19/11/2011 Dateline London

demonstrations across the country. Hello and welcome to Dateline

London. Does saving the eurozone mean sacrificing democracy?

Bloodshed in Syria and the Arab spring. Plus could the Republicans

find a candidate who could lose to Barack Obama? My guests today are

John Fisher Burns of the New York Times. Annalisa Piras of Italy's

Espresso. Abdel Bari Atwan of Al Quds al Arabi. And Ned Temko of the

Observer. The resignation of Silvio

Berlusconi was a long time coming but the new Italian government

contains not a single democratically elected politician.

In Greece the Papandreou government fell because he suggested he might

ask his people to vote on the country's bail out. And elsewhere

in Europe there is a great reluctance to consult the people

about the future of the European Union. Does saving the euro mean

forgetting about democracy for a while? It seems that in Italy.

think focusing on that aspect of the prospects -- problem is not the

best way of understanding what is going on. When a building is going

on, you do not asked if the fireman has been elected, you say, please

say best. Mr Monti has the highest popularity level of any politician

in 20 years. Public opinion in Italy is right behind Mario Monti.

The problem is not democracy, the problem is the failure of elected

politicians to tackle the real problems. This is the big issue. We

should focus on that. That's a great argument for not having

democracy anywhere. The thing is politicians have shown this -- in

this crisis they are unable to tackle the problem. If you think

about Sarkozy, he stole the wheel of the European Union and said we

would deal with it because we are politicians. The technocrats do not

understand. What have they done? They are elected politicians and

they have made a pig's ear of it. In the next two weeks, if we

witness the collapse of the euro we should thank the politics --

politicians. Is it that serious that between now and December 9th,

the next summit, that is it? It could all be gone. I think it is

nearly all over. In the Middle East we have Gaddafi and other dictators

and it is repeated in Europe. Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, the

eurozone is just Angela Merkel. It is one person called Angela Merkel.

But the German people can get rid of her in elections. She was

elected and is a legitimate leader of Germany. In theory, they can get

rid of her. But what will happen to Germany and the eurozone, she told

the congress, she said we must have a united Europe, United eurozone,

with more political integration. She was talking about setting up a

eurozone empire. I believe this is dangerous. You can see the rulers,

the leaders, the elected leaders are going one by one. Berlusconi

has already gone. Do we need a European spring? That is a serious

question. Last week, we broadcast from Abu Dhabi and people said we

want models of democracy for the Arab world and are not looking to

Europe. Exactly. Seriously. I believe Berlusconi was a dictator.

He was not performing as a democracy. And they wanted a

referendum in Greece to support. But they said to him, a referendum

or no bail out. This is democracy? You have been on the programme a

time's sake Berlusconi will eventually gay but I bet you did

not think it would be over austerity? No, but again this is

where you thank Europe. Eventually, he went because of the economic

situation. But the question about lack of democracy is serious, if

technocrats can solve it where politicians fail. It is overstated.

In Italy and in Greece, these technocrats took over with the

elected mandate of the people in Parliament. They basically realised

the game was up. They did not stage a coup d'etat. I would not get

carried away with the notion of democracy. What's more interesting,

the way you phrased it initially was is in the euro or democratic

institutions? I think in a straight fight between the euro as it is now

constituted and the European Union which has little popular

credibility throughout the Continent, and a single currency,

in the end to the single currency may lose and basically you will

find the elephant in the room is if the pressures become unbearable and

if as Barry says Angela Merkel and Sarkozy and the collective

political leadership of Europe continue with their almost buffoon

like inability to do what everybody knows is necessary, and that is

deliver a credible side to the markets but the institutions of the

European Union stand behind the sovereign debt, the option that is

open his either not a bail out but to bail in. Banks are taking a

haircut, or some of these economies saying we would take back some of

the national powers with which we used to sort out economic crisis,

devaluation, setting our own interest rates, having a run

currency. I do not think you can assume the euro will survive that

pressure. When I have talking to American business people, almost

all of them seem to think the euro it will fail. They do. A lot of

this talk underestimates Europe and the Greeks and the Italians and

their ability to solve their problems. It is not about corrupt

democracy but politics. It might be well for the British to remember

there was, if I remember correctly, a period of nine years from 36-1945

when we had no general election. Be with the most tumultuous years --

they were the most tumultuous years in a history. There was no decision

about going to war in 1939. Churchill never had a mandate but

there were few people who would have questions in the emergency the

government of national unity was the right way to go. I think we

should stand back and give the Italians and the Greeks time to get

their house in order and they will. The problem is the markets. Will

they give them the time? Things move so quickly. I agree with what

John said, both of the countries have the cultural and social

strength to tackle this. One of the most impressive things about the

Italian response which is a little bit different from the Greek

response is that does not seem to be a resistance on the ground to

doing what is required. And it's fundamentally a rich country.

