Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book TV 20141130

Uncomfortable. I actually think that it creates an opportunity to to make the argument that i pointed out initially, which is journalists need to defend the broader space. We can as journalists a very special rights for journalists. As long as we have those, that is all that matters. Especially because we live in a time when these roles are fluid. Ultimately the way journalists can defend their own rights and selfinterested by forming common cause with people who might have a more it doesnt mean they abandon identity as journalists. But they have to understand people expressing themselves publicly or participating in the process of gathering news and information, even if they are not doing this in a professional capacity have the same rights. You know, i think it is an interesting debate about word is journalisms top can i address that very directly in the book. At the end of the day, it is less important than recognizing what is most crucial is a broad space that defends the rights and much everybody who wants to express themselves freely operate, including journalism. You feel there is any parallel to what some, but certainly not all is simply not most News Organizations in the teachout United States did during the civil rights movement. It was explained pretty well in a book called the race. But there was that if News Organizations that were in favor of segregation. I couldnt imagine being an advocate and others use News Organizations as a tool for change because they thought the laws were just wrong. Is that a fair parallel . This is people may be familiar this book Reggie Roberts called the great speed of one pulitzer prize. Its a tremendous account of what it was like to cover the south during the civil rights era. When i read it, i had a different reaction, which was i was focused on how similar the experiences of journalists working in that environment to the ones i see journalists doing frontline reporting complaint today. Journalists were attacked. They were beaten. They were perceived as hostile outsiders and that cpj were found in that era. This would have been critically important work defending these rates. In some ways, we feel in this country we have removed from those struggles. But they were very recent and though that was when i took away from that book. That is absolutely right. The only connection i was trying to make with those journalists challenging the systems were doing so because they wouldnt see themselves as advocates, but they were using journalisms. And matt is right. I think for that whole continue on existed for as long as journalism has existed. These roles have always had fluid to a certain extent. But because of the technological environment we live with the fact people have access to this communication. It is even broader and more complex. It always been crusading journalism. Theres always been advocacy journalists on and people who use these kinds of techniques and strategies to not just document what is happening, but to promote change in one sort or another. So, at the end of the book, you have this nice long chat to your with 10 media strategy. I am just going to take them off. Ill ask you, which one do you think is hardest to accomplish and why. Expose the democracy it airs. Expose the democracy haters. Increase safety for complex reporting. Break the cycle of impunity. Keep the internet open and free. The limit government surveillance. And censorship. You think this is hard . You are not ambitious enough. Clearly defined incitement to violence. Make access to development goal. Support quality media. Though the Free Expression coalition. So my day job is to try and find verbs. Which is the hardest one in there and why is that hard. What makes you confident that its going to be a solution . Well, i think what i am doing is they didnt find areas that we need to focus on and obviously every one of those is tremendously difficult. In some ways, what excites me is the notion they are sort of link is building a coalition. That is tremendously difficult but not impossible. One thing to keep in mind is there are regional agreements, treaties and actually the Interamerican Convention of human rights is the only regional treaties that actually prohibits prior restraint. So when this hemisphere, prior restraint for censorship is prohibited by international law. But in much of the world, that is not the case. There were certain circumstances in which it is legally permitted. I think people understand intuitively what censorship is, why it is bad, why it affects them and there are countries when i talk about censorship, im talking about prior restraint. Governments using actually preventing publication or dissemination of certain kinds of information. I think there is a strategy for creating a new norm in which that kind of conduct by government would be perceived as outside the normal international framework. Its a question of using the decorations and awareness building and mobilizing people who are threatened by censorship is incredibly difficult. In some ways i think it is exciting and i also think if you take the long view it is achievable. I have a lot more questions for you. We have a microphone here. Id like to invite anyone who has questions to ask jewel. Why you are doing that, i will ask you what any individual