15/12/2011 Newsnight

Tonight, now that the euro trashing of David Cameron is starting to

subside, here come the Czech Republic and the hur gairians

saying they won't sign up to tax harmonisation either. We will ask

the Czech ambassador if the EU is unravelling before the treaty is

agreed. Also tonight, the British army gets

its next deployment orders. It is 13,500 pairs of boots on the ground

in London to help keep the Olympics safe. Many will be working under

the direction of private security firms.

Reflecting in the shock of the year of the Arab Spring, the cry was

"democracy", how much of that desire will now be

achieved.$$NEWLINE Did we predict all this dizzying dysfunction last

year, well, no we didn't. But the result is likely to owe more to

Arab culture and history, than it is to western notions of freedom

and equality. I will be talking to a five-star

cast, including Henry Kissinger, Simon Schama, and a Nobel Prize

winner. Good evening. The angry red mist

that has hung over Europe since David Cameron said non to putting

Britain's name to an EU-wide treaty change, is starting to turn into a

haze of uncertainty, as to which of the 26 countries will be part of it,

if it happens at all. The Czech Republic and Hungary said they were

against the pact to harmonise tax rates, and the Danes and the Swedes

have concerns too over the austerity measures in the deal.

Tonight it was confirmed British officials will be allowed it take

part in talks over a new treaty, despite Mr Cameron's veto. How

despite Mr Cameron's veto. How serious is the threat of isolation?

1234 the odd man out, the party wrecker, the man who put selfish

national interests before the economic well being of a continent.

At least, that's what much of the initial European reaction to David

Cameron's veto at last week's Brussels summit would have you

believe. The reality might be rather

different. As the days have gone on, it has become clear that there are

politicians and voters in many European countries worried, just as

Mr Cameron was, about the implications of closer financial

co-ordination. Cameron's veto of this EU treaty

quite clearly complicated things a bit more. But it wasn't the only

reason, and far from it, that European leaders are now struggling

to reach an agreement. Because there is no agreement, even. There

are no details, there are no firm deals on the table, this is all in

the open. To reduce these very complicated discussions and

political debate going on at the moment, to a 26 versus 1 narive is

incorrect. Last -- last week all the talk was one versus 26, as if

Britain had cut itself free, but now it is looking less solid.

Countries outside the eurozone, Sweden, Hungary and the Czech

Republic expressing serious doubts about signing up to a deal. The

Czech Republic and the Swedes, who have their own currencies, said

they wanted to help stablise the eurozone, but wouldn't risk

damaging their own competitive edge, by giving up their independent tax

policies. TRANSLATION: One of the important

conditions for joining the EU inter-governmental pact, is to see

what rules the agreement contains, of which we don't know the details.

We know for sure in Hungary that we don't wish to join any agreement

with steps towards tax harmonisation. Talk of tax

harmonisation is difficult for all countries who agreed to last week's

deal that aren't in the eurozone. Countries outside the your stkron,

I think, have a bit of a hard time figuring out why they should take

part in something that is clearly a sign for those member states that

share the single currency. Look at Sweden, for example, Sweden will

possibly be completely debt-free in 2018, 2019, and yet they are now

being asked to sign up to rules that are designed to rein in public

spendings for countries that have run a large public deficit for

years, it doesn't quite make sense. Even within the eurozone there are

doubts. The man who will be Nicolas Sarkozy's socialist rival, in next

spring's presidential elections in France, says he will renegotiate

any deal to ensure the country's bugetry independence. The head of

France's Central Bank was concentrating on attacking Britain,

saying London's credit rating should be downgraded. Meanwhile, in

Germany, one prominent opposition leader complained that last week's

deal nearly created a constitutional crisis without

solving the original problem of the euro. The common theme throughout

this eurozone crisis is markets demand a certain type of action

that national democracies simply can't deliver. Markets want more

fiscal integration, more taxation powers to be concentrated centrally

at the EU level, but voters and parliaments in these various member

states don't have any appetite for that kind of action at all.

Getting parliamentary approval for a treaty could be hardest in

Hungary, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. In Ireland

there may have to be a referendum. But could the current outsider,

Britain, come back in? British officials, it was confirmed today,

will be invited to future talks on the deal. It would be difficult,

because Nicolas Sarkozy would have to climb down, having proclaimed

his great success in establishing his new body. David Cameron would

have to accept a treaty of all 27, I'm sure he would get certain

concessions, he would get safeguards on the City f he wanted

them. If he renegotiated in advance, which he didn't do last week, but

he would have to push it through parliament, he might find it

difficult to push through parliament. So the pressure of

electorate, particularly in certain countries, will continue to push

one way, the pressure of markets another.

