Reuters Insider - Islamic State is the tip of the iceberg - Paddy Ashdown
23/09/2014 12:01
Click the following link to watch video:
http://insider.thomsonreuters.com/link.html?cn=share&cid=1302404&shareToken=MzoyYmM0ZTc3My0zY2VjLTQ2Y2YtODg1YS03YzM2MDIzNDUwMjg%3D&playerName=ReutersNews
Source: Thomson Reuters
Description: A global alliance, that should include Russia,
must not only deal with IS but a widening regional
struggle between Sunnis and Shias, says former UK
Liberal Democrat Leader Paddy Ashdown.
(To access all exclusive Reuters Insider programming visit: http://insider.thomsonreuters.com)
Short Link: http://reut.rs/1sUFlIQ
Transcript (May be auto-generated)
We're the first stateroom of Blenheim Palace on the final evening of the Oxford
Analytica Conference. I'm delighted to say that Lord Paddy Ashdown joins me
here. Mr. Ashdown was a former diplomat, a former head of the Liberal Democrat
Party in the UK. Lord Ashdown, many thanks for talking with Reuters. A number of
very big topics have been discussed over the past few days and I'd like to get
your view on a few of those starting with the fight against Islamic states. Can
we defeat them? Yes, but probably not with guns and bombs.
I mean that isn't to say that military action will not play a part in this. But
my guess is that diplomacy will play a bigger part. If you want to look at the
Middle East at present time, how we can play a role, you probably to go back to
the 17th and 18th century. We're just in the right place to talk about it. Look,
here's the background. Here's the backdrop that people seem to be very slow to
realize, is that this is not a bad ISIL. It's not a bad Syria. It's actually
about danger imminence in my view of a widening regional conflict between the
Sunnis and the Shias. If you want context, think Europe in the 18th century and
--. We need to recognize that this is the front line in a much wider struggle,
and that struggle stretches through Libya, Egypt, Lebanon of course, right down
to Mali and indeed could infect the rest of Islam as well right across the
Malaya, right across to Indonesia and even to the Chinese. And so this is an
issue which is not going to be solved by simply looking at Isil in isolation.
It's certainly not going to be solved by making sure it's more difficult for
Jihadis to return to Britain. This is a regional conflict with global
connotations and we need to think about assembling the alliances that can –
Okay, so grand international strategy is required. What should that strategy
look like and who should be involved in that strategy? In very short, it doesn't
look like Bush two, it looks like Bush one. It looks like assembling a strategy
in which the West does not act alone. Indeed if it did act alone, it would
probably strengthen Isil, not weaken it. It access part of a broader coalition.
Who's in that coalition?
Moderate Arab states, Jordan. Who's in it is Turkey. I think you have to think
about a rapprochement with Iran. Is that likely to happen? Well I think with the
present, it is certainly possible. I will be a bit more contentious in just a
moment. I think it has to involve serious pressure on Saudi Arabian and Gaza to
stop funding these Jihadis groups. By the way, I don't think it's the
governments. I think it's their businessmen, but the governments could stop
them. And my own view as well is that it also involves Russia. Indeed in many
ways I will be very hard with Russia on Ukraine, but give them a way. And the
reason is this, that Russia too has its problem with Jihadism.
If you take a look at the Russian Islamic Republics – Dagestan, Chechnya, et
cetera – this is a fault like that can split the Russian Federation. They have
an interest in doing this. And I think engaging the Russians leads us to a
greater success but also away from a greater danger. The big danger in this is
that if it is Sunni versus Shia, the West is instrumental on the part of the
Sunnis and the Russians come in on the part of the Shia, then you have original
conflict with global connotations and the great parts involved. Do you worry
that the government, Mr. Cameron is going to get this wrong? Yes, I have been
worried about that. I thought some that's rhetoric was analyzed. I also think
that, in our usual way we think this is solved with bombs and rockets, and it's
not. It's solved with a cohesive international strategy in which the military
plays a part. But in my view, a relatively small part. And I think my worry
however is that the failure now to bring the Russians in in a way which would be
helpful, in other areas as well as in the Middle East, is probably due to
American reluctance, if anything else.
