Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Syrian Civil War; A Tumultuous Week of Syria Diplomacy; The U.N.'s Top Political Official

Aired September 12, 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.

Within minutes before we came on the air Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, held brief statements as they prepared to walk into their crucial meetings, trying to hammer out a way to solve the Syrian crisis.

Secretary Kerry was stern; he was firm. He said that they are taking this extremely seriously. He talked about the inevitable challenges and problems, but he said what we want is a timely, credible, verifiable arms control agreement in terms of removing Syria's chemical weapons. And he said there must be consequences if this does not work out.

He said he hopes despite the process of it going on in the middle of a raging civil war, that with the cooperation of Russia and the Assad regime, this will be doable, but again said it was going to be incredibly difficult.

These statements were played live also in Syria on Syrian television. And today the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, who has never admitted that his country has chemical weapons, did so for the first time. He acknowledged his deadly stockpiles during an interview with Russian television. But he also said that putting them under international control comes with conditions.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BASHAR AL-ASSAD, SYRIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): This bilateral process is based, first of all, on the United States stopping its policy of threatening Syria. Also to the degree that the Russia proposal is accepted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: Well, that, of course, is a nonstarter, as we have heard from Secretary Kerry. He was very clear that the United States military posture remains as is and he was also very clear that it is only the threat of U.S. force that has brought President Assad and indeed President Putin to the diplomatic table.

This, on the other hand, is how President Assad started out this tumultuous week, denying or not confirming his chemical weapons when he sat down with U.S. journalist Charlie Rose.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE, CBS NEWS HOST: Would you give up chemical weapons if it would prevent the president from authorizing a strike? If that is a deal, you would accept?

ASSAD: Again, you always imply that we have chemical weapons.

ROSE: I have to because that's the assumption of the president.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: So a sea change, really, in Assad's position in just four days.

And right now, of course, the action is in Geneva, where U.S. secretary of state, as I just said, is moving into the very difficult negotiations, along with legions of experts, with Sergey Lavrov, trying to hammer out a plan to secure and eventually destroy those chemical weapons. There are, as we've said, plenty of skeptics, questioning, including Kerry himself, how on Earth can this be done amid a raging civil war.

Now while the U.S. insists that it was the threat of force that created this diplomatic opening, they are saying also that -- most commentators are saying exactly the opposite.

In the words of one, "We've seen a Putin power play based on a Kerry gaffe leading to a face-saving presidential retreat." That is how critics are describing the diplomacy and the Obama administration's handling of all this leading up to this moment.

While getting Moscow and Assad to admit to this chemical arsenal is a success, securing those weapons is only one piece of a violent puzzle which has already cost 100,000 lives in Syria and created millions of refugees.

The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says that the shame of what's been allowed to happen in that country will haunt the world for years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BAN KI-MOON, U.N. SECRETARY-GENERAL: Our collective failure to prevent atrocity crimes in Syria of the past 2.5 years, they remain a heavy burden on the standing of the United Nations and its member states.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

AMANPOUR: And so when it comes to President Obama and his administration, has this been, as one former State Department official said, probably the most undisciplined stretch of his foreign policy during his presidency?

And what about America's history of liberal humanitarian intervention? Is that history now?

I'll ask former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright.

And later, my exclusive interview with the U.N.'s top political official, Jeffrey Feltman.

But first, the Syrian opposition feels battered and betrayed since the Obama administration swerved sharply away from a military strike. I spoke with General Salim Idris just moments ago. He's head of the Free Syrian Army and he tells me that Secretary Kerry personally has assured him that the us would revisit military action if Syria and the Assad regime fails to comply.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: General Idris, welcome to the program.

GEN. SALIM IDRIS, FREE SYRIAN ARMY: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: General, let me first ask you, what is your reaction to the now diplomacy that's happening, trying to secure and destroy Assad's chemical weapons?

IDRIS: Yes, it is very difficult. The situation on the ground is very difficult and we were waiting for strikes against Assad regime after using the chemical weapons, against civilians (inaudible). And then we heard about the Russian initiation.