This week the euro fell to its lowest rate against the dollar

since January. A reminder that even when the current wrangling over the

future architecture of the union is completed, the fight will still be

on to save its currency. How many member states might

actually be left by the time the deal is finalise. With me is the

Czech Republic's ambassador to Britain, and from Brussels I'm

joined by the adviser to Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the

European council. First of all, why was it important for your Prime

Minister to set the record straight today? We have been saying that

since the beginning, I mean, the first problem is that the treaty

that was brought last week was like the Loch Ness monster, people had

opinions about it, but nobody had seen it. We have said from the

beginning we are waiting to see the details, because the devil is often

maybe in the details. Like the Loch Ness monster we don't know the

shape either F it involves tax harmonisation, your Prime Minister

has made it clear, that is not going to fly? Yes, that is one of

our red lines. And it is possible that there will not be an explicit

clause on tax harmonisation, but should budget supervision, that is

being proposed by the treaty, you know, states, countries could be

told you know, you have to increase your corporation tax or decrease it,

whatever, we don't think it is the right idea. Obviously there are

concerns expressed in Hungary and Sweden and Denmark, how likely is

it that a new treaty, if it is formed, that 26 will sign up to it?

We think it is very important that the 27 stay together as much as

possible. This is a serious situation, and we do want to be

responsible. We do want to contribute to the stablisation of

the situation. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that is not

about rescuing the economy, but about sovereign debt. What we are

missing in the treaty is article about growth, about competitiveness,

about things that will get us up and growing again. But when David

Cameron was talking about having to look after the national interest,

beyond the interest of the 27, he wasn't wrong, was he? That really

would be the Czech position as well? Well, yes. We do have a

position that there are national interests involved as well. We do

have a position not that different from the British position, that the

Common Market of the 27 countries is the crucial part of the European

Union, and that we should all try to help preserve it at all costs.

We have just had information tonight that British officials will

be, it says here, allowed to take part in talks about a new European

treaty. Can I just confirm, is it taking part in talks, or observing.

Will there be sie silent observing or taking part in talk, which will

be l it be? I think they will have the right to speak at those talks

and put their view forward. The agreement that is being negotiated

is among the other member states of the union. Certainly all eurozone

countries, and all the other ones that choose to join in. The UK has

already indicated it does not wish to join in with that treaty, unless

it changes its mind, therefore it will be in the sense, an observer

at the talks. It will be an observer, it will be allowed it

take part in the talks, is it possible British officials will

have an influence on these talks, or not? Of course you can have an

influence if you are there and talking, but if you are not going

to be party to the agreement, obviously your influence is less

than those actually negotiating an agreement among themselves. Who

will have different views. I heard you talking about tax harmonisation.

Member states have very different views on that, and there is a large

number of countries who don't want that to be subject to majority

voting, not just Britain, one can think of Estonia, Luxembourg,

Cyprus, all kinds of countries. That is unlikely to be, that point

is unlikely to change among 26 or among 27, that would still require

unanimity. You have just heard the Czech ambassador liken it to the

Loch Ness monster, what form will it actually take? What teeth will

it have? If your people are saying they are all subject to qualified

majority voting, we won't have tax harmonisation, there may be an

issue over corporation tax, transaction tax, you might be left

with nothing? Tax harmonisation is not the central issue of the

negotiations. The central issue is about fiscal discipline, that is

about avoiding excessive deficits and excessive debt levels. It is

not about harmonising particular forms of tax, that is an element

that some countries wish to discuss in this traik, but the central part

of it -- framework, but the central part is about fiscal discipline.

That is what the talks will be based on, fiscal discipline among

members of the eurozone. Can I get a sense of what would be a success,

is it necessary, in your view, for -- 26 to sign up to it, or are you

happy for eight or nine to ratify it? The key thing is fiscal

discipline that is the eurozone countries wish to impose upon

themselves to help stablise the euro. The essential thing is the

euro zone countries join up, and most of the others do wish to do so.

