12/06/2014 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello from New York, the Iraq Government's frantic appeal to the


United States for military help against the Islamist guerrillas who


captured two of the country's key cities is formally under


consideration by the White House. But the former Secretary of State,


Hillary Clinton, says the only reasonable answer at this stage is a


resounding no. No, I agree with the White House's resection and


reluctance to do the kind of military activities that the Mall


Government is requesting, namely fighter aircraft. We hear from


Hillary Clinton why Putin is dangerous and why Scotland ought to


stay in the union and whether women would run the world better than men,


and of course, on whether she will run for the White House herself.


How would America have been different if you had beaten Obama to


the White House? (Laughs) I don't know. And we will never know. You


must care? We will never know Jeremy. We will talk about America's


place in the world with two people who should be concerned, and we will


talk about the Prime Minister of free Iraq.


# Ain't no valley low enough # Ain't no river wide enough


She just put down the book she was reading and walked the entire length


of the law library and said. If you are going to keep looking at me and


me looking back, we better know each other. I'm not some little woman


standing by her man like Tammy Wynette. I could have fulfilled my


profession which I entered before my husband was in public life. I have


so many opportunities from this country, I just don't want to see us


fall backwards. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.


The United States has conducted an operation that killed Osama Bin


Laden, the leader of Al-Qaeda. Wait you want me to tell you what my


husband thinks, he's not the Secretary of State, I am. Now, until


last year the latest crisis in Iraq would have been another problem for


the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama took office


promising to end the war on Iraq, well he has certainly withdrawn


plenty of US troops, but the war in Iraq has suddenly got a whole lot


worse, the threat from radical Islam may have been greatly exaggerated


when George W Bush invaded there, but it is real enough right now. In


the last few days radical Islamists have taken two important cities. I


have been to see Hillary Clinton, who has just written her account as


time as America's top diplomat. Mrs Clinton, the Government of Iraq is


said to be appealing to the United States for help in fighting the


problem that it has got with Islamic insurgents. Should military help be


given? Not at this time, no. I agree with the White House's rejection and


reluctance to do the kind of military activities that the Mall


Government is requesting, namely fighter aircraft to provide close


support for -- Almeria Government to provide fighter aircraft to vied to


provide the support. Nouri Al-Maliki has to show he's prepared to do the


job. The army which hasn't been able to hold territory had an injection


of discipline, something the United States has been trying to help with,


Nouri Al-Maliki has to be prepared to demonstrate unequiffly that he's


a leader for all Iraqis not a sectarian slice of the country. But


the White House is saying no option is ruled out? That's what they


should say, because part of what they are trying to do. You think


they should rule some things out? At this time, yes. Because the


conditions precedent have not been accepted or set by Nouri Al-Maliki.


What the White House is doing is making it very clear to him what


they would have to say, and not that they would necessarily provide the


kind of support he is asking for, but the sort of the support that the


United States believes would be appropriate. But it would be


inappropriate to send in ground forces of any kind? Yes, that is not


going to happen. Never, under any circumstances? I never say never,


because one doesn't know the world is so unpredictable. But certainly


not in any foreseeable future that I'm aware of. When you look at what


is happening in Iraq do you feel guilty supporting the invasion? I


made a mistake giving the Bush administration the authority I voted


for. It was not used as I expected it to be used and the entire


implementation strategy was flawed. So, yes, I made a mistake, and I


deeply regret the consequences. That country wasn't broken before the


invasion? It was a broken country, even though it had a dictator. Who


held it together? Hoi who by force and brutally would keep it together.


