Return to Transcripts main page

Amanpour

Eyes on Britain in ISIS Fight; U.N. to Investigate Gaza War Crimes; Imagine a World

Aired September 03, 2014 - 14:00   ET

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

(MUSIC PLAYING)

MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN GUEST HOST (voice-over): Hello, everyone. Tonight on the program, all eyes on Britain and its fight against ISIS militants.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID CAMERON, PRIME MINISTER, GREAT BRITAIN: A country like ours will not be cowed by these barbaric killers.

HOLMES (voice-over): But how far with the prime minister go? One of Britain's most respected counterterrorism experts weighs in with us.

And a little later in the program, death and destruction in Gaza. Did Israel or Hamas commit war crimes? We'll be talking the man with the

unenviable job of finding out.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: Good evening, everyone, welcome to the program. I'm Michael Holmes, in for Christiane tonight.

Now President Barack Obama landed on Russia's doorstep today, Estonia, on his way to what could be the most consequential NATO meeting since the Cold

War. The military alliance getting back to its roots in many ways, grappling with Russia and President Putin's incursion into Eastern Ukraine.

As a show of force, a message perhaps, the United States and other NATO members are going to be conducting military exercises in two weeks in

Ukraine, which is, of course, and crucially a non-NATO member.

Russia, of course, not the only security threat facing the West at the moment. President Obama must also gather support for confronting ISIS,

which has brutally, as we reported here yesterday, executed a second American citizen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When people harm Americans, we don't retreat. We don't forget. We take care of those who

are grieving. And when that's finished, they should know we will follow them to the gates of hell until they are brought to justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Well, Steven Sotloff's executioner speaks with that London accent we've told you about. He does say that his next victim will be a fellow

Brit, another ISIS hostage.

Eyes now on Britain, how will it react?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CAMERON: A country like ours will not be cowed by these barbaric killers. If they think that we will weaken in the face of their threats, they are

wrong.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Strong words. But is all of that going to translate into action? And if so, what sort of action?

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: The U.K. Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, says Britain will use, in his words, "every possible option" to rescue that hostage, the British

hostage, as difficult as that task would be.

Britain's Parliament blocked the government's attempt to strike targets in Syria last year. But as this bloody conflict in Syria and now Iraq strikes

closer and closer to home, how far is the U.K. willing to go?

Well, who better to ask than Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, a former British intelligence chair and minister for security and counterterrorism.

She joins me now from London.

Baroness, thanks for doing so. The U.S. isn't going to stop bombing ISIS because they threaten a hostage, however brutally. That's pretty much a

given.

How do you think ISIS should be dealt with, not just by the U.S., but Britain, Europe and how urgent in your view is that need for action?

BARONESS PAULINE NEVILLE-JONES, FORMER BRITISH INTELLIGENCE CHAIR: Well, you mentioned the vote that took place in the House of Commons last year on

Syria. And I think since then the mood has changed in this country.

We're not one, actually, there's dated I think back away from international challenges and from the implications of the terrorist threat that we face.

The threat level has been raised in this country to severe. That has consequences for domestic security.

And the killings, abhorrent killing of the second journalist certainly doesn't change the long-range situation. It certainly increases, I think,

the mood and the pressure on the government. And my belief is that we are getting nearer to the point at which the U.K. will feel that this is right

to up its level of involvement in the -- in action in -- over rather than in, I think, Iraq.

I don't think it's a question of boots on the ground. But I think accompanying the U.S. and some kind of military operation, I think that we

increase contribution. And I think an increasingly overt one.

What I would like to see is others accompanying us. I don't think it should just be the U.S. and the U.K. We need a broader coalition.

HOLMES: And I'm sure that will be discussed in Wales, too, certainly on the sidelines if not on front, center stage.

You know, I'm curious, though, one of the things when you do have, you know, Westerners in orange jumpsuits being treated in this brutal manner,

it does get the world's attention. The fact is, of course, as you and I know, where ISIS is doing this to hundreds, thousands of Iraqis and

Syrians, and that must not be forgotten.

But now that a Briton is being held and threatened with a similar fate to those two Americans, do you think that changes how the U.K. is going to

react?

NEVILLE-JONES: I think it's doesn't change the government will proceed. I think it increases the urgency of what it needs to do. It certainly, I

think stimulates public opinion and makes people realize that when the government talks about a threat, it is real.

I hope our special forces will be able to do something about this man's safety. But this is a brutal organization and he is obviously in very

great -- in very great danger.

