Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

John Kerry, Sergei Lavrov Meet On Syria

Aired September 12, 2013 - 13:30   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: At this hour, an exercise in crisis diplomacy history unfolding at Geneva, Switzerland, right now. The secretary of state, John Kerry, getting ready to meet with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov. They'll be making statements momentarily. Live coverage coming up in the CNN NEWSROOM. They will try to iron out the details of Russia's plan to put Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles under international control.

Let's bring in our foreign affairs correspondent, Jill Dougherty, in Moscow, watching what's going on.

Jill, Russia clearly taking the lead role right now in getting Syrian President Bashar al Assad to not only put his chemical weapons under control, but eventually destroy them. And Bashar al Assad is now speaking out.

JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Right. He was in an interview on Russia 24 Television and in that interview he went through the stages. He said, Wolf, they will hand over documents to the United Nations and to the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, that they'll sign the convention on that, that it would go into effect within a month of signing, giving information about, you know, the stores of chemical weapons that they have.

But there's a part in there, a caveat, where he says, "When we see that the United Nations really wants stability in our region and has not -- will stop threatening and striving to attack and stop providing weapons to the terrorists, then we'll consider that we can carry out these necessary processes to the end."

In other words, what he's saying is, we'll do it if the United States stops threatening us.

Let's listen to Bashar al Assad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BASHAR AL ASSAD, SYRIAN PRESIDENT (through translation): I want to clearly express to everyone that these mechanisms will not be carried out unilaterally. This does not mean Syria will sign these documents, carry out the conditions and that's it. This bilateral process is based, first of all, on the United States stopping its policy of threatening Syria. Also, to the degree that the Russian proposal is accepted. (END VIDEO CLIP)

DOUGHERTY: Yeah, so, Wolf, that's a question: Is that a sticking point? Is that going to become a problem in Geneva? After all, President Putin, in fact, just a day or two ago, said very same thing that you can't expect Syria to disarm if the United States is still holding the threat of military action. So we'll have to see how this plays at that meeting in Geneva.

BLITZER: Well, we're waiting to hear directly from the secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister. They'll be making statements. We'll have live coverage of that.

How much play, if any, Jill, is Putin's op-ed in "The New York Times" getting in Russia?

DOUGHERTY: Quite a lot. And a lot of people are standing and applauding, saying that, you know, what he's saying in that is really what he's been saying all along, is that this would be a big mistake for the United States to take military action.

But there's the other side to it, Wolf, where he's essentially saying, President Obama, it would be a mistake for the United States to take that action.

And then also that comment about alarming that the United States intervenes militarily in other countries and, he says, is it in America's long-term interests? I don't think so.

So there's a lot of personal chastising of the United States, which isn't going down well, obviously, in Washington.

BLITZER: Let them do the personal chastising. If they can destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles that would be worth the personal chastising, as you say.

Jill, thanks very much.

Once again, we're standing by to hear from Secretary of State John Kerry, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. We'll have live coverage of their remarks at the top of the meetings. Gloria Borger is standing by. William Cohen, the former defense secretary is here as well. Full reporting and analysis right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: The Russian foreign minister together with secretary of state -- he has just started speaking in Geneva, Sergei Lavrov. Let's listen in translator.

SERGEI LAVROV, RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER (through translation): -- ideas about what we're going to do. You understand well before we start to tell you what we are going to do we should get down to a very serious work, the work which is dedicated to principal agreement to solve once and until the end the Syrian problem and the adhesion of Syria to the convention, Chemical Weapons Convention to the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. These documents are officially tabled by Damascus to the corresponding agencies and we'll have to have a look at corresponding documents with the participation of experts that have all, all the qualifications and to work further, not to postpone this process in strict compliance with the rules that are established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

We proceed from the fact that the solution of the problem will make unnecessary any strike on the republic. And I'm convinced that our American colleagues, as President Obama stated firmly, convinced that we should follow the peaceful way of resolution of the conflict in Syria. And I should say that we spoke by phone several times when we prepared for this meeting. We think that the development of the events gives us an additional opportunity for Geneva, too, in order to move this situation from this stage of military confrontation and to prevent any terrorist threats, which is expanding in Syria and in the region, and to convene the conference to reach the Syrian parties in accordance with Geneva communique should agree on the creation of the transition bodies that we'll have all of the executive functions. And this is our common objectives. And I hope that our today's and tomorrow efforts and all other efforts that we are going to continue will help to move on and achieve this objective.

Thank you for your attention.

JOHN KERRY, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, thank you very much, Foreign Minister Lavrov.

My privilege to be here with our delegation.

