NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS- HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY. ........................................................................ PANORAMA QUESTIONS FROM A DIVIDED WORLD RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC-1 DATE: 30:03:03 ........................................................................ GAVIN ESSLER: Hello and welcome to a special edition of Panorama broadcast on BBC1 and also on BBC world television and radio in which decision makers and top advisors on three contents will hear and respond to opinions about the Iraq conflict from all over the world. Here is a quick flavour. SHERRY BRENNER San Francisco USA Hi, my name is Sherry Brenner from San Francisco, California, and my question is why are you trying to sell the American people on the idea that the Iraqi’s want to be liberated? SHONA THOMPSON Melbourne Australia Hi, I’m Shona Thompson from Melbourne. I would like to know does democracy have a future in Iraq after the war? ANGELA JORDAN New York USA Hi, my name is Angela Jordan. I am from Queens, New York, and I would just like to wonder why 6 months ago we were looking for Osama bin Laden but now we are so hard on attacking Saddam Hussein and I don’t understand it. ADAM Jerusalem Israel Hi, my name is Adam. I am from Jerusalem. My question to the British people: do they really know what is war about. In Jerusalem it is all about terrorism. GREGORY PETIER Paris France I am Gregory Petier. I am 28 and I live in Paris and I would like to ask you: aren’t you afraid that this war will become a second Vietnam? ESLER: Well our cameras, as you have seen, have been out and about sampling people’s opinions from Australia and the United States to Jordan, France, Germany, Israel, Gaza and Pakistan. We have also had floods of your e-mails from as far apart as Nigeria and the Congo to Belgium and New Zealand. If you want to see more comments throughout the programme you can go interactive. If you live in the UK you can send us an e-mail, you can text us, or if you have digital satellite you can press the red button on your handset and you will be able to read some of those comments on Ceefax page 155. Well to answer your questions and respond to your comments I am joined from Washington by Richard Perle, the former US Assistant Secretary of Defence who is nowadays a Pentagon advisor and has been described by some newspapers as the architect of the Iraq war. In Paris by Edith Cresson, the former French Prime Minister, now a writer and commentator and a strong supporter of the French government’s anti-war position. From Jordan, Iraq’s neighbour we are joined in Oman by Nasser Juder, formally Jordan’s minister for information, now a prominent businessman. And here in London, by Dr John Reid a member of what is, in effect, Tony Blair’s inner war cabinet. We begin with something which is troubling many of you. LAUREN PIERCE Sydney Australia Hi, I’m Lauren Pierce from Sydney Australia and my question is “Where is the evidence for the invasion?” SAQUIB SHARIF Islamabad Pakistan My question to the panel is that initially it was claimed by USA that Iraq posseses some dangerous weapons. But Iraq still has not used these chemical weapons. NIVEEN Cairo Egypt Why Saddam in particular, and why now? MICK IRVINE Melbourne Australia Hi, I’m Mick Irving from Melbourne Australia. I don’t understand how you can say you are going to war to remove weapons of mass destruction when clearly your main aim is to remove Saddam Hussein. Why are you doing that? ROBIN CLEMENTS New York USA My name is Robin Clements. I am from New York. My question is this: “Would it have any effect on world opinion, especially European opinion, if the American and British forces found large caches of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq?” ESLER: Well your e-mails reflect the wide range of similar concerns. So, Richard Perle, Ene Eyo from Nigeria says “What will happen if, at the end of the war, the Americans do not find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?” Would you accept that would mean you would lose the justification for going to war? RICHARD PERLE Assistant US Defence Secretary, 1981-1987 Well I believe that the liberation of Iraq, the freeing of the Iraqi people would be justification enough. I don’t think that is going to happen. We know that Saddam created weapons of mass destruction, he has never accounted for them, he had an opportunity to do so, the UN implored him to do so and he didn’t. If, in the end, there were by some amazing means to be an absence of weapons of mass destruction, the question would be “Saddam, why didn’t you prove, as we gave you a chance to do, that you had destroyed those weapons. You could have avoided this war.” ESLER: Edith Cresson, you probably heard Robert Clements there, that New Yorker who was asking how it would change opinion, European opinion, if the Americans and British were to find a major cache of chemical or biological weapons. Surely it would have a profound effect if all that stuff were uncovered? EDITH CRESSON French Prime Minister, 1991-1992 Well we were in the legal system which is one of the United Nations. In this system the