11/05/2013 Dateline London

the top of the hour. Now on BBC News, Dateline London with Gavin

London. Pakistan goes to the poles for the first ever successful

transition from one civilian government to another in its 66 year

history. David Cameron and Vladimir Putin are meeting to talk about

Syria. Our guests today are the Pakistani writer Shahed Sadullah,

Dmitry Shishkin of BBC Global News, Yasmin Alibhai Brown of the

Independent and John Fisher Burns of the New York Times. Very good to see

you all. The political fate of the 180 million people in Pakistan is

important not just for the region, for Afghanistan and India, but also

for the world. A stable, democratic Pakistan has proved elusive, and if

this election marked a transition between one democratically elected

government and another, it will be a landmark. So, what is at stake in a

country which, frustrating for its citizens, has seen so much

terrorism, violence and under development by Jim at this has been

a pretty good election in terms of the turnout... Yes, but not in terms

of the violence, unfortunately. Yesterday, the Taliban gave out a

press release saying that they would attack, and that they would

specially appoints suicide bombers to attack people going to the

poles, at specific polling stations. In spite of that, in spite of the

fact that the temperature there is around 35 Celsius, in spite of all

of that, to have a turnout of about 60% - the election commission hopes

it might even go up to 80%, which might be a bit too optimistic, but

even 60% is a direct link, I would think. If you had those elections in

those conditions in the UK, it would not be 6%. You are clearly quite

proud of it. Absolutely. It is not just the 60%. If you look at some of

the queues which are in existence at polling stations, people waiting to

vote, there are ladies in designer sunglasses and handbags, you would

never see that class of people in a polling station, ever! Duggleby will

get onto some of the more difficult issues in a moment, but what do you

think of what is going on? It must feel like a new dawn. The absence of

the military, I think this time they have really kept out of it, am I

right? There are 75,000 troops who are there to ensure security.

they do not want to come into play. And that is a big thing, to see so

many women, under those conditions, it just lifts your heart, and then

you begin to fear for them, you begin to think, is it going to do

what they really so crave for, some security, some stability,

electricity and gas and water? ! The basics, education... Will it come to

something? John, what do you think? I have seen Haggis Danny elections,

and this turnout is astonishing. -- Pakistani elections. You wonder,

will the result this time be different? The sad story, as you

know far better than I, is that democratically elected governments

have failed Pakistan Time and time again, to the point that many

Pakistanis at the time of the military takeovers, and the military

has governed that country for not far short of its history, I believe,

have been at least initially popular, or at least have had

considerable support, so the question is, is it going to be any

different this time? A Turkish friend of mine once said, rather

wisely, the problem in Turki had been with military takeovers that it

in front lies is an entire nation. -- it infantilises an entire nation.

Yes, I do not mean to sanction what the military has done. Only to say

that at the initial point of takeover, they have had people in

the streets, because people were so disillusioned. So I think the

question again is, will this additional turnout proved to be a

turning point? Will there be a new kind of government, or will it be

the same old same old? In the past seven years, we have not been

receiving lots of good news from Pakistan. From a global perspective,

Pakistan almost became a candidate to join the list of failed states.

And you would think, if the government does not control large

parts of the country, and the Taliban runs wild and all the rest

of it, I am not surprised by the popular response to the elections,

which effectively, is about change, about the change in the lives of

normal people. It is exactly that. What you were saying, about

education and the rights of women, one of the most populous countries

in the world needs to sort itself out. It could be, in democratic

terms, quite messy, because nobody can predict what might happen,

nobody knows what Imran Khan's party might do. But what do you think will

be the drift, the message, if it is a message of change? I think it is

changed to a system in which merit plays a greater part in all avenues

of decision-making. That means corruption going down, that means

priority being given to the right things, like education, health and

power. And yes, it is true, the outcome may be a bit messy, because

there are more than 2600 candidates, an average of almost ten

candidates per seat. There has been a high turnout, and it is expected

that a high turnout would favour Imran Khan. One hopes very much that

that is the case, because there is absolutely no doubt in most people's

minds about Imran's honesty, sincerity and unqualified commitment

to Pakistan, which is a lot more than you can say for many other

politicians. But he is not very liberal, and he does not believe in

a secular state, am I right? Because those are the people the telly

Taliban has targeted. This business about liberal and conservative is in

Pakistan is decided on the basis of one question, which is, do you think

this war against terrorism is our war? Those who say yes, it is our

war, are defined as the Liberals, and those who say no joke... That is

not fair. Some of the Liberals are killed, it has been a very tough

time for them. It is nothing to do with that. Most Pakistanis agree, as

I do, that the drone attacks, and the unfairness of using Pakistan as

a kind of satellite for US policy, is wrong, but it is about the rights

of women, about the fact that you should not do this to a state even

one which is largely much limb, that it should be a secular state, with

equal rights for all. -- largely Muslim. You will not hear anything

from most people I think on that basis. The truth is that

unfortunately, for many, many years, Pakistan has veered to the right.

