04/06/2014 Newsnight

demands to know what exactly is going on between the Education

Secretary and the Home Secretary. At the same time s had minions say that

efforts to fight Muslim extremism are co-ordinated and effective. Now

Newsnight has been told how when the Home Office cut funding for an

anti-extremist organisation, Michael Gove's department stepped in to help

the organisation out. Some senior civil servants at the Home Office

says the Department for Education has been running what they call a

parallel security policy. The chairman of that group is here. The

Taliban's media studies department turns a prisoner trade into a

marketing opportunity. And Kevin spacey considers his future. I'm

never going to leave, I not get on plane and BEEP off, I will always be

part of the country. The photographer who caught this moment

tells us the story behind the picture.

There is no, repeat, no feud at the top of the Government. The chairman

of the Conservative Party tells us so, as does the Downing Street

propaganda machine. So the testy exchanges between the Home Secretary

and the Education Secretary, about Muslim extremism, signify nothing

beyond a difference of emphasis? Michael Gove thinks Theresa May is

an excellent Home Secretary, it must be true, an unnamed person close to

him said it! But beneath all this froth is a very serious issue.

Before we talk about it we have this report. My Lords and members of the

House of Commons. This was supposed to be the story of the day. The

Queen's Speech. But instead, the main political event is centered on

schools in a mainly Pakistani neighbourhood in Birmingham. That is

because Theresa May, the Home Secretary, last night sent a rather

aggressive letter to the Department for Education about radicalism and

extremism in schools. And, in doing so, she turned some local

difficulties in Birmingham into a national problem for Michael Gove,

the Education Secretary. And his outriders, in turn, have thrown some

barbes at Miss May. This is also a skirmish in a long turf war on

terror policy. Newsnight can exclusively reveal one key chapter

in that story. In 2011 the Quilliam Foundation, a counter extremism

think-tank close to Mr Gove, appealed to the Home Office for

?150,000, saying it needed it to stay hope, the Home Office refused.

The principle we want to uphold is Quilliam should be free to

contribute to the wider debate, but not depend on Government fund to go

do so. Some Government officials feel the tough decision was

undermined a few weeks later when the Department for Education decided

to give the think-tank ?150,000. Some senior officials at the Home

Office said the Department for Education has been running what they

call a "parallel security policy". The fact the fight has been going on

for so long explains the vitriol on display this week. Next week Ofsted,

the education inspectorate is expected to put five Birmingham

schools into special measure, the culmination of a wave of inspections

across the city, Folauing on from the publication of the so called

Trojan horse documents. A letter, now proved to be a forgery, setting

out details of a plot by Muslim hardliners to take over schools all

across the city. Fears of a broader conspiracy have dissolved. But Miss

May has turned the heat up Mr Michael Gove, in her letter,

referring to concerns about extremism she wrote:

Is that critque fair. Much will concern this school Park View. It

was blocked from opening a free school by the Department for

Education on security grounds. But it wasn't intervened on, nor was it

stopped taking over another two state schools. Still we do not know

precisely what intelligence officials actually had. Michael Gove

is a pretty unlikely person to be accused of being soft on extremism.

Over the past few years he and Miss May have been locked in an argument

about this issue, and it is him who is usually cast as the hardliner. In

fact in 2006 he wrote a book about this issue, in a chapter headed "the

Trojan horse", he wrote "in the struggle against extremism, the

British state has not only dealt effectively with those openly

committed to Jihad, it has also failed to tackle the underlying

idealistic currents that favour extremism". Youngsters can be

brainwashed at a young age and be taught to dislike and dehumanise

others. This may not teach somebody to become a terrorist or Jihadi, but

from there to going and committing a terrorist act is a very, very short

step. It has the potential to drive somebody towards an action in a much

more efficient manner for the recruiters. Miss May and her allies

want the focus to be on more explicitly violent extremism. One of

the things Michael Gove apparently said is we shouldn't be fighting the

crocodiles on the edge of the swamp but drain the swamp. That is a very

black and white approach, and you may find there are a whole bunch of

animals in the swamp you are forcing to choose to be for origins you. If

you force them into that position you may be uncomfortable with the

numbers lining up on the opposite side. Then you have made your

position worse not better. The Prime Minister is now intervening in this

extraordinary spat. But not before one important piece of damage has

been done to the Tories. Miss May has given Labour a hand. Her letter

says that the allegations relating to schools in Birmingham raise

serious questions about the quality of school governance and oversight.