experts and Mr Blix who is not going to continue his job inside the United Nations as an expert, he said he would resign. He said the operations were satisfactory and that the Iraqis were cooperating, not very much at the beginning but they were going on cooperating and he didn’t find, they didn’t find any of those arms. ESLER: But if they do find... forgive me for interrupting Madame Cresson, if they do find a whole lot of Anthrax, of chemical weapons, or if they are used in war, would that change French public opinion? CRESSON: Well it could of course change, in a way, public opinion in France but the problem is that there will always remain the doubt that if we had let time to the experts to do their job we may have had the chance to have those weapons destroyed. When you get out of a legal framework there is always a question. ESLER: Nasser Joudeh, another e-mail came in from Christopher Hollis from Bognor Regis in England who says: "Saddam hasn’t used any of his weapons of mass destruction in this conflict. Why do you think he hasn’t?” NASSER JOUDEH Former Jordanian Cabinet Minister, Amman I certainly don’t know why he hasn’t and I thank God that he hasn’t and I pray that he will never use them if he does have them. As somebody who lives in a country that has never possessed any of these weapons or had any ambitions to possess such weapons, we have always been saying that yes, I mean there may be one of the declared objectives of this war to rid the Iraqi regime of weapons of mass destruction, but we are calling for a whole region free of weapons of mass destruction. We are surrounded by them and we are scared. ESLER: Okay, John Reid, you probably heard the comment of the lady right at the... the man right at the top of the programme, Gregory Petier from Paris who said this could become another Vietnam. Do you fear that rather than a quick war, finding the weapons of mass destruction, getting rid of them, getting rid of Saddam, Britain and America is bogged down in something? JOHN REID MP War Cabinet Minister Well I hope not even our French colleagues will compare the regime of Saddam Hussein with what in effect was a liberation movement in Vietnam and I think it demeans the efforts of the Vietnamese people to even put them in the same breath as Saddam Hussein in what is, in effect, a fascist regime. As regards the weapons, well when we went into Kosovo after only 4 weeks we were told by esteemed British BBC commentators that we were facing a Vietnam, here it has only taken 4 days for someone to tell us that. The reality is that we have gone in there to separate Saddam Hussein from his weapons of mass destruction. There is a bonus in the sense that coincidentally it will liberate the people of Iraq and eventually we will find out whether or not those people in Iraq actually support this regime and whether Saddam Hussein has got weapons. The owl of Minerva will fly at some stage, wisdom will come in retrospect and either I and my government will be proven right or the French and those others who have taken the view that Saddam does not have such weaponry or that he is not such a bad chap. They will have to answer that question then. ESLER: Edith Cresson, just a final point on that area that he is not such a bad chap perhaps? EDITH CRESSON: No, the problem is not to know if Saddam is a bad chap or not. Of course he is and nobody doubts of that. The problem is, is it allowed to enter a country with arms and make war outside the legal framework of the United Nations who has two conditions very clear. Either you are attacked and then of course you can respond or there is a resolution with a majority that delivers the authorisation to make a war. Outside of those two conditions you are not allowed to make a war. ESLER: Let me bring in John Reid briefly on that point. REID: Bonsoir Edith. Isn’t it the case that you joined us in Kosovo without a resolution in the face of a Russian veto precisely because we thought the danger was so great that people had to be protected? CRESSON: But everybody agreed then. REID: No, no, everybody didn’t agree. The Russians didn’t agree, there was no UN resolution. We went into Kosovo through NATO because the United Nations wouldn’t agree but we thought the moral consequences of not going in were so great that we should take that action, and the French agreed with us on that occasion and this occasion they don’t think that the consequences are so great. ESLER: Madame Cresson? CRESSON: There was a big problem inside Kosovo, people were killing each other and we of course... the intervention was quite normally taken.. the decision was taken so we agreed on that aspect. Nobody has said that there has been a majority to get inside Iraq, there was no majority, there was not even a vote. ESLER: Let me bring in Richard Perle. I think Mr Perle wants to come in. PERLE: Well I am listening to this discussion and there is no question that John Reid has demolished Madame Cresson’s argument. When France thought it was a good thing to use force outside the United Nations, France did so, didn’t complain, didn’t say this is illegal and outside a legal framework. In this case, where the French President believes that it is not in France’s