 Hello and perhaps we could settle down a bit and and perhaps we could sit down Without being Too difficult. We've got a short amount of time For a very big topic I am Stephen Erlinger. I'm the now the London beer chief of the New York Times I've been in Paris before that. I've been in Jerusalem and Palestine before that and Bangkok before that and Moscow also and Berlin and other places and it's a great Privilege to be here. Also, it's fun to see lots of old friends And some of them are sitting with me here This will be a very much I think a bilingual panel so prepare yourselves and I I just wanted to set this complicated stage a bit In a way We've been thinking a lot about Iran. I covered the revolution there as a young Correspondent and I have great affection for it And like many people one wants to see a new relationship With a safer more moderate than if I can quote the ambassador less extremist Iran It would do a lot For world confidence The talks in Geneva did not go very well the last four days Which makes everyone nervous and it is true that the White House has added a bit of angst to the relationship overnight With putting more companies on a sanction list Which Iran has said is against the spirit of the Geneva Accord and perhaps Iran has a point there, but Iran is One of the keys to this region, but we also have the tragedy of Syria we have the confusion of Egypt We have the abortive Perhaps revolution in Tunisia We have problems of extremism We have problems of the up a gear in Libya, which has created all kinds of problems for Mali and other places And I think what we'll try to do is is deal with some of these issues as best we can with this very good panel the BBC recently Had a list of things it thought was surprising surprising about the so-called Arab revolution and I have some questions, too. I just want to throw out one for instance is The Sunni Shia thing serious and it be contained Is the US no longer calling the shots in the region? Is anyone listening is Russia coming back into having some influence in Egypt? Bringing back old memories of the aswan dam What happens to the Muslim Brotherhood? It's not going to go away How weak is Hamas become? Have the Kurds found a great present in all of this chaos? Are they building a state under everyone's noses? Have the Turks realized? having Neighbors means having problems and the only way to have no problems is to have no neighbors and Of course One of the things I think we've seen too is in this move for mastery in the Arab world and more democracy Have women been Helped by this or are they somehow suffering? From what has happened. I think these are all interesting questions, but first I wanted to start with Masoud Ahmed of the IMF I think The economics of the region are crucial to understand the turmoil there and so if I as we go along if you could speak six seven minutes and Then we'll move on from there, please. Thank you for inviting me organizing this discussion But I think as you laid out in your introduction The Middle East itself is different groups of countries going through very different experiences right now So there are countries in crisis countries that are oil-rich countries have a different set of issues Countries that are what I would call in transition mostly oil importing countries, Tunisia, Morocco Jordan, Egypt And each of them has a different set of issues I want to focus particularly on the oil importing countries in the region Why because I think they are now going through a very difficult transition which has reached almost a turning point Now we know that three years ago. These countries have been hit by three kinds of shocks Their principal trading partners Europe went into stagnation There was conflict Libya first Syria which had spillover effects on the others the impact of Syria on Jordan and Lebanon already is quite significant and then there was the domestic political change Sometimes coming with upheaval Which has also been turned out to be more protracted more contentious than anticipate Responding to these crises these governments try to spend their way out of it by trying to spend more on jobs Subsidized energy subsidized food create public sector wage increases Three years later. Where are we? The way we are today is that most of these countries find themselves Between a rock and a hard place On the one hand their populations are impatient because they haven't seen the gains from the changes They were anticipating the political changes. They hoped Unemployment today is about two million young people more in these countries and was the case three years ago and those that are working Have seen their income stagnate Private sector confidence is still distant out there private sector still waiting for things to settle down so the recovery isn't happening and Since they've tried to spend their way through this. They're now running out of money So their ability to continue to finance the subsidy bills that they've done for the last three years Is now much more constrained Egypt for example is running a budget deficit of about 14 percent 13 14 percent of GDP Which is about three three and a half billion dollars a month Simply can't afford to do that even with the help it's getting from other countries so they're and yet the government find it very hard to take the decisions that Would transfer money from Subsidies to creating jobs, which is the number one priority right now for young people Because societies have become so polarized politically that that's also spilling over in terms of the ability of governments to take difficult So what can we do now to go forward? I think there are three things that can be done first There has to be a focus on trying to give young people particularly Some hope by giving them some opportunities for employment in the near term That means reallocating some spending towards job creation Some of it will have to be public sector in the short term because the private sector simply not there But it also means additional help from the rest of the world in trying to match what governments themselves are able to do To create jobs second There has to be a discussion About what kind of future economic model? This is going to come after the stabilization phase The reason why people came out on the streets three years ago Apart from political sense of wanting more dignity Wanting more fairness was also a sense that