And are in contact with our American friends, they are now trying to fix some important issues with the Russians to know if the regime in Damascus is honest, to put the chemical materials under international control.

But we in Syria, we have many, many problems with the regime. The chemical weapons is not only the only problem that we have. The (inaudible), the criminal president who gave the order to use the chemical weapons, must be brought to justice.

And the weapons and the tools that they used to drop chemical materials on civilians many, many times, like air jets (ph), like Scud missiles, like long-distance artillery, what about these kinds of weapons when we only talk now about having the chemical material under control?

AMANPOUR: If the inspectors end up going in to secure these chemical weapons, will the Free Syrian Army and the opposition allow them to work unimpeded?

Or will they face danger from the opposition forces?

IDRIS: Not only from the opposition forces. When they come to our country, we will do our best to help them. But I think the regime will prevent them to go to the location and to put a job (ph). I think the regime is a low (ph) regime. And they are lying (ph) (inaudible) revolution.

When they come to Damascus and they ask the regime to go to the locations, I think the regime will tell them, today you can't go out of the hotels because the situation on the ground is very dangerous.

And tomorrow you can't go and they will delay and delay and today we have information that the regime began to move chemical materials and chemical weapons to Lebanon and to Iraq. And that is very dangerous.

They are (inaudible) regime is behaving like Saddam Hussein. He is (inaudible) the chemical weapons and materials to Iraq and Lebanon. And we are afraid of using these weapons against us after the mission of the United Nations in Syria or the international community.

AMANPOUR: Well, that would be a very worrying development, if indeed these weapons are moving out somewhere.

Can I ask you, the U.S. has confirmed reports that finally weapons that were promised to your forces are actually being delivered now to the Free Syrian Army? Can you confirm that you're getting weapons, tanks, vehicles -- or not tanks, but weapons and vehicles and other such things?

IDRIS: Yes, we are getting now a lot of support from our American friends. But I can't talk in detail about all kinds of the support.

AMANPOUR: Can you confirm that you're receiving them?

IDRIS: We receive some trucks (ph), some laptops (ph), some communication equipment and other things, (inaudible) tools, medicine, food.

AMANPOUR: No weapons?

IDRIS: I can't talk about weapons, please. Excuse me.

AMANPOUR: All right, General Idris. How do you see this playing out over the next few days and weeks?

IDRIS: I think it -- the coming days and weeks are very important and very dangerous for us in Syria. We had a lot of meeting (ph) with the commanders of the (inaudible) and we were very (inaudible) to do attacks, prior to the strikes.

And now the commander are very frustrated (inaudible). They think that our friends are going to leave us (inaudible). And (inaudible) help us.

But I had a call today with Mr. Kerry and he told me that he will discuss with the Russians how honest the regime is and if our friends discover that the regime is trying to play games and waste time, the threat of the strikes is still on the table and the strikes may be -- will be -- we will be -- we will see strikes in the future if the regime is trying to play games.

AMANPOUR: OK. Can I be very clear about what you just said, that you today spoke to Secretary Kerry and he says if this diplomacy doesn't work, then the threat of U.S. military strikes is still on the table? Is that correct?

IDRIS: Yes, yes. That's correct, yes.

AMANPOUR: On that note, General Salim Idris, thank you very much for joining me.

IDRIS: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

AMANPOUR: And General Idris did not want to go into details about weapons. But earlier today he did say that he had not received, quote, "a gun or a bullet" yet from the United States.

Meantime, Syria's President Assad now says that signing on to an international ban on chemical weapons will only happen if the U.S. ceases all threats of military action. As we said, that is a nonstarter.

But my next guest says that's the threat that brought Syria and Russia to the negotiate table in the first place.

Madeleine Albright was secretary of state under U.S. President Bill Clinton. She joins me now from Washington.

Secretary Albright, thank you for being with me. Welcome.

MADELEINE ALBRIGHT, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: It's great to be with you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: So a lot of tough talk going around today, including Secretary Kerry saying the U.S. military posture remains in place and that threat was the one that's brought them to the table.

