19/06/2012 Newsnight

Tonight, Aung San Suu Kyi in Britain, after more than 20 years,

speaks to Newsnight, and for the first time, says that if the people

desire it, she will lead her country. If I can lead them in the

right way, yes. She tells us of the sacrifice her family made.

family made a lot of sacrifices, in order to help me to do what I

thought, and I believe, that I should do. The victory, in some

ways, is in the endeavour. Also tonight, it emerges that some

doctors who strike on Thursday over pension reforms, will still pick up

their day's pay. But this man, who just stepped down as David

Cameron's key adviser on public service reform says the Government

needs to go further and faster. Julian Assange is tonight holed up

in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, trying to avoid extradition in to

Sweden, where he's wanted for alleged sex crimes. We're there.

Julian Assange is in the building behind me tonight, he's grateful to

the Ecuadorian ambassador for assistance, but we don't know if

his attempt to avoid extradition will succeed. The crisis was not

originated in Europe, since you mentioned in North America, this

cry sifs originated in North America. As the G20 leaders go

their separate way, has the summit exposed the weakness of the project,

as emerging powers refuse to dip in our coverers to help the eurozone.

The Russian oligarch will be here, and the Russian Prime Minister.

In the last few moments, the death of former Egyptian President, Hosni

Mubarak, will be announced by state media, we will have more as it

comes? Good evening, Kyi keys return to

the country, where she matter yod - - Aung San Suu Kyi's return to the

country where she married and had her children has been a long time

coming. Her emergance after long years of house arrest in Rangoon,

as the country took tentative steps towards reform, has catapulted Aung

San Suu Kyi on to the world stage. An icon for the campaign for

Burmese democracy, she's also a politician in a, so far,

undemocratic parliament, in a country riven with ethnic disputes.

I spoke to her this morning. First an assessment of the battles ahead.

# Happy birthday to you Warm wishes from students on her

67th birth day, on the presentation of what is becoming a tradition at

the London School of Economics, the baseball cap. One was presented to

Nelson Mandela when he visited ten years a and Aung San Suu Kyi is now

in the same league.Today the woman who has been in and out of house

arrest for over 20 years, is now, at last, acknowledged as the leader

of the opposition in the Burmese parliament. But, she reminded her

audience, there is still a lot to be done.

Unless we attend -- amend the constitution to take into account

the aspirations of all the people in our country, we will never be

able to bring about the kind of unity and peace we all desire. It

always comes down to rule of law. Under the current constitution a

quarter of the 600 seats in parliament are reserved for the

military, and most other members support the Government. Aung San

Suu Kyi finally entered parliament, after her party, the National

League for Democracy, won 43 seats in by-elections in April. With a

small minority, what can she done? They have around 6-7% of seats in

the parliament. They are reaching out to other parties in the

parliament as well. Really, their best hope, their strategy is to try

to reach out to the military and persuade them of the need for

further democratic reform, and eventually constitutional reform as

well. In addition to demands for political reform, the Government is

involved in fighting with rebel armies along the country's eastern

borders. I visited the area earlier this

year, and found hunger and despair among some 50,000 refugees who fled

Government troops, with aid agencies claiming that they are not

allowed to bring in supplies. Some leaders told me that they were

disappointed that Aung San Suu Kyi hadn't spoken out about their might.

Indeed, people are generally surprised that she hasn't said more

about the on going ethnic conflict, which have the capacity to tear the

country apart. She has been strangely quiet about a new

emergency, which has recently broken out to the North West of

Burma. There have been bloody race riots

between Buddhists and Muslims living on the border with

Bangladesh. The World Food Programme reported today that

90,000 displaced people are in urgent need of aid. In the past

year you have actually had an increase in human rights abuses

taking place against the ethnic minorities in Burma. This is still

a very critical situation there. The central Government has reached

out and signed several ceasefires with the armed ethnic political

groups, but so far is refusing to go for the next step, and enter

into real deep political dialogue to address the root causes of the

problems. There has been huge personal

sacrifice for Aung San Suu Kyi. In 1991, her Nobel Peace Prize was

collected by her husband and her sons. She refused to leave Burma,

knowing that the military authorities would never let her

return. Eight years later her husband, the Tibetan scolar,

Michael Aris, died, she hadn't seen him for four years.

