13/07/2013 Dateline London

There's a full bulletin of news at the top of the hour. Now on BBC

News, Dateline London with Gavin Hello and welcome to Dateline

London. Does the battle for control in Egypt prove the Arab Spring has

failed? The 16-year-old Pakistani girl who demands education for all.

And can the British Labour Party tame the unions - or the other way

around? My guests today are Mustapha Karkouti, Gulf-based writer and

broadcaster. Greg Katz of the Associated Press. Dr Saul Zadka of

Al London. And Adam Raphael of Transport Magazine. Welcome to you

all. The army take over in Egypt and it cleared signs other countries are

facing problems with reform. Iraq is still in time while. Has the Arab

world lost its way? Has the Arab Springfield to live up to all those

hope? Do you think what is happening in Egypt suggests that the Arab

Spring has failed? I don't think so. I think they are still looking for a

way to go ahead. This is only a phase of the Arab Spring. It will

take quite a few years, maybe five or ten years or maybe longer. This

is happening after a long easy it, we're talking about four or five

decades, of stalemate, of static situation. Libya had 42 years of

Colonel Gaddafi. Egypt had many years of President Mubarak. You need

time to cleanse the remaining rules. I am not really surprised

that it has taken that long. It has failed, certainly not. We are not at

the end of it. Has it lost its direction? Certainly not. It is

zigzagging here and there. You are talking about the Arab world, which

has been deprived of real politics, as we understand it in the West.

Democracy, participation. People are learning while they are progressing

at the moment, which is excellent and they are learning very fast

because of the new young generation. Just click like that and

you have two or 3 million. This has never happened over the last 40 or

50 years. It is a new phenomenon in, and I am very optimistic about

what might come out of that in the next five to ten years. There is

great hope and there is clearly an appetite for democracy in all these

Arab countries. What isn't is the structure and the political parties

with long traditions, with the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood.

I think he is being too optimistic or two enthusiastic about what to me

looks like a process that has gone badly wrong. I would like to embrace

what you're saying, but I think you're going to need 30 or 40 years

time frame, to see coherent, peaceful civil societies emerge. I

don't think we will see positive change in the next five years. When

I look at Syria, when I look at Egypt, when I look at these places

in such turmoil and so many contradictions, I just don't see a

resolution emerging in the next two or three years. I see more chaos, or

destruction and freely dangerous times. I think it was naive to think

that it would come round in a season. I think it has gone wrong, I

think it is not working, it has failed at this point. It would be

unfair to pass judgements on the achievements of the Arab Spring only

two years after its inception. The jury is still out. We all know that

after 65 years of dictatorship, it is not going to be a quick fix. It

is not going to be overnight. In Egypt, I think the Egyptians fell in

love with democracy. Imagine that in France, everyone is fed up with the

leader. After a year, the French would take control and everybody

would be cheering about the possibility. This is something that

we should emulate in the West, getting rid of a field president

after one year only explanation mark that what is happening in Tunisia.

There is a call for a national unity government. The fundamentalists are

not the only people who are brokering power. Look at what

happened in Yemen. That was the kind of solution I would have liked to

see in Syria. They got rid of their president and then they declared a

transitional government. Different countries, different springs. We

cannot say the same about Syria, which is going into a civil war

which will last for many years, in my opinion. The problem is it'll

take a few more decades to have a proper discussion about the

achievement of Arab Spring. You are not quite as optimistic, but broadly

this might be a setback, but broadly it will go in the direction, it will

go in the right direction and the appetite for democracy is there?

