09/01/2016 Dateline London

Hello and welcome to Dateline London.

Iran and Saudi Arabia - why the rest of us should care

In Britain, Cameron and Corbyn are the leaders of the Conservative

Or given the divisions within both parties,

My guests today are: Thomas Kielinger of Die Welt,

Nesrine Malik, who is a Sudanese writer, Amir Taheri,

who is an Iranian writer and Ian Birrell of The Mail on Sunday.

Last week, Saudi Arabia revealed it had executed a number of what it

called terrorists - mostly Sunni extremists sympathetic

But they also executed a Shia cleric, Nimr al Nimr,

and that execution prompted a significant worsening of relations

between these two pivotal powers in the Middle East.

How far are we now witnessing another stage in what is in part

a sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shia which has killed many

innocent people in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, plus Afghanistan,

how bad our relationships now between those two powers?

They are very bad but it's not really a sectarian war, it is a war

of the sectarians. On both sides, you have small minorities who want

to impose their agenda on the rest of the country. The best thing to do

is to appeal to religion. You can't talk of democracy, because if you

are Islamist 's can be a nationalist. Communism is dead. You

are left with is land. Islam is not like an orphan, it has become an

ideology. Anyone can see it and use it. They are using it in Syria and

Iran. All over the place. Do you think

that Iran, for example, feels very protective to sheer minorities

elsewhere and has to be seen to stand up to them, which advances the

cause of the sectarians? That is also true in southern

cacophonous. It is a Christian country. It was part of a run until

1802. It is a war of the sectarians. Iran and Syria are supporting Bashar

al-Assad who is... Is not regarded as Muslim. Iran has been trying to

pursue its. It is really political. Elliptical rather than religious.

How do you think it is seen in Sudan and across the Arab world? This

particular execution and then what has happened in terms of relations?

Unexpectedly, to the untrained eye, there is a lot of upside against the

execution of Nimr al Nimr, even by Sunni majority countries. It was

quite graphic. However, Saudi is a big patron states. -- in the Sunni,

North Africa region. A lot of the reaction in Sudan was cutting off

ties with Iran because they feel like they need to ingratiate

themselves with Saudi. That overlaps with the kind of political influence

of Sunni in the region because it is tied with Saudi Arabia's financial

influence as well. Even though these things seem to be religious and

sectarian, they are actually grounded in cold, hard economics and

political favours. Ingratiating oneself with Saudi

Arabia, how like -- unlike our own country. Is that not one of the big

stories of the past 40 years? British governments have been very

frightened to criticise Saudi Arabia because there is too much money

involved. .

One of the worst thing is that Blair did was to abandon a court case and

usurp the judicial process to protect a relationship with Saudi

Arabia over a bribery case. It is all about politics. This is internal

politics in Saudi Arabia, which has a very young population. 70% under

30s, many unemployed. Imposing austerity. It is trying to use this

politically for internal political reasons, to shore up the regime.

There is also the external issue of Western relationships. We have seen

suddenly, in the last two or three years, a recognition and acceptance

that countries like America and Britain should not be supporting

this authoritarian, theocratic regime which seems to be supporting

a hardline type of Islam and is practising apartheid against women.

It has become unacceptable and it's noticeable that the Saudi Arabian

ambassador in Britain last year warned relationships. America is

dependent on Saudi Arabia because of oil and is a weakening of relations.

That is something which the Saudis are alarmed about. I think it's good

because we shouldn't have such strong relationships. This is a sign

of the changing geopolitics. I just want to press that a bit

further. Do you think that is one of the reasons why British governments

have been very tight on Security and trying to do their best against

Islamist fundamentalism in this country but have not rarely gone for

the root causes of this idea? They have not worked out the influence of

certain clerics who are paid for by Saudi Arabia, and the century -- is

true in Pakistan and other countries?

Historically, the West has been very soft. We are now seeing the blowback

around the world on that. There is this great cataclysmic change and

struggle going on and Saudi intelligence is important to the

West. For the politicians, it's a difficult situation because they are

coming under right for political pressure to take a tougher line. But

they needed and are using it. As an onlooker, looking at the

conflicts between the two countries, wanted new generation must be

feeling is that the whole issue involves around too critical

predominance and what has happened to the younger generation is that

70% are below 30 and is participating in any kind of

progress. These powers that be are dedicating themselves to domestic

improvement for the people at work no. All we hear about his sectarian

violence. We are losing, or these countries are losing, their

education because they don't seem to be participating in progress.