She has always argued that her suffering, under house arrest, was

nothing to others in her party, who have spent decades in jail. In

Rangoon a few weeks ago, I met with the wife of a political prisoner.

The National League for Democracy claim there are still up to 600

political prisoners in Burma today. No wonder some criticise Aung San

Suu Kyi for agreeing to work w and to trust the country's President,

General Thein Sein. The cynics would argue that the

generals have got Aung San Suu Kyi exactly where they want her, in a

parliament dominated bit army, where she scarcely has a voice.

Meanwhile they are being congratulated for bringing her into

the fold. Sanctions on Burma have been suspended, and businesses are

queuing up to get in there. In recent speeches, she has told

international companies not to be too quick to invest in Burma,

before they can be sure that the Road Map towards rule -- road map

towards truly democratic elections in 2015, is being followed. These

days I'm coming aloss a lot of what I would call reckless optimisim,

that is not going to help you or us. As she herself has warned,

everything is reversible, and the next two years will be crucial.

I met Kyi earlier today for her first television -- Aung San Suu

Kyi earlier today for her first television since arriving back in

the UK. Recently you said the important time for democracy in

Burma is now, and you need to work now to ensure 2015 is what you want

it to be, what exactly needs to happen, what are your priorities?

First of all, we have to make sure there are new players on the scene.

This is all about inclusiveness, democracy is about inclusiveness.

Previously when there was a military deck Tateorship, only

those connected to the military dictatorship were allowed to take

part in the Government of the country, and the political process.

Even in the economic scene, it was they who would dominant. We need

new players coming in. What about a constitutional reform, at first,

for the NLD, they argued it was undemocratic to have 25% of the

seats in parliament for the army. Presumably that is one of your

earliest priorities, to change the constitution. Quite recently the

defence minister said at a conference in Singapore that the

military had no intention of hanging on to the 25% forever. And

when the time was right they would decrease their part in the role in

parliament. That is not bad to begin with. This after we had said

we wanted amendments to the constitution. Though they can still

impose Martian law at will? This is where -- marshall law at will? This

is why there needs to be an amendment. The NLD reckons there is

up to 600 political prisoners, how quickly can you get them out?

According to our list there are about 271 left, the others have

been released. We have been in touch with the Ministry of Home

affairs to find out what is happening about these other

prisoners. I hear there is a move to release more prisoner, quite

soon. Have you talked to Thein Sein about that? No, not in recent days,

I have been in Europe, I wouldn't have been able to talk to him.

said in your Nobel speech that absolute peace is unobtainable in

our world, is that the same for Burma? It is internal and external

peace, that is absolute peace, we can have peace in our country, and

achieve political and national peace, but absolute peace each one

will have to work at for himself or herself. In terms of absolute peace,

your father wanted autonomy in internal administration for a

number of Burma's hot spots is that doable? If it is part aspirations

of the ethnic minorities, this is the only way to have a true union.

Do you think in a country of more than 100 ethnic groups that it can

be a co-heent state, or Burma -- coherent state, or Burma will have

this peace? Over the years of trouble we have experienced how

strong the unity between the ethnic nationalties can be, because our

best and most reliable allies were the ethnic nationality parties. I

think this is possible. I know from my own experience that this is

possible. You are in a very different place

politically now, is there a danger though, that you have been, in a

way, a victim of a confidence trick that the Government has you where

it wants you, and it has got what it wanted? Where has it got me?

has got what it wanted in terms of the lifting, the immediate lifting

of EU sanctions, and American sanctions? The suspension of

sanctions, which is not the same as the lifting of sanctions. But it

was not gradual, it was there, they have been suspended for a year. Is

that what you talked about, the reckless optimisim? No, I was

talking more in terms of investors bumming into Burma and not thinking

about the consequence -- Burma -- coming into Burma and not thinking

about the consequences for people there. For too long the Government

has blamed sanctions for the mess the economy was in, and now they

will have to prove that without sanctions they can really do

something for the economy. And then the second reason is that I think

we need to look for to our own resources, the internal resources

of the country to bring about change, than to depend too much on

external factors. The concern is that Burma accommodated you,

because economically they wanted to open up the country. Now you have

gimp them the key and the flood gates are open, Coca-Cola, WPP,

General Electric, how will they help you get towards democracy?

