Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Limiting the Power of the President; Obama's Former Point Man on Syria; Syria Crisis; "The Litany of Suffering"; Imagine a World

Aired September 10, 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.

So are these, in fact, the worst days in the diplomatic history of the United States and the West, as one former British ambassador is calling it?

It certainly seems the twists and turns over how to deal with Syria's use of chemical weapons come faster than any policymaker can keep up with. And then they come off the cuff at that.

A day after the Russians jump on a seemingly offhand comment by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and propose that Syria place its chemical weapons under international control, the United States and its Western allies react positively to what seems to be a diplomatic breakthrough. Even China, Iran and Syria quickly accept the proposal.

But the French foreign minister, who's now presenting a U.N. resolution on this, so it's backed by international law, says, guess what? The Russians are now opposing a binding resolution.

You really can't make this stuff up. And many critics are being harsh, giving President Obama an F in Syria crisis management. And now the president will have to use his much-heralded address tonight to his nation and to the world to dramatically change his tone and explain why he's making a diplomatic detour on the way to perhaps punishing Syria.

And whatever happens to Syria's chemical weapons, what difference will it make to the millions and millions of refugees there fleeing for their lives?

Former U.K. foreign secretary David Miliband is now head of the International Rescue Committee, and we'll talk to him about that tragic humanitarian situation in just a moment.

But first, Chris Van Hollen is a senior Democratic voice and congressman and a key Obama ally. Back in 1988, he traveled to Halabja in Iraq to observe first-hand the effects of the chemical attack by Saddam Hussein on his own people, and he joins me now from Capitol Hill.

Congressman, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

First, can I ask you, is this Russian proposal something very serious, that you and the Congress and the president are looking at as a possible solution?

REP. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Yes. It's a very positive development, Christiane. It is important to remember that the only reason the Russians made this proposal was because President Obama had put forward the credible use of force to try and deter Syria from future chemical weapons use.

That's why they're there at the table. I had introduced a resolution in the House that would very narrowly prescribe the use of force for the purpose of deterring future chemical weapons use in Syria and later in any other future conflict.

We are now going to revise that to take into account this opportunity. But we will have a backstop, where the president would be authorized to use that very limited force if we can't get the kind of resolution that's being discussed with -- by the Russians.

AMANPOUR: Well, you seem pretty confident.

But, sir, I think you and many on Capitol Hill and certainly all the observers are saying that actually he may very well be defeated in Congress.

Do you think the president is being lucky right now, as he often is, in the face of a potential negative vote?

He's actually being given this diplomatic out by the Russians?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, as the president, members of his administration have said, they have had these sort of behind-the-scenes conversations with Putin and some of the Russians about this possible out. Secretary, of course, Secretary Kerry made the statement; it was great to see the Russians follow up on it.

But what it does mean, Christiane, is there is this opportunity to accomplish our goal. After all, if we put his chemical weapons stockpile under international control, he's obviously deterred from using that.

So we all have an obligation to take this seriously. But we also have an obligation to make sure this is not a distraction and that is why what we're proposing is to give this a serious chance. But if the president said that it's not working out, we would still allow him to go forward with the very narrowly tailored force.

AMANPOUR: So really, the question is how long do you need?

When will you know whether this is actually something that will work, or at least be possible?

And how do you answer the many critics who are basically saying that the president is being played by the Russians?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, I don't think he's being played by the Russians and I know he will make sure that he's not played by the Russians.

I mean, the president has been appropriately skeptical, that this could be just an opportunity or effort to drag this on. The president's not going to let that happen.

So the way you avoid that is that when the president wants to move forward with the resolution, the resolution that we will introduce, the revised one later today, says once it's been adopted, there are 30 days. And in that 30 days, the president can continue to try and work out the solution.

If after 30 days, the president says that we'd either secure that chemical stockpile or that there's a credible plan to do it, then you would proceed with limited force. But if he makes another determination, he would be allowed to go forward.

We think that's an important lever, an important hammer for him to have as he goes into these negotiations again, remembering that the only reason the Russians put this on the table was because of the possible use of force now.

AMANPOUR: And again, with respect, remembering that the president doesn't have the votes, at least if these votes were going to be cast today, everybody says that they would fail.

So the question is, are you convinced that a vote will be taken in Congress?

The Senate is already delaying its motions .

And do you think the president will win?

And if he doesn't, should he use military force if this diplomatic maneuver does not work?

