03/10/2013 Newsnight


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

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 03/10/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Tonight, we examine the fall-out from the leak of thousands of top


secret documents by Edward Snowden. Was it an act of vandalism against


our national security? Not even the KGB in its day of fill bee and


Burgess and Maclean could have dreamt of acquiring 58,000 highly


classified intelligence documents. We have an exclusive interview with


the journalist responsible for releasing the information leaked by


Edward Snowden and we discuss the consequences. I may be freezing to


death but you will never get rid of me. All the ice in the world cannot


kill a true idea. Back on dry land, the thinker that some call an


intellectual rock star, but other a left fascist, talks about his new


film. The composer whose music has launched more than 100 films. It's


all because I love doing it. I get excited. When somebody comes to show


you some images and they've got an idea and they are excited.


Good evening. For years we worried that the likes of Google Microsoft


and Facebook knew too much. But when the American intelligence contractor


Edward Snowden revealed a list of secret programmes the US and British


intelligence services have been working on, it seemed the State had


amassed a capability beyond everything. Intercepting and storing


vast amounts of everyday traffic. The power and scale surprised many,


concerned about the level of intrusion it represented, but should


we be worried, given the amount of data generated on-line, is it any


wonder they require the most powerful systems to find the pieces


of information that might prevent a terrorist attack say? How much


gathering are we prepared to accept? Piece by piece over the last few


months we have got glimpses of something that was previously


hidden. Top-secret documents leaked by former American intelligence


analyst, Edward Snowden have revealed a huge web of intelligence


gathering run by Britain's GCHQ and America's NSA. Even if you are not


doing anything wrong, you are being watched and recorded. This is the


truth and what is happening. You should decide whether we need to do


this. You have a powerful capability to find a small amount that you are


looking for, but it doesn't mean that the State is reading everyone's


e-mails. The NSA's actions have more than undermined internet security.


