Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Obama's Syria PR Offensive; Chemical Attack in Syria: What Do We Know?; Kissinger Calls for Syria Intervention; Imagine a World

Aired September 09, 2013 - 14:00   ET

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

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN HOST: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the program. I'm Christiane Amanpour.

It is the start of one of the most important weeks of Barack Obama's presidency, as he tries to rally a response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. As U.S. lawmakers debate whether to authorize a U.S. military strike, Syria's main ally, Russia, is now proposing a new diplomatic move to avoid such action.

The Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, is urging Damascus to put its chemical weapons stockpiles under international control. And his Syrian counterpart, Walid Moallem, also in Moscow, welcomed the move.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALID MOALLEM, SYRIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translator): During our talks with Foreign Minister Lavrov this morning, he launched an initiative related to chemical weapons. I listened carefully to his statement this evening in regard to that.

I declare that the Syrian Arab Republic welcomes Russia's initiative on the basis that the Syrian leadership cares about the lives of our citizens and the security in our country.

We are also confident in the wisdom of the Russian government, which is trying to prevent an American aggression against our people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But will it be enough? Shortly after those statements, the Obama administration said that it will take, quote, "a hard look" at the proposal, but added it has some serious skepticism about whether President Assad would follow through.

It comes as Washington, Moscow and Damascus all intensify their own campaign ahead of a crucial vote in the United States. President Obama will have to do some very heavy lifting to get Congress to support his plan of attack.

These now are live pictures of both houses of Congress as they return to Capitol Hill from summer recess today.

A first significant vote in the Senate could come as early as Wednesday. And this is at the heart of Mr. Obama's case, that the chemical attack near Damascus on August 21st was a war crime, a major breach of one of the most important prohibitions of international law and that action has to be taken.

Speaking in London, just before returning to Washington, the U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry tried to reassure the many skeptics.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: We're not going to war. We will not have people at risk in that way. We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, very short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war.

That is exactly what we're talking about doing, unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Sending a major lesson to Assad with, quote, "an unbelievably small, limited effort"?

This public rhetoric just highlights the U.S. administration's dilemma convincing its own people and others around the world to go along.

Meantime, President Assad is also taking to the airwaves, yet again denying responsibility for the recent attack, dismissing the U.S. evidence and warning of major repercussions if the U.S. launches an attack.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE, CBS NEWS HOST: Will it be attacks against American bases in the Middle East if there's an airstrike?

BASHAR AL-ASSAD, PRESIDENT OF SYRIA: You should expect everything. You should expect everything, not necessarily through the government. It's not only -- the governments are not only -- not the only player in this region.

ROSE: Tell me what you mean by expect everything.

AL-ASSAD: Expect every action.

ROSE: Including chemical warfare?

AL-ASSAD: That depends if the if the rebels or the terrorists in this region or any other group have it, it could happen; I don't know.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: But despite these threats, many in the U.S. administration and elsewhere believe that President Assad has no interest in picking a fight with the United States.

But what impact will these fast-moving political developments have on the U.S. Congress?

Joining me now is CNN's chief political analyst, Gloria Borger.

Gloria, welcome from Washington.

What do you think this new proposal to try to get Assad's weapons, chemical weapons, under international law, international control, what effect will that have on the debate underway in Congress?

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, it could have a large effect if it's taken seriously and if, indeed, it occurs. I mean, let's sort of unravel this for a moment, if you will.

When Secretary of State John Kerry originally mentioned this, we're told it was kind of hypothetical; it was more of a debating point, that it wasn't a serious proposal. He just kind of threw it out there and then the Russians, of course, jumped on it. And today, what we're hearing from senior administration officials is a lot of skepticism about it, Christiane.

But they're in a position now where they have to say they're going to take a look at it because they really have no other choice.

But what administration officials are saying is that, look, understand that the acceptance of this only comes under the threat of force, and that's why you need to take this with a grain of salt. But now they've kind of gotten themselves in the position where they can't say no.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you about the actual vote, Gloria. You know, we've seen a lot of polling about where the American people stand, and they stand against such action. But also this informal whips and counts that CNN and others are taking.

Does the president stand to face defeat in the Congress?