VAN HOLLEN: Well, first of all, and we'll hear from the president tonight, when he addresses the country, the president will have to make a determination about how long he wants to pursue this before really pushing Congress to resume efforts on a resolution.

So we're waiting to hear from the president on that issue.

But what I'm saying, in our revised resolution here in the House, what we would do is allow a 30-day period, once that resolution's passed, for the president to continue those discussions and try and get a credible plan.

If it fails, the answer to your other question is yes, I do think it's important to have a backstop of the credible use of force again. That needs to be very limited because many of us were worried that the original resolution would open the door to a larger U.S. military intervention in Syria.

Many of us are very leery and opposed to that. But we would support the use of force for the limited purpose of stopping the use of poison gas, enforcing that very important international prohibition, which, as you know, has been place since the horrors of World War I.

AMANPOUR: Congressman Van Hollen, we have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us.

And, of course, the president does have his work cut out for him tonight, when he tries to address the nation and convince them of all the issues you were just talking about.

Now after some accusing him of getting played, others have used even harsher terms to describe what they call a reluctant warrior leading from behind.

One of those critics is an Obama veteran. He is Frederic Hof, who served as the administration's special adviser on Syria, and he joins me now from Washington.

Mr. Hof, thank you very much. Welcome to the program.

Let me ask you, what do you think is happening right now? It just seems to be all coming, you know, at sixes and sevens from all quarters, haphazardly.

Is there a real plan, do you think, with this Russian initiative now?

FREDERIC HOF, FORMER U.S. SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE TRANSITION IN SYRIA: Hard to tell. Hard to tell if there's a real plan. Hard to tell if the initiative itself is serious. I think Congressman Van Hollen is absolutely correct on one point, at least, that it is the credible use of force that has gotten the Russians and presumably the Syrians interested in doing something about this toxic chemical stockpile.

But I must say if Congress in its wisdom decides to make that credible use of force go away, this Russian proposal will be gone with the wind.

The Russians will disavow it and Bashar al-Assad will reject it.

So it's only by keeping the credible use of force in place that diplomacy even has a chance here.

AMANPOUR: You've been incredibly critical of your former boss. You were tasked with being a special envoy on Syria.

What is the nub of your criticism?

What should the president have done?

HOF: I believe that the president should have been prepared right at the outset. Once he was confident of the facts of this outrage that took place on the 21st of August, I think he should have acted quickly. I think he should have authorized military strikes against the tools of terror, the artillery, the aircraft, the rockets and the missiles that, quite aside from the use of chemicals, have killed over 100,000 Syrians, driven 7 million people from their homes, 2 million of them across international boundaries, maimed and traumatized countless others.

I think that perhaps the president was not expecting such a frontal assault on his credibility and the credibility of the United States.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me say something because, to your point about the threat of force making the message much stronger, there is news just in to CNN, breaking news, in which Syria is now saying that it is ready to disclose the location of its chemical weapons, to halt production and to show its facilities to representatives of Russia, the United Nations and other states.

This apparently according to Russia's Interfax news agency, apparently citing the Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, who was, in fact, the first Syrian official, you'll remember yesterday in Moscow, to say that they backed the Russian suggestion.

HOF: Yes.

AMANPOUR: So this seems to be bearing fruit.

Are you at all skeptical at this moment?

You have been tasked with this particular portfolio. We've never heard this from Syria before. This is important.

HOF: I am -- I am a bit skeptical and I a bit -- to be a bit agnostic about all of this.

Yesterday was the first day in history that the Assad regime even acknowledged that it possesses chemical weapons. My belief is rather -- is rather straightforward. We got here with the credible use of force. The instant that that threat of credible use of force goes away, so do the diplomatic prospects of getting this -- getting this chemical inventory under control.

AMANPOUR: I mean, to that point, despite this statement from Russia, the French foreign minister says that Russia is actually, apparently wobbling on the idea of having a binding resolution at the U.N. in this regard.

But let me ask you this, what does the president now need to say in his address tonight that is going to take into account the credible threat of force, plus this diplomatic initiative that they say they're looking at positively?

Is it -- you know, are they competing messages?

Or are they ones that he can successfully dovetail and use them to convince the U.S. population?

HOF: Yes, I think he -- I think the basic message the president absolutely has to get across is that diplomacy is not possible without the credible use of force remaining on the table.

Absent that, this Russian proposal will go away. Absent that, there is -- there is no prospect for any kind of a political negotiated solution. I think the president has to focus laser-like on that -- on that particular message and I really think the Congress needs to cooperate with him.