is not helping me, it is to help the people. That is why what I said

we want democracy-friendly, human rights-friendly input into the

country. If they are doing business with cronies, and those who will

use their new economic powers to consolidate the grip of the

Government, then I think we will have to expose them. I think we are

in a position to do that in this world. But what power do you

actually have now, what leverage do you have with this Government? If

you have 50 million people who are now going to enjoy the fruits of a

different kind of economy? Who is saying they are going to enjoy the

fruits of a different kind of economy? This is exactly what I'm

saying, if the new investment empowers the people, well and good.

They will take care of getting democracy for themselves. If the

new investment simply helps to make this Government, which is actually

the heir of the previous military regime, stronger, that is not what

they want, that is not what the people want either. Coca-Cola, are

they really going to hold back? They are after their shareholders,

aren't they? If they don't hold back, we can reach across to Coca-

Cola customers all over the world. You remember what happened to

PepsiCola it was not of anything done in Burma, but the threat of

the students in American universities to boycott Pepsi that

made them draw out. We have this access to the world that we have

not had before W this access we can watch what the new investors are up

Finally, Aung San Suu Kyi, you were treated with great cruelly n way.

Your late husband wrote in 1991, that you always used to say that if

your people ever needed you, you would not fail them. If this is as

far as you said, if Burma doesn't get democracy, will your family

sacrifice have been worth it? didn't sacrifice my family. I don't

think of it that way. My family made a lot of sacrifices in order

to help me to do what I thought and I believed that I should do. And

the victory, in some ways, is in the endeavour. I'm not the only one

working for democracy in Burma. There are so many people who have

worked for it, because they believed that this is the only way

in which we can maintain the dignity for our people, that they

will continue. And I don't quite understand your question, I do not

see why we should think that Burma will not achieve democracy simply

because we have opened up the economy. Many countries have opened

up the economy, and that has helped them to achieve democracy quicker.

But, with elections in 2015, you always say it is not about you, it

is about the Burmese people. Would you be prepared, and do you want to

lead your people? If I can lead them in the right way, yes. Aung

San Suu Kyi, thank you very much indeed.

Not only will doctors strike on Thursday, for the first time in

more than 40 years, some Healt Trusts have said they will be paid

for the day for not treating patients. The man who was the

adviser on health service reform until a fortnight ago, it is the

wider changes or lack of them is the problem. Sean Worth, who has

joined the Policy Exchange, says the Government has to reach far-

reaching changes fast, rather than being seen to slash services, or

lose the argument. This leaflet is coming through your

letterbox one day soon. When Nye Bevan said he had to stuff

doctors' mouths with gold, he at least thought it was in return for

work. The NHS's creation story, saw doctors wrangle with politicians

over their pay and benefits. Nearly 70 years on it is no less true, in

fact, gold is begetting gold. On Thursday when GPs take industrial

action on their pensions, the first in 40 years, some of their number

will still get paid. The Government has reneged on a

deal. In 2008 they renegotiated the NHS pension scheme, for the

entirety of the NHS, and doctors were asked to put more money into

the scheme, which we willingly did. We were prepared to pay our fair

share. That agreement was torn up by the Government in 2011. They

just simply said we are no longer feeling bound by. That they are now

asking to us pay even more in our contributions. We just feel that is

fundamentally unfair. Their critics say it is a far cry

from the conditions of those doctors in the early NHS. Now a

doctor, retiring at 65, will get a pension of �53,000, if they retire

at 68, they get a pension of �68 though though because this is later

than scheduled and they will have contributed more over their

lifetimes, the doctors are taking industrial action.