here can do to start to chip away at any of these recommendations. We want to send people out the door or with wind at their back and determination to start attacking issues. What is one thing he did people in this room could do . Well, i think that one you know, one of the things that i see around the world when i travel as a lot of the restrictions that governments imposed on the media and justify are based on their critiques of the quality of the media and work at immediate valve. One of the things i do in the book is that kind of reject that idea of mixing those two struggles. They are set right. We have to fight to improve the quality of journalism around the world. But we cant link back to the fight for freedom of expression because we dont want to legitimate the demotion if the media performing at the highest level restrictions are justified. One of the most important things in contributions people can make, particularly those in journalism education and particularly educating students from all over the world is to create a culture of quality of journalism because i really think that is a critical defense against government encroachment on freedom of expression. Victor, i think there was somebody before you. He has been standing a chalet. Can you speak into the microphone, please . How is this issue of global censorship applied to this country . For instance, the attacks from whistleblowers and how does that apply . Good question. It absolutely applies for a number of reasons. One is there has been a significant erosion in this country of press freedoms and there is. I think that has clear Global Implications because the this standing frankly the u. S. Media culture has in the world and the First Amendment and the value with which that is regarded a journalists all over the world. Any deterioration of press freedom standards in this country give license to governments and leaders around the country to justify their restrictions by citing the examples so we are obviously very concerned by the cases you mentioned because of the example they set globally. And then there is the issue of surveillance, which we havent even touched on. That is one of the key challenges that we face. I mean, i think that theres been a lack of justifiable uproar about the nsa Surveillance Program and i think if you look at it in the global context, it recently in event talking to a former nsa official and i asked him, i said if a journalist in pakistan is talking to the taliban, what was your response to that beat . Thats the exact kind of information we can be strapped on. If we get our hands on that, would be thrilled. That journalist has absolutely no legal protection. Surveillance affects u. S. Journalist awareness created that any communication could be monitored to weave some legal productions here. Outside of this country you have none and that has created a chilling effect. Like all technology he, the nsa has this tremendous capacity to sweep up vast amounts of information you need. But its not going to be unique soon. Every country will develop greater capacity. I think journalists understand the implications and it will affect them. Actually she asked my question. I have a different way. I remember the late tommy lewis and harris and sellers. I think they both took the position that dpj should not concern what was happening in this country because you had organizations like the aclu to worry about that, but it should focus on what was happening around the world. I am just interested in your talking about how cpj has evolved from that point of view. That is appropriate at a time when cpj was small and had resources and media institutions were strong and everyone understood who was a journalist and who is not a journalist. But we live in different times. Cpj as an organization is much larger with greater capacity so theres really no excuse. A lot of the people who would like to send whose cases we might pick a might be nontraditional journalists in the packing of large institutions, but still their rights have to be a period. Still has been this progress in that specific case . Ironically there isnt a contradiction because you are right. Russia has become more repressive and more authoritarian, but the structure for control was sort of this power of the mafia state. And so there were a lot, the bodies in the street. There was a period in russia, certainly putin came to power, and prior to that where these criminal organizations were operating very openly with governments backing as protection or during the. When we saw a lot of violence against journalists. And these killings took place with not formal, not necessarily formal Government Support but certainly government indifference and sometimes active complicity. In terms of the advocacy around the case, for those of you who dont know, she was a crusading journalist who covered the conflict in chechnya, the north caucasus, she was murdered in front of her Apartment Building in moscow in 2007. And this was a killing that shocked journalists particularly around were because she was such a wellknown crusading, admired a journalist. There was an International Outcry and a lot of pressure was put on the russian government to do something about this. The unique thing about rush is at, and i think this is a legacy of the kind of soviet spies state, is the actually are very good investigators. Theyre