03/03/2018 Dateline London

Hello and a very warm

welcome to Dateline London.

I'm Carrie Gracie.

This week we discuss the Brexit

talks, look at the upcoming

elections in Italy and weigh

the political implications

in China of the possibility

of indefinite rule for

President Xi Jinping.

My guests this week are the Chinese

writer Diane Wei Liang, Ned Temko

of The Christian Science Monitor,

Annalisa Piras, Italian film-maker

and broadcaster and the American

podcaster Michael Goldfarb.

Welcome to you all.

Let's go for Brexit first. Ned, you

are watching it closely.

Who's up and who's down

on the Brexit escalator?

I suppose, Theresa May, and you

could say that much in recent

months, but she made a big speech on

Friday and gave us a little more

clarity about what she wants from

Brexit, which is to say, get out of

the single market, customs union,

and gave this spoken agreement which

will guarantee pretty much unchanged

access, she hopes, in areas of the

European economy and in regulatory

agencies that are important to

Britain. So that was good. Much more

importantly, she finally in public

jettisoned this kind of flippant but

obviously charming and entertaining

line of people like Boris Johnson

that Britain can have its cake and

eat it.

So she said nobody's going

to get everything they want fuzzy

absolutely, and she said the Briton

will have to accept EU rulings, and

it will have to pay if it wants to

be part of the regulatory agencies.

The problem is that from here on

out, she's not negotiating only with

her own party, and now it gets

tough, because there are 27 other

countries.

And Annalisa, what do you

make of the argument coming from

some Europeans but this is just UK

membership of the EU but without the

badge?

Absolutely. It looks very

much like that. The view from

Brussels was less positive than what

Ned has just described, because yes,

she has made a shift, and it is

slightly clearer, but she cannot

have her cake and eat it, and she

was told that she cannot cherry

pick. And what she came out with was

a smaller cake with a lot of

cherries in it. So it's not going to

work. It feels like there is some

kind of constant repetition, a

tedious insistence on something that

is not going to happen, that is not

on the table. Not a small cake, not

a big cake, not the cherries, and I

think in Brussels everybody is

getting really, really tired.

And

yet, Michael, it was welcomed widely

across the party. She seems to have

done what in her own party seemed if

not impossible then improbable to

kind of get everyone behind her with

the speech she made on Friday.

That's the point, isn't it? Here we

are, we are approaching the one-year

deadline until the date we are

supposed to leave the European

Union, and she is still having to

placate that wing of her party that

used to be called Euro-sceptic and

now is called Brexiteer. 25 years

ago this was going on. John Major

had to do this all the time. He had

eventually stand outside Downing

Street and say to the Cabinet, back

me or sack me, and to think that 25

years later, and in some cases it is

the same people, they are still

holding not just their own Prime

Minister, government, to ransom,

they are holding the country to

ransom. Meanwhile over in Brussels

they are waiting to see what they

are going to do. One of the things

she reiterated several times in the

speech, and this is becoming a

mantra for the Brexiteers, take back

control of our money and our

borders. We are not in Europe. We

have control of our money. We are

not in Schengen, we have control of

our borders. And in fact putting the

kind of unspoken border that still

existing between Northern Ireland

and the Republic of Ireland back in

play as a political issue, they have

created a level of chaos. And one

last thing about 25 years ago. When

you do a negotiation in Brussels,

everybody knows nobody knows a

thing, because the negotiators are

professional. They keep their mouths

shut. We shouldn't be talking about

in public what we want and what they

want, because the real negotiations

happen under cover of darkness, and

journalists spend hours trying to

figure out exactly what...

There was

quite a bit of detail in that speech

to be fair. It did get into the

nitty-gritty more than previously.

But I want to ask Diane, this is so

different from the politics of China

that we have been discussing. From

your position, what you make of the

week we have just seen in terms of

Theresa May's speech, in terms of

the draft legal document that we saw

in the EU earlier in the week?

To

me, it isn't much of an escalator

going up and down, it is a conveyor

belt going round and round. And

Theresa May always says, I have made

it clear. It has never been clear.

And it is 20 months later, she still

has the sound bites. To me, Theresa

May is a typical middle manager who

has no vision, who doesn't know

where this thing is going and worse

yet, she is very much boxed in by

her party. I agree with Michael, she

is still doing internal politics

within the Tory party. This is the

point where the country needs

leadership. She hasn't provided that

leadership for the past 20 months.