Do you think the more time goes, the more ability he has to try to make his case, and he will tonight with a series of interviews; he will with an address to the nation tomorrow?

Will that affect Congress, do you think?

BORGER: It might affect Congress if it seriously affects public opinion because in this particular case, I think Congress is following public opinion, not leading public opinion.

And so the more people the president can convince, the better it is for him.

But I have to tell you, Christiane, the Senate is very different from the House of Representatives. Right now, by our vote count, it's about even; there are lots of undecideds. And if you were to bet, you'd have to say the president had a better chance in getting this through the Senate than he would in the House of Representatives.

There are even some people saying, look, if he gets it through the Senate, maybe he doesn't even go to the House of Representatives, if he believes he has the authority to use force.

So there are all different kinds of scenarios that are playing out. Members of Congress are really looking at this Russian proposal right now and kind of glomming onto it because if they can avoid a vote, which would be very divisive back home, and if they can avoid an unpopular vote, you know they're going to try and to that, right?

So they're kind of glomming onto this and saying, well, OK. Maybe we ought to -- we ought to listen to what the Russians are saying and try and cut a deal here and avoid the use of force, particularly if it's not time- sensitive. Wait for the U.N., for example.

AMANPOUR: Gloria Borger, thank you so much.

And here we have this idea that the Russians are going to potentially be meaningfully impactful on the congressional vote. And yet Congress was saying they wouldn't take into consideration lobbying by the Russians as they were trying to come to Congress.

Now, ever mindful of the Iraq WMD fiasco, Western nations claim the regime was behind the chemical attack and have made some of their public -- some of their proof and their evidence public.

But is it enough? For a closer look at the evidence, with me now are Greg Thielmann, a former director at the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and chemical weapons expert Jean Pascal Zanders, joining me from Geneva.

Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

Mr. Thielmann, let me go to you first.

This Russian proposal, if it works out, is that a victory for the very thing that President Obama wants to avoid, and that is the future use of chemical weapons?

GREG THIELMANN, FORMER DIRECTOR, U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF INTELLIGENCE: We have fought for a long time to get the Russians to be responsible in their role as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. They have not been responsive. They've not been willing to even pass press guidance on condemning the use of chemicals in Syria.

So a more active Russian role here is very welcome. The Russians are obviously influential to the Syrians. If they can actually get the Syrians to agree to the chemical weapons convention, which they've been disinclined to do for decades, that would also be a very positive step.

But this is a testable proposition. In the next few days, Assad could tomorrow say we will sign the chemical weapons convention. We will let the implementing organization of that treaty send inspectors in.

AMANPOUR: Mr. Thielmann, Mr. Zanders, I want to just play you another little clip of President Assad's interview over the weekend with Charlie Rose, about the evidence. And then I want you guys to respond.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AL-ASSAD: But in the area where they said the government used chemical weapons, we only had video and we only have pictures and allegations. How can you talk about what happened if you don't have evidences? We're not like the American administration. We're not social media administration or government. We are the government that deal with reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Mr. Zanders, obviously President Assad is shielding behind the fact that we have not seen definitive proof being made public that he or his commanders used those weapons or commanded them to be used.

What do you think about the evidence that's been made public and should more of it be made public?

JEAN PASCAL ZANDERS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS EXPERT: I personally think that more evidence should be made public. Right now we seem to be in the spiral confirmation bias on the part of a number of Western leaders.

And much more can be put on the table without compromising intelligence sources about the nature of the investigations undertaken, how many samples were investigated, how widespread were those samples.

I think a lot more can be put on the table to convince international public opinion.

AMANPOUR: Is there any way, do you think, that some of those transcripts of what they say were intercepts of various commanders talking precisely about these chemical weapons use, is there any way that that can be put out to the public without compromising their intelligence gathering methods?

ZANDERS: I think there are quite a number of intercepts that could be published in full. I think also one could say there are a number of source samples, physiological samples from victims. One could indicate where they come from; they could be indicated how they have been analyzed in the laboratories.

And also I think it would be very interesting, very honest, actually, to put on the table; look, these are the elements that we found that point towards chemical weapon use; these are the elements that are not so sure where we have to make a judgment.

