Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Development Reshaping Syria Debate; Kerry Warns Against Stalling Tactics; Obama Confers With France And Britain; Obama Confers with France & Britain; Syria Changes Tone on Chemical Weapons; Oil Prices Around 2-Year High

Aired September 10, 2013 - 13:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Kerry told lawmakers the administration is waiting for Russia's proposal but, quote, "We're not waiting for long." Those word -- those were his words. We'll have the very latest on the push to authorize U.S. military action and the search for a diplomatic solution to avoid it.

Also happening right now, Apple is unveiling its new crop of iPhones. The rumors have been rampant, more colors, a more budget-friendly model, even a new fingerprint sensor. Will all this help Apple keep up with the competition? We have details coming up in a live report.

I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. We want to start with dramatic developments right now that are reshaping the debate over what to do about Syria. What started as an off the cuff remark, seemingly at least, is now a diplomatic push to avoid a U.S. military strike. At the same time, President Obama is pressing ahead, trying to make the case for potential U.S. military action. He's lobbying lawmakers this hour. He addresses the nation tonight. The president says it's the threat of force that's driving the diplomacy. The Secretary of State, John Kerry, echoed that view during a Congressional hearing today.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: A lot of people say that nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging. Well, it's the credible threat of force that has been on the table for these last weeks that has for the first time brought this regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal. And it is the threat of this force and our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about a real and credible international action that might have an impact.

So, how do you maintain that pressure? We have to continue to show Syria, Russia, and the world that we are not going to fall for stalling tactics. If the challenge we laid down is going to have the potential to become a real proposal, it is only because of the threat of force that we are discussing today and that threat is more compelling if Congress stands with the commander in chief.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: We're covering all the latest developments with Jim Acosta. He's over at the White House. Dana Bash, she's up on Capitol Hill. Phil black, he's in Moscow. Phil, we'll start with you. Syria has accepted this Russian plan to surrender control of its chemical weapons, potentially to destroy all those chemical weapons but there's not much concrete to that, at least not yet. There is a U.N. resolution, Security Council resolution that is now being drafted by France, a close ally, of course, of the U.S. Outline what France is proposing and how all this so dramatically, at least potentially, fits together.

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Wolf, France is proposing a resolution that's pretty tough, very strong. One that effectively blames the Syrian government for using chemical weapons against innocent Syrian civilians and one that calls for pretty tough measures if the Syrian government doesn't follow through with the commitments that it appears to be making and allowing its chemical weapons stockpile to come under international control. Already, this is a red flag for the Russians. They are not happy with the strong language that France wants to use and the Russian foreign ministry says that it is working on its own rival United Nations Security Council resolution because it says what the French are proposing is unacceptable.

This is really a key issue, to what extent will the Russians allow a resolution that has teeth? One that is enforceable perhaps with military action if the Syrian government doesn't live up to its commitments on this. The other big challenge for the Russians and the Syrians is what they say they're working on as well which is on the ground. How do you actually make this happen? How do you account, secure and ultimately perhaps identify even destroy Russia's -- Syria's, I should say, top secret chemical weapons stockpile all within the context of civil war very much tearing apart the country. That's the big, logistical, practical challenge on the ground in Syria. Russia says it is working on a plan with the Syrians and it plans to make that plan available to the world in the coming days -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yesterday, President Obama told me he actually discussed this initiative, potential initiative, with the Russian president, President Putin, at the St. Petersburg summit in Russia last week. Walk us through because there's this notion that Secretary Kerry yesterday morning, he raised the idea sort of in an off-the-cuff way and the Russians immediately grabbed it. Give us a little bit of sense what Russians are saying right now on how the initiative got off the ground.

BLACK: You're right, Wolf. There's a lot -- it's still pretty murky when it comes to understanding the origins and the evolution of this idea because, yesterday, when the Russians jumped on it and endorsed it, they said very clearly they were doing that because of those remarks that Secretary Kerry seemed to make off the cuff when he was in London. Those remarks made by Secretary Kerry were later played down by the State Department as being a rhetorical argument not necessarily very serious.