pretty good at investigating crimes. They dont solving because theres no political will to the not bad at investigating them. I think it reached a point where putin made a calculation that the kind of structure of russia where you have these violent criminal organizations that were basically fighting over turf and territory and killing people, that was not what he wanted. He wanted a more traditional authoritarian structure, and so solving a couple of these cases was in his interest. The way i phrased it is, in russia justice is really just a crude political regulation. And in this case a calculation was that bring similar level perpetrators to justice serve the political interest of the government. My question is regarding hungry. It seems like its the new columbia or whatever, like the things are happening there right now i think youre mentioning about colombia. So it begins to shed some light on the situation and whats the road ahead for hungary . I was at columbia is the new turkey. The latest member, the democracy club. Hungary is an eu member, but the government, the leadership is basically said we have our own conception of state interests, and we are going to emulate russia more than were going to emulate the eu. So you are seeing a real crackdown on media and civil society. There was a recent protest, im sure youre aware, of a new internet tax. Its really interesting. No one was really reacting to all these threats and attacks on journalists when they started taxing the internet, that got people agitated. Thanks to my point about linking the struggle for Media Freedom to the Robert Scoble for freedom of expression. But hungary is absolutely going in the wrong direction. We just sent a mission to hungary led by our cpj board member, who is hungarian american and, obviously, knows the country well. Her report was very chilling. She wrote about it an oped for the times, but this is a country that is an eu member but it is rejecting eu values. Hi. Joel, you mentioned earlier that the Chinese Government actually has used internet to cut a better serve its stronger hold on media, but how would you see the spread of internet and the democratization of the information in the whole of china which actually is hoping spreading the news . And do you think that in the end would somehow change . Thats what i write about is a battle in china over the internet optimists. The governments of vision of the function of the internet in chinese society. So the question is, i think the leadership in china definitely embraces connectivity and they definitely understand that this is critical, critical economic engine and the also feel that this technology can serve what conceived to be the partys interest in terms of creating connections between the leadership and the population and allowing them to share their concerns with the leadership, et cetera, et cetera. So they have kind of a fairly pragmatic vision of the internet and how it can serve Chinese State interests. Theyre not like cuba or some other country like that, it really wants to shut out the internet. They want to channel it to what they perceive as their state interest. But what they dont want the internet to be for is a political organizing. Thats where they draw the line. They are also very concerned about the fact that the internet is a global system, and outside influences can penetrate china and potentially be destabilizing. So thats the way they conceptualize it, and i think whats really formidable is theyve come up with a system thats worked pretty well, that helps them achieve their stated goals of, you know, china has more people online than in the other country in the world. Obviously, its got more people so it gives it a bit of a head start but its profoundly transformed the society. And yet its managed the challenges that this conductivity has created. And i think china has a vision of what, chinas vision of the unit is built like a national highway system. Yes, it connects, but once you get and the national highway they want to have control over what happens. They want to have their own rules. Thats a vision that is very appealing to many other countries around the world, and its a vision that china has largely succeeded in making real. I think we have to acknowledge that. Do you think that diminishing economic power of Media Companies plays a role in this new censorship . And do so, how . Absolutely. I think thats fundamental. Theres a recalibration thats been taking place, the power of the media itself, and the institutional media in particular. I think especially when you talk about the threats against journalists, a lot of these repressive governments or nonstate actors, the thing that kept journalists safe working in these environments is that they were neutral. If you wanted to communicate to your own population but certainly internationally, then the only mechanism you have to do that was with journalists. The information environment is completely different now and that is no longer the case. It used to be if you get kidnapped, if your journalist and you get kidnapped by some nasty folks, your argument was, hey, if you dont let me go im not going to be able to tell your story. Thats kind of laughable now. Thats not going to get you out of any dicey situation. And its also, we just, we were in turkey and we had a meeting with president erdogan, and