He had invaded Kuwait and gassed the Kurds. He was no shining example of


sovereignty and territorial integrity. Nobody suggests he was a


nice guy. He was worse than not a nice guy. But that is not the


debate. The debate now is it was done, the invasion occurred, he was


deposed, the Iraqi people were given a chance to chart a different


course, some of them have done quite well, the Kurds in the north have


done extremely well. But the Government that came in through the


elections, which were deemed internationally acceptable has not


done what it needed to do to try to unify the country, bring Sunni and


Shi'ite alike, bring the different factions within together. Compare


Iraq, where there was intervention, with Syria where there was no


intervention? Just shows you how hard it is to make these choice,


which is why I'm calling the book Hard Choices, because I did advocate


for limited but focussed action in Syria to try to vet, train and equip


moderate opponents of Assad. And you were overruled by the President? I


was overruled, in part because of the lessons from Iraq. It is hard to


get a little bit pregnant, so to speak, in being involved in these


countries' internal conflicts, but I did think there was a potential


role. Now of course, what I say in the book was a wicked problem has


become even wickedier. How much was the decision not to get involved in


Syria influenced by the fact that the British parliament held that


surprising vote not to have any military intervention? I'm sure that


influenced it, because that vote was some days prior to the President


having to make a final decision, and it was, there was a series of votes


as I recall what happened in the British parliament. The individual


votes were defeated, but if you had added up all the votes for


everything that would have been a positive, you could have gotten to


that, but for all kinds of reasons and I don't pretend to understand


the intricacies of British politics or parliamentary procedure, it was a


defeat for the idea that there should be intervention. And that


influenced the American decision not to intervene? I believe it did. I


was out of office by then, but it is my understanding that it certainly


was taken into account. Can we talk a little about Russia. You famously


pressed the "reset" button, are you embarrassed now by that gesture? No,


I thought it was a brilliant stroke, which in retrospect appears even


more so, look at what we accomplished, between the Russian


invasion of Georgia in August 2008, which of course torpedoed relations


between the United States and Russia for good reason. We come into office


and for that period of time if you will, Medvedev is President and


Putin is Prime Minister. There were jobs we wanted to get done. We


wanted to get Russia on board with tough sanctions against Iran. We


wanted to have a new start treaty and limit nuclear weapons. We wanted


their help in transiting across their huge country to get things


into Afghanistan. We got all that done. Putin comes back, look where


we are now. He invaded another country. So yes, while we had that


moment we seized it, we used it and succeeded. Do you think Putin is a


dangerous man? He can be. Is he a man who exploits weakness? I think


he acts out of his perceived weakness of Russia. I believe his


goal is to reassert Russian power, he would be perfectly happy if t


Soviet Union could be reconstituted, but he's enough of a realist to know


that is not going to happen. He wants to in so far as possible


control Soviet Republics in central Asia and intimidate those in Europe.


Like any person, of course, with a view that's what power should be


used for, if he sees weakness or disorder, because I think he was as


affected by what he perceived as disorder in Ukraine than by


weakness, he acted in large measure because of what happens happening in


Maiden Square, of course he will explore the boundaries as far as he


can. You made some strong comments about Ukraine, but you would concede


that Ukraine is within Russia's sphere of influence? Of course I


would not. You wouldn't? There can't be spheres of influence in today's


world, particularly post World War ll. Not even the case of Cuba and


the United States? They are clearly not in our sphere of influence. I


talk about that in the book, let's end the embargo and go back with


them. Russia wants a sphere of influence, that is what this is all


about, Georgia don't you dare choose as a sovereign nation that you


wouldn't to look toward Europe. He has legitimate concerns doesn't he?