there weren't enough jobs being created and the jobs that were being created Were going to people who were connected rather than the gains of growth being shared more broadly To have that discussion about the future means Changing the way in which business is done in many countries that discussion is still very much in its early stages Because governments are focused primarily on stabilizing the macroeconomy rather than on fixing the underlying economic structures That's the second element that I think needs to be done and third I think it's very important to broaden out the conversation from governments to Include other parts of society because increasingly in these societies It is not possible no matter how well thought through your economic agenda or economic plan To actually try to impose that rather than to build a consensus around that and to build consensus today is particularly hard Because of the degree of polarization at these societies But unless one can try to isolate and build a common economic agenda Even when there are divisions about other political and societal dimensions It's going to be very hard to move from stabilization to grow So I wanted to focus on those and there is of course what is going on in Syria Which is a tragedy for people in Syria Economic consequences of which are already manifest for them But I think for this discussion it'd be useful to focus on that group of countries. Thank you Next I'll go to my old friend Renault Gérard who's a Grand reporter Paul Figaro who's been on the ground from time to time in in many of these places and I think Syria is much on your mind. So Renault, please Yes, in fact, I'm wondering today to know how Why are we so wrong? Why are we so wrong about Syria? We are wrong because you remember that even Hillary Clinton after the attack on the monster of Damascus on July 18, 2012 had said that the regime had only for a few weeks I was wrong, I was in the radar of the Iforas, in the north of Mali in March last year and the French soldiers who were ratifying were falling on a Tunisian journalist and so they spoke French they could have asked him and asked him why he was doing the war He said, in fact, I wasn't programmed to do the war for you, I had to go to Syria My last moment, my plane ticket for Turkey was canceled and we were sent to do the war there and so in the midst of the logistics failures this jihadist became the enemy of France while if he had been fighting through the Turkish border he would have been the objective ally of French politics and you saw that this morning General Idris, who told us that he was a great saint many times, the ministers, the cabinet leaders said that he was a great man, he had to help a great general his major state was completely ravaged by Islamic brigades the most radical brigades, the ones that detain our journalists and they became aware of all the weapons that the Americans and the English had delivered and so if tomorrow a Boeing is destroyed by a missile that the CIA has provided at the Syrian Rebellion on board the Kennedy Airport in New York we will know to whom to sell so I think the failure is not that long so what are the reasons for this failure? I think there are three reasons there is historical ignorance there is the political maniacism and there is the wishful thinking diplomatic historical ignorance, I think that our leaders did not catch the fact that in Syria there was for a very long time a very long, a deep line of fractures between a party, I would say, the ISIS and a party, let's say, Muslim brother who had analyzed in his time Michel Sera who is yet to be suspected of a job for the regime if in the Syrian constitution you have the president to be a Muslim it is a concession that Hafez al-Assad had done in the middle of Aleppo in rebellion against the idea of a constitution the historical ignorance is to believe not to remember that we French have been for 26 years trying to inculcate democracy, parliamentarism in Syria and that we have two left governments in 1925 and in 1945 have bombed Damascus because apparently the lesson did not take besides it was about the same neighborhoods that we bombed by the army of the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad and the political manipulation is to believe and Cameron said recently, he spoke to the BBC you can watch that on your posts good boys and bad boys that is to say that we now have a tendency to say that war is made between the kind and the bad and do you remember it was, we explained to us all the war of the Balkans like that it was then the Balkans there were the bad Serbs and the others were kind but when among the kind we started to get killed then it was very difficult to explain that for example it was very difficult to explain that for example two kind, that is the Croats who were kind were going to kill Muslims in Mostar for example it was very difficult to explain why because in fact journalism was I think touched by the liwudization there is a kind of liwudization of journalism because to explain a situation as complex as the Syrian you had Kurds, you said it, Russians, Ismaelians the Sunnis, the Shis, etc. the Zalawites or to explain the Balkans it is much easier in a two minute tele-american to say there is the good guys, the bad guys the bad guys are slaughtering the good guys and our government doesn't do anything that makes a good tele-american paper but it doesn't explain and I think that the governments and when I heard that Amroun was talking about the good guys and the bad guys in Syria they took back, they were impressed by this liwudization of journalism the wishful thinking diplomatic we closed our embassy in Damascus when we had welcomed in 2008 Bashar al-Assad to the Champs-Élysées we closed it because we anticipated we said it will be a pleasure for those who will come they will come right after because I was telling everyone it's over the regime and we deprived ourselves of a very precious tool firstly to know the terrain since we had a very important embassy with very important secret services and secondly we left to Russia the only possibility of diplomacy it's a huge mistake we made diplomacy with these enemies but with these friends tomorrow we can close our embassy in Copenhagen it won't work and today you have seen that the secret services have sent two agents in Syria to try to cooperate with the Syrians to know