11/12/2015 Newsnight


Newsnight is live from the Paris climate change conference as the deadline approaches. Former energy secretary Ed Miliband is live in the studio. With Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/12/2015. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



After two weeks of talks, and with one deadline already


missed, is the clock running out on plans for a comprehensive


We will be live in Paris for the very latest on talks


And the former Labour leader Ed Miliband discusses


We are doing so well in all the polls. A poll came out two days ago.


We are number one. And so it seems, despite this week's


hugely controversial call to ban Muslims from entering the US, we'll


ask if Donald Trump is unstoppable. Also tonight, the embassy,


the Ukrainian militia, Who told us that they had found


these paintings in the war zone in some house related to someone a


friend of the former president. And in Artsnight, a profile


of photographer Juergen Teller, whose shots of Kanye West


and Kim Kardashian made global They are Americans, and then a


good-looking French chateaux, it doesn't look quite right. That is


why they got married in some nice place in Tuscany. I rather was


attracted to the sandpit. "Nothing is agreed until everything


is agreed." The words of the chairman


of the climate change talks in Paris, the French Foreign


Minister Laurent Fabius, are still echoing around


the conference centre tonight way past the official deadline,


with a new deadline for a deal Tonight he promised the deal


could be "a big step forward But money is the major sticking


point, specifically the level of compensation for poor countries


to cope with the restrictions required to slow down climate


change, and the issue of which countries get what money,


especially with the ambition for a limit of a 1.5% rather


than 2% temperature increase. Today in Paris, Greenpeace turned


the Arc de Triomphe into a sermon, using one hopes what are some sort


of naturally biodegradable pen. Behind all of the science, much of


the argument now is a messy fight about money. The question is who


pays, the developed or the developing world? Carbon emissions


per person have been falling in the developed economies and 70s.


Meanwhile, industrialisation has driven them higher in many


developing economies. That in the late 90s at the time of the Kyoto


deal, Chinese emissions were well below European levels but rapid


industrial growth has since pushed them higher. At Copenhagen in 2009


it was agreed that less developed countries would carry some of the


burden of producing emissions, but the deal was sweetened with a


promise that by 2020 $100 billion a year would be made available to


finance climate change mitigation and adaption. Ultimately there is


almost certainly going to be a need for much much higher figures. Those


won't come just from the budgets of developed countries, they will also


come from export credit agencies. They will come from multilateral


development banks, and indeed they will come from the private sector


itself that hopefully will be able to see their way towards profitable


investment opportunities. Halfway to 2020, and that 100 billion has not


yet been hit. Bilateral public climate aid from government stood at


$23 billion last year. Another 20 billion came from multilateral


organisations like the World Bank, a couple of billion from export


credits and almost 17 billion from the private sector. The path to 100


billion is still being debated tonight in Paris. Some countries are


obviously rich and expected to step up. Others obviously poor and


expected to benefit, but what about those in between? China and India


have much larger economies than save the UK but both argue that most


historical carbon emissions have come from the developed West.


Advanced economies, they say, must bear a particular burden. And whilst


India's economy might be three times as large as Britain's income per


head is just 15% of UK levels. The hot topic in Paris tonight is what


is being called differentiation, which is basically a fancy way of


saying should India, China, Brazil and the rest be paying into that 100


billion target? What they want to make sure is that that isn't coming


at the expense of the developed countries need to do. They don't


want to substitute what developed countries need to do, they want to


compensated. So they are working on the exact language to work on how


developed countries need to play their part, and provide a finance


needed, but we can expect to see from Clement Ric efforts now


recognised by some of those emerging economies. The night the talks are


dragging on, there is broad agreement on the cover those in the


world economy but very little agreement on who will pay for that.


For those most affected, there really is no plan B.


