in syria and beyond and i think this is. a mechanism that allows the syrians to get together and do something about now. positions have changed and i told you i mean we could have had an agreement a year ago and why it's happening now because positions have changed has the positions how the positions changed within syria or is it the stance of foreign partners all foreign sponsors affair and sides that have well. as you know the syrian. conflict has 3 levels there's the international there's the regional and of course there is a good message glocal. the positions have changed both of the regional and of people. in the sense that at some point there were countries that did not see. much meaning towards a constitutional committee i think that has changed i think they have come around

to and that has influenced the syrian parties now a messenger i know that when it comes to syria you like quoting his own men they french political economist who used to say that to solve an intractable problem you need to change the context now apparently the context has been changed as you said but. there was also a big believer in coordinating diplomatic and military policy is among european nations particularly britain france and the united states and he's even credited for shortening the 2nd world war through his coordination efforts do you think the syrian war would have been shortened a more specifically do you think the coordination among western powers on the syrian prong did ultimately how to prolong or to shorten the syrian conflict as you pointed out when there was basically talking about europe and we're talking

you later or he was advising them merican president as well but in the middle east it's it's not just the region it's beyond the region and beyond the region there are 2 camps in the region there were 2 camps so that really complicates things enormously so the context has changed in the sense that when it 1st started of course it was an expression of the grievances of the syrian people became complicated by. i would say regional international intervention. they were designed to change things in syria it's understandable that at the time it was the beginning of the arab spring and everybody thought that this was the tide of history things got more complicated i think people started to revise their positions and understood that the continuation of syrian conflict are continuation is in no one's interests including the neighbors quite frankly you're

a big very diplomatic as is understandable but let me put it in starker terms because i also. invested in syria i covered this calling from the very beginning i saw its transition but my own eyes and i think it took a definite turn for the worst while president obama signed a secret the order authorizing the cia to work with the saudi intelligence and to arm the rebels with the specific purpose of deposing president assad now his successor did not carry out that policy have you seen any change in the dynamics or using when a storm in the context of the syrian the war with the change of leadership in washington. well 1st let me say everybody has committed 60. everyone and i think some are prepared to admit that they made mistakes because they are revising their policy. now i don't does that include the united states i

think the united states in the sense initially and i think frankly the problem in syria how it started and who became exacerbated is probably because the united states and the russian federation both of them decided to deal with it at an arm's length they allowed their regional allies to take care of sticks. and that's where things got complicated there were a number of opportunities like you said earlier there were a number of opportunities to resolve the conflict there were a number of opportunities. if there. were seized and there were serious attempts by moscow and washington to solve the problem and i was witness to a number of them and it could have been possible and would have shortened the war and would have saved a lot of lives there's no don't now unlike other countries be it the russia or turkey for example the united states was not actively involved in different nation

of the constitutional committee and i think as a result some of its partners on the ground war specifically kurdish groups in this in syria are not represented there do you think it has any impact on the legitimacy all of that word that the committee is now tasked with it well let me tell you having been involved in this exercise for quite some time the kurdish issue has always been there i mean nobody has tried to look at on the contrary the issue is. to get this process moving and if you read carefully the mandated terms of reference and they are published it alludes to the fact that things can change in terms of composition in terms of works and so on and i would interpret that as a door for the kurds to participate in one form or the other you cannot ignore the kurds but i think one thing has to be absolutely clear is that we are talking about maintaining the territorial integrity of syria yes at some point.