They've threaten to break it. In the same way that technology has


transformed our daily lives, it's revolutionised the world of


intelligence. The way in which modern communications flow is


dizzyingly complex. I might send an e-mail from my phone using Microsoft


or Google. The data will be broken up into tiny packets that might


travel along an international fibre up into tiny packets that might


optic cable. The message might also be encrypted by a company's


software, designed to make sure no-one can read it until it reaches


the person to whom it's addressed. What we have learnt from the Edward


the person to whom it's addressed. Snowden revelations is that


America's SNA and Britain's GCHQ are developing the capability to target


communications at every point along the route. The NSA has a programmed


communications at every point along called Prism which allows had to get


hold of data from software companies like Microsoft and Google. GCHQ is


tapping the international fibre optic cables through which vast


amount of data and individual mess aBgs pass and the two intelligence


agencies are working to crack the secret codes so they can read


messages, which other people thought were secret. They also hoover up a


huge amount of information about communications, so-called meta-data


to go through and analyse looking for patterns and connections. The


overall ambition is enormous - to be able to reach into the global stream


of digital communication and pluck out a single message and then read


it. So with so much of our lives on-line leaving a digital trail


behind has the State without anyone knowing become Big Brother? I had a


family and a home in paradise. That is what he believed. He's now in


hiding in Russia. A hero to some, a villain to others. How you see him


depends on how surprised and outraged you are by what he's


revealed. Thanks to him, the Guardian has got hold of a massive


trove of top-secret documents from the NSA, as well as 58,000 from


Britain's GCHQ. So far, it's published just a few pieces. In the


last week, I've been Griffin direct access to a small selection of


original documents held outside the UK. These form the basis of some of


the stories the Guardiola has already published. -- the guardian


has already published. The capabilities they reveal and secrets


they contain, make real the national security and public interest


argument. Those who have worked inside the secret state though say


that this power is vital for national security and is used only


for national security. What the State needs and law enforcement


needs is the possibility of accessing the communications of the


terrorists, the criminals, the kidnappers and the proliferators,


the paedophiles, but those communications are all mixed up with


everyone else's communications. There are 204 million e-mails a


minute buzzing around the globe. You have to have a powerful capability


to find the small amount that you are looking for. It doesn't mean


that the State is reading everyone's e-mails, nor would that conceivably


be feasible. You say the State isn't reading everyone's e-mails, but


people might fear they could be reading my e-mails? Would you really


support a world in which it was possible for -- was not possible for


the police and agencies to find the communications of the terrorists and


the proliferators and the kidnappers and criminals? But can we trust the


State? Technology allows it to do things it could never have done


before. Collecting and going through billions of records to find a


connection, or reconstructing a person's social interactions. The


programmes are innovative and highly complex. While there is a system of


oversight and accountability, every search has to be justified under the


human rights acts, critics feel it's not strong enough. The controls at


the moment frankly are far too small. They couldn't conceivably


check all the sorts of the sort that Snowdon is talking about. It's not


possible. Something which is justified in terms of national


possible. Something which is security is expanded into all of our


privacies? Yes, or the scope to do so, yes and the relatively


unfettered scope to do so. Everyone will say we're responsible people. I


know some of them, the people involved in this and they are


decent, civilised people, but the State simply shouldn't have these


powers. One day they will get used wrongly and by then it's too late.


As well as processing vast amounts wrongly and by then it's too late.


of data, the Snowden files point to the agencies deliberately


undermining some of the security protocols on the internet. Like the


process of encryption, with the goal of making it easier for them to gain


access to data. For us, the revelations in early September that


the NSA had had a major covert programme to compromise its security


standards and products were a 9/11 moment. Some leading computer


security experts have been left outraged. They've spent decades


trying to make sure people can communicate securely and privately


over the internet. The goal of the NSA and GCHQ is ensure this is not


the case. That they can break anybody's privacy at any time and


interfere with a transaction at any time. In order to do this they have


compromised in various ways many of the protocols on which the internet


relies. Now, when you introduce these vulnerabilities, they are not


just available from the spies, but available for bad guys to use too.


The files confirm the scale of what has been built, but they also


contain page after page of top-secret information. For


instance, GCHQ's work in supporting military operations overseas, so by


making this material vulnerable to those who want to know Britain's


secrets and in disclosing certain aspects of it, have Edward Snowden's


actions compromised national security? Not even the KGB in its


height of fill bee and Burgess and Maclean in the 1950s could have


dreamt of acquiring 58,000 highly classified intelligence documents.


My fear is that we are now going to witness a slow-motion car crash. In


which gradually sources dry up, targets such as terrorists and cyber


criminals will work out what are the kind of capabilities that we have


and they will attempt their methods and it will be harder to track them


down. The State has amassed enormous powers when it comes to interception


and it's done so in secret. That concerns many, who believe there


needs to be more public knowledge about the State's capability and


more consent to its use of those powers. Secrecy is the antagonist of


accountability and always is. Sometimes you can't go around it.


You've got to have secret agencies and spies and you've got to have


ways of dealing with the enemies. Nobody disputes that. But you also


have to have in a free society a way of keeping it under control and


making sure it doesn't runaway. They pushed it even further than we


thought they would. The surprising thing to us was that there are


occasional pockets of come p combatants win the two. Many of us


had thought that the real secret like other large pub sector IT


had thought that the real secret projects it didn't work and there


was really nobody there. But to find they've built this machine and got


was really nobody there. But to find it working is an eye opener. The


balance between secrecy and accountability is being shifted as a


direct result of Snowdon's disclosures. A senior US


intelligence official acknowledged there would now have to be more


transparency about the NSA's work. But as the public understands more


about the powerful machine that has been built in secret, how far will


it be confident that it's been used to keep us safe rather than to spy


on us? Glenn Greenwald is the journalist responsible for releasing


the information leaked by Edward Snowden and he joins us from Rio.


Good evening. Firstly, why should you be the ash for of about what is


in the public interest and what is vital to national security? I'm not


the ash for of that. I work with a huge number of Guardian editors and


some of the most experienced national security journalists in the


world. And journalism, which is designed to serve as a check on


those in power is about shining light on what the people in power


are doing, that they try to hide from the public and those are the


judgments that all journalism requires every single day. 58,000


British documents we know. At least as many presumably from the NSA. You


heard perhaps Sir David there saying you are not even Philby, Burgess and


Maclean and this is a car crash coming. Well, this idea that there


Maclean and this is a car crash is 58,000 documents just because the


UK Government said it, I would hope we have learned after the Iraq war


that Government claims are not tantamount to the truth, but I think


the broader point is that it isn't how many documents the Guardian or


other newspapers around the world possess, but the question is what is


it that they are viewing with those documents and in every single


article we publish, we have gone over every single line of every


single document and not one line, not one comma of what we published


could even possibly be said to damage national security. It's all


about informing people if democracies about what their


governments are doing. You have shown where there are


connections. Those connections are used to track terrorists.