what are the jihadists who fight, the original French who fight in Syria the Syrians said listen, open your embassy we'll see after and this wishful thinking diplomatic I'm done this wishful thinking diplomatic we find it in our position for the Geneva 2 conference you know or it's going to be a show in January where the position of France and the West was to say very well the government can be since the government has not lost the war so on the contrary very well the government is half but Bashar must not be there but as General De Gaulle said you have to take the realities as they are Bashar incarnates whether you like it or not Bashar incarnates the power in Syria and to want to start a negotiation by saying he is excluded it does not have the smallest beginning of meaning on the contrary we can say that maybe the end of the whole negotiation would be to have as a result hope that Bashar renounces to present himself in 2014 for a new mandate to the president and so here is my search where we are in Syria I think that this morning we could not have any worse news than this investment of this free Syrian army which actually does not represent anything compared to the Islamic militia Thank you You have fans You have fans I remember when Mr. Sarkozy welcomed Mr. Gaddafi as well and look how that turned out this is the thing that always struck me about Syria why since we knew that Gaddafi would have won without NATO intervention did we think Assad would lose with no NATO intervention running a bigger more powerful state so this makes me turn to Basma Khudmani who has been working for a democratic just Syria for a very long time as part of the Syrian National Council who then left it and I just throw the floor open to you to get your sense of where it's going where you think it's going what the rest of us should be trying to do about it Thank you Stephen I think that what has told us very eloquently Renaud Girard deserves a little reflection what are the implications of what you are telling us first of all the laïcité so I believe that we are completely manipulated in the definition of this laïcité in the name of laïcité in Syria we have war crimes we have the use of chemical weapons and we have the destruction of a country by a dictatorship that will not share power so it is very important to start by saying what laïcité we want I am a laïcite a democrat I don't wish that the term laïcité be associated and acquire such a reputation since in its name the worst of the confessional policies the most violent even the agitation of the anti-Islamic fiber leads us to conclusions that are very risky in my opinion I believe that what we have in Syria because in what you are telling us there is no solution that you propose there is criticism concerning France in particular France has taken the most dignified positions and the most consistent and the most coherent the problem is not that it is wrong the problem is that it has not been reliable in this policy and that only in the Syrian terrain it was very difficult to have a policy that could really change the gift the problem was that we had an occidental policy very little coherent it was a fact we had to do certain things at some point they were not done the situation was complicated and the more the situation was complicated the more the whole action became risky and the more we will wait and the less we will have good solutions what we need today is, obviously treat the problem of the jihadist in Syria yes, it is the priority of all and the Syrian democrat also but treat the problem of the jihadist needs a approach other than the one to count on Bashar al-Assad which is at the origin of the encouragement of this current know that it is the war systematically and personally to the other democrat it is this that he sends to be killed individually murdered at home because it represents the most serious threat for him so we are in front of the need to get out of extremism which nourishes each other the gift is simple if we look at it this way and I think that this is unparalleled we can not say anything else that there was not jihadist in Syria when this revolution started it was democratic by militarizing it received external funding these external funding were in large part in the coming of the countries conservative, muslim with islamist tendency and private networks played more than the government in the sense of feeding more islamist more fundamentalist which does not suit Syria it is clear so we have evolved in a direction which was not desired by 90%, 95%, 99% of Syrians but the best ally of the jihadists is violence which was introduced by Bashar al-Assad and the best ally of the jihadists today is chaos it is for that personally and I am not the only one among the Syrians we want youth we want political negotiation by the way we have always wanted it was not possible today if there is a consensus for several reasons the first is that the democrats will find an action ground that they do not have today because they have lost it secondly because for Bashar al-Assad I think the biggest threat is to find yourself in front of the democrats of the opposition of the opponents of the democrats it is very dangerous for him so he at the negotiating table it is not he is characterized by the council of the United Nations the human rights commissioner as a war criminal Madame Navi Pillai just said the investigators who have worked for two years have brought the evidence that he is personally involved in the crimes that he has personally ordered the crimes so he is not imaginable that the opposition is with Mr Bashar al-Assad but a delegation by himself will come from the side of the regime as he was not imaginable that France of the FLN negotiated with the FLN who had assassinated a couple of institutions starting in November 1954 I mean we have to negotiate let me finish I think we are not in disagreement and nobody envies the presence of Bashar al-Assad personally it will be people who will be named so the problem does not arise in these terms the question that arises is what is the content of Geneva 2 I think there is to make Geneva 2 possible we need first of all active and good cooperation of the countries of the region we need foreign fighters to leave Syria all foreign fighters on the side of the regime you may know but maybe not enough how much today the regime counts on the militias of