Lord Ashdown -High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina (2002-2006) HARDtalk

it's time for Hardtalk. Turkey has accused Syria of a hostile act for

shooting down one of its military jets. It has not yet called for

NATO or the UN to respond. If it did, how would they react? Mater is

reluctant to get involved in at the UN, Russia and China have blocked

attempts to do something. The British Prime Secretary has warned

Syria risks becoming the next Bosnia Hercegovina, slipping into

civil war while the world watches. My guest was the UN's man in Bosnia.

He is saying the West is getting it Her paddy Ashdown, welcome to hard'.

Why is the West getting it wrong? They failed to learn the lessons of

Libya. We're not living in the days of the Western policy like Syria

like Iraq led by Georgian bush. The power of the West is diminished. We

cannot treat the UN security Council does regard we we did in

Kosovo. Then we went in without a UN security Resolution. What we now

need two to do is to measure of diplomacy in ways that is designed

to get unanimity of the security Council. We did that well for Libya.

We did two things. We did two things, Obama pulled back and let

the Arab nations carry the demand for action in Libya. And not anchor

it on regime change. Their anger that in Libya on humanitarian

relief. We knew the government had to go, but we made that as a

consequence rather than the first act. In Syria we have reverted to

type. It is being led by Hillary Clinton, and it has been calling

for regime change which requires the Russians to agree to get rid of

the one person who is their friend in the Middle East. If we allow the

Arabs to lead this, and if we allowed to be about humanitarian

action to save the citizens of Homs. Then we would be no better position

than we would not be in the impasse we are at. You say treating the UN

with cavalier disregard, there is no evidence America has any

appetite for intervention. Whereas the Cavalier this regard, the

cavalier disregard was in the days of Iran. In terms of what they are

doing now, you are saying they have not learnt the lessons and we are

back to? A America has concluded that before she will agree to an

intervention in as the UN security intervention and agreement. What

they are getting wrong is getting the consensus from the UN? A lame

to explain. In Libya, we made it difficult for Russia to veto. It

was not about regime change, it was about humanitarian. In Syria, we

have made it easy for the Russians to claim this is a Western posse,

that their leaders of imperialism, and this should not be led by

regime change. One of the reasons Russia has vetoed a resolution

already and is reluctant to go for words and some of the ways the West

is calling for is because of Libya. Because there was a sense the West

overstepped its mark. Russia and Libya's belief that the West

overstepped the mark makes it more difficult in Syria. Why make it

easier for the Russians to say no. When you manage your diplomacy

today, try to manage it with your wisdom. Try to learn the lessons

the West finds herself in. Make it as difficult as you can for the

Russians to say, we have made it as easy as possible. We are suggesting

you -- the Russians are same night because the West wanted? By having

a Western policy rather than Arabs leading this, you make it easier

for the Russians to claimants. By making us about regime change

instead of humanitarian assistance, who made it the easiest for them to

say No It should be about removing a friend in Syria. Diplomacy

nowadays takes place at UN security Council in ways that was not the

case in the days of Iraq or Kosovo. Why not play your diplomacy to that

end. We do have a situation where the UN itself is producing reports

that are extremely critical of what the Syrian government is doing? You

seem to be advocating that moral outrage, a response to that has no

place? I did not advocate any such thing. In order to be successful,

you need to have a sense of what is right and morality and legality in

international law. We have to be canny about the way you do it.

Which is why you and up saying, and a letter to the Financial Times,

that the splits have provided the Assad government with a licence to

kill. Do you blame Western governments? I blame Western

governments, its have an interview based on what I siege not on what

you think I said. Let me quote to, cowering innocent people have been

left to pay the price for a UN deadlock. I read that and I think

you are blaming Western leaders? You're wrong to think that. I'm

saying Western leaders have handled it clumsily. You have to be

reasonable, think you want a headline out of this. Of the West

has acted an adequate be, without diplomatic intelligence and

subtlety in achieving this, does not mean to say I think they are

morally responsible. What seems odd is that you are accusing them of

clumsy diplomacy and the way you are going about it, it could be

argued? It is not what I argued. point is that the way you are

arguing it is in strong language. You are putting a lot of blame to

the way they are doing it? I am putting blame to the West for

leading to a situation where I believe we have a deadlock. It may

not have been necessary if they had handled matters are no more canny

way. To extend that to the proposition time claiming the

Western leaders for the moral outrage is conducted in Syria Mac

is wrong. Do you blame Russia for this? Off course I blame Russia.