It was reported today that nine of the 50 Primary Care Trusts across

England, will not dock doctors' pay. Some hospital also salaries for

those taking part on Thursday, but nonetheless, some Tory MPs are very

displeased. When I first qualified as a doctor, doctors were

overworked and underpaid. I often used to do 100-hour weeks, that is

unacceptable. Now in the UK we have some of the highest-paid doctors in

the world. The average GP now earns �1 10,000, and a GP partner will

receive �35,000 on top of that bonus. Under Government reforms we

will see doctors retiring on a pension of �68,000, mass a massive

pension by anybody's standards, working in the private or public

sector. It is quite right the doctors are asked to pay a little

more towards that pension. What seems to me completely unconable,

is there is looked to look after patients, will harm patients by

going out on strike. Tonight the Health Secretary has written to the

BMA, warning them of the consequences of their actions.

Those consequences are, that if the GPs don't accept the pension

changes, it will be nurses who accept, up to �100 extra a week.

The Government see it as a trial of strength, the Labour Government,

they say, flunked the test over GP pay, this time, they can't afford

to flunk the test, they say. The British Medical Association has ban

effective organisation since Nye Bevan. They are powerful and

effective, back in the days of Labour, that was an area of huge

expansion, of spending on the National Health Service. It was

much easier to give more generous pay offers in terms of pay and

pensions. Now in we are in an era of contraction, it is much tougher

in pay and pensions. There is a lot of anger around the health service

reforms. Doctors are very much against those. It is a mixture of

emotional anger about that, plus there may be some quid pro quo, we

are going to operate on this unpopular reform, you have to pay

us more generously to do that. Doctors believe they have been

wronged. Not just that they are effective in campaigning against

being wronged. At the moment the NHS pension scheme is running in

excess. There are more people contributing than people taking out.

There is actually a surplus each year of �2 billion. That money does

not go back into the pension pot, that money goes to the Exchequer.

It helps pay the tax bills for all of us. So at the moment, yes, the

Government is benefiting very much from the NHS pension scheme.

As the Government squares up to the doctors, today one of the Prime

Minister's closest advisers, who left Government two weeks ago,

issues a collateralian call for something like the spirit of Bevan.

More reform of health services, not less. Sean Worth takes aim, he says

the trade unions have greater funding than political parties. He

singled out the doctors' lead he isers, he said they are -- leaders,

he said they are not doctors, they are trade unions. In 1948 the

British Medical Association was on the same side as the Tory Party,

against reforms to healthcare, now they are ranged against each other,

each telling the other, physician, heal thy self. With me first is

Sean Worth, special adviser to David Cameron until last month, and

working on health sector reform, he now works for the think-tank Policy

Exchange. You worked closely trying to formulate these reforms, what is

the problem? What I'm saying is currently we have a unique

situation in the political cycle. We have a position where with

necessity there has to be spending with restraint. Of course that

affects public services. You reform them and get it better and get

charities and new technology involved there. Or you have a

programme that can be charicatured as just spending restraint. That is

not positive enough. The biggest thing to me has been the fact that

you can't seem to reform anything in this country without expending

huge amounts of political capital, suicidal amounts almost, why is

that? Why is that, is it because the Government's reform plan is

simply not set out properly, it hasn't been worked on properly the

tilt is always towards cuts rather than reform? Of course, your

political opponents will use that charicature, but the big thing for

me, having worked in Government and politics for many years has been

the, when the nation is now coming together, at this very unique time,

you have Government actually pushing through quite moderate

reforms. Too moderate for you, do you think? Nobody's saying rip up

the public sector, they are saying bring in charities, businesses,

technology. The big issue is the trade unions, which have quite

rightly always had a great role in this debate, have suddenly become,

I think, a bit more perni,, they are crossing the line with with the

propaganda they are putting out. While we can have a constructive

debate around, in this very difficult time, how do we provide

the best services for people, when there isn't the kind of money that

has been ploughed into them in the past. How do we best do that. The

problem is you are not getting anything constructive from the

other side. Are you suggesting the Government is losing the argument

on reform, because it is not, either presenting it properly, or

it is not formulating it properly? You know, I personally worked in

Government on this stuff. I didn't expect the huge volume of trade

union campaign that you have to actually come up against. Do you

think the Government really failed to anticipate the response? Look, I

think, I don't think that anyone thought it would be easy. Tony

Blair told us he had scars on his back from taking these guys on, and

he was with the Labour Party. said had he scars on his back,

surely the whole idea is to device a way in -- devise a way to promote

reforms, produce better services and get the public on side. That is

clearly what you think the Government has failed to do? Look,

I 6 I -- I think you do burn political capital and you go fast

and have to bring people but. The most important thing is to actually

do it. We have a lot of ambition, currently, for bringing in those

charities and businesses. The whole vision? Brilliant vision.