Let's be clear, he's saying most of the others do wish to do so?

others do wish to take part in negotiations. We do agree that

fiscal discipline is crucial at this point. Actually many of the

countries outside the eurozone have already taken steps to endorse and

strengthen fiscal discipline. The Czech parliament yesterday approved

a new budget which is an austerity budget, and at the same time our,

that is something like 40% of the GDP compared to the 90% of GDP in

the eurozone. In some ways we are ahead of the trend. But at the same

time, it will be for the eurozone member countries to take the

commitments and the institutions in their lepblgs -- constitutions in

their legislation to keep their budgets balanced. Because the

countries outside the eurozone cannot take that, may take that

commitment when they join. outside the eurozone, coming back

to you on that very point about the country's outside the eurozone, you

seem remarkably relaxed that as long as you have the 17 on board,

it doesn't really matter for the others. So why was all the who ho

had a -- ho had a about Cameron from Merkel and Sarkozy in

particular? It was always initially about whether the eurozone

countries could take on extra fiscal disciplines, and those other

countries that so wish, remember most of them want to join the euro

in due course. As it was every country but one will want to be in

the negotiations. They will still have things they disagree on in the

negotiation, but they all want to negotiate an agreement. That is

where we are now. Later in the propbl, we will be

discussing with Henry Kissinger, Simon Schama and others, the

realities and myths of this year's called Arab Spring, and what chance

is there for future revolutions and western interventions. Before that,

today brought a startling announcement about the London

Olympics, it was always going to be a military contingent involved in

security at the games, but today, unexpectedly, the Government

announced the number of soldiers at the games would almost triple. In

fact there will be more soldiers in East London in July, than in

Afghanistan right now. I'm joined by Richard Watson, what was

announced today? The detail is fascinating. The original plan was

for a security force of about 10thou for the entire Olympics --

10,000 for the entire Olympics. That was dramatically increased to

23,700 after a detailed review. The MoD confirmed today that 13,500

members of the armed force, military personnel there, will now

be deployed to the Olympics, a staggering number in way. Up to

7,500 of these people would be used for venue security, 5 though will

support the police. There will be 1 -- 5,000 will support the police.

