15/12/2012 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London. This week we are looking at

the strange case of the UK where more people are getting jobs but

the economy is contracting and asking why? Also - President Assad

of Syria remains in power after 21 months of uprising but are cracks

beginning to appear? And with Nelson Mandela in hospital,

thoughts turn again to his legacy. With me on the programme this week

are Ned Temko from the Observer, Mina Aloribi from Alwasat, Vincent

Magombe from Africa Inform International, and Jef Mcallister

the American writer and broadcaster. Welcome to you all. But first the

massacre of the children in America. Jef, President Obama was obviously

moved last night and his outspoken comments on the need for gun

control have many supporters. But does he have any real chance of

making that happen? The problem is this has been politically

radioactive for a very long time. 80s fade difficult even to get

small to changes in the laws. There have been so many of these

tragedies, over and over again. Maybe this one, killing children

just before Christmas, can make a change. But a congresswoman from

New York whose husband was killed in one of the shootings, the

legislation she once past is just too reduced the size of magazines

in guns. The sect tiny changes in the laws. People feel overwhelmed

by the size of the problem. And there are large sections of the

country where people are very protective of there guns. What is

the can still institutional right to bear arms? -- constitutional.

Ates whatever current Supreme Court's assistance. On a human

level, Barack Obama did very well. Grit is hard not to react as a

father and say, this could have been my child. One of the things

that would be fascinating is to see how long this sense of horror lasts,

because Barack Obama on the one hand was careful not to wait in to

the political territory, but he did use the phrase meaningful action,

which is a little less ambitious. Even though the Second Amendment is

off balance, the right to carry arms, there is a lot of ostensibly

small things you could to in terms of a licensing and background

checks. Awful things like banning certain kinds of handguns and below

double magazines, which would at least mean that an unbalanced

person could not going to and within this period of seconds,

killed 20 young children. problem is these were not guns

belonging took the shooter, they belonged to his mother and she was

cleared to use them. The changes might not be enough, but at least

you start somewhere. Whenever we see a tragedy like this, people say

it is too soon to go into their conversation, but then by the time

good horror fades down, they say there is nothing they can do. But

the fact that these happened just before Christmas and cities young

children, you would think it would push people to think this is the

time to have the debate. You have to push people across the political

lines, because this is an issue that falls on two sides of the

divide. If there was a time that one needs take some action, it is

now. This is one of the worst tragedies to happen. Looking at it

from outside the United States, people just don't understand how

heartless anybody who is supposed to beat changing something concrete

to say that nothing can be done. A would have loved to seek Barack

Obama sake, we're going to take action because of this crime. I

think the political classes need to take these things into their own

hands and call for action. Is it that political will to

perhaps pull away from these and say enough is enough? I think the

country is split. The peaks city near her eyes had been saying for

years that we need to do something about this. I don't know people who

carry guns in my life on the East Coast, but there are large

proportions of the country where this is a mandatory part of growing

up, having your hunting rifle. Give us a split in the it debate between

people who think through the ramifications and people who think,

it is my birthright to have at gun. It is interesting to see what has

happened here, but I would be pessimistic that anything is going

to be done. Now the UK economy. We are living through strange economic

times across the world. In the UK more people are getting jobs but

the economy is contracting. And its AAA credit rating is under threat.

So what is going on? The short answer is that this is the

recession and unlike any other, where we are not just trying to

come out of a classic boom-and-bust cycle. He had this unprecedented

world economic crash, he had reneged on one hand to do something

about the deficit and on the other, keep in mind the fact that to get

out of the recession, the economy has to grow. The group uses jobs

are being created and this coalition Government hoped for that,

that the number of jobs and interestingly, the number of jobs

created in the private sector is now balancing the loss of jobs in

this last period in the public sector. The real problem is for

recovery. If it is going to be export at lead, you need people to

buy your products. He have around you this European continent in

economic freefall. So one of your principal potential markets is in

big trouble itself. Everybody is suffering the same way. There is

the constant conversation about austerity or not. In reality, for

growth in the economy, you need to spend at the same time. Austerities

not going to solve the situation. In the Great to a European context,

those conversations are ongoing. The more people worry about

spending, the more the confidence lowers. The United States was in a

similar position with its credit rating. What happens if you lose

the lustre off your triple A rating? Does it make any

difference? When you were here big reserve currency and you still have

a kick economy, already fair markets out discounting the

possibility of a British downgrading. The exchange rate used

to be a gigantic problem for Britain and that I do not think it

is such a problem. It is interesting that in all the

industrialised economies, you still don't see the jobs coming in,

despite the predicted growth. In Britain, some of this growth might

be up and are normally in changing the way the measured it. If you

look at the number of under- employed, unemployed and people who

were economically inactive, police numbers at actually slightly

lighter than they were before, so am not sure if we know if this is

wonderful news for Britain, although I certainly hope it is.