interest to use force, she is invoking a legal argument that was irrelevant the last time. Let’s not be hypocritical about this. ESLER: Madame Cresson, hypocritical. EDITH CRESSON: It is not only the interest of France, it is the interest of the whole region. It is a very dangerous thing that has been started there and we had a decision that was taken that the experts who were making their job and making it well, had to come to a decision, had to come to say what happened and if they found those arms or not. And what they did was to say “You have to destroy such and such arms” which were destroyed. The process was going on and we stopped... there was a stop of the process because of the will of the Americans and the British. And the British would have wanted a decision. ESLER: OK, we have to move on I think. Nasser Joudeh briefly you wanted to come in. Go ahead. JOUDEH: Without taking sides with either party on either side of the English Channel I just wanted to say that disagreements between countries on ways and means to resolve crises can happen, of course, and then people move on. I should remind that in the mid 1950s when France Britain and Israel invaded Egypt, that it was President Eisenhower who disagreed with this unilateral action and it was his strong condemnation that stopped that war. ESLER: K, let’s move on to more of your comments because some of your comments remind us of the nature of the Iraqi regime. Jon Barbu of Romania who is strongly in favour of this war says: “We know what it is like to live under dictatorship. So I wish people who haven’t would stop saying what the Iraqi people think. Let’s wait until the Iraqi’s have a chance to say something”. And Newala Kurera of Fresno California, also in favour of the war says: “For 30 years Saddam has starved his people, he lives in palaces, he has billions stuffed away in banks for himself. Why is the world so blind.” Well for an idea of how opinion formers around the world are responding to the war here is Dharshini David who joins us now. DHARSHINI DAVID: Gavin, well I have been sifting through papers from every single corner of the globe and the reactions they contain are as stark and as differing as the views of the people who actually read them. Let me give you a few examples and let’s have a look at France where you might expect of course that the papers are very anti-war and let’s have a look at what Liberation has to say. It is saying that there is an admission of failure in President Bush’s statement that the war will go on for as long as it takes and even stronger line against the coalition from Al Watan in Saudi Arabia, it is saying “Those megalomaniacs who thought they would liberate Iraq in 4 days were not listening”. And in South Africa’s Business Day it is looking beyond the war and saying that: "..neither the people of the US nor its government are psychologically prepared to play a colonial role in the Third World." And Die Welt that’s the large German newspaper. Now despite the fact the German government is against the war it is taking a different line and saying: "The German government would do well to support Tony Blair. Also support for the war from the Jerusalem Post, it says that: "If anyone is fighting in the name of the Iraqi people, it is the American-led coalition." And this from Mashriq in Pakistan, it claims that: "..the US will have to face strong opposition from the international community, especially Europe and the Arab world." But the final word goes to the Australian, it's talking about the people who are watching this war and saying: "They want McWar - something, simple, hot and fast and if they don’t get it they complain to management." ESLER: Dharshini thank you. McWar, John Reid, something hot and fast and we are not getting it. REID: Well I am afraid one of the consequences of people like us sitting in studios with a computer is to create the illusion that somehow there is a clinical swift predictable war. The broad strategy we laid in place on the military side here is going very well indeed. So successful indeed that it has probably been the fastest and biggest advance ever in military history. So when people see that elements at the tactical level are going wrong, there are difficulties, there is confusion, there is fog, perfectly normal in a war situation. What we need is the resolution to say we will follow this strategy, it has an objective which is the removal of Saddam Hussein, we will be there until that is carried out - and we will be. ESLER: But Richard Perle, do you not think though that the Pentagon, responding to some of those comments from newspapers, oversold this war. That is was... this shock and awe has turned into mud and blood. It is not going as well as people thought it would because of the way it was sold. RICHARD PERLE Assistant US Defence Secretary, 1981-1987 No I don’t agree with that. I think what John Reid just said was right on point. This war is going well. We are on the plan that was conceived before the war began. We are fighting this war in an unusual way, if I can put it that way. We are fighting this war to liberate the people of Iraq, to contain the damage to ordinary Iraqi citizens and that has meant, in