AMANPOUR: Let me turn to you, Mr. Thielmann, because you were an official in the Bush presidency, the W. Bush presidency, at a time when this whole idea of intelligence has been roundly discredited because of the Iraq fiasco.

What do you think in this regard -- there's endless debate over, A, whether a chemical attack happened and, B, who did it?

For you, what is crucial here?

THIELMANN: I find that two pieces of this extremely convincing. One is the remote sensing data on the muzzle flashes and rocket flashes that show where the attack was launched from. All of those, all of that data came from government-held areas.

Ninety minutes later, we started getting reports of the victims.

So that's very convincing to me about who is responsible for this attack.

I find also the transcripts convincing, although I agree with Mr. Zanders that more information would be better. The public is very skeptical about this; the whole Iraq WMD fiasco has left the public and the international community skeptical about what the administration says. And therefore I think we need as much as information as we can get.

But this is a classic conflict between the intelligence community that wants to protect its ability in the future to get sensitive information.

AMANPOUR: But to the heart of the matter now, German intelligence, the BND, according to published reports, say that they have no evidence that President Assad himself ordered such attacks, but that they have no doubt that it was a regime attack.

I want to ask you to answer that and also the longer the Obama administration waits to deliver its response what is the consequence of the delay in time?

THIELMANN: With regard to the German information, in some sense, I think the important thing is that this indicates the Germans are in agreement with the United States, that the Assad regime is responsible for this massive chemical attack.

I don't know whether the United States has concrete evidence of the personal involvement of Assad in giving the orders; but in his dictatorship and give the understanding of his tight control over chemical weapons use, one would presume that he had -- that he had a role to play in this.

If he didn't not have a role to play, one would like to see evidence of his arrest of the generals and others who committed this atrocity.

AMANPOUR: And the consequence of delay?

THIELMANN: I think that we are going to be waiting probably until the U.N. inspectors report comes out. We're obviously waiting for a U.S. congressional debate. It would be a mistake, I think, though, to have an infinite delay.

The kind of actions that the Russians have suggested can happen very quickly if Assad is willing to make it happen.

And I think that we have to have a decisive response in this attack to avoid what happened historically in the past, when the Italians used poison gas in Abyssinia -- now Ethiopia -- and when Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of Iranian civilians and citizens in his own country with massive uses during the eight-year war with Iran.

And of course, on that occasion, the United States backed Saddam Hussein.

AMANPOUR: On that note, Jean Pascal Zanders in Geneva; Greg Thielmann, thank you so much for joining me.

THIELMANN: You're welcome.

AMANPOUR: And if anyone would know how to navigate the mine field of national self-interest when it comes to Syria, it is Henry Kissinger. The eminent statesman helped Richard Nixon breach the Great Wall and end years of mistrust with Communist China back in the '70s. And they were also the architect of detente with the Soviet Union. We'll hear from him when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: At the heart of the debate over Syria is upholding international norms and conventions and whether the United States will continue to act as the world's policeman, enforcing those norms. Sometimes singlehandedly.

Polls show that most Americans clearly oppose the idea, which is a major change from the recent past. Not long ago, Henry Kissinger was a leading cop on the world beat, forging relationships with America's most implacable foes, the Soviet Union and Communist China, first as national security adviser, then secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford.

Kissinger was a dominant force in U.S. foreign policy. And his words still carry weight with the world's policymakers . And I sat down with him earlier today to ask him about this critical moment for America's place in the world.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Dr. Kissinger, welcome; thanks for joining me.

Do you think President Assad is directly challenging President Obama and what should President Obama do?

HENRY KISSINGER, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: No, I don't think that President Assad is aiming at challenging President Obama. He has -- President Assad has engaged in a repugnant act, but it is not aimed at President Obama. It's aimed at his domestic opponents.

What should President Obama do? Let me answer in two parts.

I have been against American military intervention and have said so publicly in the Syrian civil war. And I continue to be opposed to military intervention in the civil war.

This, however, is at the use of weapons of mass destruction, which has consequences beyond Syria and it is necessary to oppose it before we institutionalize the use of weapons of mass destruction, not just in Syria but elsewhere.

And for that reason, and for the limited purpose of penalizing the use of weapons of mass destruction, I support President Obama's request and have urged Congress insofar as I can to support it.

