17/06/2014 Newsnight


Is Iraq forcing us into bed with Syria and Iran? China's property bubble. What's Labour for? Fukayama and the end of history. The Isle of Man space program. With Jeremy Paxman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 17/06/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



If you thought Middle East politics were complicated, they just got a


whole lot more complicated. At what point do figures who have a common


enemy, like these three, become effectively allies. We will hear


from the Deputy Prime Minister of the newly-enlarged Kurdistan.


Remember when this signified the end of history? We hear someone who


still thinks that. You have heard of offshore banking,


the Isle of Man is now doing offshore space programmes. How does


that work again? It's pure coincidence of course that


the Foreign Secretary today announced the time was right to


reopen the British Embassy in Tehran, but having spent so much


blood and treasure taking part in George W Bush's invasion of Iraq,


both London and Washington are keen to find any friends they can in the


Middle East, no matter how unexpected they might seem. The


catastrophe sweeping through northern Iraq seems to be remaking


the map of that part of the world. Our diplomatic editor's report has


some flashing images. The swift advance of Sunni militants in


northern Iraq is seen as game changer. How does it change things,


for some the significant point means this sudden victory creates


opportunity for strategic partnership between the US and Iran.


I do think the time has come that people are beginning to waken to


that Iran is the most stable country in south-west Asia, Iran is demo


graphically, militarily, national cohesion-wise, probably the best


ally that anyone could have in the region if one were able to achieve


that. It is clear now that Iran and the United States, which has moved


its carrier group to the gulf, have a common interest in the survival of


the Nouri Al-Maliki Government in Baghdad. But you could add others to


this coalition of the apparently irreconcilable. Israel and the Sunni


monarchy in Jordan both also strongly identify ISIS as a


strategic threat. And the question now is if they can all agree that


the movement is a problem in its advances in Iraq, what's their


attitude going to be to ISIS in Syria.


Here is the man who ran the Foreign Office Syria desk until last year


and now advises the Syrian opposition. I don't think that there


is any alternative than to maintain the current policy, posture with


respect to the Assad regime. I don't think it is a viable policy to


recalibrate in the way that you are suggesting. I have heard this, I


don't think it is something that western Governments would consider


seriously. I think there is only one viable option in Syria, which is to


continue bolstering and reinforcing the efforts of the moderate Syrian


opposition forces on the ground in Syria who have been fighting the


extremist threat in Syria for the past year and continue to do so. And


while even the Israeli leader, who has visited Syrian war wounded being


treated in his country, has apparently decided that even Assad


would be better than a ISIS victory, he and many others in the region are


all too aware that doesn't necessarily make their enemies


enemy, Iran, their friend. Iran is playing it like a chess game and its


objective is the jackpot which is the control of Syria, Iraq and


Lebanon, through its militias that it has on the ground. The United


States is playing it more like a poker game, aiming for a quick win


without looking at the larger strategic picture. In places like


this suburb of Damascus, the Free Syrian Army has local truces with


Assad's forces. But as a BBC team there discovered, even that is a


fragile arrangement. How well is the ceasefire holding here? (Gunfire)