Hezbollah but even more on militias in purely confessional purely Shiite who say to come defend the liaisons of Shi'ism in Syria who have never been threatened and who fight for Bashar al-Assad today from the starting point of a negotiation that is to say the retreat of these forces on the other side the jihadists all that is fed from the outside all foreign fighters and must take the leave the frontier I would like to just finish on Geneva Geneva 2 must be founded on a document which is that of Geneva 1 what we have more acceptable which has not yet been accepted by the regime but which is claimed by the opposition as an acceptable basis of negotiation we need the weapons to stop the foreign weapons which are provided to Syria must stop Iran has an essential role fundamental to play to be welcome to the negotiation table by recognizing Geneva 1 by asking for the departure of foreign fighters and by interrupting the flow of the weapons it is the same on the other side I absolutely insist on the fact that it is absolutely symmetrical as a requirement the opposition must lead from now on a dialogue supported with the armed groups on the ground the solution that would represent them the choice that would represent them or accept you to enter a process to obey a diplomatic political process that will lead to a negotiation or you will be fought as terrorist forces it is that today on the table a political group that will be the transition government this transition government will have for primary mission to fight the jihadists but first we need to define who are these jihadists who accept to enter the process and who will be excluded and finally I would like to say the election of 2014 is an election that falls from the moment it does not exist anymore from the moment where the negotiation process is engaged and that constitutes a transition government the election of 2014 will fall it does not exist anymore since the transition government must put a new calendar for the transition period and no one can hold an election in 2014 not the regime not the opposition no candidates no elections at all thank you this is the subject that touches many people here at least four journalist friends I know who have disappeared inside Syria trying to describe it to all of us who sit outside safely so anyway I have nothing that isn't banal to say here so I'm going to turn to Egypt Mona Makram Epayid is a former senator she's been adviser to the military she was in Tahrir Square to begin with she's been pushing for democracy and human rights she lectures at the American University in Cairo and I hope you will give us an idea of whether you think in the end the military is bringing Egypt somewhere where the world needs it to be or whether the world has been even or cowardly in the face of yet another military coup in the face of a democratic movement thank you Steve I have reservations on military coup this was not a military coup although it appears to be but this was a popular impeachment where 30 million people or 17 million as you say in the west have taken to the street to oust a president that has failed his mandate and that has violated every sense of human rights now the question is is the struggle for Egypt's future over I will say no it is not over and if the Islamist regime has collapsed before it could become an irreversible theocracy political Islam is still with us and will remain with us how do we deal with political Islam that would be the real challenge in the coming days in the future now what we must remember is the overwhelming support for the popular impeachment from the people of Egypt and that's what the west is unable to understand how can you support a military regime after you have fought for 30 years maybe to have a civilian one because the civilian one was a disaster this is one and the second thing is that unfortunately the military who is taking over is very popular and he has immense support he's looked upon as the saviour saving Egypt from the brink of chaos saving Egypt from civil war and of course if he runs for election he has refused until now I don't know until when he's going to refuse but if he does run for election he will be elected with no competitor this is what we believe now is this a good thing or a bad thing for Egypt we know perfectly well that the military are not the sons of mother Teresa and but they have enough popularity today to be able to impose on the people the difficult decisions that have to be taken that Mr. Massoud has spoken about which is an economic realm how can you do anything today how can you when the country is so polarized and when there is a feeling of revenge somehow now where are the Muslim brothers and all that the leaders are in prison but the rest are there are they going to be included yes those who have not committed crimes those who have not incited crimes can participate in the political life and on the in the Echikie Politique as they call it so I believe that in the next elections they will participate they might participate as independents they might participate with another party but they will participate of course their popularity is totally lost as they had two years ago and the people who are fighting them today are not the army or the government but the people themselves who have been utterly you know their bestiality, the brutality that has taken place in the during this whole year is just unforgivable so people are not ready today either for national reconciliation as many of the west are pressing or for inclusion there is no inclusion now they do not want to have a dialogue because they themselves are rejecting the dialogue so there is no point in having any dialogue with people who are rejecting it and who are insisting to have daily crimes and violence against the people of Egypt now there is one thing that the west is unable to understand is that the Egyptian military has been entrenched in a critical and difficult fight in Sinai and this is daily against major terrorist cells that are allowed to establish a major stronghold during the one year rule of the Muslim brothers this reality directly jeopardizes both Egyptian and Israeli national security and threatens regional stability now another point of concern in the west is the new rapprochement with Russia and I think this rapprochement was forced of course the Syrian tragedy and the Syrian outcome has allowed