22/08/2011 Newsnight

It's not yet all over in Lybia, but it looks as if it is almost over.

What now? They celebrate the downfall of the

dictator, but how to ensure that what follows is better, or even

coherent, is this the end of a revolution or the start of new

conflicts? Power now resides in Benghazi, but

is the so-called National Transitional Council to be trusted?

Their man in London is here, as is the International Development

Secretary. Remember this: Never fall again for

the doctrine of isolationism, because the world truly cannot

afford it. Is Libya akin to Kosovo, the sort of military action he

tried to sell to the world. If so, can we expect more western

interventions, or are they limited merely to tyrannies that look

vulnerable. It is a wipout in the Test Match,

as India demolish India again, is an entire pool of home-grown talent

being ignored. There is only one Asian guy in there at the moment.

You are telling me there is no other Asian player in the whole of

the system? Colonel Gaddafi was always a man

whose political claims were as plausible as his dyed hair and

pantomime military uniforms. But his promise to fight on tonight is

especially empty. His regime has collapsed with surprising speed,

and the rebels now control most of the Libyan capital and it is

reported tonight the International Airport. President Obama has said

Gaddafi's only option is to quit the stage.

We piece together the battle for Tripoli.

It is not the end quite yet, but today surely marked the tipping

point. In Tripoli jubilant crowds sing the

new National Anthem. In fact, the old National Anthem from the days

of the king, overthrown by Gaddafi in 1969.

Just a few days ago it seemed the Libyan civil war was in stalemate,

but suddenly everything has changed. Today, the crowds could dare to

smash Gaddafi's picture. As rebels streamed into Tripoli,

claiming to control most, but certainly not all of the city,

after their rapid advance. So he played his last card f you

can saying, his last game. So all the army of Gaddafi now they fight

without any orders, without anything.

But Gaddafi's troops have not all surrendered. Today a BBC team

filmed this take on a rebel convoy, travelling along the coast towards

the centre of Tripoli. And tonight a doctor in the city

told Newsnight he expected more resistance. We have to expect some

resistance. Otherwise we are not imagining well, so the resistance

is expected. But not so effective. Though the rebels are still

threatened by some pro-Gaddafi force, the most decisive battle has

already been fought. The rebels stormed into the city

last night, firing their weapons in celebration. But how do they

finally manage to take Tripoli? It seems there were two key factor,

the assault seems to have been well co-ordinated by different rebel

groups w NATO bombing strikes also playing a crucial role.

At the weekend, rebels pushing in from the Tunisian border, finally

took Zawiya, a major turning point. With anti-Gaddafi forces gaining

control of supply roads in the south, and Misrata in the east

secured, it left the Libyan leader surrounded and under siege. When

the rebels reached the headquarters of the Khamis Brigade, and found it

abandoned, the full scale assault on Tripoli was on. Inside Tripoli

itself, areas sympathetic to the rebels were quick to respond.

Fashloum and Tajoura fell as local people took to the streets, as did

the symbolically important Green Square. It isn't over yet, parts of

Tripoli, including the port, and Bab Al-Aziziya, Gaddafi's compound,

still appear to be under the control of Gaddafi's forces.

The second factor was NATO. There has been a blitz of NATO air

attacks on targets in and around Tripoli in the past few day, and

continuing today. The highest number in one location since the

bombing campaign began. They could not have succeeded

without NATO's assistance, that has to be recognised. They simply would

not have taken Zawiya as quickly as they did. They would not have

advanced on Tripoli, if NATO air strikes hadn't softened up regime

armour so effectively. People on the ground in Libya recognise this.

The challenge for NATO now is to get back behind the scenes,

unobtrusively, and extend discreet assistance, without twisting arms

or making a public show of it. What is still not known, of course,

is the where abouts of Gaddafi himself. Who faces an arrest

warrant from the International Criminal Court, for alleged crimes

against humanity. The rebel National Transitional Council say

they hope he is captured alive. TRANSLATION: We hope that he is

captured alive. So that he will be given a fair trial. Tonight his

future looks bleak. Two of his sons are said to have been captured and

now to be in rebel hands. A third, Mohammed, escaped, he was on the

phone to a TV station. TRANSLATION: I'm being attacked

right now, this is gunfire inside my house. They are inside my house.