I personally do not believe in any type of news on this, because for

me, I am very much in touch with people in this country, who were

very much unemployed. I talk to those people. I don't think that

Cameron and those other people talk to them. This is a very wonderful

British character of in gloom and doom, you try to pick some

wonderful experience to shine. If you look at the other side of it,

the economy is actually contracting, some observers are saying it is

down to productivity, not the number of shops.

I stick with the number of jobs. It is interesting is people want to

talk about the positive, a requirement for them. They're

actually going for example, the way and a permit has been rising in the

public sector. -- unemployment has been rising. There are also

regional discrepancies and that is a political problem. The one thing

I would say in defence of Government figures is there are

some fascinating things, among them that for the first time, full-time

employment was up. There was real movement on youth employment. But

you were right, there is this productivity question, because you

would expect with these changes to see some signs of productivity and

this is the class are half empty, a glass half full. Some economists

say we are on the cusp of some sort of growth, because there is that

capacity with greater employment, then half-empty is this is just not

as productive as economy as we need. Now to Syria - and as cracks appear

will it be a military solution with rebels versus government forces or

how much will outside political pressure be involved especially

from Russia. Now to Syria - and as cracks appear will it be a military

solution with rebels versus government forces or how much will

outside political pressure be involved especially from Russia.

There is a Putin-Obama summit after the inauguration in Washington in

January. Might that tip the balance? Or will it be months of

street fighting? The reality is now a have the secretary of defence

signing off in order to have 400 US troops go to the border. The

military solution seems to be one that is prevailing at the moment.

Politically, we have seen remarks from Russia and showing there is an

understanding that the President Assad regime will fall. What will

happen next is unclear, but there are signs from Russia that they

realise the end is in sight. The meeting between Vladimir Putin and

Barack Obama will focus on severe, but it is difficult to understand

how much control they will have. might be thinking, we need allies

in future, this is a dead regime. They are very clear on the changes

on the ground. The military position will push the regime into

the corner and has forced a change in the Russian Government. Public

statements keep changing. That is important. They need to maintain

their foothold in Syria, but they will make enemies among the people.

The Russians have to think about how to salvage what is left.

significant is the recognition at Old Barack Obama of the opposition

This has been a debate inside the administration of. How much do you

do? A no-fly zone, more American intervention is called for, this is

a tremendous military disaster. 25,000 external refugees and two

million inside, it is a terrible thing. The problem has been is that

there is no obvious solution and America intervening in complex

fighting in the Middle East, we do not have a good track record of

success in this. President Obama has been trying to lead from behind,

trying to get the CIA to provide arms to people, to be active. The

recognition it is this slowly, slowly approach, which avoids

giving too much American prestige. It still says we are in the game,

we want you to come together to do something for yourself and we will

help you more. First it is going to get worse and then it is going to

get worse. What do you think about Britain's role in this? Britain is

as confused as everybody else is. There really is not a good solution.

Anyone who has lived in that part of the world and covered that part

of the world knows that one of the great frustrations is directly is

Syria, like lots of other nations, is a kind of post-colonial,

European creation. It is not an obvious nation-state. This is the

bash are Allah sad clan, the Alawite, Sunni Muslims and Kurds.

10 years ago at this time, we were having discussions like this about

Iraq and the sense that Iraq was not a nation state. They think is

Alawites by Muslims as well. Kurds are Muslims as well, most of them.

