03/08/2013 Dateline London

London. -- Dateline London. Hello and welcome to Dateline London. Did

Robert Mugabe steal the Zimbabwe election or win fair and square?

Edward Snowden in Russia - traitor or whistle-blower? And how many

members of the House of Lords do we really need? My guests today are

Mina al Oraibi of Asharq al Awsat. Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt.

Tererai Karimakwenda of SW Radio Africa. And Alex Deane of

Conservative Home. Very good to see you. Election monitors from the

African Union and the South African states claim the Zimbabwe election

was free and peaceful. Others say that the electoral roll includes

more than 100,000 people over 100 years old and that in the cities

where the opposition to Robert Mugabe is strong, hundreds of

thousands were unable to vote. So has Robert Mugabe stolen the

election or won it? And if the African monitors insist it was fair,

should sanctions now be lifted. Just set the scene. Sinbad Way is

certainly a better place than it was five years ago? The nation is at

least under control so some things have improved? Only that has

improved. Not much else has changed because when they formed the

coalition, it was to save the economy because inflation was

sky-high but the problem is equal edition was never a coalition,

Robert Mugabe remained in control and still calls all of the shots.

This election was stolen and everybody knows that and they

planned it. All of the facts point to that. People in the areas being

assisted to vote, being told by their traditional leaders that when

you vote, you say that you cannot read and write and people will vote

for you. Election officials were being marched into -- into stations.

Why a don't the monitors say that? Well, the independent observers have

said that it was not credible and if you listen to the language that the

observers have used, they said it was peaceful and free but they have

avoided using the word fair. Because they know it was not. The election

was stolen in a very clever way and violence has been the method of the

last few elections. But this time, they minimised by Alan 's to a

negligible degree and they did technical rigging. In each electoral

ward, there were three polling stations that were not known about

and only Zanu-PF people went there. They still don't have any electronic

copy of that so we cannot evaluate any of those names. What do you make

of those elections and how other countries should respond? If it is

officially free, it puts the EU in a spot? The point is, they were not

there and that is clear to everyone. Only very specific observer missions

were allowed. There was no independent EU observer mission.

That was perhaps a political mistake? They put themselves in a

corner, we will trust what they say and not that they have said this was

free and peaceful, the fact that it was peaceful was important for the

country but what happens afterwards will be very important and the fact

that the MDC has said they do not agree. Before any other country

takes any position, we have to see how the opposition is treated.

call the election free and peaceful demeans those very words. What is a

free country where electoral rules are manipulative? And are

intimidated? Intimidation takes the place of violence, they did not have

to use violence so much. Three quarters of the people live in rural

areas and new settlers have been given land and are being told not to

vote for MVC or they will lose their land. This is intimidation. And this

has been one at a price. And I hope that the EU will wake up and say

that sanctions must be sharpened and we must do something about this and

do not accept this. There is what people outside the country and

within. The prospect of violence hangs over this. If you were in the

opposition, what do you do? kidding, and Zanu-PF has said, if

you think we have fixed this, you can go to court. And we will also

fix that! The same court has ruled against anything that challenges the

authority of Robert Mugabe. They are appointed by the same party. It is

like asking the police to investigate themselves. He has

already fixed the election. For MVC, there is a terrible danger. When

there is talk about lifting sanctions, there is danger that

younger activists want to go to extreme measures. With nowhere else

to turn, frustrated people who believe in democracy, that is where

they will go. When you have leaders like Jacob Zuma, the chief

facilitator for the coalition, making statements before the

official announcement, he was already proclaiming that it was

peaceful and Zanu-PF has won in a landslide. It is like a gang of

thugs. Because they don't point fingers at each other. They are

pretty much greedy and corrupt. Whatever people might say over here,

is it time to just accept that your country has got a president for

life? And the only way he will leave is if or if he dies? He has said in

the early days of his presidency, we took this country by the gun and we

shall keep it I begun. -- keep it by the gun. Who wants to run for

president at the age of 89? He was asked, would you run again in five

years? He said, why not? I would even box you! The problem is the

ordinary people will suffer because I spoke to a man yesterday who had

lost everything, his village was burned down and he still went on to

vote, just hoping they could change something and now the election has

been stolen. How do you tell him to vote the next time? The idea of

Robert Mugabe going on and on puts a light on this and the country is not

free until this man dies and asked -- that makes a mockery of

democratic rule. All of the international ventures, especially

in the Middle East, means Western powers are so afraid of intervention

and that is why I put the importance on the economic situation, but

because he is great economic way, but my favourite restaurant has all

of those notes on the wall. Things are finally in control so that it

does not spill into the outside. That is the international test. But

linked into that is the issue of sanctions because they have not

heard his ability to rule. At what point are you hurting the people and

the economy than the person? thing about sanctions is, if they

had been total, that would be one thing, but they took half measures.