they will be present and i think that should be present but of course they have to operate within the parameters set by 2254 which you see absolute. respect for the target and the brands and it was for now. the committee will be tasked with drafting a new constitution and eventually i'm not sure no ability yet no because again i think this has to be very clear. the framework for the solution is resolution $2254.00 and when it comes what it speaks about the consul. it speaks about constitutional reform and that is deliberate so it could be new we could be amended could be anything else and in the mandate it. explicitly says there are 2 possibilities either amended or a new constitution we know but the government has made it very clear the government of syria has moved very clear that they are talking about. discussing the present

constitution whereas the opposition has a new front. so this is an issue i think the committee itself will have to decide what the composition of this committee is is supposed to allow for that because i think for the 1st time we have not only the representatives of the government and the opposition but also the so-called civil society which is the united nations was responsible for putting together now after 8 years of conflict i personally think there are no neutrals or as you said the independence in syria how confident are you that the group representing the civil society is truly representing syrian civil society rather than each of the belligerent side well i have to tell you that when this idea came up i was one of the strong advocates to have an independent component because i think an independent component would

probably be responsible than anybody else of putting forward new ideas now you are right i mean everybody is has some sort of political affiliation that is why i took such a long time to agree on the 5th independence i do not know many of them there has been many lists over the past year and a half i hope what was finally agreed to will be people of caliber of ideas and can make a contribution to a new and actually bridge builders between 2 opposing sides which is the government and the opposition will have to wait and see but are not. really privy to all of them so are unable to tell you i heard you say one of the panels that the information of this committee would imply that all sides accept each other as an interlocutor or is it genuine legitimate interlocutor does it mean that you have full confidence in this syrian government allowing this process to run

authentically without trying to influence it their way it deems necessary because obviously it is in the strongest position now than it's ever been the over the last 8 years do you think that will impact its ability to run the constitutional process and to impose its own will well i mean this pretty much depends on the international community and the regional powers how they're going to be able to handle that amount to deal with the coming obviously it's understandable that the government would like to control look and push it in a certain direction there's no doubt about that understand the opposition would like to do the same but you are right the government is in the strongest position now and therefore feels like maybe it is in a position that's why maybe the agreement was reached only now that it can. ensure that the results of this commission is something that they can live with but the un

which represents international community has a duty to implement resolution 2254 and it does have a number of elements and although the job of the u.n. is to facilitate it has a facility within that framework and how it exercises its role will be interesting to see and the government will have to respond to that because we are implementing a security council resolution security council has a role to play to oversight and there have been a number of ideas about how the international community would shepherd this process . bringing in. more troops. for the small to be there to make sure that. the commission would actually be implementing what security council resolution spoke of as constitutional reform so it is going to be an interesting exercise like anything else it's based on compromise and let's see how things will evolve to one of these well for the time being the best are we have to

take a very very short break but we will be back in just a few moments as they cheat. on. their lives it. is.

the world is driven by shaped by. the dairy thinks. we dare to ask. why a paradise with so much all year round and in. around the experimentation field but agricultural chemicals we know that these chemicals have consequences they are major irritant there's no question otherwise why would the chemical company workers themselves be geared up that suited up locals attempt to combat the on regulated experiments that often in day you have many of these people one foot into the

biotech pharma and the other foot in the government regulatory bodies this kind of collusion is reprehensible while the battle goes on the chemicals continue to poison hawaii and its people so one has to ask the question whether there is a form of environmental research going on in hawaii whether these companies feel they can get away with this because the people have less political power. welcome back to worlds apart with. the former deputy special envoy for the u.n. secretary general in syria ambassador as the war in syria hopefully winding down there is another political and geopolitical confrontation brewing up and the region

i mean between iran and the united states and its allies do you do you think these tensions but in washington may have any impact on the syrian peace process those 2 related as far as your concerned well everything is interconnected and you know but i've seen some. news in the past few days or hope that what we had always felt. is probably going to happen is that there is a desire by both washington and tehran to deescalate oh really yes i just hope well i mean looks like the french president was able in spite of everything to move them closer to one another just seems. apparently it is true that there could have been remained between both to deescalate but it has not materialized but. i hope because any conflict aeration there will certainly have implications not only for the region but quite beyond seoul and i'm hoping that. it will be pursued by france and

