12/02/2016 Newsnight

Is the Syrian ceasefire no more than smoke and mirrors?

We have an exclusive interview with a key opposition leader.

We'll discuss how all this squares with Assad's boast that he'll retake

As the people's bank tries to hatch entrepreneurs,

RBS's chief executive warns that the possibility of a Brexit

is already taking its toll on business.

I think the issue we've got is just the uncertainty. It might slow

business is down and over time slowdown banking as well.

And in this week's Artsnight, museum director Maria Balshaw looks

A woman is still deemed to be representative of her whole gender.

So if she's a failure then we're all failures. However, if she's a

success, she is the exception that proves the rule. And I don't know

how you change that. The definition of a ceasefire

is "the temporary suspension of fighting", and the word has been

sprayed around like confetti today, even though it is unclear whether it

will be maintained on the ground and doesn't even apply to many

who are fighting in Syria. And all the while Bashar al-Assad

is insisting that he will return the whole of the country

to his control. So, the cessation in a week's time,

vaunted by major powers in Munich, will not necessarily move

the resolution of the conflict Here's our Diplomatic

Editor, Mark Urban. The world's decision-makers had

assembled in Munich for a security conference. After long hours of

negotiations late into the night they announced a deal. 17 states and

three international organisations signed off on it, but in essence

it's a Russian and American plan. Our work today, while it has

produced commitments on paper, I want to restate that the real test

is clearly whether or not all the parties on those commitments and

implement them in reality. The agreement sets up an international

humanitarian task force, lists places where aid needs to go now,

notes that humanitarian access should not benefit any particular

group over any other. It calls for a cessation of hostilities in one

week's time. The 19th of February. With another task force to agree the

boundaries of who holds what territory in Syria. And then the

resumption of peace talks as soon as possible, in Geneva, the 25th of

February is the hoped-for date, we here. Does this provide a real hope

for peace? Earlier I spoke exclusively to the leader of Syria's

opposition umbrella group. The battle for Aleppo continued

today, with the Syrian army warning of imminent further assaults and its

leader bullish after recent successes.

TRANSLATION: If we negotiate it does not mean that we will stop fighting

terrorism. Two tracks are negotiating -- expect inevitable in

Syria, through negotiation and through fighting terrorism. And the

two tracks asked about from each other. As for the president himself,

his future is central to the political transition envisaged in

today's agreement. But even if the Americans now see Assad staying on

for a while, the opposition insists he cannot.

The Assad regime is offensive, backed by the Russians from the air,

spearheaded by uranium and other volunteers on the ground, began

getting real traction three months ago, south-east of Aleppo. Earlier

this year, rebels were driven back in the rebel heartland. Under

today's deal, the Al-Qaeda linked front and Islamic State will still

be attacked, but will more moderate groups the too? They've got the

potential for a very important breakthrough but it all depends now

on the behaviour of the Russians. If the Russians carry on bombing the

moderate opposition this will not be the outcome we want. So today aims

for a ceasefire but only between certain people. Even if it works,

Russia, America and others will still be taking aim at the Islamic

State and others. The Syrian groups are not actually party did today's

agreement. Instead, those who did sign are meant to deliver them.

Iraqi and Russia -- Iran and Russia, the Assad government and the US and

Gulf states and various opposition groups. Talking to opposition

leaders it is apparently already resent that.

As Munich ends, there is a sober realisation that this will be very

tough, but they are already working on speeding up humanitarian aid to

besieged communities, and that at least could be something.

Joining me to discuss this from Munich, where the deal

is being struck, is Andrey Kortunov, Director General of the Moscow-based

Russian International Affairs Council and here with me

is columnist and author Anne Applebaum.