The BBC's science editor, David Shukman, is in Paris


David Shukman, intense horse trading up to the last minute, what is the


chance, do you think, of some kind of deal by nine o'clock tomorrow


morning? CHUCKLING I think no chance of that. The


French have invested a huge amount of political capital in trying to


crack this. They had hoped to do today but obviously failed, because


some of the issues that Duncan mentioned are really so difficult,


and runs so deep is a fault line through this whole process. The idea


of them coming up with a new draft tomorrow morning is obviously


welcomed here, but for people who have watched this process over the


years, they say it is just inconceivable that it can be sorted


within a fewer hours of that. Many people expect this might well run


over another day in the Sunday, because the difficulties are so


immense. I mean, we have heard about some of them, the question of money,


that is really fraught, but let me give you another one. Running right


through this process is the idea, the desire among many countries, for


the text that comes out at the end of this to be legally binding. They


see that as the only to give the process some teeth. But the word


legally binding, that phrase, is anathema to the Americans, because


anything legal might look like a treaty, which they would have to


take the Congress with a very poor chance indeed of getting it through.


Another really difficult question is reviewing each country's voluntary


carbon plans. Under the system operating now, more than 180


countries have come up with their own voluntary proposals for how they


would deal with the emissions stop but Britain and others say there has


to be a review of that. Every five years. China doesn't like that, the


French have got a deal with that and hope to do it tomorrow.


With me now in the studio is the former Labour leader


and the Climate Change Secretary during the Copenhagen talks,


the last big chance to find a global deal.


Ed Miliband. Obviously there was huge optimism going into this but


you have the memory of Copenhagen. If they don't get a deal tomorrow


morning, which is the cut-off, if they don't get a deal on Sunday than


it has been too ambitious. It feels like a global version of your kids


homework crisis, doesn't it? With this last-minute business. But I


would give some reassurance here, there have been 21 of these


meetings, they have always gone into injury time, and injury time in the


injury time. My personal view and I am obviously not there is that they


will get a deal. From the text I saw this morning, the draft text, it


will be an ambitious deal. I can't tell you that the certain that my


sense is that too many countries have come too far. China wants a


deal, the United States want a deal, yes, there is lots of difficult


issues, in particular developed and developing countries, and if you


like who bears the responsibility, finance, cutting emissions. Maybe I


am an optimistic person but I think there probably will be an agreement.


But the actual permutations should have been sorted out on this


question of the hundred billion, who pays income who gets out, long


before the horse trading has been going on surely quietly before they


reached Paris two weeks ago? I think it is not that the issues weren't


known about, it is that the negotiations were always going to go


right down to the wire, because that is the way these things are. I wish


it weren't so. But this is the way these things have always been done.


I don't want to sound like Pollyanna about this but it is much further on


than Copenhagen. At this stage, Copenhagen was collapsing around our


ears and ending up in a 3-page agreement. There are 27 pages or so


of text, there are a fuel as far as I can tell outstanding issues.