these meetings ive had many such meetings with heads of state, sort of ritualistic thing where they go press freedom, its important to me. And yuko weldon, why do you have all these issues and you argue . He refused to make that statement. He came into that meeting with a defiant posture, journalist, all journalists are basically attacking my government, undermining these interests, the interests of the state. And include the New York Times and cnn. Theres nobody that he had any praise for. He had nothing positive to say about journalists on press freedom and those with a shot across the bow. That was really him saying i can achieve the interests that i want to achieve. I can achieve my Political Goals without any support from the media. Because i have alternative ways of communicating. I have alternative ways of litigating domestically and internationally. So its precise because the power dynamic has shifted that journalists face greater threat both from government and nonstate actors. And thats not confined to turkey. Not at all. Its the same dynamic. The Obama Administration and the Bush Administration was very open about its ability to bypass the media and get its message is that the consequences are not violence. But in other societies they are. Hi. Im a student here. So at the same time when you see this weakening of the institutions, you also see the rights of protesting country and countries like russia, even englishspeaking, or iran or whatever and they are employing englishspeaking young journalists. How do you see this fits the thats the really interesting phenomenon and one that struggling in many ways. So governments are entering the International Media scene and doing in a way that they think advances their particular state interests, and sometimes they have very sophisticated understanding what those answers are. Aljazeera is an example. The government of qatar has invested huge amounts of money, but they see their interests advanced by having a credible independent News Organization that has global influence, whereas russia, with rt, or iran with press tv, these are government funded english Language International broadcasters. Use these platforms to engage in crude propaganda. And, frankly, this is a real challenge for those of us who defend journalism, those of us who defend freedom of expression because we are really right up against the line here. We make a point of not making judgments about the quality. Because if you defend freedom of expression to defend freedom of expression. You defend the good and the bad, but particularly in russia some of these media organizations are engaging in propaganda and are pushing right up against the line of what i would consider to be incitement to violence, which is of course outside the freedom of expression framework. I have a somewhat related question. More general about your mission and mandate in this disruptive age. Whats your definition of a journalist . Luckily i came prepared for the question. Because i did it a lot. You know, one of the things that we realize over the course of our existence is having any sort of rigid definition thats counterproductive. Were the advantages of the work of cpj does is we respond to real cases so you really have to answer that question in the abstract. We are not asking the question of who is a journalist. We are asking the question, is this individual a journalist . And you look at it contextually. You look at what kind of work are they doing, whats the nature of the society in which they are working. The framework in which we operate is, if your gathering and disseminating information or engaged in factbased commentary that serves the public, then you are engaged in journalism whether youre a journalist, with you self identify as a journalist or not. So we have a very flexible and pragmatic definition of who is a journalist, and we also sometimes defend people who are clearly not journalist. We say that this person is not a journalist, but the actions become is taking against this individual creates an environment which is hostile to the exercise of journalism and, therefore, we are going to speak out. So if we had to answer that question in a very direct and sort of hypothetical way, i think would be very difficult. But it is possible to do it when youre looking at these as individual cases. Joel, how do you think of cpjs method, the methods of rigorously researching journalist and advocating on their behalf, how effective are they against this democratization you know, the basis of their legitimacy is, they are against the west. The press freedom is a western value and they are generally impervious to the campaigns of human rights. I dont think theyre impervious to i actually think and energy that they have is, they may be against the west because they have a sort of our critique of the west, but they self identify as democracies. Their legitimacy is derived from the ability to win elections. If they cant, thats the difference between traditional dictatorship and democracy does to a democratization wi when an election. If he cant win, then their power to is the become a traditional dictator or they lose power. So the questions what to do with the power that they have. In most instances they tried to argue are legitimate because they conform to democratic norms. Actually being able to demonstrate the knot in fact the