17/12/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

The fall of Aleppo - how significant a moment is this -

Plus, Britain's ambassador to the European Union reports

Our guests today are: Jef McAllister who is an American

writer and broadcaster, Suzanne Lynch of the Irish Times,

Abdel Bari Atwan who writes on Arab affairs and Alex Deane

President Assad's forces have taken over Aleppo amid repeated

and credible reports of appalling human rights abuses -

and much hand wringing about the West "doing something."

What is the "something" that could or should have been done?

What are the consequences of the fall of Aleppo?

And does it merely show that Russian policy -

however horrific the consequences - is at least coherent,

whereas Western policy has made little sense,

First of all, this is a very big moment, yes? It is a big moment. It

is a turning point, not only in Syria but the whole of the Middle

East. It proves that Russia has got the upper hand. Russia is winning

and the West is losing on the Middle East. This is the turning point.

There are outcries saying we should do this but you can't do anything.

Any intervention could drag us to a third World War. Here, Putin is

determined to come There is Iran and Iran. What will

happen next in Syria, it will be the battle of Idlib. They have managed

to gather all the Al-Qaeda and Idlib. Now the next step that the

Russians and Assad will say is they are terrorists and we want to get

rid of them. If you want to intervene you are supporting

terrorists. You are separating the moderate opposition or armed

fighters from the radical one, the Islamist on so that Islamist is when

most of them and go to Idlib. The choice for the West and Aleppo, you

have to choose. Either Assad or actually Al-Qaeda. If you intervene

you have Al-Qaeda. If you don't intervene you are helping Assad. But

Assad emerges victorious and it will be very difficult to oppose him

since Aleppo. The hand of his forces. Have we just got it wrong?

In terms of Russian policy, that is perfectly coherent policy, has the

west got it wrong? The Russians have been brutal but consistent. They

have achieved the end they set out to reach which is more than you can

say for Western policy in Syria. Bearing in mind we were against

Assad before we were for him, we still say we are against him now.

The stated position of our Foreign Secretary, when he meets other

counterparts is the future of Syria has to be without Assad, even though

this seems to make it far more likely he remains in place. Plainly

if this series of events in Aleppo brings peace then it is to be

welcomed. I think there are many who would rather we were talking about

the fall of Assad rather than the fall of rebels. The caveat from my

perspective is in 2011, 2012, when there was a nascent movement we

could have supported to oppose Assad and it was consistent and coherent,

we effectively let that be crushed. The British parliamentary vote was

the crowning glory of that lack of action. The jihadists took over. One

of the ways you can tell that happened is they wanted

international journalists to be in Aleppo because they would tell the

story of Aleppo and Syria to the world, to kidnapping and murdering

journalists because they wanted a monopoly of news. That is what the

jihadists have achieved. A lot of people looking at this blame Obama

and you set a red line and when somebody crossed it he did not do

anything, over gas attacks and so on. We know about WMD in Iraq and

people being very suspicious but the buck stops with Obama? I think that

is right. I have been sympathetic to him because after the ridiculousness

and terrible misery and stupidity of Iraq where the lesson is obviously

needed to be learned, that just because you want a good outcome in a

complicated country you can just achieve it by having a no-fly zone,

I have been very sympathetic to Obama, not wanting to make a more

stupid mistake than doing nothing. But when you look at the outcome you

have to think a no-fly zone that Hillary wanted, or at least

establishing the red line and forcing it to some degree, pushing

back somehow, going forward and taking a risk would have resulted in

something better than the outcome we have now, which is not just better

than the Middle East but will also be bad for -- better for refugees,

it makes the West look stupid. Putin does not the three have a coherent

policy but he has picked a target and he has won. He has still won and

people pay attention to that. I think the timing of the fall of

Aleppo could not be worse for President Obama because it will

overshadow his last month in the White House. We may see some action

from him in the next few weeks over Russia's involvement and the hacking

which is separate but connected given Russian involvement. The

timing is interesting. I think around the world people are in wait

and see mode waiting for the new administration to take their seats

in the White House. Obviously, the actions in the last few weeks

whereby the Russian backed assault in Aleppo was about getting facts on

the ground, rushing as quickly as possible to get that situation in so

we have a fey to complete if you like in the city before Donald Trump

takes over. There are still rebel strongholds throughout the country

so this is by no means over. It may in fact just be the beginning. How

was the scene in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia? I talked to a very prominent