No he does not, think of the energy he is using to plot and compeer


against the freedom that -- conspire against the freedom the people have


gained because of the fall of the Soviet Union. Russia could be a


truly great country, not a bullying country, not totally dependant on


oil and gas and using it to intimidate its neighbours but he has


made a different voice choice, and it is regrettable for Russia. Every


country has vital interests doesn't it? Absolutely. Isn't the security


of Ukraine a vital interest for Russia? No it is not. I mean Ukraine


is a customer for Gazprom, Ukraine has Russian ethnic, Russian


speakers, so there are cultural connections, but Ukraine became an


independent country. Of course Russia can try to partner with


Ukraine, but Russia should not feel that it can give orders to Ukraine,


and if Ukraine doesn't abide by those orders it can take aggressive


action. That is not acceptable. When you were running American foreign


policy, you must have thought what are America's vital interests here,


and you must have thought about something else. Now at the time the


British were the imperial power in the world someone like Palmerston


could have given you a one-sentence definition about what the British


Empire was about. What is America about in the world now? We are


certainly not about an empire, we never have been about an empire, it


is one of the very important differences that sets us apart. We


do take military action as you know, and then we go back home. But what


we are about is promoting our values, absolutely. I believe there


should be a contest of values. If Russia believes its system is better


than the west's, that Ukraine should not be part of the European Union,


getting to make choices for itself, let the people of Ukraine hear both


sides, and figure out what they want to do, not have it imposed. I hope


what we can return to is that kind of debate about the future in the


21st century. The United States will certainly be a vigorous proponent of


what we believe and want to see happen. How would you summarise what


the vital interests and values are? It starts with security, number one


for any Government, we need to protect our people and friends and


partners and allies around the world. Secondly we have to promote


global prosperity and a rules-based order that needs to be updated to


fit the modern conditions in the global economy, to promote


broad-based inclusive prosperity. Thirdly, we want to promote and


protect human rights, we think that is part of our DNA, our mission. So


when you look at our promotion of our values, our pursuit of our


interests, and the protection of our security, we have to all the time


try to figure out which is first, which is second and which is third


in every situation. You say in the book that there was a shift of


emphasis in American foreign policy, you are less preoccupied with what


Rumsfeld called "the old Europe", you are less preoccupied with the


transatlantic relationships and alliances and more preoccupied with


things going on in Asia and other parts of the world. Does that mean


that Europe is less important to you now than it used to be? No, I try to


make very clear in the book that I thought we needed to renew and


rebuild the important alliances that we have in Europe. Europe are our


partners of first resort. This is where we really live, however, when


I became Secretary of State I quickly learned that Asia thought


the Bush administration had totally neglected it. And we have vital


interests there. We have defence treaties, we have promised to defend


people. So it wasn't moving away from, it was pivoting towards


without losing the importance, because I went to Asian in February,


Europe in March and made the case from the very beginning. What about


the boring old cliche about the "special relationship" is that worth


anything nowadays? It is worth everything to me and our country,


I'm a big anglophile when it comes to special relationship, and partly


because I think we see the world very simply. I worked with two


foreign secretaries, one Labour, one Tory, I had so much in common with


both Ed Miliband David Miliband and William Hague. We can talk about


things in an easy fashion, despite political differences between them


and our own country, there was a base of understanding that is so


understanding. And comforting. Do you think the United States will be


enhanced or diminished in their relationship with the UK if we hold


a referendum on Europe. You are drawing me into dangerous waters.


You are clever enough to deal with it? That is a political decision at


the very core of it. Europe needs Britain, in my opinion. I think


Britain brings a perspective and experience that is very important to


Europe, especially post-economic crisis. So Britain will have to


decide if they agree with that. And what about whether Scotland is


intergrel to Britain? I would hate to have you lose Scotland. I got an


honourary degree from St Andrews. You are perfectly happy to interfere


in British politics on the question of the union, why not other matters?


I hope that it doesn't happen. I don't have a vote in Scotland, I


would hope it doesn't happen. Why? Because it just seems like. They are


entitled to their freedom as much as Ukraine? Well if there had been a


real referendum as opposed to a rump and intimidating event. It will be a


proper referendum? It will be because there is legal process


associated with it, we will see what the people of Scotland decide. You


know I would think it would be a loss for both sides, again I don't


have a vote. Can I ask you about your personal ambitions, you say in


the book you have not decided whether you are going to run for the


cy. Other factors are going to decide it for you what are the other


factors? They are both personal and political, I mean personally I'm


about to be a grandmother in the fall. I'm very excited about that. I


want to relish the experience, I don't want to be passing through it


and looking forward, I want to be right in the middle of it. A


presidential campaign, if one decides to do it is 24/7,


all-consuming, I'm not ready for that. The most important thing as I


say in the end of the book is not the questions, will you run? Or can


you win? What is your vision for America and can you lead it there?