But I come back to my main point. I think we have to take domestic measures, which are both short-term, increasing our border security,

disrupting the flow of people who are aiming at going. And that's the key thing to do rather than trying to get them when they come back and also I

think increasing our participation in the -- in military related and military operations over Iraq itself.

As I say, I would like to see other Western countries and also other countries in the region. I think it's very important to have regional

support and regional participation.

HOLMES: Yes, and they seem -- there seems to be some of that and really some unlikely comrades, too, and that's one of the -- one of the crucial

things about how ISIS has developed. I mean, you now see some crazy alliances in many ways. The Saudis and the Iranians on the same page, the

U.S. and the Iranians and even some of those actors and Bashar al-Assad with a common enemy.

I want to touch on your forte and that is the intelligence area.

Now the lack of intelligence on the ground and the impact of that in how this can be prosecuted going forward?

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, you're quite right to point to that. One of the things I think that -- looking back on it was certainly a mistake -- was

that when both the U.S. and the U.K. left Iraq, the intelligence assets were removed at the same time. And that has meant there's been a real hole

in our collective knowledge of what's being going on on the ground. That has to be restored because, you know, you don't, in the end, conduct really

successful military operations of any kind in the absence of good intelligence. So that's urgent, important and I think it's -- I think it's

underway.

But this is a real task. And you're right to point to it, you know, we both need it at headquarters. And we need it on the ground.

HOLMES: Yes, I want to -- I'd -- let's talk about something you mentioned before. You know, David Cameron announcing those measure, too, well, try

to disrupt recruitment by ISIS in Britain, also disrupting perhaps the return of jihadis who might have British citizenship.

Is that likely to be effective or is it -- and others might see it this way -- treating symptoms and not causes?

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, certainly we have to treat symptoms because we're in the situation where the symptoms are rather potent and poisonous. So we've

actually got to deal with both those going out and stop them and those coming back. We have to stop them and we have to investigate their

activities.

I'm -- I do have reservations about removing people's citizenship. But actually investigating their activities is very important and we need good,

really good border security from that.

But there is a longer range issue, which, you know, we are very conscious of, which is the whole business of both preventing radicalization. We have

a Muslim community and our country has to be active. They are the only people in the end who can be really effective.

But the government has to have good messaging, good messaging to young people. And to be frank, this isn't just something that always works

between older and younger generation as would normally be the case, though parents are very important.

But you know, we need to use the social media in the way that these brutal people are using the social media. We need to use it for our own

propaganda and messaging purposes.

HOLMES: And I want to squeeze in one more quick point here, too, and that is those who are being recruited on home soil and the reasons why the

message of jihad resonates in a place like Britain, you know, there's wonderful country full of freedoms and all the rest of it. And yet you get

these extremist causes being heard and listened to.

Do you think Britain is being tough enough of homegrown extremism?

NEVILLE-JONES: Well, I think what you have to -- we have to increase our relative level of effort. I mean, the U.S. knows this, too. You know, the

U.S. is a free country and is still seeing extreme activity and extremists who have been born and brought and bred on U.S. soil doing the same thing.

So it's not -- it's not unique to ask -- and these happened in other European countries. But isn't any doubt we have to create an integrated

single society and not one that is simply composed of different groups, running along together in a multicultural fashion.

You know, we've actually got to create the session that the real sense of being British.

HOLMES: Baroness Pauline Neville-Jones, fascinating to get your perspectives on this. I really appreciate you coming in.

NEVILLE-JONES: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: And while the world has been moved, of course, by the face of Steven Sotloff moments before his murder, how did he, Steven Sotloff, see

the world?

What moved him? Perhaps this photograph we're going to show you will give you a glimpse. It was taken by Sotloff himself at the Atama Refugee Camp

in Syria and was posted on Instagram some 20 months ago, before he was kidnapped covering that country's bloody civil war.

After the break, what is the answer to acts of terror and war when civilians are made the victims?

Is justice possible? William Schabas thinks so. He is leading a controversial U.N. commission investigating war crimes in Gaza. He's going

to join us when we come back. Do stay with us.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: Welcome back to the program.

The dust has barely settled in Gaza, where a reported 17,000 homes were destroyed in 50 days of fighting, tens of thousands of people left with

nowhere to live. Now you can get a sense -- just look at these pictures, a scale of the destruction in this footage. It's shot by a Palestinian media

company, a unique and striking view taken from a small drone flying over some of the worst of the damage in Gaza while that land is decimated

clearly now Israel has announced its biggest confiscation of Palestinian land in decades, announcing plans to develop settlements on nearly 1,000

acres of land near historic Bethlehem.

