PJ Crowley - US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs (2009 - 2011) HARDtalk

the party's finances. You are up to date. It is

for HARDtalk. Welcome to HARDtalk. The Obama

Assad forces carried out the Assad

kills nearly 1500 people in Syria. What is not certain is how America

will respond. Resident Obama is trying to convince his country and

the international community that military action is needed. But what

is he trying to sell? He says there may be merit in the Russian proposal

that President Assad puts his that President Assad puts his

chemical weapons under international supervision. My guest is PJ Crowley,

former Secretary of State for public affairs. Has this eroded the bomb's

PJ Crowley, welcome to HARDtalk. I put it to you that Obama's policy on

Syria has been marked by isolation. He has been leading from behind,

frankly. The president's policy frankly. The president's policy is

very difficult. He has been frankly. The president's policy is

reluctant to get involved militarily in Syria in the same way that he did

in Libya. Part of the dilemma for the White House is that you have

ideal conditions. You had a Security Council resolution authorising the

use of force. You had an Arab League invitation to intervene. You had

willing partners, Britain, France and others. People to carry out the

mission. None of those conditions exist in the context of Syria. There

is the overhang of Iraq. It clouds not only what the President is

trying to do, but the political trying to do, but the political

reaction at home and overseas. does not mean Obama has responded to

out military strikes, now he says he the uncertainty by bringing greater

out military strikes, now he says he would carry out a congressional

vote. Now he has suspended the vote. There is a difficult dynamic between

how you communicate politically and how you communicate politically and

home —— at home and how you communicate internationally. There

has been a mixed message that is part of this. On the one hand you

are trying to change Assad's are trying to change Assad's

calculations on the use of chemical weapons, but you also say it is

unbelievably small. I think that sweet spot has been difficult. The

White House can be faulted for the process leading to these decisions

that allowed the rhetoric about the Red Line to get ahead of its

decision—making process. How can it be faulted? How are you pointing the

finger at the White House? I would say that if the President needed to

take a walk to think through his strategy, he would need to do it

immediately after the British immediately after the British

Parliament vote, rather than after sending John Kerry out. He met an

indictment of Assad. This brings up the disconnect in the White House's

messaging. On the one hand, Assad has been compared to Adolf Hitler.

On the other hand, you're advocating On the other hand, you're

militarily pushing Assad from power. duration. For a purpose that is

militarily pushing Assad from power. The reaction has been next. —— next.

proposal, there are many thinking that we should give diplomacy a

chance been next. It has actually been

critical of the White House. A Vietnam veteran and former

commandant of the US Army College of warm says that leaders, military

leaders are embarrassed leaders are embarrassed to be

associated with the amateurism of the administration's attempts to

graft a plan that makes strategic sense. Are you embarrassed by

administration used to serve? I know this man quite well. I believe in

this case that he is wrong. We, the this case that he is wrong. We, the

United States, have had this trouble for a long time of how to use

military force for something that is limited and not about all—out war.

How do you communicate about the use of force when the objective is

success but not victory? That is the dilemma that the White House finds

itself. When you go back to Kosovo in the 1990s, that is the same

dilemma. In this particular case, the White House's strategy is quite

coherent. The policy is containment. The president says his not want to

own Syria in the same way the United States and Iraq. He is trying to use

military force to create a political solution. Obviously, this is a very

difficult thing to achieve. He is trying to make that hard sell, as

you say. He is military strikes on Syria, there

American people that if we carry out military strikes on Syria, there

justification. Assad has used has given three pillars

justification. Assad has used chemical weapons and kills nearly

1500 people. He also says that 1500 people. He also

humanitarian moral reasons. Also because action would be in

America's national—security interests. Let us look

weapons attack, he has to give one, the violation of international

weapons attack, he has to give diplomacy a chance. He cannot talk

about military strikes in the same breath, can he? It is not that the

international community, including the United States, has ignored

diplomacy for the past couple of years. There is the Geneva process.

To some extent, that has been To some extent, that has been

cynically manipulated by Russia and China. Vladimir Putin at the G20

conference said that you cannot use conference said that you cannot use

force without Security Council authorisation, and then Russia has

done everything in its power to block a resolution that would give

the international community the the international community the same

kind of mental role in Syria that it had in Libya. —— meaningful.