Terrorists, would-be terrorists, change their tactics. It is possible


Terrorists, would-be terrorists, that by your actions you make it


easier for terrorists to understand how to evade the checks that are


made on them online. That is completely ludicrous. First, the


premise of your question is false. We have shown much more than just a


collection of meta data. We have shown all sorts of invasions into


the content of communications between innocent people, having


conversations online through e-mail, online chat, collecting


their browsing history. The idea that terrorists did not know that


the United States and UK governments were trying to monitor their


communications is laughable. Every terrorist is capable of tying their


own issues, and have long known that governments are trying to monitor


their communications. The only thing we have informed people of is that


the spying system is aimed at them. How can you be sure that your


actions have not made it easier for terrorists to operate? You cannot be


sure of that. You cannot prove a negative of that, can you? I do not


why you are asking me to prove a negative, if it cannot be proven. A


way that human beings reason and journalists make decisions is that


you weigh the competing evidence as rationally as you can. We know the


evidence we are disclosing to the world is not about spying on


terrorists that they do not know about, but spying on innocent human


beings. I would like to find a human being who says, I would rather


remain ignorant about what my government is doing in a democracy.


That is not how healthy democracy functions. Do you think it would be


a shock that spies actually do spy? Or do you think the majority of the


population might find it reassuring, they might feel quite safe? I think


it is a shock that government officials lied to the face of


journalists, who do not seem to mind much. For example, in that segment


you played, you had people defending GCHQ on the grounds that this is


only about terrorism and paedophiles. But much of the


reporting we have done proves that is a lie. We reported that GCHQ and


NSA are spying on a large Brazilian oil company that funds social


programmes in Brazil. Are there terrorists in that? They are spying


on the organisation of American States when they are negotiating


economic agreements. Are they paedophiles? The job of journalists


is to present -- prevent those in power from lying to the people over


whom they are ruling. While some of this may be devoted to terrorists is


comic huge amounts are devoted to innocent people whose privacy is


being eroded. I gather you have vast amounts of material that has not


been revealed. Is it in your bedroom in Rio? I am not going to talk about


what is in my bedroom, or about the security measures. It is possible


that presumably you have... Let me... People want to know, I


suppose, how can you guarantee that the material you have, you can keep


it safe? Could it possibly be on a memory stick in your pocket? People


want to know how you think you can keep things safe? I will be happy to


answer that. That is what I was about to tell you when you


interrupted. There is only one group of people who have lost control of


huge amounts of what they claim are important documents. Those are GCHQ


and the NSA. The GCHQ took documents they claim are so very sensitive and


put them on a system at the NSA that tens of thousands of people have


access to. At the Guardian, we have protected our data with extremely


advanced methods of encryption. And our documents have remained


completely secure. We have not lost control of any of our material. That


remains entirely secure. The reason I asked is that when your partner


and, I suppose, collaborator, David Miranda, was apprehended, in the


evidence it said that actually he was carrying around password


material, written on a piece of paper, beside encrypted files. To a


lot of people, that is worrying about how careful you are about


security. I guess I need to give you the reminder that, as a journalist,


you should be aware that simply because the government makes a


claim, especially when they are making that claim in the middle of a


lawsuit while they are being sued for violating the law, one should


not assume that claim is factually true. So you are denying it? It was


a lie. The idea that he was carrying a password that allow people access


to those documents is absolutely false. The only ones who have lost


control of the documents through horrific operational security is the


GCHQ and NSA. He did not have the password. I will show you the proof


of that. The affidavit that they filed said, we have to keep this


material because it is heavily encrypted and we have only been able


to reconstruct 75 documents. They filed an affidavit proving that what


they have convinced you of is actually a lie. After what happened


to David Miranda, as his partner, that must have been very distressing


for you, you then said, I will be far more aggressive in my reporting


from now on. I will publish many more documents. I will publish


things on England, too. I have documents on England's spy system. I


think they will be sorry for what they did. Is there something coming


down the pipeline? That is a number months ago now. Actually, I think it


was four weeks ago. Since then, there has been a report about GCHQ


spying on a Brazilian company, which caused a major diplomatic scandal,


with Brazil. That interview that you reference is in Portuguese and the


translation you are reading from is very poor. I was asked, how do you


think the British government's behaviour, toward the Guardian and


your partner, will be viewed? I said, it will be looked at in most


democracies, where press freedoms are protected, unlike the UK, as a