That is rather help offul to the opposition which claims that the

coalition has weakened school supervision. Playground tiffes can

do some real damage to political parties.

We have the chairman of the Quilliam Foundation, and a Lib Dem

parliamentary candidate. With us too is the founder and chairman of

trustees of a private Muslim school in Leicester. Is it possible

gentleman to define what extremism is? I think essentially generally it

is the desire to impose one's opinion on anyone else. Within the

Muslim context we have to accept there is such a thing as extremism,

we are calling it Islamism, and that can be defined as the desire to

impose interpretation of Islam over society by law. How does it manifest

itself? The desire to impose Islam over society by law according to

one's interpretation can impose itself in cases like Sudan this

month, where a lady was sentence for blasphemy. In this country?

Segregation, in public institutions, Sharia patrols walking around in

what they have labelled "Muslim areas", it can define itself in all

sorts of honour killings and FGM. People interpreting the religion, no

sir the religion itself, it is extreme interpretation of the

religion. Would you accept that interpretation of extremism? It is

important fact you mentioned. The definition has never been said by

the Government and it is very flexible. That causes problems by

schools, on the one hand we are told to fight and prevent extremism, but

we are not told what it is. I think you would find that most Muslims

within the community are anti-extremist as well. They don't

see what they do as being extremism? Do you think the Government is

getting it wrong? I think they are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

This reaction and response to what is an anonymous letter and denounced

as a fake by most people. To come in like this with anti-Tory and counter

terrorism. Everything that the Muslims are doing these days,

including education, is seen through the lens of antiterrorism and

security. We have to accept in our communities there is a challenge

that we face that, yes, the vast majority of Muslims aren't violent,

but we do have to deal with that vocal minority who have come to

dominate the discourse of our communities, who promote, for

example, in an ideal state they want homosexuals to be killed, they

promote adulters to be stoned to death and call for the amputation of

the hand of the thief. And they believe in these things in principle

and are calling them. They build the mood music to which suicide bombers

dance. There is a reason why we currently have about 400 British

born and raised citizens fighting for groups far more extreme than

Al-Qaeda in Syria. It is not an easy thing to leave your country. That is

another thing, the British Government nearly went to fight in

Syria, but the point is none of this... But they didn't join a group

more extreme than Al-Qaeda, they are beheading people. None of this is

taught in schools. I'm confident that none of this is taught in

schools. It comes from wider community, it comes from other

influences, but in schools I have yet to meet, in 30 years of working

in education in Muslim schools and with majority museum schools. Would

you like to live in a Sharia state? It depends where it is. You wouldn't

like this country to become a Sharia state? I don't think it would. Would

you like it to be? Obviously I would like to live under Sharia. In that

you would condone stoning of adulteresses? Not really, it is a

far bigger issue than that. You can't pick and choose bits and bobs

of the Sharia, it is a broad issue, the social strata and circumstances

have to be in place. What is the Sharia model for stoning to death.

If the stoning conditions were met is that something in principle we

should condone. It is not being taught in schools. Have you evidence

it is taught in schools? I have been personally called by teachers. We

have to wait until the Ofsted report comes out. The allegations are

allegations. Is there any evidence this is being taught in schools?