The dreadful proposition we are facing is this, unhappily, it will

take more time and probably more blood before Russia comes to her

senses and realises that continuing to support President Assad is not

in the interests of the suffering people of Syria or in the interests

of Russia. If we have handled things differently, I do not think

we would be in quite the deadlock we are run. The way out would have

been easier. As it is, I suspect the only way out of this is more

time, more tragedy and more blood. You talk about the Arabs should

have been taking the lead, what about the role of Turkey? We have a

situation where it Turkish plan has been shot down and two key is not

yet calling for any action. What's we need is cool heads. Court

judgments, we've got ourselves in a difficult position. There has been

too much grandstanding. It may be that Turkey has eight case. I do

not think duty has the facts about the shooting. Pre-empt reaction by

two key would be foolish. There is a different issue about the role of

Turkey. Two key played a key wrong been leading the Coalition in Libya.

Duty has an interesting role to play in the eastern Mediterranean,

it is one of the world's great hot spots. The problem is this, that

from where we are now, the situation in Syria books to be

likely to develop into a conflict with regional connotations. Saudi

Arabia is providing weapons for the rebels. And Iran is providing

weapons for Assad backed by Russia. If this was to widen into a Sunni

Shi'ite conflict would be very terrible for the region. In our

current interconnected world, we could have a regional war with

global connotations. The point about two key's role in this

circumstance, now that things have become so polarised is that two key

players in to that Sunni issue. The space we now have for sensible

diplomacy led by two key is less than was previously. One of the

suggestions have been that any action taken could have a Turkish

general heading up a NATO mission? Are that in a position when they

can be involved? I'm just trying to clarify what you are saying.

choose my words very carefully. capacity to play Turkey into this

in a constructive role is not gone, but it is less than it was when

things were less polarised. This is because of the polarisation the

Western nations, led by the United States, have led to a deadlock in

the United Nations which probably did not have to be as sharp as it

is. A polarised situation which did not need to be as dark as this.

When you look at some of the language coming out of two key,

they described the shooting down of the plane as a hostile act. Do you

think we do not yet know if it is a hostile act? We should recognise

the Turkish government has a role to play for its own population.

When it comes to taking action, we need to make sure that wise heads

and sensible judgements prevailed. To savour that it is not an agenda

that Act and to mention their population, you seem to be

suggesting it is posturing on their part. We know government has to do

things. It has to react in a sensible fashion, a much

irresponsible fashion on the international stage so as not to

make a difficult crisis more difficult. Turkey are doing it well.

It has to act in ways that satisfy its people. The British government

will probably be acting the same way. You are correct that we do not

know the detail. I am making a different point. Here is a plan

that was shot down, the Turkish government says it was a training

jet and it was over the eastern Mediterranean. And you say it was

not an illegitimate thing to say. They have said it was a hostile act.

Is it surprising they would say that? There is a vast difference

between rhetoric used internally in domestic audience in two key in

what you do internationally. Ankara have acted with a considerable

restraint. They have not raised the level of the temperature. They will

wait to see what the outcome will be. Do what she won two seats his

judgments made about a very difficult situation in a crisis

that could get worse, I do not What to Russia do? Do they sit and

watch? I hate to say this because I like to see issues resolved. I like

to recommend steps to be taken. But my suspicion is not much can be

done until more time is past, and I am afraid to say, more blood.

unfair the danger that as more time passes, more villagers are pitted

against each other? There is a worse situation. My fear is a

widening conflict. You will see it first in Lebanon. It will begin of

course in Syria. It is very dangerous. I would like to

recommend action we can take tomorrow. Continuing to exercise --

Russia continuing to exercise their veto is not in their interest. They

have not yet come to that realisation but I suspect that they

will. There is not much we can give. Allow me to suggest two frameworks.

Can we come back to that. You mention Russia. Is it in their

economic interests are to be to? We know they have very strong trade

ties with Syria. Some argue further, that Russia's interest is in

keeping oil prices higher, and keeping Syria destabilised makes

the situation better for them. Here are two things I think we could do.

I think we should Council wise heads. We should take the heat out

of the Turkish aircraft situation. We as the West can stand back a bit

and let us hear the Arab voices. Provided we stay clear of a wider

consider. We could concentrate more heavily on humanitarian actions.

The UN Security Council has called for these things are a few days ago,

I would have liked to have seen that called for earlier. Let's

concentrate on the humanitarian plight. If we do that you open up a

new range of options. Getting peace out of the situation, although it

is much beloved of the journalists, is not an anxious -- and action, it

is a process. If you look at that prose says, what happened in Bosnia,

the process started with a humanitarian effort. -- process.

understand why William Hague has sought to use a piece a short head.

