:00:12. > :00:15.Beirut, the question of what to do about Syria is being played out
:00:15. > :00:22.across the world in Washington, in Moscow, in Paris, in Damascus, but
:00:22. > :00:26.if President Obama does send bombs or missiles they will strike 100
:00:26. > :00:29.miles or so across the border over there. This country is already
:00:29. > :00:35.offering refuge to three-quarters of a million Syrians and in a
:00:35. > :00:39.population the size of Lebanon that is like Britain sheltering nearly
:00:39. > :00:45.11 million strangers. Far more than the entire population of London. In
:00:45. > :00:49.Washington President Obama's plan to get strikes authorised by
:00:49. > :00:56.Congress has stalled. Everybody seems to have been left behind by
:00:56. > :01:00.the pace of diplomacy. Also on the show tonight. Come on move your
:01:00. > :01:08.blooming arse. It is a long way show tonight. Come on move your
:01:08. > :01:13.from Pygmalian, 60% of us claim to be working-class, can it be true?
:01:13. > :01:15.Life on Mars, maybe in a decade, 200,000 people have signed up for a
:01:15. > :01:32.one-way ticket. Who would want to? They talked in Washington, they
:01:32. > :01:37.talked in Moscow, they talked at the UN and doubtless they talked in
:01:37. > :01:42.many other places. The plain fact is that the military strike which
:01:42. > :01:46.Obama threatened last week hasn't happened. What his officials played
:01:46. > :01:49.down is a bit of vague conjecture by the American Secretary of State
:01:49. > :01:53.the Russians have turned into a peace plan, although thus far it
:01:53. > :01:58.has no status at the United Nations. It has, however, kiboshed President
:01:59. > :02:03.Obama's attempt to get congressional endorsement. If the
:02:03. > :02:10.ball is in anyone's court now it is in President Assad's. First, let's
:02:10. > :02:14.go to Washington. The President came to the hill this
:02:14. > :02:20.morning, his policy convoy heading one way, lobbying the Senate and
:02:20. > :02:27.preparing tonight's TV address, while diplomacy was taking another.
:02:27. > :02:31.To put Syria's chemical Arsenal under inter-- arsenal under
:02:31. > :02:34.international control. That further undermines support here for a
:02:34. > :02:36.military strike. I don't believe America's long-term credibility is
:02:36. > :02:40.at stake here, President Obama's credibility is. I don't want to see
:02:40. > :02:44.that shaken further if he presses a vote, which at this point in time,
:02:44. > :02:48.certainly in the House, I don't believe he can succeed with. And
:02:48. > :02:51.the Senate, could he even get it through the Senate given the latest
:02:51. > :02:54.developments? I think it would be tough. Part of the problem is
:02:54. > :02:58.President Obama has not been making the case as he should have for the
:02:58. > :03:02.last two, two-and-a-half years of why Syria the events in Syria pose
:03:02. > :03:08.a national security threat to America. He headed into a meeting
:03:08. > :03:11.with Democratic senators, knowing that even those who at first
:03:11. > :03:17.supported calls for strikes were hard at work drafting a new motion
:03:17. > :03:21.that would tie such action to future Syrian violation or a new UN
:03:21. > :03:27.resolution on their chemical weapons. Bob Casey was among those
:03:27. > :03:31.developing the new Senate bill. I have supported the authorisation
:03:31. > :03:35.for use of force, I think it is in the national security interests of
:03:35. > :03:43.the United States. I think we should move forward with it. But
:03:43. > :03:49.this does allow us to take away a threat if they are serious about
:03:49. > :03:52.meeting all of the details of removing the chemical weapons,
:03:52. > :03:57.having them secured and doing it in a very tight time frame. This is
:03:57. > :04:03.not, this should be a question literally of days, not even a
:04:03. > :04:07.question of weeks. In the short- term, the creation of that new
:04:07. > :04:11.Senate resolution will slow everything down here. But the
:04:11. > :04:16.President insists that he would still like a congressional vote
:04:16. > :04:20.backing force in case diplomacy falters. I don't think that we
:04:20. > :04:25.would have gotten to this point unless we had maintained a credible
:04:25. > :04:26.possibility of a military strike, and I don't think now is the time
:04:26. > :04:33.for us to let up on that. I want to and I don't think now is the time
:04:33. > :04:35.make sure that norm, against use of chemical weapons is maintained.
:04:35. > :04:38.make sure that norm, against use of That is in the national security
:04:38. > :04:42.interest. If we can do that without a military strike that is
:04:42. > :04:47.overwhelmingly my preference. That initiative will also tie things to
:04:47. > :04:50.progress towards a new Security Council resolution in New York.
:04:50. > :04:54.France tried to get that moving today. But evidence soon emerged of
:04:54. > :04:58.France tried to get that moving differences of approach with Russia.
:04:58. > :05:02.Russia has already quibbled with the wording of the French draft
:05:02. > :05:06.resolution, and talks broke up this evening without agreement.
:05:06. > :05:11.President Putin, meanwhile, has hinted that the option of US force
:05:11. > :05:17.must be taken off the table. It will take time to resolve those
:05:17. > :05:22.diplomatic differences during which the US military option will have
:05:22. > :05:28.been stalled and people will be asking whether President Obama has
:05:28. > :05:34.been sold a pup. The fact of the matter is public in opinion in
:05:34. > :05:36.America is strongly against military action. I think it is very
:05:36. > :05:39.dangerous for an American President military action. I think it is very
:05:39. > :05:42.to engage in military action, you have to be committed to success.
:05:42. > :05:45.How can you remain committed to suck iss if you don't have the
:05:45. > :05:50.backing of the American public. Again we're in a very bad situation,
:05:50. > :05:52.I think made worse by this President's lack of action to date
:05:52. > :05:59.I think made worse by this on Syria. But, we have got an
:05:59. > :06:04.opening here. He has talked about military use, that threat obviously
:06:04. > :06:09.has, from my standpoint, resulted in this lifeline being tossed.
