31/10/2015 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

Syria's peace talks begin - without the Syrian government or

opposition, but with some optimistic noises from the United States.

Plus - is Angela Merkel to blame for Europe's migration mess?

That's what many in Germany now think.

Greg Katz of Associated Press, David Aaronovitch of the Times,

Stephanie Bolzen of Die Welt, and Rachel Shabi who is a writer

It was once called the "arc of instability",

from North Africa through the Middle East to Afghanistan.

And it still dominates the news, roiling European politics through

migration, blighting Angela Merkel's political leadership, spilling over

into Turkey, with an election this weekend, exasperating

British politicians who want answers about

the road to war in Iraq 12 years ago, and now

leading the United States to send 50 special forces advisers to Syria.

First, do we see any hope that talks on Syria can achieve much?

At least they are talking, I suppose. It would be awed, I

suppose, if the Americans said they had talks and there is no hope -- it

would be odd. But the issue is also very dramatic, over whether or not

there is a future that can be contemplated without Bashar

al-Assad. If the Russians and the Iranians, who are very important

actors in this, decide they're actually could be a future without

Assad, but in some sense that has to be tapered, in that case there may

be some possibility something could happen at these peace talks, but if

not... At least the people pulling the strings, Iran and Saudi Arabia,

at least they are there. Yes, you have to admit, at least they are

there! Is a bit of sunshine. What about you, Rachel, do you see any

hope? Not at all, and a little bit. Not at all because there are no

Syrians at the table which is a big problem and speaks volumes about the

conflict in itself. The war now being a proxy war using Syrian blood

but involving many other countries. Also I don't really know why there

needs to be 17 nations plus the EU at those discussions. I think that

is probably a few too many. There are really only five key players who

need to be there to focus it, but maybe a little hope in the sense

that various factors have made it more likely and made people have

more incentive, so the Russian intervention in Syria means they now

need a get out, and it has also realigned things geopolitically in a

way that makes an engagement more likely. The fact of the Iranians

have been brought to the negotiations table is hugely

significant and can obviously, you know, they should always have been

at that table and the fact they are now joining it I think is

significant. And the fact that all the parties are very concerned about

Islamic State as well as the migration crisis. These are all

factors that could make, could create more incentive. I suppose it

does seem odd the Syrians are not there but then you would have to see

which Syrians and who is acceptable to negotiate on behalf of whom which

goes into a whole other area of difficulty the Americans would

rather avoid for now. Speaking about an alternative to Assad, there is no

alternative. There is not even a name you could really put on the

state and at the same thing I think it is important to see what is

happening militarily on the ground. Even though there are only 50 or so

special forces advisers at the same time Obama is also sending more

warplanes to the Turkish airbase and there will be far more communication

with forces in Syria, so it is a far stronger dynamic militarily on the

ground now in Syria. These 50 advisers, that's very interesting,

isn't it? Firstly there is the potential for Mission Creep. We need

500 next week because it is not quite going right and then there is

the potential for things to go wrong. The absolute nightmare would

be Russians killing Americans in Syria. I had not even contemplated

that one, but as people will remember Vietnam so clearly, mission

creep is what we think of. Robert was in London this weeks beating

about Lyndon Johnson. The great historian? Yes. We all Johnson, if

we just send this many special advisers, etc, etc, we will conflict

something, and it was a disaster. I do not sense that happening and

sends Obama has two good in memory to let that happen, but this is a

very significant step. This is not something they would do lightly. It

goes against everything Obama wanted to a composite by the end of his

presidency in terms of getting American boot out of the area but I

do think this is part of his overall hope, dream, his sliver of hope that

with the changing situation on the ground there may be some

reconciliation, some pacification. But there are so many bits do this.

We will move on to Turkey properly in a moment but if these American

advisers are a advising the Kurds, they are advising the Turkish

government that need to have been bombing -- to this. Now, locations,

to put it mildly. None of this make any sense if you look at it through

the strategic situation ten years were -- more complications, to put

it mail -- mildly. Turkey going to the polls this weekend, one of the

huge stories. This is the place where, for so many Syrians, a front

line state? Were so many were already. Speaking about predictable

crises, we speak about the Syrian refugee problem as if somehow or

other it emerged out of nowhere. It emerged out of something like 4

million people displaced into outside countries, not even counting

the ones displaced within Syria incidentally. We are creating more

refugees rather the Russians are creating more, by bombing some of

the rebel areas. These reports of people moving out of these areas the

Russians are bombing, a kind of irony to speak about how the

Russians now, having got themselves in, they have to get themselves out.