But since then, we've heard from the U.S. administration and here in Russia, as well, that, yes, this very idea was discussed by presidents Obama and Putin when they were in St. Petersburg on the sidelines of the summit last week. What we've heard from the Russian foreign ministry today is that this is not, they say, an exclusive Russian initiative. They believe that this is something that has come about because of contacts between the two countries but still very much saying that they were also reacting from those remarks, those public remarks, from Secretary Kerry yesterday.

BLITZER: Phil black in Moscow for us. Thank you.

President Obama has called this Russian initiative a possible, possible break through. That's what he told me yesterday. Here is how Senator John McCain reacted to all of this on CNN's "NEW DAY."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), ARIZONA: I am very skeptical, very, very skeptical. But the fact is that you can't pass up this opportunity if it is one but you've got to the right away determine whether it's real or not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's bring in our Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash right now. The president's there up on Capitol Hill where you are, Dana. He's making a personal appeal to senators from both parties. Do we know how this Russian proposal is actually impacting his message right now?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: It's thrown everything up in the air and nobody knows exactly how things are going to fall. If I just can be set the scene for you. If you'd look and see what's going on behind me, all of those people, most of them reporters, some staff milling around waiting for the president who is behind those doors. At this point with Senate Democrats and he's going to meet with senate Republicans. And this is the time that they have their weekly lunches.

The White House asked the president to come to make his case in person and, of course, take some questions about what exactly the policy is. When they made these plans, they thought it was going to be about the military use of force resolution that they were planning to vote on maybe as soon as tomorrow. But, of course, that's on hold indefinitely because of the fact that everybody is kind of waiting for Russia and now specifically the U.N. to see if there is any kind of off ramp here.

What is going on behind the scenes is a rather large group of bipartisan senators. John McCain is one and Chuck Schumer is another working on a potential resolution that would replace what they had originally planned that takes into account what's going on diplomatically. And the idea, at this point -- and it's the beginning of this idea, but, at this point, it would be to say explicitly that Bashar Al Assad did use these chemical weapons and most importantly it would say that they would -- that Syria would have to turn over the chemical weapons at some -- in some way to the international community. If not, the use -- the threat of force of military action would still be there as sort of the teeth behind any kind diplomatic solution. But that is still, again, very much the beginning.

I talked to Lindsey Graham, Senator from South Carolina, also a part of this. He said that he doesn't even want to talk about this, even discuss bringing it to the floor of the Senate or even the Committee until they are sure that the process at the United Nations is real and that this isn't something that Russia just floated out there in order to stall things -- Wolf.

BLITZER: So, let's talk about that because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, they approved that earlier, authorization, 10 to seven with one senator, Ed Markey, voting present. That resolution now for all practical purposes has gone away. Harry Reid was supposed to bring it up before the full Senate tomorrow, but he's put that on hold because of this dramatic diplomatic development.

BASH: Absolutely. And that's why things are really up in the air, not just on the international stage but here in the United States Congress. And, you know, it's really unclear where these senators or where these House members would even be asked to vote. I mean, there are a lot of people here who still think they should push forward on the concept of having military force because Republicans and Democrats alike insist, just like the White House says, that that is the reason why things seem to be moving a little bit more, a lot more than they were diplomatically because of the threat of force because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did pass that resolution last week. But how this goes from here, it's anybody's guess.

And what is fascinating and this is so telling about where the public is and where Congress is is that as it became clear that the actual resolution to authorize military force wasn't going to happen, you saw senator after senator, House member after House member, Democrat and Republican come out and say that they were against it. It was almost like the floodgates opened when they realized that they didn't have to vote for it. And that includes the man you just talked about, Ed Markey, Senator from Massachusetts, who is only in the Senate because John Kerry left his seat to become secretary of state, and he's opposing Secretary Kerry despite all of the hours, countless hours he has put in here on Capitol Hill to try to convince people like Ed Markey to support this.

