Robin Lustig:
But the year began in Iraq: and the question was would Saddam Hussein allow international weapons inspectors full access to check whether he was still developing weapons of mass destruction.

The US and Britain prepared for war, but around the world millions of people demonstrated against it. Many shared the view of Salman Abdullah from the United Arab Emirates - yes, they wanted Saddam Hussein to go, but no, they did not want war.

Salman Abdullah:
We in Dubai are very close. We have seen 2 Gulf Wars. First, Mr Saddam had his adventures in Iran, and the same world which is jumping up and down to go and get hold of him kept absolutely quiet. He then repeated it in Kuwait. And now, suddenly, post 9/11, he must go. This is something that tells me it is not about Saddam or the Iraqi people. There is a different endgame as we see it in this part of the world, which Mr Bush and Mr Blair are at it...

Robin Lustig:
What do you think, Salman, would be the effect on Dubai, on the Gulf as a whole, if there were military action in Iraq? Would it make the region safer or not?

Salman Abdullah:
Well it would definitely make the region safer if Saddam wasn't here, but I don't think that would be the first fruit we would get. What will happen first is that there will be greater polarisation between the vast majority of Western expatriates living very peacefully in this country, and also the Muslims in this part of the world will feel that this is not a war on Saddam but this is a war on Islam.

Robin Lustig:
Is that how it looks to you?

Salman Abdullah:
Well I think that's they way it's going to go because we are in Dubai a very moderate city, a very moderate country, but there is only so much you can take.

Robin Lustig:
Well let's go now to Yorkshire in Northern England - David Seddon is on the line from there. David, do you feel that this at all affects you personally?

David Seddon:
Yes it does - it affects me immensely in that I'm an ex-serviceman who was discharged in 1986, who served his queen and country so to speak... To be under the threat at the age of 41, to possibly be called up to go and fight a war which isn't even a war which we should even be brought into. It's not an English war - we're not defending our shores, we're not defending our interests. The only interest which I feel we're defending is that of oil, or possibly a political issue or also even a religious war.

Robin Lustig:
But David let me just put to you now what the British Prime Minister Tony Blair has argued now for many, many months: that if Iraq is allowed to keep WMD, there is a very real risk that sooner or later they will pass into the hands of groups who'll then use them on targets elsewhere and the Britain and the people of Britain would then be at risk. Do you just simply not accept that?

David Seddon:
Say that we go in tomorrow. What's to say that they don't already have those Weapons of Mass Destruction waiting to use them here now, ready to use them in Britain, in Europe, in the United States?

David Seddon:
But you face - you could face quite soon a very real personal dilemma. As a reservist you could be called up, you could be asked to go and fight in a war you quite obviously don't agree with. What would you do?

Robin Lustig:
I'd probably refuse to go. I have a responsibility, which is my children.

Robin Lustig:
You'd go to jail, wouldn't you?

David Seddon:
Yes I would. And I'd quite happily do that.

Robin Lustig:
That was back in February. There were deep divisions over Iraq at the United Nations Security Council as well - the US and Britain wanted a second resolution to authorise the use of force, but other permanent members of the security council, including Russia, weren't so sure.

In March, the Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, was in London for talks with the British Government. On Talking Point with Bridget Kendall he answered some of your emails.

Bridget Kendall:
This question is from Diogo Pereira, Brazil who says "I would like to know whether Russia would be prepared to use its veto power to block a unilateralist US attack on Iraq?"

Igor Ivanov:
To be honest, I'm surprised why such attention is paid to this issue of veto - whether there will be a veto or not. The Russian suggestion is entirely something else. Over recent times, we have been trying to achieve unanimity in the Security Council because only unanimity will provide success in the solution of the Iraqi problem.

We believe that there are opportunities for continuing political efforts and we are continuing to work at the Security Council in this direction to persuade our partners that it is necessary to continue the work of the inspectors and to look for a political solution.

At the same time, we have possibilities and we are still flexible. Today to opt for military action when there are still all possibilities to solve it politically, with the use of inspectors, we believe that would be a mistake.

We are saying to our partners that this would a mistake and we warn them against this mistake so that our partners will not make a mistake. And of course Russia, if somebody should take such a decision to go to war against Iraq, Russia would not support such action.

