:00:04. > :00:14.built to cope with rising birthrate is and immigration.
:00:14. > :00:19.
:00:19. > :00:24.Welcome to HARDtalk. Is a military strike against the
:00:24. > :00:34.Assad regime in Syria in the offing or not? Two weeks after a report
:00:34. > :00:38.urged of a Parap chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb. My
:00:38. > :00:43.guest is the former prime minister Dominique de Villepin. His country
:00:43. > :00:46.joins ready to join an attack on the Syrian regime, but who would
:00:46. > :00:50.question the British parliamentarians voted against a
:00:50. > :01:00.diligent, now President Obama is putting his military case before the
:01:00. > :01:28.
:01:28. > :01:31.US Congress. Is this anyway to HARDtalk. It is two weeks since we
:01:31. > :01:37.got these horrifying reports of what appears to be a chemical gas attack
:01:37. > :01:44.in the Damascus suburbs. What do you make of the western response to the
:01:44. > :01:48.news? There is a lot of hesitation uncertainty about this response. The
:01:48. > :01:56.less we can say, it is a difficult situation. There are no easy
:01:56. > :02:00.options. There are no good options. We might be forced to take the less
:02:01. > :02:07.worse options and in this situation I don't believe that force is the
:02:07. > :02:13.answer. Looking at the way it has been handled in Washington, in Paris
:02:13. > :02:18.and in London, are you surprised at the level of uncertainty, confusion
:02:18. > :02:24.that we have seen? I am not surprised because things have gone
:02:24. > :02:29.too fast at the beginning. Beginning by saying that they were going to
:02:29. > :02:35.use force, showing the muscles, was not the right thing to do at the
:02:35. > :02:43.beginning, after the massacres. In such situations, you should be more
:02:43. > :02:45.cautious. The first thing is to establish a case to show the proof,
:02:45. > :02:50.and then afterwards to ask the international community for a
:02:50. > :02:55.resolution in the UN, and afterwards to decide whether your use force or
:02:55. > :03:01.not. I think we have gone the wrong way. And today we are paying through
:03:01. > :03:07.hesitations. Let's do it your way. Let's talk about the evidence, the
:03:07. > :03:10.case. A very simple question, you have looked at what French
:03:10. > :03:14.intelligence have produced, I'm sure you've looked at what has been
:03:14. > :03:18.produced in London and Washington as well, you personally convinced of
:03:18. > :03:25.what the intelligence services say, which is that the of blame can be
:03:25. > :03:32.placed direct league toward the Syrian Assad regime? I believe there
:03:32. > :03:37.are a lot of presumptions, a lot of indications of Assad 's
:03:37. > :03:43.responsibility in this massacre. Does that make proof? I'm not sure
:03:43. > :03:49.at this stage. Your own intelligence services it does. I believe what my
:03:49. > :03:56.services says. But to go from presumption to an absolute proof is
:03:56. > :03:59.something else. I'm not sure this is the main factor, because we all know
:03:59. > :04:06.that the regime of Bashar al-Assad, as well as the regime of his
:04:06. > :04:12.father, is a criminal regime. is nothing new. There is something
:04:12. > :04:16.new. If you say you accept the case that it is the Assad regime that
:04:16. > :04:20.used chemical weapons, that is what is new. Four, he has not used
:04:20. > :04:26.chemical weapons on this scale. It is argued that he has used this
:04:26. > :04:31.before. There has been previous use at least four times in the last few
:04:31. > :04:37.months. This report killed more than 1400 people, according to
:04:37. > :04:42.intelligence. Including more than the intelligence services are
:04:42. > :04:48.presenting, John Kerry has likened Bashar al-Assad to Hitler and Saddam
:04:48. > :04:58.Hussein has leaders who have fragrantly broken beat Tobu on using
:04:58. > :05:04.
:05:04. > :05:09.chemical weapons -- broken the taboo. There are at least 20,000
:05:09. > :05:15.people who were dead in such massacres before. They were used in
:05:15. > :05:21.1988 I Saddam Hussein against the Kurds. The Iranian people do
:05:21. > :05:26.remember such massacres. We have two remember that in history, it is
:05:26. > :05:35.always difficult to compare situations, there have been wide
:05:35. > :05:40.massacres by Japan -- in Japan by the US. John Kerry says that we
:05:40. > :05:46.cannot turn our back on responsibilities here and grant
:05:46. > :05:49.impunity to a ruthless dictator who can continue to gas is people, those
:05:49. > :05:55.are the stakes involved, you are saying here is simply overplaying
:05:56. > :05:59.his hand? No, he is just giving the wrong out. I totally agree with the
:05:59. > :06:04.fact we should react. Of course we should react. It is the best
:06:04. > :06:08.reaction to use force, or do we have an alternative? What I'm saying is
:06:09. > :06:14.we do have an alternative. Force should only be used as a last
:06:14. > :06:19.resort, when it is needed. We have to take the lessons of the last 13
:06:19. > :06:22.years. What happened in Afghanistan? We have been using force. What is
:06:22. > :06:28.the situation of gas tank was like they are in the middle a civil war.