Absolutely. The streets have become the preserve of people in favour of

democracy. We did not even mention Libya. Libya is functioning to a

certain extent. I share your scepticism about it. I think it will

be a long, bloody and difficult process. Many of these Arab

countries, I do not share the optimism. When one talks about the

Arab Spring, it is like an unbuttoning of that horrific

firmament below and nothing could stop it. With the Internet, with

modern communications, the capacity to mobilise huge crowds within

minutes is a factor which we will all have to get used to. I think

this is a very dangerous period and I think what is happening in city in

particular is a total tragedy which is not easily resolvable by anyone,

either by the Syrians or outside influences. Has the Arab

Springfield? No, but it is incredibly dangerous. This is the

first time in the Arab world where there is hope for a change after

such a long time. We have never had this. Now we have it. Has it reached

its end? No, of course not. What is happening is only a phase, only a

passing through situation, which will certainly change. It could

change to the worse or the better. But things will settle when people

realise that participation is the only way forward. We are not talking

about a Western democracy in Egypt or Syria, certainly not. It will be

a local democracy, something which people can understand and move along

with and progress. So this is a long-term process, it is not

short-term. I understand that. I do think it is a wish fulfilment, the

desire for change is so intense among liberals and large sections of

the population, that the goodwill but is there is so enormous, so the

wish that this will succeed is so enormous that it is very difficult

to take a realistic, even sceptical viewpoint about it, so I totally

understand where you're coming from. I hope you are right.

The most inspiring moment of the week came from a 16-year-old

Pakistani girl Malala Yousafzai who was shot by the Taliban last year

for the crime of wanting an education. Malala addressed the

United Nations and the world - here's a clip. The talent and shot

me on the left side of my forehead. They shot my friends too. They

thought that the goal that would silence us. But they failed. And out

of the silence came thousands of voices. The terrorists thought they

would change my game and stop my ambitions, but nothing changed in my

life except this. Weakness, fear and hopelessness died. Strength, fervour

and courage were born. What do you think we have to do to help realise

her dream of education for all children, in particular in her

case, for girls in Pakistan. I think we have to listen and take it

seriously and stop relying on the fact that change, boat because it is

organic. We have to support people going in there to create

programmes, you can create equality and still respect all traditions.

You have to listen and hope in your heart that what she said, the reason

it resonated so much yesterday, is that we get so much static. We

listened to so many leaders and reports seeing so many only things.

She is speaking from the heart with personal experience. People have to

listen and try and find a way in, a way in, away to help. Part of the

context is, she lives in an area where you workers trying to

eradicate polio have been shot. There are some people who would

prefer to live in them ignorant world, are there not? It was a very

forceful speech, one of the best I have heard. The way she delivered it

was very impressive. This is happening in a pro-Western country,

where the western involvement is military. It seems to me that the

West does not due much in order to try and said the lies this part of

Pakistan. It is Malala who sometimes is more influential than many

attempts by Western democracies to influence the domestic situation in

Pakistan. I have talked to quite a few Pakistani politicians, and the

way they put it is that the West is doing precisely the opposite,

because the drone attacks in tribal areas undermine tribal leaders,

undermine the central government and reinforce the voices of people like

the Taliban. I am familiar with this argument, but you have to separate

the drone attacks, which have a separate aim, to eradicate your hard

disks. And the fact that in parallel, the West has to do much

more to try and improve the life of ordinary people in this part of

Pakistan. Most of the areas in Pakistan are affected by this

primitive attitudes towards education and women's rights. Not

only do we have to eradicate terrorists, but also ameliorate the

life of ordinary Pakistanis. I don't want to decry that speech, which was

very powerful and spoke to two issues, women's rights and

education. But it was not the speech of a 16-year-old. It was written for

her. She delivered it beautifully, but if we wish to make progress in

this area, we have to listen very carefully to people we have very

little in common with, people who are opposed to women's rights,

women's education. We have to listen to them, we have to talk with them.

That may be idealistic, but that is the sort of speech that is so easy

from a western pointed you to applaud and think, marvellous. But

from the view of Pakistan or Afghanistan, from fundamentalists,

they would just regard that as a Western put up. And to some extent,

it was. I think one has to acknowledge that. This was a way of

putting across a very, very important, forceful message, but we

have to think very carefully how that message is put over and

received via the people we are trying to influence. It is a very

difficult process because that could be that the West thinks one thing

and they think another. Even those people most opposed to women's

education, only a tiny minority believe in shooting young girls. We

have to try to maximise our influence. I do not want to decry

the speech because it is so powerful and so well done but I do not

actually believe it will achieve very much. I feel strongly ashamed

that until now, after ten years of being in Afghanistan, they have done

very little on this front. They have been engaged in a security operation

but socially, when it comes to education, they have not worked hard

enough on that front at all. To listen to Malala Yousafzai, the

speech was written for her and all that, but that symbolism. She was a

symbol of the great issue. Education, poverty, etc. It really

breaks my heart to say such things still around us. The West has done

very little with that. I think it is a little patronising to suggest she

did not write that. She may have written substantially with the help

of a teacher or adviser or she may be a 16-year-old with tremendous

writing ability. It is possible. The Americans and the British when ten

and said we would work on social programmes. It just did not happen.

