24/02/2018 Dateline London

Hello and a very warm

welcome to Dateline London.

I'm Carrie Gracie.

This week we look at the continuing

carnage in Syria, and discuss

the latest twists in

the Brexit debate.

My guests this week:

The conservative political

commentator Alex Deane,

Marc Roche of Le Point,

the American writer

and broadcaster Jeffrey Kofman,

and the columnist for the Gulf based

newspaper The National,

and Arab Weekly

Rashmee Roshann Lall.

Barrel bombs, air strikes

and shelling by Syrian government

forces have killed nearly 500 people

this week, many of them children.

Eastern Ghouta the beseiged area

on the edge of the Syrian capital

Damascus, has been described

as "Hell on Earth".

The UN has

called for a cease fire.

Rashmee, you've been following this

nightmare, do you see an end

to the suffering of people in Syria?

I think the response to that

question should certainly not to be

along the United Nations children's

fund issued. Its institutional heart

was so heavy that it could not

describe the suffering of the people

of eastern Ghouta, and it simply

issued a bank statements, saying the

truth is beyond language, there is

nothing further to say. -- a blank

statement. I would say, one has two

recognise words can have the quality

of deeds. Let's look at the facts,

let's use words to do that. The

facts on the ground art, Syrian's

President Bashar al-Assad, as long

as he checks in with Moscow, he can

pretty much do what ever he wants in

the country. As long as he has

robust foreign support. There has

been a stand-off with the UN with

much of the world trying desperately

to get this very small concession

which is a humanitarian halt to the

siege and staff strike strategies

that Assad is using. They can't do

it because the Russians are stopping

it. The facts on the ground are that

the Syrian regime is there, it's not

going away, and one finds it's very

hard to understand the rational

basis of what some trumped

administration officials describe as

a return of the Syrian state, not

return of the Syrian regime, kind of

approach. They are not going

anywhere, it can end if we recognise

the facts on the ground.

You are a

North American, Jeffrey, what's your

view on the Trump administration

recognising facts on the ground?

We

saw a year ago in April when the

sarin gas was used, that was the red

line in the sand, and to Trump's

credit he actually responded. The

air strikes destroyed 20% of the

Syrian air force. He has calculated

that is a red line, Assad, I can do

chlorine, these huge bombs, all

sorts of carnage. But if I don't do

chemical warfare per se, I can get

away with it. That is what has

happened. This will not be solved

with American leadership. America is

in the midst of a nervous breakdown,

it is to internal looking right now

to care about this. I despair

because I don't see how this will

work. Russia is playing chess, the

rest of the world is playing

checkers. Of course we can hope and

in some way there must be a

solution, I struggled to see where

it is.

France, long experienced in

the Middle East, the French pushing

hard for that UN Security Council

resolution. Is there a game of chess

that can be turned into checkers or

vice versa?

The problem is that in

the Security Council, Russia who has

a veto and is a prominent member,

who knows very well the UN because

of the court, is making the

situation impossible. The only hope

with America out of the game is

France. And Britain. They have one

moment they can use against the

Assad regime. It's Russia. It's

hardening the sanctions, and if you

think that there are lots of Putin's

friends who have property in

Britain, property in France and on

the Cote d'Azur, him and each

suitable club, the owner is close,

they could seize all this. -- the

Chelsea football club. But Britain

and France love Russian money so

they would be any help. I am at

least on a moral issue, France and

Britain, they are showing the way.

It's no accident all of us have

mentioned Russia and the involvement

in the Assad regime. Long gone are

the days when President Obama mocked

Mitt Romney for calling Russia the

threat of the future. Here I think

criticism of Russia is very well

founded. As well as Russia's formal

forces on the ground in Syria, which

are significant, we see the

operation of companies like Wagner

PMC, Private military companies,

mercenaries, on the ground embedded

in Assad's forces, fighting the

Kurdish anti-Assad forces. Why this

matters so much, fighting against

the Americans directly, we are

seeing Russians albeit not in

Russian uniform but it seems with

the blessing of the Kremlin in

operation of the 2500 of them,

fighting alongside Assad's forces

directly against Americans. It's an

incredibly dangerous situation, so

it's not just about what happens in

Syria to solve it, also the

potential risk of Americans and

Russians facing directly. Earlier

this month we saw a confrontation

between Russian and American forces

in which the western side claims 100

Russians died, the Kremlin omits

several dozen did. We get dragged

into a conflict in a way we saw for

much of the 20th century, bad news.