case is a very valid and effective strategy. Its worked pretty well for us in turkey, for example, because the government framework there when these journalists were arrested and imprisoned was that these are terrorists and are doing what any democratic country does, arresting and prosecuting terrorist. When we were able to demonstrate no, in fact you are not falling norms and this is not legitimate, that put a lot of pressure on the government. To followup, in your book and also Freedom House which is sort of i think we agree theres an increasing role of threat posed by nonstate actors whether criminal gangs or Insurgent Group or islamist terrorist. Following up on the question, how do these traditional methods, how do they work against groups that are advocating for government or even a government interest, may have some interest in preserving its legitimacy or responding to groups. Welcome they dont really work. When youre threatened by mexican drug cartels are threatened by isis, theres basically nothing, theres nothing that we can do not applies direct political pressure on these groups. I wouldnt say we just sort of arms into nothing but i think theres real value in documenting whats taking place to these are crimes. We have to document the crimes. Youd never know when the environment will ship in the we and opportunity for justice. The more we learn about what risks are, the more we can help mitigate those risks. Tomorrow we can educate journalist about what the challenges are. There are things we can do and we are doing, but those kinds of traditional Advocacy Strategies simply dont work against theyre based on the fact that these actors, whether they are state or nonstate actors, care about their International Reputation for the most part, or even in a domestic context. If they have no concern or no interest, then those strategies simply wont work. Ladies and gentlemen, of the book is the new censorship inside the global battle for Media Freedom. Copies are in the back and hope yours will be as dogeared as mine is and you will mark the chapters but relevant to you and the things that you can do to affect some change. Joel, thank you very much. Thank you, kathleen. This has been a stimulating conversation. Books are at the back. I know joel will be there. I will be there. Ill be happy to. Thanks for joining us tonight, and good evening, everyone. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] you are watching booktv, television for serious readers. You can watch any program you see here online at booktv. Org. Next from politics prose bookstore in washington, d. C. , Boris Johnson, the mayor of london looks at the life of british Prime Minister Winston Churchill and discontinuing its affluence on world affairs. This is about one hour. But now onto the main event. I just want to say how delighte we are you have the mayor of london, Boris Johnson with us tonight. You be discussing his new book,e the churchill factor how one man made history the writing and publication of this book was chur meant to coincide with the wr 50th anniversary of churchills death which actually will be marked in january of this cominge year. And as you here tonight the anniversary gave are offered the opportunity to reintroduce,sarys maybe introduce Winston Churchill to a Younger Generation that had no personal re expense of one of the twin centuries most important political figures. No influence of one of the worlds most important figures. You were brave to jump in and but if you have not looked look into a very personal one. At times it is sunny and very much a polemic as the finest statesmen ever produced. While churchill proves very difficult to categorize to have a clear political identity part of that discussion. So what you are not very familiar with with the entire biography that would take up the entire hour but he spent his formative years at oxford as a member of the conservative party elected to the house of commons in 2001 and elected mayor in 2008 and he was successful hosting deal in big games in 2012. As well was riding his bike to work. So they do have several things in common besides politics and the ability to put pen to paper churchill ended his life writing 43 books summer in that neighborhood. But he has plenty of time. [laughter] he can clearly ketchup as Winston Churchill. When not mayor of london he only has 18 months to go and could be in parliament for the next election there is no speculation where he to be the conservative party leader. [laughter] but perhaps even to become Prime Minister himself one day. But perhaps a recent review put on some by a margin and thank you for joining us today. [applause] good evening everybody. Can you hear me in the back . Churchill would be proud to see quite so many people here tonight. Although i think he would have been surprised quite frankly. If they ask me to do a book about church show on the anniversary that i knew a lot about Winston Churchill the more the himalayan glamour edits glittering ahead with another then another. I knew for instance church show was very brave but i had not realized the only british Prime Minister in our history. I didnt realize quite how many people had those friendly relations. Always of course, with compassion and i knew vaguely with the Royal Air Force or the escort to begin to learn to fly a plane barely 10 years previously. And then