Politically you come up against huegs opposition that isn't

constructive. Everyone is in this together, we have an economy that

needs to be put back on track. Thursday's strike by doctors will

be an ideal example of how, they are talking about their own perks

and interests, and we're all talking about how to get the

economy back on track. Thank you very much indeed.

Let's talk about that right now. To discuss it with Dr Hamish Meldrum,

chair of the British Medical Association, which represents

doctors, and is in favour of the strike. And Dr Sarah Wollaston,

Conservative MP and member of the health select committee, who worked

as a GP before entering parliament. Dr Meldrum, it is only the patients

losing out on Thursday, but you are being paid? Doctors will be dealing

with all urgent and emergency care and anybody who needs to be seen.

They will not be working normally? That is true. Pick up on something

that was said, -- picking up on something that was said, nobody is

against reform, to put that to rest, we didn't need the huge structural

reform that the NHS went through. That is not, it seems, what the

doctors' main beef s the doctors' main beef seems to be, that they

don't have enough money to fund their retirement? The reason I'm

saying we are not against reform. We had a major reform of the NHS

scheme only four years ago, in 2008, when doctors and nurses agreed to

pay more, to work longer, and not only that, to make it sustainable,

which taking the risk of any increase from the public sector

purse, and freezing the public sector contributions to pension

schemes. A very quick question, how does your, what would you say, go-

slow going on Thursday, actually help patients? It doesn't help

patients. I would apologise the impact on patients. Nobody wants

that. I didn't go into medicine to do. That but when you are faced

with a Government that doesn't really want to listen and negotiate,

we have to represent the anger that is in the profession. It is not the

BMA, in that sense, leading this. We balloted our members, over 50%

of them responded, and of those who responded, over 70% wanted to take

this action. Isn't the problem what you have, you are not getting the

arguments across, you are actually banging up against the doctors, and

it is possibly a fight that you won't win? I think we have to win

this fight, as Sean says. There is no doubt doctors do a great job and

they are very well paid. This isn't a dispute about knocking doctors.

This is about having fairness here. I think it is plain wrong for

doctors to go on strike, because it is going to feel like a strike if

your operation is cancelled, let as face it, it is very wrong for

doctors, who are very well paid, amongst the best paid in the public

sector, to go on strike over their pensions. Doctors, I mean everybody

said they had great pay rises in early 200, they were reasonable.

Since then, we are in the third year of a pay freeze, we have

already reformed the public sector, where we are paying more, and the

Government is tearing up that scheme. Andrew Lansley is saying

doctors are generally, in terms of actuarily, will be in retirement

longer than they are working, everyone is taking a hit. If you

get more, the nurses will get less? Nobody is saying we want more at

the expense of the nurses, we have already taken the hit, we have

moved the retirement age to 65, and pay more, and taken the hit in

terms of any increase on the public purse. That was all dealt with in

2008. You know a lot of doctors, if you were a doctor still wouldn't

you be feeling the same? Nobody wants to pay more and work longer.

That is the reality, the world has changed since 2008, everybody knows

that, everybody else across the public sector is waking up to the

reality of our pension situation. So doctors will be worse off than

they would be under the plans for example in 2008? Let's put it in

context. A doctor who is 40 now will be working for two extra years

to get the same deal as they get now. A new doctor coming in at 24,

this is in 2015, will have to work until they are 65. I don't think

that's a bad deal. The doctor is going to have to be paying an awful

lot for more that. They will have to be paying double of what the

equivalent civil servant will be paying for the same pension, that

is not fair. Just before we finish on this. Lots of surveys show, that

if it comes to the public trusting people, at the moment they trust

doctors, more than they trust politicians. So aren't you going to

have to be very careful about this one? Indeed, I would say, having

been both, I think the thing that you really notice when you change

your letter from GP to MP, you notice how it feels to be on the

more chilly end of public opinion. I think that doctors will really

pay the price, if they lose the public's trust over this strike.