Obviously, the Geneva process has been stalled. We will see if this

comments by Obama at the G20 comments by Obama at the G20

yesterday, unlocks the political process. The President will have to

test the Russian resolution. And see if Syria will respond and allow

international control of these weapons. Are the Russians not

looking more like statesmen? John Kerry made the remark that Syria

could suspend the weapons, and then the foreign department said that was

just an off the cuff statement. just an off the cuff statement. Is

that a mature way of making foreign policy? In fact, if Syria were to

one. But the administration's policy policy? In fact, if Syria were to

this war of in a way that that would escalate the conflict. This is a

sound policy proposal. The sound policy proposal. The

Russians... Whose idea was it? Why didn't the Americans had once it

properly? —— advance. The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Laffer,

says that we are going to run with this. They are now tabling a

resolution. Whose ideas it? That is a good question. The interviews say

that the president discussed this idea with Vladimir Putin. And now

the public proposal followed. I do the public proposal followed. I do

think that this provides the possibility for the kind of

political solution that everybody has said is needed. Even the United

States proposing a limited military strike has said that that there is

not a military solution, only a political solution. The United

States is focused on the deaths of States is focused on the deaths of

roughly 1500 people due to chemical weapons. This does not address the

larger question for larger question for the

international community of 100,000 people killed in the civil war. I

just want to wrap up the issue of the proposal. The French say they

will be tabling a resolution at will be tabling a resolution at the

United Nations Security Council to threaten Syria with serious

consequences if it does not consequences if it does not

surrender its chemical weapons arsenal. What is the United States

going to do now, go along with the resolution and suspend the idea of

military strikes, or what? I think that is what the Administration

in terms of his own credibility and the credibility of the United States

in its leadership role in this issue, is taking the boat to

in its leadership role in this Congress. The Congress will suspend

consideration for the authorisation of the use of force pending this

diplomatic opening. The United States will push for a diplomatic

resolution, and if diplomacy fails, there is the possibility of

conducting the militarily operation. But that takes you back to 2002 and

Iraq. They gave President Bush the authorisation for the use of force,

giving them leveraged with the UN. But they will postpone a vote,

set a moment ago that the set a moment ago that the

international community should not just focus on the fact that America

says around 1500 people died in says around 1500 people died in that

local attack. —— chemical. 120,000 local attack. —— chemical. 120,000

people have died in Syria. 99% of people are killed by bombs and

bullets. Therefore, if Obama wants to save the Syria nation on

humanitarian and moral grounds, humanitarian and moral grounds, he

has to do something about unseating Assad from power. Part of the story

about Syria is the scepticism of humanitarian intervention. This is a

challenge for the American challenge for the American

President, European leaders, as well as regional leaders. This is where

everybody's calculations. Scepticism everybody's calculations. Scepticism

in 1999, there was a confidence in accomplish, scepticism of the use of

in 1999, there was a confidence in international intervention for

humanitarian purposes. The same argument was made at Kosovo in

It is not a vital interest, it does not directly threaten anybody's

international community to international community to

intervene. What is remarkable for me is that ten years ago, the pictures

of refugees being pushed out of Kosovo in two camps in Macedonia and

Albania. That is what galvanised European and public opinion to see

this conflict through. We do not see the same reaction to the video is

coming out of Syria and that is a testimony to the complexity. When

Senator Jon McKain said he could not support something doomed to failure

in the long run, he is talking about President Obama seeking a strike. He

bad as nothing. People like him want bad as nothing. People like him want

to see Assad unseated. They want more support from the American

people. Is it falling between two things that not doing enough, and

people who are weary about what happened in Iraq. Is the court

declared that the two into the debate? He is absolutely caught

between the two. You have to separate political messaging from

strategic potential. Obviously, the strategic potential. Obviously, the

White House is caught between these two narratives. The assurance that

they will not be boots on the ground. The President is very

reluctant to get involved in the Syrian campaign for a number of

reasons. Including considerations regarding it run. On the

administration had knowledged if you you see that in recent days the

do conduct military at operation it can and

administration is letting on. Should he have done more? This is another

criticism that it vacillated. Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta and

other officials went along and said to President Obama, look, we have to

said no. An adviser said that said no. An adviser said that

privately Obama would concede this was his biggest mistake. He should

have acted sooner. Do you have acted sooner. Do you agree?