You agree with that, don't you?

ALBRIGHT: Absolutely. I think that one of the things that one knows is that there is this combination of the threat of the use of force in diplomacy and they go together.

It's something that has worked in previous occasions and I think that in my mind there is no question that the threat of the use of force is what brought this diplomatic venue into place and made President Putin understand that this was something that should concern them in terms of getting his client, President Assad, to in fact give up his weapons, his chemical weapons.

AMANPOUR: From your personal interactions with Sergey Lavrov, what can Secretary Kerry expect from him during these negotiations with both the Russians and, as you've heard, President Assad is saying the Americans have to take this threat of force off the table.

What's going to be going on in that meeting that they're in right now?

ALBRIGHT: Well, first of all, they have gotten to know each other and I think that's very important. There clearly have been a lot of discussions going back and forth since Secretary Kerry took the office.

Sergey Lavrov is a very smart man; he was the ambassador at the United Nations the same time I was. And he is a very skilled diplomat and bureaucrat and they are basically at this stage, I think, laying out their various positions.

I thought a very typical kind of exchange took place between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov in that point that you raised about the translation, very typical of Sergey to say trust me and very typical of Secretary Kerry to say too early.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me ask you about that because of course it's good that they said that; it's good that Secretary Kerry put down that "trust but verify" kind of marker.

But Putin himself, the president, wrote that now-famous op-ed that was today in "The New York Times." And amongst other things he claimed was that, in fact, it wasn't the Assad regime that used chemical weapons; it was the rebels. He said that we have -- we know that. And not only that, we know that they're planning a second attack against Israel.

This doesn't sound like the words of someone, a negotiator whose ground in reality and who actually is willing now to make these tough demands of Assad.

What do you make of why he would have written that?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I found the letter fascinating and frankly fairly arrogant in terms of lecturing the United States about caring about human rights and equality and a variety of aspects of holding up international norms and international law.

I think that what the letter has done, however, is to really have Putin come forward and now take responsibility of trying to get something done about the chemical weapons convention and that he does now have to move Assad and the Syrians generally. I'd love to know how that phone call is going to take place.

But ultimately -- and there's a great contradiction, frankly. I mean, he has said that the rebels were the one who used it; he now says that they was used.

They now admit that the Syrian government, the regime, should put their weapons under control and also the Syrian foreign minister, when he was in Moscow, admitted that they were going to put their weapons under control when 24 hours before that they didn't have any.

So there are an awful lot of contradictions going on. And this is going to be -- Christiane, you know this -- a very complicated story and one that we have to follow with great care.

AMANPOUR: Let me finish by asking you about the immense amount of criticism that is going on in foreign policy circles about the president's handling of all of this. Let me read you something that Michael Gerson (ph) wrote in "The Washington Post" just recently.

Talking about, "A U.S. military strike -- something that Putin thought inevitable just a few weeks ago -- is off. Russia's Syrian client, Bashar al-Assad, stays in power. The Syrian opposition is effectively hung out to dry."

That is the sum total, he says, of what's just happened.

I mean, isn't that true?

ALBRIGHT: No, I don't think so. I think that clearly the situation in Syria on the ground is unbelievably complicated and has been going on a while and there's a humanitarian crisis and we have seen the horror created by the chemical weapons.

I think that the president made very clear that the threat of the use of force was on the table. I also think that there had been discussions that were going on and I think that it would be irresponsible of the president and Secretary Kerry not to explore what this offer has been. We've already seen, in fact, that it's going to be complicated and it's going to take a while.

But as Secretary Kerry said, the threat of the use of force and that option is not off the table and the president, I think, in his speech, really explained very well what we had to do.

And what I liked about the speech was that he dealt with the questions that people are asking. I had called people on the Hill, and those are the issues that concern them.

But I think we have to go back again and just -- you asked me about the Putin letter. I really find that part of the story very peculiar and that Putin should lecture the United States.