I think we must understand that for

Russia there is a lot at stake here.

This is Syria, strategically so

important. The only Russian

Mediterranean -based is there, they

want to keep their foothold

geopolitically in this area. The US

is focused elsewhere.

Presumably for

the Russians it stands to reason

that they want to give their Syrian

allies time to finish off the rebels

on the edge of Damascus.

There are a

lots of arguments that say we should

prevent the collapse of the Syrian

state. Libya is not a shining

template, nobody wants to go there.

This is not about rewarding bad

behaviour or giving carte blanche to

callous leaders, it is about if we

care about the suffering of the

Syrian people, we want it to stop.

The trouble is, Mark's point was the

French and British responsibility

applies. We were for and against

Assad, now we are not sure. Our

foreign policy seems to be that he

should go but on balance we would

rather the state did not collapse. A

contradiction.

The sanctions, they

cannot put up with more sanctions.

The economy is doing badly.

Surely

the her point is we need to let the

Syrian people out of this misery and

do I understand correctly, you are

basically saying at some point, the

Syrian government should be

assisting in finishing this in as

civil a way as possible?

Basically

what we are understanding is there

maybe a arrangement with Mr Assad,

we may talk about that at some

point, he has it. Maybe because the

Russians have him by the short and

Curly is, let the situation gets to

there. If people can help, help. If

not, get the message and Get Out.

You bring up Libya and I covered

Libya for ABC News. The failed state

solution is one we all fear now. And

rack very much is like that as well.

What I worry about that is it's

easier to let things bump along and

let the people of Syria suffer

horrendously manages to find a

long-term solution. Particularly in

today's world where you can talk

about this concept of empathy, we as

consumers of media in the west are

so beaten down by the imagery, as I

was preparing for this and reviewing

some of the footage last night it's

really hard to watch. If you go to

the BBC website, it's much easier to

go to some list article on bus speed

than to look at these children

suffering.

Assad is a war criminal.

He should not be allowed to do what

he is doing.

Who is taking the

leadership to say that? We are

sitting in London, where is the

outrage from Westminster, where is

Boris Johnson on this?

Fatigue.

More

to the point, who can.?

The

Russians.

-- who can enforce that?

Can I bring up the Koran?

-- can I bring up Iran? That is

another question.

That is in a way

balanced because Israel and Iran

balance each other, they are not

really the main proponent, it's

Russia. Without the Russian air

force, Assad is dead. It is Russia

we should target, Iran in a way has

his brother, their side to the

story.

What do you think about the

question of Boris Johnson. Much

distracted about events with Brexit.

I think there is a significant role

for our country and this discussion,

a moral responsibility given our

history and heritage in that region.

I do think we should not overstep

our bounds. If we are going to act

in this environment, if you break

it, you own it. If we intervene

significantly and if Assad were to

go as a result, two big ifs, who

goes in his place? What is our

responsibility for popping up that

regime? The pragmatic answer is that

this terrible person running his

country is better rather than

propping up a new regime for which

we back of the responsibility that

cannot go well.

War criminals

sometimes have to be tolerated?

Gas.

And leaders sometimes had to stay in

office.

He is a war criminal, not a

bad leader.

What about the UN? We

had the French ambassador talking

about this being a key credibility

moments, not just the graveyard for

many Syrians but it also should not

just be the graveyard for the UN

Security Council.

Is it is now 11

times Russia has blocked the

resolutions on this? There is a

paralysis here, the Russian agenda

and the rest of the world's agenda

are in conflict. The structure of

the UN is now paralysed and the

credibility very much at stake.

Basically every major international

issue like this has failed to be

resolved because of the kinds of

power imbalances. In the end we form

these so-called coalitions of the

willing and if something will happen

here, that's where it would be.

The

UN is doing a terrific job, a very

good job with the 5 million

refugees.

It's good for other

things.

We must move on but a yes,

no answer. If there were listeners

or viewers to this programme in

Eastern Ghouta today, yes or no, is

there any hope for them in the near

future to an end of the air strikes

and the siege they are living under?

No. There is always hope.

I refuse

to say there isn't.

I don't see it

but I want to believe it.

One of the biggest questions is

Brexit.

