15/12/2011 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 15/12/2011. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Download Subtitles