All political parties stand at a certain place. The differences are

there, but it is all very much to the right of centre partial my

experience of the Islamic world is that for us in the West to wish on

them a secular state, however desirable we might see it, is simply

unrealistic. I defer to you, both of you, because you grew up in, if I

may say so, in Muslim families. But it seems to me that Islam, as a

faith, it is so fundamental in these countries. But Turki is a good

example, they have still maintained the idea that the state is not

pushing a faith. The creation of Pakistan by, in my view, one of the

greatest secular leaders. People misunderstand secular, they think it

is atheism, but it is not. It is only saying the public space has to

be neutral. With all due respect, I do not think that is concerning most

of the people in Pakistan. This is a country with huge unemployment,

where you get electricity for barely six hours a day, where there is no

guarantee of pure drinking water. Education... These are things which

are the top of people's minds. where has all the money gone? We

know where it went, we know where it went under Benazir Bhutto and her

father, and Nawaz Sharif. These people who have preached the virtues

of the secular state have looted the state and the country, which is one

of the reasons why the politicians have been so discredited. I wanted

to suggest that we see several Pakistans from outside. We see drone

attacks, we hear about Taliban attacks, we hear about religious

extremism, but we see a great deal of aspiration, we see Mullally use

of site and her friends, prepared to risk their lives for the education

of young women. It is this balance of power. It is exactly the same in

some of the newly liberated Arab countries. There was this optimism.

It is not true to say that the secular belief is only about this.

But education - where are we going to end up with education? If the

Taliban is determining so much in this election, will this attack he

just the beginning of the negation of education for girls off to be

fair, I do not think there is any mainstream party in Pakistan which

says girls should not be educated. In fact, the basis of the Taliban's

opposition to these elections is because they are saying, this is

part of an infidel culture, democracy. There should not be any

such thing as democracy. And it is on that basis that they are

attacking this. In spite of that, if you have a turnout of 60%, and if

there was no fear of actual life, I am certain it would have been

pushing 90%. Does he negotiate with the Taliban? Yes, he does, but that

does not mean... I want to move on to the alleged use of chemical

weapons in Syria, which was supposed to be a game changer. David Cameron

and Vladimir Putin have been at pains to suggest that something

might be able to be done to help bring the conflict to an end. This

was a very strange meeting of minds. It was everything, even from the

picture to how they related to each other, in terms of the gestures and

facial features, it is bizarre. Not only the relationship between

Britain and Russia, which is not at its highest, since 2006, but to be

fair, nothing new came out of the meeting. We have not learned any

details about the proposed international conference on Syria, I

put, useful, substantive and purposeful, that was how Cameron

described it, but what does that mean? ! I do not understand.

means we did not yes, maybe that is a good thing. Another thing I want

to mention is that Britain, Russia and the United States are permanent

numbers of the Security Council, they could have done something about

Syria in the last two years, without 80,000 people having been killed,

but nothing has been done. So, in my opinion, strategically, they might

agree, tactically, which is most important, they do not. Do you see

any chance of Vladimir Putin abandoning President Assad? No, I do

not think so at all. I was referring to some of the fates of some of the

other Arab leaders during the Arab Spring, and I think that Russia is

very anxious and nervous about what has been happening in that region

generally, and about some powers removing our powers from power, be

that as a popular revolt, or as part of a two year civil war, something

which worries Russia a lot. So, I think fundamentally, Russia will

potentially agree to some kind of peace negotiations, whatever, but

with the fundamental thing that Russia should continue to be playing

some part of that. How do you see this? One point of view is that

actually, nothing will be done... When you introduced the topic, you

talked about chemical weapons, and it seems to me there is a metaphor

there. As much as we have been told, the tests that have been done in the

UK and other evidence is very, very uncertain, even uncertain as to who,

if indeed nerve gas has been used, which side used it. It seems to me

that point in the direction of a more general conclusion, which is,

there is something seismic going on across the Middle East - whether it

was triggered by the American invasion of Iraq is something for

history to decide, but there is no doubt that what is happening is

something absolutely fundamental and, in my judgement, and I have

spent quite a bit of time in these countries, it is beyond our

management, even beyond our influence, save for one thing, urges

the mitigation of the misery. That, we can do something about, not

inside Syria, for the main, but outside Syria, 1 million referees,

let's concentrate on that. I get nervous when I hear about chemical

weapons, because that implies that any sort of intervention that we

might make would have a military element to it. If there is one

lesson at all from the last ten years, it is, don't get into that.