There will be a 1,000 contingency, unarmed force, for a -- an Olympic-

related terrorist attack. Everyone knows London is a target. We know

there will be naval ships deployed, HMS Ocean in the Thames. Typhoon

jets on stand bi. We have surface- to-air missile capability. It is

important to say, the terrorist threat level hasn't changed. A lot

of this planning was done on the terrorist threat level of severe,

it is now substantial. That is not directly behind this, but what we

are going to see is Armed Forces for a long time have been part of

the planning process. We will see specialists deployed, undercover,

sometimes, for example, surveillance experts, sniper cover,

all those kinds of people. How safe are these games going to be, how

safe can the games be? It is about getting the balance right. As

sources said to me today, if you bring on more Armed Forces

personnel, you can hasten the through of people into the stadium,

and avoid the allegation that the games is a failure because of huge

queues. I was chat to go a security forced to, who said they are

expecting a lot of intelligence charter during the games, from

foreign overseas intelligence agencies, who will be sensitive

about any allegations of plots, they will be receiving information

into the UK on that. Plus charter from the UK, aspirational

terrorists, the talking about attacking the games, however

unlikely that may be. Lasty, it is important to remember, terrorists -

- lastly, the terrorists may not choose to target the games, they

are highly protected. Look at 2005 all the focus was on G8 in Scotland,

and we saw the London bombings. Earlier I spoke to the minister,

Philip Hammond, and asked was the increase in military was due to a

security threat? No, the planning threat level remains exactly the

same. As you know, because the Olympic authority has made this

year. There has been a requirement to increase the number of people

used in venue guarding, up to about 23 though. When we have looked at

how best to recruit and deliver those numbers of people, the

question has arisen whether the military could provide some support,

and the army have concluded that they could deliver 7,500 people

towards that 23,000 total, without impacting on any of the other

obligations and tasks that the military undertakes. The additional

personnel are not being deployed in a policing role, they are being

deployed as venue security personnel, to help with the

searching and control of people coming into the stadiums and venues,

to make sure, airline-style, that nothing that shouldn't be in there,

gets in. Will they have access to weapons if

they need them? No they won't. They will be unarmed, working alongside

unarmed security guards and unarmed volunteers. The police, of course,

and if necessary, military support to the police, would be available,

if any threat arose. But these people will be doing an unarmed

role. So soldiers working to bosses in a

private security firm? The overall control of venue security will be

managed by a private security contractor, there will be groups of

soldiers working alongside private security guards, and volunteers,

they will, of course, be managed directly by military personnel. But

ultimately, the security at the venues will not be run by the

military, the military will be providing man power support. It

will be the civilian contractor and ultimately the police. They will be

in control. We l we be able to tell the mill stree staff? They will be

wearing uniforms. No Olympic T- shirts? Possibly, but army combat

trousers and boots, you will be able to spot the soldiers. Is the

MoD picking up the tab for this extra staffing? The additional

7,500 people supplied as part of the venue-guarding force, will be

paid for from the Olympic budget. There will be no additional cost to

the MoD. Will it be cheaper for the Olympic

organisers? Not necessarily cheaper. But we do believe that it will be

more resilient. We can deliver 7,500 troops into the equation.

That makes the recruiting and training challenge for the civilian

contractor that much more managable. It makes the whole arrangements

much more robust. Did David Cameron make this decision? It was a

decision made collectively by a committee of the cabinet, that has

been working on the Olympic arrangements. Was David Cameron in

the room when the decision was made? Yes, of course he was.

this all about showing British spirit, now? It is a practical

solution, we are absolutely determined to ensure that the 2012

Olympics goes off smoothly. Is a very successful games, and that

people come here confident they will be safe and secure. We believe

that the military support to the policing effort, as well as the

additional 7,500 military personnel, that will be guarding the venues,

will reassure the public, and those military personnel will be very

pleased to have the opportunity to take part in what will be a once in

a lifetime exercise in London. year will be remembered as the year

of the Arab Spring, when turmoil, determination and revolution and

not a little bloodshed, overturned regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya,

in the name of democracy, and started the different journey to a

different kind of Government. In a moment we will discuss the

importance of what happened in 2011, and what it means for other Arab

states, from Syria to Saudi Arabia in 2012. For with his assessment on

a year of immense change in the Middle East is our correspondent.

Today there is violence in Syria, political upheaval in Egypt, and

the kind of armed truce in Libya. In Yemen the President has stepped

down, and although his clan still runs the country, in Bahrain the

ruler has conceded that his riot police used excessive force against

protestors. Did we predict all this dizzying

dysfunction last year? No we -- we didn't, what is the bigger

picture we can draw from it. That is still very hard to say, apart

from the fact that Arab leaders who try to do business as usual, are

facing an unprecedented challenge. But, they are there are some clues

emerging as to the trend of these events.

It began in Tunisia, a market trader denied a permit by corrupt

officials, and burned himself to death.

Within weeks the tumult toppled their first leader, President Ben

Ali. What happened in Tunisia resonated

across the Arab world for two reasons. It touched a common desire

for dignity, freedom from petty officials. Also, in overthrowing a

long-serving, undemocratic leader, Tunisia showed it could be done.

Very quickly there was a copycat effect, despotic leaders feared a

contagion spreading through the region. And they reacted. The way

that they were able to fight back depended on the strength of their

security apparatus and the tribal structure of their country, in

Libya, the key factor was the penally of Muammar Gaddafi himself.

They love me, all my people love me, all. They will die to protect me,

my people. And while the Egyptian army stood firm, it was powerful

enough to consider its interests more important than those of Hosni

Mubarak, who it dumped. TRANSLATION: The Armed Forces make

a commitment to caring for the people's legitimate demands, and to

seek to follow their implementation within the time frames, until the

complete transfer of power, and the achievement of the democratic free

society, which people aspire to. Everyone is in the street, they are

cheering that Mubarak has left. Thank God that he did. You can see

everyone is in the treat, thank God that he left. We are very happy, we

have nothing except happiness, happiness, we wish nothing else. We

wish Mubarak go away, and we will order ourselves.

In Libya, the army was weak, and soon fractured, as did the country.

Along an historic fault line. NATO was involved, bombing on

behalf of the easterners, those who had fermented revolution in

Benghazi. It was the sole military intervention of its kind, because

Gaddafi was widely loathed and a diplomatic consensus against him

could easily be achieved. Security Council has authorised the

use of force. Including enforcement of a no-fly zone, to protect

civilians and civilian areas, targeted by Colonel Gaddafi, his

intelligence and security forces and his mercenaries.