a poor country of rich people! The consensus in Italy that things

would move quickly in the right direction now. Mr Monti has been

receiving the confidence of the Senate and Parliament so there is

hope it will happen quickly. The problem is not only Italy and

Greece, also Germany because as Cameron reminded us this week, the

problem is will the central bank be allowed to use it to kill this.

is not just the British, it has been said. Mario druggy is saying

give the institutions the means to tackle the crisis. He says they

need the funds promised by the politicians. The attention is now

on Germany because Germany seems to be the only obstacle to sort out

the crisis because everybody seems to know what needs to be done and

you have to give the central bank the opportunity to secure the debt.

There is an admission that politicians failed and technocrats

should take over, in Greece and Italy. It seems like a snowball.

Secondly, now we have a Europe of the eurozone and the Europe of the

money raised in. 17 countries in the eurozone and 10 countries

outside. It is a dangerous split. The European Union used to give us

a good example of unity and harmony. Now, we can see rows between the

sides and Cameron and Angela Merkel. It is indicative. When they said

Europe is talking German. This is very dangerous now. In a time of

crisis we expect them to work together to be united, to tackle

the crisis but we cannot see this. On the narrow point, David

Cameron... European politicians say nobody is listening to Britain and

they do not care. Especially in Germany, they would like Britain to

be a full part but they're not. Interestingly in Britain even a

Labour, Ndure enthusiastic though it has been is much more sceptical

now. You do not hear anybody saying let's join the euro. On this so-

called Tobin tax, no mainstream politician... Even those who think

the Robin Hood tax is good because it gives to the poor recognise a

tax that taxes the City of London to bail out Greece is probably not

a great idea politically. It might be a good idea from the American

perspective to remember it took from the American Revolution 15

years and a financial crisis for the 13 colonies before the United

States of America in its present form was born in Philadelphia. It

was born in part to deal with problems of mounting debt and

currency. It may take Europe another few years to get this right

but who can doubt in the end it will?

Syria is now fast becoming a pariah state and some believe we are

already witnessing a civil war. What next for Syria and the other

countries touched by the Arab spring? Saif al-Islam has been

arrested. Does it matter? The regime is history. It is a strong

message to the Syrian president, look what happened to Gaddafi and

his son. So, I think he should realise that. The time is nearly

over. Unless he does something very drastic and quick. Syria is

isolated. It is on the verge of economic sanctions from Europe and

also the Arab world. Its membership in the Arab League is spending now.

The most dangerous thing is the country is drifting towards civil

war. We have already witnessed some of this when a dissident from the

Syrian army attacked the military buildings and headquarters of the

Syrian army. It could be bloody. The problem is that his eight

international decision to depose and remove Al Assad as leader of

Syria but at what cost? Syria is Of the and he is supported by the

ethnic minorities. So a civil war could go to full speed. In this

case, it could be terribly bloody. The civil war in Algeria cost us

200,000 deaths. The civil war in Lebanon lasted for more than 17

years. In Yemen, it was awful and bloody. If the same thing is going

to be repeated in Syria, it is unbelievable. There does not seem

to be any appetite for outsiders to do anything other than say, we

think there should be changed in Syria and we do not want people to

be killed, but we are not going to do anything. It brings us back to

why they are not looking to Europe for leadership. We are losing

credibility, because when you are seen to intervene in Libya and then

to let the massacre go on in Syria, as it has for a few months, what

kind of moral leadership does the West have? They should have done

something much earlier. We are seeing a kind of slow-motion car

crash. We are going towards a civil war, and there will be so much

bloodshed, and you do not see any appetite to do anything about it.