add the controls of the devices with the glorified laundry baskets in the sky. And they are begging him to do given that. So with fatties of comparison or one out of 14 million. And i had forgotten he had gone now 36 times in world war i like a baby elephant. And i knew he was energetic but that biorhythm that allowed him to drink a pint every day. And spoke 52,000 cigars in his lifetime. Unfortunately the port chap contracted cancer. [laughter] to have a huge dinner, a champagne red wine or white wine but then to pace up and down that is perhaps for the morning. And then to pride themselves and some can write fast after a good lunch. That is the message and is more than any other 20thcentury author. Not more than shakespeare but shakespeare and dickens combined. But i had not realized then how many are still true. And then i found this very spot in he was weaving a bit. She said winston you are drunk. He really did reply of what was unthinkable today madam you are ugly and i will be sober in the morning. [laughter] you could not get away with that nowadays. It really is true that when a conservative minister was caught with a guardsman at hyde park it happens from time to time with british politics. But then he replied without looking up from 6 00 in the morning it makes you proud to be british. [laughter] but i was aware the Second World War was very far but i didnt realize quite how much he had done all the things to reform prisons through the job centers and though living wage into the p break. [laughter] led by his invention into a champion of aviation after he returned he was crucial not just of the action of the First World War but and with israel and jordan and iraq so with that ungrateful volcano. And of course, he was there at the beginning with the a idea of a united europe. End to know exactly what he would have wanted and as David Cameron once he would have wanted reform and won them Prime Ministers with the negotiations and the use that he cleaned himself. And then to be absolutely certain the the european summit he wouldve had wanted to conduct negotiations with the french [laughter] and then with the interlocutors. Is seen as you are a double cross hour. [laughter] and kid decide he played a huge role in the architecture of world order and the transatlantic. And you can see traces of the middle east and above all it is absolutely true that he stood out. Hello. If you imagine the dagon ticked a gigantic monotype pot on monty python and with the consumers of tobacco things would have been very different and much worse. He refused to except the argument and they were the powerful voices they would not be decisive it is churchill and church alone. He was wary destinies night her coat. And with that fateful meeting of the british cabinet he makes an incredible speech from each of us on the ground. They will cheer. All of the desire to a deal. But if churchill had not been there the pressure from the media but i really think he wouldve made an accommodation that would have been calamitous. So that is why. But it wasnt the enough. But he knew from the very beginning in almost as important with churchill in america with two years and four months by the way. And nowadays through that transatlantic you think of sitting on the bench with fdr with the pride in his american ancestry the only citizenship he could claim at the end of his life but we have to except the if you have the copy of this book this book is nothing when the relationship with the first k mount bragging to audiences that was lower more. Than imperialists. And in the 1920s he comes out again with americas attempt to displace britain that he speculated the two countries actually go to war. And his wife told him to become so antiamerican he could never hope. And then is told america it is a wonderful place. And then said we should kiss america on both cheeks. But that was still in the 20s. Then he comes out 1929 and they are perplexed and are happy with some of his habits. And then said mr. Churchill like a serpent he replied i have them looking for a drink like that all my life. [laughter] so it was not easy. And by 1931 his feelings started to change. And came to recognize what was obvious and not only stoppable but in the interest of his own country. And then with the englishspeaking people or even a common currency. Said drawing by his own that he brilliantly designed. But that was his idea. But that was the church to go to the Second World War to a lover of america and the position of romantic. Where we care more about the relationship. The romantic asymmetry. And he moved roosevelt and is closely as i studied. He and his speeches not just at the british radio to debunk that but he a m particularly at the american audience when the and this was an evergrowing numbers with the most popular radio personality in america during the years of the war. He would use very short words to get his points across. End we shall Never Surrender. All the rest are anglosaxon, anglosaxon words straight across to englishspeaking people. Once the latin word . Surrender. Hardly worth arguing. Surrender. What did he say that after we shall Never Surrender . Remember . Rightly contradicting himself. He then went on to say, and if. Which i do not for a moment believe this island or a large part of it will be subjugated. Then our empire beyond the sea, guarded by the british fleet would carry on the fight until in gods good time the new world with all its power and might step in to the rescue and the liberation of the old. In the with the british politics with the american audience. With that process it is not that to begin last. And i am afraid to say to britain and my country but in return for the 50 destroyers that only half were functional but then in public called the most sordid act in history. And then with the United States of america when was the last check candid in . Does anybody know . 