:06:09. > :06:11.There is diplomatic opening and we should take advantage of that
:06:11. > :06:16.diplomatic opening and push it and prb it hard. The President --And
:06:16. > :06:19.push it hard. The President left the Senate with supporters left
:06:19. > :06:28.uncertain about timings, wording and much else. Our schedule is
:06:28. > :06:30.being driven by developments. Developments that are taking place
:06:30. > :06:34.not some Developments that are taking place
:06:34. > :06:37.is why I took it off the counter last night to have a vote tomorrow
:06:37. > :06:41.morning. As I said last night, I will tell everybody again. It is
:06:41. > :06:47.important we do this well, not quickly. The diplomatic track may
:06:47. > :06:52.have got the President off the hook over the use of force in Syria, but
:06:53. > :06:57.if it fails it may also leave him with nothing, having looked to
:06:57. > :07:08.Congress for support but failed to get it. Look -- looking at it from
:07:08. > :07:12.a long way away, is a deal on these terms even remotely possible? That
:07:12. > :07:16.is a question they would love to have an answer to in the White
:07:16. > :07:21.House as President Obama prepares his prime time address to America
:07:21. > :07:26.later this evening. It was thought that it would be that sort of "my
:07:26. > :07:31.fellow Americans I'm taking force because..." type of address, but
:07:31. > :07:36.now it will have to accommodate all of the uncertainties raised by this
:07:36. > :07:40.diplomatic opening. We know that when the French move their draft
:07:40. > :07:44.resolution earlier today in New York it contains some terms that
:07:44. > :07:48.were extremely objectionable to the Russians and the Syrians. It talked
:07:48. > :07:53.about the Syrian Government taking responsibility for the attacks of
:07:53. > :07:55.the 21st of August. It talked about them destroying their chemical
:07:55. > :07:59.weapons, as well as placing them under supervision, and it talked
:07:59. > :08:04.about possible war crimes proceedings for those responsible
:08:04. > :08:07.for the 21st of August attacks. Now great elements of that will be
:08:07. > :08:11.unacceptable. The Russians have said that straight away. The real
:08:11. > :08:17.question is what they end up with at the end of that. John Kerry is
:08:17. > :08:20.going to Geneva on Thursday to have concrete discussions with Sergey
:08:20. > :08:21.Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, about whether
:08:21. > :08:26.Lavrov, the Russian Foreign find a way forward. I think the
:08:26. > :08:29.thing they are clinging to here is the understanding and hope that
:08:29. > :08:35.Russian anxiety that chemical weapons could go adrift and end up
:08:35. > :08:40.with militant Jihadist groupss, if the Assad regime falls, is one of
:08:40. > :08:47.the things that underpins their position and it is therefore a
:08:47. > :08:53.sincerely held position. Let's speak now to two Syrians who live
:08:54. > :08:59.in Beirut. We have a writer and political analyst who supports the
:08:59. > :09:06.Syrian army and a student here who wants to see imdeposed. Do you
:09:06. > :09:10.think are we -- him deposed. Do you think we are in any better position
:09:10. > :09:13.tonight that people are talking rather than expecting a missile
:09:13. > :09:17.strike, are we in a better position? I think we are advancing
:09:17. > :09:20.now. The current decision of the Syrian Government to put its
:09:20. > :09:24.chemical arsenal under the international control is sending a
:09:24. > :09:27.very clear message to the international community that it is
:09:27. > :09:30.willing to negotiate and it is willing to compromise, this is the
:09:30. > :09:34.first point, the second is it is not willing to use this arsenal
:09:34. > :09:38.against its own people as the international community claims. But
:09:38. > :09:45.it does mean the initiative now lies with Assad? It deficitly does.
:09:45. > :09:52.The concession will most probably be made by the regime because the
:09:52. > :09:56.recent weeks have exposed their inability to deal with an
:09:56. > :10:00.international initiative as strong as the one that has come in the
:10:00. > :10:03.last weeks, although it hasn't reached anywhere really. We were
:10:03. > :10:07.talking earlier and you sounded to me like a man in some despair about
:10:07. > :10:12.the state of his country, are you? I am, definitely, I am deeply
:10:12. > :10:17.concerned. It has changed the lives of many Syrians, many of which I
:10:17. > :10:24.know forever. Is peace any more near tonight than it was a week
:10:24. > :10:29.ago? It definitely isn't.Isn't? And if this initiative goes through,
:10:29. > :10:36.I believe that things will become as static as they were last June or
:10:36. > :10:41.July and whereby most of the territories have been dealt with by
:10:41. > :10:49.the regime and the opposition and it is more static and takes time.