BLITZER: Dana Bash, she's working countless hours as well for us up on Capitol Hill. Dana, thanks very much.

The president is delivering his message in person. He'll be delivering it tonight, and you'll be able to see him on your T.V. screens, your smartphones, all sorts of other mobile devices.

In my one-on-one interview with the president yesterday, he spoke about keeping up the pressure on Syria and that includes laying out his case to the American people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If we can accomplish this limited goal without taking military action, that would be my preference. On the other hand, if we don't maintain and move forward with a credible threat of military pressure, I do not think we will actually get the kind of agreement I'd like to see.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Let's go to our Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta. I assume the speech that we're going to hear tonight, Jim, is going to be totally different, maybe not totally different but pretty different than what it would have been let's say 48 hours ago.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf. I talked to a couple of administration officials this morning who said just that, that this is not going to be the speech that the president might have delivered 48 hours ago, that the events of the last 24 hours specifically, the Russia proposal that seemed get off the ground when John Kerry, the Secretary of State, made those comments yesterday in London. All of that has changed what is going into tonight's speech. Obviously, as Dana was reporting, others have been reporting. I've also talked to an administration official who said there is now less pressure for a vote on Capitol Hill. They want to let diplomacy take its course.

And speaking of diplomacy, Wolf, a little bit of a story to tell you about diplomacy in real time, as one senior administration official put it, as to how this Russian proposal came about. According to this administration official, presidents Obama and Putin have been talking about the Syria issue of chemical weapons for about a year now. They appointed Secretary of State John Kerry and the foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, to be their point persons in all of this. And they've been discussing this idea of getting the Russians more invested in this process for some time now. Then, as you know, Wolf, this came up at the G20 summit. President Obama and President Putin talked about this.

And then, it was over the weekend, Lavrov and Kerry talked about it, again. They talked about it, again, on Monday and then Kerry came out and made that statement in London where he said, perhaps Assad should just get rid of his chemical weapons. Wolf, I'm told by a senior administration official that, at that point, after he made that statement, a call was made, a prearranged call occurred between Kerry and Lavrov where Kerry basically said to the Russian foreign minister, hey, we need to see a credible plan for action here. And it was at that point that the Russian foreign minister said, OK, we'll get back to you.

And then, the Russians made their proposal and it sort of started to take a life of its own from that point forward. And it was interesting to note, Wolf, by talking to this administration official, that almost immediately after Kerry got off the phone with Lavrov, he called the White House and then all of this sort of getting batted back and forth between the White House and the State Department. This administration official described this to me as sort of diplomacy if real time and that sometimes you just have to take opportunities that come your way. But, obviously, a stunning development in all of this that has very much changed the state of play here in Washington -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Totally stunning, I must say. And you have details now. The president was on the phone earlier today, separate phone call conversations with the French President Hollande --

ACOSTA: Yes.

BLITZER: -- and the British prime minister, Cameron. Tell us what the White House is saying about those calls.

ACOSTA: Well, basically that those calls have occurred, that the president spoke with French President Hollande, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron, that they've all agreed to start letting this process at the U.N. take its course. And that's important, Wolf, because up until 24 hours ago, we were expecting the speech from the president tonight to focus on his case for military action.

And it seems now, if you listen to the tick-tock behind the scenes that went on between Kerry and Lavrov and the momentum starting to build there towards getting Russia involvement in that will Syria chemical weapon plan and what is happening with the president calling foreign leaders saying, OK, let's take a look at this U.N. plan, some of the steam has come out of this, in terms of the United States moving quickly and rapidly toward some sort of military action. It just doesn't seem that is the case anymore. And I think that's going to be reflected in the president's speech tonight -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes. Interesting, this statement that the White House just released and I'll just read a section of it. The White House saying that in these phone conversations with the French and British leaders, the president and all three of them, they agreed to work closely together in consultation with Russia and China to explore seriously the viability of the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons and related materials fully under international control in order to insure their verifiable and enforceable destruction. These efforts will begin today at the United Nations and will include a discussion on elements of a potential U.N. Security Council resolution. It goes on to talk about President Bashar al-Assad. But I must say, Jim, this is pretty specific and it is -- it shows that all three of these allies, the U.S., the U.K. and France, they are now on board.