1970 . It was 2006 and 42 Million Pounds with a check signed. [laughter] and to have that triple a rating will lower the debt but it does show a pretty hard bargain. And with the difficulties to exceed roosevelt to start to make the case about the moral imperative. So america was steadily being brought in by churchill to a large part by the time it came for japan with the convoy is where the supplies at the very beginning of the war, once america was on our side. And then to appreciate and then said never be separate. And then to believe passionately in the relationship. Because of the values Freedom Democracy free speech, habeas corpus, all the ideals that he would usually and romantically believed had a flowered and prospered in some unique way in that vast community of what he called the englishspeaking peoples. Now, you can quibble with his analysis of the unique merits of those ideals, but the french might have a word or two to say about liberty, for instance. What you cannot deny, what you should certainly agree thoud certainly its not even accepted around the table. Even lottery players style. If it had not been for his bravery and his obstinacy it is all too likely that democracy and pluralism would not exist in britain and much of europe today. And i will give you one final example of the power. Authenticated. It happened one evening. She came down and was going for her bus. She spotted something lying in the gutter. Its a topsecret. She quickly reached down, picked it up, showed it to her son. He realized it was incredibly important. He went back. By the time he got their it was late at night. And then was treated by the people and tell he had seen an officer when somebody senior came down and guess what it was . They called the war cabinet the following morning. In the Security Breach where it had been in day looked and they saw the story was true and they decided to go ahead. And then turning to the chief of the Imperial Fleet how did this happen . And as he did so often he started to cry and said she should be a commander of the British Empire. Make it so. But unfortunately she only got her m. B. A. E. But the point in 1945 with the british public, there was his own reckoning resignation. Them afraid that story despite all efforts of verification. [laughter] intend then lamp disposed to believe them. [laughter] were at the crucial moments in thing kevins he did. [applause] thanks for the presentation. Church shills unique over the erratic things not just the campaign but we have the chancellor going back on the Gold Standard disastrously. It is the bizarre attempt behind the hopeless and i am assuming the book is a little more candid the. [laughter] and the chapter. [laughter] but more to the point between the sometimes erratic behavior and the fact every single man in 1940 is a whole. That is the argument of the book by the way. N does not attempt. It was called Winston Churchill i see in america it is not called playing roulette with history. [laughter] but with that crisis to go back on gold and antwerp with the russian civil war whenas regarded as erratic and unstable. He did get a lot right. And humanitarian and was well ahead of his time. But fundamentally right in the late 30s. Because he was a brilliant reporter. And then to write about the battlefield of the campaign. And then he does not like it. And he has arguments about that antisemitism. And then goes back with campaigns and campaigns. But in the event by 1939 or 1940, and they need somebody on the scale of churchill to have more courage. But one year from that date 30,000 british men and women and children have died. But it was the right thing to do. Do you think the u. K. Will see an honest leader . [laughter] there are no politicians today who are elected for this scandal. He was one of. The things to church so that our times to not require such. That is the paradox of an all with the freedom in the peace over the last seven years they are on the scale with the ambition with the courage of Winston Churchill [laughter] thank you. I share your aberration admiration but comment on the call to the 1934 speech he made which i do recall. I wondered if you had commented on that . The question is about churchills deplorable language about india there is very little excuse of all the charges against him that is with the officials were telling him to do. So he needs to be forgiven for that. At least the ambition was noble. But you could say he was right to nowadays but now it is perfectly right to be allowed to marry your respective of who they are. That was his modern sentiment with churchill. But Indian Independence 100 percent wrong and still wrong today and use language about it betted is disgraceful and should be trampled by elephants. The only thing that i could possibly say that with his vision of the empire had done some