That land grab drew strong condemnation from the United Nations and the United States and elsewhere. It comes as the United Nations is ramping up

an investigation into alleged violations by Israel and Hamas during the war.

As expected, Israel has already dismissed the commission as a kangaroo court that accuses the chairman, William Schabas, of bias.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Professor Schabas is a renowned expert in international human rights law, joins me now from London.

Professor, an unenviable task. I suppose in the eyes of many, how will the investigation be conducted? What essentially is your aim?

PROF. WILLIAM SCHABAS, CHAIRMAN, U.N. COMMISSION OF INQUIRY: We're required to prepare a report on violations of international human rights

law and international humanitarian law and that involves war crimes. Our objective, of course, will be to get into the territory, to get into Gaza

and also into Israel and to interview people to meet not just victims but also combatants, to the extent we can do that, that's fine.

We're of course also going to have to rely on other sources. And it's not guaranteed yet that we're even going to be able to get into the territory.

HOLMES: Well, that --

(CROSSTALK)

SCHABAS: -- relying on reports from outside.

HOLMES: -- yes, and that was my next question, access is obviously going to get an issue, Israel's hostile to what you're doing to begin with. And

Egypt is sort of playing with Israel when it comes to Gaza.

Do you think you will get in there and if now, how that -- how is that going to impact the work you want to do?

SCHABAS: Well, they can't prevent us doing an inquiry by refusing to give us access. But it's better that we have access. I'm hopeful that we're

going to convince Israel to cooperate with the inquiry. You know, five or six years ago, there was a controversial inquiry that was presided over by

Richard Goldstone. And he later said that if he had known things when the report was being prepared that he later learned, because Israel told him,

the report would have been different. I think that's a powerful lesson for Israel about the interest it has in actually coming forward and cooperating

with the inquiry. But I can't -- I can't guarantee that they'll do it.

HOLMES: Yes. And already, as I say, there's been some hostile language coming out about what you're trying to do. Israel, you know, it's likely

going to reject any adverse findings.

It pretty much has really in advance. The prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said that your report, in his words -- and here's a quote

we'll just put up there -- he says, "The report of this committee has already been written.

"Therefore, they have nothing to look for here. They should visit Damascus, Baghdad and Tripoli."

Will your findings, given this sort of rejection in advance, carry any weight? And do you think Israel would take one bit of notice? Would

anything change? What essentially is your stick?

SCHABAS: Well, probably the big difference this time, compared to what the inquiry that was done five years ago about Operation Cast Lead, is that the

International Criminal Court is sitting in the wings. Palestine has not yet accompanied the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. But

it seems it's making signals to indicate that that's very likely.

And so the report that this commission will -- that I'm presiding -- will carry out may, depending on its conclusions, provide material that would

then go to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

And so that's a pretty big stick if we come to the conclusion that there were war crimes that may have been committed.

HOLMES: Right. And you know, you mentioned the Goldstone report earlier. One of the things that came out of that also was that Hamas did absolutely

nothing in terms of investigating itself. You're obviously going to look at Hamas, a group that clearly fired indiscriminately into civilian areas,

fired from civilian areas in Gaza and they're equal in your gaze, one would presume.

SCHABAS: Well, absolutely. The mandate for the commission, which comes from a resolution of the Human Rights Council, doesn't indicate one way or

the other the combatant forces that are supposed to be investigated. It's pretty clear that all of the combatants joined the conflict have to be

investigated and the human rights abuses and violations associated with the conflict by -- to whomever they're attributed have to be studied. We'll do

that.

HOLMES: Yes, we've got to mention this, because it being quoted in Israel extensively. I know you -- and you know this. You've been accused of bias

in the past on basis of statements that you made against the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.

I wonder if we can just play one comment and then get your take on it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHABAS: Frankly, if I had to think of the -- an individual who would be the greatest threat to the survival of Israel, I'd probably choose

Netanyahu.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Fairly direct comment there. You also said I think in another quote that you'd like to see the prime minister in the dock at the criminal

court.

Does that just give ammunition to Israel's view that you're not going to be a fair judge here?

SCHABAS: Well, let me say those comments, I think, have to be appreciated in the context. The statement I made about Netanyahu was when I was

defending the Goldstone report. Netanyahu had said that Richard Goldstone was the greatest threat to Israel and I was simply throwing it back at him.