thuggish form of behaviour and an attack on journalism that will make


them look ad. I think it is contrary to their interest and they will come


to regret it. -- it will make them look bad. But we will continue


aggressively reporting about the GCHQ and the NA -- NSA. However


inappropriate the translation, do you see that it was seen very much


as you acting as a campaigner and act to Vista? You talked about


revenge journalism being the wrong way to describe it, but you can see


how people think that. -- as an activist. My view of journalism is


that the more people in power abuse that power, the more accountability


and transparency they prove they need through journalism. When I see


a government like the UK barging need through journalism. When I see


into the newsroom of the newspaper with which I work and is demanding


they destroy their computers, something you would expect to hear


in Iran and Russia and China, or when they detain someone they think


is working with a journalist under terrorism law for nine hours and


that knowledge through the media that they are doing it to be


intimidating, that is a government attack on press freedom, abusing


their power and showing they need more transparency, and that is the


role of journalism. Do you fear for your safety? No, I don't. That is


not something I focus on. The Brazilian government has provided


security and Diane perfectly content with the situation. Lots of


journalists are in difficult positions all the time. -- I am


perfectly content. Do you feel you could travel to the United States,


and do you feel comfortable about travelling to Britain? Well, I am


going to return to the United States as soon as it makes sense to do so.


Unlike the UK, there is a constitutional guarantee of a free


press. Even former Obama Justice officials have said it is on think


above that the administration would prosecute the journalist in this


case. The UK is a different story because that government has proven


that they are willing to run roughshod over press freedoms. They


are threatening criminal investigations, detaining my partner


under terrorism law, forcing the Guardian to destroy laptops. So I am


more cautious about travelling to the UK, although not being able to


visit the UK is not something I regard as particularly great


punishment. Are you still in touch with Edward Snowden? Sure. He is my


source, somebody I care about and I speak with him regularly. And how do


you know how he is being treated, and how do you know, more


importantly, whether he has not had to give up secrets, if he is under


Russian protection? Because, unlike the UK and US governments, his


statements have proven completely true in every instance. I have never


once seen him lie to me about anything. I know that he has


protected the data that he has with extreme levels of encryption that


not even the NSA, let alone the lesser Russian intelligence


agencies, can crack. And he did not unravel his life to fight


surveillance in order to go to the Russians and help them serve ale.


But he has been through China, and Hong Kong, and you cannot be sure


that he has not had to give up something. You pointed out very


astutely a few minutes ago that nobody can prove a negative will


stop if you are looking to prove mathematically that they do not have


any data, I cannot do that. I can tell you that all of the evidence


that we actually know makes it ludicrous to think that they have


obtained any of that data. There is zero evidence that they have, and


any responsible journalist would refrain from suggesting that


happened when they have no evidence that it did. I wonder, with Edward


Snowden, whether or not his position in Russia, if he tried to travel,


look what the Americans did to the presidential plane, the Bolivian


presidential plane over European territory. Does he feel safe? The


Russians only said they would keep him for a year. Remember, he did not


choose to be in Russia. He was trying to pass through, and the US


government basically forced him to be there by revoking his passport


and preventing other companies -- countries from letting him transit


through. Given the alternative, a super max prison in the United


States where he disappears for the next 40 years, I think he is content


to be where he is. In some ways, these are elements from a spy film.


When you first met, how did you identify him? Right, I had no idea


how old he was, who he was, what he looked like. The plan was, he asked


us to go to a part of the hotel he looked like. The plan was, he asked


was staying in at a designated time and he said we would know him


because he was carrying a Rubik 's cube. We went at the designated time


and he was not there. We went at the second time he gave, and he showed


up a couple of minutes later carrying a Rubik 's cube. Finally, I


up a couple of minutes later want to ask you, because we have


gone from that kind of extraordinary spy film thing to the idea that he


actually might end up in an American super max prison. Do you think he


might ultimately end up in an American prison? When we were in


Hong Kong, he had assumed, we were all assuming that would be the


likely outcome of the brave choice that he had made, which is what made


likely outcome of the brave choice it so brave. Now, it is more


difficult because his reporting is considered heroic by huge numbers


around the world, which has made it more difficult for the US government


to get their hands on him and disappear him and make it so that he


has never heard from again. Let's discuss further now with


Baroness Neville-Jones, former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee,


and Anthony Barnett, the founder of Open Democracy.