TRANSLATION: Not very well, you can hear the clashes. Moderate Syrian


groups like this are fighting ISIS as well as the regime. Increasing


aid to the FSA could be the most likely western response to Jihadist


games, rather than cosying up to President Assad. The moderate forces


on the ground have been fighting on two months now for some time. They


are doing that with limited capabilities. I think the time has


come now to redouble those efforts. And the signs are in some of what


has been happening over the last few months with western and Arab policy


is there is a recognition that more needs to be done with those moderate


forces. And certainly redoubling those efforts, stepping up those


efforts is the way to go. But the success of President Assad in


holding on to power, and the failure of the international diplomatic


process designed to ease him from office does beg questions of western


policy. While open alliance will remain too distasteful for Britain


or America, a resumption of some secret co-operation with Iran and


Syria is quite possible. Let's try to make a little more sense of this


now with my guests, a fellow in the Middle East Chatham House, and a


journalist and author of The Road from Damascus. I suppose all bets


are off now aren't they in the Middle East? It is a good sign now


that the west is seriously considering talking with Iran,


specifically on the Iraqi file. The Americans and Iranians share


strategic interests in Iraq, they both support the demographic process


and the Iraqi Government, they share a common enemy in ISIS. The recent


developments are encouraging I think. It will also open up the


discussions over the nuclear file and broader Middle East. It is a


funny situation when Iran is a potential ally in Iraq and


continuing enemy in Syria? Well, if it is an enemy in Syria I think the


west is very confused at the moment about what it is doing. It seems, I


don't think there should have been sanctions on Iran in the first


place. But it does seem very upsetting that there is a


reroachment with Iran over ISIS. In Syria Iran has militias on the


ground supporting the regime slaughtering the people, and in Iraq


itself where it has encouraged the most sectarian instincts of the


Al-Maliki Government. What we have seen in Iraq is not the success of


ISIS, which is a weak group, it is the failure of the Iraqi state and


of course the collapse of the Syrian state. Iran, along with other


countries too, but Iran is very complicit in that collapse in both


countries. I think it would be, in the short-term, maybe beneficial to


deal with Iran. I can see why people want to because Iran has an


organised military, and it is an organised country and they can go


in, they could establish order if they wanted to in Iraq. In the


medium and long-term it is a disaster because Sunni Arab


communities are going to be more enraged and become maybe the


sectarian backlash that has been overexaggerated which will be bigger


if they see Iran walking over Syrian and Iraqi sovereignty. I don't think


it is fair to compare Syria with Iraq, the Prime Minister unlike with


Syria isn't a dictator that has inherited because of his father. It


is unfair to portray ISIS as Sunni, they are also killing Sunnis as well


as Shias. This uneasy relationship between ISIS and other insurgent


groups won't last forever. They are strange bed fellows and it is a


marriage of convience. In coming weeks we will see Syria with


infighting between the rebels, you will have ba'athist insurgents and


Sunni and Shia all fighting each other as well as the Iraqi


Government. It is important to stress something people don't


realise since January it was a grey area which side ISIS is on. Since


January there is no excuse for the greyness, all of the Syrian


opposition group, the Islamist and Islamic front, even the victory


front that is Al-Qaeda linked, all of these groups have been fighting


against ISIS. So ISIS is a common enemy of everybody, it seems, but it


is helping Assad really, . But that means President Assad is on the same


side as much of the west? In fighting ISIS? Well he is producing


the chaos in which ISIS thrives. Whenever he has been following a


scourged earth policy in Syria, any part of the country which he can't


control he has been devastating, from aerial bombardment and other


means, sieges and so on. That means there are massive refugees flowing


out of the country. It means that there are no schools, no hospitals


working, no economy going. Into this chaos it is very easy for, and


sometimes with the help of neighbouring states, we were talking


about Turkey earlier, it is very easy for international Jihad


tourist, psychopaths and kneelists to come -- nihilists to come in. It


has got so strained in Iraq that they have been able to come back in.


These people come wherever there is a chaos. Assad has created a chaos


in Syria by committing a near genocide and massive "ethnic


cleansing". This ref news in Syria started -- revolution in Syria


started and continues as a fight for democracy and freedom and freedom of


expression, it was remarkable that it wasn't sectarian for the whole of


2011 and then under the strain of Assad's war it began to come down.