Some of the big ideas of the 20th century, communism, didn't seem to

work out. Look at capitalism, freedom and be Arab Spring. That

didn't seem to work out. Here's another coherent idea, well funded,

but young people can latch onto. It's mostly about identity. Within

Saudi Arabia, where I lived for several years, it's not a country

that you would expect to be as stable as it is. There isn't

actually that much doubling resentment. -- due to the fact that

people think there is this sort of unelected monarchy. It's not the

case. The sheer issue in Saudi Arabia is linked to sectarianism but

also historical, tribal allegiances and who has power in Saudi Arabia.

In a way, it's a very moderate and primitive, old-fashioned way of

rule. You have people from Riyadh, people who are the sons of a

particular marriage within the Royal Family. It is incredibly cobbled

catered to try to peel away and identify two or three strands that

determine what the issue is but is dictating the Shi'ite uprising or

the conflict with Iran. One thing that I think is important to

remember, picked up from Ian was my point, is that the Saudi regime,

even though it looks very powerful, is in probably the most precarious

position it has been in a very long time. Oil prices are going down,

they're trying to kill shale oil and they can't. Isis has -- unleashed a

propaganda war against Saudi Arabia that is getting a lot of traction in

the Arab world. In the Western world even.

And people are beginning to cotton on to the fact that if you are

trying to outsource to the Saudis, they haven't been doing a very good

job. What do you see as Iran's gains in

the next year or two? What would they like to see happen in terms of

the war in Syria, the continuing conflict in Iraq and what is going

on in Yemen? How do things seem from Tehran, at the moment, given the

sophistication of Arabian politics? Iran is suffering from

schizophrenia. It doesn't know what it wants to be. It happens in all

countries that experience a revolution. It takes a long time

before they decide to become a nation again. Iran as a nation has

no problem with anybody. It is the only country in the Middle East with

true borders, backs to the shower. But it wants to exported to

revolution, create an empire in the name of its brand of Shi'ism. It is

in a very precarious situation. The leadership is divided and the

economy is in meltdown. The national currency has lost 60% of its value.

Every day, 1000 jobs are lost. In February, there will be crucial

elections to see whether those who want Iran to become a nation state

again will remain or whether the revolutionaries will remain. The

Saudis think that by upping the ante, they will help those who want

Iran to become a country. But they have the opposite effect.

This situation is going to become a numerator when we stop our sanctions

after the nuclear deal. $150 billion of frozen assets, if

they released, could fuel a revolution in -- in Iran or it could

fuel and around that wants to become a nation state and change the agenda

by telling the people, let's have economic developments, and we don't

care if the Arabs want to become muslins or if the Israelis... These

are not our problems. We don't care if Assad is there or not. We have no

quarrel with the United States, as a nation.

One of the big reasons why we should care about all of this, I just want

to bring it closer to home and to Germany and events there. We have

seen is extraordinary scenes in Cologne and Angela Merkel, this

weekend, is talking a very different kind of tone about what might need

to be done about some people who commit horrible offences in Germany,

who happened to be asylum seekers. I just wondered how that is being seen

right now in Germany, given what Angela Merkel has said about

immigration, migrants and refugees. I don't confuse what she seems to be

doing with what exactly has happened. This is a long process to

change the law about how to deal with asylum seekers who have fallen

foul of the law. That will not happen in a hurry.

What is happening is the continued decline of Angela Merkel's appeal

with her policies. They are not popular. She personally is popular

but your policies are becoming reasonably unpopular. This incident

is a sort of writing on the wall for some people who have been saying

there is a mismatch between an individual -- and indigenous culture

and arrivals from a different culture to come into the country.

Are people outside these far right wing groups saying that?

People who criticise Angela Merkel don't want to fall even further in

favour of the country because there are -- they see it did as the

alternative. We are stuck between wanting Angela Merkel to succeed and

wanting pay did not to succeed. We do want to conclude from this event

but all arrivals have to be tarred with the same brush. They're all

threats to our economy and cohesion as a society. We won't Angela Merkel

to succeed that we find it hard to believe that it can happen. She is

really hostage to fortune. As to how the rest of the country will cope

with inculcating this new wave of arrival.