some instances, avoiding the application of firepower that could have dealt more swiftly with pockets of resistance and those pockets of resistance are mostly the Gestapo type thugs who are loyal to Saddam Hussein because they have no future in a free Iraq. And out of concern for innocent civilians we are not engaging them with the full firepower available to us. I think that is admirable, I think we will be judged in part, not only by the end of this war but by how we fought it and it is being fought with great bravery. British forces in particular have been spectacularly courageous and effective and we will look back on this with great pride. ESLER: Okay, let’s pick up that point because whatever the international critics say, the US Vice President, Dick Cheney made it clear in his words that “I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators in Iraq”. Looking at the thousands of e-mails we have received, many people, even those who like America and Americans, show real worries about what some of them see as American arrogance. Gabriel Miller of the United States says: “I think this is a just war but I just wish we weren’t conducting it in such an imperial manner”. And Saima Khan of Pakistan says: “The idea that it is America’s responsibility to free the people of Iraq reminds me of Kipling’s idea of all non-white races being white men’s burden." SIMA ZURAIKAT Amman Jordan My name is Sima Zuraikat, I am from Amman, Jordan. I would like to ask, considering George Bush has stated that America’s only ambition in the war is to free the Iraqi people, how does this conflict with the money to be made from the oil and Iraqi reconstruction? KULSOOM HAMEED Islamabad Pakistan Does America think it is doing moral justice to the people of Iraq whom it is deciding to liberate? YANAL ZURAIKAT Amman Jordan My name is Yanal Zuraikat from Amman Jordan and my question is, the American economy wasn’t built on poor business decisions. What is the return on a $100 billion investment of war? Simply liberation? ELIOT BENRON Jerusalem Israel I support the war and my question to the panel, what do you think about the great thing that Bush and Blair is doing for the world? SHANDANA KHAN Peshawar Pakistan My name is Shandana Khan I am from Peshawar, Pakistan. It seems like the US administration just needs a series of excuses to walk into any country that it wants. The purpose for which they go in initially seems to change and my question really is which country is it going to be next? ESLER: Okay, a lot of points there. Nasser Joudeh in Jordan, when we talked a month ago on Panorama I was struck by how many Jordanians are worried that there will be a permanent American presence in the region. Why do you think that? NASSER JOUDEH Former Jordanian Cabinet Minister Well I think first of all, I mean there are three phases I think to the ongoing public debate regarding this conflict. On the one hand we were talking before the military operations began and of course that debate is over now and military operations have begun and now with images on a daily basis of bombardment, of casualties on both sides and particularly as concerns the Arabs state on the Iraqi civilian side - people are now concerned about the aftermath. America has to win the peace as well as the war and I think I would add to what Richard Perle said by saying that America will not just be judged on the outcome of the military side of the operation but on how you win the peace and that is the most important factor that people are concerned with here. People generally are no fans of the tactics of the Iraqi regime but when they see a country which is continuous to theirs being bombarded and civilians falling left right and centre and this media hype that we are all having to go through, people are very sceptical about the future. ESLER: John Reid you are nodding in agreement. REID: I do, I agree very much with Nasser. I think that in the long run that is how we will be judged, what sort of Iraq did we leave and if I could just reply directly to the point about the white man’s burden, the last intervention militarily that this country, the United Kingdom, made was to protect the government... democratically elected government of Sierra Leone. It was to protect people who were not white against others who were not white. The time before that it was to protect and indeed save tens of thousands of lives of Muslims in Kosovo against the genocidal attack, potentially, of Christians. So our decision is nothing to do with the colour or your creed or your race, it is what is right and what is wrong. ESLER: Edith Cresson, sometimes people in Britain particularly get the view that the French government would rather restrict the power of America than restrict the power of Saddam Hussein. EDITH CRESSON French Prime Minister, 1991-1992 No that is ridiculous. I am sure the English people don’t think that. They know things about the world and they know us. Certainly not. ESLER: You don’t see Europe as a counterweight to American power in any way? CRESSON: No we don’t want to restrict the American power and if we wanted to do so it is impossible. So we want to build up Europe, not against the Americans of course but