AMANPOUR: And just finally, isn't this bringing Assad into the equation, having to bring him into the equation , Secretary Kerry said this has to happen with his cooperation, legitimizing the very president that Obama has been trying to discredit and say must step down for the last 2.5 years?

ALBRIGHT: Well, I think ultimately it is a reality that, in fact, President Putin has another country that can play a role in this. There is no question from what I've read is that the Russians are very much involved in supporting Assad and his regime and therefore they might be exactly the people to put pressure on him.

But we really, you know, trust but verify, and that this is an avenue that has to be tried in order to stop the horrors that are taking place in Syria.

But, Christiane, you know this, the story in Syria started a while back; it's going to go on a while.

And I think that what is a good sign of foreign policy management is when you are able to adapt and understand what the changing situation is and yet maintain your values, which is what President Obama has done, by talking about the importance of supporting that international norm, that it is barbaric to kill people with poisonous gas and watch those children dying.

AMANPOUR: Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, thank you so much for joining me.

ALBRIGHT: Thank you, Christiane.

AMANPOUR: And of course trying to salvage something out of this collective failure, as the secretary-general said, will not be the U.N.'s unenviable task. Under Secretary-General Jeffrey Feltman is the top political officer there and he's searching for a way to untangle the diplomatic knot, even taking a trip to Tehran. My exclusive with him when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

AMANPOUR: Welcome back to the program.

Russia's plan to have Syria destroy its chemical weapons has put diplomacy and the United Nations front and center again. CNN learned today that the U.N. has received a letter from Syria declaring its intention to join the chemical weapons convention.

So is this diplomatic opening on Syria a chance for the organization to shape the outcome?

And what role can Iran play now that a new, moderate president has taken office?

The U.N.'s top political official, Jeffrey Feltman, has traveled to Iran twice now, and he joins me now here in New York to talk about solving Syria.

Secretary Feltman, thank you very much for being here.

JEFFREY FELTMAN, UNDER SECRETARY-GENERAL, UNITED NATIONS: Thank you for the invitation.

AMANPOUR: You just heard Secretary Kerry; you see all this diplomacy that's happening in real time. You also heard your own secretary-general complain about the collective failure, the burden of shame, really, that hangs on the world over this debacle.

What realistically do you think, from the U.N. point of view, is going to change now?

FELTMAN: I think we've seen a lot change over the past couple days, and you've been reporting on this. There is -- the Security Council has been paralyzed. The secretary-general's been clear: this is shameful on all of us.

But now there's an opportunity where perhaps the Security Council will be able to come together first to deal with the issue of chemical weapons and then we hope to build on that for a larger solution to the crisis in Syria.

AMANPOUR: Do you think that, you know, now Russia's fully vested in this, that there will be a Security Council resolution and that this whole idea that the U.N. special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, has been working on, some kind of political resolution is ever going to be possible?

FELTMAN: Well, that, of course, is the goal, to get to a political solution. Secretary-general has been clear, the military approach has caused immeasurable suffering. There's appalling butchery because of that. We're trying to get to the political solution.

Joint Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi, in fact, met with John Kerry today. I understand he's going to be seeing Russian Federation Foreign Minister Lavrov sometime over the next day or two as well, because they are discussing how you could go from dealing with a chemical weapons issue to the political solution.

AMANPOUR: You know, the secretary-general, of course, always said no military intervention. And yet most people agree that it is the threat of military force that brought Russia to this point right now, cooperating.

Don't you agree with that?

FELTMAN: Well, you know, Christiane, the U.N. charter does, in fact, have cause to talk about the use of force. There is -- there is the possibility of using force envisioned by the charter. People recognize this, that this was going to be -- you had used force at some times.

But what the secretary-general's position has been is first sending arms to Syria is not the way to get to a political solution. But second if there's -- if the use of force is being contemplated, not only in Syria but anywhere ,that you need to stay within the charter provisions. You need to work within the United Nations' charter.

And I think that's natural for the secretary-general, who is the defender of the charter, the repository of the charter, to take that position.

AMANPOUR: Things have obviously changed, though, and you have to admit, using your U.S. hat, that there was pressure that brought them to this point.