We are going through one of our periodic, political mess, lots of


dysfunction, lots of finger-pointing, inability to reach


consensus and compromise. I want to be sure as I evaluate this decision


going forward that you know I, number one know where I want to lead


the country, and number two that I think I can make that happen. You


know that? I don't. You know what you can offer the country? I know in


general terms and I haven't said exactly what is my economic policy,


we are having a hard time creating jobs what are we actually going to


do about it and how can I put together the political coalition,


and unlikely partners to achieve that, I haven't done any of that


work. I have been focussed on writing the book and talking about


the foreign policy and national security issues. How would America


have been different if you had beaten Obama to the White House!


(Laughs) I don't know. And we will never know. You must care. Whether


you know is not quite the same as whether you care? I stopped caring,


when I lost and he won that was the end for me, I ended up actually


working for him. Do you think that is good for America, was it good for


America? Of course it was, are you kidding, absolutely. It was so


fortunate for me after the hard, long intense campaign that I got to


support somebody with whom I had so much in common, even though we had


differences, we agreed on much more than we disagreed on. I don't


rummate -- ruminate, I'm not sitting around and thinking about what might


have been, that is not my thought process. He won, I pledged my


support, I helped him in every way that I could, and he asked me to be


Secretary of State. It is a very unusual path, but one that I have


quite enjoyed. We are roughly the same sort of age. Oh good, you are


so young! Exactly, we are both past that great water mark, and I just


wonder why on earth anybody would want to go back into the White


House, given your experience of the torrid time you had there last time?


We got a lot done, I'm proud of what happened in the country and proud of


what President Obama has done. If you take the eight years of Bill


Clinton and Barack Obama, and you compare it to the eight years of


Regan, the eight years of Bush, the country was so much better off with


progressive energetic democratic Presidents, the economy was


stronger, our fiscal house was much better ordered. We are starting to


get healthcare, something you all take for granted. We did positive


things for the American people in those years. All the intrusion into


your personal life? I mean there is hardly anything left! It will make


for pretty boring reading if it continues! So that hasn't put you


off? No, no. It hasn't. In part because I have a pretty good idea


that this is a contact sport, as we say, politics in the United States


at the moment in our history is very rough and tumble because there are


big stakes. Unfortunately people sometimes engage in unsavoury,


negative name calling and the like. That is part of it, I understand


that. If you are not tough enough to get into that arena then truly you


should not even put your toe in, because it is quite a gauntlet. You


can hit me for asking you this? I may! Do you think you would ever


have become Secretary of State had you not been Mrs Clinton?