I know quite a few people, when the news broke, wondered if that could

really be happening in Cologne. Is that possible? If it has been

reported, I think it has happened. I don't think we should spend any time

trying to... There were a couple of incidents of people saying they had

been exaggerating, had an agenda. I think is an incident is reported it

should be taken very seriously. It is this rosy view that people who

are pro-refugees and pro-asylum seekers do a similar disservice to

those who are against when they paint the whole issue in black and

white terms. This is a morally good thing to do and you bring in these

virtuous suffering victims and they will take to your country and

increase the labour force and everything will be rosy. It's never

going to be easy and I think one should be very forthright about that

and say, if you let in millions of people from a different culture,

from war-torn environments, it's going to be difficult. It will be

bumpy until things slow down. Once they are integrated. There is no

reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. These are people

from countries where women are looked down upon, where men have

certain patriarchal values. This is all a fact, however, that is no

excuse not to continue... One other point, which is that they

are young men and young men from all societies are more likely to be

committing crimes than other people. I think that's absolutely right.

Angela Merkel deserves great credit for the way she has handled this and

the way Germany has accepted, in the way that other parts of Europe apart

from Sweden and the Netherlands, have not. There will be problems

taking in 1 million people from other cultures. One interesting

thing is the fact that so many young men. Families who can't get in are

sending young men over in the hope that they can bring over their

families. If we had a more rational asylum system which allows people

not to have to come over on boats and risk their lives and travel

through hostility across Europe, if we had a system which actually

accepted that Europe has a need and a duty to handle the refugee crisis

and to try to do it in a humane manner, they could be processed

better, you could sift through the genuine refugees from the non-and

you could take family is not just young man. Partly this is a

by-product of the European policies. How do you see it?

This is very interesting because it is typical of the West to always

blame the West, as our colleague is doing. If some women are attacked in

Cologne, it is the fault of our policy on immigration. These are

people who have acted in a criminal way and have to be punished. It is a

very small number of them. Cologne is a city of 300,000 people. There

were celebrations with ten -- tens of thousands of people. We should

not blow it out of proportion. If European women wore the hijab,

people are saying this wouldn't happen because the women's area and

an eighth a special raid drives men crazy! These are some jobs and you

have to try to put them in jail. And throw them out of the country?

Of course, it is the law. It is not a clash of civilisations or the

collapse of immigration policy. I think in a week we will forget about

it. Policemen are not owning up to the

fact that there were immigrants owning up to these crimes. It was

incorrect to admit that the people perpetrating the crimes were

actually part of the right wing. You don't talk in a politically

incorrect way... We may talk in a politically

incorrect way in next ten minutes. One Labour supporter -

the novelist Robert Harris - described Labour leader

Jeremy Corbyn's so-called revenge re-shuffle of his Shadow Cabinet

this week as: "The very definition of futility: a shadow cabinet

"reshuffle" of people doing imaginary jobs in a future

government that will never exist." It came as the Prime Minister David

Cameron announced his Cabinet could campaign in whatever way

they like on the European Union Is this the New Politics,

or just two weak leaders doing the best they can when their

followers are split down the middle Beginning with Labour first, there

are a lot of huge issues that have come up in the last two weeks,

likely British economy, China in economic meltdown, flooding in major

cities. The political news about Labour has been devoted to be

shuffling people that is, frankly, most of us have never heard of.

Is fascinated to see any sort of Labour political activity,

internally, and the way the media covers it. There are two separate

issues of what is actually going on and how the media covers it. Jeremy

Corbyn is doing what is going on. From my point of view, it feels that

there is a certain that the section of things that Jeremy Corbyn does by

the British media and by the establishment. What he doing? Is

being useless again. If it were a more... A different Labour leader,

people would have just kind of sad, this is a routine cabinet reshuffle.

But there are narratives about politicians and if they fall into

the narrative than... If they don't change the narrative, nobody in any

newspaper is going to do it for them.

Is difficult to crawl out of that hole once you have been thrown in

it. There are two ways of looking at this. Every leader, as they try to

establish their agenda and try to get their party in shape, they will

banish some people to the backbenches, as Jeremy Corbyn was

banished when he was a backbencher. They will try to punish those who

don't toe the party line and move things around. If you look at it, it

seems like a pretty regular reshuffle.