Russia to come back again and their only stronghold was Syria before but the refusal the suspension of military and financial aid to Egypt at the time when the military is fighting the war against terrorism has allowed of course the Russia to come back the next day in fact and to offer its services now what is the position of Egypt Egypt's relationship with the United States is a priority it will never give it up it will never substitute it for any other country but today it is forced to broaden allies to broaden its friends and to guarantee the security needs in the future so there is no need for this concern but we should not also forget the position of the Russian church which is gaining a lot of influence among the Christian populations in the region as you know the Christian populations in the regions have been the target of violence in Egypt 80 churches have been torched and ransacked many individual Christians have been killed just because they were Christian so the new rapprochement with Russia should not be seen as a pivot away from Washington because as I said the relationship has always depended on security cooperation but this partnership to use it as a bargaining chip to shape Egyptian domestic politics is totally counterproductive for both the interests of both countries now what is to be done first the youth as somebody said today the youth the youth jobs and what they were asking for and I remember what they asked for before the revolution they used to say a voice and a job and that's exactly what they still want today so the second thing is to prevent radicalization at the grassroots and this is what we are scared of is that the Muslim brothers will resort to even more violence if they feel totally excluded that's why I say that those who are not guilty of crimes committed during these past two years should have a role to play third thing of course is the economic reform and income distribution as Kamel Darwish has so incisively mentioned is paramount because one of the main slogans of the 2011 revolution was ish, ish means both bread and life and life meaning improving people's lives. Now as for democracy yes, two minutes one minute as for demography yes and Egypt is increasing by a million every month we're already 90 million so I can give you an idea what we will be in 10 years time teach women there is no other solution but the education of girls and women there is no solution in this region and for Egypt to advance is to go back to the slogan of the 1920s and that was religion is to God and the homeland to all otherwise no future, thank you shukrun mona shukrunatir so this is a good segue to Russia because we've brought up Russia Sergei Karaganov I think you all know he's one of the best interlocutors between the puzzle mystery of great Russia and we humble people in the west so part of the question some people think Russia's emerged something of a winner from the problems of Syria that its policy has been more consistent than many some people are less convinced so what does Russia really want Sergei well first of all we were of course the winner because the policy has been competent it's as simple as that I mean we knew what was happening in Syria around Syria and we acted accordingly and we told our friends over the world I mean please do the same politics which were done by others were incomprehensible on the version of being insane so I mean in so this strengthening of Russian positions is simply a prophet of sane and productive behavior if you could have a productive behavior in a situation like that however we're happy with the position of my country in the area we are friendly with Israel very friendly we have differences we have good relations with Iran we have excellent relations with many other countries we are in our position at the margins of course in Egypt I must say that my advice to us all would be not for the Russian the Russian way but just try not to redo the mistakes which we have been doing and the policies of us all including Russians or the Soviets have been completely counterproductive first we believe that I mean this area is still the area of the big game and even now you see that there are remnants of the big game then it was the confrontation of the Cold War then it was believe this area was believed to become the reserve of western democracy which is funny it is not reserved for western democracy it will be no western democracy in my lifetime and I hope to live long and it's not the problem is that the problems of that area are obvious they are cultural, demographic they are educational wise the problems with identity the problems of the economies lagging behind because of many other problems and the area will be unstable or worse for the case so what is to be done by outside powers if we could draw the lessons first do not intervene because I mean our interventions have hampered the development of the area in the positive directions Soviets devastated Afghanistan Soviets and Americans with some help from our European friends supported an unbelievably ugly war of Iraq against Iran we even closed eyes to the fact that Iraq of Hussein murdered tens of thousands of people by chemical weapons by the way and we consider ourselves to be civilized people and now you want to trust us all do not do things which you have done in Libya I'm sorry I'm in France but Libya has been not a very positive country but it was run by a social system in the area and now it is a territory which has fallen apart which is a failed state which spreads instability and weapons so one thing is stop intervening second thing is help the people in the area to build up dialogues and security system there was a huge security vacuum and it occurred I mean stop ostracizing Iran that is the worst mistake of the international community over the last several decades Iran we know why it happened but Iran is one of the most well-educated one of the most responsible countries in the area I could give you another example of course being attacked and of course it is moving I don't know as of yet whether it has stopped us maybe a nuclear weapon or some semblance of a nuclear weapon because it is constantly threatened however our Russian experience with them has been that they have been playing very constructively in the calming crisis in the former Soviet Central Asia they have been quite constructive in calming crisis in the