It struck me during the debate about Syria that there is sometimes

a contradiction from those who are now saying, why does the West not

do more and some who are saying we should use military intervention of

one kind or another. Those voicing this view, who include a

considerable number of left-of- centre Liberals, are the same

people who I recall as having led the charge against American

intervention in Iraq. It seems to me that they need to rethink this

question of the legitimacy of the use of military power, which we

unarguably have, to influence events. Chairperson early think a

military intervention in Syria would -- I personally think a

military intervention in Syria would be a disaster. Those who talk

about the dead in Syria might want to remember that there were weeks

in which Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own people. Not to

say that that justifies what happened in Iraq. That is a

question which will rage on through history. But there is an

inconsistency here. I do not agree with Annalisa about the corruption

of Europe or Western moral values in this. Libya is only the most

recent example where the intelligent application of Western

military force in that case was an an arguable benefit to the Libyan

people. Yet, the answer to Anna Lisa and others who say, why

haven't the West intervened, was pretty much what you said. It would

be a mess. Everybody understands that. It is not for lack of wanting

to change regime in Syria. One of the most extraordinary changes over

the last eight or nine months is to see the Arab League first of all in

Libya, but more importantly in Syria, because the legitimacy of

the Assad regime has been based on the fact that this is the consumer

Arab political regime, a fount of steadfastness against Israel and

all this sort of stuff, when in fact, because of the so-called Arab

Spring, there is a recognition now that things that would have just

been accepted five or ten years ago... One of the reasons for the

hesitation - I spent years as a foreign correspondent in Beirut

during some of the worst of the civil war. No matter how brutal

some intelligence forces and armies in that part of the world could be,

the Syrians took the gold medal. You rarely say kind things about

the Arab League, but you think on this, they have got it right?

do not know what is right or wrong in the Middle East nowadays. 20

years ago, I was one of the most popular writers and commentators,

because I was against American intervention in Iraq. The Libyan

people used to a dormie, and the Syrians. Nowadays, because I am

against intervention, I am the least popular person. And the same

people who loved me now hate me because I was against intervention

in Libya. The people in Syria because I was -- the people in

Syria who loved me because I was against intervention in Iraq now

love me -- now hate me because am against intervention in Syria.

People are fed up. They were humiliated. They had no pride, no

human rights, no democracy, no elections, nothing but brutality.

So they want anything. The its move on. Anyone outside the

US watching the Republican Party debates to find someone to

challenge Barack Obama will have been struck by Texas governor Rick

Perry's difficulty in keeping his foot out of his mouth. Despite all

the problems Barack Obama faces, with a year to go until the

presidential elections, is it possible that the Republicans might

pick a candidate who can actually win? I grant you, between Rick

Perry and came lately, it has looked improbably. But a year in

politics is a very long time. We do not know which direction the

financial crisis will go and how much further that will undermine

the already shaky standing of Barack Obama in American public

opinion. There is a remote possibility also of what you might

call a Fonteyn bloat moment. In 1951, after he had turned back both

the Democratic and Republican party nominations, bright Eisenhower

received as Supreme Commander in Europe a delegation of Republican

senators who said, you have to do this for the party and for the

country. And Berlusconi has time on his hands now. But there would not

have to fly to Paris. They would only have to across the Potomac

River. I think they would rather ask Jeb Bush. Whether it is David

Petraeus or George Bush, there may be a best X machine or in this.

Berlusconi! But my mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are bright and in

command of the issues, but not winning? The few are watching from

this side of the Atlantic, the debates seem like a series of

Saturday Night Live sketches. They are nothing if not entertaining.

How did Rick Perry become governor? Who knows? But the background for

this is the rise of the tea party, the fact that there is, at

grassroots level in the US, a sense that anybody but Made one knee is

who we want. That presents a problem because you get these ebbs

and flows. This week, Newt Gingrich is high in the polls, but he has a

lot of vulnerability as well. He is not very right wing any more. He is

quite conciliatory on a range of issues. He has a string of marital

interests that have yet to be resolved financially. He was a

lobbyist in Washington. So it is not as easy. On Saturday Night Live,

famously, you know how they called the elections like you do on the

BBC, after the Rick Perry whoops moment, they called the election

for Mitt Romney. Do we need a European spring and also an

American spring to take advantage of the passions sweeping the Arab

world? Thank God we do not have Sarah Palin running for President.

But it is nice to have those entertainers. All the stories of

the wives and ex-wives exposing Newt Gingrich. McCain says the

Taliban is participating in the government in Libya. You also have

Romany, who wants to bomb Iran tomorrow or maybe yesterday. It is

nice. It makes life as a journalist very spicy. Look at the Middle East

now. What shall I write about? No Gaddafi, no Hosni Mubarak, no

Saddam Hussein. Tomorrow, no Syria. At least we have those people to

write about. So as a citizen, you are alarmed, but as a journalist,

you are cheered up by this? It is good stories for us, something to

talk about. Let's not forget that Ronald Reagan, before he became

President, when he had thrown his cap into the ring as a contender,

had many embarrassing moments which led many people to say "That joker

could never be elected as President". He served two terms and

now stands in the estimates of many as one of the greater precedence.

At least it takes minds off the imminent closure or otherwise of

the euro. Yes, but you do not want a joker in the White House if

Europe explodes. That is not a funny joke. But the election has

been an exercise in democracy. People have appeared on TV and the

Americans have had a chance to judge if they are good or not.

are seeing what a great entertainer can do to our country with Mr

Berlusconi. I do not think there is a great lesson to draw there. No

entertainers, please, we need serious people. One good thing

about the primary process is that it does tend to throw up, at the

end of the game, two confident candidates. You may not like either