As for his own whereabouts, if Gaddafi is still in Libya, as seems

likely, it is possible he has fled his residence and fortified

compound in Tripoli, and his possible hideouts include his birth

place, Sirte in the east, and still under his forces' control. He could

be out in his beloved desert, perhaps around Sabha, with Libyan

tribes, still loyal. After nearly 42 years Gaddafi's era is surely

over. With us is the International

Development Secretary, Andrew Mitchell, you must be delighted our

side won? I think so far so good. But there's an awful lot of

uncertainty and doubt still around. Of course, presumably the danger in

your mind is this will degenerate into something like the situation

in Iraq, after the apparent victory? We hope we have learned

the lessons of Iraq, in the work that Britain and other countries

have been doing on stablisation, for what comes when the fighting is

over. That process, of course, will belong to the National Transitional

Council, it will be led and owned by them. But there is a huge amount

of work that Britain and other countries have done into planning

for what goes next. We are not still maintaining the fiction that

this was a civil war, despite the fact that we had planes involved,

special forces on the ground, the French armed the rebels, we are not

maintaining that fiction any longer are we? We are absolutely clear

that the reason we joined the coalition, the reason we helped

lead the coalition and provided our planes and airmen and women was to

stop a bloody massacre taking place in Benghazi. If we hadn't

intervened, you don't need to look in the crystal ball, it is in the

book, Gaddafi said he would go from house-to-house in Benghazi. The

reason for the intervention was to stop that massacre taking place.

And we will stop a similar massacre in Syria, will we? Syria is a very

different position. First of all, the whole of the Arab world was

deeply opposed to what Gaddafi was doing. Syria is different. It is

not to do what you can do, because there are things you cannot do.

That is why, although our room for manoeuvre is constrained, in Libya

it is clear what was needed to be done and we did it. We should be

proud of the fact that Britain helped to lead that effort. You are

saying we do what the Arab world allows us to do in the Arab world?

I think it is the art of the possible. It was possible on Libya

to take this action, and I think most people are extremely pleased

we did so. The limits of our principles are what other

Governments in that part of the world, frequently themselves

tyrannies, decree as possible? of the problem with Syria is there

isn't agreement in the way there was on Libya. That is another

factor as well. Will we seek a UN resolution authorising the use of

force to protect civilians in Syria? I don't think that is

practical. What we can do to protect civilians what we are doing

through organisations like the ICRC, one of the few organisations who

can get into Syria and through whom we can try to bring some

humanitarian help to people in a very dark place. What is the

difference between Syria and Libya? It is the art of the possible, and

it is also the fact that there was widespread agreement on the action

we took on Lybia, which has been lacking consistently on Syria.

be clear of this, you are proud of what we did in Libya? I think it

was the right beings and a brave decision the Government and Prime

Minister took. There were many people who said you could not

impose a no-fly zone, you couldn't achieve what we achieved from the

air, and we have. We averted what would undoubtedly have been a

bloody massacre in Benghazi. As far as Colonel Gaddafi is concerned

what would you like the National Transitional Council to do with

him? He should surrender, he should tell his rapidly diminishing band

of supporters to lay down their arms. Then it is matter for the NTC,

the authorities in Libya, over whether he should go through a

justice system in Libya, or whether he should be sent to the Hague.

have no feelings on that as a Government? It is matter for the

Libyan people, power exercised through the National Transitional

Council. Surely we should be committed to him appearing before

the International Criminal Court at the moment? They are not a member

of the ICC at the moment, the commitment is to him undergoing

justice. In the way the ICC work, that can be done by a justice

system inside Libya, or failing that, the Hague. Were the National

Transitional Council, or whatever that evolves into, and we have no

idea, to decide he should face some form of summary justice, and be

hanged along with his familiarly we are quite content to let them do

that? We do know what the National Transitional Council plans, they

plan a new constitution, they plan a new approach with elections after

eight months. That is what the National Transitional Council will

announce when the fighting is over. The chairman is able to go to

Tripoli. The new constitution will determine the nature of the justice

system in Libya. That is why I say it is a matter for the National

Transitional Council to decide whether or not Gaddafi should face

justice in the Hague under the ICC, or whether it should be done

through Libyan justice. Once the NTC has taken power, will we be

requesting that Mr Al-Megrahi come back to serve the rest of his

sentence in a Scottish jail? There is a process for that. But nars for

the Scottish Government to decide. We have - it is a matter for the

Scottish Government to decide. We condemn the decision taken, we

think it was the wrong decision, the fact that Mr Al-Megrahi is

alive today rather underlines that point. Thank you very much. Just

briefly joining us from New York is John Bolton, the former US

Ambassador, we will talk to him at greater length in a minute or two.

