01/06/2013 Dateline London

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

Esler. Hello and welcome to Dateline

London. The presidents of the world's two most powerful countries,

the United States and China, are to meet in an informal summit. Russian

missiles for Syria. And the EU relaxes the rules. Are we witnessing

the slow death of European austerity policies? My guests today are Diane

Wei Liang, the Chinese writer, Nesrine Malik, who is a writer on

Arab affairs, Jef McCallister, who's an American writer and broadcaster

and Adam Raphael of Transport Magazine.

The new Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has been demonstrating

China's interests across the world by visiting the Caribbean ahead of a

summit with President Obama. Obama wants, among other things, China's

help with North Korea. What does China want and can the United States

give it to them? How important is this summit to the new leadership of

China? It is important, it is China going to America, and it is one of

the overseas trips for the new president, but it is less of a

prominent visit for the new leadership than what it used to be.

For example, the crazies president had been to Russia and Africa for

his first overseas bedsit. -- the previous president. This time he is

going to the Caribbean to see President Obama. The new China is

more confident than the old leadership and it is there a way of

demonstrating that China is an emerging new power. They want to

demonstrate that they are building relationships with many countries,

not just America. It is interesting that they have been to the Caribbean

countries. We know that China has influence and Latin America and

Africa. The business of China is business, in a way. It is business

and there are also political issues. I suspect there will be discussions

about the security arrangements in Asia. America's pivot and their

deployment of aircraft in Asia. But by and large, I am not sure what

America can offer or do for China. It may be the other way around?

China may be able to help America in terms of North Korea and trade

issues. In China, the visit of the president is popular, but much more

interesting is what the new first lady is going to wear. That is a big

change. America's pivot, we should explain. President Obama has

suggested that American forces are concentrated on the Pacific theatre.

Yes, and in the earlier stages, that was triggered by the conflict

between China and Japan over the islands. Now with the development in

North Korea, more and more military forces are ringed applied into that

area. There is a justification for that. But China is against this

movement. How is this seen in Washington? Is it a big deal? It is

a big deal. These summits always get attention, but this is intended to

be an informal visit. It was put up two months in advance of when the

meeting was expected to be, because there have been some tensions. I

think that what America can do for China, it is what I paid and can do

for any team -year-old boy, which is sort of, get out of the way and

respect me. China is becoming a great power. In China, they do not

always believe that the United States understands and respects

this. They'd is a chip on the shoulder. I do not think America if

a chip on the shoulder. I do not think America if did respect China.

I would say that that is not true any longer. It may not have been

true in the 19th century, but there is that sense, you fed us opium, the

British did that more than the Americans, but we are rising power

and we demand that you respect us. We do not believe that you are doing

it, which is why the pivot to Asia, in the context of Washington, the

traditional allies are getting nervous because China is stretching

its elbows and they are threatening ceilings and territories. It is

wanting to show that it is a great power. How do they do that, they

attack a little island in the South China Sea or something like that.

America feels that this is a defensive vivid to reassure our

traditional allies that things are not getting worse. But things could

escalate. China and the US have virtually nothing to disagree about.

If this relationship cannot be worked out intelligently, it is a

terrible failure of statesmanship on both sides. One thing they could

follow it boat is North Korea. The United States does need China there

to make some sense into what is going on in North Korea, and also as

a control against any real outbreak of madness which might develop in

North Korea. I think to treat these two powers as equal superpowers

would be wrong. There is no doubt about it, America is still in a

totally different league to China. In China, they cannot get the baby

milk right. It is still a very important country, and of increasing

importance over the years, but in many ways, it is totally

underdeveloped. This relationship as to be managed carefully, and I am

sure that the pride which has been expressed is very important for

America to acknowledge and accept, and to recognise China's place in

the world. The one area of difference is trade. The trade

imbalances are serious and that could result in real tension.