Philip Hammond, the British Defence Secretary, repeats the fact that

there were lessons from 2003 which we should learn. It is a situation

where we can't leave alone and we can't intervene. There is a sense of

helplessness. One of the genuine questions is what is this

relationship between Russia and Assad?

Arguably, Syria is the last friend Russia has in the middle east. They

need to keep some kind of influence. That will be something quite

important for Russia, to still be perceived as someone. I am taking a

wider view on the role of Russia, it has been part of the quartet forum

since its inception. Has anything been done between Israel and

Palestinian Territories? I do not think so. I actually think the

important thing is, if both sides, all sides want to end violence, why

can't they do it through the Security Council? The fact they

cannot... I was at a conference, where the

Turkish Prime Minister spoke, very passionately about what was

happening in Syria, but more importantly, we need to change the

Security Council. We cannot have this small club deciding on world

affairs. A club which disempowered the great

powers of 15 equals, would be any more likely to agree?

It would be better than this narrow group.

A final word. The West has shown a spectacular

ability in the middle east to jump from the frying pan into the fire,

they are doing it in Syria. They have got the wrong end of the state.

The main force in Syria we should be looking at Fort is not Bashar

al-Assad, but the main opposition, not even 18 months after, the main

opposition to him. The people from the Free Syrian He was joined by the

former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo. And on the Conservative

Right there are moves to demand an early referendum on the EU. Is this

realistic politics? And how helpful is this to the Prime Minister David

Cameron who wants to renegotiate terms of British membership?

Do you think actually Britain getting out of the EU is realistic

politics and could happen? No, it is not realistic politics,

that is the problem. I think now, the country is in a sense of high

fever. There is no rational debate about Europe any more. It was very

touching yesterday, a Tory, Philip... I have forgotten his

name, Peter Luff, he said, there are Tories in his party who are

pro-Europe, but it is a love that dare not speak its name. That is so

sad for them! The nation has gone mad. Because of this UKIP thing

which is interesting. They keep talking about 25%, the media has a

lot of blame on this. 25%, in the last election. Actually, it was 25%

of a 31% turnout. So, 7.7%. All the political parties are now feeling,

we have to be more like UKIP. So I think we will get a referendum

sooner than later. We will get out of Europe. We will have to live with

the consequences. I do not see how anybody in their

right mind can talk of leaving Europe. Half of all foreign

investment in the UK comes from the EU, about �365 billion, not a figure

to be sneezed at. 40% of Euro denominational trading takes place

from London. They talk about diversifying British trade to the

other emerging powers. At present, Britain's total trade with China,

Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa is one fifth of its trade

with the EU. If you look at the figures, you can't imagine how

anyone in their right minds can think of that. A knee-jerk reaction.

I think it is dangerous to be so dismissive of what is really a very

considerable block of opinion, like it or not. UKIP uses the words,

ordinary people. The people in the pub, if you well. I have spent some

time in Boston in Lincolnshire, and in Cambridge, where UKIP has been on

a surge. This is a real, strong body of opinion. The electoral

calculation is could be made by any winning or losing party anywhere

because the turnout in this country is so poor.

They have not been subjected to the kind of really quite probing

interviews that... They have been given this free card. It is all

emotional. About not wanting immigrants, not liking Europe. The

minimum wage. I don't want to be a propagator for

UKIP but one thing I found interesting walking the streets of

Boston, was to find that the voice of the ordinary man as far as I

could determine it was not against immigrants per se, these were people

who said they voted for UKIP. They were saying, let us the tinge of

racism is not always... The general tone of conversation

needs to be, , more constructive about Europe. Not in the studio. I

think it is all about... I came to Britain in late 2000, on a working

Visa. Having qualified to stay here and work to contribute, we have been

interviewing the guy at Manchester University who has won the Nobel

Peace Prize for physics, here's a Russian. He said the knee-jerk

reaction of this talk is the better qualified people stop coming into

the country. Ultimately, it is not about immigration. It is about

Britain being an island, it is easy for us to get away from Europe. In

2001 and 2003 in the economic upturn, nobody talked about this. It

is related to the economic situation.

Let me put to a point not the arguments about immigration, but the

big picture. Surely, this is most British people have thought they'd

joined a good economic club but actually what they have joined is a

process towards European integration. While they are happy

with the economic sport Lee understand the questions about jobs,

they don't like the process. They do not want to be part of the euro.

That is a legitimate argument. This is where I do agree with David

Cameron. If you are in this process, you can influence it. You

can say what Britain wants. In that sense, he is right, you don't just

walk out. It is not true, Europe has always been a problem in a sense,

from Ted Heath. It is an English problem of course. A very English

thing. To look at this from a positive

point of view, the process Cameron has set out, a referendum by 2017.

In effect, a national debate and negotiation in Europe, might just

resolve this in a way which will leave a majority of people

satisfied. We may be able to negotiate.