There is no question that Assad created the chaos, but ISIS is a


monster of its own. There is a seemingly endless supply of funds


coming from western allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait. From


private donors absolutely. The Governments are doing very little to


combat. One viable policy of the west, if it doesn't want to get


engaged militarily in Syria is to do more to stop its allies, to do more


to pressure its allies to stop ISIS getting funds from these private


donors? I agree absolutely, it is very important too. But I think


making a deal with Iran is the wrong idea. Make the Saudis or pressure


them and other gulf countries the UAE and the Kuwait, make them


pressure private donors, who may be important people to stop donating,


they are not helping the Syrians. Even the Syrian Islamists don't want


the ISIS people there. They are obviously not helping the Iraqis,


they are confusing the issues and actually making it more difficult


for Sunni Arabs to get their rights. The Iranians are a reality on the


ground in Iraq. If the west seriously wants to combat ISIS it is


about time to start talking with Iranians on Iraq. I'm happy to see


Barack Obama saying he won't take action until Al-Maliki changes his


approach to the Sunni-Arab issue. I hope he's also leaning on the


Iranians, they need their military security help to face this monster


that has just exploded, the reason this monster has exploded is because


of the sectarianism, you are quite right, the democratically elected


Iraqi Government and because of the genocide going on in Syria which


Iran is supporting which, is radicalising Sunnis around the


world. It takes two to Tango, Iran is not operating out of a vacuum in


Iraq, there is the Saudis, Qatar, and other states involved in Iraq,


and variously in domestic affairs. Thank you very much. Sandwiched amid


all of this is the autonomous region of Kurdistan which stretches across


Syria and into Iraq and Iran. The in coming Deputy Prime Minister spoke


to me shortly before coming on air. I asked him whether he thought Prime


Minister Nouri Al-Maliki was capable of holding the country together?


Prime Minister Al-Maliki's policies to date have not done a good job of


keeping this country together. His sectarian ways have really caused a


sectarian response from many parts of the country. So unless there is a


rapid change of policies coming out of the federal Government I'm afraid


this country is facing more and more crises. Do you think it will break


up? It has the risk of breaking up unless there is a serious dialogue


with a serious change in attitude from the federal Government. Because


this country has not been able to govern in a way that's made


everybody feel part of this country, we in Kurdistan have had our


complaints. Clearly many in the centre and west of the country have


had their grievances. They are now showing their grievances in a very


different way. Do you fear ISIS? ISIS is a real threat, it is a real


threat to Iraq, it is a threat to stability and some of what we have


seen over the last few days have caused us much concern, so we're


very concerned about the current situation and we're hopeful that


through our efforts and through the efforts of others we can calm the


situation and we can try to live in a stable country. It is a very odd


situation, isn't it, from an outsiders point of view, you look in


and you see Mr Al-Maliki, President Assad, President Obama, the Kurdish


authorities, all effectively on the same side? Well, sometimes people's


national interests and strategic interests sometimes you know


overcome internal differences, but obviously there is all kinds of


complication to this, there is not a zero sum game, there are threats


caused byies circumstance but there are also major disappointments in


the way that Prime Minister Al-Maliki's Government has


functioned to date. It is not a black and white situation Jeremy. At


the end of all of this of course Kurdistan could end up leaving Iraq,


couldn't it? I think it is more likely that Iraq could end up


leaving Kurdistan. We have done everything we can to make this


country successful, we have done everything we can to make this


country look very different to what it used to look like during Saddam's


days and prior to that. But regrettably politics has failed in


Iraq, and people have not stuck to the principles that formed the


post-Saddam Iraq. We have continued to stick to the principles that we


fought so hard for during the days when we were in the opposition and


when we drafted the constitution of the country, we have committed to


that constitution, but if others are not committed to that constitution


then ultimately it will lead to more chaos and potentially the break up


of the country. Thank you very much for joining us. My pleasure.


The Queen was wheeled out, military bands played, speeches were made and


human rights protesters were ignored. It was another visit from a


Chinese notable today, no mention was made of supression of dissidents


and that sort of thing, because today Britain was busy oiling up to


the Chinese premier in the hope of getting some business. But while


Chinese growth is often seen as an unstoppable force, there are growing


worries about just what is happening in its property market. Our


economics correspondent weighs it up.


In Britain we love to talk about house prices. It is an obsession.