not entirely sure that the US has been behaving in a way that is

confident and secure. There is a insecure language coming across and

overcompensation. The secretary of defence is reported to have said

that America would like to establish that it has military dominance, that

it is the superior military power in the region. As secure power would

not need to point that out. I feel like the US is trying to remind

China, because there is a slight sense of threat. There is more

strident, confrontational language from the Chinese, which I actually

find quite gratifying. It is interesting to see the American

defence secretary be questioned by Chinese delegates. One said, I do

not think the US wants to seriously engage with China. I think the US is

engaging in rhetoric but it wants to contain China. The US is feeling

threatened. It does not understand China and once to contain it. The US

is good at trying to engage with belligerent, confrontational

superpowers like North Korea, or belligerent powers like Israel. --

like Iran. But forging relationships with third world countries,

investing in trade, it is a kind of slow, creeping power that the US

does not know how to engage with. This is not entirely benign on

China's part. I am not saying it is benign. China has been a sexy topic

in American foreign policy for a long time, from the visit of Richard

Nixon on. I would actually say that China's rise has been a successful

American foreign policy. In general, this is a relationship that is going

relatively well given all the strains that are inherent in this.

This is a big issue in the United States, so-called cyber crime, and

it can be traced back to Chinese people, apparently. How is that

viewed in China? And sure it will be a topic that will be brought up with

President Obama in the summit. It is a serious issue from the point of

view of the government in China. But they would state that it is out of

their control, it is not state organised crime. But the evacuation

is, one is American foreign policy. They have been trying to engage with

China. There is a huge group in Washington that wants to contain

China. That is a policy that seems to shift from year to year. They are

not sure what way they are going. China wants to demonstrate that they

want to engage with America, but America is not the world, we want to

engage with the world. I have spoken to a number of representatives from

African countries and also Latin America, and they say that there are

difficulties doing business with China, but it is pretty

straightforward and they do not lecture us about human rights and

other things, which the British and others tend to do. Is that how you

you see it? I am from Sedan and China has a good business

relationship with Sudan. The cultural differences are massive,

but when it comes to business, China knows how to deal and invest in

third World countries. America has been very bad at that. Japan has

made any pledge to African countries for the private sector. The way that

Japan and China and Asian countries in general engage with Africa and

the countries of the South, it is something that America could learn

from. They may also be allowing about current -- they may also be

allowing corruption and payoffs and not kidding much as well. I do not

think American investment concerns are tightly human rights in Africa

or the Arab world. Let's move on. The European Union has let an arms

embargo on Syria expire while the Russians have reacted by saying they

will send anti-aircraft missiles to the Assad regime. This of course has

not pleased Israel, among others. And Israel has already shown a

willingness and a capacity to bomb Syria when the Israeli government

thinks necessary. Are we in danger of seeing a civil war becoming a

regional conflict? Perhaps it is already, given how Turkey and

Lebanon are being drawn into this, and also a rag. How do you see this,

because in a way it is posturing? The Russian missiles are not

arriving. Russian missiles are not arriving for a year, and the arms

embargoes as lambs but there are no weapons that have been dispatched to

Syria. The coverage over the past 48 hours has been about the threat to

Israel. John Kerry chastised the Russians and said that there was a

threat to Israel. I do not see what any of this has to do with Israel.

80,000 Syrians have died over the past couple of years. You have a

fractious rebel group and a dictator who does not hesitate to use

weapons, chemical weapons or weapons from Russia. I do not see red Israel

comes into this. The problem with the way that the US engages with

foreign policy in the Middle East is that it is pivoted around Israel.

They are distracted from the main concerns, the deaths of Syrian

citizens and human rights abuses. Throughout the Arab spring, America

has not learnt that I -- that Israel is a diversion. The president of

silly postures and uses rhetoric and says that Israel is in trouble if we

have missiles, but he has enough on his plate. What we need to learn

about the rhetoric of Arab dictators is that it is a political tool. He

has various factions in his country. His way of accommodating that is

saying, I'm going to be strident with Israel. Israel is not a

diversion, it is crucial. The other crucial player, which I hope the

United States and this country will go for, is Russia. That is the key

to any resolution of the situation in Syria. Nothing else can be done,

but we need to acknowledge Russian interests, we need to forge what

common ground we have with Russia, and therefore, I think this was a

big mistake under half of Britain and France to relax this embargo,

because Russia sees it as a threat and has responded in kind. That was

the wrong thing to do. I understand why the relaxation was stunned. It

is a horrific situation in Syria, but the key is Russia. Without

Russian cooperation and Russian initiative, and leadership, nothing

will be resolved. This week the BBC ran a 3-part -- documentary series

on the road to war in Iraq. Watching that, and listening to the news

reports about what the mess in Iraq is in now, in terms of taking

killings, that must put a brake on any thoughts of intervention,

certainly from the point of view of the United States, and perhaps from

the Europeans? I think it has two. How can you willingly try to

intervene in this conflict, not knowing how it is going to work out?