others to make sure that. the you know there is no confrontation between the united states well i'm sure nobody wants to see another war in the region but i slightly disagree with you is that there are signs of deescalation quite on the contrary we've seen a number of. quite mysterious attacks still inexplicable attacks taking place in the region the latest one being a big attack on the saudi oil facility oil for which everybody blames each other do you think do you take that as a just sort of shady political gaming or do you actually believe that somebody maybe is trying to nudge the region towards another can that a well off and taishan. what i'm referring to is a development in the past few years after these attacks. i think i don't think it's in the interest of iran or the united states to have

a confrontation. probably both are looking for a way out. but i think they're going to look for a way out now is somebody pushing for a confrontation. well. we know for example there are certain countries who. have been pushing the united states for years to confront iraq but the united states never reached the point. because they understood the implications so the latest news that our per. actually. both are looking at a way out now problem the problem is. you know you don't necessarily go to war in tantrum and sometimes. you sleep walk into a war and i think this trip. now speaking about those provocations our contest that russia has recently suggested creating what it calls and monitoring system to

look into incidents like this reach. involves some degree of plausible deniability or the speculation of false flag attacks what do you think of the safety and most importantly do you think it could be free of political and geopolitical manipulation. well of course i'm not familiar with the details of the well i think that even if the russians and the familiar with the well of course i mean if it were possible to have it i think it would be a good idea the issue is. who would manage it. in what context i mean is it something within a broader context because you know as you know russia has an initiative about a regional security system in the middle east i would imagine this would be part of it but the creation of a regional security system or architecture in the middle east or in the gulf specifically. will take time. i think the 1st time was proposed by russia it was

probably more than 10 years ago so. we can discuss that in more detail but the monitoring system makes every sense the issue is how do you bring it about all but as a former u.n. official documenting that is also an indication of how little trust russia or perhaps other countries in the best in the u.n. ability to do that kind of investigative work because you know has a number of bodies to investigate. if chemical attacks and other sort of attacks. russia skepticism about the use of those mechanisms is well known don't you think that perhaps it's an indication that the un has not been doing its job if not properly with enough neutrality that such country like russia with call for the creation of the in the other mechanism to do that what well i'm. not mistaken i think the secretary general has already dispatched a team. to saudi arabia to verify what has happened i'm not aware of the russian

proposal. is is designed for the un not to be involved and i'm not sure i mean i know russia has a right it's not that about not involving the united nations i think it's more about not trusting the results of its investigation and that the syrian war unfortunately provides a number of examples when major countries had drastically different opinions on what has happened despite all of them having security and intelligence sources on the ground well once again i mean. the best way to proceed is to have a regional understanding about this mechanism. could be under the auspices of the u.n. could be or otherwise i think this is really for something russia house to i think explain a little bit more because i really don't know the details of it let me ask you a somewhat different but related question that you know that russia has often been critical of the previous u.n.

special envoy is that and de mistura it suggested that perhaps sometimes he was told stonewalling the process or that he wasn't fully neutral on certain issues you worked with him closely you just said in this interview that you believe that the constitutional committee could have been created earlier is it least part of the freshest criticism steffan de mistura justified is it fair i wouldn't. that i've worked with close to friend in the story quite closely. his heart was in the right place and i think mr lavrov will say that quite clearly they had a very good relationship and they understood at the end of the day the special envoy whether it's the mr or or anybody else working on other issues. has to operate within the parameters set by the security council and it's met and particular the 5 permanent members you cannot effectively discharge your mandate if you are unable to balance things between the 5 permanent members at least if not

entire security council so i think personalizing it is a bit too much i think if you as minister lavrov directly you will have a lot of praise hassle i mean on a personal level just a lot of people but i think you also ignore as if he is right to create criticize them when they're professional or whatever i mean i was in many meetings i mean probably all the meetings de mistura had with the minister for all of. i think they were always very frank and friendly you don't have to agree with everything. but most meetings between de mistura and various secretaries of state again frank and friendly don't necessarily agree on everything. but i think he handled himself admirably given the context in which you operate and which was not. now let me also give you an ability to criticize russia for a change because i heard you say was that russia has