Preventing travel but he still travels to New York for that United

Nations function, brings his wife and his entourage. If you are going

to do it, do it! In southern Africa, we have Nelson Mandela, universally

regarded as a living hero, and in Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, of a

similar vintage and age and background, both led liberation

struggles. Why is it that Robert Mugabe does not understand or does

he not care about how history will regard him whereas Nelson Mandela is

regarded very differently because he very easily gave up our? You would

think he would want the same thing, writing his memoirs. But the

difference is that Nelson Mandela did not have any blood on his hands.

No skeletons in his cupboard. we recall those massacres, killing

tens of thousands. He has got blood on his hands and they have been very

corrupt. Nelson Mandela was different. One final thought,

Zimbabwe has moved down the ladder of importance because we have other

crisis areas in the world. And the massacre is one reason that he

cannot afford to give up power because he will be vulnerable to

retribution. We shall move on. Edward Snowden is a fugitive from

American justice. The man who alerted the world to the extent of

the monitoring of emails and other internet traffic by the United

States National Security Agency and the British GCHQ. This week, Russian

authorities allowed him a temporary stay in their country, which means

he can at last leave Moscow airport. The Obama administration is furious.

Is Snowden a traitor or a whistle-blower? Has he done the

world a service or betrayed his country. It is less clear what the

American public thinks because on both right and left, people say that

they be he should not have done this but he has alerted us to something

pretty terrible? Is a very serious conversation going on about

surveillance in Congress and in the media. He has done a service. It is

interesting and the Obama administration will be up in arms

but we shall see what happens. The Russians have said that he can stay

and they have said only for one year because the document expires but

that could be extended. Also, he has been asked not to do any licking or

political activity in Russia and that is usually what happens when

somebody defects to another country. You take that position. For the

United States, he has done a service and more than the issue about

Wikileaks and all of those documents, this was the selected by

the fact that he was writing stories. Most people would not read

these online but these were written in a way that people could consume

them, that makes them much more of a whistle-blower. With Bradley Manning

and the fact they could try him on espionage, which is something new,

but says a lot about America today and what the illustration and

government is like. He was found not guilty on the most experienced --

serious charge? That is the thing because aiding the enemy is one

thing but espionage? Who are you doing espionage for? There is always

another side, the enemy? This could not be used because this was just

whistle-blowing. That will reflect on this and what charges could be

used. Espionage could be used. If that was used with Bradley Manning.

What do you think? The parallel with the Richard Nixon period is telling

because he carried out targeted surveillance against opponents and

was rightly reviled by international political life. We now have

administrations of both colours who conduct ongoing surveillance of

everyone all the time and are basically OK about that. In those 40

years, we have seen the delusion of liberty and freedom and the

Economist writes about the lost decade of liberty and that is right.

Millions of people, their data being accumulated and stored without

warrant by national authorities. It is vital that we no about that and I

welcome the fact that we have had that revealed to us. The other point

is we have to keep some sense of perspective. We still have a better

chance of the rule of law and of the state conducting due process in

America than we do in a country like Zimbabwe. Or the countries that he

fled to, China and Russia. To make a statement about freedom, he goes to

either of those countries? ! I would totally agree but the balance

between national security and the excuse has been allowing people

freedom of information and freedom of speech and that is a very tough

call in the age of terrorism. We have to look at that, where do we

draw the line? Ten years ago, the procedure was to identify the

individual and conduct surveillance. We have reversed that! However

serious the threat of terrorism, it is very serious. This is not the

Cold War or the point at which in the 1980s, for example, the Queen

was given a speech to prepare in case we were at nuclear war.

Terrorism is very unpleasant but hardly the threat that the Cold War

was? It is a big threat when you think about the terrorism that has

happened. A lot of the information is rubbish, which nobody has the

time or the personnel to look through. It is a fact of life. We

live in an age where technology and data collection is a way of life.

The Russians do it and they probably benefit from the Americans might

find out. The eyes are everywhere. Big Brother is a technical logical

expert who might force a new terrorist attack. That is a pure

suggestion. A British person might say, we had much more violence high

incidence or loss of life under the IRA than we have had. We didn't then

allow the state to incur it in any such extreme A. -- extreme way.

While they are gathering this information, how did they then mist

the obvious things like the Boston bombings? A lot of what they were

doing had been online. It was clues. You have to know this

information. You are not looking at the ones that you should be. It is

fine looking for a needle in a haystack but if you are getting

bigger haystacks, it is more difficult. What we can't take for

granted is the liberties you do have in countries like the UK and others.