Andrew Lansley says there is no budging on this pension, is that

absolutely the last word? That is absolutely the last word. It has to

be the last word. Thank you very much indeed, all of

you. WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange,

is tonight sheltering in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in an

attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden were he faces allegations of

rape and sexual assault, made by two former WikiLeaks's volunteers

in 2010. The Ecuadorian Foreign Minister says his request for

asylum is being considered, and if granted t would avoid the posthablt

Sweden would accede to American demands that Assange would be

shipped to the US to face the trial for the avalanche of WikiLeaks. I'm

joined by Tim Whewell, outside the Ecuadorian embassy tonight. What is

going on there tonight? Tonight, so far all we know is that Julian

Assange has expressed his gratitude to the Ecuadorian ambassador for

offering to help. But, of course, consultations are really only just

beginning and will continue tomorrow about what to do. The

background to this is the Supreme Court here, last week, said a final

no to Assange's legal attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden were he

faces charges of rape and sexual assault. Of course Assange has

always denied those charges. But what he fears much more is if he

goes to Sweden, it is then that he would be, there would be an attempt

by the United States to extradite him to the United States, on much

more serious charges of espionage, arising out of the WikiLeaks

themselves. The understanding certainly in his camp, is the

United States grand jury, in secret, has already indicted him on those

charges. Why does he think the Ecuadorian embassy is a

particularly good bet? Ecuador has a left-wing administration. It has

had various disputes with the United States before. It is obvious

there have been talks between the Assange camp and Ecuador. What

Ecuador is saying, the Ecuadorian embassy is saying tonight it will

consult with Britain, Sweden and the United States before deciding

what to do. But my understanding is that what Julian Assange is most

hoping for, is that Ecuador would act, if you like, diplomatically,

as an honest broker, maybe as way of trying to persuade Sweden to

reject any American extradition requests, if Assange did go to

Sweden. This is very hypothetical, but it is still more likely than

the even more unlikely event usual possibility that Assange could

physically be smuggled out of this country under diplomatic cover to

Ecuador. Here to talk about all of this is a

former Lib Dem leader, Menzies Campbell. First of all, if this

Assange tactic works, what does it say about the whole British

extradition process? It doesn't say anything about it. As long as he's

in the Ecuadorian embassy he's protected. The moment he steps

outside the embassy, even if Ecuadorian Government has given him

asylum, he will be arrested. Even if's in a diplomatic car on the way

to the airport? That might be a more difficult circumstance, at one

stage he would have to step on to British soil, at that point the

arrest warrant can be effective. What do you make of the conjecture

that it is possible, using the Ecuadorians as a broker to try to

persuade the Swedes, that if he goes to Sweden he won't go to

America? What the Swedish Government have said in the past is

this, if there was any question of the Americans wanting to have him

extradited to the United States, they would be able tro lie on the

European Convention of Human Rights. His allegation is he can't get a

fair trial, and would be subject to cruel and inhumane punishment. The

European Convention of Human Rights would be to his advantage. He has

until the 28th of June to take his present case to the European Court

of Human Rights. There has been no talk of that, he seems to have

moved towards this rather than going down that road. Is there

anything at all the British Government can do, why would the

Ecuadorians consider consulting the British Government on this?

Ecuadorians have behaved very properly so far. They have said the

United Nations convention, anyone who applies for asylum has to have

his or her case carefully considered. That is what they are

doing at the moment. There is one other matter, worth keep anything

mind, of course, one of his objections is the fact that in

Sweden you can use extradition to get someone back for questioning.

Where as, of course, in the United Kingdom, or the United States, for

that matter, charges have to be on the table. Part of the argument is

that the Swedish system allows someone to be extradited against a

lower standard than would be necessary in other parts of the

world. It could be possible that we could see Julian Assange camping

out in the Ecuadorian embassy for hereafter? I think there was a

Cardinal who went into the American semcy -- embassy in Poland during

the Cold War. And more recently we have had the case of the Chinese

dissident who went into the American Embassy. His presence was

an embarrassment for the Chinese Government. Therefore, they were

susceptible for an arrangement with the United States. But it doesn't

necessarily follow that Mr Assange's presence in the

Ecuadorian embassy, would have the same kind of impact on the British

Government. Thank you very much.