businessman from that area, an Arab businessman, and he said the Arab

world is so completely divided it does not make sense to talk about an

Arab world. Libya is a disaster, we know what is happening in Yemen, and

he is very, very worried about the future of prosperous Gulf states in

Saudi Arabia. They are very embarrassed, particularly cut out

and other states. They were promising the Syrian people for the

last six years that they will oppose Assad. There is no future for Assad

in Syria at all. He has to leave. The Foreign Minister, he must go by

political settlement or military adventure. But in the end, Syrians

are frustrated and so angry with Qatar and Saudi Arabia, you let us

down, the American allies let us down. We have suffered a lot with

6000 refugees and more than 600,000 were killed, and now Aleppo. Hands

of Assad. But talking about Obama, I believe he was extremely wise when

he did not intervene, when he chickened out when it came to the

chemical weapons. There will be a confrontation with Russia. Was he

going for the head of Assad or the chemical weapons? It was the

chemical weapons and he has got it. We can see the picture from outside.

The Russians are on the ground. The Americans are not on the ground. I

wanted to broaden that conversation about Russia's aims because we have

seen in a lot of newspapers today, allegations of Russia at King not

just the United States but the United Kingdom. They are making the

suggestion that he may not have a global foreign policy -- Russia

hacking the United States. If the status quo does not assist Russia's

national insurance it will upset it. That is why Theresa May is convening

our National Security Council to investigate allegations. This is a

serious concern not just in Russia but across Europe. We have a series

of elections next year and there are a lot of fears about Russia's

involvement. The National Front in France has already got a loan from a

bank close to the Kremlin. Another development is the centre-right

candidate for the French presidential election. He is

pro-Russian. He met Angela Merkel on the fringes of a meeting in Brussels

this week. We could be licking at a situation of France where we have a

pro Russian President, either as the centre-right candidate or Marine Le

Pen. We also have a pro-Russian president in the United States. And

he may have been elected because of Russian involvement. The leaks came

from Putin and the false information which got put into the ecosystem.

Even if he wasn't elected, his relaxed attitude to hacking with the

CIA saying... It is unprecedented. It is unbelievable that he has not

only be negative but he said he does not trust the intelligence agencies

to give a fair assessment of what is happening. I agree that his own

position on the intelligence services is odd. Not awed! His

position on Russia per se is odd and his position with the intelligence

services is deeply worrying but I see no evidence that Russia

manipulated the election result. The question of the president of the

United States being relaxed about hacking by a foreign government, I

think we all agree on. What is he going to do with any of these

issues? I would make the argument that if there is to be more fighting

in Syria, perhaps he can join in on the side of the Russians. I would

not go that far necessarily, but I think he is not going to put any

brake-macro on. I think he is going to make a gamble that our real enemy

is Isis. They're going to lie with the Russians against Isis. I dead

care if it is messy, I did Kerry that international human rights, we

are just going to go for our enemies. -- I don't care about

international human rights. The French candidate is a clear. With

Trump, we are not clear. We have general Mike Flynn for example. How

is he? He has been pictured beside Putin but he is very anti-Iran. Iran

is a player now. There are militants being supported by Iran who are on

Assad's side. Where do you see Russia's role in all this? There are

those who think Russia has brilliantly muddied so many waters.

We have confusion about the American election. We have in Ukraine, what

they say has happened in Ukraine is certainly not what many other people

think is happening. People in the Baltic region are very concerned.