You are underestimating the importance of all these events. It

isn't just a regular reshuffle. Early Corbyn sits there in a party

which is not united any longer. He have to manage a potential civil war

situation. There is the parliamentary party and those who

supported his election. He has not sorted out exactly what kind of

party he wants to lead. But that is a very normal thing. The

division isn't normal, it is very unusual, but the fact that he is

trying to reshuffle so as to bring those two things together, his

mandate and the support of his party, that is completely normal.

What's not normal here is that he was going to get rid of the Shadow

Foreign Secretary and failed to do so because he is too weak. Secondly,

he also -- only has the support of about 20 MPs. Most of the party is

against him and Stacey is a loser. He is also the biggest revel in the

party himself, though has a very weak hand and is caught in this

process. It's not a usual set of circumstances. Kinnock, player, none

of them had the whole party basically against them. It's about

this huge division between a new membership which backs a very

radical, in my view, old-fashioned and unelectable leader against the

MPs who think he is a loser. How much did you enjoyed this car as

a spectator sport? We are engaged in an exercise in

futility. The fact is that Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour

Party, nobody can overthrow him now. You never thought he would be the

Labour Party leader. He is not prepared from government and doesn't

have any policies to bring out. He is bourgeois and that Mikey

you have to give him time. If the media continues bashing him, which

is now the latest media sports in Britain, I think nothing will come

out of it. Is not the media, it's his own MPs.

It's easy to blame the media. He wanted to sack Hilary Benn. How

do we know? His enemies are saying these things...

What I'm saying is that, give him time, give him six months or a year

to see whether he can work something out, build a team. If he doesn't,

this is a democracy. Democratic means are there to remove them.

I was talking to a Corbyn supporter last night who pointed out that

every time he is bashed in the media, including your paper, as far

as young people are concerned, he says, they are more energised and

bingo must be something to his -- to this man because they don't like the

media anyway. He is seen as someone who isn't

electable because of his history, yet like any true populist, some of

his policies are actually quite popular. I oppose renationalisation

of the railways but the majority supported. Is he is right when he

says that Hilary Benn was on the wrong side of things like a rock.

Let's not forget that. Although I think he was on the right side for

the wrong reasons, he was on the right side.

You heard it first here! There is this interesting dichotomy.

He is deeply unpopular and his economic policies are crazy. Yet on

some of these popular issues he is quite popular. As

you would favour home as a journalist because he is a good

story. He is fascinating to watch. There is

an issue with parties being out of sync with the population. This is an

interesting experiment. If I was a Labour MP, I wouldn't be very happy

but, thank fully, I'm not. It was presumably inevitable that he

had to give a free vote. They're going to do it politely.

I think the cabinet could have lived with Chris Grayling walking out. I

think it is a sign of weakness. We have a presidential style politics

and when it comes to it on certain issues, politicians are quite weak.

I think there is a difference here. This is about Europe which is the

Tory party was my great divide. 30 years, this has undermined

ministers. Cameron said he didn't want to bang on about Europe but is

in this predicament of his own making. There is a weakness in how

it can control it. He knows a lot of the party or against him. I don't

think there is any comparison between his leadership, which is

generally quite good and he has the party on his side, and has remade a

party in his image, but particularly with the new generation of MPs.

But you have to get used to weak leaders from now on. This is the

natural development of Western society and Western democracy.

Western society and its individual members get more powerful and more

vocal, obviously, party leaders and government leaders get weaker. This

is no time for Churchill. You have to have ordinary people like Cameron

and Corman and the others. They try to do a job.

Do you think we won't weak leaders? You were landed with them. You can't

escape them. It's because of the unpredictable

developments the world over. The world has become a mess of things to

manage. I don't quite believe that these leaders have necessarily got

to be unhelpful and weak. The Tory split was repeated 40 years ago. It

happened in the Labour Party. They were split on Europe and Wilson

agreed on a referendum because Tony Benn urged him to have one. The

party is still much more united. Labour's problems are

constitutional. That's it for Dateline

London for this week. We're back next week

at the same time. You can, of course,

comment on the programme We're looking at a cloudy day

without outbreaks of rain pushing northwards. This morning we had some

massive tablature contracts across the UK, from the