a somewhat similar advantage with the united nations it has been trying to cultivate its capacity of talking or it was being able to talk with all the players at least in the middle east do you think russia has used this capacity to the best of its ability well i mean let me put it this way russia is certainly not the only player in the middle east there are others so. whatever russia tries to do is. subject to the actions of others now if you look at the various conflicts in the middle east i think. has been equidistant from from all the parties. i think the only exception is probably on the arab israeli or palestinian israeli conflict because there are clear security council resolutions and general assembly resolution so russia's position there although it has excellent relations with the arabs and with the israelis probably russia's relations with israel are the best

right now but it operates within a certain frameworks up by the security council in general assembly resolutions when it comes to syria it supports the government but it has relations with the opposition has a very good relationship with the kurds. in yemen and it has relations with the antagonists and tries to talk to them and even within the context of the. problems that you're having today between the between saudi arabia and. egypt and qatar. russia has taken a position that is balanced and tries to help both sides overcome the differences so clearly every country does what it is in its interest but it so happens it's interesting for for it to have enough interim once it has to be equidistant and i think it's it wasn't easy and i really have to. praise russia for being able to

handle that over the long term because you can do that in short periods but russia has been able to learn to think that this capacity if it's fully developed would also all kind of chip away from the u.n. all of that legitimacy because you can is it a make a case that for example be asked in the process and what russia and iran have been mate able to achieve so far should have been the u.n. job it should have been the u.n. it's it's i. actually it's mandates you negotiate those issues rather than. individuals individual countries to do that and then serve as a sort of legitimizing force when much of their work is being done whereas the how would you split that mandate war and peace it's been the united nations as an organization that was specifically tasked with those issues. the initiative of individual countries i would look at the most complementary i think the charter provides for others to operate even regional organizations there is no

contradiction. if certain countries for example because of syria are able to get together and work out because there are other countries who have a presence on the ground and as a military dimension which they run as you know shies away from if they're able to do something and they have been able to accomplish quite a lot into the constitution committee which is a by product of their efforts i think it helps the u.s. i mean i would not saying as as you sure people will roll over you when i would look at it on the contrary as complimenting the role of the u.n. when cannot do everything it needs as much help as possible into anything though well when it comes to war and peace well i think well if you look at the history of what i'm going to look at the syrian conflict well i mean because the syrian conflict because of the various layers of the u.n. and because of the 6 there is no agreement within the security council what do you expect the went to do i think what the u.n. has been able to do and i think that is extremely important is that to keep syria

on the. international radar with all the suffering and tragedy that is happening you know sometimes people just forget about it and say look this is a conflict that will not be resolved no i think you one was capable of keeping it on the radar but also there's another aspect which is extremely important is the humanitarian assistance in spite of all what was happening the u.n. without the you when i think the situation would have been a lot worse in terms of the humanitarian situation in syria both sides of the political divide the u.n. does play a role but its role is a function of how the security council operates and as you know there has been not much agreement in the school well at least until now let's hope that it's not only . well ambassador it's been a great pleasure for me talking to you thank you very much for a great pleasure thank you very much for having. this conversation going just.

the same place same time here in the world that are. so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy. let it be an arms race. very dramatic to follow only. i don't see how that strategy will be successful very.

rob them to follow on their cover they're out of the cold war you are the sort of one among them. a product for the main t.v. way too high is not the high. end of the month when put to the office and so on. so close to the most minimal a lot of the. net that it is someone that would do the board.

in this connection to moment a lot and ask for the last 70 and seeing and i'm interested for the batch who should. soon. branch in shifts. shoot on disk in the. new car so said i'm not going to much to mama just back yet.

in the u.s. democrats demand protection for the whistle blow at the heart of the trump impeachment inquiry and a dramatic departure from the way other have been treated. as people in india and around the world 150 years since the birth of my god they've seen as an icon of non bottom resistance posters of his image a defaced in some regions lighting celebration. flashing the ok hand gesture is apparently not ok anymore it's now branded a hate symbol and all one thing look at the sack in the u.s. it's also fired up debate. you can find it ok so right now when you search for the . it's ok the problem is that the.