I would be interested to ask you Mr Bolton, do you think when Mr

Gaddafi goes, Mr Al-Megrahi should be requested to be returned to a

Scottish jail? No, I think he should be sent to the United States

where we could try him. The terms under which the US agreed to Al-

Megrahi being tried in a Spanish court have been violated both by

the Government of Libya and by the Government of Great Britain. I

think that any commitment that we might have made that would release

him from the potential of American prosecution, for, afterall, killing

189 Americans, has been voided. My view would be he deserves to come

to this country to have a trial here. And you will be asking for

that, if you were in Government, would you? I certainly would,

absolutely. We are going to talk you a bit more in a moment or two.

First we will have another piece of tape. The overthrow of Gaddafi is a

long way from the end of the story. Power now seems to lie with

something called the National Transitional Council, but who are

they? How did they get the gig? Can they be trusted. We spent much of

recent weeks with the Libyan rebels. When the advance came it was

unexpectedly fast. After months of near stalemate, the road to Tripoli

suddenly opened up. The streets of the capital, so often until

recently the scene of demonstrations in support of

Colonel Gaddafi, were now filled with jubilant rebel fighters. The

battle for Tripoli isn't over yet, but the regime's grip on the

capital, which had held out, despite months of NATO air strikes,

this weekend appeared to slip away. Libya's rebel force, so often

derided as a rabble, looked much more organised. They didn't do it

alone. NATO was serving as the rebel Air Force. An auxiliary air

arm of the free Libyan forces. There is no doubt about the way

they interpreted their mission to protect civilians, was to

facilitate a rebel advance on Tripoli. That was obvious from the

high degree of assistance they furnished to the rebels as they

marched towards Tripoli. NATO's stated mandate throughout the

conflict has been to protect civilians and civilian

infrastructure. But if there was one thing that both the rebels and

Colonel Gaddafi could agree on, it was that Britain and others were

firmly supporting the National Transitional Council. The NTC, the

rebels' political leadership in Benghazi. Last month, along with

more than 30 other countries, the UK formally recognised the

unelected body as Libya's sole, legitimate governing authority.

Through its actions the National Transitional Council has shown its

commitment to a more open and democratic Lybia, something it is

working to achieve through an inclusive political process. This

is in stark contrast to Gaddafi, whose brutality against the Libyan

people has striped him of all legitimacy. Who exactly are these

rebels, that the National Transitional Council says it

represents? The revolution had its first flowering in Benghazi, which

became the political capital of the opposition. But the rebels'

military campaign never developed into a single unified push

westwards, instead, fighting broke out in pockets, the port city of

Misrata became a rebel-held stronghold, isolated and cut off

from the rest of the movement. Then fighting gained momentum on a third

front, in the Nafusa Mountains, ethnic divisions sim merd, there

was an uneasy eye lines. The NT. - uneasy alliance. The NTC has had to

work alongside, the Berbers, who have done much fighting, Islamists,

fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, those who would classify themselves

as Jihadis, those who are secular, those who are tribunally orientated,

those - tribally orientated, and those interested in only a

democratic Libya. Once the Government falls it will be the

task of the rebel leaders to join the disparate groups, or at least

persuade them not to turn their guns on each other. That happened

in July when a senior rebel commander was shot and killed by

members of a rival rebel brigade. Today the chairman of the NTC

issued a warning to fighters to maintain discipline and security,

and to guard against the threat from what he called Islamist

extremists. With the prospect of victory in sight, the shadow of

Iraq hangs over Libya's future there are, of course, plenty of

differences between the two countries, but the initial euphoria

over the toppling of Saddam Hussein, did lead to a dissent into vicious

infighting, that is a powerful echo. In Iraq the Iraqis deposed the

Government, and through bathecation, it striped out a lot of the senior

- bathification, it striped out a lot of the senior and middle

management. Libya has put some effort into evolving plan so as not

to repeat the hard lessons learned in Iraq. After decades of rule of

one man alone, Libya is a curious mix of political simplicity and

ambition. As I saw skrauld on the walls of Misrata last month. This

one says we want checks and balances on the President's power,

and four-year, non-extendable term limits. That might sound like a

terribly good idea in principle, the question is, after 42 years of

dictatorship, how easy will it be to achieve in practice. Since then,

the rebel political leadership has got round to drafting a

constitution. It is the kind of document that few people would

disagree with. It calls for a multiparty political system, with

equal rights for all. But there is one crucial section, Article Two 9,

which says that the members of the Transitonal National Council may

not nominate for or assume the position of President of state, the

membership of the Legislative Councils, or ministerial portfolios.