In Bahrain, where the Amir called on Saudis to help crush protests,

there was strong regional support, and a western reluctance to

challenge the power structure. And while the slogans were the same

across the region, the outcomes by the end of 2011 were starting to

look subtley different. One key reason for that was the variation

in local power structures. Elections in Tunisia and Egypt have

shown that dignity and freedom are defined for many Arabs in an

Islamic way. The longing for a free vote does

not necessarily mean then the adoption of western concepts of

fairness or human rights. That's left Egypt's Coptic

Christian minority, for example, gloomy about its future.

Libya too declaring itself free after months of NATO air strikes,

emphasising the Islamist nature of the new Government. TRANSLATION:

Today we are one national flesh, we have become a united brothers as we

have not been in the past and we love each other.

And the end met by Gaddafi and one of his sons suggested graphically

that this is not a country that will defer to western ideals of

justice. There is now an uneasy stand-off between militia of

different regions and different tribes.

In Syria too, violence increasingly is defined by the politics of

identity. The majority Sunnis versus the minority Alawites who

came to power. Places like Homs, with a Sunni identity, have become

centres of oppression. In Bahrain, it is a Shia majority that

considers itself oppressed by Sunni overLords, that seeks to use

democracy to equalise things. But the result is likely to owe more to

Arab culture and history, than it is to western notions of freedom

and equality. The differences of etnisry, tribal

or security structures make it hard to look ahead. Many Arab leaders

haven't faced serious difficulties any way, one thing is clear as the

year ends, but optimists who predicted a happy transition to

western democracies, dispensing power with tran paorncy, with

protected minority rights, were deluding themselves. It maybe only

a bumpry road of a few months unrest in Tunisia, for example, but

in other place, the overthrow of the old order could herald years of

struggle by politics and arms, and perhaps even the break-up of some

countries. I'm joined now from New York by the

former UK a second, Henry Kissinger, from Cairo by the activist, Gigi

Ibrahim, a familiar face on Newsnight during the Arab spring,

and with me historian Simon Schama, Jeremy Greenstock and the Yemeny

journalist, Tawakul Karman, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

Particularly first with you Gigi, you guided us through what was

going on in Egypt in the beginning, looking back to the beginning when

the revolution was under way, how much did you really expect it to

succeed. There must have been moments when you thought you were

really up against it? I knew from day one that it is going to be a

long fight. I mean, I remember even saying this on the day Mubarak

stepped down, that this is a sweet victory and a moment that we will

hold close in our hearts together, but the real hard work begins now,

and it won't be easy or short. Any revolution takes years to settle,

whether with a win or defeat. I think we are heading to a great

start so far. The streets haven't been calm, and it has been

increasingly intense and mobilisation and all of the

governance is very much increasing. The discontent against the military

rule has been increasing in the past months. I expect more of that.

From where you are looking at it all, because you were watching from

Yemen z it give you hope. When you were watching what was happening in

Tunisia and Egypt, what were people in Yemen saying? Of course, we are

so happy because the people in Egypt, they are protecting their

revolution. The youth they are struggling, they are continuing

their demonstrations. They want also the army to step down, because

they don't want anyone to hijack their revolution. We are so

optimistic and we know that the people who are deciding to go to

freedom, they will not go back. That is what has happened with the

tunis ian and the Egyptian. You won the Nobel Peace Prize for the work

you did with women, in organising different peace groups. How

important is it in the Arab Spring that the voice of women is heard

and continues to be heard, that is a key thing isn't it? It is very

important, it is very effective. In our countries, especially in Yemen,

it is conservative, there is no women in the streets before the

revolution, and when we just raise our voice, and they say, they see

us in strange way, they laugh at us, but they hear us. They say, what

are they doing, so we have to follow them, we have to listen to

them, and they did. A key part of the empowerment of

all the Arab Spring has been the role and the voice of women

particularly. Did you ever think, at the beginning of the year, it

would be so expensive? No, nobody did. It is a miracle, in this way,

whether or not social media and television were the great

liberators in the way print journalism was the great liberator

in the 19th sent treatment we were still really unprepared for the

possibility of disintegrating ferocious institutions and military

power. I just want to say to Gigi and Tawakul Karman, it seems to me

you are almost too high about your own cause. The success or defeat of

the revolutions around the Muslim world, will be determined by women.

You know, you have been incredibly brave so far. What I mean is, Gigi

is wondering what I'm saying. I'm thinking about the difference

between different Islamist groups, between Salafiists, and the Freedom

and Justice Party, they have radically different views about

women's place in the future of politics. So the hinge will be you.