Absolutely. Yeah, I think that question ended when I ran for the


Senate. When I ran for the Senate and I ran first against a very


dominant figure, then mayor Guliani, then I ran against a young


Congressman with a lot more money rushing into his campaign. The fact


that the people of New York elected me ended that debate. I'm very


grateful that I learned a lot and I continue to learn from my husband's


political acumen and decision-making. I think what caused


the President, President Obama to ask me to be Secretary of State was


actually that campaign, because until you go through that sort of


ordeal and you know how hard it is for the other person, you don't know


what they are really made of, and the President told me, I watched you


under the most difficult circumstances and you are the person


I want to represent our country while I'm dealing with the economic


mess. I asked the question because while I'm dealing with the economic


there is a deficit of women at a high level in politics. I would be


very interested high level in politics. I would be


response to this, which is do you think women at the highest levels of


politics behave differently to men? I think that many do, I'm not going


to over-generalise and say all do. It is my experience working with


women heads of state and Government that on issues affecting family


life, children's well being, women's opportunities, there is a much


greater immediate recognition of the importance of those issues. Now that


again I say as a generalisation, and not all fit into that category. When


I sit down and talk with the President of Brazil, or the


President of Chile or the President of a country in Asia whether it be


Mrs Bhutto before ousted or assassinated or anything else, the


conversation about some of these social issues is very much embedded


in the political discourse, and an awareness of how hard a lot of the


decision making is for awareness of how hard a lot of the


today in many parts of the world. Hillary Clinton, thank you. Thank


you Jeremy. So where stands America in the world, Obama is being


increasingly criticised for not doing much in foreign affairs. Let's


see what the political columnists with me, let's see what they make of


it. Let's start with Iraq, she was pretty unambiguous, but a high-risk


game? She seemed frighteningly jolly throughout the whole interview, she


laughed an awful lot, didn't she. It was a tight laugh. But, her position


on Iraq is kind of surprising since she has been an interventionist at


almost every turn in the past. What do you deduce from that? That she's


running for President. That was going to be my next question? Let me


ask you what did you make of her position on Iraq? It is clear she's


running for President, she had a vote that she cast several years ago


that put her at odds with a lot of folks in her own party and I think


she's doing everything she can to protect her left flank and avoid a


substantial primary. But I think it is very clear from that interview


that she's running for President. You seem pretty certain, both of


you? Not 100% certain, you can't be in American politics, and no matter


what she said to you, I know that public life has taken a real toll on


her at times. You know when she was out stumping for her healthcare plan


in 1994 there was a day in Seattle where people were cursing her and


spitting on her and it took a while for her to recover from that. What


sort of a candidate is she going to make if she does run for President,


what do you think Katie? I think the unique thing about Hillary Clinton


is that she is just a political animal to her core. I think you know


from the first time that Bill Clinton ran for office back in


Arkansas, you know, politics has really driven the decisions that


they have made as a family and the decisions that she has made. I think


she always saw herself with a political career post-White House,


and was very calculated in all of the decision that is she made. I


don't think we have seen anything that's come out of this book that


indicates that this is any kind of real biography or real tell-all of


her time as Secretary of State. It is very clearly an opportunity to


start a campaign before a campaign starts. Somebody said to me earlier


is it was an attempt to explain to the American people where she has


been for the last few years? Right since Americans do not follow


foreign policy at all, unfortunately. But it seems to me


that she has, she's on a very clear path here, and there are an awful


lot of things that she doesn't write about in the book. And there has


been an awful lot of scrubbing going on here. But I think that she would


be a good candidate, not as good as her husband who was the best I have


ever seen. I think that she will face a challenge from the left-wing


of the Democratic party, especially on her positions towards Wall Street


which have become very controversial because of her husband's positions


towards Wall Street. Do you think, given that elections are all about,


or usually, providing it is not a second term selection, they are


about changes of direction. She represents continuity, doesn't she?


She sure does represent continuity, and I think if you look at her


policy positions, she's a whole lot more like Barack Obama than she is


like Bill Clinton, you know Bill Clinton comes from a small town in


Arkansas, kind of a country boy, he really understood how to connect


with real people. I share Joe's view that he was a brilliant politician


and knew how to connect with working people. I think coming out of the


gate with this book tour, you know she's had some real stumbles in


conveying herself as somebody that left the White House broke and she's


going to be a very different kind of politician than her husband was. I


think we will see her continue the policies of the Obama administration


as we saw in the interview. He had a few gafes too, I seem to recall.


