24/10/2015 Dateline London

Hello, and welcome to Dateline London.

How close a relationship can, and should, Britain have with China?

Israel's prime minister says the Holocaust was not Hitler's idea,

And should we put a tax on sugar as a danger to health?

My guests today are Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt, Stephanie Baker of

Bloomberg Markets, Diane Wei Liang, who is a Chinese writer, and Yasmin

Britain's relationship with China is going through a golden period,

and the welcome in Britain for the Chinese president put

But is this simply a new pragmatism, based on money and business

interests, or potentially something much more significant?

What do you think China got out of this visit? A lot. There

visit to the United States three weeks ago which did not go as well

as planned. He had to delay one day to stay in Seattle rather than going

to Washington because Pope Francis was there. Following the state

banquet and the UN meeting, President Putin who did a big

announcement in Syria, it was not as well received from his point of

view. He was coming for the state banquet, it was a great triumph for

him. He is the most important leader for a long time. He is someone who

wants to build chain into this China dream. To become actual

international player. Not only economic sense, but in a political

sense. That is very interesting. What you think Britain

is very much as short-term gain. But in the

years and how much gain would that be? That is, if I may say so, a very

Chinese way of thinking of things. The next 20 years, the next

generation. Richard politicians tend to think of the next three or four

years. Absolutely. The Chinese politicians want to engage with UK,

with financial services it is just the beginning. There is a lot that

owner can gain from engaging with the city, for example. The Uber

you'll love this? I can see the economic arguments, but not the

political arguments at all. I do not fall in line with the xenophobia or

jingoism of this country or any other. But politically, I thought it

was quite scandalous, actually, that the political leaders of this

country code code who, I agree, is an astonishing

leader but his political record in which ever way you want to judge it

for mutual respect, is not an equation I buy into. The economy

cannot bypass or override everything else. I do not think anyone assumes

that the economy will bypass the other issues, people understand that

the league, these are too different kettles of fish. When a country is

at its political best, that is not necessarily kowtowing. Our police

went and took the computer of someone who survived... You do not

have false demonstrations of loyalty on our streets. There was something

quite artificial going on all stop apart from the incident, which was

disreputable... The economy are completely go with. Ever since

Kissinger, when they started to open up, trade was at the bottom of the

future relationship which might, over time, Ely area to the behaviour

of the opposing number. In the old days in the Soviet Union that led to

change. I have seen that personally in the past 35 or 40 years, how the

China of my childhood, which was completely controlled by the state,

has turned into China today, which for the Chinese is full of freedom.

Freedom of speech. Incremental. I should say, you were also one of

those leaders of the Chairman Square demonstration. -- Tianamen Square

demonstration. I wonder whether talking then this

relationship is, in economic terms particularly, a mistake? I think

George Osborne will accept this in the terms of, if we do not do that,

someone else will. Britain has a larger trade deficit with China than

France, for example. He went to China last month, during which time

he was quoted as saying, Britain should run towards China. He is

known to be fascinated by China, he backpacked around there after

Oxford, he has surrounded himself by advisers who are up-to-date on

China. Including the former Goldman Sachs economist who talks about the

emerging markets. He says that we risk our commercial interests if we

focus too much on human rights. He clearly decided to put that on the

back owner. I was as horrified as anyone by the treatment of this

protest figure and showed a bad example to China when they were

visiting. That they clearly decided engagement with China gives them

more influence over human rights. Whether you agree with it or not. I

am not so sure boycotting China gives them any more influence. The

question is, now that Cameron has had a bear with the president, and

he has taken a red and a golden carriage with the Queen, and been to

Manchester City with Sergio Aguero... One important thing to

say, the whole human rights and international law obligations of

this country have been rewritten by this current government. The

directions they now give the ministers, this is very frightening

and dangerous. Because if we are saying because we want to do

business with China, India, any nation, the values which we have

espoused since the end of the Second World War also going to be torn up,

we should be incredibly careful of that. I do not think it has been

torn up. Think David Cameron has made great progress with President

Xi on the subject. He said there is room for improvement, he said we

want to work with countries such as the UK to improve our record on

human rights. That is something that has not been said before. That is a

big thing for Cameron. If you become friends then you can discuss these

matters. That is something I have not heard. But I wonder if that is

like President Putin, he knows that he needs to say it but the actions

do not match the words. But so far no Chinese leaders have said that

before. Let us move on.