AMANPOUR: Right now, Congress, the votes are not there. By all intents and purposes, if President Obama was to seek the vote today, he would lose.

What has President Obama done by devolving executive authority to Congress?

What does this do for America's place in the world and the power of the presidency?

KISSINGER: I'm deeply worried about that aspect of it, because it creates the impression, say in negotiations with Iran and in the case of other challenges, that the president really doesn't have the authority to act unless he asks Congress; and that, therefore, there's a substantial delay while the Congress deliberates and then while the Congress is tempted to bargain about the tactical execution of military operations and I thought this was the sort of act well within the powers of the president.

Under the War Powers Act, the president has 90 days to notify Congress before when he engages in much larger operations than we're talking about here. We're talking about one strike, a limited strike.

So I think it was unwise to put it before the Congress. But it will also be dangerous for the world if the President of the United States were repudiated on a matter that he considers of the importance of the campaign he has now put forward.

AMANPOUR: He obviously does not want to do this. He is not somebody who wants to go to war. He said it himself publicly. He is the president who was elected to stop and end wars.

He also -- I was amazed to hear him say from St. Petersburg -- I cannot tell the Congress or the American people that this is an imminent threat to America's national security, the use of chemical weapons.

Do you believe that it is or it isn't?

KISSINGER: I don't believe that it's an imminent threat in the sense that they will be used against us. But the spread and the use of weapons of mass destruction, it's going to be and it's one of the fundamental problems of our time.

And if it gets legitimized in any way, we may see it and on a scale with all the conflicts that exist around the world. And the ease of manufacturing these weapons, that is the issue. But it's not imminent tomorrow.

AMANPOUR: The world isn't an arctic place. And without treaties and norms and conventions, you know, who knows what would happen? The Americans for decades have been the world's policemen. People don't like it here. They don't -- they say, why should we; it's a thankless and a hopeless task.

Does America need to be the world's policeman?

KISSINGER: We can't be the world's policeman. But we can be the world's last resort. It would have been a lot better if this had had a formal vote at the U.N., even it had a formal vote in NATO and it would have been much better if in Kosovo, if we had had some group in behind us. But in the last resort and if the issue is important enough, the United States may have to act really for the sake of everybody.

AMANPOUR: You were in office during the Cold War when there was a major existential threat to the United States from the Soviet Union, and yet your administration and thereafter managed a period of detente and some sort of constructive relationship with Russia, with the Soviet Union.

Today, that does not seem to exist. The level of poison between the United States and President Putin is at an all-time high.

What's gone wrong?

And what should happen?

Can that relationship be reined back in?

KISSINGER: I think we have got the relationship -- we have not managed and separated this relationship.

However you have the domestic situation in Russia, from our view of the foreign policy, and they have been an attempt and a belief either than you couldn't deal with Putin or that it would be better to replace Putin or to encourage replacing Putin with somebody else so that the foreign policy issues have been overwhelmed by these domestic policy issues.

Putin is a man who wants to restore Russia to some respect. But he comes from a country that has a tradition of flexing its muscles.

So sometimes in conduct, it's confrontational. But in the end, we and Russia can develop common objectives because where we clash, our issues, like Syria, where I believe we both should have the same objective, which is the radicalization of the Arab world, because a radical Arab world will spill over into Russia before it spills over in the West.

AMANPOUR: Dr. Kissinger, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And up next, appealing to a higher power, the pope is mobilizing his leaders against war and the fate of a Christian village in Syria hangs in the balance.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, as Pope Francis mobilizes people and their prayers against military intervention in Syria, imagine a world where the language of Jesus is still spoken. It's in the remote Syrian village of Malula (ph). People there still speak a version of Aramaic, which was the language spoken by Jesus 2,000 years ago.

But as the modern world encroaches, the ancient words have been forgotten. And in recent days, the Syrian civil war has come to Malula (ph). The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says jihadist extremists took control of the village over the weekend. And there are fears that Christians could be targeted next, an affront to the very idea of tolerance and respect in any language.

That's it for tonight's program. Meantime, you can always contact us at our website, amanpour.com. and follow us on Twitter and Facebook. Thanks for watching and goodbye from New York.

END