Different kinds. That is the biggest problem she face, historically it


has been pretty tough for politicians to essentially run for a


third term after they have, George HW Bush did a pretty good job of it,


but Ronald Regan was phenomenally popular, and even Bush got into some


trouble, he said he wanted a kinder, gentler nation, and Nancy Regan said


"kinder and gentler than what"? What about this question of America's


standing in the world, you hear people say a lot that because Obama


is low-profile in foreign affairs that some how the country is


diminished. Is that a widespread view? I think there is certainly a


widespread view among the American people that our place in the world


has been some what diminished, I think certainly with the rise of


Putin, and I was very surprised to see her so whole heartedly embrace


this reset strategy as a brilliant move. I don't think that is where


the American people will see it. I don't think that foreign policy is


something that drives the American vote. But I do think that the


American people feel like we are weaker than we were. I disagree, I


think that our standing in the world is certainly higher now than it was


when George W Bush, who didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a


Shi'ite invaded Iraq. That wasn't the question, it was is that how the


American people view it? I do think the American people are really sick,


including most of the Republicans I meet in the country, are really sick


of us going in and imposing our will in places that were... He has a


short-term problem in Iraq, if that is taken over by a bunch of Islamist


nutcases? It isn't going to be, for the same reason we shouldn't have


gone in the first makes because Iraq is not a country. It is three


different satraps from the out Monday Otteman empire. The problem


is all the straight borders you Brits drew years ago. There is a


time you have to stop blaming your great, great, great-grand parents?


It is not me, it is the people who live in the area who want to


determine where their countries are, and they don't go with the straight


line borders. Is this a huge problem? Huge over the next 30


years. Of course it is going to be a big problem, the American people I


feel regardless of what the tactical solution is in Iraq today, the


American people want to view our country as strong. They take a lot


of pride in that. I don't think what has happened in Russia in the last


several years has been viewed as something that has been taking a


strong position against Russia. Thank you very much indeed. That is


it from New York, let's return to the story of Iraq and join Kirsty in


London. So President the story of Iraq and join Kirsty in


indicated that the US is prepared to take military action to prevent


Jihadists gaining a foothold in Iraq, not ruling anything out.


Judging by the relenties advance of Isis on Baghdad, after securing


broad swathes of Iraq, the country is already in danger of fracturing.


A warning this film contains images that some viewers may find


disturbing. So Isis consolidates his hold on


Mosul, it has issued religious edicts, insisting on five prayers a


day and Islamic modesty, and it is pressing its fighters south towards


Baghdad. The Government's response? There have been air attacks on Mosul


and Tikrit, precisely the type of tactic that alienated so many Sunnis


in the first place. But is the Sunni community solid, or could more


moderate leaders be lured away from Isis. One of the generals who helped


split the Sunni insurgency against the coalition thinks it could be


done again. One of the most significant things that happened in


2006 and 2007 is certainly large numbers of the tribal elders


particularly in western Iraq got thoroughly disenchanted with what


Al-Qaeda is doing. One the risks that Isis runs at the present time


is creating exactly the same effect amongst some of the more


conservative parts of the Sunni population. There are also secular


moderate Sunni who don't want to be any part of this. By no stretch of


the imagination can it possibly be said that Isis speaks for the Sunni


community. Al-Qaeda in the land of two rivers, Iraq started when


Jordanian Jihadist swore allegance to Osama Bin Laden. As he gained


followers through spectacular attacks and beheadings, he became


make's top target in Iraq. After they killed him, the Jihadists


regrouped and in September 2006 relaunched themselves as the Islamic


State of Iraq. But their fortunes waned, Sunni tribes were turned


against them, coalition Special Forces killed and captured


thousands. One of those detainees, Al-Bagdadi, released when the


Americans withdrew, emerged as a powerful figure in the Syrian Civil


War. In April last year he formed the Islamic State of Iraq and


AlSham, meaning Syria, Isis. He takes names like Al-Husani, which


aims to say he's descended from the Prophet Mohammed's family. He calls


himself names that says he's from the same Arab tribe as the prophet


comes from. There is no doubt he's projecting himself as the legitimate


successor to those from early Islam. Couched in 14th century language,


Isis has brought 14th century justice to the Syrian town it has


controlled for months. There has been crucifixions and beheadings,


churches descrated. What is so woeful about the Mall malfailure is


it has disregarded key aspects of the successful coalition approach.