Evidence from the teachers who have called Quilliam directly. I don't

want to conclude from that evidence, evidence doesn't mean conclusions it

is evidence. We are not talking specific schools? Let's wait for the

Ofsted report, we have to recognise that extremism among Muslims and the

far right is a challenge, they feed into each other, it is a challenge

we have to confront. If we can't sit on Newsnight and openly say in

principle we don't condone the chopping of hands and stoning of at

dolters, if Sharia conditions are met anywhere in the world we have a

problem, I wouldn't condone that in principle. But you do condemn the

amputation of hands? If it is not according to a due process of law,

in any situation, in way. If it is by due processes it is OK to stone

people to death? These things are not taught in schools. I have worked

in schools. If by due process is it OK to stone people to death by due

process. This is not taught in schools, that is what we are here to

discuss. You say you have evidence that some extreme views are being

taught. That is not a conclusion. I understand that. Is there any

evidence that promoting extreme views in schools actually leads to

extreme action later of the kind you have already alluded to once? We

have got to treat this debate like racism, it is a no brainer if racism

spreads in society violent racism can merge east merge from it. We can

try to test it scientifically, but most people accept racism spreading

in society, even not to violence is bad thing. Likewise with homophobia,

if extremist racism and homophobia in a museum context, if these ideas

spread through society like stoning people to death. It can't help

social cohesion. That is fair point? We are looking at in schools this

doesn't happen. This comes from the Internet and all sorts of things.

You heard him say that he has had letters from teachers, the

Government is worried enough to be mounting investigations? We were

talking just earlier about disgruntled people, people who lose

their jobs for some sort of reason they can bring vexation and

complaints against schools. Schools are there to educate the children to

get good exam results, the schools in Birmingham. You can't vouch for

every school in the country more than anyone else can? The schools in

Birmingham, the focus of the investigation have gone to

outstanding and have got outstanding exam results. I have a son who is

13. Let me talk, you have had your chance. I'm pleading you for the

sake of my son who is 13, in a museum-only son, I have no choice

over because I don't live with him. If his teacher is unable to condemn

stoning in principle or chopping off the hand, I worry about the future

for my son. You are right to worry. Come out and talk about liberal

values. You are right to worry, these things have no place in

school, because children don't understand these things. You know as

well as I do that it is a very, very complex issue, it is not black and

white. That is where Crispin Blunt mentioned this morning when things

are put in black and white situations those in the grey area

could be pushed towards the black area and the dark arts, we have to

be very airflow about that. Thank you very much. The Yeoman of the

guard, military bands, a guilded coach, it was the State Opening of

Parliament again this morning. In her invisible gilded shackles the

Queen recited how the coalition Government keeps itself occupied

until we get the chance to decide if we are sick of the sight of them.

Here are the highlights. All of them! My Lords, pray be seated.

Coalition's last stand! My Government's legislative programme

will continue to deliver on its long-term plan to build a stronger

economy and a fairer society. So, fair to say it wasn't one of the

most exciting Queen's Speeches of all time. We're here to explain. I

think probably the most unexpected thing that happened was one of the

page boys to the Queen, who was eight years old fainted as she went

on and on and on. That is not to say it was empty, as some of its

crickets would have it. There were pretty decent proposals on pension,

things about childcare that the Government has talked about already,

privately Government sources admit there was nothing new in this. That

has given them and us a problem today. Because the debate ended up

the warm-up which we are well into, the general election. The Tories

saying you can't trust Labour with the economy, and the Labour Party

saying the Tories don't care about ordinary families and the Lib Dems

grinning and bearing it. The next Queen's Speech is after the

election? That may be the more important one. We don't know what

that will be. We do know it is likely to be a coalition Government,

if you believe some of the polls. And what we have discovered is

actually some very senior people in the Lib Dem party and in the Labour

Party have already been having some cosy tete-a-tetes, including

discussing some of their shared concerns, particularly on Europe.

Now there was a dinner that we found out about in April, with four

members of the Clegg and Miliband inner circle, including Nick Clegg's

Chief of Staff and Lord Adonis from Labour, one of the people who led

the failed attempt to have a Labour-Lib Dem coalition in 2010.