Good evening to you both. First of all, how could this possibly work if

Russia continues to bomb Aleppo? Our Defence Secretary today said that

Aleppo will be the new Sarajevo. I think it can only work if the two

sides agree on how they define terrorism and terrorist

organisations. They should look at the lists, they should compare the

lists, and they should find a common to nominate. Because definitely

until it is done, the hostilities will continue and it would be very

difficult to maintain a ceasefire. Unfortunately because you couldn't

see the translation, basically the opposition leader was saying that

this ceasefire has simply been designed to preserve Russian and

uranium -- preserve Russian and Iranian

games. I think the situation on the ground might change. I don't think

there is a military solution to the problem. I think that for the time

being indeed the Syrian army has accomplished something but it can be

reversed, especially if there is an inflow of support from places like

Saudi Arabia or Turkey, not to mention the potential Turkish direct

intervention into Syria. So, do you think this is designed simply to

sort out the situation or two -- to preserve Russia's position? I will

give the people participating in the conversation credit for saying it is

designed to get humanitarian aid into a desperate situation. But I

think we should all be clear about what Russia is trying to do. The

object of Russia and Assad is to create a situation where there are

only two sides, the regime and the terrorists. They identify everyone

who is not the regime as terrorists. Their bombing campaign in Syria for

the last several months has been exactly that. They have been allowed

to do this presumably because America has abdicated its

responsible at the in Syria? I would not say just America, I would say

the West in general has not had a clear plan from the start of this

conflict. We sort of supported some groups but we didn't really give any

serious aid. We help some of the non-regime areas stay alive but we

haven't really intervened and we haven't had a clear role. Let's

quickly talk about Aleppo here because Isis and others operating in

the area, as well as moderate opposition groups and a lot of

civilians there. The fact that we have created a cessation of

hostilities and allowed Russia to bomb Aleppo is very strange. If

Russia is allowed to bomb Aleppo, there is no ceasefire, there is no

cassation of hostilities. Do you agree with that? Well, if Russia is

going to bomb the city, I think that can be regarded as a continuation of

the war but I don't think this is the plan. I think the plan is to

have a ceasefire that would include Aleppo. So you're suggesting that

actually the Aleppo area will not come under fire in a week's time.

You are suggesting there will be a proper cessation? Well, I think that

there might be some surgical strikes against terrorist groups, if indeed

these terrorist groups happened to be in adjacent places. But I don't

think there will be a kind of massive campaign against Aleppo, I

don't see it. Let's turn to what Russia's position is on Bashar

al-Assad. Is the position is not necessarily, you've said already,

that he would retain control of the gain control of the country, but is

Russia's position to leave Assad in power? Well, I think that the main

goal of Russia, as far as I understand the main position taken

by President Putin, is to preserve the Syrian statehood. Russia is

emphatically against any partition of the country and it wants to

maintain the democratic integrity of Syria. Right now, Assad seems to be

the only person who can do that. That if there are alternatives, if

there are other forces may be from moderate opposition who can do it

better than Assad, I don't Inc that Russia would necessarily stick to

this particular person. He's not a personal friend of Mr Putin. He is

not a person who should be rescued at any cost... Sorry to interrupt, I

know there is a delay... Can I just say, it is very clear to the West

that it looks as if President Putin right now is shoring up President

Assad? Well, I think that Putin made it very clear many times that his

goal in Syria is not to protect a particular personality. His goal is

to maintain the integrity of the Syrian state, to prevent it from

disintegrating. The truth is this would not be happening right now at

all if it wasn't for the fact that there is now a ruckus over the

migrant numbers and countries don't want to take them, isn't that the

case? It's true that the migrant issue has dragged Europe back into a

conflict that it has been desperate to avoid and has been trying to stay

out for many months and years. I think returning to point about

Russia, whatever Putin does say, and he says many things at different

times, it's very clear from his actions that his goal in Syria has

stooped -- has been to keep Assad in power and his bombing campaign has

been designed to help Assad's army. His goal and his desire to take a

dictator and insert itself into the Middle East peace process so that he

has a role... Absolutely, this has been his role from the very

beginning. I don't think anyone who has been watching this closely has

any doubt about that. What does what has been happening over the last few

months say about Russia's plays in the world and its ambition to change

that again? Russia was involved in this disastrous war in Ukraine.

Disastrous for Russia and Ukraine. I think it was becoming clear to the

Russian public that the war wasn't working out, so they decided to

change the narrative. The narrative is, we're now going to become

involved in Syria. There was a clear moment when he did that and that has

been his goal, to become a major broker in the Middle East, somebody

that nobody can ignore, so that he gets back into the role of world

power which is what he wants to have. Finally, do you think this is

actually a turning point? From the last five years. Is this the change

that people need in Syria? I think it might be a turning point.