:10:49. > :10:52.That is now how it feels to you? I think the Syrian crisis is more
:10:52. > :10:58.complicated on this. It depends on the will of the Americans to push
:10:58. > :11:05.further their allies who are fighting on their proxys in the
:11:05. > :11:08.Syrian territories. Any compromise other deal should put both sides on
:11:08. > :11:12.the table, but the Syrian regime and the opposition, and this needs
:11:12. > :11:17.the will of the Americans and the Russians both sides. It took this
:11:17. > :11:20.question of chemical weapons to get the international community
:11:20. > :11:26.motivated, this is a Civil War that has gone on in a horrible fashion
:11:26. > :11:31.and killed well over 100,000 people before there was any kind of
:11:31. > :11:36.energetic intervention by the west. If the chemical weapons is removed
:11:36. > :11:45.some how from the equation, where is Syria then? As I told you siria
:11:45. > :11:50.will be exactly where it was a day before August 21st whereby the
:11:50. > :11:54.regime has the upper hands when it comes to strategic weapons with
:11:54. > :11:58.artillery and fighter jets and scud missiles which have been targeting
:11:59. > :12:06.densely populated areas, even months before chemical weapons were
:12:06. > :12:10.used. You will understand why it is frankly incomprehensible to many
:12:10. > :12:15.people that bringing more weapons into a crisis, killing more people
:12:15. > :12:19.is actually going to make peace any more likely? I would like to point
:12:19. > :12:25.out that firstly the Syrian crisis has been in the recent weeks been
:12:25. > :12:30.mystified a lot, and it has been surrounded by this aura of mystery
:12:30. > :12:34.that we do not need to intervene because we might get inadvertantly
:12:34. > :12:42.get swapped into this whole mess and it is not really that messy. Of
:12:42. > :12:49.course it is but there is still people responsible for war crimes,
:12:49. > :12:55.for systematic killing of civilians for strategic or morale-related
:12:55. > :13:02.means. And I think to actually negotiate would be granting the
:13:03. > :13:06.regime a legitimacy that should by now they should be striped of that
:13:07. > :13:11.legitimacy. I don't believe the issue of the chemical weapons has
:13:11. > :13:15.anything to do with the internal conflict, this weapon is for
:13:15. > :13:19.deterrent purposes. The Americans are now trying to get this
:13:19. > :13:24.deterrent from the Syrians just like they did with Iraq and Libya
:13:24. > :13:29.before and then they invaded it. So this issue might be an opportunity
:13:29. > :13:33.for the Americans to invade in the future, not now. Because the
:13:34. > :13:37.Americans are not willing now to go into Syria and the Congress
:13:37. > :13:40.according to the recent polls and the recent reports will vote for no
:13:41. > :13:45.to go into Syria. Although that is the recent reports will vote for no
:13:46. > :13:50.kind of irrelevant at present until we know how the diplomatics out? I
:13:50. > :13:53.believe thatest me of the Congressmen now they are asking
:13:53. > :13:57.Barack Obama what is the excuse to go to Syria, it is the chemical
:13:57. > :14:03.weapons. If it is the chemical weapons if the Syrian regime is
:14:03. > :14:08.saying OK we will put the arsenal into the UN, what context do you
:14:08. > :14:10.have to go to Syria and strategic gain will have have to strike Syria
:14:10. > :14:12.and military bases. If you bombed gain will have have to strike Syria
:14:12. > :14:18.it, will you pave the way for the gain will have have to strike Syria
:14:18. > :14:22.extremists to enter into Damascus, that is the question for Barack
:14:22. > :14:28.Obama. We will talk about that tonight. Can I rebuttal?I have to
:14:28. > :14:30.move on. The Syrian civil war has lasted the best part of three years.
:14:30. > :14:33.For most of the time the rest of lasted the best part of three years.
:14:33. > :14:37.the world looked the other way and left places like Lebanon to cope
:14:37. > :14:41.with the consequences. It was the use of chemical weapons which
:14:41. > :14:46.crossed the called red line, which galvanised much of the rest of the
:14:46. > :14:50.planet. Russia's scheme to put the singularly reviled weapons beyond
:14:50. > :14:54.use and under international control would change everything. Question
:14:54. > :14:57.though, can it be done reliably. One for our science editor, Susan
:14:57. > :15:03.Watts. The images of victims of the One for our science editor, Susan
:15:03. > :15:05.August 21st attack in Damascus are amongst the most haunting the world
:15:05. > :15:09.August 21st attack in Damascus are is ever likely to see. Each side of
:15:09. > :15:14.the civil war in Syria blames the other. Samples gathered by the
:15:14. > :15:18.inspection team that visited the site are being subjected to
:15:18. > :15:22.forensic examination. Under the oversight of the organisation for
:15:22. > :15:26.the prohibition of chemical weapons, here in the Hague. The UN report on
:15:26. > :15:30.what their team found could come here in the Hague. The UN report on
:15:30. > :15:34.before the end of the week. In the meantime the proposal that Syria
:15:34. > :15:39.place its chemical weapons under international control may fall to
:15:39. > :15:43.this same inspection body. Already operating under intense pressure.