to have another centre of culture, industry and strength and wealth, but we are not against... the Americans are our friends and we are certainly not are against... It is not because you don’t agree with a friend that you are against them. It is very difficult, I know, to explain this to the Americans, but they really should understand. It is not the first time that we don’t agree completely with them. ESLER: OK, let me put some of that to Richard Perle and some of the people who have correspondence, one from Khartoum ?? ?? said “I think this is about American imperialism. All Arab countries are ruled by non democratic regimes so who is next?” RICHARD PERLE: We can debate all day about what American motives are, what American purposes are and what the results of this war will be and words only get you so far. What will tell the story is what happens, the actions, and what people will see is the withdrawal of the United States after having helped launch Iraq towards a bright and democratic future, a future of representative government. When we leave, the oil will be left behind for the people of Iraq, not for the enrichment of Americans and the world will look back on this controversial war and judge by the final result so be patient. ESLER: Okay, but a lot of you are troubled by the clear strains now between allies, some of which is reflected in this programme, in particular the heat towards France in the lead up to the war certainly hasn’t died down. Barbara from Arlington Texas says “I think Chirac is a coward. Our soldiers have given their own lives to give the Iraqi’s their freedom and human rights” picking up again what Richard Perle has been saying. Here are some more comments on a similar theme. STEVE CHRISTMAN New York USA My name is Steven Christman. I am from New York City. I would like to know about these French. After storming the beaches of Normandy to liberate this country from the Nazis, after fighting for the Vietnam for their civil war, I would like to know what is their rationale, why are they not supporting us? RENAUD de MARICOURT Paris France My name is Renault de Maricourt. I live in Paris and well, about that Iraqi war, the question I would like to ask is why are the British involved in that war? We are not against the British, we are sorry they are mad at us, that's all. But I think war is going to be very bad from an economic point of view. ESLER: Edith Cresson in Paris, I wonder if you could respond to that New Yorker there who is clearly a bit angry at the French. I mean do you want Britain and America to win this war? EDITH CRESSON: The question is that they have to win it as soon as possible because if it lasts too long then it will be a great disaster. It is impossible to make peace in a country that you have made for a long time a war against it and that you have then to install a new government because the whole of the country will be against. So of course, the position we are now, I don’t say before. The position we are now, the best thing would of course be that they win as soon as possible. ESLER: Richard Perle, how bad is the ill feeling reflected by that New Yorker between Americans and the French and how can you rebuild it? RICHARD PERLE Assistant US Defence Secretary, 1981-1987 Well I think the feeling is running very high. It is not simply that there is a disagreement, it is that France has been working actively against what the United States and its coalition partners are trying to do. It has for practical purposes aligned itself in this war with Saddam Hussein and I must say while I marvel at the coherence of the French view ranging from the Foreign Minister to a former Prime Minister in opposition to his party, while I marvel at the agreement, I am appalled that what they agree on is that they will not say straight out that they want the coalition to win this war. ESLER: Edith Cresson, do you want to come back on that? Are you prepared to say straight out “It would be better for the world if this coalition, having engaged in the war were to win it.”? CRESSON: Of course. If they are engaged in that war they have no other possibility other than to win it. Of course they have the means to win it and they will win it. ESLER: Well not surprisingly many of you are especially concerned about what kind of Iraq, what kind of Middle East as Madame Cresson was suggesting there, might emerge from the rubble of this conflict. Dorothy Dean from New Zealand asks “What kind of regime will be imposed on Iraqi’s after the war?” Ghill Donald from here in the United Kingdom asks “In the face of unexpected military opposition and a distinctly unwelcoming...” she says “... Iraqi population, do you still think this is still a war of liberation?” ULRICH von ALLAMAN Dusseldorf Germany My name is Ulrich von Allaman. I am from Düsseldorf and my biggest question concerning war in Iraq is “How will be the future of Iraq, how will it be guaranteed that we have a peaceful and democratic development in Iraq in the next future after the war?” PASCAL LESARGE Paris France So my name is Pascal Lesarge and I live in Paris and my concern about this war between Iraq and Americans and English countries is how the relationship between the Middle