Recently we have begun fretting about another bubble. But the


property market we should be worrying about is not in London or


the south-east of England, it is at the other end of the world, in


China. There are rising fears that China has become consumed in a


credit and property bubble that dwarves anything in Britain or the


west. I think Chinese real estate is probably the most important sector


in the world economy. Because so much of what China has imported over


the last five-to-fifteen years, actually, which is consistent with


its remarkable and perhaps unique economic success and construction


has really driven a lot of the world's economy. Something happens


to China real estate, we will all feel a little bit of that news. As


the Chinese premier continues his visit to the UK, it is the Chinese


property market that is keeping people awake at night. When the


global crisis hit, China launched its on stimulus, banks were told to


lend, state-owned companies were instructed to invest and it worked.


Whilst the US and Europe languished in recession, China's economy grew


strongly. But what really drove that growth was a huge increase in


construction, much of it funded by debt. House building soared from


around six million units a year before 2008 to over ten million a


year recently. Here in leafy North London it is quite hard to build new


houses and so prices are rising. Over in China though they have the


opposite problem. Too many houses have been built, supply is


outstripping demand, and in some urban areas one in five properties


are now standing vie cannot. Chinese growth has finally begun to slow,


property prices are falling and the big fear is a housing slowdown will


hit the rest of the economy. The debate now is between those who


think China can achieve a soft landing and those who think it is


heading for a hard one. A hard landing, in which the property and


credit bubbles burst and growth collapses would have a huge impact


on the global economy. One investment bank has estimated it


would mean world GDP would be 2. 5% lower in 2016. That's almost $2


trillion. But not everyone is running scared of the hard landing


just yet. Urban populations their demands for housing are mostly met,


but there is a large contingent of rural population that doesn't have


housing yet. It is very much in the Chinese dream to own a property in


urban areas, so there will still be pent-up demand for housing coming


from the rural population. I think the medium-term horizon is enough


demand for housing. China's property market is looking distinctly ropey.


No country is ever experiencing this kind of build-up in debt without it


ending in tears. If something is unsustainable it will eventually


end. But that eventually could be further away than many seem to


assume. Time and time again in the last two decades, China's economic


performance has confounded its critics. Whether or not it can avoid


a property market crash is one of the really big questions in global


economics. It probably makes more sense to worry about condough prices


in Nanjing than the cost of a semi, in Dorking. There were interesting


inflation figures out today? As interesting as inflation gets. These


were very interesting? They are of interest to those who are not


economists. Inflation has fallen all the way down to 1. 1.5%. That is the


lowest inflation has been in five years. What is interesting about


that is this isn't really supposed to happen. The last few years the


economy hasn't been, until very recently, the economy wasn't growing


very strongly and inflation was high. Now the economy is growing


very strongly indeed and inflation is low. Usually it would be the


other way around. And alongside this, very low price rises, but


quite big moves in house prices, 10% across the country. Almost 20% in


London. But most of us have got accustomed to being told by


politicians that inflation is the enemy and eats up people's savings


and the like, surely very low inflation is a good thing? You might


think that, but what you really want is it is like Goldilock's porridge,


not too hot and not too cold, just right. The Bank of England has a


target of 2%, it is not low it is 2%, at the moment inflation is below


target. This is confusing analysts out in the City. Only last week the


Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, stood up and said we


might have to raise interest rates, the reason you raise interest rates


is because inflation is too high. Today we find out it is a bit too


low. You are not seriously suggesting there might be an attempt


to stoke up inflation a little bit? It seems unlikely that we might try


to stoke up inflation, we might get to that point, that is the point the


European Central Bank are at. The reason the Bank of England can't do


that is because of what is happening in the housing market. You can't cut


interest rates when the housing market is up 20%. They might use


some of their new tools. What is the outlook for inflation, if you asked


people in Whitehall they are looking at what we covered in the top of the


programme. They are looking at the Middle East and Ukraine. And they


are thinking back to early 2011 during the Arab Spring when unrest


in the Middle East, the oil price goes up and pulls up inflation, very


bad for the economy and for consumers. Thank you. Ed Miliband,


what's he for? The question that bedevils modern politics may finally


get an answer over the next few weeks. The Labour Party has set up a


number of inquiries to tell it what it ought to do with itself. What was


once done by core conviction and block votes at Labour Party


Conferences, is now the businesses of think tanks and policy wonks. The


first inquiry into what it ought to promise in social policy reports the


day after tomorrow. Chris Cook reads this sort of stuff for fun. Radical.