great things of the barbaric practices with the untouchables in many cases were reduced. And he was worried that that was not entirely absent. Certainly ed defense of his handling about though war and i am afraid that is not handled very well. I will not put my hand up to that one. Mr. Mayer i read your book when it came out. What are your thoughts on Winston Churchill and his view of the European Union today . I think he would want to be there and to be engaged. He would not necessarily want this country he says Different Things at different times toward different places as the great campaigner but he sees britain as being in the church. But not actually participating in the union. I wish she had still been Prime Minister. If he had been he would have said yes. And it seems possible that given the huge importance in 1948 by far the biggest producer, there is a huge say of how this works. But it seems entirely conceivable or intergovernmental with that loss that we have seen today. That is the best that i can do. But britain was not appointed to be excluded from the conversation. But his vision for my country was very simple closely associated with the United States and with the former empire it seems to be the sentiment of the policy. Every Prime Minister it seems to have tried to have taken that. [laughter] i agree that. We can call it the union. But the relationship florida and how that created a problem. Churchill unlike any british politician with his agility going from one horse to the other. And he said a Political Party if you could just pick the one you carry across. But actually if you look at but i think he made the case that he was more consistent. Or to be riding on the principles of free trade or to go in the wrong direction. Free trade in those days was possessive like in the urban areas but in churchills view it was his fathers idea of democracy for the right approach. So i would argue that he was more consistent but no one ever performed thats and then to be across the floor once. O leader of the tory party why would he follow the a vice . You would be marvelous. [laughter] i write to the daily telegraph. [laughter] i am not aware that they said that. But David Cameron he has had to play a very difficult hand with the difficult circumstances of the hopeless liberal democrat characters. [laughter] they got a lot done and i think that situation with abandon the labor party and in confidence to abandon that labor party there is a very good chance there is a conservative majority after the election. And i am indeed seeking reelection in the next year or so. In may in fact. [laughter] they. In may. [laughter] who can remember what churchill said . After a grueling afternoon where he had watched the raf up in the scud this guy holding the germans he said dont talk to meet id have never been so moved that he keeps setting plan that and he kept saying in oxbridge. Any way that is what will happen. It will be alright. Give church was in charge today how with his Foreign Policy be different given the middle east . Speenine these questions are very hard because we cannot summon his ghost or with his views but he did the best he could. The great thing he did in my view was to give effect to the declaration, and if you read the stuff he says in the 20s when he is colonial secretary, when he gets these decorations of the jewish settlers and the palestinians, and the idea with which he approaches it, and his vision of jewish settlers helping the arabs to turn palestine into a land flowing with milk and honey, it is not an ignoble vision. You have to support the idea he deserved congratulations and support for that. Iraq, you know, what are you going to do . That seems to be what they wanted. People people today say it is completely illogical. My view is, im afraid, there is no particular the best solution for that area would be a benign version of either the roman or the ottoman empire. When you have such strife between different communities over such a large area you need some supervening power. The British Empire tried, but but in the end it did not have the wherewithal. The ottomans did it for a long time. That is, im afraid, what you need. We need. We dont have such an imperial power today. Indivisible. I thought so. We have time for just one last question. Churchill, one of the ways i many he failed to get him to sandhurst three times. And yet he won the nobel prize for literature. Sorry. I guess this is the last question, but i would like to turn your attention further east, specifically hong kong. You have talked about Winston Churchills churchills moral courage. We also talked about practicality. How would he view occupy a central, hong kongers standing up for democratic rights . I am in favor of democracy everywhere and always, whether it is sensible to be very aggressive toward the chinese about their view of the matter, i dont know, particularly when you consider and in all the years britain ruled hong kong i dont remember as having a system of democracy their. We should have. When we knew we were handing it over to the chinese, we suddenly conceived a great patent for democracy which we had not hitherto im afraid shown. But i dont want to mince words. I want democracy in hong kong. I believe it is the right way forward. I think it will eventually come. I find amazing talking to friends in china, members of he