How is a foreign invader going to influence a native population like

best? It is just nonsense. Pakistan has not been occupied by the West.

wanted to talk about the Arab world because one of the really remarkable

things in the last 15 years, and I don't know the latest figures, but

there are more women at university than men? 62% of the total. What is

also not widely known is the ERM charge of huge responsibilities in

the education field. That has been one of the huge changes. Invest

money in it and you will get results. Pakistan is in urgent need

of it all in the spring as well. Let's move on to British politics

because Ed Miliband said he would be changing the century long

relationship between the unions and his party, which could change the

balance of power but also affect funding significantly. If the gamble

likely to pay off a busy credible as the next prime minister of the

United Kingdom? Has he done the right thing? I think he probably has

done the correct thing but it is incredibly dangerous and difficult

to see it through. It is too easy for people like Tony Blair to get

rid of things like clause four which is a totally meaningless piece of

Labour policy. This goes right to the heart of policy and is very

difficult. Ed Miliband would not have been elected leader without the

trade union vote. It is necessary for him to do this because otherwise

he would be extremely vulnerable to opposition attacks, but he will also

be in real trouble and the funding issue and was four or five years

Labour could well be bankrupt. -- with Ben. What he is saying is you

have to contract in. Previously it was just taken as read and the money

was given over. The old labour union link will continue. Labour is the

voice of trade unionism and it began after that and continues and it will

continue to be a powerful voice within it. That is why I think

Miller band has had to do their spot at the same time, what a gamble that

none of his predecessors have the Arctic. -- have they would take.

Tony Blair chose the battle that he was going to fight. Ed Miliband has

been dragged into this, and it is not the battle he chose to fight.

Neither the battle nor the timing. Despite the fact it looks so

benevolent, and Lee have said they are willing to consider it and

engage in some negotiation, but he has to understand that as he was

exchanging insults with the Prime Minister, both of them were right

because it is right that the Tories under the thumb of the few tycoons

that financed the Berkeley, David Cameron is also right in saying that

Ed Miliband is in the pocket of the unions. The only other way to do it

is to think about other ways to finance the parties. Tax the people

and give our hard earned cash to the politicians? That is what we call

the parties law in which the state funds every political party on the

basis of size so if you have two members of parliament, you get some

money... You should look at it in the long term. Whether that is going

to work or not, I believe it will open the door for a broad discussion

with in the British parties about funding and how to move ahead

because yes, it will be a problem for Labour but it could be even more

acute for others in the future. he handles it well, he could say

look what I've done. It opens the door for huge debate within the

existing political parties. They want Ed Miliband to change the

policy and moved to the left. will be irrelevant if the debate

opens up. I have left you until last because the shaming model for

political funding of the United States. -- shining model. Campaign

finance reform, they are so many ways they have tried to change it

and there's always a loophole. Unfortunately, none of this has

worked in the US and my framework goes back to Nixon and Kennedy. All

you have seen is the influence of the lobbyists and the corporate

money grow and grow and grow. All of the reforms have field and the US

have really just admitted it will stop campaign reform is not going to

be effective. One of the things which happens constantly during

presidential elections as there are various committees to support

somebody which are separate from the presidential candidates which often

run the most damaging advertisements. They are

tremendously effective. They managed to turn a legitimate Vietnam War

hero into something else entirely. One thing Americans have done which

is useful would be at check off that when you fill your tax returns, are

you willing to give �5 to fund political parties and you can click

it or not, quickly few people can be persuaded. -- quite a view. It can

be done and people do realise that parties can be funded. The argument

has never been properly waged and it is not a popular issue but what are

the alternatives? To ensure the health of democracy, I would pay

some money. The way this is going as the Conservatives could easily see,

if you are elected you will bring about state funding and money that

did go to hospitals and schools will go in your pockets. The other line

of argument that Ed Miliband could use it as you can get money to the

Conservative party and end up in the House of Lords. We have to start