AMANPOUR: Frederic Hof, thank you so much for joining me from Washington.

HOF: It's been a pleasure, thank you.

AMANPOUR: And wherever this diplomatic one-upmanship finally leads, it's almost certainly not going to stop Syria's epic human tragedy.

The war that's costing more than 100,000 lives and displacing more than 6 million people. We have that discussion with former British foreign secretary David Miliband after a break.

And we'll just leave you before heading to a break with these haunting pictures, this glimpse of what child labor looks like in Syria's civil war.

This is Esa (ph). He's 10 years old and he's from Aleppo. He no longer goes to school but now he works with his father, repairing weapons for the Free Syrian Army of the opposition.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program. Now with all the fast-moving developments on Syria, President Obama has to convince the nation of his wisdom in pursuing both military strikes and the new diplomatic proposals to put Syria's chemical weapons out of action.

And in the meantime, there's no plan on the table to mitigate a desperate epic humanitarian crisis, which is simply getting worse by the day. More than 2 million refugees have fled the violence and that's not counting the more than 4 million Syrians who are displaced within their own country.

So what does this latest proposal for Syria's chemical weapons mean for a crisis that's been described as, quote, "unprecedented in recent history"?

Former British foreign secretary David Miliband is now president of the International Rescue Committee, based here in New York. His younger brother, Ed Miliband, is the leader of the opposition Labour Party in Britain. And he was instrumental in the defeat of Prime Minister David Cameron proposal on military intervention in Syria.

This is David Miliband's first exclusive interview since taking up his new position at IRC. Joining me in the studio, welcome.

DAVID MILIBAND, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE COMMITTEE: Thank you, Christiane. Good to be here.

AMANPOUR: Thank you for being here. I obviously want to get to the desperate plight of the people, because that is what we've been looking at for the last 2.5 years. But first I want to ask you, as a former foreign secretary, what do you make of Syria now saying that it will stop production and it will put its chemical weapons in the -- or at least show them to Russia, the U.N. and other states?

MILIBAND: Well, my instinct on this is very simple: it's that when they met at the end of last week, President Obama and President Putin, I think President Obama convinced President Putin, Prime Minister Putin, that he was carrying a very big stick, that the seriousness with which he was approaching this issue, that the determination to ensure that the use of chemical weapons didn't go unpunished, was real.

And I think the Russians have taken that seriously. It would be wrong to describe Syria purely as a client state of Russia, but Russia is clearly a very influential ally of President Assad. And I think they've realized that the game was up. And I think that basically explains the shift that you're seeing.

AMANPOUR: So you don't think that President Obama is getting played?

Obviously in a lot of different quarters, people are saying, ah, it's just a stalling; you know, if force is taken off the table, this is just going to go back to where it was a week ago.

MILIBAND: It's almost tempting in politics to commentate (sic) on the process, on the tactics. What matters is whether or not you're achieving your goals. And it's a very, very important goal to eradicate the chemical weapons that President Assad now admits that he's have -- he's got.

If that can be done, through peaceful diplomatic means, then that is obviously a step forward.

But the point that you've rightly highlighted, the use of chemical weapons is the tip of the humanitarian iceberg in this Syrian crisis. And it's not just a Syrian crisis; it's a regional crisis.

And given that the Middle East is central to the values, interests and alliances of countries like the U.S. and the U.K., it's got to be of interest, that humanitarian situation and the ramifications that it's got.

AMANPOUR: Well, you've just written a powerful piece in the "Financial Times." You've just been to the region. There's a whole new study from the IRC.

How bad is it?

MILIBAND: One in three Syrians have been driven from their homes. Two million Syrians out of the country, just think about this: for a country like Lebanon, 4 million people in Lebanon; 750,00 Syrians arriving there. That's like every single Briton, 60 million of us, 65 million of us, arriving in the U.S. A country like Jordan, a very close ally of the U.S., population 5.5-6 million, 500,000 refugees. That's like every single citizen of Poland arriving in the U.S.

These are traumatized people, driven from their homes, losing husbands, sons in war, and they're arriving in countries that are themselves fragile. And that's why it's right to call it a regional crisis, not just a Syrian crisis.

AMANPOUR: And the worst, they say, UNHCR says the worst humanitarian crisis in recent memory.

What does this -- you know, there are 100,000 people who've been killed. We're now focusing entirely --

MILIBAND: (Inaudible).

AMANPOUR: Indeed. And we're now focusing exclusively on the ultimate crime, which is the use of weapons of mass destruction.