It is a guarantee, a reassurance to the rest of Libya, that the

political leaders in Benghazi won't simply seize power as soon as

Tripoli falls. When the fighting end ends and they return to their

normal lives, these people will stop being rebels, but their

biggest challenge may be to come, to maintain their unity of purpose

after their common enemy as been removed. With us now is the UK co-

ordinator in London for the NTC. And John Bolton is still with us.

What is your reaction to the situation tonight. Is it unalloyed

delight or are you apprehensive? You have to multitask in this

situation, I think it is clear that Gaddafi's regime is over, and I

think it is still very uncertain how bloody the end game will be.

That potential is very real. I think there is huge uncertainty now

what follows Gaddafi. There is no doubt in my mind that eliminating

his regime was the right thing to do, but it is very uncertain what

comes next. That is obviously a critical issue. Your worry is what?

The worry is several fold, first, that the rebels fall to fighting

among themselves. And we end up with continuing hostilities and the

risk that Libya would deteriorate to similar to what we have in

Somalia or Yemen, giving Al-Qaeda or others a chance to establish an

operating base. Or second, that among the disparate elements of the

rebel coalition, that radical Islamists, or even Al-Qaeda

elements that NATO has identified, could come to predominate. I don't

say that is inevitable, far from it, it is very uncertain. We have the

UK co-ordinator for the National Transitional Council here. The fact

is, you haven't got anything in common, apart from the fact that

you all wanted Gaddafi to go? the contrary, Jeremy, Libyan

society is the most hom genius society among all the Arab -

homogenesis society among all the Arab nations. Even the tribal

nature of our society has been hugely exaggerate. We are totally

united and determined Libya will be one country and Tripoli the capital.

We are nationalist, overwhelmingly, we think of Libya first. We

determine that after Gaddafi is over, and his regime is effectively

over, we want to rebuild the country along constitutional,

democratic system, that will allow everybody to participate and allow

all Libyans to reach their aspirations. That sounds wonderful,

it has to come true, that's all that needs to happen. I hope it

does. I'm simply saying no-one at the moment can say it honestly will.

Neither can you? We can only rise up to the challenge. We have

already got plans in place, we have the vision in place. The last six

months we have done detailed planning, and we are already

unfolding these plans, and implementing them in Tripoli as we

speak. Unlike other experiences before in other Arab countries that

have been with an American diplomat put in charge and decimating the

institutions, we will be inclusive and maintain all the institutions

of the country and everybody must report back. What about the other

point raised, the danger of some Islamist organisation, Al-Qaeda or

whoever, taking power in Libya, or being able to use it at least as

base? I refer you to a statement by General Mullen, who is the American

Chief-of-Staff, who says on record there is no signs or proof of any

Al-Qaeda elements in Libya. That again is something Gaddafi used as

frightening the west, it has not materialised. Libyan society tends

to be moderate. Libyans are religious, but they are moderates.

They do not tolerate extremism one way or another, we do not have any

Al-Qaeda elements in there. shot the head of the army then?

That is a subject of an investigation and we should have

the results soon. We don't know who they are, but they are definitely

not Al-Qaeda members. We do not have an Al-Qaeda organisation in

Libya. It was one of your own, I think. John Bolton. We don't know

yet. John Bolton, the fact of the matter surely is that Libya is

better off tonight than it was under the dictatorship of a

lunatic? Well, I hope so. But I think that remains unproven. As I

say, number one, we still have the prospect of Gaddafi and bitter

enders along with him, not just in Tripoli, but in Brega and Sirte and

other parts of Libya, not yet captured by the rebels, continuing

to hold out. There is the prospect of guerrilla warfare by those who

were part of the Gaddafi regime, or loyal to it. And despite the

optimisim that we have just heard, experts in this country and in

other NATO countries who know a thing or two about Libya are very

worried that the transitional Government will not be able to hold

together. I say again, I don't think it is inevitable that they

will come apart. I just don't think we know at this point, and all of

this will be subject to verification. I think the United

States should work hard to make the successor regime a positive

development. I just don't think we can have confidence at this point

until we know what the outcome will be. It has taken much, much longer

and cost much more than Governments in London and Paris and other NATO

capitals expected. The outcome of a confrontation between the world's

most powerful military alliance and a despot dictator should never have

been in doubt. There were plenty who said it couldn't be done.