:15:43. > :15:47.The proposal raises numerous questions, not least about the
:15:47. > :15:54.practical risks of any such process. And who would carry out this task
:15:54. > :15:57.of finding, securing and dismantling any chemical weapons,
:15:57. > :16:04.in a country where a civil war still rages. Is it a wild card or a
:16:04. > :16:07.game-changer, so the question is how many countries would be
:16:07. > :16:10.prepared to send substantial numbers of personnel, probably
:16:10. > :16:14.mostly military, on the understanding that they would in
:16:14. > :16:21.turn be guarded effectively by the UN in an unpredictable and violent
:16:21. > :16:26.environment. That is hard to judge. Maybe there will be a kind of crowd
:16:26. > :16:28.contagion effect when more countries put their hands up to to
:16:28. > :16:30.it. Geneva is where the world first countries put their hands up to to
:16:30. > :16:35.tried to put serious limits on the countries put their hands up to to
:16:35. > :16:37.use of chemical weapons, with the Geneva protocol of 1925, following
:16:37. > :16:41.use of chemical weapons, with the the use of chemical agents such as
:16:41. > :16:47.mustard gas in the First World War. The chemical weapons convention of
:16:47. > :16:50.1993 went further. Banning their production too, Syria is not a
:16:50. > :16:55.signatory, but tonight said it may now be prepared to sign up. One
:16:55. > :16:58.scientist here in Geneva with 30 years experience of international
:16:58. > :17:03.controls on chemical weapons told us they thinks the safest way to
:17:03. > :17:07.dismantle Syria's weapons is by putting people physically on the
:17:07. > :17:11.ground. But given it is such early days in this latest round of
:17:11. > :17:16.diplomacy and it could yet fail, doing it militarily is still
:17:16. > :17:20.possible. Though messy, because of the risk of spreading chemicals
:17:20. > :17:27.down wind. In bunkers it is probably is the use of precision
:17:27. > :17:30.munition niings and the creation of high temp -- munitions and the
:17:30. > :17:35.creation of high temperatures within the bunkers. Whether you can
:17:35. > :17:40.achieve that, you shoot the hole into the structure and fire in with
:17:40. > :17:44.a second weapon and that create a fireball inside and you hope that
:17:44. > :17:47.the temperature is high enough to incinerate everything inside. If it
:17:47. > :17:52.is on the outside I honestly have doubt if you can do it in a safe
:17:52. > :17:56.way. He told us there may be clues buried in the inspectors' report
:17:56. > :18:02.about who was responsible for the recent attacks on civilians. From
:18:02. > :18:06.what he has seen published so far has him puzzled? The question about
:18:06. > :18:10.who fired is really the amount, it is that whole thing on the outside
:18:11. > :18:16.was all filled up with agent. Calculation on that it could be up
:18:16. > :18:22.to 50 loters of agent. To make 50 litres of chemical agent is not
:18:22. > :18:28.done. That is semi-industrial process. It looks like a system has
:18:28. > :18:33.been adapted to fire it. It doesn't look like the sort of thing I would
:18:33. > :18:37.expect in the chemical weapons stockpile of an army. Does it leave
:18:37. > :18:39.you coming down on one side or the other? I'm on the fence. Because we
:18:39. > :18:44.are in a situation where even parts other? I'm on the fence. Because we
:18:44. > :18:50.of the opposition will be able to get their hands on agent. If they
:18:50. > :18:54.know where it is. Whilst diplomatic of for thes to avoid military
:18:54. > :18:58.action proceed, the details from the inspectors' samples are crucial.
:18:58. > :19:02.In managing stockpiles and holding to account those responsible for
:19:02. > :19:07.attacks. Once the samples from Syria arrive with the organisation
:19:07. > :19:16.for the prohibition of chemical weapons here in the Hague, they are
:19:16. > :19:21.split up and sent to several sent to civil independent laboratories
:19:21. > :19:26.to identify the finger print of any chemicals they might obtain. Is the
:19:26. > :19:30.plan to rid Syria of chemical weapons for the future realistic?
:19:30. > :19:35.It is practical if the world wants it to work. But it is dangerous and
:19:35. > :19:39.difficult. You could get people out fairly fast, if the mandate and
:19:39. > :19:43.political will were found. But the actual destruction of the chemicals
:19:43. > :19:49.wouldn't be impossible but it would take month, I suspect. That's if
:19:49. > :19:54.you could agree that you had got them all. That might be disputes
:19:54. > :19:59.over the validity of any declaration, which could bog the
:19:59. > :20:04.whole thing down. If Syria really is prepared, as it has said tonight,
:20:04. > :20:07.to tell the world where its chemical weapons are and stop
:20:07. > :20:11.making them, the experts we have spoken to says the chance to put
:20:11. > :20:18.them beyond use is an opportunity. But for it to work dialogue on all
:20:18. > :20:24.sides must be sincere. Just a short time ago we spoke to
:20:24. > :20:28.the former weapons inspector Hans Blix who hold Newsnight that any
:20:28. > :20:31.reliable inspection by weapons inspectors under these
:20:31. > :20:36.circumstances in Syria would be more or less impossible. We are
:20:36. > :20:40.ajoined by a political analyst. First off, it has now become a
:20:40. > :20:44.diplomatic rather than an imminent military threat, that, how is that
:20:44. > :20:48.playing here? It plays he very well military threat, that, how is that
:20:48. > :20:52.within the Syrian regime. We know that the Syrian regime always
:20:52. > :20:56.relies on the element of time. We have seen that with the
:20:56. > :21:02.assassinations and along the his tro, four decades of the regime.
:21:03. > :21:07.Whenever -- history of the regime in the long history four decades of
:21:07. > :21:11.the regime. Whenever they can move forward with that agenda it works
:21:11. > :21:15.well for them. Shifting it from a military operation to a diplomatic
:21:15. > :21:20.operation, or diplomatic solution, if you want, works perfectly for
:21:20. > :21:27.the regime. Does it shift, as it were, the balance of power? It
:21:27. > :21:30.gives them more time, you see I always picture the Syrian regime as
:21:30. > :21:35.playing poker. He they always have these you know when you play poker
:21:35. > :21:38.you have different cards to play with and you always bluff. If you
:21:38. > :21:40.put you know the different cards that they hold with the bluffing it
:21:40. > :21:45.gives you a clear idea of what the that they hold with the bluffing it
:21:45. > :21:50.regime has always been doing and what it is doing now. It hasn't
:21:50. > :21:54.brought an end to the war any nearer? No and unfortunately it
:21:54. > :21:57.won't. What effect is the war having on the region as a whole,
:21:57. > :21:59.this is a horrible thing to see, we are 2,000 miles away and it looks
:21:59. > :22:04.horrible from are 2,000 miles away and it looks
:22:04. > :22:09.what effect is it having? It has been spilling over, he specially to
:22:10. > :22:15.Lebanon on different fronts -- especially to Lebanon on the
:22:15. > :22:19.different fronts, especially with the refugees. Lebanon is a small
:22:19. > :22:26.country with very limited resources, it has also blocked our only land
:22:26. > :22:30.you know border with Syria. Because we have closed it on the Israely
:22:30. > :22:35.side, we are land looked with what is happening. It has spilled over
:22:35. > :22:41.in terms of tension between the pro-Syrian camp and the anti-Syrian
:22:41. > :22:42.camp on the political level, with Hezbollah's involvement in Syria.
