PLEASE NOTE "THE ANDREW MARR SHOW" MUST BE CREDITED IF ANY PART OF THIS TRANSCRIPT IS USED On Sunday 27th March Andrew Marr interviewed Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander ANDREW MARR: But of course some of those questions are also questions for the opposition because Labour's backed the strikes on Libya with great enthusiasm. So what's its thinking about legitimate targets and indeed the long-term strategy for Libya and other parts of the Arab world which are now in turmoil? Douglas Alexander is the Shadow Foreign Secretary. Good morning. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Good morning. ANDREW MARR: What about the question of war aims because I think an awful lot of people looking at this from afar can't actually work out where this ends. Does it end in the partition of Libya? Does it end in some surprising putsch in Tripoli? And John Simpson was saying there's not much chance of that. Where does it end? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Well I think there are two questions that people are worried about this weekend. One is who's in charge? And, secondly, how does this end? On the who's in charge, I welcome the suggestion from Liam Fox that NATO is coming together to find the command and control structure that is much needed. In relation to how does this end, we cannot with certainty know how this is going to end, and those of us who did support the government not with enthusiasm but with resolve last week have to have the humility to acknowledge that. But frankly it is preferable to be in circumstances this week where we are discussing a range of outcomes than talking about the one outcome that was otherwise certain, which was the slaughter of the Benghazi people. ANDREW MARR: I can see that absolutely, but we do seem to be in a difficult position now where Colonel Gaddafi is dug in with his own people in Libya. Very hard to winkle him out from the air, no sign at the moment of any kind of putsch. He's got nowhere to run to and, therefore, this could be a very, very long process of stalemate and possibly, as I say, the separation of what is now Libya into two different places. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Well, as I say, stalemate is preferable to slaughter. ANDREW MARR: Yuh. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: I think the government has a heavy responsibility in the meetings it's got this week, to be working on all possible scenarios - to make sure, for example, that post-conflict planning is in place, thinking about humanitarian aims. But the other aspect that's much forgotten of Resolution 1973, which we supported, is that it sanctions non-military means of putting pressure on the regime. So whether that is further sanctions, whether that's what's called an escrow account whereby you could cut off the oil revenues that have supported the Gaddafi regime for many years, we need to be working hard on the diplomatic … ANDREW MARR: (over) And choke it? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Choke it. … work on the diplomatic track to put pressure on the regime at the same time as on the military track to protect the population of Libya. ANDREW MARR: And what about the other countries that are boiling at the moment? Syria is all over the news and Yemen. As Dr Fox was saying, you know it's in many ways a bigger threat to the West because of al Qaeda than Libya ever was under Gaddafi, certainly in the last few years. DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Well first of all we need that sense of perspective. My sense is that people will look at the Middle East in the future through the lens of 2011, not 9/11, which has been the lens for the last decade. What therefore should be the British government's response, I think it should speak clearly and unequivocally in support of reform and the chance for people right across the Middle East to have a better life, a more democratic future. But of course the circumstances in Syria, the circumstances in Bahrain, the circumstances in Yemen reflect that general pattern, are distinctive, and I think it is correct to say that the scale of the threat posed towards the civilian population in Libya was actually greater than even the repression, the appalling repression that we're witnessing according to what I've read from Amnesty International this morning in places like Syria. ANDREW MARR: Is there double standards here though in the sense that the West will say very little or indeed back some friendly countries which repress their own people - and I'm thinking of places like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain or some of the other smaller states - because they're as it were on our side … DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: (over) I think … ANDREW MARR: … and we put all our you know effort against the Libyans? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: I think we need to be mindful of exactly that question and try our best to answer it. I would offer two answers. Firstly, let's be honest, in bringing the Arab League into this coalition, some of the members of the Arab League are not taking forward the rate of reform that we would like to see in their own country, so there needs to be respect and dialogue on those issues. Secondly, however though, I think there were distinctive factors in Libya. Not simply the imminence of the threat to the population of Benghazi, but also the fact that there was a United Nations Security Council Resolution, support within the region not just for the resolution but enforcement of the resolution. That does set Libya apart. But our key challenge now therefore in relation to Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, even countries with whom we've had long association is to say clearly and unequivocally Britain stands with the aspirations of people for a better future and that those aspirations should be met not with repression, but actually with a process of reform. ANDREW MARR: Can I ask you about the International Criminal Court point - again that I was talking with Liam Fox about - because Labour was a great supporter of all of that, the idea of international justice and drag the tyrants to court and convict them. And yet if you actually want to get people out with the minimum amount of bloodshed, is that the right way? It may sound less moral, but shouldn't we, wouldn't we be better off getting people like Gaddafi or Assad or whoever who it is and finding them a nice villa somewhere where they can live out their final years in tranquillity? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Well the record of allowing dictators to deport to villas has not been a happy one. And I think you also have to look at the counterfactual, which is to say if you send a message that you can repress, brutalise, murder your own population without consequence, that actually leads to a very dangerous world rather than a more secure world. I actually want a world in which the United Nations is not just relevant but effective, where an International Criminal Court can extend the reach of the law across international borders. I think that's a better future not just for the world but for Britain's national security interests as well. ANDREW MARR: In the case of Libya specifically, do you think there's a case for arming the rebels? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: I'm not convinced that at this stage there should be the arming of the rebels - partly of course because Security Council Resolution 1973 imposes an arms embargo across the whole of the country. But also, frankly, I was critical of William Hague's mission into Benghazi to meet the rebels that clearly went wrong, but we need to understand these people and who they are and their aspirations. It's also important to recognise that we need to be training as well as the provision of arms. So I think we need to be looking at other ways, not least humanitarian support, by which we can assist the population. ANDREW MARR: And in all of this, what are the lessons of the Iraq affair when we're looking at Libya, do you think? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Well I wrote an article in the Guardian last Monday ahead of my vote in the House of Commons acknowledging candidly that this whole debate takes place in the long shadow of Iraq and the loss of life and loss of trust that were caused as a result of that conflict. That's why I think it is important that there's a clear legal base, it is important that there is support within the region, but critically that politicians continue to answer and ask the difficult questions. Our job in government is not to support … Our job in opposition is not to support the government in taking action with enthusiasm. It is to be solid in our support but serious in our scrutiny. And our job in the weeks ahead is to ask the difficult questions the public are asking about how this mission ends, about Britain's commitment - all the questions that I fully understand, not least in the light of Iraq, that people will be asking. ANDREW MARR: And we see a kind of rumbling of worry and so on about some of the main players in the coalition from inside the coalition in the newspapers. Do you think that from what you've seen, the Defence Secretary, the Foreign Secretary have by and large handled this pretty well? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Well let's start with the more general picture. Multilateralism is hard, but it's preferable to unilateralism in these circumstances. So if there are disputes within NATO or elsewhere, let's work to resolve them. Within the government, listen I think the country's pretty united in support of our armed forces. I think the responsibility of the government is to act in a united way as well. ANDREW MARR: Even though the opinion polls are showing quite a fall in support for this particular Libyan operation? I mean can you see yourself supporting it in six months time if Gaddafi is still there, if Libya is in fact in effect two countries? DOUGLAS ALEXANDER: Listen, people have deep concerns about this situation in terms of how it's going to end. That's why I think it is imperative on the government this week to try and bring clarity to not just who's in charge but also who will be in charge of post-conflict reconstruction, how do we sustain that coalition, and what are the non-military means that can actually put pressure to bear on the Gaddafi regime. ANDREW MARR: For now, Douglas Alexander, thank you very much indeed. INTERVIEW ENDS
| 
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
Bookmark with:
What are these?