself is a start. The Crown dependencies

are Downing Street today talking about it.

Because it is at the G8, it highlights the fact that Britain on

its own, Europe on its own, can't deal with it. It becomes weak. If

written, for example, was to impose all these measures, which it must do

as a first step, on their own, it looks like the UK is missing out and

dependencies are missing out when others could take advantage. I think

this is why David Cameron has put it on the G8 agenda. He wants the G8 to

be about trade, transparency on tax. I am not sure trade will get much

mention with Syria and other issues. It is crucial that it is about

transparency, -- transparency. Two but don't let it be an excuse, until

it is international. Britain itself is a tax haven. We talk about you as

a tax haven, you wicked Irish, but we are a tax haven. Our non-domicile

rules are great. For a piddling sum of money, people can put many here,

pay no tax, by a path of Belgravia, leave it empty, sent property prices

soaring, because we have become a tax haven for oligarchs and

plutocrats of all sorts. But whose fault is that? Is it the fault of

the law makers? Yes, they have been completely inseminated --

intimidated by lobbyists et cetera. Labour made a pact with the devil,

you keep putting money in here and we will leave you alone. It has come

about because of public protest. I'm sorry, we will have to leave