:22:42. > :22:49.camp on the political level, with Lebanon has been affected with the
:22:49. > :22:53.latest bombing in Sunni suburbs and Shia suburbs. It has been adding up
:22:53. > :22:59.to the increased tension in the country. Looking broader than
:22:59. > :23:03.Lebanon in the area as a whole, you have all these other countries,
:23:03. > :23:09.whether they be Iraq, Jordan or further afield, what effect is it
:23:09. > :23:15.having there? If you look at it on an international level, it is more
:23:15. > :23:17.of a, we are back to the Cold War. Russia supporting one side against
:23:17. > :23:24.the Americans on the other side. Then if you take it to the regional
:23:24. > :23:31.level it is Iran, Syria, part of the Iraqi regime, with Hezbollah on
:23:31. > :23:38.one side, with the gulf states and the pro-US allies on the other. So
:23:38. > :23:40.the rift between the pro-US camp and the Iranian camp it is widening
:23:40. > :23:44.and it is creating tension along and the Iranian camp it is widening
:23:44. > :23:50.sectarian lines in all the neighbouring countries. Does it
:23:50. > :23:57.feel more dangerous now? It is dangerous but it is still in a
:23:57. > :24:01.place where we are, we could manage the crisis. It not yet totally out
:24:02. > :24:04.of control. If the international community assumes its
:24:04. > :24:13.responsibility in dealing with the regime proper low in Syria and
:24:13. > :24:17.really trying to push whether a diplomatic resolution or military
:24:17. > :24:20.intervention. We know after a military intervention they were
:24:20. > :24:24.supposed to go to the Geneva II convention with all these elements
:24:24. > :24:28.on the table they might reach a diplomatic solution, a political
:24:28. > :24:34.solution, as we call it. Still the international commune toe has to
:24:34. > :24:38.push more towards that direction. We're at the 1 10,000 deaths
:24:38. > :24:43.besides the detained and the tortured and the misk. So it is
:24:43. > :24:49.really growing in numbers. Thank you.
:24:49. > :24:53.I will be reporting later this week from some And the missing. So it is
:24:53. > :25:01.really growing. I will be reporting later this week from Lebanon. We
:25:01. > :25:05.can talk to Hans Blix from Sweden, the former weapons inspector. Are
:25:05. > :25:10.you optimistic this Russia plan can work, is it possible to put the
:25:10. > :25:12.weapons beyond use? I think it is a very valuable opening that has
:25:12. > :25:19.taken place. Some things are doable very valuable opening that has
:25:19. > :25:21.and easier, but others are very difficult. If the Syrian Government
:25:21. > :25:29.is ready to make a commitment, not difficult. If the Syrian Government
:25:29. > :25:33.to use the chemical weapons, whether in the form of the
:25:33. > :25:36.ratificaton of convention or some other way, this can be done
:25:36. > :25:39.relatively fast. If the Government is also ready to give a declaration
:25:39. > :25:43.of its stocks and where it is, what qant toes and where it is, that
:25:43. > :25:51.could also -- quantities and where it is, that could also be done fast.
:25:51. > :25:55.When it comes to knowing whether it is a declaration or not that is a
:25:55. > :26:00.harder thing. We saw that in Iraq and our work and the inspection
:26:00. > :26:09.pages. Even worse, of course, is more difficulty to inspect whether
:26:09. > :26:12.the declarations are right. You can't go into every basement or
:26:12. > :26:19.store in the big countries is not easy. We did it in a country that
:26:19. > :26:22.was not at war. The inspectors didn't have a risk to be shot at,
:26:22. > :26:29.but in Syria with a raging war all around this sounds very, very hard.
:26:29. > :26:35.Watching the destruction I think is harder still. Never the less, I
:26:35. > :26:40.think it is a valuable opening. What is unsatisfactory about this
:26:40. > :26:43.solution, as well as the solution of the punitive strike is that it
:26:43. > :26:47.is limited. It is like telling the parties that OK, you have to do
:26:47. > :26:51.away with this, you will be punished for it and there after you
:26:51. > :26:56.can go back to your war. I think what the Syrians need with00,000
:26:56. > :27:00.dead and the whole world -- 100,000 dead and the whole world watching
:27:00. > :27:05.is a ceasefire and end to hostilities and conference. I see
:27:05. > :27:09.this as an opening to a dialogue, to show the Security Council is not
:27:09. > :27:14.necessarily paralysed and there are things to talk about. Do you think
:27:14. > :27:20.this has any chance of technically working? The first part, as I said,
:27:20. > :27:23.they could do so, but the second part of inspection and being sure
:27:24. > :27:29.that frg has been declared, no I don't see that as working in the --
:27:29. > :27:32.everything has been declared, I don't see that working in a raging
:27:32. > :27:44.war. Thank you very much. Has Russia pulled off a remarkable fete
:27:44. > :27:53.of world diplomacy, well Russian -- feat of world diplomacy, well
:27:53. > :27:58.Russia thinks it has. We spoke to to our guest. He asked what did he
:27:58. > :28:02.imagine the timeline to be? It will depend on a number of things, it
:28:02. > :28:15.will depnd on the United Nations how quickly how soon they are ready
:28:15. > :28:18.to come to Syria. It will depend on which sites they want to visit
:28:18. > :28:23.first. It will probably depend also on the situation on the ground. As
:28:23. > :28:27.you know the war is still raging in Syria. But to my mind, and
:28:27. > :28:34.basically that's what we think in Moscow, the most important thing to
:28:34. > :28:39.have the general agreement of all sides for this solution. Two days
:28:39. > :28:43.ago, one day ago we were on the brink of a big regional war. The
:28:43. > :28:47.stake were extremely high. Today we have a working proposal by the
:28:47. > :28:55.Russian Foreign Ministry which seems to have been accepted by
:28:55. > :29:01.President Obama, by David Cameron, by the European Union, by Ban Ki-
:29:01. > :29:04.Moon the General Secretary of the United Nations and by Damascus, we
:29:04. > :29:09.have to strengthen this general agreement. We cannot allow to those
:29:09. > :29:15.who would like to strike Syria at any cost. To come back to this
:29:16. > :29:20.military plan. Let me take you back 24 hours, of this plan inspired by
:29:20. > :29:29.the words of John Kerry yesterday? As far as we can judge and as far
:29:29. > :29:32.as we can trust what President Obama said. He discussed this
:29:32. > :29:36.possible option with President Putin during their short meeting at
:29:36. > :29:43.the G20. As far as I understand this was aired even before John
:29:43. > :29:47.Kerry mentioned this possibility. As for John Kerry's remark, I have
:29:47. > :29:59.to say it was a very unconvincing remark, I would say. Because he
:29:59. > :30:01.said that if Assad agrees to bring his chemical arsenals under
:30:01. > :30:03.international control, America would consider the possibility of
:30:03. > :30:07.not striking. Then he said of course it will never happen,
:30:08. > :30:14.because we don't trust Assad and he will never do this. One hour later
:30:14. > :30:20.the state department basically denied what Kerry said, they said
:30:20. > :30:25.it was a receiptorle kal sentence. Kerry was -- rhetorical sentence.