Critical issues. President Obama has rung the Chinese president tonight


and is sort of right in there. As I say, I am optimistic. But is this


simply about political will, really in the end, or is it about hard


cash? I think it is about both. The reason I think there will be a


agreement is the political will question is being answered in the


affirmative by the countries that matter. And there is something quite


interesting about this agreement, which you mentioned, which is this


1.5 degrees then. 2 degrees which you mentioned, which is this


has been seen as the benchmark but 2 degrees is a dangerous tipping


point. I think if they can come out with 1.5 degrees as the benchmark


for this. That will really mark a new beginning. But there is a whole


issue as well as to why China and India should be getting any


compensation. They are a growing industrialised country, why are they


going to get money back out? This is the very compensated issue of loss


and damage, how Duport countries get compensated for loss and damage done


by developed countries? My sense is that China and India are not really


asking for cash in this, maybe that is part of it, but in the end this


is about the Marshall islands will disappear potentially if we go above


1.5 degrees. This is about the most vulnerable countries. And about


having some magnanimity in this but what there isn't either is


sanctions. And that I think is a hugely problem because who would


administer them and who would pay for them? I think that there aren't


sanctions, I would prefer if there was a tougher regime but you are


trying to do something so difficult, and frankly you are pushing the


boundaries of political will. Let me say on this legally binding point,


though, my sense is that there is broad at least implicit agreement


that ministers will not be put in jail if they don't meet the targets,


right? But the fact that countries have to put forward pledges, the


first time that has ever happened, and the way they will be monitored,


adding that will be legally binding. Again, that is a significant step


forward from where we were six years ago. I don't have skin in the game,


in the sense that I have helped negotiate this agreement but I


recognise progress when I see it. If there isn't a deal on Sunday or


Monday... It will be very bad. Before we finish, a quick word on


Stop The War Coalition. The you think our Labour leader should be a


member? Honestly that is a matter for him. I am not going to


commentate. Jeremy Corbyn has a long-standing association with this


organisation, he has a long-standing opposition to different types of


intervention. If I may say, I think our party's focus should be on


taking the fight to the Tories and working out the ideas that will win


as the next general election, not Jeremy Corbyn's political


engagements. Well, tonight, Jeremy Corbyn


was the guest of honour at a Stop the War coalition


fundraiser in London. The former chairman of Stop


the War for four years, until his election as leader


of the Labour Party in September, was due formally


to hand over tonight. He told the dinner guests that


"the Stop the War Coalition has been one of the most important democratic


campaigns of modern times". He had been urged not to attend


the dinner by former Labour frontbenchers Caroline Flint


and Emma Reynolds, and the Green Party MP


Caroline Lucas stepped down as a patron of Stop the War over


statements made in response An article was published


on its website, which said that France had "reaped the whirlwind"