And I want to thank you and your delegation on behalf of all of the people who hoped that diplomacy can avoid military action. And we thank you for coming quickly to Geneva in order to have this important conversation that we will engage in.

Over one year ago, President Obama and President Putin directed high- level experts in our governments, both of our governments, to work together to prepare contingencies involving Syria's chemical weapons. Prime Minister Lavrov and I have been in regular contact about this issue since my visit to Moscow earlier this year. And as Foreign Minister Lavrov said to me in a phone conversation, after St. Petersburg and meeting there's, President Putin and President Obama thought it would be worthwhile for us to work together to determine if there is life in this concept.

This challenge obviously took on grave urgency on August 21st when the Syrian regime used chemical weapons in a massive and indiscriminate way against its own citizens. President Obama and dozens of our partners believe that that action is unacceptable and we have, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that we cannot allow that to happen again.

In light of what has happened, the world wonders and watches closely whether or not the Assad regime will live up to its public commitments that it's made to give up their chemical weapons and whether two of the world's most powerful nations can, together, take a critical step forward in order to hold the regime to its stated promises.

I have seen reports that the Syrian regime has suggested that as part of the standard process they ought to have 30 days to submit data on their technical -- on their chemical weapons stockpile. We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved, because not only the existence of these weapons but they have been used. And the words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough, which is why we've come here in order to work with the Russians and work with Sergei Lavrov and his delegation here in order to make certain this can be achieved.

The United States and Russia have had and continue to have our share of disagreements about the situation in Syria, including a difference as to the judgment we just offered with respect to who may have done that.

But what's important as we come here is that there's much that we agree on. We agree that on August 21st Syrian men, women and children died grotesque deaths due to chemical weapons. We agree that no one, anywhere, at any time, should employ chemical weapons. And we agree that our joining together with the international community to eliminate stockpiles of these weapons in Syria would be an historic moment for the multilateral nonproliferation efforts. We agree on those things. We agree that it would help to save lives if we can accomplish this, that it would reduce the threat to the region, that it would uphold the norm that was established here in Geneva almost a century ago, and that it would achieve the best of our -- all of our aspirations for curbing weapons of mass destruction.

Prime Minister Lavrov and I have come to Geneva today to begin to test these propositions, not just on behalf of each of our countries but on behalf of everybody who is interested in a peaceful resolution.

So I welcome the distinguished Russian delegation. And I am proud that at President Obama's direction we have a delegation here, which I lead, of some of our nation's foremost chemical weapons experts, people who dedicate their lives every day to countering the proliferation of these weapons and to bringing about their eventual elimination from this earth.

The Russian delegation has put some ideas forward and we're grateful for that. We respect it. And we have prepared our own principles that any plan to accomplish this needs to encompass. Expectations are high. They are high for the United States, perhaps even more so for Russia to deliver on the promise of this moment. This is not a game. And I said that to my friend, Sergei, when we talked about it initially. It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion.

And finally, there ought to be consequences, if it doesn't take place. Diplomacy is and always has been President Obama's and this administration's first resort. Achieving a peaceful resolution is clearly preferable to military action. President Obama has said that again and again. Now, it's too early to tell whether or not these efforts will succeed. But the technical challenges of trying to do this in the context of the civil war are obviously immense. But despite how difficult this is, with the collaboration of our experts, and only with the compliance from the Assad regime, we do believe there is a way to get this done.

We have come here to define a potential path forward that we can share with our international partners. And together, we will test the Assad regime's commitment to follow through on its promises.

We are serious, Mr. Prime Minister. We are serious, as you are, about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations, even as our military maintains its current posture to keep up the pressure on the Assad regime.

Only the credible threat of force and the intervention of President Putin and Russia, based on that, has brought the Assad regime to acknowledge for the first time that it even has chemical weapons and an arsenal and that is now prepared to relinquish it. President Obama has made clear that should diplomacy fail, force might be necessary to defer and degrade Assad's capacity to deliver these weapons. It won't get rid of them, but it could change his willingness to use them. The best thing to do, we agree, is remove them altogether.

Our challenge here in Geneva is to test the viability of placing Assad's chemical weapons under international control, removing them from Syria, and destroying them forever. That, the United States has always made clear that the deaths of more than 100,000 Syrians and the displacement of millions either internally or as refugees remains a stain on the world's conscience. We all need to keep that in mind and deal with it. And that is why, Foreign Minister Lavrov and I continue to work with joint special envoy, Rahemi (ph), and ourselves around the auspices of the Geneva communique. The foreign secretary just mentioned this in his hopes. We share those hopes that could foster a political solution to a civil war that undermines the stability of the region, threatens our own national security interests, and compels us to act. That is our hope and that is what we fervently hope can come out of this meeting and these negotiations.