Should we not have been told about all of this anyway? I think the


government does have to have powers to protect us. Extraordinary things


that were being said by Glenn Greenwald. In particular, the most


astounding thing, which I simply do not credit that he believes, that


the Russians and Chinese are not in full possession now of both


techniques and information. So you actually believe... Wider you


believe that to be the case? He has absolutely no defences against


them. They will have taken possession of his computers and gone


into them. I do not think there is any doubt at all that they now have


a great deal of information which is damaging to our security, and which


is the result of betrayal on the part of a trusted employee. Did you


is the result of betrayal on the know all this was going on? The


world has changed with the internet. We talk about, people who are


worried about this, talk about this explosion in surveillance. It is a


function of the massive increase in the transmission of communications.


So you knew it was happening? Interception has always taken place.


You can intercept the mail, telephone calls. Do people believe


that is happening? No. Why should they think that in a situation where


you have enormous expansion of communications, which requires, for


purposes of protection, to have comparable powers of collection, in


order to intercept and find the tiny bits that matter, that all the rest


of it is being read. It is not. It is only there to catch the few. It


is not about tiny bits. I spent a political lifetime telling people,


mainly on the left, not to be paranoid. Thatcher was not


introducing fascism, Tony Blair was not creating dictatorship. We now


introducing fascism, Tony Blair was face the greatest threat to our


liberties since the Second World War. Because of the amount of


material that is being collected. Because these databases, which are


not about tiny items of Because these databases, which are


information, will be used, and not just by governments. Snowden was


working for a corporation. They will be accessed by others in


government. And because, most important, people will start to self


censor. We will find that the very fact of the total surveillance of


our activities means that we bash it is not a question, as the Foreign


Minister said, of if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to


fear, but the structure of events will stop us doing things which we


think are right. You think we are sleepwalking into this. Do you think


people actually understand the nature of the meta data and how it


operates, and the connections that are made? No, and that is partly the


fault of the BBC reporting. Meta data, we do not talk about meta data


because everyone will fall asleep. It is very important. There is a


pattern. We have an electronic life, from the GPS in our telephone to our


text messages, to the web wages we access. And what the intelligence


services are doing, they are gathering 20 billion items of


information, and they are creating a pattern of how we live. It is not


about reading the content of the e-mail. It is not about getting the


content, it is about mapping of who we are. But Glenn Greenwald is


right, terrorists are smart. They have known this has been happening.


RCEDCYAN Of course. They take risks. They are listening to the


communication of terrorists. You have to find them in the first


place. You have to go through the data in order to get the clues that


enable you to get the information. What does it matter what the


Brazilians are doing? What does it matter? The problem is, isn't it,


that you might be going after terrorists, but there are lots of


other interesting things. It's out of control. I entirely accept and I


agree that there needs to be control over the system and there needs to


be accountability. Do you think there's enough control? What I do


believe is they're acting according to law and I do believe that given


the public anxiety that's been aroused by this, that we need to


have actually a body like the information and security committee


doing a review. Is that a good thing? Metadata is not under the


law. It is acting beyond the law at the moment. This is a crucial point


and the idea that the intelligence services are saying, "Give us all


the raw data, we need a clue." It's absurd. Can I put you something from


the film, that there has been a deliberate undermining by the


security services of encryption. There has always been a tension,


which is not new, between the need for security and the ability also to


intercept communications. This is not a new tension. Could you say


hand on heart, in a way, because you think there should be a review, that


Glenn Greenwald was right? No, absolutely not. No. There's no


question that he has done a huge public service. What the ISC needed


to do is actually - In the House of Commons? It's a joint committee of


both Houses of senior MPs. There is to reason to suppose - If you were


to - Any more than the judges who act who are hand maidens for the


executive. What would you have said to Glenn Greenwald? There is no way


that that young man will have been able to resist. Can I put that to


you, that here is a senior intelligence expert in this country


saying there is no way on Earth that Edward Snowden has not had to give


us something in Russia or before that in China? The innor rans of


those comments is truly astounding to me. First, you would think that a


racial person -- a rational person, would have at least a little bit of


evidence before saying that. There is none. What is the basis for this?