They say there are some Russian generals who are saying that a

limited nuclear war in Europe is possible. A limited nuclear war,

this is something which is wrong footing the past 60 years of what we

have endured. We enjoyed 30 years of Russian nonexistence on

international politics. America and the West were the dominant figure in

the Middle East, in Southeast Asia, in Europe. Now this monster is

waking up. Now we have Vladimir Putin. He wants actually to make

Russia great, as Trump wants to make the United States great. He came

back, you have to remember that Russia was humiliated in Afghanistan

by the West. They were defeated, they lost the Soviet Union empire,

they were bankrupt, corruption, during Yeltsin and the last days of

Gorbachev and the last days of the Soviet Union, it now there is a

strong man. He is from the KGB, he wants to reinstate his country on

the international map again as a strong superpower. He wants his

power back and we are not going to give it to him as an American

senator once said. He does want his empire back, doesn't he? I think

that is broadly speaking right. There is another thing to come out

of that conversation. Last night in his departing press conference Obama

said Russia is a small country, a weak country, and insignificant

country. Odd sort of trash talking that you often see pre-boxing match

between opponents. If that is right, he has the opportunity to impose a

fresh round of sanctions, to sharpen the issue, to put it on top of the

national agenda and double down, leaving that legacy for President

Trump to think about. Perversely, although Trump opposes everything

that Obama stands for, if the ticket of sanctions is far more strong on

Russia he is less likely to immediately unwind. Let's not fool

ourselves about the power of Russia here. We have also got Nato and huge

military might. It is down to choice whether they will intervene or not.

We are back to Cold War arguments. But a diminished Nato. The hardware

is there but the political will is not? Now it is all up to Trump

essentially. Let's move on. According to Britain's ambassador

to the European Union - one of the best informed people

at the sharp end of British policy - the mood in the EU is such that any

Brexit deal could mean any future trade deal with the EU would demand

up to ten years of negotiations, and be subject to constant sniping

from one or other or several In ten years the British

government could change twice. What do we make of all this

and its implications? First of all, he is the conduit. The

ambassador is not saying what I think, he is saying what other

people think. Is he right? There is no doubt a significant trade deal

between Britain and the EU would take longer than two years set out

in Article 50. I think people are fooling themselves. We are looking

at a two-year process in the immediate term and then a

transitional agreement that would last until a new trade agreement is

formed and that could take eight, nine, ten years. I think it could if

you look at all the complexities. Very significant this week is Philip

Hammond suggests for the first time that he thinks it is a good time to

have this transitional arrangement. That is re-constipated politically

in Britain. It means after Britain leaves after two years, it would

still be subject to the EU in some form. It would still be under EU law

or paying into the EU budget. That is real politics. Sir Ivan Rogers

reflected what other member states are saying. There was an EU summit

which Theresa May attended and they are sticking strong to that line.

That has been no concession on the EU side and the conversation on

Thursday night took 20 minutes. They took 20 minutes and they are

consistently saying we will not discuss this until you come to this

but they are obviously discussing among themselves and setting out

their own red line. This is pleasing nobody, the Remainers who are

sometimes called Remoaners will hate any move and people who want to get

out all want to get out straightaway. Do you buy that it is

more complicated? That is life. When you have a binary option referendum

you have one or two sides but when you live out the reality of that

decision it will take longer than some would like. I relaxed about it,

I want to get on with it but I am relatively relaxed. Just to clear up

one thing, Rogers has done nothing wrong. He is a diplomat conveying

information as he rightly should do. We need more intelligent not less.

That's not criticise those who deliver it. On the substance, I sort

of agree with Sarah but I disagree with the criticism of the two-year

period as if there is something wrong with Article 50's process

being played out in that time. The article 15 negotiations are purely

and simply about Britain leaving the European Union and the different

negotiating teams on either side, their mandate is to deal with

Article 50, how Britain leaves. How Britain has a racial ship with the

EU after that is a separate article. That you cannot just fall off a

cliff with no problem. The tone of your voice does not necessarily mean

it is wrong. If I was British I would not think it was a good idea.

Why would it possibly be a good idea? My point is framing an option

in pantomime terms does not make it better or worse, it just says how

you feel about it. This is not the same situation. We are not a member

of the WTO yet. Since 1995 you are right we gave up an ownership of the

WTO to participate via the EU but are any of you seriously claiming

that the United Kingdom would be kept out of the WTO as a member?