ACOSTA: That's right.

BLITZER: They're ready to give diplomacy a chance. And as a result, military action, while significant potentially in encouraging the Syrians and the Russians to get on board, that's not going to happen, at least for the time being. They're going to give diplomacy a shot.

ACOSTA: That's right. Diplomacy is on the table, but administration officials caution, Wolf, they don't think they would have gotten to this point had there not been the threat of military force. They think that was the driving mechanism that got the Russians to say OK, we will get involved here, we're going to come up with a plan, and it was at that point that the United States said, OK, this is worth taking a look at.

Obviously, as we heard Secretary Kerry say up on Capitol Hill, as we heard the president say to you, they don't want this to be a stalling tactic or delay tactic. But at this point, they believe that this has great potential for bringing about what they say was the end result that they were seeking in all of this, and that was for Bashar al- Assad to abandon his chemical weapons stockpile. They think this plan potentially could work.

Wolf.

BLITZER: Yes, it would work a lot better than what the president was talking about, degrading and deterring. This would destroy, for all practical purposes, if it succeeds -

ACOSTA: That's right.

BLITZER: Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles, which are enormous.

ACOSTA: That's right.

BLITZER: All right, Jim Acosta, thanks very much.

Please be sure to tune in right here to CNN for the president's address on Syria. It begins at 9:00 p.m. Eastern. That's when the president will address the American people. Our special primetime coverage, though, will begin at 7:00 p.m. Eastern with "ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT."

A sincere proposal or simply a stalling tactic? That's the question about Russia's new push to disarm Syria of chemical weapons. The former State Department official, Nicholas Burns, he's standing by to join us. That's next.

Also, we'll talk about the next steps for the Obama administration and what to do about Syria. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back.

Earlier we spoke about Syria's accepting Russia's proposal on chemical weapons, which may seem a bit odd given this from the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why do you have such a stockpile of chemical weapons?

PRESIDENT BASHAR AL-ASSAD, SYRIA: We don't discuss this issue in public because we never said that we have it and we never said that we won't have it. It's a Syrian issue, it's a military issue, we never discuss in public with anyone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: With Syria, though, accepting the Russian plan, they are in effect admitting that they do have chemical weapons, something President Assad tried, obviously, as you just heard, to avoid doing. So now certainly the cat is out of the bag, officially at least. It doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who has watched Syria over these many years. That would include the former undersecretary of state, the former U.S. ambassador to NATO, Nicholas Burns, who's joining us right now.

Nick, thanks very much for coming in. Do you think this initiative has a shot of working and avoiding a U.S. military strike?

NICHOLAS BURNS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO NATO: Well, it certainly does. I think it does, Wolf. And the president's right to pursue it, but it's far from a done deal and it's going to be very difficult to get it done because we have not yet seen the details of the Russia/Syria proposal that Foreign Minister Lavrov said today he's working on, number one. Number two, the U.S. will insist on a very strong, tough U.N. Security Council resolution that censors Syria, that makes sure that all the chemical weapons in country are given to a responsible third party, like the United Nations, and that has some kind of enforcement mechanism. So that means that if Syria reneges on this deal 30 or 60 days from now, the U.S. and France would retain the right of force. That's critical under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter. All that's going to be tough because I think the Russians and Chinese, acting on behalf of the Syrians, will resist the tougher parts of what the United States is seeking to achieve.

BLITZER: Does the U.S. have a good sense, as far as intelligence is concerned, where all these chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria are? In other words, would inspectors know where to go to secure them?