East countries and the Western countries will evolve after this crisis in the next 50 years. OUSDEN Berlin Germany Hello, my name is Ousden, I am from Berlin and my question is: if the war will teach other dictators a lesson not to violate human rights. SALH ABDEL SHAR Gaza, Gaza Strip My question is how do you define victory in this war? Is it simply by getting rid of Saddam Hussein? Is this going to create stability in the region or is this going to create more hatred, more terrorism? And I am thinking about Afghanistan, what have you achieved in Afghanistan? Getting rid of Taliban but you cannot put an end to terrorism. ESLER: Nasser Joudeh, I just wanted you to pick up on one of those Euro comments there that this could result in more terrorism rather than less. What is your sense of that? NASSER JOUDEH Former Jordanian Cabinet Minister Amman. Well I hope that it does not but I was awe struck, and this is no pun on words, today I saw a Middle East analyst by the name of ?? ?? on CBS this morning and he was saying that anti-American sentiment is there and it will continue and we just have to live with it and I totally disagree with that. I think America has a moral responsibility, as I said, to win this peace and to set an example that rogue regimes and people who have weapons of mass destruction which might fall into the hands of terrorists, will have no place to escape to. So it is very, very important that we set the tone for the campaigns to follow and it is very important that America wins the hearts and minds of people as they attempt to make the world a safer place. ESLER: Okay, John Reid. REID: The reality is that many people in Iraq do not want to put their head above the parapet because they have long memories and they remember that the last time in 1991 when the coalition forces withdrew, they were left with Saddam Hussein still there and they suffered terribly. Now the reality is that if they get the message that there are divisions in the world, that some people want to see Saddam stay there, perhaps the French or whatever, that will breed those suspicions and will undermine the efforts that we are making. If somebody wants to see the sort of democracy we can have in Iraq look to the north, look to the Kurds. Up there we have now got a proliferation of political parties, we have got freedoms, we have got debate... we've got within Kuwait a growing democracy. There is no reason why we can’t have that in Iraq and Iraqi people themselves control their own destiny. And then of course we have to move on.. we then have to move on to other things like the Middle East peace process, that is important. ESLER: : But are you saying there is nowhere next in terms of some kind of hit list of other countries which should be democratised by the West? REID: What I am saying is there are problems all over the world and if you want to deal with them you have to have a world authority and if you have a world authority it has to do two things. First of all it has to include the most powerful nation in the world within it unlike pushing it out as the French want to do, and secondly it has to have a record of when it says we are going to do something and you sign a unanimous resolution like 1441, you have got to do it. If it doesn’t do that and it doesn’t include the Americans, then you will not have a world authority capable of imposing some order in place of chaos and unfortunately the French strategy is aimed at, I think, setting the United States up outside of that partnership and stopping short of the legitimacy of imposing the will of that partnership which is the United Nations. ESLER: While public opinion around the world has fluctuated of course a bit in some countries while in others the opinion polls have been steadily hostile to the war. Dharshini has been doing the number crunching for us, Dharshini. DHARSHINI: Gavin, I have been looking at the many polls that have been coming out since the war started and as you say a very mixed picture. In America for example the people there are behind President Bush. 74% of people say they are supporting a war with Iraq. Having said that, 82% now say they expect significant American casualties - now that is up from a figure of just 37% just a week ago and 57% now say they think the war is going to last for months, not weeks. Again that is a jump of 20 points since the war started up from 37%. And back home in Britain, well public opinion is swinging behind the troops now they are actually in action. There is a poll in the News of the World today which suggest that 84% of people think war should be seen through to successful conclusion. Having said that 19%... only 19% say they want to see a full scale assault on Baghdad and Basra. And over in Spain which of course is a coalition partner, disappointing news there for Prime Minister Aznar 91% of the people there say they are against war. Also against war are people in India 70% of people there are saying they are opposing a war and that Bush is a warmonger. Equally Germany of course, another anti-war country but 61% of people there are actually saying that Germany should help to rebuild Iraq after a war. Finally over to Saudi Arabia where 97% of people