They say, members of the group say it was an informal catch-up between

old friends. They it was an informal catch-up between

discussed Europe as a shared issue, I understand they did absolutely

discuss a wider range of issues. I understand they did absolutely

really interestingly, when I have been talking to people about this, a

very senior Labour source said to me there are all sorts of contacts

going on all the time. Some of them through vain, Vince Cable, and also

conversations going on between Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg himself. Up

until now those two parties have tried very hard to keep these kinds

of contacts under wraps, as we hurtle towards the general election,

on both sides that will become harder and harder. In the meantime

this spat at the top of the Tory Party between Theresa May and

Michael Gove, what's happening on that? There is a very serious issue

of substance, there is an awful lot of politicking going on here too, it

is getting very bitter. David Cameron has summoned the facts in

this, trying to crack heads together, in terms of who said what

to who when and who is the one who has been stirring the pot, it has

become a very bitter row between Theresa May and Michael Gove, who

frankly have never got on with each other at all. But the context that

we had to see this in is whether or not it sound fair the politics are

also, just a couple of weeks ago Theresa May gave a speech that was

lauded by people right across the Tory Party. Her potential chances of

becoming a lead, should David Cameron exit after the general

election have gone up in the last couple of weeks. That is part of

what is at play here. She feels strong enough to take the

extraordinary step of releasing a letter to the public, containing

very damaging criticisms about a rival's department. This isn't

something that happened in private. This letter was put into the public

domain, which shows you really that she's willing to give a pretty

public dressing down to one of her colleagues. David Cameron is not

amused. This is what's on the front pages of the papers tomorrow. Not

those proposals in the Queen's Speech, although there are the odd

couple of photographs of the little page boy who fainted after what he

heard the Queen say. Poor kid. Good outfit though! Whoever has the

public relations account for the Taliban played a bit of a blinder

today, after getting the United States to bane done its trumpeted

refusal to negotiate with terrorists, then to get five of its

most senior figures released in exchange for one American soldier,

it is now released its own video of how the handover happened. In the

United States, while there is continuing joy at the family

reunification, there is unease about what's happened, and it seems to be

growing. On Saturday, somewhere in host province in Afghanistan and

overseen by a dozen Taliban affiliated soldiers, Sergeant

Bergdahl's five-year captivity came to an end. While being handed over,

a Taliban commander can be heard telling the American soldiers not to

return to Afghanistan. Warning that if they do, they will be killed.