Thank you very much.

LAVROV: With your permission, just two words.

(through translation): I'm not prepared with the political statement today of the Syrian problem because of our approaches are clear and they have are the statements of President Assad, and President Putin in his article in "The New York Times." And I HOPE all of you read this article. And I decided not to lay out here our diplomatic position (INAUDIBLE). And we intend to find compromises. And I'm sure that in his presentation of the American position also showed that they would like to find mutual consensus and be moving forward this way. I hope we will achieve all the successes.

KERRY: Can you give me the last part of the translation, please?

Hello?

(CROSSTALK)

TRANSLATOR: Yes, hello.

(LAUGHTER)

KERRY: You want me to take your word for it?

(LAUGHTER)

It's a little early for that.

Thank you.

LAVROV: Thank you.

KERRY: Thanks.

BLITZER: OK. So they obviously know each other. They seem to be friendly there, the Russian foreign minister, the secretary of state, John Kerry. They've met on numerous occasions, had numerous phone conversations, but you've heard them both come to an agreement that there is an opportunity now, potential opportunity to do away with Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.

Gloria Borger, our chief political analyst is here. William Cohen, the former defense secretary during the Clinton administration, is here.

So what do you think? Is there a serious chance right now, Secretary Cohen, that this can do what they both apparently want, destroy Syria's chemical weapons in.

WILLIAM COHEN, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, they're starting from completely different positions. Secretary Kerry laid out the case that Assad has, in fact, used chemical weapons and killed at least 1500 people, 400 being children. Foreign Minister Lavrov has said, read the --

(LAUGHTER)

-- Putin op-ed page in "The New York Times," which I think was an exercise in chutzpah, if I can use that phrase, on the part of the president, to be -- President Putin to invoke the pope and God in making his arguments on whether the United States should take action. But clearly, in that article, President Putin is saying it was the rebels who did it and not Assad. So you have a situation in which the Russians basically are pleading like a criminal lawyer. My client wasn't there. If he was there, he didn't do anything. If he did something, he was acting in self defense. That's the framework they're both acting under.

So is it serious? Secretary Kerry said it must be serious, must be timely, must be real time, and it must be enforceable. Can that be done under the circumstances with the civil war? We have to take a lot of cold showers on the way to resolving this because the U.S. position is, we have a credible threat of military action in the event Assad is simply going through the motions. And the Russians have taken the position of taking away the force. So we're at logger heads here. Hopefully, diplomacy can prevail and we can see Assad having, number one, admitted he has chemical weapons, which the world has already known and, number two, being willing to destroy them. That's going to be --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Today, he sent a letter to the United Nations saying he's willing to sign on to the International Convention Banning Nuclear Weapons.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Right.

BLITZER: That's a significant development.

BORGER: It is. But look at these two gentlemen today. I mean, it was very clear from listening to John Kerry that the use of force is not going to be removed, period. I mean, he couldn't have stated it any more clearly. Only the credible threat of force has brought Assad to the table, even though Assad himself said it was Russia that brought him to the table. Well, what brought Russia to the table?

And, secondly, who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons? Now, if they can somehow come out with some agreement that has a conspiracy of silence on certain of these issues, then maybe they'll be able -- then maybe they'll be able to agree to something. Listening to their opening positions today, it's kind of hard to see.

COHEN: Not unusual when you're dealing with big issues like this. But the real concern is what happens in the meantime? Because if the threat of force -- by the way, it has to be a credible threat of force. I'm not sure President Obama has a credible threat of force, given the division on Capitol Hill. Which raises another issue: Does he go back to Congress and say, now that we've got this agreement, will you support me by the potential use of force if Assad doesn't comply? Or does he say, I have enough authority and I'm going to do it. Inherent as my position in commander-in-chief, I will take action. What will that do to --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I want to point out, you're a former defense secretary. You worked at the Pentagon for a long time. The U.S. military has a credible capability --

COHEN: Absolutely.

BLITZER: -- to deal with a lot of it. They have ships in the eastern Mediterranean and the Red Sea. They have a lot of aircraft. They could do it if the commander-in-chief gives them the order to do it. Whether or not politically that's going to happen, that's another matter.

BORGER: What about --

BLITZER: But if you're Bashar al Assad, you have to assume, if the president of the United States, if he wants to attack you, that's a credible threat. And President Bashar al Assad doesn't want to end up by Moammar Gadhafi?

COHEN: Right. But it happens the president backed himself in to a certain degree, right, because he went to the American public, made the case for use of force. And couldn't he do what Bill Clinton did in Kosovo, which is go to the Senate, if he feels that he has the votes there, which Clinton did with Kosovo, right? And then so the House vote goes against him, that happened in the mid-'90s as well, as you well know.