:30:25. > :30:31.Kerry was thinking allowed the possible scenarios about which the
:30:31. > :30:34.American side is sceptical. Then Obama's assistant on national
:30:34. > :30:38.security said it will never happen, don't think it is possible, it is
:30:38. > :30:45.out of the question. Americans first aired this idea and then
:30:45. > :30:52.started to play back. They took Obama's personal appearence own ABC
:30:53. > :31:08.to hear that the American side will a gree -- agree. I will be pointing
:31:08. > :31:12.out that to John Kerry. It is force may be used if Syria doesn't
:31:12. > :31:16.complay with chemical weapons, do you accept that? I don't think
:31:16. > :31:21.Syria will not comply. I think it is absolutely in the interests of
:31:21. > :31:28.the Syrian people, of the Syrian Government. Of President Assad to
:31:28. > :31:34.bring those weapons under international control. If they
:31:34. > :31:39.don't, would it agree to a resolution? I wouldn't go that far,
:31:39. > :31:43.I wouldn't see any signs that would preclude them from doing this. I
:31:43. > :31:48.don't see an interest from the Syrian Government to do this. The
:31:48. > :31:52.French Government wants to sound very resolved and decisive and so
:31:52. > :31:57.on and so on. Actually playing a very minor role in the whole story.
:31:57. > :32:03.Paris shows himself a big worrying. It is up to them. But I think that
:32:03. > :32:13.all those assertions do not look credible for me. Because the Syrian
:32:13. > :32:16.Government wants to prevent it work, I don't think they will not apply.
:32:16. > :32:20.Let's talk about the practicalities, decommissioning on the ground,
:32:20. > :32:25.would Russian troops be prepared to go into help the process? It will
:32:25. > :32:29.be an international effort, a United Nations effort. I don't
:32:29. > :32:32.think that national troops will be brought to Syria, national
:32:32. > :32:34.contingents will be brought to Syria. It will be up to the United
:32:34. > :32:39.contingents will be brought to Nations and it will be the United
:32:39. > :32:41.Nations responsibility and United Nations operation under the
:32:41. > :32:45.auspices of the Security Council and on the basis of the Security
:32:45. > :32:51.Council resolution. But would that include Russian troops, would you
:32:51. > :32:59.be happy to see that? It is not discussed in Russia at this point.
:32:59. > :33:04.So I am really, I don't think I can answer your question because there
:33:04. > :33:08.were no statements made by neither President Putin nor Mr Lavrov, I
:33:08. > :33:17.think we are still not at the stage where this is being considered.
:33:17. > :33:21.We're all middle-class now, the then deputy PM Lord Prescott
:33:21. > :33:25.declared nearly two decades ago, before he was Lord. Tonight it
:33:26. > :33:32.would appear we are not. The latest British Association attitudes
:33:32. > :33:38.survey, a statistics-lovers manual, it shows that 60% of people think
:33:38. > :33:42.of themselves as working-class. Should your accent define your
:33:42. > :33:47.class or what you do. Why is working-class authentic and middle-
:33:47. > :33:52.class a bit lame. For all the talk of revolution in
:33:52. > :33:56.the 1960s, these North London teenagers knew their place in the
:33:56. > :34:02.social order. Do you think England is still a class-conscious country
:34:02. > :34:05.or as it is supposed to be working towards a classless society. I
:34:05. > :34:08.think England is still very definite low class conscious,
:34:08. > :34:17.speaking to myself I'm always thinking about the next rung up the
:34:17. > :34:20.ladder. In the 80s when the first British attitudes survey was done,
:34:20. > :34:22.class was still a national obsession. The BBC brought three
:34:22. > :34:26.class was still a national 17-year-olds together. One a
:34:26. > :34:30.factory worker, one from public school, one from Grammar School. Do
:34:30. > :34:34.you think there is a language barrier between any of you when it
:34:34. > :34:42.comes down to that. Well I swear a lot more. Compared with 30 years
:34:42. > :34:46.ago far fewer people have manual jobs, many more people go to
:34:46. > :34:50.college or university and generally people have more money. So you
:34:50. > :34:53.might expect that in these surveys rather more people would be
:34:53. > :34:59.decribing themselves as middle- class. But it is not the case. In
:34:59. > :35:03.the first-ever report, 60% of people described themselves as
:35:03. > :35:06.working-class. 34% middle-class. Last year those proportions were
:35:06. > :35:12.almost exactly the same. It might well be the case that being seen as
:35:12. > :35:15.middle-class is seen as a bit of an elitist label, that might well put
:35:15. > :35:19.people off using it. It is also the case that we know from other
:35:19. > :35:23.research that people do feel very strongly attached to the class they
:35:23. > :35:26.feel they were born in. It might be they feel really strongly they are
:35:26. > :35:32.working-class even though the job they have now got is a very
:35:32. > :35:37.objective low middle-class one. Even in 19 -- objectively middle-
:35:37. > :35:41.class one. Even in the 1980s class used to drive politics. That is not
:35:41. > :35:45.clear now. Looking at people's jobs, rather than how they would class
:35:45. > :35:50.themselves, shows how political affiliations have changed. In 1983
:35:50. > :35:55.professionals voted Conservative, not Labour, 30 years later the
:35:55. > :35:59.revrs. As for the traditional working-class voter, in 1983 more
:35:59. > :36:02.than half said they voted Labour, last year that fell to 41%. So what
:36:02. > :36:06.than half said they voted Labour, do modern teenagers think, we came
:36:06. > :36:12.back to the same North London college, the BBC visited in 1964,
:36:12. > :36:19.very different now, to ask the same question? Do you think England is a
:36:19. > :36:24.class-conscious society or working towards being classless? I do
:36:24. > :36:30.believe people aren't classed within society, within education
:36:30. > :36:33.and outside as well. Everything to do with how people live, how they
:36:33. > :36:37.look and speak their attitude towards everything in general. They
:36:38. > :36:40.all agreed, and then talked about the upper-class. If you are upper-
:36:40. > :36:48.class you would have that confidence as well that your
:36:48. > :36:51.parents have given you. That you are better than other people.