:06:28. > :06:36.The same happened in Iraq and the same is happening in Libya. The
:06:36. > :06:41.question is, facing such massacres of course we need a reaction. But
:06:41. > :06:49.should we use the military and says the answer, or can we react in
:06:49. > :06:53.another, more appropriate or better way? You say there are alternatives,
:06:53. > :07:02.and if the idea is that Assad has to be deterred from using chemical
:07:02. > :07:12.weapons again, if it has proven he used to them, what is your
:07:12. > :07:12.
:07:12. > :07:18.alternative deterrent, apart from military. The touring from used
:07:18. > :07:23.chemical weapons is one objective. There is a bigger object. Trying to
:07:23. > :07:28.deter Assad from continuing the spiral of violence. Dying of a
:07:28. > :07:32.chemical weapon is something, it is a tragedy. Not dying of any kind of
:07:32. > :07:42.other weapons is something horrendous also. -- but dying of any
:07:42. > :07:46.other kind of weapon. The solution must be diplomatic. During the Cold
:07:46. > :07:50.War and after the Cold War, we have been facing deadlock situations like
:07:50. > :07:54.the one in Syria. We have found options that were better than
:07:54. > :08:02.force. Dividing countries, for example. That was the solution in
:08:02. > :08:07.Germany, it has been the solution in Korea. With respect, dividing
:08:07. > :08:14.countries usually happens after the application of force. Millions dying
:08:14. > :08:18.in the Korean War, of course. But we have had enough. People dying in
:08:18. > :08:23.Syria. The situation we are facing is that we have three different
:08:23. > :08:26.zones in Syria. Shouldn't we think about trying to freeze the situation
:08:26. > :08:31.in the country? Not dividing for long, of course, I don't think it's
:08:31. > :08:37.an option in the long-term. But freezing the situation might read
:08:37. > :08:42.the situation today, if we want to avoid... When you're not in power,
:08:42. > :08:47.it is quite easy to see things like you want to freeze the situation.
:08:47. > :08:53.How on earth do you freeze the situation? It can be the major
:08:53. > :08:59.subject on the table during the G20. What is fascinating when you look at
:08:59. > :09:06.the international community today, we are going to see the opening of
:09:06. > :09:14.the G20 and discussing about options and not discussing that these can
:09:14. > :09:21.discuss on Thursday. I think there is more courage and having Barack
:09:21. > :09:23.Obama discussing with Vladimir Putin and other leaders in a firm way,
:09:23. > :09:28.rather than discussing military options. Having an international
:09:28. > :09:34.conference, having the discussion over how can we at least ceasefire
:09:34. > :09:40.in Syria and maybe for a while freeze the situation on the ground.
:09:40. > :09:50.We have to recognise the fact that we have a Kurdish region today. We
:09:50. > :09:51.
:09:51. > :09:55.have an a la white -- Alawi region. You understand international
:09:55. > :10:01.political realities. The reality is that Barack Obama has staked his
:10:01. > :10:04.credibility on a strike against a side. He talked about the Red Line
:10:04. > :10:09.-- against Assad. He says the line has been crossed. He asked Congress
:10:09. > :10:13.to back him. He has staked the authority on a United States
:10:13. > :10:19.government of giving a response, a military response, to Bashar
:10:19. > :10:27.al-Assad. Should we have a military escalation, and in war to walk. We
:10:27. > :10:33.have all ready an awful situation. He says limited, tailored, no boots
:10:33. > :10:40.on the ground. I know that. Should we go and intervene militarily in
:10:40. > :10:46.Syria for US domestic reasons, for the sake of Barack Obama? Should we
:10:46. > :10:54.go there because we believe that we should show our muscles in order to
:10:54. > :11:01.give a lesson to Iran? Are we talking out of Iran -- I were
:11:01. > :11:04.talking about Iran, US domestic policy, or Syria? Are you saying
:11:04. > :11:08.that Barack Obama is used cynically using this for domestic policy at
:11:08. > :11:13.home. You are saying here is under pressure because he has no other
:11:13. > :11:16.option today. He believes, and he said it again on the last few
:11:16. > :11:20.moments, that chemical weapons represent a Red Line. It is that
:11:20. > :11:25.threaten the region and ultimately threaten the interests of the entire
:11:25. > :11:29.international committee. We all do believe that we should respect
:11:29. > :11:35.international law and convention. There is a protocol of 1925, a
:11:35. > :11:38.convention of 1993. If they do respect these conventions, but we
:11:38. > :11:43.cannot separate the use of chemical weapons to the situation of Syria,
:11:43. > :11:49.which is a situation of civil war. If we cannot separate the situation
:11:49. > :11:55.of the country Syria, from the regional situation today, we're on
:11:55. > :12:01.the verge of a sectarian war the Islamic countries. We are on the
:12:01. > :12:06.verge of a war between Sunnis and Shi'ites. You cannot treat one
:12:06. > :12:09.aspect of the conflict and forget about the rest. We must be
:12:09. > :12:14.responsible. What if we are going to intervene militarily on the
:12:14. > :12:20.situation gets worse was to mark what if this is going to be an
:12:20. > :12:25.encouragement... Because of your fear of provoking even worse
:12:25. > :12:30.conflagration, you are in effect offering Assad a green light to
:12:30. > :12:33.continue his current strategy and soon Syria? I am trying to be more
:12:33. > :12:38.imaginative. I'm trying to be more inventive and trying to see whether
:12:38. > :12:46.there is another option than the use of force. The use of force, Ltd,
:12:46. > :12:56.narrowed, we know that this strike is going -- not going to change
:12:56. > :12:57.