are saying they see America in a more unfavourable light and it is a similar picture over in Jordan, over in Morocco, also in Egypt as well. People there are a lot more critical of America than they were, say, a year ago. ESLER: Thank you, well with public opinion so divided and growing hostility towards the United States as Dharshini was saying in some Arab countries, many people as we have been talking about tonight still see the United Nations as the last best hope of building bridges, that is if the UN survives in any recognisable form. Some of you are very worried about that. Richard Linning of Australia asks starkly, “Can the United Nations survive this conflict?” while Lee Roberts-Baldwin of Germany wants to know “Would Mr Perle like to see the UN go down?” Would you Mr Perle? RICHARD PERLE: Well I have said that I thought it was going to go down with Saddam Hussein but in a very specific sense. What this experience has taught us is that the UN is not well equipped to deal with situations that arise within a country. It was set up after World War II mainly to deal with invasions across national borders and those were the threats of the 20th century. The threats of the 21st century by contrast involve rogue states and weapons of mass destruction and a great deal of damage can be done entirely within a country and therefore it is very difficult as it is presently constituted for the UN Security Council to get involved. ESLER: have been writing about it as the looming chatterbox on the Hudson which is very colourful but doesn’t suggest that you are part of the fan club. RICHARD PERLE: Well that was a reference to the inability of the UN to follow through on its own resolution 1441, the point that John Reid was making a moment ago. But we just heard Edith Cresson say that because Saddam was entirely internal that there is no justification. That is the problem, the UN is not equipped to deal with a dictator who is building weapons of mass destruction and it is too late once he has them and either uses them or hands them to terrorists. So we need a new structure. I would like to see a new charter for the United Nations, one that reflects the threats of the 21st century. It would have to be renegotiated from the ground up but if it is going to be relevant in the future that is going to be necessary. ESLER: Let me bring the others in that. Nasser Joudeh in Jordan, we have had a lot of e-mails from people who are critical of the United Nations. Malcolm Fry of Birmingham England says “Iraq does need to be rebuilt quickly. A joint US/UK administration will at least get it done fast”. Kevin Bavistock from England says “Should France and Russia be allowed to take part in the reconstruction after they failed to support the coalition?” I mean what do you think about the question of rebuilding Iraq and therefore having to rebuild the UN and give some kind of clear mandate to the rebuilding. NASSER JOUDEH Former Jordanian Cabinet Minsiter Well first of all I hope that the rebuilding of Iraq will not be a commercial enterprise in as much as it is a humanitarian socio-economic enterprise and I hope that it is not going to be bilateral in terms of two countries or three countries or even international... although I do feel that the United Nations has a role to play and a serious role to play and already we are seeing some disagreement perhaps between Britain and the United States over the possible potential role of the United Nations. But the most important factor in the rebuilding and the reconstruction of Iraq, politically as well as socio-economically is the Iraqi people and their right to govern themselves and I think the sooner we see that the sooner perhaps that this public opinion polling is showing the rise of anti-American sentiment or anti UK/American sentiment. That is very, very important. But I just want to add one thing if I may Gavin regarding the gentleman who spoke from Gaza. I believe that a lot of the anti-American sentiment that you are seeing in this part of the world is also related to the fact that the Palestinians have seen their plight totally ignored whether it is through a UN Security Council resolution being discarded one after the other or the inaction on the part of the international community and the sooner that their plight is addressed the sooner people will perhaps put things into perspective and to the right balance and I hope that the road map that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have spoken of will not just be as many people think here, sedative diplomacy. I hope that it will be put into motion very, very soon. ESLER: John Reid, I mean the UN in the view of many Palestinians has been impotent for many years, it has done nothing for them. REID: On this occasion I think I very much agree with Nasser and I think I disagree with Richard Perle or what has been attributed to him anyway. There is no doubt in my mind that in Britain certainly and Nasser says throughout the Arab world, the frustration that arises out of this war is not because people like Saddam Hussein, it is because they think there has not been equivalent progress in tackling the problems in the Middle East and essentially the Palestinian