Bridget Kendall:
If you say that this is a mistake, but American officials are saying that there's still hope that they can introduce this resolution for a vote next week. Say they get nine votes in favour, would Russia use its veto?

Igor Ivanov:
You know I don't like to speculate and to cast about theoretically because I rely on facts. But I can say one thing, that Russia will not support any decision which would directly or indirectly open a way to war against Iraq.

Bridget Kendall:
But you don't exclude using your veto?

Igor Ivanov:
I do not rule anything out because the right of veto is the right which can be used by any permanent member of the Security Council, including Russia, and if this is necessary Russia can resort to using this right.

Robin Lustig:
Well, there was no second resolution and no veto. On March 20th, the war began. In the first week, you sent us more than 100,000 emails. Bridget Kendall sifted through them and took your calls.

Bridget:
I'd just like to bring in some of the emails we've had here - an enormous number of opinions on both sides.

This is from Victor Ofeme in Lagos in Nigeria who says "This war is legitimate and justified to me. He has shown the world that he has no regard for the United Nations"

And from Burma, Thomas Myant wrote to us: "There might be a few Iraqi civilian casualties but then there are a lot more people dying, being tortured and obliterated under the rule of Saddam"

But we've also had completely different views. Lamisu is in Jordan and said: "I do believe that Saddam Hussein is a dictator but the question is why now, and why the Iraqi regime and not other dictatorial regimes?"

And Joe, who emailed us from China, adding onto that said "What next? Does it mean war against North Korea next?"

But let's now go to another caller. Our next caller is Shimaa Taher, she's calling us from Malaysia but I understand, Shimaa, that you're Iraqi and that your parents are in Baghdad. Is that right?

Bridget Kendall:
And have you been in touch with them?

Shimaa Taher:
Yes, my family is there. Actually, I call them every day because I am quite worried about them. What I think about this war... I think this war is actually illegal. And I think, like, America and the UK are the leaders of the world, you know - great nations - and they have all the possibilities to make our world a better place to live in. They have the capabilities to deal with people peacefully. They don't have to do something like this.

With this war they will divide the world and they disrespect the United Nations and I don't know why they would do something like this. And actually, the civilians are... most people there who, who are affected by this war. They are bombing civilians more than anything else. And this will make them angry and encourage them to fight more, especially in Baghdad.

Bridget Kendall:
What we've been hearing in military briefings from British and American spokesmen is that they're being very careful not to bomb civilians. Is that what you're hearing from your parents?

Shimaa Taher:
Yes, they are saying that they cannot sleep because the floor is shaking, and they are really scared. They think that many, many civilians are in the hospital. And 77 civilians were killed because of this bombing.

Bridget Kendall:
But as far as your parents and their friends go - are they alright? Are their houses alright?

Shimaa Taher:
They are okay because the area they are living in is quite far from the bombing. Not very far... but I mean the bombing is not nearby. But the houses near the palaces are broken. And many people are injured in the hospital - even though the bombs was quite far away because they are using very strong bombs in Baghdad.

Bridget Kendall:
Let's go to another caller now and this is Adil Wahab whose calling us from Australia in Sydney. But I understand Adil that you're an Iraqi. Is that right?

Adil Wahab: Yes I am

Bridget Kendall:
And what's your view of this bombing?

Adil Wahab:
Well what's my view? For the last 35 years, the Iraqi people haven't heard or seen a taste of the freedom. They are under this tyranny. For the last 35 years there are two million people died one way or another. And now there is a hope that these 22 million people, one day they will see what human living is all about. What humans can give when there is a freedom, when there is a choice, when there is something they can do for their children for the future.

Bridget Kendall:
Adil, whereabouts in Iraq are you from?

Adil Wahab:
My family is in different places around Iraq, but I mainly lived in Baghdad.

Bridget Kendall:
And what do you think will be the reception for these US-led forces when they do reach Baghdad?

Adil Wahab:
Well I got a lot of relatives there. My family could be a victim of this war one way or another. We could end up losing some of them. But we already lost one and a half million people. There was no other way you'd get rid of this tyranny if it wasn't for the help coming from outside. What is the alternative? Another 35 years of Saddam or the extension of his family?

Bridget Kendall:
But do you think American troops will be welcomed, or do you think people will be too scared?