:12:57. > :13:02.anything in Iran. John Kerry is saying we must seriously degrade
:13:02. > :13:06.Assad 's regime. I think this must be a turning point in the war in
:13:06. > :13:11.Syria. For two years, the west has been looking with a lot of
:13:11. > :13:16.indifference the situation. Now we have a chance to act, both
:13:16. > :13:20.politically, and we have to use the G20. We have to put Russia in front
:13:21. > :13:27.of its responsibility. I believe we can have a very strong and hard
:13:27. > :13:35.conversation with Vladimir Putin. The second factor we can play is the
:13:35. > :13:41.humanitarian side. We have 2 million people refugees in the neighbouring
:13:41. > :13:46.countries of Syria. 4 million people displaced. Have we done something is
:13:46. > :13:50.an international community to help the situation? No. Why don't we try
:13:50. > :13:54.to work on science and corridors. Why do we go to work on no-fly
:13:54. > :14:02.zones. I do not like the use of military intervention because it is
:14:02. > :14:10.too easy and it is a blind solution. We are going to play in such a
:14:10. > :14:20.dangerous situation, and look what is going to happen. Let's stay with
:14:20. > :14:28.
:14:28. > :14:32.France through moment. Former French has the authority to take authority
:14:32. > :14:36.right now and there are many people on the centre right in the French
:14:36. > :14:43.parliament who are demanding a vote before he takes France into military
:14:43. > :14:50.action. The Constitution does not make an obligation to the President
:14:50. > :14:56.to go for such a vote. Under the circumstances, the circumstances are
:14:56. > :15:03.absolutely unique. It has been lasting for a couple of weeks, we
:15:03. > :15:07.have time to consult them and I believe he President might feel
:15:07. > :15:17.strongly asking for a vote. I think we can make an exception and ask
:15:17. > :15:24.
:15:24. > :15:32.this year, he became convinced that force should be used to defeat
:15:32. > :15:39.insurgents in Mali and he did that, using his authority and power. A lot
:15:39. > :15:47.are showing the ability to take action now. Why should he not do it
:15:47. > :15:53.again? Two reasons. The first one is, because nobody is sure this is
:15:53. > :15:59.the solution. It might be a good solution... The point about this
:15:59. > :16:09.reaction is that someone has to show... The second point is that Mac
:16:09. > :16:12.
:16:12. > :16:18.such a situation? I am not sure. said a year ago that force may have
:16:18. > :16:28.to be part of the great equation. He should get off the back foot and get
:16:28. > :16:28.
:16:29. > :16:38.onto the front foot. A year ago you gave this advice. Britain was Arab
:16:39. > :16:40.
:16:40. > :16:43.newly erected -- elected president. Vladimir Putin. You know better than
:16:43. > :16:48.I that the UN is incapable of taking action because of the security
:16:48. > :16:55.council. I have made a strategic decision that they will not
:16:55. > :17:05.the United dates. You give them control of this entire crisis?
:17:05. > :17:06.
:17:06. > :17:10.Without the UN... That is why I think the best option is... We were
:17:11. > :17:16.facing the situation in the Cold War, when we tried to have real
:17:16. > :17:20.dialogue with Russia and China. I think it is better to have a
:17:20. > :17:24.solution that is going to be a solution bike and dancers.
:17:24. > :17:29.Unilaterally we will make the decision to use force. Is there not
:17:29. > :17:37.an opportunity here for France. I am looking at the words of a reputable
:17:37. > :17:44.retired general, he says, Great Britain can no longer be considered
:17:44. > :17:49.a credible military power. This indication is that France has an
:17:49. > :17:52.opportunity to step in to forge a new relationship with the which
:17:52. > :18:02.actually can change the way we feel about the dynamic between the United
:18:02. > :18:02.