If he is trying to say there is a humanitarian could taps --

catastrophe, it might be appropriate. But the differences

with Bosnia are far greater than the similarities. The biggest one,

in Bosnia we could have acted but we chose not to. In this crisis we

would like to act but we cannot. When the international community,

the UN, tried to act in Bosnia, Russia vetoed one of the

resolutions on the process. I don't think they did, actually. I think

you are talking about Kosovo. Your memory may be better than mine,

Sarah. December, 1994. It was on Bosnia. What was the resolution?

What we were able to do nevertheless was go-ahead an act.

Kosovo is much stiffer. But we are in a different age now. In Bosnia

we have the power to act and we chose not to. Here we would like to

act and we cannot. In Bosnia, these were the days when the West

dominated. We're not in that world any longer. Libya is a clear

example of that. In Libya what we did was we accepted that NATO was

not enough, we had to add to that. We added the Arab nations. One of

the lessons that we should have learned, and perhaps haven't, is

that in the modern age, if the West wants to get things done it needs

to find new partners outside the cosy Atlantic Club. Let's go to

this possible humanitarian mission. It's you have a UN role of there.

One of the lessons from Bosnia surely is that any United Nations

soldiers on a humanitarian mission must be backed up with a mandate

that allows them to properly protect and to shoot back.

actually, that is not true. true? After what happened in

Bosnia? You have a very faulty memory. For give me but I reminded

you about the Russian resolution. don't think the resolution did not

-- made much difference. In Bosnia, let me remind you. The UN went in

as UN command, blue helmets, and failed. Then the UN are sub-

contracted its action to an organisation capable of carrying it

out, NATO. It was not new when that went in. -- not have the UN. That

is what happened. I may not have gone into the Peter... They are

fundamental. -- the details. If you want to safe havens, how do you

make it work? I am suggesting that we need to shift... I don't have a

blueprint. A humanitarian corridor as proposed by the UN Security --

the UN Secretary General, probably based on the proximity of the

Turkish border. A humanitarian Corder -- corridor... We have to

get our minds out of thinking West and NATO. It's you have to think

much more imaginatively. There are some ingredients. You do it through

a humanitarian corridor. Secondly you do it probably connecting to

Turkey and using the North area of the Syrian-Turkish border. And

thirdly, the mechanism by which you enable that to happen would be Arab

lead rather than Western. Given the fears of a Sunni Shia split, what

are we talking about? I'm not talking about that detail are, I

think it would be wrong to do that. There are those considerations. You

have to think of Jordan, Turkey. I'm not giving you a blueprint. You

have asked me the way to go. I think it would be far better if we

got ourselves out of the mindset that says, the West and NATO have

to lead this. You have to have Western tanks and bombers in there.

All I am trying to do is get your vision. So, we have these Arab

nations who are on this international mission to create a

safe haven. But then mandate extends purely that they cannot

shoot back. I --. You are asking me to predict. -- I don't know. I am

simply saying, this is a way forward. You have asked me for an

indication how we might get out of it. I think you -- I have given you

a good one. Let's move on to some comments about what is happening in

Britain. Here we are in the first coalition since the Second World

War. You as former leader of the Liberal Democrats obviously have an

interest. We're two years into it. It is three years in theory before

a general election. There are greater signs over the last month

or so of strain, of the fractious nature of it, then there have been

so far. Perhaps not surprising. It is new. It is going to be difficult.

But perhaps not surprisingly also as a result of what we have seen

recently many are wondering whether it can survive to the election.

Anybody who believes that inventing a coalition we would not have

strains between the two parties is not paying attention to politics.

If you want to see the unity... By the way, it was often far less than

it looked as we now knew when we read them Tony Blair diaries and

other diaries. We are inventing a new kind of politics in which two

parties work together and from time to time disagree. Personally I find

it refreshing. The question is, have the actions by the Government

been diminished by these pensions? I would have that -- tensions? I

would say, friendly disagreement. No. The Lib Dems abstained on a

vote of... It is a perfectly friendly disagreement. It seems

pretty easy to me. I don't find it difficult. I don't find it

surprising. What can we expect? have to get out of the mindset of

NATO. Let's get out a writ and imagine what will come in the years

ahead. In my view, if you looked at the Margaret Thatcher government at

this term, she was the most unpopular prime minister of all

time. If you look at Tony Blair in a mid-term you will find that he

lost 2000 council seats in the first two elections. No government

is popular in its mid-term especially one that is doing it as

difficult as this one is doing. If there is a dividend to be delivered

for this, anybody believes it was going to come at this point is not

paying attention. If it comes up for it is going to come in the last

year of the government when we are seeing, as Lib Dems, to have

competed in a top fashion, in it very difficult period of government

for Britain, and delivered the country to the edge of the exit