COHEN: Yeah, but it didn't happen that way. The president of the United States has inherent power to take immediate action and comply with the War Powers Resolution. But in this particular case, President Obama went to Congress seeking, quote, "their authority." They apparently have not -- are not prepared to give him that authority. We have the power. There's no one who that can contest the power.

By the way, we wouldn't be attacking chemical weapon sites. We would be taking down air fields, aircraft, tangible assets --

(CROSSTALK)

COHEN: -- delivery systems, which would also --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Very quickly, Mr. Secretary. You know Sergei Lavrov. You have dealt with him as a secretary of defense. Take us into that room. What is he like to negotiate? Let's say, they're working on a language that could jointly submit to the U.N. Security Council?

COHEN: Mr. Lavrov is very, very skilled. He's bright, eloquent, articulate, and clever, and a sense of lawyer like. He's very determined in the use of words and a very hard -- a very tough negotiator. This is not going to be easy. He's going to be tough to deal with I think.

BLITZER: He's fluent. He spoke in Russian now, but he's fluent in English. I assume when he's speaking to John Kerry, he spoke in English. You spoke to him in English.

COHEN: When you're in a private setting, certainly, you can drop the formality of going through an interpreter. When he's in public like this, he'll always use an interpreter.

BORGER: Can I ask you a question? In terms of a timeline, some people have been saying a couple weeks. How will you know something is actually working in these meetings? Do you know it immediately? Do you --

COHEN: No, not immediately. This is going to take several weeks, I think. Two weeks at least initially. Because you're going to go through the wordsmithing, the positions of how to resolve this. Plus, you have the U.N. General Assembly coming out --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Hold on a second. Jay Carney, press secretary. Let's see if he opens up with some important Q&A or if he's going to do some housekeeping.

JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: And, obviously, I think some of you saw Secretary Kerry and his counterpart spoke in Geneva. I wanted to allow you the opportunity to see that before I came out.

Before I take your questions, I wanted to make two statements. First, on Wednesday, this coming Wednesday, at 10:45 a.m., the president will address business leaders at the quarterly meeting of the Business Roundtable. The event will take place in D.C. at the Business Roundtable office.

Secondly, if I may, I would like to point you to a new report that was released today by the Department of Health --

BLITZER: While we're waiting for the Q&A to begin, I interrupted the former secretary of defense.

You were trying to make your point about Lavrov being a tough negotiator.

COHEN: Very tough negotiator. And he's starting off in the position, number one, of Assad is not responsible for this. Yes, he's now declared he will submit to the chemical weapons treaty. Inherent in the submission is also an enforcement mechanism, I believe, under chapter seven, which says the U.N. Can then use any means necessary to its enforcement, which would have an implied use of military force in and of itself. So that's why he's saying no use of force. I'll do this voluntarily over a 10-year period of time, and by the way, don't you keep supporting the Syrian rebels because that also is implicit in his commitment to this agreement. No support for the rebels during this time. I think that's --

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: You have -- Gloria, I think you'll agree. It's tough. It's enormously -- even if they all agree in the middle of the civil war, going in there, getting the stockpiles is going to be very, very difficult.

BORGER: Right.

BLITZER: But it's certainly a positive development that at least the United States and Russia are trying to do something.

BORGER: Absolutely.

BLITZER: And that the Syrian president, Bashar al Assad, finally admitted he has it and he's willing to sign on to an international convention.

BORGER: He admits it's there.

(CROSSTALK)

BORGER: He admits it's there. He doesn't admit that he has it. He says the rebels have it.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: -- admit that Syria has chemical weapons stockpiles.

BORGER: Right. Well, but he doesn't admit who was using them.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: No, not on August 21st, but he's admitted for the first time that Syria does have chemical weapons.

BORGER: But I think the president of the United States has said that he does have the authority to use this force, even if he does not go to the Congress.

BLITZER: They're doing some Q&A on Syria right now.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: -- I wonder what the president thought of it.

CARNEY: Well, let me say this. Both in his op-ed and in the statements and actions that we've seen from President Putin and his foreign minister, it is clear that President Putin has invested his credibility in transferring Assad's chemical weapons to international control and ultimately destroying them. This is significant. Russia is Assad's patron and protector. And the world will note whether Russia can follow through on the commitments that it's made.

As for the editorial, you know, we're not surprised by President Putin's words. But the fact is that Russia offers a stark contrast that demonstrates why America is exceptional. Unlike Russia, the United States stands up for democratic values and human rights in our own country and around the world. And we believe that our global security is advanced when children cannot be gassed to death by a dictator.