It is not really surprising they took that long to get in. There was

no way they were not going to get involved and we have known that for

years. To not see it coming is really foolish. There are all kinds

of things we have not seen coming and one of the biggest was that you

would end up, with 4.5 million people displaced in Syria, on the

edge of the Mediterranean, that they would somehow stop in camps in

Turkey, Lebanon on and Jordan and not go anywhere else. I know we will

come to that in a minute but it is something people are inclined to

blame Angela Merkel four, possibly the one person with the least to do

with it. Lets get onto that. In Germany, things have changed the

people. She could beforehand do no and now this. This was predictable

from the beginning. We are almost in November and just two months ago

there were thousands of people welcoming refugees at the Munich

station. In one day, the numbers... Because of the numbers, it was

something overwhelming for the authorities. You can have so much as

you want but the structures simply could not cope. Merkel is now being

blamed outside and inside Germany for having triggered a pool factor

by seeing two things, which was, firstly, there would be no limit for

asylum seekers, and the second was that she said she would not send

back refugees according to EU regulations -- pull factor. I will

not send them back, she said, because she could not do this for

humanitarian reasons. As you say, to say she is to blame for what is

happening in Europe, it is actually very unfair and is completely... But

how stable is the Merkel government now? I think it is still pretty

stable. There is the prime minister of Bavaria, who is known to be quite

outspoken because that is a very Bavarian thing. You are being very

polite there, you are from the north! Yes, I can say that. To make

this more clear because it is a bit, the Christian Democrats in

Germany, the CSU is a local party and they are always in a coalition

with Merkel and the government coalition, but the ground coalition

is of the SPD, so it is a very broad picture where Merkel is squeezed

between the SPD, who are far more welcoming, let's say, to the

refugees, and the CSU who are far more conservative whose principles

are stability, and at the same time geographically the Bavarians are

taking the most amount of refugees because they are coming from

Austria, so this is why it is a very tense situation for the government.

This blaming Merkel thing, people are blaming her partly because she

is the leading light in Europe, she said what she said, some people

think she was wrong to say it, and secondly because the European Union

does not have its act together. Exactly. She is being blamed for

doing the right thing and that is because other countries are not

doing the right thing. If the dead, it would not put so much pressure on

Germany so, you know, -- if they did. It seems paradoxical and

nonsense. Of course it will take time. Nobody said it would be easy.