But please let me make the point. I listened for a long time. She said


they got the data on his laptop. That isn't how data works. It's not


1998. It's stored on thumb drives and on those drives are very


sophisticated means of encryption shells that as I said before and I


know this because I've read the documents that I have, not even the


NSA can break the encryption codes of 4,000 characters long. He doesn't


even have them. Let me just put that to her. That is a clarification. He


doesn't even have them? I don't believe any of that. The Russians


have got sophisticated capability. Thank you all of you.


Today, the Gambia announced it was leaving the Commonwealth much to the


surprise of the Foreign Office and Commonwealth. The Gambian Government


says it doesn't want to be part of a Ne-yo colonial establishment. If the


Commonwealth is a club what are the rules and why would anyone want to


be a member? There is some flash photography in this report. We hold


our breath here in the islands of Figi, as Her Majesty steps ashore.


When the Queen arrived here in 1953 she may have been struck by cultural


differences. She was met with respectful silence. It was her very


first tour and a beginning of a role she is said to love. Because our


sovereign is a woman she is to be honoured first by women. Especially


in this old and treasured custom of ours, the placing of a whale tooth


upon our sacred canoe. For decades the Commonwealth has been trying to


show it's more than a collection of former colonial powers. In March,


the Queen signed the charter, which has respect for human rights and


democracy at its core. I hope the carefully chosen words of the


charter will reinvigorate efforts already begun to make the


Commonwealth fit and agile for the years ahead. Gambia's President says


he left the Commonwealth because he doesn't want to be lectured about


human rights by the Ne-yo colonial west. It's not obvious they'll miss


him very much. He thinks homosexuality is one of the three


biggest threats to human existence and prayer beads and centre in hand


he has offered to cure AIDS by boiling herbs. The Gambia was one of


the 54 states. The exit means there are 18 countries from Africa.


Roughly one in three people in the world belong to the Commonwealth, so


it's a club with two billion people, with the Queen at the head and the


monarch of 16 realms. Five members have their own monarchs, the


remaining 32 are republics. Every member has equal status, so the


little guy country get to rub shoulders with the big nations.


Robert Mugabe took Zimbabwe out of the club ten years ago. Critics said


he should have been ex-spelled years before. To them, the Commonwealth


talks the talk on human rights, but does little to uphold them. Why,


they ask, is the Commonwealth meeting in Sri Lanka in six weeks'


time, where the Government is accused of killing thousands of


civilians during its civil war? So what will Gambia lose? Well, not


much. You don't get any trade privileges or any influence on


economic and defence policy and there's no aid budget. You would be


better off trying all the other clubs out there, like the G20. The


Commonwealth club is a talking shop clubs out there, like the G20. The


then, but look at who you get to talk to and you do get to play games


all over the world. If you're still not convinced then think about who


you could get to visit. The Windsors are such good sports. They do like


dancing. And they don't mind dressing up. With me is the former


UN deputy general Lord monthly lark brown and a member from the sect


tear yacht. Do you think it's a Ne-yo colonial institution? No, I


don't think it is. The track records in helping Zimbabwe obtain


independence, the track record in helping South Africa get majority


rule, so there are accomplishments in themselves. Surely there was an


umbrella under which all sorts of dubious practises go on. Why hasn't


it been able to reform some of the more appalling things happening?