:18:02. > :18:08.States and Europe 's. We are not competing to be the best friend of
:18:08. > :18:14.the US. We have had some difficulties in the past. Do give
:18:14. > :18:22.you some letter to hear John Kerry referring to France as being
:18:22. > :18:27.America's oldest ally? It is true. We would in independence war. But
:18:27. > :18:32.that does not mean we should compete with the British. I consider that
:18:32. > :18:38.the decision of the British Parliament doesn't change anything
:18:38. > :18:41.concerning your relations with the US. It is an important decision. It
:18:41. > :18:47.does not change the strong relationship, the strong ties that
:18:47. > :18:52.you do have with the US. Let me put it this way. You talk with the
:18:52. > :18:57.strong relationship with the United States. I want you to tell me how
:18:57. > :19:03.Barack Obama should be judged in his handling of the Syrian situation.
:19:03. > :19:08.think he has a chance to rethink. I think the next days are going to be
:19:08. > :19:15.very important. You think that thus far, he has had it the wrong way?
:19:15. > :19:21.Yes. The most important thing and at the start is to establish a case and
:19:21. > :19:29.then to make a judgement. They have gone, both in France and US, same in
:19:29. > :19:34.Britain, you have gone the wrong way in deciding force before trying to
:19:34. > :19:39.explain the different problems we are having. I believe this was
:19:39. > :19:47.wrong. But today, we have to really think whether using force is the
:19:47. > :19:53.best answer. It cannot skip the fact that on Thursday, Barack Obama is
:19:53. > :20:02.going to meet with Vladimir Putin. The key to the Syrian crisis is in
:20:02. > :20:07.Moscow. We need to reassess this fact. We have been to easily working
:20:07. > :20:12.with Russia in the last years. Now Russia is blocking us. We need to
:20:12. > :20:17.work with them and find the right answer stop what makes you think
:20:17. > :20:22.that the Western find a magic formula to bring Vladimir Putin to
:20:23. > :20:31.eight cooperative position? Because I believe in the long run, Putin
:20:31. > :20:37.will not do nothing. He is not doing nothing, he is staunchly supporting
:20:37. > :20:47.Assad regime troops. They must do something on the humanitarian front
:20:47. > :20:53.and on the end... Why must they? This is typical French bluster. The
:20:53. > :20:58.realities of the situation are quite clear. Russia is a loyal friend of
:20:58. > :21:04.Assad. The west has compelling evidence that assays used chemical
:21:04. > :21:10.weapons. Obama calls it a red line. Russia is not going to get onside.
:21:10. > :21:20.So the west faces a choice, you make good on what you have said about red
:21:20. > :21:23.
:21:23. > :21:29.lines and international law, or you don't. Putting red lines is not the
:21:29. > :21:35.best way to deal with international issues. The question is not whether
:21:35. > :21:41.we should strike, whether this is good for the Syrian population. This
:21:41. > :21:50.is the question. In the long run, the Russian regime, Vladimir Putin
:21:50. > :21:55.'s regime, cannot not see that they have to find a solution as well.
:21:55. > :22:01.want to quote you the words of a doctor who had to deal with the
:22:01. > :22:05.injuries to young people who are hit by incendiary bombs were dropped on
:22:05. > :22:11.a playground inside Syria. Those who oppose intervention should just then
:22:11. > :22:14.one day in a civilian area under constant shelling. They should watch
:22:14. > :22:23.their warplanes dropping their bombs on civilians. Maybe you should think
:22:23. > :22:28.about that. We have seen that in the past. I remember the launching by
:22:28. > :22:37.the US planes when they bombed Vietnam. I remember the bombing of
:22:37. > :22:43.Iraq. Around 700,000 people, up to 700,000 people to 1.4 million
:22:43. > :22:49.people, died in the Iraqi war. You should remember that also. We should
:22:49. > :22:59.not compare situations. We should be aware of what is the less worse
:22:59. > :23:02.
:23:02. > :23:09.situation. Maybe there were solution could see Jihadist army becoming
:23:10. > :23:14.more powerful in the area. Unless you send us stronger military
:23:14. > :23:24.supplies, you are heading the field to get up high either interest. --
:23:24. > :23:34.Carder interests. Maybe it is too late for that. Today, helping
:23:34. > :23:36.
:23:36. > :23:42.bluntly that position made by the radicals... Maybe your staunch non-
:23:42. > :23:51.interventionism will support the west 's biggest enemies. At the
:23:51. > :23:56.start of this situation, we might have seen that. But now it is
:23:56. > :24:05.different. There is a risk of a rat the colonisation of all these
:24:05. > :24:14.movements. -- radicalisation. You will not create a better situation.
:24:14. > :24:20.We have been listening to them for years. What we have seen in the