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, said something

quite extraordinary this week - that Adolf Hitler did not want to

exterminate the Jewish people until meeting a Palestinian religious

leader, the Grand Mufti, who apparently sowed the idea

What do you think people in Germany are making this? This is an

aberration of judgment. It flies in the face of history and historical

record. Who knows what was said and exchanged and visit prior to Hitler

coming to power. He was bent, from the start, on exterminating the Jews

which ever way he could. I have a problem with the statement,

particularly because I think it is so much geared to the current

struggle between the Israeli 's and the Palestinians. He is trying to

get one over the Palestinians and paint them as black as can be and

exonerate Hitler, which has unintended consequences. There is no

need to have gone this far. If you think that there is guilt on the

Palestinian side presently and in history it is enough to come up with

that statement, but you do not need to leave the impression that Hitler

is not responsible. He has suspended his judgment, completely. How do

think this has gone down, particularly with the Jewish

communities in the unit states? It is a very diverse community, but do

you believe people are puzzled about this? It is about 2015 and not about

1941, 1942? Respected Holocaust scholars have criticised him and

said it is completely historically inaccurate. Even the Israeli press

has come out and criticised him. One Israeli historian of the Holocaust

said it was a political mistake for the Palestinian rural Mack that --

Palestinians, that they met with Hitler, but that this is

historically incorrect. Social media ridiculed him for this, he was

probably not expecting that. He is not a naive man, and he has said

this before in a speech, I believe. He knew the effects of his words.

You have to wonder why did he decide to trot that one out at a time when

he had several weeks of violent crashes between Israelis and

Palestinians and the prospect of revising the priest process is at an

all-time low after talks broke down last year. -- his process. It smacks

of desperation on his part that there is no way out. He is fanning

the flames in the same way that he has accused Hamas of fanning flames.

They have reached this low that you think that you can score points by

pointing at a historical meeting and painting it in this fashion. What

more can you do to completely disrupt any sort of hope for

resolution? Does it disrupt relationships between Benjamin

Netanyahu and President Obama? There is no love lost there. But this will

not repeal it? No, and John Kerry travelled to you rip to have a

four-hour meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu to try to calm down

tensions. It looks like a lost cause. President Obama has little

over a year left and is more or less resigned to passing the nuclear deal

with Iran which Benjamin NASA -- Benjamin Netanyahu has fought.

How do you see this, it is a very odd statement to make, isn't it?

Yes, I believe he made the same statement in 2012. His aide had

claimed that this was a belief that he has always held. I believe it is

written in his book of 1993. It is a statement I think he made possibly

with a purpose of looking at today's conflict between the

Palestinians and Israelis. And it is to fan further more of the conflict

the sentiment that is involved in this current violence and

deterioration. What is really sad is to look at the situation we have

today. The Oslo accord was 22 years ago. Nothing has happened. Of course

we have John Kerry travelling to the region, we have a lot of politicians

engaging with the process. We are at an all-time low. This peace process

is anybody thinking that this will be revived? There is no peace

process, really. Increasingly, public opinion has shifted hugely in

the last ten years when it comes to this conflict between Israel and

Palestine, partly because David and Goliath, whose David and Goliath now

in terms of sheer power and arms. I am not blaming Israel for all that

has happened, but Israel is the stronger player and public opinion

in this country, in my lifetime as a columnist, I can see how public

opinion has shifted. So you raise this Holocaust, you stay in the name

of the Palestinians. A lot of Palestinians, a lot of Arabs, are

indeed anti-Semitic. I know because they even tell me. But this is used

very instrumentally. Because once you raise this thing that even the

Holocaust has the stain upon the Palestinian leader, you have really

reached the depths of bad, bad moral politics. That is why it has come up

the second time instead of two years ago, it is essential. You never

entered the same river twice, as the Greeks used to say. It adds fire.

There were Nazi sympathisers in this country, a man who would have been

king. An exoneration of all of that in history. Absolutely.

Let us move on. The former mayor of

New York Michael Bloomberg tried to improve the health of New Yorkers

by banning enormous servings of Now the British government is being

urged to tackle obesity, tooth decay, diabetes,

heart disease and other conditions The prime minister David Cameron

is said to be against it. I thought that this was a

fascinating thing by Bloomberg to try to do. But it failed because the

court said that he did not have the power to do this. Yes, he said it

should be city councils. In New York, he tried to ban super-size

sugary drinks. It was not a tax per se. In his philanthropic work he has

funded work in Mexico and California to get a tax imposed. In Mexico that

worked. Mexico imposed a 10% tax on sugary drinks and 20 15 -- 2015. It

appears to be working. The sales have declined by 20%. It is a good

example of how you can shift public health through policy measures such

as this. But the city is a huge issue in Mexican politics, because

50 years ago it was not a problem and it is a really big problem now.