The guys who are the toughest minded, and who have the most guns,

start dominating. People move to the extremes. How can you do this? In

some ways, it reminds me of Yugoslavia after the fall of Miller

switch. People would have been glad to have had the dictator, as was the

case in Iraq, in some ways. There is no good way, I think. Eric Obama has

been very clear, he wants to spend less money on war, less money trying

to intervene in places that he thinks the US will not actually be

able to accomplish anything. I don't or no-fly zones, can solve this

problem. John McCain and some others would say, this is weakness, but how

do you think this goes down with the American people? The polls shown no

interest in intervening in Syria. That's because there is no interest.

Well, there is no oil. Yes, because the US has no interests in Syria.

From the point of view of China, this is exactly an example of the

West's way of dealing with developing countries. China has

always had a policy of not interfering. China engages with

Africa economically, leaving the internal affairs to the country.

Here, you have Syria as an example, where it becomes a battle ground for

the EU, for Russia, for America. It is the Syrians who have been killed

in this conflict. It was it was following on from the Arab Spring

revolts, and it was against a brutal regime. Of course, in that

neighbourhood, there are lots of people who starts to put their

finger in the pie. Iran and Russia are doing the best job of it, they

are the most successful, it appears. Everybody else has not

figured out what to do. But the idea that it is benign always to stay

away from conflicts is not necessarily ideal. This is where the

United Nations may have a role to play in Syria, because that is the

way to get Russia and the United States engaged, and a way to get the

European Union engaged. There needs to be a concerted agreement amongst

the great powers, I'm afraid. That would not necessarily resolve it,

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 187 seconds

place Europe is. If we had 50% unemployment in this country, there

would be total riots, the government would be out, so don't let's pursue

this policy any further in Europe. People who are most in favour of

austerity, it has been said, see debt as the biggest problem. But

most people, if you ask them, are more worried about unemployment,

being able to put food on the table. Is that how you see it? I think

there is a certain consensus, I'm afraid, but the bottom had been

reached, that the crisis is moving away from absolute urgency, and I

think that on austerity, the judgment is still out there. I can

see that America has benefited from stimulus policies, so, Europe is

having second thoughts as to whether austerity has gone too far. But I

think the judgment is still out in the long run, who will win out.

Another issue here is really, you cannot ask the German taxpayers to

continue bailing out countries that have run their economy into the

ground. Politically, it will not work. You cannot ask countries which

have got high unemployment to be able to pay off their debts, because

they simply cannot afford to, and they are in a vicious cycle. It just

does not work, for Greece, for example... ? . Per problem is, we do

not know what works, you have the school of thought of stimulating

growth, you have the school of thought of cutting costs, and the

problem is, we do not know what works. I agree with you about

Germany, because in the end, when push comes to shove, in the end, the

Germans accept that it is totally in their interests to keep Europe

going, and to keep the commission going. We saw that over the banking

intervention, which stabilised the markets, and we will see it again if

there is another real economic crisis. They have shown their commit

and, that it is better for Germany to be in Europe, and for Europe to

be strong, but at what price? Would the price gets to a certain point

where they would not think it was worth doing it? From the point of

view of the Obama Administration, is this Europe going through

Keynesianism for slow learners? In other words, they just got it

wrong? I think that could be said for America as well. The stimulus

perhaps has not been as big as it should've been. American debt is now

at half the level it was even two years ago, although it is still very

large. But the trend line is a lot better than in Europe. But the

question is for now, how does Europe try to do the hard things, the

structural reforms? I was remembering the Lisbon declaration