They boast that the Americans were too frightened to remain, and they

talked during the handover. President Obama has been sorely

criticised for the terms of the handover by Republicans in

Washington. Does putting these Taliban fighters back into the

fight, endanger the west's security? Even Hillary Clinton, the former

Secretary of State, has refused to say that she would have made the

same deal. In trading one slowly Sergeant for five senior commanders

the Taliban clearly feel they have scored a victory. One American is

now free, but could some future President rue the day this deal was

done. The author and journalist Charles Glass was himself held

hostage by Islamic militants in the 1980s in Lebanon. And the Lieutenant

was a counter intelligence officer for 30 years and served in

Afghanistan in our Washington studio. What do you make of the

Taliban video? It is clearly in their interests to put as good a

spin for their side as they can. It was interesting though that they

said to him, don't come back, or you will be killed. When the spin from

Washington was that he had gone over to them and had Stockholm syndrome

and was taking their side. If they were going to kill him it doesn't

seem as if that was the case. What did you make of it? I think the

Taliban today is not the Taliban that was there in 2001 when we

invaded. They are a sophisticated organisation that understands social

media and manipulating messages. There is an American reporter from

major network that said publicly on national American TV that the

Taliban is more co-operative than the White House. This was from a

friendly network to the President. The Taliban is trying to get the

most out of this event, they are, and as you in your introduction you

are talking about the fact they are getting back five very senior

commanders, for one individual who essentially left our side under

question questionable circumstances. The Taliban is reaping the benefit

of how they played this. Do you read it as a Taliban gain? It is a gain

for Bowe Bergdahl, he gets to go free, as a former hostage there is

nothing better than those first steps of freedom. The second,

President Obama initially had a bit of a propaganda victory having done

the trade-off saying he wouldn't leave anyone behind. That seems to

have back fired on him because of the approbium attached to the

exchange and he didn't inform Congress about it. The Republicans

criticising him most severely knows that the Regan administration did

the same with the hostages in Lebanon. The Iran scandal was all

about selling Iran weapons, giving Iran weapons in exchange for

hostages in Lebanon against American rule. Do you have Anwar site that

this -- an Anxiety this will come back and haunt American Presidents,

Lieutenant? I'm Tony too, sorry. The issue here for the American

Presidents in the future, they have to consider how that plays out. The

Iran issue was about material not individuals. In this case based on

my own direct knowledge there were other options on the table. Not only

military option that is related to finding a way to leverage other

folks to get Bergdahl back. He was held by the network in Pakistan.

That is very critical to the ecautious which has -- equation,

which hasn't been fully explored by anyone in that point in time. Go on

about the principle, the principle of doing deals with terrorists and

swapping prisoners? In the case of the Taliban there is a real issue by

these individuals, let's remember in Afghanistan there has always been a

retrenchment and allowing the Taliban to be reintegrated into

society. We have been allowing them to go back into society. With that

said it is these five individuals who were captured under the original

authorisation to military force, and these five individuals had direct

links to the Al-Qaeda folks who conducted the 9/11 attacks. That is

what the problem is with members of Congress and staff. I was over on

the hill talking to them yesterday and today, there are real issues

regarding these five more than other elements of the Taliban already

released. Do you think then there was a miscalculation of what the

effect of the exchange would be? Absolutely. I have been monitoring

this from day one, literally, and the issue regarding Bergdahl is

becoming clear, that he was not a pristine individual, there are

issues about how he left his post. That has become a very hard pill for

the American public and military to swallow. On top of that the

violation of law. All the lawyers I spoke to said there was a clear

violation by the President to allow the Taliban to go without

consultations to Congress, and most importantly, when you look at the

overall President press sent set by the President, will -- precedent set

about gaining leverage with hostages. What do you think the

legacy of the transaction will be? If the United States leaves

Afghanistan then its soldiers won't be vulnerable to being captured by

the Taliban or anyone else, perhaps in future wars,

the Taliban or anyone else, perhaps war are always taken by both sides

in war. It is nothing new, and prisoner exchanges are nothing new.

This is something that is occurring just before the withdrawal of combat

troops from Afghanistan, and in that context it looks different, doesn't

it? Not if you think of Vietnam. Remember the first thing that

happened as American troops pulled out, was the American prisoners came

back too. That was a defeat? At that time it wasn't being sold as a

defeat. And this time it isn't sold as a defeat either. In both cases it

probably is a defeat. Time to hear from Kevin Spacey, not only is he

one of the most famous actors in the world, but almost at the end of the

time as Artistic Director at the Old Vic. In the House of Cards he place

a snake making his way in American politics, is nothing like his real

incarnation, as some sort of demigod, but also an actor revered

for his devotion to British drama. We met him earlier today, be warned

he likes the odd Anglo-Saxonism. Here is the head of that ignoble

traitor, the dangerous and unsuspected Hastings. It is not

every day Newsnight is in the presence of Hollywood royalty. So

dear I loved the man (laughter) It is the Queen's Speech this morning.