And they have used the funding for that to fund anti-obesity problems.

Norrie and Denmark have similar taxes. I am frankly baffled by the

reaction of the government to this issue. Jeremy Hunt tried to suppress

this report, David Cameron has no interest in imposing a tax. But the

public health research indicates that it would have an effect. ?5

billion per year is spent on the NHS on obesity related issues. As well

as the fundraising. For countries that have a National Health Service

that is a drain on national budgets, it seems incomprehensible to me that

he would not be imposing measures that might reduce the demand on the

NHS as well as provide funding. The counterargument is that the

government should not be telling us what we should be eating. This up to

you and me to decide. In that case we should not have a government, we

should be free and be anarchists and do what we want. This government in

particular, and some previous governments, the only thing

matters is money. The nation's matters is money. The nation's

health comes second. The same thing happened with the drink industry.

All this evidence, doctors, all of the professionals in the health

service, or calling for action from the government on the problem with

alcohol intake. The pricing particularly. Nothing was done. It

used in most everything sector and used in most everything sector and

they are not going to discipline us. Discipline the big businesses that

are part of... It is labelled, if you buy pasta sauce, it will tell

you how much sugar is in it. I harassed mother in a supermarket

trying to get food is not going to stand in a supermarket trying to get

food is not going to stand and look at available. Price change equals

perspective. You can only change so much. I am not convinced that the

tax on sugary substance is the best way. Taxing certain product or

ingredients is a very blunt instrument. It may have an effect,

it may not. If you look at the UK, the sort of dieting habits, I

suspect that attacks on sugar will actually affect the poor even more

so. It might not deter them from purchasing these goods. In fact, I

believe in this country there is already VAT on soft drinks, sweets,

chocolates. So that already has additional tax. I do not think it

has had an effect. I would say that to look at this issue, you need to

look more carefully, rather than to believe that the sweeping tax on

ingredients... One of the reasons why the government is hesitant is

twofold, they do not want to be more nannying, they do not want to

increase the perception of being the nanny state, and there are also

using the argument that it might hurt the poor risk the worst. There

are also out of instruments available, before you get the tax

issue. You can fit a curb on advertisements and come down heavily

on banning advertisements. Before you come to the tax issue, although

I must say from the Mexican instant experience, it did not seem to have

hurt the poor predictive. On the contrary, it helped reduce... It

hurts the poor in terms of their health. If they do not do it? Yes,

if they continue to consume lots of sugar. I am trying to understand why

the government is so resistant to following Public Health England's

George Osborne is trying to push George Osborne is trying to push

through this working tax credits cut, so they do not want another

issue compounding working families... The nanny state issue,

was people in this country who never had nannies would quite have liked

the nanny! That is a different matter. Will it happen? It will not

happen. It will not happen, because the business rules. I think the

public health argument is so overwhelming that in ten years... It

may take a while. I think in ten years... Argument has been made for

a tenuous. The Scandinavian countries have done it, we have

never done it. I am sorry, I really am very cynical. In Mexico, where we

talk about the poor, the poor feeding Coca-Cola to their babies in

feeding bottles. If the poor are not doing that then it is only good for

them in the end. I do think that we have to look at influence. At the

Conservative Party Conference it did feel like the biggest business in

the world. Honestly. It has taken 50 years to get where we are with

cigarettes. Absolutely. They are acceptable but you have to smoke

them outside, it sector. These public health campaigns take a very

long time. Yes, and what really worked in the smoking campaign is

not putting on more tax, it is banning smoking in public places...

Advocates also say that Andy all -- anti-alcohol campaigns, changing the

price, it does affect behaviour, so they say. We have tax on petrol,

cigarettes... How many more taxes can you introduce and do you want to

combat this epidemic with other programmes as well? Obesity has a

lot to do with exercise. It is not just sugar intake. I do not think

Public Health England's recommendations are exclusively tax.

They have a proposals, including advertising aimed at children.

Counselling the Great British the cough! -- Bake Off! They are so

scared of this report coming out because the argument is so strong.

It will remain on the public agenda as long as baby city crisis keeps up

-- obesity crisis. We are back next week at the same

time. Thanks for watching.