Caucasus which is and including in Chisholm but also others so they are they should be looked not as an enemy but as a potential partner and a force for stability in the area which will be getting unstable by more and more stable by definition you are nodding I do not suspect that you are agreeing with me Steve, I am finishing so I mean there otherwise would be stop acting as if we are children playing with fire or elders trying to replay the games of our brilliant past who had never had a brilliant past so let's act as if we are adults realistic ones, thank you Sergei, let me ask you a very quick question which I hope you will give a very quick response to is when Obama decided to go with Lavrov and work on chemical weapons in Syria it does not do much to end the war but does it in your view implicate Russia in a solution is it promising for that reason or do you think it's not important? Well, I think that Russia is of course in a way implicated and we have a moral and political interest in getting the solution that is clear but we had had that from the beginning we did not have a war we did not want a war we wanted a policy because we knew that a new war would be a new ground for multiplication of terrorists which are by the way very close to our borders so we wanted to stop I mean the deterioration of the situation and in a way will help though of course I mean those who want to Assad are not happy but we are in there for stability and not for evolution I don't think you wanted a war but you're also not in favor of regime change much either We have had counter-revolutionary power we have had regime changes twice in the previous century it cost us about 60 to 70 million people when the democratic revolution of February 17 brought up a regime change Lots of lessons I think everyone knows Elizabeth Gigu she's married career she's had some of the highest positions in the French state she's currently the head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Assemblee Nationale and I've asked her to do a very difficult thing which is to try to summarize where we are with a concentration in my view I think on strong French national interests and the French willingness to take action on the ground often not entirely but also in terms of aid with Syria in ways other countries haven't done I've been very struck for instance that while the United States and Britain suspended aid to the Syrian opposition France has not done so so perhaps Madame Gigu you can put us into context Thank you The microphone I've been invited to participate in this meeting I'll maybe start by saying what I agree with each of the previous orators First I think that the economic situation is something that is absolutely fundamental The Tunisian Revolution started with an economic and social disaster and I think we should never forget Then I would say to Renault Girard that if there is one point on which I agree with her analysis I think we shouldn't have closed our embassy in Damascus for the rest I rather agree with Basma even very agree with her analysis on Syria but I'll come back Madame, you are absolutely right to say that education especially girls and women is absolutely fundamental and to you gentlemen because here too I would have many disagreements to make but I agree with your conclusion I think we should have more dialogue especially between Europe and Russia I think we should actually but I'll come back especially in the management of what we call the Eastern partnership So once that once I said that on Syria it's true it was a surprise for me to learn that the Americans and the British decided to suspend these non-lethal weapons to the Syrian opposition but I note that it is in the north that France has not decided to change because we are very vigilant to suspend these non-lethal weapons but it is true that we are located in other areas so we can evolve in the next few days I think we are really interested to continue to support the Syrian opposition to have received at the National Assembly all the leaders of this opposition since now a year and a half we perfectly aware of their weaknesses or their difficulties and yet I really believe that the French diplomacy was right to support this opposition from the beginning because it is not her who took the weapons and that it is the only possible way because if this way does not work and maybe it will not work I am not very optimistic at this moment what we will have a terrible confrontation between a regime that has used chemical weapons against its people it has been shown and on the other hand of the jihadists and we do not want neither one nor the other so naturally we have to go through the political issue of air strikes on the chemical arsenal to all the same conduct and Russia has succeeded in a diplomatic round I must say in taking this initiative which was in discussion Russia took the initiative to ask Abashah to dismantle its chemical archive to progress I hope it will go on and the rest of the war which still did almost 200,000 deaths if millions of people moved it can only be resolved by political negotiation will Geneva 2 finally meet? we know all the obstacles that have gone up we must first agree on the subject of the conference that is the principles already in Geneva 1 by everyone and then we must know if the big countries of the region can be associated I wish we go with Mr. Hani to the Foreign Affairs Commission two days ago I wish that Iran can be at the negotiating table because if Iran is there the big countries maybe other who are around the table but for that we must agree on the objective of the negotiation for the moment it is still in discussion it is not and then on the other hand all the members of the 5 plus 1 the Americans accept so that is one thing and then if this conference finally meets on the 22nd of January as planned we must succeed because I do not see other ways than having a political transition which does not include of course the current director and which then will of course be on elections and on another power otherwise what will happen horrible the risk of the partition of Syria well it is a formidable regression with all the repercussions that we can imagine on neighboring countries already suffers a lot the flow of refugees the natural export of conflicts an endless civil war finally it was of course the only coherent position is to do everything we