There are There are very difficult

calculations here. The policy of the administration is containment which

is having to determine is having to determine that

ultimately, the conditions for a political settlement that do not yet

exist. This could remind you of Bosnia without the civil war went on

for several years before we went to a date in the negotiations. We are

in Year 3 of this Syrian civil war. There is always a risk of more

intensive military weapons blowing the leader of Syria and then have

greater ramifications for surrounding countries that Turkey,

Jordan, Israel. How do you contain this? He is not containing. He is

The commander of the Free Syrian The commander of the Free Syrian

Army said in July we need more help. Soon there will be no Free

Syrian Army to arm. The troops will take control of everything. Former

Democrat democrats saying striking Syria... The point being you have

what he ought to be doing. Sure. As the

what he ought to be doing. Sure. As you just pointed out, this is more

opposition and the Assad regime. than one conflict. You do

opposition and the Assad regime. Between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Between Hezbollah and decide to intervene more

and the rest of the region. As you decide to intervene more

significantly, how it impacts all of these conflicts is very difficult.

From a political standpoint, if you From a political standpoint, if you

give very significant weaponry to the Syrian opposition, can the

Syrian opposition control that weaponry? The last thing the White

House needs is a picture of an al—Qaeda operative holding an

American—made air miss all. This is a very difficult calculation. It is.

He said that Obama has not made the He said that Obama has not made the

case on national security interests are arguably, Syria, the current

conflict in Syria, is causing a great destabilise in the region. You

have Iran, Hezbollah fighters are fighting on behalf of Assad. It is

not contained in the same way that Iraq was. If Syria blows up, the

whole region blows up. So why is not Obama making these casebook clearly

and say it is in your national security interests? The overall

scepticism coming out of the Iraq experience has coloured everything

On the one hand, I am not going to On the one hand, I am not going to

put but is on the ground, I have in mind is a limited strike but that

because people are saying, well, if because people are saying, well, if

in the Syrian civil war, why do it? in the Syrian civil war, why do it?

And if you take action, will you come back as happened in Vietnam.

You have to You have to up the anti because in

your first step you did not have the impact you

is very coherent. Using military is very coherent. Using military

sceptical public is very difficult. of diplomacy.

sceptical public is very difficult. What if he does not sell it to a

sceptical public and more in ported the two —— importantly to Congress?

That is a very difficult That is a very difficult

calculation. Prime Minister Cameron, it was a close vote in the

House of Commons when he said that the boat reflects the will of the

people and we will respect the will of the people. Having sought a vote

from Congress, Obama will be forced to respect whatever Congress's

judgement is. That is what makes this proposal more significant

because it puts the issue back in the UN were many in the US and many

a round of the world feels it the loggers. That he has tied itself to

carrying out some sort of military strike. People have said, if the use

have been done by Assad, that have been done by Assad, that

constitute the crossing of a red light. He will look like a paper

Tiger if he does do nothing. A Middle east peace administrator,

said the conventional wisdom of those who favours strike says that

knowable take him seriously if he does not go ahead with the strikes.

His credibility is at stake. He is credibility is at stake as is the

international communities. The politics of these have fundamentally

proposal to go to the UN with a change. For example, with the French

case for military action. It hard enough

case for military action. It provides time for the UN inspectors

chemical weapons use. This provides to come back with

chemical weapons use. This provides a more leveraged to Obama rather

than less. When Lieberman said we are as a dysfunctional superpower,

meaningful one. Do you think the US meaningful one. Do you think the US

is a superpower in retreat? There is a risk there. If the President

suffers a defeat in the Congress, it either diminishes his presidency at

home or diminishes leadership home or diminishes leadership

abroad. I was surprised when the President pressed the pause button

rather than the launch button. I think he felt he did not have enough

political legitimacy to proceed with the strike given what happened in

the UK. If the man who won the peace prize now advocating military strike

— please see the irony? I do see the irony but at the same taken, he does

not want to own a significant war in Syria. The Russian proposal is a

chance to get what he wants which is a peaceful solution. PJ Crowley

thank you very much for coming on HARDtalk.