It was all a bit of a nightmare getting here. But we're here. Kevin

Spacey has a film to promote, a behind the scenes documentary of

taking his production of Richard II I around the world. What do you

think the state of British theatre is now? There is lots of places

where there is tremendous growth, really interesting ideas, really,

you know, even if shows don't work the ideas behind shows, why people

are trying to work on certain issues and tackle certain kinds of theatre

is very exciting. I think it is in an incredibly healthy place. It is

exciting to be a part of it. Will you be sad to leave? I'm never going

to leave, it is not like I'm going to get on a plane and lock off. I

will always be a part of this country and always have a place in

London, and it is a huge part of my life. Back in the 90s when he won an

Oscar for American Beauty, you might have thought Spacey would have opted

for Hollywood more than anything else. It is the oddest thing, I feel

like I'm in a coma for 20 years and just now waking up. Instead he chose

a ten-year stint running London's Old Vic theatre. I was at a point in

my life where I didn't want to pursue the same dream, and everyone

wanted me to pursue the same dream because that is what people are

supposed to do. I was like I did it, I had this unbelievable run of

making movies and films that I'm unbelievably grateful. Some will

stand the test of time, and others will thankfully be forgotten. My job

is to clear the pipes and keep the sludge moving. Now he's better known

on the small green for the American political -- screen for the American

political drama House of Cards, a stand-out on Netflix. Why do you

think the best writing at the moment is on TV? Because movies stopped

making drama. What do you mean? The ground dried up. Somewhere at the

end, right into the 2000, the motion picture studios for the most part

started to focus on comic book characters, and that is what they

are driven by. And real, incredible, brilliantly written, directed, acted

character drama moved to a very fertile ground which, is television.

Because creative people will go where they can work. And where they

can create. It hasn't surprised me at all. With a third series in the

pipeline, the work on House of Cards, where Spacey's Democrat,

constantly moves for power in Washington, while teasing the

audience. I pity him. If the West Wing is an idealised look at

politicians and House of Cards is the other side, which is closer to

the truth? We are closer to the truth. I make a joke now and make it

sound like President Clinton said it and he didn't, but I like pretending

he did. What do they do on the House of Cardses, 99% is true, and the 1%

wrong is you could never get an education bill get passed that fast.

Some have said it is cynical a other politicians have said it is closer

than you would like to imagine. Does that depress you? Yes. It doesn't

depress me because you know in the sense that wow that is shocking

news, it depresses me because it makes me think that people don't

want to go into public service because what is the point. And

public service is an unbelievably important thing. People say to me

would you run for politics and office, I'm like, are you kidding

mement I like to get things done. Despite the programme's cynicism

about the political cynicism, we know President Obama likes it. I

wish things were that ruthless! Has Obama disappointed you? No. I think

it is incredibly difficult to get anything done when people who are

basically in control of the house of representatives have made a

declaration that they will stop everything you wanted to try to

achieve. You know you can only play ball if everyone is playing

together. It doesn't surprise me. Do you think Frank Underwood have any

advice for him? He would kill a lot of them! When you finish at the Old

Vic, what else, back to shoe salesman, stand-up? I don't know

what's next, that is one of the most exciting things. Obviously I'm

enjoying House of Cards and that may continue beyond a third season. I

don't know. That is actually thrilling not knowing. It is

thrilling. Don't know yet. Now the 25th anniversary of the most

notorious demonstration of the brutality of the Chinese state

passed today in Beijing with hardly a mum merit. That was because the --

mummur, that is because the police and associated thugs saw to it there

was no more than a mummur. Thousands of pro-democracy were demonstrators

were killed and the Government maintain it was no more than a few

hundred. One photo remains the great image of the uprising. Tank Man

depicts a man holding his shopping bags confronting an immpossibly

menacing row of armoured vehicles. The photographer was Jeff Widener.