As Gigi says, there is a lot of dust still to settle until we know

the outcomes and make-ups of these Governments. Henry Kissinger, I

wanted to put this to you, was it a niave view or a wrong-headed view

that there would be a western-style democracy. What is emerging is a

different form of Government, in these countries, isn't it? In the

first phase of revolution it is inevitable that you cannot make a

France action to a western-style Government. It is the essence of

revolution that it brings together a collection of grievances, and

resentments. After that it has accomplished its destructive phase,

destruction of the existing institutions, and any revolution

can give itself then a positive direction. That is what is now

going on in each of these countries. It could not, at this stage, lead

to an immediate western democracy. So the question is, whether it is

possible it will become democratic, or whether it is a form of

democracy in which there is either only one election for one party

that is so all encompassing that no de facto opposition is possible.

That seems to me to be the challenge that emerges as the

revolutions mature. Jeremy Greenstock, what was the west's

role, if any, in fermenting change, was it a prescriptive role, it

couldn't be because Henry Kissinger was saying we don't know what style

of Governments emerge? This wasn't from the west, it was internal.

This was necessary because people realised they didn't have to put up

with rotten Government. What you are seeing in the Middle East is

not a regional phenomenon, but a global phenomenon. Something is

happening everywhere, people don't have to have their expectations

crushed forever. It is bubbling up everywhere, but the Middle East was

held back the most. Now just to stick with that for a moment. Are

you really saying that there wasn't any western influence, the rhetoric

coming out from America about the exporting of democracy. Indeed from

the Government here, that played no part at all in encouragement?

of course were, it was western technology that got communications

going. It was western ideals of democracy have got through to other

parts of the world. But the inspiration came internally. And

there is another factor, which is that all our institutions are

gradually fading in effectiveness, Governmental and international, and

the people want to take over with something more effective. They have

got a voice now it is very important. Henry Kissinger, coming

back to something that Mark Urban raised in the film, I want to ask

Gigi about this as well. The danger in all of this, particularly for a

country like Egypt, is other minorities are crushed in the

change, in the recalibration. One of the issues in Egypt is for the

Coptic Christians who find themselves, they say, persecuted.

There is nothing that can be done to stop that kind of persecution?

Henry Kissinger first, sorry? think there are two pass aspects,

the first -- aspects, what is the position of the west and our

convictions on the subject. Our conviction would be that we favour

a pluralistic democracy in which minorities' rights are respected,

and freedom of religion is maintained. Our capacity to bring

this about is shrinking, by direct action. So it depends on the

relationship that we live out between the west and the emerging

countries. The danger that I see is that the democratic process is in

slogans, and will be used to destroy the rotten regimes. That is

a great achievement. But then a sort of one-party state

developing, in an Islamist basis, and I know this is often now the

Islamists are congratulated when they ask other parties to join a

coalition Government. But an all encompassing coalition Government

means there is no opposition, no formal opposition. That is a

challenge. Gigi, let me put that to you? The west can do directly it is

limited. Thank you, let me put that to Gigi. First, on the question of

how do you make sure that the Government embraces all minorities,

and there isn't persecution, and what would be an effective

opposition? The persecution is happening from counter revolution.

The persecution is happening from counter revolution, that is being

led by the military, the Supreme Council for the Armed Forces itself.

Which is again, backed by $1.3 billion from the US and the western

Governments. You are talking about the role of the west in relation to

these revolutions, it has no positive impact on it whatsoever.