question and therefore we have to make progress on that and my answer to Richard in the United Nations is if it isn’t equipped to meet the new challenges and, for instance, those internal to sovereign states, that isn’t just the United Nations, that has been the policy for hundreds of years since the Treaty of Utrecht. If we need to face up to those challenges as I believe we do, the answer is to build and strengthen the United Nations to bring the United States in it, to keep the United States in it and to reform and to build and to strengthen - not to do what Richard sometimes looks as though he is wanting to do and the French look as though they want to do which is to put the US in a corner separate from everyone else. I think that is a strategic disaster for the world. ESLER: Richard Perle. PERLE: Yes, could I just say to John Reid. My point was precisely that we need to reengineer the United Nations so that it can play a meaningful role which is why I suggested that the charter be renegotiated among the parties so that it is not indifferent to threats that arise within a single nation, the consequences of which are now so horrendous - weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists - that we have to find some structure that will enable us cooperatively and together to deal with those threats. ESLER: You have to do something about the Middle East peace though, is Nasser Joudeh’s point, the point of many people throughout the Arab world and that has not happened. The UN has been equally impotent on that he would suggest. PERLE: Well I am certainly in favour of progress towards a Middle Eastern peace and I think that President Bush on the 24th June laid out a vision of great importance that deserves to be discussed. What he said in effect is that when there is a democratic Palestinian interlocutor, the United States will join in support for a Palestinian state but if a stable and reliable peace, a fair peace is to be produced, it has to be among democracies. Dictatorships cannot assure stable peace - they need wars, they need enemies to remain in power. The key is democracy and movement in that direction among the Palestinians is good for the Palestinians and it is good for peace. ESLER: Edith Cresson, just a final thought. How does France play an active role in the United Nations in the future when the key player in the United Nations, the United States, feels, as John Reid was suggesting, put in a corner by the French? EDITH CRESSON: The UN is an organisation which was difficult to set up and which is very precious to the world and the worst thing would be that it would burst and that it wouldn’t exist any more because this would be the law of the jungle. We have an organisation which is certainly not perfect but which exists with rules. If the rules are not respected and then you say since they are not respected the UN doesn’t exist any more, of course this is a way to just break the thing and say it didn’t work. We respect the rules and we think those rules should be respected so which is the next figure of the United Nations? I don’t know. But I think that as an organisation the United Nations is extremely precious and that it should go on. It is not the first time that we don’t agree inside the United Nations. ESLER: Okay, well whatever the disagreements about the war and about the future shape of what is obviously an increasingly uncertain world, there is agreement it seems on one thing, that Tony Blair was right when he told the House of Commons that this conflict would determine the pattern of international politics for a generation. Whether that is a cause for celebration or deep gloom remains a matter of debate. You can continue the debate now by calling BBC Radio 5 Live but from our guests and contributors across the world and from Dharshini and me, thank you for your e-mails and comments and a very good night. _________ On next week’s programme, “The Road to Baghdad”. Wars seldom go according to plan but did we have the right war plan to begin with? Will the world be a safer place afterwards? If you want to comment on tonight’s programme you can contact us on our website www.bbc.co.uk/panorama. CREDITS Presenter Gavin Esler Dharshini David Studio Crew Joanne Salisbury Tim Capp Jez Roland Nicole Smith Andrew Dixon David Dyer Kenny Baker Resource Manager Debbie Killeen Floor Manager Annie Odgen Vision Mixer Derek Morrison VT Editors Ian Corcoran Boyd Nagle Ian Drew Graphic Design Key Yip Lam Research Neil Breakwell Assistant Producers Giannis Kairis Dan Trelford Producers Diana Martin Sam Woodhouse Thea Guest Claire Hughes Ian Warr Production Team Karen May Lesley Boden Production Manager Kim Capocci Director Hob Hopkin Barry Purkis Eamonn Walsh Producers Diana Martin Sam Woodhouse Thea Guest Claire Hughes Ian Warr Production Team Karen May Lesley Boden Production Team Karn May Lesley Bodeb. Productio Manager Kim Capocci Director Rob Hopkin Programme Editor Elexandra Henderson Programe Editor Alexandra Henderson Deputy Editors Andrew Bell Sam Collyns Editor Mike Robinson 12 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Transcribed: 1-Stop Express Tel: 020 7724 7953 Fax: 020 7402 8434 E-mail: onestopexpress@hotmail.com