Some of the mill ligses hired 60,000 Sunni insurge -- back in 2008 when


we filmed them, members predicted that the Shia led Government would


get rid of them as soon as the Americans had gone. That is exactly


what happened. Back in Dura this spring, we were told that what was


once an awakening force of 1500 policing the district had now shrunk


to one dozen. In its place Government police mostly Shia


outsiders. The defence of Baghdad could now depend on Shia militias


with Iranian support. While in the north Kurdish fighters have assumed


control of the city of Kirkuk. That growing sectarianism makes it all


the heard to lure Sunni support away from the Jihadists again. The


insurgency as a whole is a lot more dominated by Isis than back in the


days of the Iraq War. I mean Al-Qaeda in Iraq in the Islamic


state of Iraq were important, but I think there was a lot more variety


in terms of the insurgent groups and their strains. Where as this time


I'm a lot more sceptical. I would apply the same analysis to Syria,


where really we have seen the anti-Isis rebel movements, they have


really failed to roll back them in any meaningful manner. We see Isis


making gains in south eastern Syria. Isis is strong then and survival for


the Mall -- the Mall mal-Government could have been feeding the most


formidable foes. Joining me from his home in Kingston


upon Thames is former Iraqi Prime Minister. Good evening. First of


all, you are just back from Baghdad. Is there a real feeling there that


you are facing the break up of the country? This is a possibility. I


hope it will be a remote possibility of the Iraqis don't pull together


and form a unity Government. To get out of the current mess. Otherwise


my fear is that potentially the danger does exist on dividing the


country. Is this the worst you have seen in 30 years of Iraqi politics,


the worst in terms of holding the country together? Definitely it is


worse. It is quite dangerous. We have been losing around a thousand


Iraqis per month for the last year or so. Killed by terrorist groups.


Unfortunately the Government was not able to control this, definitely the


political process itself is not an inclusive political process it is


being built on sectarian levels and sectarian drives. This has been


quite painful to the country. So when you hear that President Obama


does not rule out military intervention, not boots on the


ground, but military intervention, does that fill you with hope or more


concern? I'm more concerned, I think this would add fuel to the fire,


unfortunately. I know that the United States has lost its


capabilities in Iraq, and indeed in the Middle East, the greater Middle


East. We know that there is no clarity in the policy where the


American policy is heading with regards to the east. We know the


peace process is being stagnant now between the Arabs and the Israelis.


Afghanistan, North Africa, Horn of Africa, Syria. There is an increase


activities of Al-Qaeda and indeed now it is in Iraq also. To stop this


regional conflict, because it is as you say a regional conflict, if


there was to be a pull together of Iraq itself, Hillary Clinton says


Nouri Al-Maliki has to be more incluesive, something that you agree


with. We heard that Lieutenant curl national Robert Fry saying that


actually the Sunnis themselves need to be divided off because of course


not all Sunnis are part of any kind of extremist grouping. How do you


reconcile, do you have a role to play, are you going back? I'm going


back in two days time. Tomorrow I'm going back. The problem of Sunnis


and Shias is an oversimplification. Never existed in Iraq this problem


before. Yes there are pockets, definitely, who do behave in a


sectarian way, but by and large the Iraqi people rejected and never


thought of along the sectarian lines. What we have is a fight


between extremism and moderation. Throughout the greater Middle East,


not only in Iraq. And unfortunately there are people within the Sunni


block who are extremists and likewise in the Shia group also we


have extremism. Likewise on the Kurdish component we have extremism.