:36:51. > :36:55.Nowadays everybody has a degree, it is about who you know and how far
:36:55. > :37:00.you can get with the people you know and the information you have.
:37:00. > :37:07.Which is why while the old class war is over, social mobility is
:37:07. > :37:11.still around. I'm joined by Terry Christian, best known for
:37:11. > :37:15.presenting The Word in the 1990s. Thank you for joining us. How would
:37:15. > :37:21.you describe yourself? I come from a very solidly working-class
:37:21. > :37:26.background, you know, free school dinners, one of six kids, dad a
:37:26. > :37:32.labourer and mum a school dinner lady, I have worked in the media
:37:32. > :37:36.since I was 20, 30 years. It is many ways what has defined me. One
:37:36. > :37:39.of the reasons nowadays that so many people that aren't working-
:37:39. > :37:42.class are saying that they are working-class is because a lot of
:37:42. > :37:47.those middle-class institutions seem slightly tainted nowadays. It
:37:47. > :37:56.is like so we have this romantised version of an idea of working-
:37:56. > :38:00.classes. Del Boy Trotter looks like St Francis of Assisi compared to
:38:00. > :38:04.all the bankers. You look at the Bullingdon Club and there is that
:38:04. > :38:07.mistrust of politicians, there is the expenses scandals and everyone
:38:07. > :38:11.likes to feel they have a journey in their life. It is more
:38:11. > :38:15.impressive to say I'm a doctor and my dad was a hospital porter than
:38:15. > :38:20.it is to say I'm a brain surgeon and my dad was a brain surgeon. But
:38:21. > :38:24.is there anything that would have pushed you to call yourself middle-
:38:24. > :38:29.class in terms of your change now as an adult to how you grew up, or
:38:29. > :38:33.do you stick to how you were brought up? You still come up
:38:33. > :38:39.against a lot of subconscious prejudice in people. I work in the
:38:39. > :38:43.media, which is a very demo graphically 90% middle-class, a
:38:43. > :38:46.very high proportion of kids that go to private a everything. So
:38:46. > :38:52.often you are battling against that. There does seem to be a slight
:38:52. > :38:56.jealousy of your journey from them. It is offering the most innocuous
:38:56. > :39:02.comment you make means you have a chip on your shoulder. Everyone was
:39:02. > :39:06.discussing going skiing, somebody said to me do you ski and I said we
:39:06. > :39:12.couldn't afford it when I was a kid and they said "no need to be so
:39:12. > :39:16.chippy". It is strange. What about the numbers we are dealing with
:39:17. > :39:26.today, 60% of people asked say they are working-class. Does that
:39:26. > :39:28.surprise you, can it be true? Possibly in that there is this
:39:28. > :39:31.surprise you, can it be true? squeezed middle, a lot of people in
:39:31. > :39:34.the white collar jobs haven't the security they once had, aren't
:39:34. > :39:39.getting the money they once had. Also they look towards that idea of
:39:39. > :39:45.that solidarity. It is like the kind of juxtaposition between this
:39:45. > :39:49.kind of almost imagined honest noblity of theing classes and the
:39:49. > :39:57.of a ris of bankers and business people now -- of a ris of bankers
:39:57. > :40:04.and business people now -- avarice of bankers and business people. If
:40:04. > :40:08.you ask people they are not shy about saying how well they have
:40:08. > :40:13.done in America, and not as modest as the British are and clinging to
:40:13. > :40:19.that? In Britain you are admired for tugging your forelook a bit,
:40:19. > :40:24.and people saying "he's so humble", if you're a foopbl footballer like
:40:24. > :40:29.Paul Scholes, saying he's humble, I think he's fantastic football and
:40:29. > :40:35.he should be allowed to brag and be big headed. There is all those
:40:35. > :40:41.strange inconsistencies in us as British. We are so class-ridden in
:40:41. > :40:47.any way. Would you feel betrayed or let down if your kids described
:40:47. > :40:52.themselves as middle-class? No, not at all. What makes me laugh is
:40:52. > :40:55.people want to sequester what you have got, you have kids from
:40:55. > :40:59.privileged backgrounds who I have worked with over the years who
:40:59. > :41:04.pretend to be smart working-class, and you think that is all I have
:41:04. > :41:07.got, I have the one thing money can't buy, poverty claim Thank you
:41:07. > :41:10.very much indeed. It is the kind of present you would
:41:10. > :41:13.like to buy for someone else, the It is the kind of present you would
:41:13. > :41:18.four most annoying people in your office, the one-way ticket to Mars
:41:18. > :41:20.can only be bought for yourself. Despite that 200,000 people have
:41:20. > :41:25.can only be bought for yourself. applied to be part of a £4 billion
:41:25. > :41:33.project. It is reality TV meets the new frontier, with no ending
:41:33. > :41:38.insight. The plan -- in sight. The creator says human settlement will
:41:38. > :41:42.aid our understanding of the Solar System if we can find the right
:41:42. > :41:46.people. It is like being snowed in a cabin, if it is your best friends
:41:46. > :41:49.it is fun for a couple of days. After a month you will be annoyed
:41:49. > :41:53.with each other. We are looking for the people that no matter how long
:41:53. > :41:55.they are snowed in together in cabin they will not get annoyed
:41:55. > :42:02.with each other, that will be the most difficult part of the solution
:42:02. > :42:07.selection. Who are the right people If the next great step in humanity
:42:07. > :42:12.is this and I want to be part of it. Jo I would like to have first hand
:42:12. > :42:16.experience of planet Mars to research the conditions, learn new
:42:17. > :42:22.aspects of the planet. I want to be an inspiration of people on earth.