Ambitious managed divergence.

That is the expression the British

Prime Minister Theresa May

and her senior ministers came up

with at a summit this week

to describe their vision

of Britain's future relationship

with the European Union.

The president of the European

Council called it pure illusion.

On Monday the Labour leader

Jeremy Corbyn will set

out his alternative.

Alex, where does ambitious managed

divergence stand today?

Our Prime Minister with the office

comes a very nice country manor

house, and she went with ten of her

senior ministers, her Brexit War

Cabinet, to discuss what happens

next. There was some agreement

amongst those people, not least in

mutual recognition of goods amongst

us and the EU. That matters because

the Conservative Party has not been

entirely united on questions about

future relationships with the EU.

You are right, the next step is what

happens domestically in the UK

between the government and the

opposition. Jeremy Corbyn's position

on this, perversely, given that he's

not in government will be quite

decisive for the mid-stage we are

now looking at. He must decide, I'm

amazed he has pulled off this trick

of not really showing his hand, is

he going to come out in favour of us

remaining in the customs union or a

customs union, and if so, will he

take the Labour Party with him to

vote against the government?

And the

answer?

I think he won't. Putting

your colours to the mast like that

undermines him with many Labour

voters who voted to leave the

European Union, and makes a start

position between him and the

government with the government

saying we are trying to implement

the largest baby ever had in our

country and you are seeking to

stymie it. Putting aside principles,

the practical political question is,

could he defeat the government? That

I don't know. If you stood up for

the customs union, some Conservative

MPs would vote with him.

We will

come back to that. I want to go back

to that checkers moments, the kind

of, some called it a fudge, others

called it ambitious, the Prime

Minister playing a blinder. As

someone not in the entrails of

Brexit everyday, do you feel you

watch that episode and you now

understood where the government

stands on Brexit?

I am a political

junkie so I do understand it but for

much of the world, if you compile

the definitive Brexit dictionary

after all this is over much after

March 2019, there will be these key

phrases, manage divergences, the

vassal state, cake and eat it

philosophy. The three baskets

approach. All of it goes on and on.

Basically, as one can understand it,

clearly, the EU keeps expressing

great surprise and the world DeMent

at the British position. It's always

been clear.

Its posture.

The British

want everything. They have said it

over and over. Which part of that

event not understand? Whether it is

unattainable or not.

We have already

heard the president of the European

Council is a pure illusion, is there

a route by which the UK can win all

gain no pain?

No, because you cannot

cherry pick the single market or the

custom union, you are in or you are

out. The checkers compromise is

purely for internal, because as far

as the 27 are concerned, they will

refuse it.

It's a fudge?

Yes, a

domestic fudge. You have on one side

a very divided UK Government, who is

coming now with this cherry picking

off, what they want. On the other

side, which you forget, the 27 are

all united. They all know what they

to do, Britain is isolated, Britain

has absolutely no cards.

Let's just

checked...

I just want a reality

check. This is now more than a year

and a half into this discussion, we

are approaching a year before the

divorce, whatever you want to call

it, that's the polite word.

An open

marriage!

We are still talking about

general terms and concepts. We have

moved from Brexit meaning Brexit to

these new terms that you rhyme off,

yet we are not getting into

specifics. It just shows that

Theresa May as you say has this

impossible balancing act within her

party. The country does not know

where it's going. We should be

concerned about the lack of

leadership.

There was an agreement

in phase one. Good. There will be an

agreement on phase two, which will

be bad for Britain. It is moving on.

The trade now is the most important

thing. Again, Britain is isolated in

trade, the illusions of grandeur

that they can get there on their

own, it's a medium-sized country

facing 27.

This is a negotiation in

which people are taking postures.

The peculiar thing, I am not saying

you were doing this, but the

peculiar thing in our country, we

look at what the government does and

pick it apart, then we look at what

the EU says, equally posturing on

their side, and say here is the

Gospel handed down to us by these

leaders of the EU. Actually a lot of

what's being said publicly is hot

air in preparation for real hard

negotiation, bad news for viewers

who want to get this over and done

with. It would be concluded until Q1

next year.

I wanted to point out the

EU, the United position is likely to

splinter and has already.

Why? It

hasn't. 27...

Because the first post

Brexit budget of 2021 is starting to

be discussed. We will see it in May,

there are significant differences

are merging and more will emerge

over trying to plug that big hole,

10 billion euros.