BURNS: I don't think that's likely. And you're right to suggest this is an extraordinary, extraordinary day when for decades Assad father and son refused to say whether they had chemical weapons. Now they're implicitly admitting it.

The big task in the middle of a Syrian civil war will be for U.N. inspectors to go in and find it all. That's another big question that the administration will have to determine, how do we know when all the Syrian chemical weapons have been discovered and then put together in one place and shipped out of the country for destruction? It's going to be a long, laborious process. And again, I think it's important at that United States be very tough in these negotiations with the Russians and Chinese. The action now shifting to the Security Council in New York.

BLITZER: It looks though like the Russians, for whatever reason, may have thrown sort of a lifeline to this whole prospect because the U.S., with or without congressional authorization, if you listen to the Obama administration, they were ready to launch those air strikes. And now, for all practical purposes, that's on delay for the time being.

BURNS: Well, Wolf, it may be that the Russians and Syrians were in effect intimidated by the tough posture of President Obama. President Obama threatened air strikes. And it may be that the Syrians and Russians concluded they couldn't afford that. The Syrians couldn't afford it. This is thus a lifeline to the Syrian regime.

But as President Reagan used to say, to paraphrase him, we should not trust the Syrian regime. So we're going to have to verify. And it will be in the implementation, the painstaking implementation of this plan, if it does get off the ground, where I think success or failure will be met. And I think President Obama's right to walk down the road. But, boy, we're entering now diplomatic combat of sorts. And it will mean that France, the U.K. and the U.S. will have to stick together against the Russians and Chinese up in New York.

BLITZER: Yes, well, let's see what happens. There is an opening right now, as the president himself told me yesterday, a potential breakthrough. A long way to go, as you correctly point out, but potentially important developments, positive developments.

Nick Burns, thanks very much for joining us.

BURNS: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: Still ahead, what the crisis in Syria is doing to the price of oil, the price of gas. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to our continuing coverage of the crisis in Syria.

The price of oil, meanwhile, is dropping once again today. Most of that is coming on the possibility that tensions could ease between the U.S. and Syria. The price had been running up for weeks, passing the two-year high. On this week's "How To Speak Money," Christine Romans explains why there's concern over prices spiking at the gas pumps, as well.

CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Wolf.

Conventional wisdom holds that the threat of conflict in Syria and instability in the Middle East will keep oil prices near these two- year highs. But don't worry just yet. There might not be a spike in your prices.

Let me lay it out for you. Syria is not a major oil producer. But as you know, experts always worry that the conflict could spread to neighboring countries, oil rich countries, or counties that control the flow of oil and that would mean higher prices at the pump. And Mideast turmoil always worries people. You always get this return of the images like these from the 1970s, gas lines and shortages in the U.S. because of Mideast unrest. But that is very, very unlikely. And here's why. The U.S. is not as dependent on Middle Eastern oil as it used to be. We are producing more oil here and we're importing less.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM KLOZA, CHIEF OIL ANALYST, GASBUDDY: We're producing about 2 million barrels a day more crude than we were during the first Arab Spring back in the first quarter of 2011. We're producing much more crude than we did in 2003. And in addition, our Canadian neighbors to the north are sending us over 2 million barrels a day.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROMANS: Today, Wolf, imports account for about 40 percent of the oil and gas consumed in the U.S. That's down from 60 percent as recently as 2005.

And we're using less gas. In 2007, the average new car in the U.S. got something like 20 miles per gallon, right? Today it's nearly 25. And close as prediction for the end of the year, he says, even with tensions running high in the Middle East, he expects gas will stay the same or even go down a bit. As for $4 gas, he says that's not in the cards.

Wolf.

BLITZER: Christine Romans, all encouraging -- pretty encouraging, I should say. Thank you.

Just ahead, my interview with President Obama. He says the Russian plan for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons is, in fact, possible, if it's real. The rest of what he had to say right after this break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)