At the end of the G20 Summit, entirely dominated by the eurozone

debt crisis, has it exposed an inherent weakness of the whole

project. Pressure has been put on the eurozone leaders by other world

leaders to sort the mess out. Because, as President Obama said,

Europe's economic problems reverberate in economies around the

globe. With the BRIC countries reluctant to dip into the covers.

, we report on big developments emerging out of the G20. What is

the latest on decisions taken? in Athens, the Conservatives are

trying to form a coalition, with two other parties, the two other

parties don't want to put any ministers into the coalition. Such

are the joys of running a bailed out country. What has just happened

in Los Cabos, at the G20 Summit, is specifically the world and the

eurozone, has stepped back from the kind of bail out that put Greece

into the trouble that it is in. What we understand is this, that

agreement has been reached to use the 7 autobillion euros worth of

bail out money that has been assembled and pledged, not any

longer to bail out specific countries, such as Spain and Italy,

deemed to be on the point of needing a bail out, but to go into

markets and to buy their bonds. The aim that have is to redowse the

interest rate on those -- reduce the interest rate on those

Governments' borough. But they will go into the most important market

in the world and abolish it. They will abolish market forces in the

pricing of sovereign debt for the most striken countries. Instead of

the rigmarole of lending them the money, on stringent conditions,

that creates the death spiral. That is the agreement we understand. We

are still waiting for the communique. Is there any sense in

which the eurozone countries themselves have plan? Yes, they

have been working on a bit more of a plan. This is the banking reform.

The banking union, the wording of the leaked draft says "they intend

to consider concrete steps towards a banking union". But the steps

they outline, which are, the most important one is the pan-European

guarantee for every depositor. These are important steps if they

get their act together to do them. We could be in a week or two

looking at a coherent thing coming out of Europe, that actually does

finally put the block on this crisis but at the huge cost,

effectively, of pooling the resources of Europe. As I say, more

or less abolishing market forces in the pricing of sovereign debt.

These are big steps. Do you think they have turned the corner in

terms of confidence in this crisis? We saw yesterday the President of

the European Commission Mr Barroso lecturing the rest of the world,

saying don't tell us about democracy and political leadership,

the euro is a strong project. I think they were trying to project

some element of a fightback. Where all this comes from, is the end, a

month ago of Merkozy, of President Sarkozy, and Angela Merkel, the two

at the centre of the austerity project. That no longer exists, the

balance of forces with the Americans pushing hard at the

summit for a growth strategy, and the Japanese and the Chinese. Very

important voices there, it has put Angela Merkel into a box. The thing

we reported at the top of the segment, the idea that they will

spend 7 autobillion euros, buying debt in -- 750 billion euros buying

debt in the market, up to today she was resisting it. We have the

Latvian Prime Minister, and here in the studio the Russian financial

magnate, and pro-democracy campaigner. Do you think the bigger

picture here is the shine has come out off the European post-war

project. This was the enlightenment and edifice for the rest of the

world, and everyone looking towards that democracy, do you think it has

changed? I don't think so, I'm on Barroso's side. Nobody can deny

that Europe being united have achieved must more prosperity and

political problems. Its governance standard, if you compare it to in

where I where in the world, is something to be -- anywhere in the

world is to be desired. Russia has donated to Europe loot of money. If

you look at the ECB directive about money misappropriated in the world

economy last year, it is $1.2 trillion in one years. That was

what I was expecting from the G20, something as regards setting up a

new international body to stand up against global corruption. By the

way, it was promising in 2010 that they would organise a commission to

eradicate corruption, God knows what that commission is doing.