Instead it is a victory of sorts for what is known as liberal

interventionism, western democracies making war to spread

their values. But no-one is suggesting they try it in Syria,

for example. Cost vow, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan,

Iraq, and now Libya. The circumstances in which Britain

intervenes and the way it gets involved, has been evolving. David

Cameron says he has learned the lessons of a difficult decade.

I think the Prime Minister and everybody involved in this policy

is terrified of a repeat, the humiliations and the mess we found

in Afghanistan. Everybody is hoping it will be more like the situation

in Bosnia, which was positive. The last two decades have been really

confusing. At times the international community, the US and

the Allies have felt it can do almost anything it wants. At other

times it feels it can do nothing. Looking at Libya, there will be the

great temptation to take responsibility for the whole thing.

At the same time a real fear that things may collapse if we don't get

involved. One of the principles of Tony

Blair's style of liberal intervention, was summed up by the

philosophy that if we break a country we have a responsibility to

fix it. Interventionism doesn't mean just militarily intervening

and then going home. Because the whole principle arises from the

doctrine of the responsibility to protect. That means you have a

responsibility to the citizens of the country, in which you are

intervening, that responsibility doesn't end the moment that a

tyrant is toppled. It means you have a continuing responsibility,

which wasn't very well exercised in the case of Iraq, but we hope

better exercised in Libya. What was interesting from the Prime

Minister's statement is how little he was taking ownership of what is

happening in Libya, he was purposefully playing down Britain's

role? There is much more to be done, it is still a difficult situation

in Tripoli, but it is clear a huge amount has changed in the last few

days, that gives people confidence that the people of Libya are close

to what they want. This is about them, this is not about us, it is

about a country in North Africa that warrants a future of freedom

and democracy, that wantsor part of the Arab Spring. We want to - wants

to be part of the Arab Spring. We shunned be too much about the role

we played. It needs to lie in the correct place, which is in the

ruling authorities in the country itself. As Mr Cameron rightly made

clear, it will be a Libyan-led exercise, the international

community will get involved, only in accordance with requests from

Libya. That is the right way round, rather than trying to impose any

vision from outside on the country in question.

Inside Number Ten, there is an acknowledgement that Britain's

involvement in getting rid of Colonel Gaddafi, if that is indeed

what is happening at the moment was only possible because a stringent

set of criteria were first satisfied. Firstly, western powers

were on board, but not only that, so was the Arab League, the UN gave

its approval as did NATO. By contrast, they say, Tony Blair's

doctrine of international intervention would have demanded

action even if none of those criteria were satisfied.

David Cameron certainly doesn't sound as evangelical in the cause

of spreading democracy, as some of his predecessors. In Cairo in

February, as the Arab Spring formed into uncertain bud, he described

democracy as the patient work of decades. He was not, he declared, a

naive neo-con, who thinks it can be dropped from 40,000 feet. I think

where Tony Blair got it wrong, he always exaggerated our fears and

our power. He was always saying this is an extension threat to

global security, this is a failed state, on the one hand. On the

other hand he would say we can sort it out, give us the troops and

resources, we can sort it out. That needs to be left behind now. We

need to move into a much more modest world, where we are much

more humble, we can do a bit, it is largely about local action, we can

support around the edges, there is a chance of doing something, that

isn't the stuff of great political speeches. The action in Libya may

provide a template for future intervention. It has not thus far

required Britain's rather worn military boots to hit the ground.

It is a template that acknowledges its own limitations. Without, for

example, a complete change in the international climate, it is

difficult to see how it can be extended to Syria or Iran.

A Foreign Office minister and UN deputy secretary-general is with us

now, along with a Labour MP, we are joined from Washington by Elliott

Abrahams who advised George Bush on Libyan affairs.