Radical. Radical. Radical. Radical. It is clear what word Ed Miliband


would use about himself, and we're about to find out if it is true.


John Cruddus, his policy thinker has commissioned three big reports, the


first from IPPR, comes out this week, Labour will have to decide


which bits of it make it to the manifesto. A lot of people in the


Labour Party think that Ed Miliband needs to promise to build a bold new


design for Britain. To come up with what they call "the big offer". They


feel if he will win back blue collar voters in particular and match the


popularity for his promise to freeze gas prices, he needs a range of


other radical policies. I think there is big policy ideas out there


that attract a lot of popular support, like common ownership of


railways. But there is also ideas like contribution in welfare and


contribution in the boardroom as well as the benefits office, that if


Labour embraces in terms of policy will have more effect in persuading


voters we are on their side. Labour can't spend big so one of the ideas,


to use the jargon, that more investments matched by less


entitlement. That means spending money on things that will cut


benefits spending later. We pay ?24 billion in housing benefit and we


pay ?1 billion to build new houses, it plays into the hands of landlords


putting up the rents and all your money is getting swallowed in terms


of what you send out to your landlord. That is not straight


forward. Let's say you want to spend less on housing benefit because you


are going to build more house, that's fine, but you have got to


build the houses first. Before people can live in them. So in the


short-term that means spending more and that opens Labour up to


accusations of profligacy. We will send out the questions of whether


people can trust politicians, frankly the people who got us in the


mess in the first place we have spent the last four years getting


out of. There is a real credibility problem with those who made the


mistakes, haven't apologised for them and shown no signs of learning


lessons. That is one of the strong messages we will repeat now and


through to the election. Their policies don't match up to the big,


bold radical network they have been espousing for the last few years. In


short voters might feel that what they actually get from Labour


doesn't quite match up to what's on the box. Scars of old Labour defeats


on credibility, particularly 1992, run deep through the party. Talk for


example of nationalised railways will set nerves on the party's right


jangling. So there is a quiet debate going on about all of this inside


the machine. There is a difference of opinion between weather the


Labour Party should simply hope for a small technical win, presuming


that if we just hold on to the foot that we got in 2010 and get some


Liberal Democrats over, Ed Miliband can become Prime Minister. But there


is another path open to us, it is harder and more ambition, and that


is to -- ambitious, that is to speak to voters left behind by politics,


who may have stopped voting or considering UKIP these days. That


will require big policy ideas and big changes in the way we organise


as a party. So the argument isn't really about radicalism or not,


restoring the contributory principle to welfare, for example, is radical


but uncontroversial. The real question is whether Labour dares to


be radical in areas where it opens them up to attack. The real test


will be where it must spend money, like on social care and housing, and


on contentious areas like the public ownership of rail or energy.