She is not providing it now.

OK,

let's move on. I know many of our

viewers will have opinions on this.

If you want to give us your opinions

on Brexit, Du Toit us, send an

e-mail. Diane was talking about a

country that she sees as having a

middle manager for a leader, so

let's move to the country that she

is most interested in, which is of

course China.

The Chinese communist

party has proposed

that the current two-term limit

for the presidency should be lifted.

In this one-party state,

what the communist party says goes.

The national congress opens

on Monday, so this dramatic

change could be imminent.

In China and around the world,

the question is being asked -

does 64-year-old Xi Jinping intend

to be president for life?

Diane, I'm going to go straight back

to you.

You see, this is what we see

as for the Chinese, a strongman,

strong leadership, however, is this

really what we call leadership, or

just a power grab? Xi Jinping

certainly has the ambition to be the

ruler of China for a life long time.

This for someone who had grown up

under Mao's commenters is a clear

step back in history.

Why is it a

step backwards? A lot of outsiders

will say, it is that type of

totalitarian autocratic thing going

on in China for decades, don't they

have a 1-party state anyway, what's

the difference?

The differences, if

you look at how China developed in

the past 30 years, the reason China

could prosper was because Max three

put in reforms after Chairman Mao's

death, the first was to move into a

single economy, and the second was

to put an end to the single person

rule until death, which very much

collapse the economy and one of the

most populous countries of the

world.

So we have a collective

leadership since the late 1970s. We

have fixed term successions, every

ten years the leadership gets thrown

out and a new one comes in. And yet

Xioaping who you mentioned who was

the supreme league who came behind

Chairman Mao, he only ever led the

Bridge Association in the last few

years of his life, yet he was

paramount leader. Why does Xi

Jinping need the title of president

any longer? Can't he have his years

in the spotlight and then move

behind the curtain?

Xi Jinping has

had lots of years in the sun, but

this is a man who grew up in the

isolated compound. He is the son of

one of the great ten marshals in

China who founded Chinese commenters

-- Communism. So he grew up with

this entitlement that he belongs to

that elite, and he sees duty,

perhaps his destiny, to rule China

and to rule China with absolute

power.

Yet his supporters would say

that's not fair, that this is a man

with a vision, it's a vision for a

huge country, a superpower on the

rise, and it will take time and

central control to put that vision

in place, and that's why he needs to

stay on in power longer than his

allotted ten years.

The problem with

personalised leadership is that then

you are discounting all the

institutions which China doesn't

have very many to begin with, and

then you create this leadership that

would be more risky in terms of

policy-making. What was to say, Xi

Jinping could decide to push the red

button one day. And it creates, in

the long-term, instability, a

vacuum, because there is no one who

would be in succession.

Let's open

this act now to ever be us. Ned,

China is no longer the inward

looking isolated country it was at

the death of Mao. It is a huge

superpower with influence in every

corner of the globe. What are the

risks here, are there any for the

rest of us?

I think there is a risk

for the world, and I don't want to

overstate this notion of China

taking over the world, but there are

initiatives, there is obviously a

huge expansion, not only just

politically, but in terms of trade,

economics, infrastructure, by China

in the wider world. I think the

danger is more general, that there

is a kind of dawning of an age of

new authoritarianism. You had people

like Erdogan in Turkey, you have

term limits, you have Putin in

Moscow doing his Soviet shtick

before the election, we have bigger

missiles than you do. And there was

always a balance of kind of this

ballast of Western European

democracy and particularly the

United States, an imperfect country

that sometimes did imperfect things,

but when it was present in the

international arena, and when it was

led in such a way that the world

looked to it the leadership, there

was always a kind of curb an overly

imbalanced trends like this.

So you

see an American vacuum?

I see an

America in retreat and an American

absence to often from international

affairs.

Let's put it to the other

part-time American around the table.

Michael?

You know, I think it's

fascinating to listen to Diane talk

about this, because it reminded me

of a man I know in China who was

born in a mud hut village in 1956,

57, we learn famine, tens of

millions died, he was ready for

university at the time of the

cultural Revolution and didn't get

to university until he was in his

30s. Now he is a professor of

philosophy, he makes a terrific

living, his standard of living is

every bit the equal of mine. And I

do wonder if enough millions of

people also tell that story if they

would have a different view about

the Chinese leadership. We in the

West from the moment the Soviet

Union collapsed decided that we were

all going to be in republican

democracies, we were all going to

vote and so on, but if you look at

it historically, neither China nor

Russia has a long tradition of

electoral democratic politics. It's

not surprising that 25 years after

this all began, and with two or

three global economic crises, the

strongmen decide to be strong.