This is his story. I got there a week before the crackdown, and it

was a very lively event, almost a carnival atmosphere. You had

children dancing and people were singing. Even policemen were singing

together with the protestors. It was well organised and I think everybody

knew this couldn't keep going on forever. I didn't think it was going

on forever. We were all sort of wondering what the Chinese

Government was going to do to the protesters. One picture that I

photographed of a woman being caught in the middle of many soldiers near

the Great Hall of the People in my mind is where it started. The

evening of June #rd was the time when things started heating up and

so all the protesters started bringing steel barricades and

putting them in the middle of the street to block the advances of the

soldiers who might come that night. I was talking to my reporter and

then we heard this noise of metal crashing on the ground. And we're

all thinking what's going on. What's happening. Then this armoured

personnel carrier comes around the corner so fast there is sparks

coming off the threads, everyone is running and screaming and I jumped

into the ivy, I had to pull myself up and go running after this

armoured car and I wanted to run in the opposite directionment when I

got there my battery power and my flash was almost zero, I could take

one picture every 60 seconds. So imagine on one of the largest

stories in the 20th century and you can only take one picture every

minute and all hell is breaking loose. One man was on the ground on

fire, rolling around, another man was helping him, and I'm going come

on, come on, come on, and the flash would not recycle, and I'm waiting

what seemed to be an eternity, I lifted it to my eye and the minute I

lifted it me-to-my eye, I look down and blood is all over me I had a

massive concussion from a brick, from a protestor. I looked at the

back of the armoured car on fire and this is now getting very close to

midnight, and then out came a soldier to surrender, he has his

hands up in the air and I still remember that pristine look of his

uniform, how pressed it was, as clear as day in my mind, I

remembered so clearly, and the mob looked at him for a second, and then

they slowly moved in and they had pipes and weapons of all kind, and

they started beating on him. And I looked at that and I couldn't take a

picture. And I thought to myself, I'm going to lose the Pulitzer

Prize, and then I thought I should be ashamed for thinking something

like that because he's about to die. I was not staying Tebay engining

Hotel, but the Beijing Hotel was the location closest to the Tiananmen

Square. This is where journalists were going to try to get some kind

of an idea about what was going on. And everybody was scared. I have

never been so scared of all the assignments I have never been so

scared as this story. Fortunately I managed to get to the Beijing hotel.

And we made it to the roof. I went out to the balcony, and I kept

looking at the bullet hole over my head. There was one bullet hole it

kept reminding me I could easily get picked off by a sniper, it was very

unsettling to be leaning over a balcony and trying to shoot over a

wall. The man walks out in the middle of the street with his

shopping bag and I told Kirk he's screwing up my composition, and he's

saying they will shoot him. I'm focussing for the man to be shot,

I'm waiting and waiting, I know it is going to happen, I'm waiting and

focussing and nothing happens. And then I'm thinking this picture is

too far away, it is too far away, I'm looking at the bed and thinking

do I take a gamble and get the teleconverter. I gamble and I put it

on the lens I go 1-2-3 (click) I wonder what happened to him like

anyone, the big question is, it is shocking after a quarter of a

century, not only do we not know where he is or his relative, you

would think a relative would come forward and what happened to the

tank crew, what happened to the driver, what happened to the crew,

they disappeared off the face of the planet. Those guys have lives. They

have got families, where are they? Where is everybody? It is like the

twilight zone, they just disappeared. Speaking to us from

Taiwan is the Tiananmen Square protest leader. With me here in the

studio is the economist and lecturer at the LSE, and the author of When

China Rules The World, Martin Jakes. Can we come to you in Taiwan first.

You intervened and spoke to the premier, what do you think you

achieved in that protest? Any protest has the same logic, you

apply pressure and hope your opponent or Government can maybe

come up to make the right choice. And then in this case the Chinese

Communist Party have failed to do that. They chose the most unlike but

actually the worst of all the options. And then when the meeting,

when we were summoned to the Great Hall of the People to meet with one

of the leaders, we don't know home, and then he came to meet with us,

and I thought we are meeting the premier. Maybe this is the moment we

can make that pressure work, you know, finally the pressure brought

the supreme leaders, so we can tell them what we really want. What we

wanted was dialogue, and hopefully from that dialogue something can

emerge, something like freedom of expression and then maybe freedom of

assembly. And then he gave us this monolougue and then there were going

on and gone, and he's saying he's late. I thought, wow, OK, premier

being a gentleman, but then he immediately turned that to us, and

said because he's late for 20 minutes because Beijing is in such

chaos, then he blamed the students for the chaos. So the monologue

going on, the TV cameras are shooting, we don't know if it is

live broadcasting, but we know this doesn't look good, this is not what

we hoped for, this is not the dialogue we are asking for. So with

a brief exchange with the students sitting next to me, and then we

decided to interrupt him. And I did it. So I think that will at least

show the people in front of the TV a clear message that we are not here

to be talked down at. We're here to give the Government a lecture. So we

told, I told the premier that yes, you are late, but you are not 20

minutes late, we called upon you a month ago. You are a month late. So

I guess he' never prepared for being electured by a 21-year-old. So he

was stung, and that has been broadcast nationwide that evening.