So the Prime Minister polished his shoes for the Chinese premier today


while the Foreign Secretary said it was time to reopen the embassy in


Iran. How the world turns? The speed with which an apparently pacified


Iraq has collapsed into Civil War is another warning not to take anything


for granted. It is 25 years now since the events of a revolutionary


year. The Berlin wall, a physical symbol of the Cold War was torn


down. A wave of protests spread across Eastern Europe from Poland to


Romania. In China, students faced death whilst protesting in Tiananmen


Square. And a brilliant young American political scientist,


Francis Fukiama, said the end of communism might bring the end of


history, he added a question mark in the original version. What do we


make of it now. He joins me from Stamford university, author of The


End Of His treatment we are joined by Simon Sharman and Melissa Lane,


from Princeton is here in the studio. It didn't end did it? You


have to understand the term "end" properly. End meant not termination,


the question was in the grand philosophical sense of the evolution


of human societies in what direction was history pointing? And for 100


years progressive intellectuals believed it was pointing towards a


communist utopia. I made the simple observation in 1989 that it didn't


look like we were going to get there. If we were going to end up at


any place it would be something like liberal democracy and the market


economy, and I think that still is the most likely termination point of


the whole modernisation process, 25 years later. Melissa Lane what do


you think? The professor suggested that we couldn't judge his thesis


yet, we weren't at the end, we could just see the end in the future. The


thesis didn't explore the tensions between liberal democracy and


capitalism. Those are the tensions we are seeing ever more alive today.


Simon Sharma? Well I think actually what really happened, which is


extraordinary, is that a small obstinate, violent, vicious little


terrier bit us in the leg while we were looking at the great


philosophical horizon. That was religious fanaticism. What the model


did not predict was the massive return of systems of belief. Partly


it was hopeless at predicting it, and it is hopeless talking about it


now. I wonder how many in your magnificent 25 years, how many


nights you have spent on Newsnight with people talking about religion


and spirituality and mass allegiance. We are still hopeless at


constructing an argument for liberal tolerant society. We need to go back


to Locke, Jeff Jefferson, and others. Those in the grip of


fundamentalism is simply a plutocratic device for getting more


and more consumers goods unless you are starving to death in the middle


of a miserable desert somewhere in Asia or Africa. So what the end of


history failed to predict was that history was looking backwards


towards religion, ethnicity, tribalism and nationalism, and that


is what we have to deal with. History does tend to look backwards?


I think that overstates the importance of religion in the


contemporary world. We need a little perspective here. In the 40 years


between the 1970s and the crisis of 2008, we went from 35 democracies in


the world to 120. A lot of them are very, very imperfect, for the last


few years a lot of them have been backsliding, Turkey, Nicaragua,


Burma, that is a positive case though. So there have been setbacks,


but the world is a very, very different place than it was two


generations ago. I think democracy has become the norm. I think even in


the Middle East, where you have the centre of this kind of religious


low-based politics, very many people do not want ISIS, this kind of


radical Jihadism, they want Governments that are responsive and


actually a lot of the calls for Sharia Law are due to the fact that


the Governments there are so authoritarian and unresponsive and


unconstrained, that they actually do want something like the rule of law


to reduce corruption. So I think this popular mobilisation for more


responsive Government still remains extremely powerful force all over


the world. But there is an alternative future being sketched


out by these people. Whether or not you agree with them they are


sketching out an alternative future, aren't they? Some of them are the


jury is still out on how many people will flock to the standard. It is


interesting how many people in t Muslim world are not flocking to


that standard and the Arab Spring was pulling in the opposite


direction. We don't know what it will be. It was a colossal failure.


The Arab Spring was a colossal failure. Not in Tunisia. The party


it brought to power were the Muslim Brotherhood who have been replaced


by an authoritarian antidemocratic regime. I was speaking about Tunisia


not Egypt. Well that doesn't suggest to me that the Arab Spring, a moment


of brief honeymoon euphoria was any kind of template for what is


unfolding now. The trouble is we talk about terrorism, we talk about


terrorism and that is a lazy way to describe immense communities gripped


by systems of belief. Burma is not an encouraging case. Burma is the


case where you actually have Buddhism on the violent March


against Muslims. That is not a particularly encouraging situation.