can and once again I am not very optimistic must say at this stage my second remark will be on Iran I think me too obviously Iran is a great country a great civilization I think in the past we did not have enough to do a real discussion on the role that Iran could play in the region but in the past on the nuclear and on the declarations of Israel things have become unacceptable now it is much better the election of Mr. Rouhani is obviously a hope which is concreted by the fact that the French Republic was the first in the United Nations to meet Mr. Rouhani Mr. Oberma then had this telephone meeting all of this took place on the intermarine agreement it is very good it is an event that I think is extremely important it is still the first time since 6 years that Iran is able to suspend the contestable part of its nuclear program that is to say the two lines that could lead to the establishment of the uranium on the one hand and the plutonium on the other so this is a great event which was acquired after the discussions where there were a few under Brussels I think that the French diplomacy did well to say that the first text that had been discussed only between the United States and Iran and the ambassador said to the Foreign Affairs Commission that the text was not precise enough but the four conditions that were asked by France are now in this text you know them, I don't want to detail them they are in this text and so I think it was a sufficiently robust agreement but it is only an intermarine agreement and so we have six months to really create trust and make sure that things things evolve as you wish I think it is obviously a considerable event in the region and that in fact it can how to say, induce I don't know to link things but it can create a climate that naturally also favors other solutions my last remark will be on the attitude of the United States in the region because the table was I think that all the recent events have shown even if the Secretary of State John Kerry implies much more that despite all the United States have decided to no longer take part active in the management of the crisis and that the pivot towards Asia is a fundamental event that will last I think that the weight of the Iraq War of the Afghanistan War of the Iraq War on the strategic retreat even looking at what happened in the United Kingdom we did not end up seeing the consequences and that means that the Europeans have to be more involved and I salute the action of Catherine Ashton who was patient and discreet she got her first success in Kosovo and she got her first success in the agreement with Iran I think that we will have to see what Europe is like and what Europe is like and how it is projected in the world after all Mandela reminded us that Europe played a leader role in the end of apartheid in the same way that in the Oslo agreements on the 20th anniversary you do not celebrate the 20th anniversary on the 13th of September so I do it for that of course Europe has to get out of the crisis of the eurozone but that is in good faith and I think that we have all the reasons to take advantage of us more than we have particular responsibilities in Africa and as Africa is obviously I have a great hope for Africa for the bloody conflicts and the governance problems and we can help to solve them Thank you I also have great respect for Cathy Ashton for persevering it helped that Bill Bill Burns was having meetings on the side as well I'm going to take Chairman's privilege for one second it's a big region everyone talks to some degree about Israel, Israel is not on the panel so I asked Itamar Rabinovich who is a very good Israeli diplomat specialist on Syria if he wouldn't mind saying a couple of words to us about how Israel sees the current turmoil if you could stand up and if someone could get him a microphone Thank you Steve Good evening to you all on specifically on Syria first we look with sadness on a terrible human tragedy Israelis taking in hundreds of wounded Syrians, mostly children are treated quietly in Israeli hospitals non-Muslims and we are aware of the human dimension of this tragedy we are also fully aware of the geopolitical importance to us as a neighbouring country surprisingly of the five neighbours of Syria we have been the least affected and the least interventionist of all we have calculated that importance it may be we have no role to play in this first of all the Israeli policy community like these communities in western Europe and in North America is divided some believe as we have heard recently from the former American ambassador in Syria Ryan Cropper from former head of the CIA that it's better to have quote unquote the devil we know Assad will fight the jihadis others believe that if Assad stays in power as an ally of Iran on the assumption that Iranian policy does not change as an ally of Hezbollah it may be more dangerous for Israel in any event we are not there to help the opposition because if we were to help the opposition we would play into the propaganda of the regime that has argued all along that this is not an authentic domestic revolution but conspiracy hatched from the outside the only interventions that we have made of course informally or unofficially were pinpricks designed to prevent the transfer of sophisticated weapon systems to Hezbollah that would have been game changers that went unresponded by the regime but on the whole we are on the sidelines we are aware that in a matter of minutes or hours this could change and we might be drawn in we believe like everybody else that ultimately the solution has to be political diplomatic but we also believe or I personally believe that you cannot come to a Geneva 2 or to a Geneva 3 without leverage and right now there is no leverage for a change because the tide of the civil war has turned after Kusser the chemical weapons crisis and the more recent events that have been referred to the regime seems to be doing very well and it is not likely to give up so I don't have high hopes for the Geneva 2 meeting. I'm afraid that the most likely scenario is a tragic scenario of an unfolding crisis for the next several years here will remain a divided country a failed state the scene of a civil war and even if the regime is successful Assad is not likely to reestablish an effective government over the whole of the country so in other words the wise policy for the next