You constantly have to be fighting to maintain those rights and

liberties and protect the rights. It can change quickly and we have seen

that. Not in the space of a month or two but in years and decades. The US

has changed and marry Americans -- Mary Americans are saying this is

not acceptable. You have taken a step too far and you can't use this

fear to accept that you are right. would wonder whether from the

whistle-blower experience, a lot of the constitution will change. There

will be oversight committees. are currently either meeting or

secret or they are not allowed to publish their findings. It will

continue. Caught in the states have approved every request the data

since 2007. Give me that rubber stamp, please. Even if you are

right, people don't mind what is happening. Even if this is justified

and you don't need this, it is changing things. The Guardian

reported that there was a keystroke programme is being used. Not just

blocking your calls or that time or who it was two, logging what you are

saying online. That is new and this programme that the Guardian

revealed, that may change people' minds. These debates are going to

come up time and time again as the technology changes. With the

exception of the People's Republic of China, the biggest chamber in the

world is here in Britain. The House of Lords has more than 800 members

and another couple of dozen were out of this week. It includes people

with real expertise and experience, which is true, but how far is it a

juicy reward for those that services for the political parties? Do we

really need a change plus? probably don't but we need more

working members than we have. You are in this awkward situation. There

ought to be a thinning of the herd but that doesn't mean you don't meet

new people. -- need new people. If there are people who haven't turned

up in a good decade, maybe we should question their ongoing status. Maybe

it needs the Supreme Court house the judges, a supplementary list. If you

come off being a full blown member of the Lord's you become an

associate. The point while we debate this, is it is part of our

parliamentary system comment rereview chamber and it is really

important. If people are not bothered to turn up, it puts it into

question. It peculiarly believes that only the UK is the relevant

area. When we talk about the democratic second chamber stop

people say this will clash with the lower chamber. They seem to struggle

on in America, Australia, they somehow make those systems work. We

need a reflective, calming second chamber to guard against whatever

Randolph called the turmoils of democracy. There is no doubt that we

need this reflective chamber to look at this. If intellectual prowess and

other entitlements to wish them that they have is the only principle, we

should open it some more. -- wisdom. People have skills and wisdom and

experience and they could contribute to the welfare of the nation. There

is a need for a logical cap on members. You saw that with life

peerages. It is open for tit-for-tat appointments and political deals,

people who have donated. The fact that you are discussing this on this

level means you have advanced to quite a decent spread -- stage. If

you look at the Parliament of that other country we were talking about

other, we have people who never went to school and no clue what democracy

is about. We have a lot to catch up to. What needs to be changed is the

idea that why does it have to be people who have contributed

financially to this? You could say, why not? There is some people who

say there is an appetite to fund political parties. Do you think that

in particular is an abuse because it suggests you can buy your way in?

Specifically because so many people that were caught up in spangles to

do with the banking and financial sector had financial titles also. --

scandal to do with the banking and financial sector. There are those

that can buy their way through politics and so that blurring of the

lines between the financial world and the political world is here.

was labour liberals, Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives,

their nominees that went through. You have the other parties that

think it is like the developing world and it is wrong. They do have

a point to make and appalling. We didn't split their vote, they split

theirs. We beat them in a by-election. I think they will win

by-election. I think they will win the next electric -- election. The

next European election. Part of their message is we are not politics

as usual. In defence of the House of Lords, if you are designing it, you

will never get one that looks like what you have got now. Even if you

are seeking to reform it, you won't get what Tony Blair did which is to

trash it up a bit and then move on. It does to work and they pride

themselves on holding the government of the day to account and they have

great debates in House of Lords. They have much more thoughtful

debates in the way that the Commons can't or hasn't got the time to do.

The theory of it is great. People have life experience. They aren't

thinking about the next election and they should be thinking about the

good of the country and the longer term and they don't have anything to

prove and whatever headline is going to come out. The theory is

brilliant. It has put paid to Nick Clegg's idea that he wanted to have

a vote for the chamber. I think while the theory is good, the number

is expanding to a degree that people think it is a farce. At least the

new list of nominees list is a broader range of people. There is a

policeman and a journalist in there. A final thought on this, one of the

Conservative peers, Lord Howell, said it would be great to have

fracking in the north-east of England because it was so desolate

there. To a lot of people, it was regarded as insulted or funny

because they didn't know that she didn't know whether North was?

got his region wrong and he has been wrong to say that any region in

England is desolate. He has been at round ever since. What he is right

to say is we desperately need an energy solution and fracking seems

to me, visit. It could halve our energy costs. We have these

extraordinary protests over something that is so far

conventional drilling, it demonstrates the extraordinary