The

question I was asking is, do you see

risks?

Of course there is a risk.

China is irrelevant to all of us in

very deep Weisner, and looking back

at its imperial or communist

history, succession in China is a

dangerous time, so Xi Jinping is 64,

his health is good, but what happens

if something happens to him?

This is

the problem, and Martyn Woolford in

the Financial Times had an excellent

essay about that very point this

week. Two points, one is that rivers

of corruption flow to the leader. We

see it a little bit in Washington,

where people who know Trump

personally get deals, get out of

steel just before he slaps a tariff

on it. That is a danger, and then

there is the succession question.

When he is 80, is he going to swim

across the river to prove he is

still hale and hearty? Then you

create a succession problem. The

wisdom of the 10-year thing from

Deng Xioaping has been, I have got

ten years, and then I can continue

to have political power behind the

scenes. This is inviting a potential

problem, but it is also a potential

problem that may not come, he is 64

and looks very vigorous, but it may

not come for quite some time.

Annalisa, what about the question

that Ned raised in a way, what about

the question for Europe? Liberal

democracy, it is who we believe in

Europe that we are and the UK, and

yet this shift as Ned describes it

to authoritarians?

It is extremely

worrying of course for the rest of

the world, because China has given

over and over again evidence that it

is supporting a kind of expansionist

Dyk territorial policy. It is

increasing its military spending

massively, so it is very bad news

for the rest of the world. We are

seeing like the Europe was formed at

the end of the Second World War. It

now has a very historic role to play

because the European Union is based

on international rules and it is

based on the fact that everybody

plays by the rules. In the world

that looks like it is breaking bad,

there is a strong need for Europeans

to wake up and smell the coffee and

say, we need to respect a form of

shared rules around the world.

Let's

move back now to European politics.

To Italy, and another strongman

in the spotlight, because Italians

go to the polls this weekend.

Some observers expect a return

to centre stage for 81-year-old

billionaire and four-times

Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi.

Let's put that straight back to

Annalisa. Do you expect is blocked

to win?

All the polls point to that,

I'm afraid. They point to nobody

really having an outright majority,

but a coalition led by Silvio

Berlusconi is set to get the highest

number of votes.

Which is kind of on

the face of it amazing, end that you

have someone who is currently not

allowed to serve in politics because

of his history, all the so-called

bunga bunga parties, and you ask,

how can we have this, it seems a bit

dissident to be re-electing and

81-year-old with this history?

Dissonant, yes, but not entirely. If

you think about it, Berlusconi is

the original populist, you think

about the similarities between him

and Trump, so it is coming back,

nationalism is coming back,

xenophobia is coming back. His brand

of populism is very attractive, and

he is also the devil you know. If

you have been in that long in

politics, 30 years, you move from

being a newcomer to being a

statesman.

A national treasure!

National treasure, but having said

that, it would probably be a

disaster, because the coalition that

he has put together is the same but

failed miserably when he was last

time in power, so you have got the

extreme right, the fascist that in

these times are even more extreme

than they used to be. They have been

emboldened by the anti-migrant

feeling which in Italy is very, very

strong.

And very strong I suppose

because a lot of migrants are coming

over the sea from Africa and their

first stop is Italy.

More than

630,000 people from Africa have come

to Italy in the last few years and

it has a massive impact on the

political landscape, so Berlusconi

is leading this coalition of the

Northern league that is xenophobic

and racist, they want to deport ever

be overnight, and the fascists which

are very extreme as well. And they

do not really get along. So if he

ever manages to form a government,

it is going to be very tricky.

Michael, you follow Italy. What is

your take on all of this?

For the

last two years, we have heard two

things. One is the 5-star movement

which will probably get the most

votes.

For people less familiar with

that?

That was started by Beppe

Grillo, who is a comedian, and he

has stepped back now because it is a

serious party and he is not a

serious person. The 5-star party

runs Rome?

They have Rome, and they

have to Turin, but they have not

been very successful.