Can we explore this other area that you mentioned earlier which is this


tension between liberal democracy and market capitalism which seems to


be evident now? I think it is all the way back to Greek society and


Greek ideas that you have to have political equality. And the question


is can you have that with economic inequality. With rising economic


inequality I think the cause of political equality is becoming


fragile and more and more difficult to be confident that democracies can


maintain that in a meaningful way. If you add to that the constraints


caused by environmental pressures I think liberal democracy and


capitalism as a recipe for the future is looking increasingly under


strain. What do you make of that argument? Well I agree with Melissa


completely that the rising degree of unequality in countries like the


United States and Britain is a very major challenge. Because if you


don't have a broad middle-class I don't think you will have the kind


of broad support for democracy that the system needs. I'm not sure it is


capitalism per say is producing this. One of the highest rates of


inequality anywhere is the only half marketised China. It is the progress


of technology itself that is destroying a lot of middle-class


jobs. It is not clear to me there is an alternative system out there that


will produce the kind of wealth we have come to expect from modern


economies that is actually going to solve this problem of middle-class


decline. Do you think the world has become a safer place though in the


last 25 years? No. Not really. I think I agree with the last point of


both Francis and Melissa, but I think one extra turn of the knife is


the slow death of the planet. The wars we have not yet seen as wars,


they are wars for water resources, for example. Melissa and Francis are


quite right to suggest that for example the nasty surprise of


massive pollution in China has put an incredible dent in the way in


which the entire authority of the country legitimises itself. And over


the next 25 years, over the next 50 years, without being sanctimonious


about having to face climate change, it will have both a political and


economic impact. For teeth of that particular difficulty it is starting


to bite. You were nodding vigorously there Melissa? I think that is


absolutely right. If we go back to the end of history thesis, part of


the thesis was we had to restore, consciousness, ideas, ideology as


the driving moators of history, not material forces. But the environment


is a major weak-up call from the material forces. We need now to


intergrate the role of forces, and that is something that the history


thesis didn't fully do. You don't feel then that the world has become


a much safer place? I think there are different time horizons of


safety, and if we are looking 20, 30, 50 years down the road. It is


far from safer. That is because you worry about resource wars is it?


Resource wars, and simply climate change. Global warming. You know


dirty bombs. Hang on. Let's give Francis a little bit of a chance to


get a word in edgeways here. Come on. Look I do think that a little


bit of impericim would help. If you look at the levels of violence they


are going down. A lot of political scientists follow this exactly. The


possibility of a major war between two big industrialised countries,


which is what we experienced in the two world wars in the 20th century,


the chance of that is vanishingly small. So I think you know


responding to the headlines you get the impression there is ever


increasing chaos in the world, but in fact we live in a world knit


together through a system of globalised trade and investment that


has produced a tremendous amount of prosperity and quite a lot of piece


throughout very much of the world. You were trying to say something? I


have to say that is the view from Palo Alto, which is a beautiful


place. The view from the Democratic Republic of Congo, or the view from


south Sudan, the view from the hellish low intensity wars that go


on and on and on and on. Massive violence against women and children.


When in the last 100 years couldn't you have picked examples of this.


But as I said, if you do this on a really empirical basis, I think


there is no question that the number of conflicts and their intensity has


fallen over the last two generations. The last word Melissa?


The yes of the end of history was really whether the ideas had come to


an end. I think actually as we see all the challenges we face we


realise we need new ideas and we can't rest completely with the old


ones. Thank you very much. The Kennedy


Space Centre, the CosmoDrome and now the Isle of Man, 45 years after


Armstrong and Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon, the


conquest of space has changed out of recognition. Armstrong may have come


in peace for all mankind, but space today is more about commerce. We


report now on the rival to NASA to be found in the middle of the Irish


Sea. I think there is a real space treasure in here. This is fan it is


a tickets I have always wanted to see one of these.


These Russian-built spacecraft were designed back in the 1970s, but they


have proved themselves in space. American lawyer here has bought them


with the idea of putting space tourists into space. It will cost


upwards of ?50 million to do it. This This last been in space. There


is hardly any leg room at all. But I would do it. I mean even though it


is not comfortable, I would pay the money and get out there. What I find


slightly freaky is I'm sitting in a Russian space capsule in a hanger in


the Isle of Man. Who would have thought it, it is quite bizarre.