few years would not so much be a crisis solution but crisis management and damage limitation thanks very much we don't have tons of time left so I'm going to call on a couple people to ask questions one after the other or make a comment and if you could keep it brief Dominique Moisey I have to call on you I'm going to speak French very quickly three years ago when we met we were under the hope that the Arab Spring would move on democracy for all the ideas of Europe would join the ideas of the Arab world today we are in fear that in reality artificial borders drawn in the sand by Europe since 1916 may be on the verge of collapse so we went from the idea that the ideas of Europe would meet the idea that the borders of Europe would be fragmented the borders drawn by Europe would be fragmented and in this scheme it seems to me that the role of Western powers was very very negative excessive in the years 2010 insufficient since 2010 the Schema of the Spanish War comes back to me as an obsession in the case of Syria I think what Basma said was very important in the end we abandoned the forces that we have to support and it is not the intervention as such which is a problem it is that on the one hand there was an intervention that continued and on the other there was a desegregation and a great confusion except for France thank you Dominic there is a gentleman over here if possible Mokdan Klik, senator the former minister of defence of Poland I have two short remarks concerning what Madame Bigo said a minute ago concerning the role of Europe we will see next week how the European Union sees its role in the future not only in the eastern dimension but also in the southern dimension because the summit will be devoted to the future of common security and defence policy the first summit during last years I don't believe frankly speaking that it will be a breakthrough it will be rather an impulse that we are able to unlock several processes that were locked during last years and the second remark concerning the refugee problems in neighbouring countries yes that's true that Israel is not affected by the problems of refugees but these are for other countries that are strongly affected by refugees and this is a social disaster right now in the future the main reason for undermining stability of the whole region in Lebanon, in Jordan it can be one of those reasons that can unstable the situation in those countries my question is not about resources because we have limited resources but about the second dimension of the problems of refugees this is the problem of management it is necessary to introduce the regional regional or even super regional framework for management of the problems of Syrian refugees do you have any ideas? well part of our problem really is time I promise that we would end about now I think we can go on for another couple minutes but that's really all there's a gentleman here and a gentleman in the back with his hand up and I think that that will have to be it so I'm trying to be brief I can't give you multiple examples of manipulation of fundamentalist organizations united and shared by the Syrian regime to destroy Lebanon to destabilize the state of Lebanon and to prevent the opposition in the 90s and 2000s this ISIS regime created fundamentalist organizations and jihadist organizations in the 80s and 90s this ISIS regime fundamentalist and jihadist to repress the opposition of the Lebanese to prevent the opposition to the Syrian occupation more recently in 2007 this ISIS regime created an organization fundamentalist of the most dangerous to fight to fight the Lebanese army in a war that lasted 5-6 months to destabilize the state of Lebanon more recently there was a double explosion in the capital of the northern Lebanon that caused 60 deaths and hundreds of injuries it turned out that the executors were fundamentalist jihadists and united fundamentalists who had been sent by the Syrian regime I think I don't understand Basma and Elisabeth I don't understand I am very clear I am not favorable I think we should have flung him after he killed our ambassador to Beirut I think I was under the Syrian bombs when the district of Beirut was bombed by the Syrians I would have liked France to intervene to protect its old Lebanese Christian allies the only thing and I, if I was Syrian I would vote for Basma Khonmani as the president of Syria so that things are extremely clear because I think I was misunderstood what I am saying is that we can't do politics with vultures Basma said that the jihadists will not go to war Basma, you are wrong the jihadists will not go and no one will do it so I think my country must have a realistic policy the Israeli ambassador said we have nothing to do in this war I think that France has nothing to do in the confrontation with the jihadists it is a much bigger which goes to Pakistan and I would like to to conclude of this management of France first of all we don't promise to do war if we have neither the means nor the will after what happened to the Ghouta the chemical bombardment the president said we are going to do a punitive action but he knew that he had neither the means nor the will because our will depended on a vote of the American congress there was no will so that was the second thing I said you have to let the diplomatic tools open but Elizabeth agreed with me the third thing is that of course we have to reverse the tyrants but we don't have to reverse a tyrant as long as we don't find the solution and I don't think we found the solution and I would like to be given because of course we would all like to know Basma Khonmani but it's not that the reality on the field that kills a young man a young salesman of cigarettes because he refused he was accused of insulting the prophet that's the reality and the reality is that people like Basma who are in Damascus in Damascus come from the brigades that's the reality and the fourth thing and I'm going to stop the reality we have lost the time and in the interest of justice I'm sorry I'm going to give Basma the last word and then we shall try to if you want the last word if you want I won't open the debate again I think I was very clear I proposed solutions that seem realistic so I thank Renaud Girard the president of Syria but if I'm on the side of the reality I don't think it's going to be for Syria I think I proposed some concrete things thank you