Probably not, I agree. All the complexities, think of Greenland

taking three years to leave the EU. Think of Canada... When Norway

decided not to join it took eight months. Norway was not a member of

the EU. You left the EU. You decided to quit, OK, so you should not

expect those people who you turn your back to them, to be nice to

you. You cannot ask for free trade agreements and get the same benefits

as if you are a member of the EU, no, you can't. You have to leave and

after that, they will decide whether they will give you this free trade

agreement or not. But you cannot leave and have all the benefits. But

you were in favour of Brexit, went to? No, I was against it. I was

always against it. The City of London most businesses would like a

transitional agreement. Most people in business and trade would like a

transitional agreement. This weekend we saw a very important report from

the House of Lords on the UK fishing industry. I was very surprised. UK

fishing was something you would think would want to come out of the

EU altogether and the Common Fisheries Policy that even in that

area the House of Lords were saying they would have to keep some EU

membership. But the areas with fishermen and women voted

overwhelmingly for Brexit. I'm not opposed necessarily to transitional

agreements, I think is unlikely that it will be agreed in the timescale

set out the treaties. That is the problem isn't it? It take so long to

work out. As long as you get to a scenario where Britain can govern

itself, decide its own laws and lead its own future than I am

comfortable. If that means we need a transitional agreements than I hope

they can come into place. The weird thing is the three of you seem all

to believe that the European Union will be fundamentally irrational in

its emotional behaviour towards the UK. That may be true. What sort of

union do you want us to be in? When you have a divorce, people often get

a lot angry when they are on their way out. That how they behave? They

often do behave irrationally. All you need is one veto. What is

keeping you in that marriage is blackmail... There is fear of

leaving and everything. On this side of the table you have already

conceded that the EU is a very movable feast. The French elections,

we don't know what happen in France, the Italian banks are in a shambles,

the Greek problem has not gone away. Syriza is one of the least popular

Greek governments and the kernels. This is not a happy club of 27

holding hands and having a hug. Which is precisely why they do not

want to make it easy for Britain. With 27 countries versus one, I know

Britain is a very important global power and a very important trading

power, but why would these 27 people give Britain a good deal when they

decided to leave earlier? Obviously, there will be pragmatism, there are

a lot of exporters crucially from Germany, so Angela Merkel will be

very pragmatic about this and she will be the dominant person I

think... Assuming she is re-elected. Assuming she is re-elected. They

said last bit they cannot have a better position than when they were

in the EU. Week the Arabs will solve the problem. Theresa May was the

honourable guest of the Gulf Council. But unfortunately, the oil

prices are going down and most the countries are suffering. Now she is

starting to look to alternative markets. To compensate for 50% of

the British exports to the European Union, I think it would be

extremely... Why would it stop? Why would the exports stopped? Because

the tariffs on, if there are tariffs on British exports and Europe they

will not buy as much fish from Britain, that is how it works. Just

taking the fish example, how will they take them to Australia? You

basically have to have a free trade regime. Why would it not be

possible? Alex's main point is that the European Union on the seams are

going to act in a rational rather than emotional manner, they may be

angry but eventually we have to do a deal and if it is good for everybody

to trade their those are the terms. It is not your's position. They have

said they don't want that. They would prefer to be in the WTO. What

you are describing as a protectionist customs union. That is

what they want. David Davis has said he would prefer to prioritise free

movement controls over trade. That will be the choice of Britain, not

Europe. And he is right. A final thought, on domestic politics, why

one reason why I thought the 10-year report will be interesting, we have

no idea who will be in government in ten years' time. If germy Corbyn

does not get his act together... -- if Jeremy Corbyn does not get his

act together, my instinct is, the Labour Party gets -- the

Conservative Party gets a free ride in the House of Commons. Jeremy

Corbyn does not corral his party. I think our relationship with the EU

will come down to some of these trade deals. Barnier seems to think

we can get a deal done in less time. We can leave it there because we

have 2017 to talk about it! That's it for Dateline

London for this week. You can comment on the

programme on Twitter We're back next week

at the same time. Please make a date

with Dateline London.