We have likewise moderation and I think this conflict is widespread


throughout the greater Middle East and I believe that when the


Americans invaded Iraq, unfortunately they dismandled the


state of Iraq, not -- dismantled the state of Iraq, not just Saddam


Hussein, the whole state. They wanted to create a new state but


they failed to do so because they had no post-conflict policy. Thank


you very much for joining us. Brazil opened the World Cup with a


hard-fought 1 victory over Croatia, despite the excitement and


razzmatazz, there is persistent signs of protest which came to


police firing tear bullets and teargas and not extinguishing it.


Hours before the tournament kicked off, demonstrators tried to march as


close to the arena as possible. Among the protesters is a protestor


whose anger at the World Cup has been channelled into her YouTube


video I'm Not Going to the World Cup. This is flavour of her film


seen by four million people. Some think the World Cup is the incentive


for the country to get better. So we will be paying taxes all these years


for what? What country needs an incentive to take care of its


people. Suddenly there is all this money to build stadiums and the


population is led to believe that the World Cup is just the change


there needed for their lives to get better. But the truth is that most


of the money that comes from the games in the stadiums goes straight


to FIFA and we don't even see it. I'm joined now by Carla. That hard


fought victory does it bring any bit of excitement from you, do you think


it will diminish the protests? Hi there, it actually doesn't bring me


any excitement. I think all that I have been through with the veto and


everything it is hard to separate the protests from the games, even


though the game is a good thing. In my thing it is hard to separate, I


can't do it any more. I didn't actually watch the game. Now in


terms of protests I think, I don't think it is a matter of the result


of the game, but the repression that is going on right now, it is


carrying people, it is scaring people, I was there today, was


insanely violent. They were putting children at risk, older people, all


sorts of people. People that were not even trying to march or do


anything. There were two protests, one was the Metro, people from the


Metr they were protesting and then there were the people protesting the


World Cup specifically. At some point the protests were combined.


The police were repressing the first one, the World Cup protest, the


other one was completely just staying in a certain area. But the


police didn't want the protests to even start. It was insanely violent


and... The President, I mean, there is a lot of military hardware out


there, there is helicopters, there is friget, a lot of military


activity. But presumably the last thing Brazil wants is to be seen to


be heavihanded when so many people from the outside world are there. So


do you think, one, there will be a harder crackdown, or do you think


more people will be out on the streets as a result of anger at the


crackdown today as a result of anger at the crackdown today. We didn't


know how it was going to develop, and a lot of people got upset at the


repression, there is no doubt they will go to the streets again. It is


scary, very scary, because compared to the force the police has, the


protest is small. It is not a well prepared police, they don't have the


intelligence to deal with the protests the right way, so they end


up involving people there protesting peacefully. It is really funny that


after the protests I went near the stadium to get some images because


I'm shooting a documentary, and when I get there there was the march for


Jesus Saves, they were there with their signs and that seemed to be


OK. Now the other protests couldn't there, I don't see why. A lot of


people will be upset and they may come back to the streets, it is very


hard to predict. It was scary, I have a friend who was helping with


first aid for the people who were hurt and more than 35 people were


hurt, two went to the hospital. But is there not an element of hope,


from your point of view, that so many people from other parts of the


world are in Brazil, and they are seeing the favelas and the poverty,


thank in a sense might jolt Brazil into action? I hope so. Yes. I do


hope so, but my fear is that people will forget all of this with the


game. I hope they don't. And I think the game is still important, despite


disagreeing the way it was made, the way they organised it, but I just


hope people don't forget the rest. So they can watch the games, yes, of


course, and I think they have the right to, but my fear is they will


forget the rest. I have to stop you there, thank you very much for


joining us. That is all we have time for tonight, from me and Jeremy in


A day of contrast today and tomorrow, lots of shine across


England and Wales to start the day. Patchy cloud into the afternoon, it


will be warm again. Further north rain around, particularly through


the morning, a wet start to the day. In the afternoon the rain becomes


light and patchy, not much left over in Northern Ireland through the


middle of the afternoon. Temperatures 16, 17. The rain easing


off from the north and west of Scotland. Keeping it pretty damp for


Download Subtitles