ANY QUOTES USED MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO MURNAGHAN, SKY NEWS

DERMOT MURNAGHAN: Now President Barack Obama has said the US cannot turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons in Syria but as the US Congress prepares to vote on military strikes, Britain’s influence appears to have diminished – well it has. The former Defence Secretary Liam Fox says the Prime Minister was side-lined at the G20 Summit last week. Well let’s say a very good morning then to Liam Fox and Liam Fox, I know you’ve got a new book out at the moment which rather addresses this issue of the United Kingdom and its influence at the moment. You say in the book that we need the courage to shape our destiny in line with our beliefs and values, well when it comes to the UK and Syria we’re not in a position to do that are we?

LIAM FOX: No, we’re not and I’m very disappointed at the position that Parliament has taken because decisions will be taken about how the international community reacts to Syria but we won’t be part of those negotiations because we’ve opted out and I think we have to be very clear that in the very interconnected world in which we now live we either are going to help shape that world around us or we are going to be shaped by it and we’ve now seen a very clear breach of international law, we’ve seen a war crime committed, we’ve seen pictures on our TV screens in our own living rooms of children laid out in rows having been gassed by their own regime. The message we seem to be sending now to the rest of the world is that other countries will act because of that atrocity but not the United Kingdom. What does that tell other countries about what Britain currently is?

DM: Do you think the vote, I don’t want to go over this all over again but do you think there is potential for that vote two weeks ago, one and a bit weeks ago anyway, to be revisited?

LF: Well I think there is clearly the option for Parliament to be asked to think again in the light of the wider evidence that is now available in front of us and in light of the evidence that some of our allies like France and the United States and others do intend to take action on this. A lot of the debate in the House of Commons was very much focused on what were the consequences of intervention but there wasn’t enough debate I don’t feel about the consequences of non-intervention and if we believe that the regime in Syria still has chemical weapons, if as many of us think the opposition may also have access to chemical weapons, if we send the signal that they can use them with impunity what does that mean about the safety for the citizens, the ordinary people of Syria? What does it mean to dictatorships around the world who may also have chemical weapons and now feel that it is safer to use them?

DM: You have got another question to face about the consequences of intervention and at this point it looks as if there will be some form of intervention and it is what form that takes, whether it is enough to achieve whatever its aims are.

LF: Well there is a very difficult military balance I think here, even once the political decision has been taken because it is about sending a very clear signal to the Assad regime and to the rebels that we would not be able to tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the civilian population but a message that was sufficient to show that we are serious about our ability to degrade the command and control that the regime has over its forces but not so great that it would ultimately distort the dynamic of the civil war because I don't think there is any advantage to us becoming involved in a civil war where the outcome I don't think is advantageous to the Syrian people, the region or the wider world. I can’t see why replacing the Assad regime with its Iranian allies and Hezbollah is improved for us by replacing it with Al Qaeda and an anti-West, anti-Christian, anti-Israel coalition which is unlikely to see any greater stability in the region or beyond.

DM: So what, you can see an Assad regime remain there, it just has to be a bit more democratic and not use chemical weapons?

LF: Ultimately there needs to be a political solution between the different parties in Syria. The British government, William Hague in particular, has been very active in trying to promote a political solution, ultimately the parties themselves need to want one and there is a limit to what we can actually do. In terms of international law, if we have those laws and we have the concept of war crimes and then they are committed in full view of the international community and we don’t do anything about them, what is the value of that international law and why should anybody listen in future when we pass further ones?

DM: But I mean a lot of parallels were drawn with Iraq and that experience, aren’t the real parallels here more recent and what happened in Libya. You and I when you were Defence Secretary used to discuss this an awful lot a couple of years ago, the original reason for intervention there was no fly zones, humanitarian, in the end it ended up regime change and a bit of a mess still in that country.

LF: I think at least the people of Libya now have a real say in their future but I don't think the two are very directly comparable. I think you can look at the situation in Libya and see that the United Nations was intent on preventing what was an imminent slaughter of civilians in Benghazi, there was a viable opposition, there was some clarity in what we were able to do and what we were able to effect. It is much more difficult to see how the internal dynamic in Syria can be effected in the same way. I said during the debate in the House of Commons that before you intervene you have to be able to answer a number of questions – what does a good outcome look like, could we engineer such an outcome, would we be part of engineering that and how much of the eventual outcome did we want to own? I think those questions were much easier to answer in Libya than they are in Syria in terms of its civil war but there is a separate question about the use of chemical weapons and the credibility of international law and how we, by the values that we have, are willing to shape the emerging world around us.

DM: And finally Dr Fox, can I just ask you about one thing that intrigues me in your book Rising Tides, as I said it is just coming out now and I mentioned when you were Defence Secretary, well one reason why you still aren’t was your relationship with your advisor Adam Werrity. You have got a thanks, some of the acknowledgements in the book, you thank an Adam here for this contributions, loyalty and friendship, is that Adam Werrity?

LF: Yes, it is and I’ve always made clear that all those who helped me, all my friends who were loyal, I would remain loyal to them, I think that is an essential part of being decent.

DM: Okay, Dr Fox, thank you very much, good to talk to you. Liam Fox there.