That is something

the UK can take advantage of?

Indeed, one hopes they can. In the

security Corporation field. The

Europeans must spend more on

security.

-- security cooperation. No one

knows what it will look like,

perhaps not even Alex.

The important

thing is not the security, we all

agreed. The Brits need Europe. The

Canada thing, this delusion that the

UK will get Canada plus plus, plus.

The Canada deal took seven years.

Alex is saying that's a posture.

You

know very well it does not include

service, financial service.

The

Canadian deal is not useless. More

over, the average trade deal takes

two or less and you must bear in

mind the importance attached to a

trade deal between us and the EU if

there is to be one given we are each

other's largest trading partners.

This is not like forming a deal with

another standard donation, it's not

like forming a deal with another

third nation, the day we leave we

will be Europe's largest trading

partner with who we operate a

massive trading surplus. That point

about splintering as fair, some

countries will want things more than

others and the closer you get to the

finish line, the more...

This is a

particularly interesting week.

Monday, we have Jeremy Corbyn

speaking. Where Alex began, it's

critical we watch what happens

Monday. Corbyn who has been defined

as an ideologue has the potential to

pitted to being a pragmatist on

Monday, and potentially we talk

about chess and checkers, he could

play a really interesting chess

game. If he could force the

government's hand there is a

scenario that is not outrageous that

says he could force an election

sometime this year.

Walk us through

these steps, by peeling off rebels?

By peeling off government rebels, by

saying Labour is now pro-customs

union, or for a soft Brexit. That

would potentially bring it more to

where the Lib Dems fit in.

Do you

think Corbyn will do that?

I put my

crystal ball away, I have been so

wrong at this desk so many times. I

think we should watch and see. Then

you have Theresa May scheduled to

speak Friday to give her position,

task has already said she is

delusional. This is a critical week.

What kind of partner pre-emptively

slacks off the thing being said by

the person they are supposed to be

negotiating with?

You want to cherry

pick again.

U2 have been round that

argument. I want to hear what you

have to say about that dilemma.

I

hope he comes down to stay in the

customs union and that this

government, useless government, very

useless government, as far as

negotiation is concerned. They will

fall because at the end of the day

the EU is faced with a government

which is not knowing what it wants,

it is divided, you need a strong...

That is your hope for you think that

will happen?

I think that Corbyn

will go for the customs union.

I

think the Labour leader will go for

a customs union. I think it's all

about jobs and the Shadow Foreign

Secretary saying, it's the right

thing to think.

Not only does it put

the debate in a new existential one

for the challenge to the government

in the house in a real way, then

Tory rebels must think, what do I do

now, do I vote with the Labour Party

in favour of a customs union, but I

could bring down the government?

They must decide whether they are a

Remainer before they are a Tory.

I

think many will decide they are a

Tory before they are a Remainer. If

Corbyn does that, the other domestic

thing to think about is he crushes

the Liberal Democrats, which is a

long-term Labour Party aim and with

which I don't entirely lack

sympathy.

He crushes them because?

They have been the pro-European

party but if Labour is pro-European

and laugh and has the potential of

getting into government, they hoover

up lots of those Lib Dem votes. The

Lib Dems have been fishing for a

long time in the politics of the

left-wing, so if Labour is both and

pro-EU...

They must watch what

happens on Monday. They do not have

an opportunity, they are not in the

equation. I think that Corbyn can

really change the course of this

debate. The question is whether he

has the stomach to do it.

You ask

what is the Lib Dem possibilities, I

think constructive dispersal.

LAUGHTER

I am coming up with more

terms!

More vocab.

It does not

matter what happens to the Lib Dems.

It matters that Europe is going

forward. There is the budget but

also this Emmanuel Macron idea and

phenomenon. For me, British policy,

there is no leader, there is no

Macron, while Europe has this Macron

who wants to create several state

Europe.

If you are right and things

are so unlikely to work out in a

dialogue with the EU, which may be

the case, then all the more do we

need to look to our relationships

with the rest of the world and build

trade deals with them. Like it or

not, we are leaving the EU. We must

accept that reality.

With no

strings?!

We must close, I'm sorry

to all of you. Thank you for coming

in.

That's all we have

time for this week -

do join us again next week same time

same place.But for now,

thank you for watching and goodbye