of Western support for extremist Our reporter, Secunder Kermani,


has been at the south London restaurant where the event


is taking place tonight. What has been going on, set the


scene for us. So, Stop the War coalition


supporters have been enjoying a three-course Turkish meal


in the restaurant behind me. It's the annual Christmas


fundraiser, but this year it's caused controversy,


because Jeremy Corbyn He had been the chair of this


coalition. That's controversial


because Stop the War have been heavily criticised for a number


of recent articles, including saying Paris attacks were reaping


the whirlwind of western policy Now the group took the articles


down, they say that doesn't represent their official line,


but earlier this week it emerged that Green MP Caroline Lucas had


stepped down from a leadership role partly because of


what they had said. And there have been calls


from a number of Labour MPs for Corbyn to disassociate


himself from the group. One Shadow Cabinet member told me


he thinks Corbyn should not But his supporters say it's a big


smear campaign by the right wing


of the Labour Party. Right-wing Labour, helped


by the media, has made it divisive. The Stop The War committee was not


a controversial organisation at all until a war was begun


in England against Jeremy Corbyn. A war waged by the media,


waged by the BBC and waged by the right wing


of the Labour Party. So, when you have people


like Caroline Lucas, reconsidering their position


with Stop the War, doesn't it make It has nothing to do


with the committee. I think the Greens may well be


worried that Corbyn is winning a lot Nothing to do with the controversial


statements that are being affiliated There have been no controversial


statements made by Stop the War Now, some of the criticism of Corbyn


comes from other figures But it's also fair to say a lot


of this boils down to fears in the right wing of Labour that


groups like Stop the War, which have a strong socialist


worker party presence, for example, are entering


into and changing the direction Corbyn's supporters might say he has


a huge mandate for the political and that comes because of,


not in spite of, his links to groups It must have been pretty devastating


for a regional museum in north west Holland when, 11 years ago,


an art heist denuded its walls of 24 Dutch Golden Age paintings,


which disappeared into thin air. But it must have been just


as astonishing when two representatives of a right wing


Ukrainian militia turned up at the Dutch Embassy in Kiev,


demanding 50 million euros Gabriel Gatehouse has been delving


into a murky world where art theft and Eastern European


politics collide. They are getting ready for Christmas


in the little town of Hoorn. In the 17th century, this


was a place of wealthy merchants. These days, Hoorn gets


by on the memories of that golden age, the architecture,


the artefacts, the paintings. A decade ago, art thieves broke


into the local museum. They came at night,


locking themselves inside. They made off with 70 pieces


of antique silverware So, they took out all the paintings


out of their frames Since we have not heard


of the collection for over ten years, we believe it


is very well prepared. Probably the thieves did not know


what they were stealing. This is not the Rijksmuseum


and these are not Rembrandts. The theft at the time hardly made


waves outside of the local newspapers because they were by


lesser-known artists, contemporaries of the old Dutch


masters but not quite the real deal. But then, out of


the blue, came news. We were very happy because it was


the first sign of life about our paintings but then,


when we heard they were in the Ukraine, we immediately thought,


well, this is making things not Not a lot easier


is an understatement. Dutch officials were approached


by a commander from The paintings had been


found, they were told, while fighting


pro-Russian separatists. The museum approached


an art investigator, who travelled to Kiev


to meet the commander. He told us his soldiers had found


these paintings in a war zone and somehow related to somebody


befriended to the former president, The Ukrainians sent


through a photograph of one of the paintings with a copy


of that day's newspaper, So, Arthur Brand started


secret negotiations. Newsnight has seen some


of the correspondence. The paintings might be returned,


the commander suggested, They talked about a finder's


fee, 10% of the value. The trouble was the Ukrainians had


fastly overestimated the artworks. Well, I could prove to them these


paintings were not worth more I showed them auction results


of similar paintings Boris said, "Well, my soldiers


will not accept this." The other time he said,


"The people who have sent me When news reached the museum


that the pictures were being offered for sale elsewhere, they feared that


time was running out. We asked our BBC colleagues in Kiev


to track down Boris. He never asked for 5 million euros,


he has never even seen TRANSLATION: I do not have to wait


contact with the people who allegedly found this collection,


I never did. I only had one way


contact with them. When I tried to call them back,


the numbers do not exist. The museum says there's a web


of influential figures Apart from Boris,


the commander, they have named a former head of Ukrainian


intelligence and the leader If you take the murky world


of international art theft and mix it with the chaos of the conflict


in eastern Ukraine, what you end up with frankly is not


a huge amount of clarity. I have seen documents that show


that the Dutch authorities are taking these allegations


of high-level involvement by politicians and intelligence


agencies in Ukraine Sleepy Hoorn now finds


itself in the eye of Next year the Netherlands will hold


a referendum on whether Ukraine should be closer


integrated into the EU. Conspiracy theorists are muttering,


could this whole scandal be a Russian plot to


scupper their chances? Meanwhile, the local museum just


wants its paintings back. Hoorn and this region played


a major part in the rise of the Dutch Republic


in the 17th century. It was a harbour town and,


through trade, people We tell this story


and these 24 paintings, We miss them every day