But I'd made it clear. My views -- and I have them -- about Israel and Palestine as does probably every well informed person in the world -- have

to be put aside. I'm putting them aside. I'm not taking my views into this work of the commission. I'm going to go about the job impartially and

independently and with two other commissioners who are also, I think, very -- people of great integrity and impartiality.

HOLMES: You -- something else you raised earlier, and I'd like to revisit it, you know, as we've discussed, Israel not likely to take warmly to your

findings, whatever they are.

But you've mentioned this. And it's interesting; the Palestinian Authority clearly interested in taking its case to the International Criminal Court.

Would its embrace of the ICC really change the context of this inquiry and its findings? How far could it go if your findings are of war crimes one

way or the other?

SCHABAS: Well, of course, we can't control the initiatives of the prosecutor o the International Criminal Court. That will be up to her to

act on findings and recommendations. And of course the preliminary for that is that Palestine would have to accept the jurisdiction of the court.

But if that were to happen, then presumably she would investigate violations. She would have to decide where to put the focus, what were the

most serious violations, what are the prosecutions that are capable of being dealt with.

But the fact is if she were to charge leaders of either of the combatant forces with war crimes or crimes against humanity, that would have very

serious impact on their ability to travel around the world and it would mean that more than 120 countries that are parties to the Rome statute (ph)

would be required to cooperate in apprehending those people and bringing them to trial.

That's a serious stick; the world hasn't had it for very long. The International Criminal Court is a new institution and so far it's been

focused really only on one part of the world, in Central Africa. But this is -- it's starting to open up now and it's bringing a kind of new order to

the world. It's bringing a new dimension that enables the world to deal with atrocities, with violence, with war crimes in a way that it never did

before.

HOLMES: You've been at the forefront of human rights issues around the world for many, many years.

Are you ready -- however -- you've also been on the receiving end of criticism.

Are you ready for the backlash that almost certainly will come from the work you're going to be doing?

SCHABAS: I didn't volunteer for the job. You don't apply for this. I was asked to do it by the president of the Human Rights Council and it's a

responsibility to do it. There may be some backlash; there already has been some and some unpleasantness. I'm prepared for it. It's sort of

part. It goes with the territory of being a human rights investigator that you're going to get people angry at you. And I'll have to live with that.

HOLMES: Indeed. Terrific to have you on and get your thoughts ahead of all of this.

Professor William Schabas, thanks so much.

SCHABAS: Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HOLMES: And after a break, a funny thing happened on the way to the NATO summit in Wales. U.S. president taking a side trip to Estonia and taking a

verbal shot at the Russians. But the cost -- literally, the cost -- of facing off with Russia, especially for Ukraine, may prove dear. We'll do

the math when we come back.

(MUSIC PLAYING)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(MUSIC PLAYING)

HOLMES: And a final thought tonight, U.S. President Barack Obama took a detour today on his way to that NATO summit in Wales, stepping off in

Estonia, one of three former Soviet states on the Baltic with reason to worry that Russia's moves in Ukraine may end up threatening their security.

There have already been rumblings.

Now addressing an enthusiastic audience in the capital of Tallinn, the president voiced his support for a cease-fire and condemned Russia for

violating Ukraine's border.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It is a brazen assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine, a sovereign and independent European

nation.

It challenges that most basic of principles of our international system, that borders cannot be redrawn at the barrel of a gun.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: And that border could actually become a little less porous if Kiev, which branded Russia a terrorist state today, makes good on a plan or

an idea to build what it calls a wall between the two countries.

The nature of that wall remains unclear at the moment.

And meantime, imagine a world where this bloody conflict is also hemorrhaging money. The International Monetary Fund has warned that

Ukraine could take a $19 billion hit next year if the fighting continues. It can ill afford to lose that kind of money.

President Petro Poroshenko has already raised the military budget by $3 billion over the next three years, a 50 percent bump. But how's he going

to pay for it? The former president, Viktor Yanukovych, and his cronies have been accused meanwhile of siphoning off a whopping $100 billion. Much

of that suspected being held in Swiss bank accounts and offshore financial houses in the Caribbean.

And still more may have found its way -- you guessed it -- across the border into Russia. Experts admit the chance of reclaiming those billions

are slim and even so it could take years to collect.

Now these economic military and diplomatic dilemmas face President Obama and the other NATO leaders in Wales this week. And we will be there to

bring you their search for solutions.

That's it for our program tonight. Thanks for being with us. We appreciate your company. Don't forget, you can always contact us at our

website, amanpour.com, and follow me on Twitter @HolmesCNN. Thanks for watching. Goodbye from Atlanta.

END