It depends object political will on both sides and whether both sides

can restore some trust. And it also depends whether they can convince

their local partners and clients to support the agreement. Because no

matter what Russia and the United States might do, if there is no buy

in by Saudis, and Iranians, it is not likely to work. Thank you very

much indeed. In the years since the Royal Bank

of Scotland crashed and almost burned, the bank has tried

to reposition itself as a bank And so today a hatchery

opened in Edinburgh, in what was once the restricted

access executive wing when the now disgraced Chief Executive Fred

Goodwin was in charge. The Hatchery, for entrepreneurs

rather than chickens, offers free office facilities

and mentoring and collaborating with bank staff for up to eighty

businesses every six months, and the project Entreprenurial Spark

will be stitched into the fabric Royal Bank of Scotland was

Scotland's bank when it became the world's. At one point it was not

only the world's biggest bank, but its biggest company. Then the most

exposed of British banks, RBS crashed. The purchase of a Dutch

bank turned out to be a disaster trousers overreach. -- disastrous

overreach. It is a nightmare for Wall Street. When in 2008 the

financial world came toppling down, the bank was bailed out and

nationalised by the then Chancellor, costing the British taxpayer some

?45 billion. Last year the Chancellor began the process of

reprivatisation, selling 5% of the shares. Below the cost price at

which the Government bought them. It is the right thing to do for British

businesses and taxpayers. We may get a lower price, but we will get the

best possible price. Now that looks shrewd. Over the last 12 months

their share price has fallen by 45%. The price today is 220 pence a

share. It is up to the Chief Executive Ross McKeown to try to

steady the ship and prepare it for a proper return to the private sector.