because they tell such important Even in Trump terms,


it's been quite a week for the billionaire real estate


mogul who wants to be the Republican


presidential candidate. A man who loves a headline,


it seems any headline, he made plenty of them with his call


to ban Muslims entering America, and now according to Democratic


presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, he is no longer


funny, but dangerous. And today our Ambassador


in Washington slapped him down too, denouncing Trump's assertion


that the UK was disguising a massive Muslim problem, and that there


were police no-go areas in London. But the latest CBS poll,


taken before his anti-Muslim tirade, among Republican voters


he is the man to beat, To discuss all of this, we have


from Washington Mark Krikorian, of the Conservative Center


for Immigration Studies, and from New York,


Catherine Rampell, columnist Good evening to you both. Mark,


first of all, why do you think Donald Trump gets such traction for


his ban on Muslims entering the United States? Well, in general, he


gets a lot of traction because of the broad and deep contempt that


much of the public holds all believe in. A lot of the attacks, whatever


they are attacking him about actually strengthen him because the


people attacking him have been utterly failed in their


responsibilities as a political and business elite so they have no


credibility, specifically on the Muslim issue. Obviously the


terrorist attack in California made that salient but our political


leaders have refused to address the issues raised by radical Islam. The


president will not even call radical Islam by its name and so that simply


opens up the kind of opportunity for somebody like Trump, who presents


himself as a straight talker and all of this, regardless of how clumsy


and corsee years when he talks about this stuff, he is the only one


addressing people's concerns and so he is the one who attracts a lot of


people's support. Does Mark have a point about elites? What he


represents is somebody who is not part of the elite when so much


American politics is seen as being a caucus in Washington? It is true and


it is not true. He is a billionaire. It is hard to get more elite than


that. He is very influential. Here's a reality TV star. If you are


talking about the incumbents in Washington, yes committee presents


himself very much as an outsider and he is an outsider in that respect.


Americans are upset and, to some extent, rightfully so about economic


stagnation and other economic anxieties. Here's not really


addressing those. I am interested what you are saying about him being


a billionaire. He is not beholden to anyone. No one is holding him back.


That is his argument. Americans believe that our current political


incumbents in the Republican and Democratic parties who are not


looking out for their interests, only in the interests of people and


corporations that give the money. I understand that Donald Trump is


quite appealing because he claims he is self-funded. He is not entirely


self-funded. For the most part here is independently wealthy and it is


not focus groups or particularly advised by outside experts. Is that


because Washington does not by and large address these are people who


are not in the Beltway, who are in far-flung states who do not


understand what these people are talking about right now? A lot of


people are talking that lack of jobs and problems with the economy.


Donald Trump taps into that. Coming, Mark. It is more than just an


economic issue. You're right that he has not actually... He has talked


about economic issues, that is the core thing. What he represents in a


crude way is, he is a nationalist. What he is saying I think he is


correct despite all of his other floors, much of our elite has become


post-American. They're not that interested in the interests and


problems and concerns and fears of regular folks and making sure that


Americans are the ones who basically win if there is some kind...


Comeback on that. I just want to say, he is certainly appealing to


Americans anxieties. Whether he is offering policy solutions, I am very


doubtful. A lot of his solutions seem to be scapegoating various


minorities. Is he actually what Hillary Clinton said, before he was


dismissed as being funny but now, Hillary Clinton says he is actually


dangerous. What you think about that? That is silly. I am no fan of


the guy that the idea he is dangerous is absurd that the these


dangers to anybody, he is dangerous to the political cartel both parties


have in running the country. In that sense, he is a threat to them. The


idea that he is a budding Mussolini or something is rather laughable. It


is the hyperbole that helps people and his own supporters are more


likely to support him when he is attacked by people. That is indeed


what the Republican inner circle has really got to worry about. If they


attacked him too much, then perhaps he comes out fighting. There are


moves, are there not, to try to shut him down. There are moves afoot to


try to curb Donald Trump. What do you know about that? He is very


divisive, even in the Republican party. He has a solid core of


support amongst an unhappy populous. An anxious group, economically and


otherwise anxious group. He is certainly playing to that crowd.


There are a lot of Republicans, more moderate and otherwise, who are very


turned off by his rhetoric, by his tone, by the fact he has been


scapegoating again, not just Muslims but Mexicans in China and immigrants


at large. There are a lot of people who were disturbed by the fact he


could actually... If you were Republican, he could turn all


publicans away from the Republican Party and he became a nominee, they


would turn to Hillary. This week, Tate Modern's Chris


Dercon profiles Juergen Teller, whose images of the rich and famous


over the past three decades have And we should say there is some


strong language in this programme. In the 1990s, Juergen Teller's shots


for the music and fashion industries


Newsnight is live from the Paris climate change conference as the deadline approaches. Former energy secretary Ed Miliband is live in the studio. Should Jeremy Corbyn distance himself from Stop the War? And is Donald Trump unstoppable? With Kirsty Wark.

Download Subtitles