And I think the personal animus that exists between Obama and Putin may well be
a barrier to a sensible action on this front. Okay. And Downing Street ought not
to go along with that. Okay. Let's shift it on to another big topic: Scotland.
We got the "No." Are you worried though that the changes the government wants to
make now and the promises they have given Scotland will happen too quickly and
we're going to be little bit knee-jerked with all of this? I think the promises
they have given Scotland are well-founded, well-established. You need to
remember Scotland has embarked on a journey. The journey began with a
constitutional convention even before the evolution, then devolution, then the
Scottish Parliament, and now we have an established system for doing this and I
think we can deliver on what we promised to the Scots. My worry is that Britain-
England now, since we're saying that and it should be part of it, has to go from
year zero to catch up with the Scots at the same timetable. The Prime Minister
says this will be easy in the House of Commons. I don't think it will be at all.
I think it's likely to take longer and the danger here is the time it must take
to resolve the problem of English devolution sensibly may well not be a
timetable of the Scots, consistent with the Scots and could hold the Scottish
devolution up and it mustn't be allowed to do that. So this is by no means over?
No, it's just begun and I think it begins now- I think it's relatively easy,
relatively settled in Scotland. It's absolutely far from settled in Britain. Let
me give you a simple example. If you split the English MPs away to form an
English Parliament within Westminster, then you have a Scottish Parliament. That
means that if Labour were ever to get in power again, you will never have a
Labour government in England and the English amongst the English MPC, you have a
Labour government running the country. By the way, I'm not predicting that. And
you have an English Parliament in which Labour has nowhere and you know, how do
you do that? How do you run a government on that basis? It's far more complex,
I'm afraid. And I have to say, I have to say that it smacks a bit of panic
those. Grabbing hold of ideas we actually haven't thought about. I'm strongly in
favor of it but I think it has to be approached in a deliberate and measured
way, probably through some form of constitutional convention. Would you agree
that a "No" vote has made it much less likely now that the UK will leave Europe?
Yes. Because the Scots are in favor of Europe. And the truth is that if we- if
England had been left by its own along with Wales and Scotland of course, I
think there's a far greater likelihood that England would have become
anti-European and then we would have had Europe to our north, Europe to our
east, Europe to our west, and Europe to our south. I still believe that
referendum can be won, it won't be easy. But if it was England alone dominated
by the anti-European mad men in the Conservative Party, egged on by Nigel
Farage, I think an England would have left to the disbenefit of us all. The
election next year was discussed today as a hinge event for 2015. You've
described yourself as a plumber for the Liberal Democrats. A humble plumber. A
plumber- it's hard to believe. Is it about survival? This election? For the
Liberal Democrats? Yeah. No, it's not. It's a but- no, no, by no means. I think
we have a great story to tell. I mean, I'm very proud my party has taken the
burdens of government. I wanted to see liberalism applied in government. Of
course that means making compromises but that's what the coalition politics is
about and I believed that for a long time. Now it's about getting across the
message that this country is far better than it would otherwise have been after
the wreckage that Labour left it in as a result of the Liberal Democrats taking
up the burden of government and as a result of the way I think the professional
and steady way they have managed. We have proved ourselves to be a party of
government. Now getting that message across to the electorate from this point
isn't going to be easy. And are you- as the plumber, are you in election mode
now? Is it all gearing up? Oh, everybody is in election mode. We all say, "Well,
no, no, of course I'm not in election mode," but there will be nothing on the
British electoral scene, on the British political scene in the next year, a
little less than a year. Nine months that it's not got some relevance to the
election and that applies to us too. Final question. You're giving the speech
tonight after dinner, what is your message to those people here? The world is
about to change in ways that nobody has yet craft, hold off. And if we're going
to get through the next period, very difficult, turbulent, we have to start
thinking in a completely different way. Lord Ashdown, many thanks for talking
with us tonight. Thank you very much. Lord Paddy Ashdown. That is it from me
here at Blenheim Palace on the final evening of the Oxford Analytica Conference.
I'm Axel Threlfall, this is Reuters