Do you think you achieved anything in this protest? It is a big

question, we all know the result of that, bloodshed in China. But if the

20th century, to be recorded, I'm sure, antifascism, and the

anticommunist aggression will be the two major campaigns to record, and

then China, the Chinese students, we took on the streets, basically

started the decisive battle of the second campaign, and then that

campaign has reached victory in Eastern Europe, in Soviet European,

did we achieve that? I think in part, yes, we contributed to that.

But unfortunately we are left out, although in the last 25 years the

Chinese Government have to give in to some of the demands we made.

Never really what we wanted. But we are, yes. How live an issue is this,

if the events of Tiananmen Square, so long ago, how live an issue is it

still in China? Today it is you know, it is not a topic that

everyone discusses in society. We don't really talk about it we don't

feel t but I think what is important is the tremendous economic

development did to an extent dwarf the event itself. What about the

claim that the Chinese Government acted as it did that it suppressed

the protest and made it possible for the Chinese economy to boom along in

the way it has done since, is that true? I think that instability,

major instability is an enemy of economic development, particularly

for a developing country. Not just in China and what you can think of.

The problem for the leader of China then was unity was fundamental in

his view for economic development. The reason in way things got

completely out of control in the way they did, is the leadership became

divided and eventually it let to this tragedy, it was a tragedy that

so many people died. But what is fascinating is within extremely

short space of time, historically speaking, the country began to

resume its very rapid growth. Are the two things connected?

Absolutely, stability is critical. The fact is China lifted 800 million

people out of poverty. That is also a fundamental human right. And we

could not have achieved it without stability. You can query about the

measures and the means by which we got there, but stability,

absolutely. It comes from democracy, communism has been the major factor

for Chinese instability. What do you, as a matter of interest, what

do you do now? What do you do now? I'm a determined activist, I'm a

determined dissident. What do you do for a living? Just like other fellow

dissidents in China, for a living, of course being a dissident doesn't

put the bread on the table, I'm an investment banker! I think QEDeh!

That is the point isn't it? Was it really, would it really have been

impossible for China to have married economic freedom with political

freedom do you think? It is really easy to talk about the counter

faction, we don't know what would have happened, but what I think

against gets not emphasised enough is the major improvement of the last

20 years, and democratic elements have been introduced in society, we

see through the microblogs and the Government responding more to

people's demands. Why is it is not a live issue, this was a very, very

powerfully emotional story, that went right around the world of

people trying to demand freedom and being, and having their protests

suppressed? Why is it not resonating in China? Clearly it was an

important moment, but in terms of China as a whole, I think in the

west we probably greatly exaggerated its significance. It wasn't a

China-wide movement that drew in large numbers of people. The

extraordinary thing if you look back now, 1989, how did we interpret

1989, Tiananmen Square first, Folaued by the fall of the Berlin

wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of communism, that is

how we interpret it in the west. We were right about the Soviet Union

and Eastern Europe but wrong about China. What happened was very

quickly China's growth was resumed and the Chinese Communist Party has

presided over the greatest economic transformation in history. History,

the world does not look the same now as it did then. In China, that

image, t photograph, Tank Man, the young man stopping the prosession of

tanks, is that known or resonated in China? Plenty of people, a lot of

people are travelling abroad, students are educated abroad and see

this picture, while it is officially not present. The knowledge of that

existence of that photo is very much in the society. Thank you all very

much. That's unfortunately all we are allowed to have time for