But certainly Britain was quite, you know, forward-leaning; France was quite forward-leaning in wanting to intervene earlier.

Should there have been a more robust intervention to prevent the deaths of these 100,000 (inaudible).

MILIBAND: There's no question in my mind that the humanitarian response, judging by all the figures, the U.N. figures, other figures, has been tardy and too small.

I mean, you -- just to give you a sense of it, the U.N. says that 40 percent of its appeal has been achieved. So there are organizations like the IRC that are doing work in the neighbors and in Syria, running health supplies into Syria to save people's lives. We can do more. Organizations like ours can do more. But we need the resource.

There's also the point that it's not safe, either for civilians or for aid workers. And there is a fundamental responsibility on the combatants in this, the government as well as the rebels, to allow freedom of movement for aid workers.

Remember, I've met doctors in Jordan who are Syrian doctors, talking about how they've been targeted at checkpoints. I mean, that is taking us centuries back in terms of the way people should be trying to sort these things out.

AMANPOUR: And you're obviously very familiar with the Iraq syndrome. You're a Labour and peer politician during the Labour-backed war in Iraq. Your own brother, as leader of the Labour Party now, decided not to back the prime minister in intervening in Syria.

How much responsibility do you think the politicians, who went into that flawed fiasco into Iraq, as many call it, bear for the failure to act in a real crisis today?

MILIBAND: Well, there's no question that across the Western world, there's a backwash, first of all, of Iraq and Afghanistan, and there's a backwash from the financial crisis as well. People are feeling that these are tough times in Western countries and there is also the bitter experience of the last 10 years, eight years in Iraq, 10 years in Afghanistan.

I think that individual congressmen in the U.S., politicians in the U.K., have to speak for themselves rather than me provide a commentary on that. But that's undoubtedly the background for this.

Equally, it's right to say that there is a -- there's a civil war going on at the moment with massive ramifications. And the question is can we learn from experience rather than be imprisoned by experience?

One of the learnings is that humanitarian catastrophes can have political consequences. If you destabilize Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, that has political consequences. A second important lesson is that whenever military action is contemplated, it needs a wider diplomatic and political strategy.

That's why I think the point about the current goings-on, what really matters is whether or not the chemical weapons are disposed of. Those are some ways, I think, that we can learn the lessons of Iraq without being imprisoned by them.

AMANPOUR: And do you believe that Britain's role in the world -- maybe America's role in the world, depending on the congressional vote -- has been badly affected, has been weakened by the Parliament's vote, maybe the congressional vote, whether it's about the humanitarian situation or about confronting weapons of mass destruction?

MILIBAND: I think it's early days to say that. The truth is that since the financial crisis, there's a mood in Western countries, among Western voters to be concerned with the home front rather than with foreign policy, with what seemed like issues far away.

My point, as someone who's leading a humanitarian organization that's trying to help people on the basis of need, not on the basis of ethnicity or religion or what politics they have, my point is that in this new world of ours, we're all connected and that the problems that wash up in Syria or in the region will end up in our backyard if we're not careful and that dealing with issues of human dignity and human poverty are absolutely fundamental, not just to who we are, not just our hearts, but our heads as well.

AMANPOUR: We wish you good luck, because we've been following the terrible plight of these people for 2.5 years now. David Miliband, new president of IRC, thank you very much for joining me.

And after a break, imagine another assault on human dignity, not in Syria, but in the world's largest democracy, seeking justice for all of India's women, when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: And finally tonight, while chemical weapons dominate the headlines, another assault on humanity has been brought to justice. Imagine a world where abusing women is so prevalent that over half the men living there think it's justified.

An Indian court has convicted four men in the gang rape and murder of a young woman on a New Delhi bus last December. That attack brought tens of thousands of demonstrators onto the streets to protest not only the crime, but what they called India's endemic abuse of women, and yet as we have reported on this program so often, women in India are still treated as second-class citizens.

A UNICEF reports reveals that more than 50 percent of Indian men think they're entitled to beat their wives and worse; perhaps even more shocking, a majority of adolescent girls apparently think so as well.

And according to the Working Group on Human Rights in India, every 60 minutes two women are raped, and every six hours a young married woman is found beaten to death, burned or driven to suicide. No wonder the world's largest democracy is among the most dangerous places on Earth for women.

That is our final thought for tonight's program. Meantime, you can always contact us at our website. We continue to follow the breaking news on Syria. Thanks for watching and goodbye from New York.

END