Those spaceships are part of a space revolution on this tiny island. It


is 32 miles long with a total population of only 85,000 people.


But it is prosperous, because it is not part of the EU or the UK. Which


means it can set low taxes and give generous Government grants. There


are 30 space-related companies on the island. Including four of the


world's top ten satellite organisations. Together with experts


in space finance, regulation and law, this builds up to a $300


million a year industry. The island's Government has a history of


chasing new areas of business. Hello, lovely to see you in the Isle


of Man. The space breakthrough came in 2001. At that time we were


looking for new things for the Isle of Man to do. We have a very


successful ship registry here. Very successful aircraft registry and the


Government had the vision to get involved in acquiring things like


orbital farming slots. Satellites sweep around the earth in their own


protected volume of space, a firing spot. What gives it an advantage is


satellite operators have to apply for them in the country, even the


Isle of Man. It attempts the island's attempt to capitalise on


the third era of space. Space exploration started in the 1950s as


a competition. A race to be the first into orbit and the first to


the moon. . By the 170s the race was over and collaboration was the key.


Apollo, and Soyuez astronauts shook hands in space in 1979. By the 21st


century the space station was a multinational project. But still


dominated by nation states. I believe we're entering the third era


of space, and it is an era of commercialisation. We are launching


more and more satellites every day. Space tourism is taking off


literally. The global space industry is booming, especially here on the


Isle of Man. It looks small scale but this company is part of that new


era. His team built space optics for NASA's Mars Rover. The Isle of Man


has links to the international space university in Strasbourg. 60 of


their graduates work on the island. And the unemployment rate here is


just 2%. There are also the advantages of the Isle of Man, it is


a very stable and low-crime environment. If you look around you


here there is lots of expensive equipment and we know we can lock


the company on a Friday or Saturday and come back on the Monday morning


and everything will be in its place. Now I don't want to exaggerate the


Isle of Man's toe hold on the growing commercialisation of space.


But it has formed a whole new industry for the Isle of Man to


exploit. Especially in satellite operations. This is the type of a


cube satellite, they do simple experiments in space, but they need


to get into space, to do that they piggy back on the launch speaks of


other big satellites. You might get one big one and 25 of these. Once


they are out there, that means there is a who collection of things


orbiting the earth every 90 minutes, faster than a speeding bullet. If


they collide it causes chaos. To sort out the resulting financial


chaos, you need people like Chris. Wherever there is money there is


regulation, and space is one of the most regulated industries in the


world. Space law, how can it be enforced, it is out there? It was


put in there to prevent people claiming Celestial bodies in space.


You can't land on the moon and say it is yours. It is from maritime


law, it belongs to none and belongs to all. From that noble start space


law has grown to cover everything, orbiting the earth. It is complex


and comprehensive. It is almost the space version of car insurance. A


lot of the companies come here probably, I hate to say it, for the


most boring part of space. For us we are excited by this, this is the


business of space. In a world gone mad the Isle of Man, and Britain,


were seen as the safe, stable bit. The Isle of Man's success brings


home the economic opportunities that have been created now that space


exploration is moving from a state-funded model to a commercial


business. That's about it for tonight. Here is what the producer


insists is a quick peek at tomorrow's show. Show you how


delightful it is to cycle in London. It is not delightful, it is a bloody


nightmare. It is wonderful. This is the most difficult machine I have


tried to cycle on, but Newsnight procured it. I'm going over this


way, all right. Before we go tonight, a reminder of a momentous


week for fans of the selfie, Twitter unveiled a drony account for sell


fees taken on cameras mounted on drones. Their first posting was a


slick-looking shot of Patrick Stewart at Cannes. We thought of


something else. A lot of dry weather to come through


the rest of the week, that said it will be a dull and damp start to the


day across many parts of England and Wales tomorrow morning. Hopefully


things will brighten up. The best of the sunshine will be across Northern


Ireland and Scotland. Another


Download Subtitles