Nurturing a new generation of entrepreneurs in the heart of their

HQ is a signal that the bank wants us to take that the atmosphere is

different. This was part of the executive wing, it was a restricted

area for only certain people. Now you have entrepreneurs, 80 are here,

young or older entrepreneurs, growing businesses again in

Scotland. This looks good for the Royal Bank of Scotland, but no one

knows the share price more than you at today it is 224, so it has lost

45% on your watch last last year. That is no at good position. No,

you're seeing all banking stocks across the world, the prices have

come down. This time around quite similar to the last time the market

collapsed, we are drifting with the market place. So you're in the hands

of market place, when you said last year that you were confident that we

would all get our money back in three year, you're having to revise

that? The markets go down as we are seeing today, they also go up and we

will wait and see. The Government's aim was to get out 75% of their

shareholding in this term of government. It makes it much more

difficult when the markets are like this. But that is in the Treasury's

hands. It looks like they will be in the red for the eighth year. How do

you feel about that It is clear we will be in the red given the

decisions that we made a month ago. We said 2014 was a year when we

would restructure and get the business into the customer groupings

and rebuild capital. Phase two is 2016 and our aim is to take, get rid

as much of the conduct and litigation issues that have plagued

the organisation and the heavy costs. So it does put you in a

position of making losses. But Joe public, ?45 billion, they won't get

their money back at this rate? No, but can I go back to why 45 billion

was put into the bank, because this is important. We would love to get

that money back to the public. But at the time, if they hadn't saved

the Royal Bank of Scotland, a lot of financial services in the UK would

probably have collapsed. Because a fair number of transactions go thus

this bank and if you let that drop it would have been a catastrophe for

the public and the economy. The decision was the right decision. Now

Europe, do you think the British sector will be better or worse off

outside the EU? I think, I haven't seen any economic data that says we

would be better off outside in the short to medium term. Let's go back

too the facts, in the short to medium term. There is a lot of

uncertainty, what does it mean to come out of Europe as well? The

issue we have got is the uncertainty that will slow businesses down and

will over time I think slow down banking, it is the uncertainty. It

is good that the Government's trying to get to a point of having the vote

quickly. Because it is the uncertainty. I haven't seen any data

that says it is a good thing. RBS has said that economic growth is

being undermined by uncertainty over the EU vote. It is clear. We saw

that under the, with the Scottish referendum. When you go through

these times, businesses stop making the decisions that they would

normally make, because of the uncertainty. That is why it is

important that the Government does move on quickly with they can get it

in June, I think it would be better than having it later. On interest

rates, do you think the Fed was wrong to jump ahead and raise the

rate? I think the Fed saw the US was starting to grow and they wanted to

make sure that inflation stayed that way. They have got great economics

and analysts doing the work on their... I will leave them to make

their calls. I would say we are going to be lower interest rates for

a lot longer than anticipated. Any talk of an interest rate rise, it is

not going to happen this year. I don't think this year and possibly

into all of 17. We have to get used to an environment with low interest

rates for a long period of time. Finally on that, do you think people

in this country will ever like bankers again? A number of people do

like them, but banks' reputations got tarnished because of what

happened and the consequence it had on people. They never want that to

happen again. Banks and bankers have still a long way to go to rebuild

that trust and it is done with every interaction every day. Thank you

very much indeed. Ross McEwan says that low interest

rates are here to stay perhaps even beyond next year, but there's

another scenario being talked about right now,

negative interest rates. Our Policy Editor

Chris Cook is here. What actually are negative interest

rates and how do they impact? You're familiar with the idea of interest

rates and central banks cut interest rates and that cuts the amount

savers get when they keep their money in banks and cuts the cost of

borrowing for investors or mortgage holders. The idea of negative

interest rates are we have come down to zero interest and central banks

have gone down as low as they can. We have tried quantitative easing,

to reduce the amount that savers get and the amount, the cost of

borrowing further. This goes beyond that and they would say to banks, if

you have money sitting on your balance sheet that is uninvested we

will fine you for having that. Capital reserve though? Not capital,

the money they have that is uninvested. So the idea is banks

would feel that it is what they have to do is get money out and lend. So

the effect would be what? It depends how far and how fast they go. It has

been talked about in the United States and things tend to travel in

banking. Nothing affects one country alone. What would happen would

defend on how far we went. It could be that things are as they are now,

but a bank would be desperate to lend to you or you could have a

situation where banks were so desperate to lend that theltd pay

you -- they would pay you to take money. Here is ?100, give us 90 quid

next year. Thank you. From Aphrodite to Marilyn,

the image of the femme fatale has Those are the two emotions strongly

associated with a John Singer Sargent painting that is merely

known by the title Madame X. The extreme reactions it caused

on first showing in 1884 have inspired a new ballet

by Christopher Wheeldon, Strapless - which is being performed

for the first time tonight Katie Razzall has been exploring how

a 19th Century picture has It just seemed there must have

been a story behind her. The scandal of this picture

was so much that I don't think In a studio at London's Royal Opera

House, two of the company's finest It's the latest creation

of choreographer extraordinary, Inspired by the story

of Amelie Gautreau, a young American It is this great story of the rise

and fall of this great We always look for in story

ballets quite large-sized And in this case downfall

and the shunning of this This painting of Amelie Gautreau,

by John Singer Sargent caused her downfall,

though it is difficult these days to understand what all

the fuss was about. Wheeldon fell in love

with the picture on visits But when its American creator

exhibited it at the Paris Salon At that time, his portrait

showed Amelie with one dress strap falling

from her shoulder. An earlier study at Tate Britain

shows Amelie's right She had bare shoulders

with this plunging cleavage, so it hints at nudity,

without actually showing her naked There were lots of nudes in these

Salons, so why did a picture that was not of someone

naked cause such scandal? These were representations

of historical or mythological characters,

such as Diana or Venus. What was scandalous about this

picture was that it was a portrait of a recognisable individual

and the suggestion is through the dress that it is sort

of slipping off her. She must have been perched

on the precipice a little bit. And this painting gave society just

an excuse to push her. That story of a woman

from high society humiliated and shunned is now

the centre piece of a triple bill of Wheeldon's work getting its world

premiere at Covent Garden. This is Wheeldon's eighth creation

for the Royal Ballet and he is back You have worked together before,

how is it to be back together? Narrative ballet, telling

a story, is just as much Wheeldon's How do you tell what's

really more like a That is the sort of

skill of it, I guess. Chris knows how to somehow get that

character across through There is only a certain

set of moves and there But just a shoulder

change or an angle of a head or the way you phrase

something can say a lot about that character's situation without sort

of bending the rules too much. It is quite, it is

an interesting thing for us to do as well,

without changing any steps you can Decades later Sargent

called the finished painting of her his finest work

and in 1884, it stayed on the Salon wall in Paris,

despite her humiliation. The scandal of this picture

permeated so much through high society, I don't think

she ever got over it. People always associated her

with this particular She begged him to remove it

from the Salon and he refused. I think he really did

believe in the painting. But eventually he took it

away and he painted, In the long-term this

established his reputation as an artist who broke boundaries,

who broke convention. And in fact when he moved

to London, people flocked to his studio

to have their portraits painted. It was a great scandal

for him, but he, you know he left Paris, she was the one

that really suffered. That's not the first

time that's happened. No, unfortunately

it's a man's world. Do you see parallels

to now with her story? Yes, absolutely, we love to build

celebrities up and then we sort of also rather relish

in tearing them down. I do think we still as

human beings take some Tomorrow morning's front-pages The

Independent, refugees terrorised by far right militia and Independent is

going to be digital after March. The financial times, banks fight to

regain confidence. Daily Telegraph Facebook fights to find poor NHS

care. And Guardian, plan for Islamist terrorist. And at the

bottom, the guilt of killers, the mother of a killer from America. And

an interview is on Newsnight. This week's presenter is museum

director Maria Balshaw. She wants to explore continuing

gender inequality in the arts and she talks to artist Sarah Lucas

and double Oscar-winner Glenda Jackson, who today announced

that she is returning to the stage