How could it be? The taking thousands of people in each day. If

these other European countries did the right thing that would still

mean hundreds of thousands of refugees and Germany should still

have the same problem. It is just that we would have the same form of

incipient problems in other countries that actually we do. This

is a significant problem for all of us actually which is to persuade

people in Europe, our fellow citizens in Europe, that actually

this is a relatively inevitable consequence of things that have

happened on our borders, the borders of Europe, over the last ten years,

and we have no option but to get together and take these people

together and deal with these people and the problem together. The idea,

the issue, it is one of call responsibility, but Merkel will

still get it in the neck and government clinic in other parts of

Europe will get it in the neck because it is the huge and rapid,

and in some ways catastrophic change for people without that much

warning. We should have seen it coming, we should have warned

people, they should have been agencies, multi-gov-mac agencies

preparing for this long time ago, but we closed our eyes to it. --

multi-government. Libya is another country affected by a similar kind

of problem and didn't have the Obama administration say, or someone from

the demonstration said, the feared instability in Europe as a result of

this? Yes, that came from fairly high up, I don't remember which

agency. I don't believe it is seen by the Security intelligence

apparatus in Europe as a collective threat to national security or a

back door for terrorists to get in and attack in Europe or these

governments being undermined, but clearly it is a huge change that

will take years to absorb and I think it is interesting that Merkel,

who I think of as a very controlled and careful politician, seems to

have spoken sort of off-the-cuff, from her heart, and is now being

made to pay for it. A German friend of mine said when she effectively

said this is the change in policy and how we will do it, he said to

me, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, this will bounce

back. As you suggested, it was predictable right from the start,

and how significant is the backlash from the far right, Pegida and some

of those people? This is difficult to predict because they are more and

more -- there are more and more public demonstrations and protests

limit on the street with Pegida, and another right wing party which is

getting more and more votes. Fortunately, in the past in Germany

we have always seen these kind of right-wing extremist parties, they

deconstructed themselves, because they always had elements in there,

corruption, people going to jail, they were not really parties that

somehow could really make it into power, and at the same time the CSU,

the Bavarian branch, it is a blessing because whilst they are

very conservative, not right wing or anything, but they have taken more

of the, say, conservative, yes, that side of the population. They soak

them up so that is why I am also saying it is still a stable

situation. Also the Bavarian branch of the CSU cannot have any interest

in pulling out of the government. Crisis meetings took place this

weekend and the Bavarian prime minister said on Sunday, I want a

solution for this. But he will not pull out. If he does that, he is

gone. Right it down on a piece of paper, and obviously broadcast it,

the old Obama thing, if you have better ideas, let me have them. What

David is saying about the failure to confront this situation, Europe, I

don't believe it has ever looked weaker since this collective project

and the move to greater union. The response has been so dismal and

disparate that it is hard to see them putting a brave face on it and

going forward. You think that changes politics in this country? As

we prepare for the referendum? I don't think it does. Paradoxically,

what people have in effect been saying is that we want more Europe,

actually, that is the consequence, the logic. It working Europe? Yes,

we are seeing that Europe has not worked together properly and the

alternative is Europe working together properly, not Europe not

working together at all. Consequently it is an argument for

increased European cooperation and action. In this country I always

felt by and large it would come down to a calculation as to whether or

not the British would regard themselves as likely being better or

worse off as being involved in the EU and it is perfectly true those

who vote for the EU would be rash simply to base their appeal on that

calculation. I think they should speak about the other things

Europeans necessarily can and should do and so on, but in the end I have

always thought that in a way a bit like the Scottish referendum but

with less intensity that that is what it will come down to. It is

probably worth noting that when talking about a political response,

and actually there has been a completely different response on the

ground, which is that, yes, there ground, which is that, yes, there

have been far right provocations in Germany, but there have also been

thousands of people volunteering to help refugees, as there has been in

the UK and in France and I think perhaps there is a potential here

for what we are seeing emerging, people wanting to define Europe in a

different way, which is not anti-immigration, which is

pro-immigration. The popular response to immigration has been

quite out of kilter with the government response which has been,

you know, borders, forces, patrols. The response then has to be, of

course, how do the authorities on the ground deal with it? You are

already seeing many places in Germany where the authorities cannot

deal. But not just in Germany. It is pass the parcel with human parcels

all across the Balkans as well. Can we speak about Turkey and the

traditional action? Turkey, in this arc of instability, they were the

stable bit. Stability has been threatened there in recent weeks and

it is not so stable now. It is not it is not so stable now. It is not

and looking at the polls, the elections are tomorrow and it will

probably be the same outcome as it was in, when was it, June? But it is

a different situation now for the Erdogan's party of course, for the

horrendous texts you have seen on the Syrian border -- horrendous

attacks. And the ones in Ankara in October with more than 100 people

dying. The Kurdish activists... Yes, the Kurdish activists and the

suicide attempt by Isil or Isis extremists. Now it is really evident

for the party in government, they have to know go against Isil, which

they were very reluctant to do until now. They were far more act of going

Turkey has been, you know, very Turkey has been, you know, very

judiciously is about this for some time. It has made very clear it had

an agenda when it came to Syria and Iraq. It certainly was not doing as

much as it could be, in terms of countering the effective -- effect

of Islamic State. I would not say it was actively supporting but it

certainly was not deterring and that has been a problem for some time. So

I think, you know, the European relationship with Turkey has been,

you know, a little bit too much, we need them for this, we will get them

that, and that is certainly the case for the way Turkey was able to use

attacking Islamic State as a pretext for actually attacking its Kurdish

population and opening up a rift there that could have been

completely avoided, which has no of course created part of the chaos we

are seeing today -- now. The big European idea for dealing with the

crisis is, give Turkey some money, dangling the carrot of European

membership again. Speaking about long-term failings of policy, I

think the more enlightened people in Europe always wanted to try to draw

Turkey towards the EU. Not the French government, union? The German

government? Not those people who essentially said there is a Europe

and it is essentially Christian and there are Muslims over there who are

not essentially Christian, and so on. What happened is that there was

a time when the Kurdish party was looking more enlightened than it has

become under Erdogan -- the governing party. You could argue the

disappointment of their negotiations with the EU were partly responsible.