Does this prove that interventionism works? It worked in

the case of Libya, I take the point that Libya was a great case. The

people were against the regime, he had been a terrorist, the Arab

League, the UN, everyone was in favour. But it certainly helps the

case, I would say, of liberal interventionism. It is very

striking that David Cameron did not come into office planning this sort

of temptways, or to succumb to this sort of temptation? That's right, I

doubt he will again. This was, as he and his ministers insist, a

once-off, as Elliott has said, all the signals pointed in the right

direction t created an almost irresistable opportunity, and an

irresistable moral duty. That threat to the citizens of Benghazi

we all saw, was something any decent politician would have tried

to act. This raises the very interesting question about when you

feel you can act or you must act and when you feel you shouldn't or

you can't? Clearly in this case there was an international

consensus that had been built up, with the demands from the people of

Libya, who wanted action, who wanted support. I think what we

have to be clear about is the duty to protect the UN resolution that

was established, it was a lot less clear how the international

community should respond. I think it is really positive that there is

a duty to protect civilians when they are threatened by dictators,

this is an important example of that happening. We have to take

care when we take interventions and how it is doss done. The critical

thing is - how it is done. The critical thing is the Libyan people

are at the forefront of determining their destinies, and countries

should intervene with care. only people who can take the

decision about whether to intervene or not, are the people who will do

the intervening, surely? We have the United Nations, we have the

international legal instruments, which need to be observed. We know

from the situation with the Iraq war what happens when there isn't a

consensus. Are you expect to go see more interventions? Not really. I

think for two reasons. It is very interesting the political debate in

Washington, where even the right have been deeply sceptical about

this. Because you know neo-con political ambition has run into

fiscal reality. What we are seeing in the US, the debate about

military overstretch, bringing the troops home, spend the money at

home. We will see a very similar debate here in the UK. So I think

we're going to enter an era of very cautious military engagement abroad,

and also one where you are going to have to do it within the framework

of international law, and frankly, Libya pushed that to the limits.

This went beyond Protestant tection of civilians, and it has done some

- the protection of civilians and has done some damage. Are you

expecting to see more of these interventions? If the occasion

arise, yes. Libya was, from the American point of view, pretty

cheap, in the amount of military force was used, it was quite

minimal, there were no American casualties here. In a sense, after

Afghanistan and Iraq, it is a counter example of how intervention

is possible at quite a limited price. So I think, again, it

encourages the notion that when the situation is ripe, it is a good

thing to do. Can I just pick up on the point, I think it is much too

early to say, to declare what the price was. In the case of

Afghanistan and Iraq, the day that the successful rebels went into

Baghdad and Kabul, backed by foreign forces, was not the end, it

was, frankly, the end of the beginning. Then followed these long

years of difficult reconstruction, of insurgency, of the west feeling

committed to a project it had begun and couldn't leave until it was

successfully finished, and a democratic state established in

those two places. I think it is a little too soon to count our

victory yet, or at least put a cost on that victory.

No-one is predicting that Libya is going to look like Iraq, and any

way, none of us is thinking of putting in gigantic Armed Forces.

We have, on the military front, essentially done our part, now we

leave it largely to the Libyans. But this has set a precedent, which

rather supersedes the precedents of Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of

which has been particularly happy? We need to make a distinction

between the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Particularly in

Iraq, where it was, there involved ground troops, regime change and so

on. In this case, it was about protecting people, and also, I

think this is much more in line with the examples of Kosovo and

Sierra Leone. I think we also need to look back at Bosnia, where

interventions didn't take place until very late on. Thousands of

people were slaughtered. So in the era of cautiousness, which is

correct and right, we do have to make sure, that as the

international community we don't let slaughters take place either.

If you were watching this in Damascus, or even in the Syrian

embassy in London, wouldn't you conclude, well, we know precisely

what the limits of western intervention are likely to be now.

They are what they can get away with, they think? Hold on a moment,

two points, one I think both my colleagues in the panel are correct.

As long as we have learned the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan,

and have a low-cost support to a Libyan-led reconstruction, then it

is right, the parallel breaks down. It is different. But coming to this

second point, of Syria. I mean, frankly, President Assad at the

weekend, when he gave a television interview to his domestic TV

station, was using the threat of foreign intervention to try to whip

up a kind of lame loyalty to his regime. I frankly think it is a

very good thing that he knows, and the people of Syria know, there

won't be a western intervention, that is not how this is going to

get solved. How it now looks that it may start to get solved, is Arab

neighbours are coming out against him. Russia and China, who were a

little bit on his side, have flipped over to condemning him. It

will be that kind of diplomatic pressure and economic isolation

which will make change there. just would say, let's not set the

standards for intervention so high that there is never another

humanitarian intervention. It is very nice we had the Arab League

with us, that was accidental, almost, they hate Gaddafi. It is

great to get the UN Security Council, but we didn't have the UN

Security Council in all the cases in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

If there is a responsibility to protect, it is a moral

responsibility, and it doesn't disappear, if you don't happen to

have the Arab League or Russia and China on your side. We seem to find

ourselves with an unusual sporting phenomenon on our hands, the

England cricket team skitled out the Indians to finish a whitewash.