Gambia's retirement is an indication that the Commonwealth does have some


teeth, because clearly Gambia was trying to pre-empt criticism at the


summit and it's been criticised already by lots of other human


rights organisations, so while the Commonwealth is not up there in


bright light with the EU or the UN or strong regional organisations in


Africa, it is an important club and association of countries that do


share some kind of common standards. But, why do you think it is that


Rwanda for example and most pose earlier on, but Rwanda, wants to


join at this late stage, which in fact they're allowed in and they've


now got a child solder army? There are lots of difficulties within the


present Commonwealth. It's a mixture of contradictions, but also a


ceiling on just how contraditory a country can be, so that there are


certain limits that even the President of Rwanda would be very,


very conscious of not breaking. I think it's to try to allude having


the invitations apply to him and the President has taken this country out


of the Commonwealth. But moving forward, the problem is, isn't it,


that you say it's stopping the worst things happening, but as a result of


the way it was born, Britain, for example, is reluctant to criticise,


because it looks like an imperial power criticising? Don't


underestimate the British role. It's quite behind the scenes a strong


leader on this. It took a lead on making Pakistan go out under


military rule and used the various committees effectively, but you


cannot get away from the fact this is not an organisation built around


geography or common interest and therefore it's a little bit of


Septemberment in there -- sentiment, which means it's not quite


effective. Therefore, do you think it has a limited shelve life? I


think all the things around it with the sports and association of


businesses and things that form around it are quite dynamic. But


they are exclusive of others? The point is they are much more like the


Olympics. Why have the Commonwealth Games not more often? It's a benign


club that lets in those who want it. It won't be a first-tier


organisation, but I suspect it has a lot of life left in it. Gentlemen,


thank you. With one of the world's most


important and cultural theorists, he has even been called the Elvis of


cultural theory. Slavoj Zizek is a sworn enemy of capitalism. To his


fans he's a hero of a dying radical left and critics a dangerous icon


class who is responsible, but whatever you think it's hard to deny


his entertainment value. Here is a clip from his new fill, The


Pervert's guide to Ideology. That is the iceberg hitting the ship and it


plays in the development of the lore story. When the ship docks I'm


getting off with you. This is crazy. I know. It's slightly cynical. This


would have been the true catastrophe. We can imagine how


maybe after two or three weeks of intense sex in New York the love


affair would somehow fade away. He joins me now. There is a great deal


of irony promoting your thesis through the prism of Hollywood


films? Why? I think Hollywood films offer in the disstilled form, an


insight into where are we today. And I don't mean by ideology, this


notion of some system which gives us a world view for countries and


socialism or whatever, but simply a world view for countries and


how do we make our life meaningful every day? It's the air we are


breathing. But your theory seems to suggest that you think we are kind


of dazed and enslaved. You were talking about enjoyment, that we


don't have free will and we think - we are forced to think the only


thing we can have is new lab raleism. Wait a minute. I'm


absolutely not any kind of a sworn enemy of capitalism and democracy.


What I think and it makes me sad, is that the two of them no longer go


automatically together. My challenge to partisans of that is to look at


China and Singapore and many others who show today the most dynamic


forms of capitalism. Obviously to longer need democracy. A lot of


Chinese people would say the lack of democracy is something they're


having to put up with the explosion that they are not having the


democracy they want. They don't have entire fr speech. Then you seem to


suggest revolution should be coming from a dynamic, the leader and you


think there should be a leader who shows the way, but we know from 20


century history that a lot of the leaders have been flawed terror


spreaders. Absolutely, but what I mean by leader, I would have to


explain, but I don't have time now. Think about it, when people


spontaneously organise themselves and so on, they always have a


leader, about an authentic leader is not the one who gives the order, do


this, don't do that. An authentic leader and basically there was an


echo of this in Obama's first campaign, the famous yes we can, a


leader lets you know it's not hopeless, you can do it, you can


break the limitations and do what appears to be impossible. A leader


sets you free. In order for that freedom to be given, there must be


or may och be an element of violence? . You seem to suggest


there is a nucleus of violence there is a nucleus ofviolence


violence. You call it enans payings. What a minute, I'm clear. By


violence I don't mean physical violence. Let's take an example with


which we agree, that was a nice sublime moment, hundreds of


thousands of people demonstrating there. What they did was violence


that I don't know what violence is. What did they do? They brought the


whole state to a standstill. And the whole point of Mubarak's police,


physical violence was to restore normal run of things. The violence


I'm for is not the physical violence of hitting people and so on, but


it's the right of the people when they have enough to say stop, we


don't participate. On one story that's been running here about the


vilification of Ralph Miliband in the Daily Mail and the objection to


it obviously by his son. Do you think that Marxism has the ability


to scare and upset people? Mostly no. I'm the first to agree. Let's be


frank I was only repeating this. The markist experience - by this states


who legitimate their rule by reference to Marxism. They might


have done something good, education and industrialisation and healthcare


or whatever, but if it was one big ethical political catastrophe. I


agree. We have run out of time to bring the interview with the compose


agree. We have run out of time to you are hance Zimmer. We hope to


show it tomorrow.