we see is, actually, the economies of the countries, for whom

democracy is not a priority, are stronger than the economies of the

countries where democracy is the biggest preert, in Europe? There is

no doubt -- Priority, in Europe? think Europe is experiencing

temporary problems, there is enough fire power financially or

politically, and hopefully the G20 is a turning point, in Europe

finding its way to overcome the temporary difficulties. From the

Latvian perspective, why would Latvia want to join a club that is

in a bit of trouble at the moment? Good evening, certainly as this is

a question which is often being asked. But, still, we think that

the current crisis we are seeing, it is not so much a euro crisis, or

eurozone crisis, it is a financial and economic crisis in certain

eurozone countries, not following basic macro-economic rules. This

needs to be corrected, and we don't think that there is something

fundamentally wrong with the euro, or the eurozone. So we still think

it is a good idea for Latvia to join the eurozone, and plan to do

so as of January 1st, 2014. Is your reason for joining more a political

reason, in a sense, than an economic one, as a bulwark against,

as it were, the former oppressors? Well, I wouldn't really say that it

is so many political reasons. Of course, strategic decisions for

Latvia has been sper graigs into the EU and NATO -- integration into

the EU and NATO, if you want N this sense we will be seeking to be in a

core of Europe. If there are debates about having a two-speed

Europe or a multiple-speed Europe, Latvia's intention will be at the

core of the European developments. In this sense, of course, there is

a political dimension to this, but the eurozone accession, first and

foremost, it is still an economic question, and economic decision.

From that purpose we also studied carefully the example of Estonia,

that joined in 2011. Also, already during the eurozone crisis, we see

it still served as a positive signal about financial and economic

stability in Estonia. We would expect a similar effect in Latvia.

Do you not get a sense of power shifting to the BRICs countries, to

the emerging economies, that the whole European project is not the

shining example it was. And actually, it is more like, it is

perfectly possible that Greece will exit any way, and we will see a lot

of unravelling? There is a lot of learning from the institutions in

Europe, either at the EC level or the unilateral levels of the most

developed countries, obviously. If Russia joins the EC tomorrow, which

is an overexaggeration, there would be a great effect on the judicial

system in Russia, and the rule of law, and the parliament overlooking

the executive, and finally anti- corruption campaigning. I think it

is only globally we can give a serious answer to global corruption,

because most of that is international. Just on the broader

point of it, it would be a very strange thing, would it not, to be

seen, China is giving money to Europe at the moment. To see

emerging countries giving money to European countries who may have

actual low squadered a lot of what they had? I don't believe Europe

does need a lot of assistance from those countries. There is still a

lot of money in the local covers, if you look at the -- coffers, if

you look at the Germans they were more reluctant a month ago, but

they are becoming more used to the necessity of their assisting

countries in Europe. From Latvia's perspective, Prime Minister, what

do you think Europe would look like, or the European Union would look

like a decade from now. Would it embrace even more countries, or

will it, perhaps, stick, Latvia may well join, former Balkan countries,

but no further. Do you think there is an optimum size for Europe, and

it cannot take any poorer economies into it?

As we currently see developments in Europe, it is clear that

enlargement doesn't seem to be on top of the agenda. In fact, quite a

few countries they are talking about enlargement fatigue and

things like this. In the next decade we could expect western

Balkans countries joining, but not much more. But, of course, what is

more important is it is not only this process on enlargement, but

what the design of the EU will be. Currently we are probably also

seeing that the eurozone, having a monetary union, you also need to

work more closely towards economic things. We will probably expect

more economic operation in the EU. I have to stop you both there. We

go straight back to the news that the Egyptian state TV announcement,

that the disgraced former Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, has died.

It seems it is not that simple. We're in Tahrir Square in Cairo we

join it now. What is happening? is a night of confusion. Over the

past few hours there have been conflicting report about the poor

health of the former President, Hosni Mubarak. About an hour ago

the state news agency and state television both report that Hosni

Mubarak was clinically dead. Clinically dead after he had been

moved from the prison to the military hospital in Madi, but now,

in the last half hour, we are getting other reports carried by

news agencies, such as Reuters, saying the former President is not

clinically dead, that he suffered the heart attack, they used a

defibrillator, he was unconscious, but he was still alive. That is the

latest. We are waiting for new information, obviously watching it

very closely. We now have conflicting reports. There was a

moment here in Tahrir Square were the protests stopped, but they are