But the question, I guess, is also what is the U.N.'s role, if any? What will be the U.N.'s physical role in securing and monitoring and somehow dealing with the chemical weapons stockpile?

Is it a U.N. job? Or is it outside the U.N. now?

FELTMAN: Well, I think we would very much want to see, of course, what comes out of the Kerry-Lavrov discussions in Geneva. But we are going to -- we are going to rely very much on what the member states can pull together politically, can pull together logistically, can pull together in terms of security.

It's extremely complicated to contemplate what you're -- how you would safeguard and ultimately destroy chemical weapons during what is a civil war. And the U.N. itself has expertise to bring.

The role that the OPCW, you know, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, has a role to play. But member states themselves are going to have to assume a large part of the security, logistical and financial burden of doing this.

AMANPOUR: You have made two trips to Tehran. You've talked to the new foreign minister there about presumably having some role in solving the Syria crisis.

What have you been talking to them about and what do you think their posture is going to be?

FELTMAN: Let me start, Christiane, by noting that we don't believe that simply by talking to the Syrians themselves we're going to be able to solve the Syria crisis at this point, that we need to be talking to the region; we need to be talking to the international community. That's why Lakhdar Brahimi's meeting with John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov in Geneva.

It's hard for us to imagine any solution in Syria that doesn't somehow have an Iranian role. Iran has influence inside Syria. So the secretary- general very much wanted me to go to Syria. I also went to Qatar to --

(CROSSTALK)

AMANPOUR: Tehran.

FELTMAN: -- to Tehran -- I'm sorry -- to Tehran to talk about Syria so that we could brief them on our vision for getting to a political solution, that we could explore with them their own interest in Syria and how they could help us get to that political solution. The Iranians among other countries as well.

AMANPOUR: Are the Iranians playing ball?

FELTMAN: The Iranians stated that they understand that we need to get to a political solution. I don't think from what I -- from my conversations that I had in Iran that the Iranians see it in their interest, to see the situation in Syria continue or even deteriorate. It's in Iran's interest to see this situation in Syria move in a different direction.

They are very concerned about what they see as a very clear threat of terrorism inside Syria, among part of the opposition. But again, I go back to the point that talking to the Syrians themselves, at this point, isn't going to solve the problem. We have to talk to others . And the Iranians are important in that.

AMANPOUR: Can you convince the United States of that? Because the U.S. has never really wanted to bring Iran into it. I know you as a U.N. officer wants to do that, but the U.S. doesn't.

FELTMAN: Well, we ourselves at the U.N. are going to continue to talk to the Iranians. The U.S. knows that.

When we get to a Geneva conference, the -- you know, any guest list will be determined by -- in part by what the initiating parties, Russia and the United States, determine.

But for the part of the United Nations, we are going to continue to talk to Iran as well as with other countries that have influence on the situation in Syria, to try to get the atmosphere right to move to a political solution.

There's appalling butchery in Syria right now. We need to check all doors.

AMANPOUR: Indeed. And I'm sure you, like everybody, is waiting to see the overtures of the new Iranian president when he comes to the UNGA in a couple of weeks.

Jeffrey Feltman, thank you very much indeed for being here.

FELTMAN: Thank you.

AMANPOUR: Undersecretary-general of the United Nations.

And I'll be back with a final thought after a break.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

AMANPOUR: And a final thought: we just want to remind everybody that right now Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, along with their technical experts, are in the room, trying to hammer out a plan to divest Syria, the Assad regime, of its chemical weapons.

As John Kerry said, it has to be timely plan; it has to be serious, credible, verifiable and there must be consequences if it doesn't work.

And again, he said that the threat of U.S. force had brought all parties to this point. Assad, for his part today, said to Russian television that, yes, we will put our weapons under international control and the Syrians have sent a letter to the United Nations, saying that they will sign on to the convention that bans chemical weapons.

That's it for our program right now. I'm Christiane Amanpour. Thanks for watching. Goodbye from New York and follow us online on Twitter and on Facebook.

END