:42:22. > :42:26.I would like a more civilised world for mankind. Mars has been my dream,
:42:26. > :42:33.but I know I have the skills necessary to make the mission a
:42:33. > :42:37.success. Just a few of the volunteers, we didn't have room for
:42:37. > :42:46.200,000. Our guest has worked with NASA and the Johnson Space Centre,
:42:46. > :42:52.he's the director for the Centre of Space Medicine, and the author of
:42:52. > :42:58.Extremes, a look at what Mars is regarded now. Let's look at the
:42:58. > :43:02.time frame, this is projected for 2023? It is enormously ambitious.
:43:02. > :43:07.That is understating it. If you were an international space agency,
:43:07. > :43:11.if NASA spent ten-times what it spends now and said we are going to
:43:11. > :43:17.go before this decade has elapsed - - you might think maybe. But this
:43:17. > :43:21.is a $6 billion operation operated out of a small office at the moment.
:43:21. > :43:25.It is ambitious to say the least. Do you understand why people have
:43:25. > :43:29.applied? It is very difficult to know actually. And you look through
:43:29. > :43:33.those, when I look and browse through those videos I expected to
:43:33. > :43:38.see slightly cookie, odd people. But you heard some of them. Some of
:43:38. > :43:43.them are rational about why they want to go.M So of them sing?. I
:43:43. > :43:46.would send the singing girl one, she is my favourite. It is
:43:47. > :43:51.interesting isn't it, even though space stillled holds a place in the
:43:51. > :43:55.affections of people. And a generation who most people are too
:43:55. > :43:59.young to remember Apollo. You make it sound very aspirational, bluntly
:43:59. > :44:03.those people, the ones to be taken seriously are saying I will leave
:44:03. > :44:08.my friend and family and go and die on another planet. That is what it
:44:08. > :44:13.is coming down to? Yeah, and it is hard to understand that. I don't
:44:14. > :44:17.know whether it is just because that is part of the human condition
:44:17. > :44:22.that we want to explore, that you have to find unknown destinations.
:44:22. > :44:26.I think it is so hard to d that now and find genuinely unexplored
:44:26. > :44:29.destinations. The other thing I find interesting, despite the fact
:44:29. > :44:35.we have all of this remote presence on Mars, despite the fact we are
:44:36. > :44:43.seeing beautiful pictures from countless probes orbiting around
:44:43. > :44:52.the surface people still want to go. In you have writ on the subject,
:44:52. > :45:01.Galileo was laughed at and Magellin ignored. All the great explorers
:45:01. > :45:09.and discoffers have been -- discoverers have been laughed at.
:45:09. > :45:17.Until the hast century life and exploration were risky, 500 years
:45:17. > :45:21.ago almost exactly Magellen circumnavigate the globe, he
:45:21. > :45:26.doesn't survive, only 18 of 500 crew members return. So to them I
:45:26. > :45:28.guess circumnavigating the globe must have felt like a mission to
:45:28. > :45:31.Mars. How long do you think you must have felt like a mission to
:45:31. > :45:34.could survive on Mars? I don't know, I don't know about the Mars 1
:45:34. > :45:39.expedition. The interesting thing about Mars is it is much closer to
:45:39. > :45:42.being within our grsp than it has been for some -- grasp for some
:45:42. > :45:45.being within our grsp than it has considerable time. There was talk
:45:45. > :45:49.about going there from the earliest days of space flight. There is a
:45:49. > :45:52.sense some how it is closer than it was. I don't know how you would
:45:52. > :45:57.fare, the main thing about is if you want to go to Mars the main
:45:57. > :46:00.thing is not worrying about whether you will survive the experience or
:46:00. > :46:01.come back. Thank you very much indeed.
:46:01. > :46:51.Now the papers. That's all for tonight, but before
:46:51. > :46:58.we go a small service to our viewers, here is your chance to
:46:58. > :47:06.avoid a 13 million victim YouTube pandemic, spawned by Ilvis, think
:47:06. > :47:12.of it as old McDonald for the YouTube generation.
:47:12. > :47:21.# What does the fox say # Ding ding
:47:21. > :47:28.# What does the fox say Mx wapowwapowpow
:47:28. > :47:29.# What the fox say # Hattithatco