They are the best Test Match team in the world. They are an England

team that expects to win. Could they be better, could there be a

pool of talent that the people who run English cricket haven't tapped.

This is A Tale of Two Cities. In one part of Birmingham stands

Edgbaston, establishment cricket English-style. The gentile setting

for many an epic cricketing contest. And the Stately Home of

Warwickshire Closed circuit Club. Just a few miles down the road,

cricket Asian-style. A no-frills version of the game, for almost 120

years locals in Birmingham have been playing cricket on these

pitches. 80 teams meet here every week during the summer, to compete

with one of Britain's oldest and biggest Asian leagues. The

facilities are basic, no changing rooms, no toil lets. Last year

things got so tough the league considered folding. Traditionally

English cricket clubs need their own FA tillties if they want ECCB

endorsement. Many are using council sites and are missing out on

support. Some say that support Why do you think there aren't more

Asian players inside the test sites and county cricket? It goes back to

the argument that you used to get about black footballers in the 1970,

they can't cut it and don't have the aptitude and abilities. We need

pioneers to breakthrough the ceiling. The day they are playing

in the team, there is a Muslim who doesn't drink or wear any shirt

that reflects drinking or gambling, the day we have that kind of player

in the English cricket team, we will have a cricket team that

reflects the diverse land we have here. What one misses out on is the

practical approach that football has, where you have scouts at the

lower league games. We have 13 games on, is there anyone from the

ECB he can ching out the players? There are players in the league who

have the quality to make it into the ranks of world cricket. Nobody

is there to spot the players. not? It is a lacking part on behalf

of the clubs, they are not looking in this the right places.

Asians underrepresented? Look at the current English team there is

only one Asian guy there, he's only a fringe player, you telling me

there is no other Asian player in the whole of the system that can

play with the rest of the England team, of course there is.

Talk to the guys here and they will tell thaw English cricket is split

between the middle-class white gentile world and the working-class

Asian grassroots. Over in Edgbaston, the county

Cricket Clbu has been involved in projects to try - Cricket Club has

been involved in project to try and be inclusive. I think it is

inclusive at all levels. facilities the parks league have

are not good, they have no changing rooms? No, that is a big issue. The

teams playing in the partial league are not affiliate today the cricket

- parks league, are not affiliated to the Cricket Board, but we see it

as very important. There are Asian cricket teams in inner cities

across England. These sides are playing in Victoria Park in East

London, many caught the cricket bug from their parents. We felt, I

suppose, for more our parents' country, that is where the passion

came from, our parents, and our heros growing up were Pakistani

cricketers. It was a passion for cricket, but not necessarily the

England team. The ECB recently spent almost �1 million on building

cricket facilities in East London, will the efforts help the England

team look less white in the future. I hope so, I think the first

significant difference will be that we will establish and find good

young spinners, there is a lot of evidence we have found already that

the kids who are around here are very talented, and particularly in

spin bowling. Maybe the real test of success will come, not only when

the England team looks more like England, but when there is no

longer a need or demand for Asian- only leison. With us is the former

editor, and the first British-born Pakistani to play professional

cricket in this country. Why you do you think there are not

more Asians playing for England? The projects such as Chance To

Shine, trying to reignite cricket in state schools. If you look at

the county circuit there are more Asian non-professional cricketers.

Where I grew up 17 professional cricketers have come out of there.

Are you saying it is not a problem? No, over the last five years it has

been addressed. The ECB are invest ago lot of money into grassroots

sport. Do you think it is a real problem? If you go back to the

1950s, when Pakistani immigrants came over, through no fault of

their own, they were not educated, they were not literate, they could

not speak English, because the Government of Pakistan, has spent

most of its money on the military and not on public health and

education. There is an enormous cultural divide when they came over.