If anything, it is backing up any revolution progress, because it is

supporting the exact entity which is the Supreme Council, that are

running people over in protests, and especially Christians. What

happened with the massacre with the creations. Let me put it again. As

Simon Schama was saying, which form of Islamism eventually appears in

this country, and as Henry Kissinger said, it could take a

very long time. The revolutionaries are never the ones that inherit the

mantle? The revolution takes a long time. I don't think the whole

countries, the greatest country in the world, that they take their

freedom in one year. They make their revolution, and they gained

their democracy. I want to say, don't be afraid of people. From

left or right. You have to encourage everybody to be part of

the political affairs, after the revolution. Don't say that

Islamists people they don't have to enter to the political, to the

democracy, that means that you encourage some of the people to be

terrorists, to to be extremists. Also you have to separate between

Islamist people, and between Al- Qaeda, Al-Qaeda. Sorry I want to

finish this thing. Al-Qaeda, this Al-Qaeda, you know, peaceful

revolutions around the Arab Spring, they are against it, and we shut

down the voices of them. Did you hear even one attack since January

until now in Tunisia or Egypt or even in Yemen? Any attack from Al-

Qaeda. Please don't think that we are afraid of Islamists, even from

Salafiists, we are attacked by these people. What is the best

outcome from the pluralist Government? The best outcome is

revolutions. It takes time. It is one that makes it a very high

priority for protection of disagreements. The history of

revolutions is Dr Kissinger implying, is tragic. More often

than not revolutions that begin with a tremendous sense of unity,

end at dictatorship. Only the revolutions in Europe which were as

a result of the collapse of Soviet power, and the American revolution

before that, a long time ago, took incredible pains to protect the

rights of opposition and minority groups. Without that, it is, you

know, a tragic destiny awaits, which none of us hope. I want to

talk both to Dr Kissinger and Jeremy Greenstock about 2012. There

was, of course, this great co- alllessing about something the

international community could come together over Libya. Gaddafi was

this hated figure. Let's talk about Syria and the on going trouble in

Syria, not clearly as clear cut, and there is no international

agreement about how to deal with Syria. What is your best guess

about what will happen in Syria in the months to come? That the

opposition won't have the catalytic force to get rid of the regime in

dam mass cushion because they are learning how to repress, from what

they have seen over the last year or so. Impress with inpunity?

are learning from Iran, they know if they double up oppression it is

hard to get rid of the regime. If there isn't a catalytic regime to

take that out. You are likely to go into civil war. Do you think it

will end up as civil war in Syria? Yes, I think it will end up with

the collapse of the Assad regime. Because the pressures will become

too great. The situation either like Libya, but it could pass

through several countries. One country we haven't talked about

in a sense, at the beginning of all of this latest movement, is Iran. A

failed revolution, despite the best efforts of social media and

interventions and so forth. Will it be the economy that will do for

Ahmadinejad in Iran do you think? don't know, can you go on actually

as the most bitter years of the Chinese revolution proved, in a

state of near catastrophic economic collapse, and the dictatorship will

still not be removed. I did want to say that as the economic situation

worsens, as it is likely to, the shake-down we have not talked about,

between rural and urban, between provinces and the capital cities,

seems to me likely to play a part. The revolutions are revolutions of

urban centres sometimes of capital cities. Assad is lucky that most of

the fury is concentrated in Homs, where he has a subjective Damascus.

These things are complicated scenarios, which is difficult to

see when you simply have the story of people fighting for liberty and

counter revolution. They will tell next year. Briefly on Yemen, this

coming year, what do you think, Safa is still there, but not in

power at the moment. What is the best estimate of what might happen

in Yemen this year? People will succeed, and we now, we are calling

the international community to take their duty, to make their rules, to

freeze assets and also to take him to the ICC. This is the demands of

all people around the world. Around the Arab Spring. When they struggle

for their freedom, it is accountability. It is not affair

that the regime to be out of the accountability. I think Welwyn. But

we want to win with international community, we don't want to win

alone, people will succeed. Thank you all very much indeed. Tomorrow

you all very much indeed. Tomorrow That's all from Newsnight. Emily is

here tomorrow for a review of the political dramas of 201, from all

of us here, a very -- 2011, from all of us here, a very good night.

Hello, some of us will wake up to our first snowfall of the winter.

We have an amber warning in force, with parts of Wales, central and

southern England as well. Much of it is rain. As we go through the

night it will turn to snow across Wales and the Midlands. Don't be

surprised if you wake up to snow, even in the London area, the rain

will have a tendency to turn to snow for a time in the morning.

Hopefully in London south it won't cause problems, around the

outskirts it might do. Across the south west of England, wintry

showers, a mixture of rain, sleet and snow, in the moors a chilly

breeze, the case for Wales and more meaningful snow showers evolving.

An icey and slippery start in Northern Ireland. Wintry showers

around. Similar story for Scotland as well. Slippery out there. It

will be another cold day nationwide. As we go through the morning,

notice now the wintry weather, the sleet and snow progresses down

towards the south-east. Before eventually the worst of it does

tend to fade away. For the rest of the country, a mixture of sunshine

and wintry showers, as I mentioned, with parts of Wales having

significant snowfall, I think, through the afternoon. It stays