Except the historical tradition, pre-World War One tradition, in

this part of the world was that there was not a history of nation-

states. This was a post-World War One solution. Syria is a perfect

example. You had European diplomats taking the back of an envelope

saying, we will take a little bit there. You are right, all Muslims

are Muslims, but the political reality in Syria is you have the

Bashar al-Assad regime whose legitimacy, fairly or unfairly,

maybe this was cynically done to create these divisions, and that is

a valid point. But the reality on the ground is one of the reasons

the regime has sustained itself as long as it has, in addition to the

intelligence services, is there is a real fear amongst the Alawites,

amongst this minority population and the clan is what happens after

Bashar al-Assad? If you ask me... We are asking you. The solution to

this is very simple. I cannot say time-frame it wise when this regime

is going to fall. The good thing is the people of Syria themselves are

doing it. The international community has been impotent. There

was not a good reason for the international community to

intervene in Iraq. But there is a good reason to intervene Nano to

save the thousands of people that are going to die in the next few

months. Why do you think there is a lack of intervention? I agree the

international community is completely confused. They have

always been confused anyway. You see a dictator killing his people,

it does not matter which ethnic group he is coming from. This one

is a dictator. I have a particular problem with the Russians, not just

in this particular case, but because they seem to be supporting

dictators all the time. Right now in my country, Uganda, the whole

world is cutting off aid to the regime at for stealing money

through corruption. The Russians have given weapons in exchange for

future oil. The Russians are acting in the cold war or way where they

had to balance up things. mention that the Syrian people are

doing it for themselves, but it is 21 months now. But the Government

is very well armed, it is a very strong for us, the intelligence

services and so on, so it could take them years to do so. Perhaps

the international community should get involved, but think Cleverley

how they could help Syria and stop the bloodshed. We will move from

this area and top about Nelson Mandela. He has been admitted again

to hospital with another health scare. Now focuses us once again on

what he has achieved and how his legacy will shape the future of

South Africa. He remains in hospital. I know you have

interviewed him. Give us a sense of the man. It is not an obituary, but

the sense of the man and his position. I interviewed him there

the day after he got out of prison. I like Jeff, and we put foreign

correspondents, we interviewed a lot of heads of states and Prime

Ministers and King's, whatever. He is one of the few people who I can

say I was bowled over by a with his presence. He is softly spoken,

extraordinarily smart, obviously, and at what was most overwhelming

incredibly without bitterness. He was a guy who had spent much of his

adult life behind bars, fighting for something, or sacrificing his

life for something he deeply believed in and believed what

happened. He was utterly without bitterness. When we talk about his

legacy, one of the things he did accomplish in South Africa, what is

now under Sujit strain from his successors, is to create a single

nation out of an incredibly difficult place under the ashes of

a part-time, a broadly unified nation, with lots of problems and

he was probably the most and corrupt man. Now in South Africa we

have problems of corruption and endemic poverty and Nelson Mandela

knew in his heart of hearts that no-one man and no-one at regime

could solve that. But he gave them a chance I am not sure his

successors will give them. He is an example for other parts of the

world. He is an example of sacrifice and fighting the good

fight. Also on the other hand for giving and being a good Fichte and

that is what he symbolises around the world. Many people and the

Middle East say, though if only we had Mandela, a figure like that. He

did not want to look back and say who owes he what and let's take

revenge. As he gets older and older and moves back from politics and

public life, his party, the NFC, has struggled. The contrast between

him and his qualities, and the canny politician he was, compared

to his successors, you wish he was still in power. The answer is now a

one-party state and it is corrupt. He had the discipline to leave

office after one term, and like many other countries that were

frontline states. One biographer said he is like Abraham Lincoln. It

took 100 years after the civil war for blacks to have rights and there

were many miserable things that happened in his wake, but he was

still a brilliant politician and a creative fellow and that is his

legacy and that is the same for Nelson Mandela. Sum him up for us.

There are two things. One is the legacy for Africa which is that

symbolism about democracy, about the fact that you lead, you can go

and you can be changed. Compare him with no Gabby and compare him to

the leader in my country after 26 years he wants to continue. Respect

of democracy and the legacy for its South Africa, whilst he did a lot

in terms of race relations and brought that symbolism of peace we

do not see anywhere else in the world, in terms of economic sharing

of the wealth in South Africa, in terms of the ANC taking up that

legacy, they have failed. We are seeing explosions starting to

happen. The mind killings, there is a lot of anger going on amongst the

people. If the ANC does not now say, we can live together white and

black, but that is not enough, we need to live together equally,

economic glee. Then that legacy will not live on. If there had been

no Nelson Mandela, it would be be where we are now in South Africa?

am somebody who is very optimistic. I think another Mandela will appear