Moreover, they are Muslim, generosity and hospitality are

enormous priorities in the cultural values of Islam. They get to this

country, they are given housing but they are not welcomed into the

Cricket Clubs of this country. And although the gap is narrowing, I

don't think it has narrowed quickly enough. Do you think there is, to

some degree, I have to venture on this gingerly, there is a rather

consciousness separateness in Asian cricket? I set a prime example in

Birmingham, a local Cricket Club called Atok Cricket Club, set up in

primarily an Asian area, the club itself reflecting the demographics

of that particular community. There is an assumption that all Asian

cricketers want to play club cricket, or are denied or forced to

set up their own Cricket Clubs because they are not welcomed into

white clubs. I'm not saying that doesn't happen in some case, what

I'm saying is sometimes as local communities, they want to play

together, play with their uncles and brothers, and not play the

formal level of the game that a club environment would expect.

do you make of that point? Because this is Britain, it is not just a

question of race and colour, it is also a question of class. Another

problem is there is hugely successful England team, wonderful

team, presents a cheque for each country, through the broadcasting

deals done, of �1.5 million, goes each county club at the start of

the year. It is so much easier to go to your local private schools

and get your agent in the southern Hemisphere to send you a few

players who have European parentage, and to make your county team out of

that. I'm afraid British Asians are underrepresented, well under 10%.

Although the middle-class Asians have access to cricket, lower,

working-class Asians do not have that same opportunity. You talk

about people from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds, there are

many different cultural and religious backgrounds from the

continent. Supposing there was a proper representation of the

communities in the English cricket tome, how would it change?

would it change? I think you would find there would be more

wristedness in the batting, you might have better one-day players.

Because of the ability to hit over the top. We might have more of a

chance to win a World Cup, as far as the batting is concerned. You

might have interspinners, although Graeme Swann is fine. You would

have a greater diversity. The English team is almost entirely

private school for batting, and there are only the bowlers come

from the state sector. So a diversity, it has to be healthy.

Who did you want to play for when you were young? England, when I

grew up as 12-year-old, I was spotted in the playground, by

chance, it was through that I ended up at Warwickshire. Many would,

even now I believe, prefer to play for Pakistan or India or Sri Lanka

or wherever s that a correct impression? Yes, I think you're

right. There is still strong ties to families and parents who came

from south Asia, I think a lot of those children have carried that

affinity on. That is self- segregation isn't it? It is, in

some ways. If you look at the England players, or the Asian

players who have played for England. I think they would all say when

they pulled on the England shirt they were proud to play for England.

If they played against Pakistan or India it didn't matter they all

wanted to perform. In just a minute the morning papers. First, with a

story that broke too late for them, is our political correspondent. Who

has the latest on News International and Andy Coulson and

the hacking story. Just give us the details? The top line of the story

is after Andy Coulson left News International, he resigned as

editor of the News of the World in January 2007, he continued to

receive payments from News International, that overlapped the

time at which he started working for David Cameron and the

Conservative Party, in July 2007. These payments were part of his

sevenance package. I'm told, I have been speaking to a member of the

select committee, they want to look into this, and find out whether

there was any conditionality to these. Did they require him to do

anything, or not do anything that might be pertinent to this. Why is

it politically significant? It is polictically significant because

Andy Coulson went to work for David Cameron. Some people on the Labour

side tonight, are suggesting this may have been a disguised donation

to the Conservative Party. But there is another aspect to this as

well, that the select committee on you will culture, media and sport,

is he continued to get his benefits, it appeared, as an ex-employee,

including car and health care, right up to 2009, when he gave

evidence to the select committee. Did he disclose that, that is what

they will want to look at. three front pages we have at

That's all from Newsnight tonight. Colonel Gaddafi told the people of

Libya today he would stay to the end. We have reached our's.

Goodnight. Good evening. Whilst many northern

and western areas stay dry through tonight, heavy rain in the south-

east could produce nasty rush hour tomorrow with a risk of localised

flooding. The storms working off into the North Sea quickly, rain

persistent through the Midland, North West Midland stays fine.

Turning wet through South Yorkshire, Londonshire, rain persists, 14 the

high. Getting better through the day for East Anglia. Maybe brighter

skies across the south coast, Cornwall, Isles of Scilly,

predominantly dry throughout. For Wales brightness through the

afternoon, especially in western most parts, temperatures peeking at

18, 19. In Northern Ireland one or two showers through the day, most

having a dry and bright day. Occasional sunshine, rather than

clear blue skies, that will be the story for Scotland, a bit of cloud

to begin with, some sunshine to begin, equally one or two showers

are possible. For northern and western areas the change comes

Tuesday into Wednesday. We start to drag in some rain. This is coming

in across western parts. Cardiff seeing thundery downpours into the

middle part of the week. Elsewhere in southern and eastern areas, it

will be dry, brighter and warmer. We have a weakening cold front