I, too,... There is a relationship there, though. There is and that has

worked trying governments end of go that have as a result become more

liberal but we could also look at Hungary and say this is not always a

one-way street and so on. There was that argument, so you are absolutely

right. Turkey, essentially... If you could imagine the consequence of

implosion in Turkey. It is so catastrophic for the rest of us and

so we have an incredible interest in stability in Turkey and Turkey using

its role in the rest of the Middle East as a place that can kind of

dampened things down and create circumstances... Turkey does not see

itself, its role, as necessarily a dampening down one. It has its own

geopolitical, and Erdogan has his own geopolitical ambitions and so

on. That brings us back to... Sorry, go on. It is sold dramatic. This

week, Erdogan can go to the newspapers and take them over -- so

dramatic. Then punish the TV stations, hailing his party and the

government and what they are doing. Europe can't say anything because

they have become hostage to cooperation with Turkey. We touched

on this earlier. Very much the Nato ally, except the people doing the

fighting on the ground tends to be Kurdish, which tends to be the

perceived enemy of the Turkish administration. You know, how Obama

deals with this is almost impossible to figure out, isn't it? Yes. None

of this works and what the Americans wanted, quid pro quo, was access to

the air base in Turkey that let them fly over Syria much more easily. In

exchange for that, they were willing to look the other way at certain

Turkish policies. My point is none of these pieces fit together and it

is just impossible to see how some genius in Washington or some super

unbelievable intelligence people can fix any of this. All of these trends

contradict each other and go against US interests. Where does Chilcott

fit into this? It doesn't. Of course it does! People want to look at...

Chilcott, the war in Iraq, this fits in, doesn't it? It is a commission.

It is not the war in Iraq. But it is the reason behind the war in Iraq

and some people think this was the basic... Lets get this absolutely

straight. Everybody speaking about Chilcott seems to have a different

view of what it actually is. Some people see it as a kind of court

room in which Tony Blair will be tried. Some people see it as a very

long-term exercise in which you will try to discover the long-term

lessons of intervening in Iraq, and I could argue, and would argue, that

actually it would be just as relevant now to hold a Chilcott

commission of the failures of policy in Syria which have had far more

devastating consequences. Or in Libya. Syria is a much bigger

one... But it is connected to what happened in Iraq, isn't it? Iraq is

where it all began and you cannot not draw a line between what

happened in Iraq in the creation of -- and the creation of Islamic

State. That is something even security officials are now admitting

two. By 2011, the operation was dead, dead particularly after the

Iraqi government had gone to a period of relative in late at which

it then went back on and so on. What changed that calculation -- relative

enlightenment. Dissidents being suppressed by Assad, a position of

civil war in which there was a complete and utter... If Iraq had

not been decimated and hollowed out in the way it was following the

illegal Iraq war which totally decimated that country, if that had

not happened, then Islamic State would have not had a breeding and

training ground that they did. When somebody says illegal Iraq war, it

is not a discussion any more, it is just exchanging slogans. I am

enjoying your point of view but in a broader sense what Chilcott is a

testament to, it is the absolutely perfect British way of

problem-solving. Create a commission and have them spend 25, 30 years

studying something and... You are thinking about Bloody Sunday? I

listened to Tony Blair testifying before them and learned a lot but

this is so perfectly British. You will just tried this stuff for ever

then publish it on a Sunday afternoon when no one is around. Is

it really only British? Unlike your own dear democracy were such things

would never happen in the United States! You care about the Chilcott

inquiry? Will that be a story for development? Maybe when it is

published. It is such a complex story. I think the more interesting

story is really to look at the victims, the families of the

soldiers, who have been waiting for so long. I think ?10 million of

taxpayers money had been spent on it -- taxpayers' money has been spent

on it and the outcome will be so meagre, I think. Everything has been

turned around and twisted so many times that I think it will be very

difficult for the victims. Not meagre in terms of words, perhaps? 2

million words. But it matters not just for the families who lost

lives, but in terms of Britain and its religion ship to the world, that

matters. We will leave it there. We'll get your copy of the Chilcott

report in the post -- relationship. I suspect we will.

That's it for Dateline London for this week - you can comment on the

We are back next week at the same time.

Some parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland have started the weekend

with outbreaks of rain, but in those places that is not a sign of things

to come.