When you have

the power, and you're not

successful, what does that do to

your vote? The current government

has been successful in terms of

pulling Italy out from the deep,

deep economic crisis but it was in

in 2011 when the Europe crisis hit

it almost as hard as it hit Greece.

And now that the economy is growing

reasonably well...

Not that well.

No, but in comparison to where it

was five or six years ago, and

unemployment is down. This is

traditionally the route to electoral

success. And the fact that he is not

being successful says to me that yet

again there is another centre left

party that doesn't have a

charismatic leader, that isn't able

to pull together the necessary

coalition of voters to win

elections, and I think that is true

in the US where the Democrats

somehow couldn't beat Donald Trump,

and even here where Jeremy Corbyn is

polling well, but it is clear that

he has pulled together enough votes.

So what is coming?

It is not just

leadership. Annalisa is right to

point out the importance of

immigration, asylum. Those are

issues that are not only coming to

the fore in Europe, they are easily

weaponised by populist, nationalist

nativists. You raise the point of

the EU's challenge in kind of coming

together in the landscape we see in

the wider world. One of the

interesting things is that in

addition to not liking immigrants,

asylum seekers, etc, these parties

tend to not much like the European

Union either. And you wonder whether

there will be a kind of drifting

apart...

That is a consideration,

but you need more Europe, but the

crisis of the European society, you

can use Europe as a scapegoat for a

lot of problems. But the thing about

Italy is that contrary to most

popular parties in the rest of

Europe, the Italian populist

parties, they are not Euro-sceptic.

They are almost all in agreement

that if Italy is to get out of its

economic weaknesses, the last thing

they need is to get out of the

European Union.

Diane, you were at

the start kind of criticising

Theresa May for being a middle

manager rather than a strong leader.

When you look at this Italian

electoral story and the possible

comeback of Silvio Berlusconi and

the discussion about the lack of

strong leadership in the centre

left, what is your take on that?

Italy to me is not one conveyor

belts, there are ten conveyor belts,

and the Italian government is always

changing, there are always

elections, always new governments,

and there are political issues such

as immigration. Italy has a serious

problem with fundamental economic

issues, and Italy has not been

growing in real terms for the past

ten years. And as the eighth largest

economy in the world, Italians are

not seeing the benefit of economic

recovery. And I think that is a

major issue for Italy. Whoever wins

the election. They need to start

governing. They need to start

reforming the country. It has a lot

of institutional issues embedded

with the economy.

And do you see a

contrast them with China? Very

economically successful in the past

30 years without any elections. You

are describing a world with too many

elections to handle, which is

economically unsuccessful. Is that

contrast that you would recognise?

This is something that the Chinese

government very much utilises in

their rhetoric. Look at the rest of

the world, we used a look to

America, the West, Europe, for

inspiration, but a lot of elections,

a lot of politics, and we need

stability. We need a strong leader.

We need to focus on economic...

We

are running out of time, but just a

quick word from the body on what we

come to the end of this programme,

which is almost a look at the

political model. Who wants to go

first. Annalisa?

Certainly as an

Italian and looking at the Italian

model, there are serious doubts

about how representative democracy

has been serving the interests of

the Italian citizens. And there is

more and more a reflection and

debate about what has happened in

China.

As in, people admiring the

Chinese model?

People asking

themselves, the long-term planning,

this kind of determination in

pushing something regardless of the

ins and outs of the political

instability, is this something that

we need to look at? It is a heresy

because we believe in democracy.

Indeed. Michael, a quick word?

It is

about national purpose. In the 25

years after the Second World War,

America had unparalleled growth.

They made up for the great

depression and the dislocation of

the Second World War. I grew up in

that period, and ever since then it

has been a slow decline. China has

even longer to make up for. It has

people as I was describing earlier

to Diane who have national purpose,

and I don't think they think too

much about the politics of the

situation, but eventually they will

reach full capacity, too, and they

will have time to reflect on

politics.

Ned?

I am not in favour of

abolishing terms Fred Trump! Be

careful what you wish for. Those of

us who have worked in countries as

foreign correspondents.

You have

been in the Soviet Union before...

Was it Churchill who said that

democracy is the worst form of

government except every other form.

And on that very important and

thoughtful point, we will have to

leave it. Thank you all so very much

for coming in.

That's all we have time for.

Do join us next week,

same time same place.

But for now, thank you for

watching and goodbye.