Adil Wahab:
Sorry. I'm pretty sure if there is a chance for the people to express their feelings, they will hug every soldier which is coming there. Because they know one day they will thank these people to see what the human freedom is. They will thank these people and hug them.

Robin Lustig;
By April 9th, less than three weeks later, American troops were in the centre of Baghdad, and all around the world people watched television pictures of US marines helping jubilant Iraqis pull a huge statue of Saddam Hussein to the ground. In a special edition of Talking Point that day, Mike Wooldridge heard your reactions. Including those of Suhaib, an Iraqi living in Saudi Arabia.

Mike Wooldridge:
What's your reaction?

Suhaib Ahmed:
Well, of course, extremely happy. Finally we got rid of him. I mean for the first time I'm using my real name, not an assumed name. This in itself makes quite a difference - for me, for all my fellow Iraqis.

Mike Wooldridge:
So you suddenly feel in some way more secure today, do you?

Suhaib Ahmed:
Very. Very. I'll tell you something. We lived a life whereby, even in the university, in fear of Saddam's agents we used to greet each other with a blink of an eye because your friend happens to belong to an opposition party. This is our life. This is what it was like.

The nightmare is over. I just can't describe how happy I am. Emotional for all these people who lost their lives over nothing by someone just came out of nothing and changed all our lives. And, eh, guess what? Look at what is happening. People just can't believe that he's finally gone. I hope it's true.

Mike Wooldridge:
Well that begs a question. What do you think should, and indeed will happen next?

Suhaib Ahmed:
Well above all, of course, maintain law and order. Really, I think now... I call up on all my fellow Iraqis to think with cool heads. I think we need the exiles from America and Europe, who have lived in a democratic environment, and learned to tolerate, learned the art of compromise, to come in and contribute effectively to the future of Iraq.

I am reluctant to parties who are based in countries where they hardly got used to toleration or, for that matter, liberalism to come in and start dictating the rules. And above all we do need everyone - all fellow Iraqis - to try to control this looting. I do understand the feelings of the looters. These people who have been robbed by Saddam - robbed clean - and these people, quite rightly so, are entitled to the fortune of Iraq over the past twenty years. One of the richest countries in the region, all these people are really reduced to nothing but scavengers. Scroungers. And that makes me angry. So I understand their feelings but, however, the rule of law must be obeyed.

I would call on the allies to do what they did in Germany - to swear in the judiciaries. That is, six judges, to announce the setting up of a court...

Mike Wooldridge:
Top priority once they have control. Suhaib Ahmed, thank you very much indeed for your call. One SMS text message that's come in from Ghana while we've been on the air from Kuma: "Happy to see Saddam's statue go down, the regime is gone for good."

Now let's go to our second caller, calling from London - Tuga al-Askari. You're also Iraqi, aren't you?

Tuga al-Askari:
Yes I am.

Mike Wooldridge:
And how are you feeling today because of what you've seen?

Tuga al-Askari:
I never thought I'd live to see his day. This is a day that Iraqis have been waiting for 35 years. It is the end of a brutal regime that has oppressed an entire nation and has killed many of my countrymen.

I'd also like to say - I'd like the anti-war demonstrators to watch these images from central Baghdad. As we've been telling the world for months now, Iraqis inside Iraq have wanted the end of this tyrannical regime but their concern is regarding the future. And I think this is really important - they want initial military rule, although necessary, to be no longer than a few weeks.

Mike Wooldridge:
Now you're family are actually in Baghdad now, aren't they? Have you been in touch with them today?

Tuga al-Askari:
Not since the start of the war, and it's really worrying.

Mike Wooldridge:
Not since the war began? Not for three weeks?

Tuga al-Askari:
No. It's really horrible. I don't know if they're alive or dead. But I hope they are alive and well, and I hope that everyone can go back to their country.

Mike Wooldridge:
Indeed. Assuming they are alright, how do you think will be feeling today, being there in Baghdad?

Tuga al-Askari:
Very relieved. My family have suffered under the regime. We have an aunt who was raped in front of her husband and then killed in front of her husband. I have a cousin who was two and burnt alive in front of her parents. They didn't have any crimes... I also have two uncles who were killed by the regime. Saddam's regime is very, very brutal and I'm very glad to see it go.

Can I just say about the post-Saddam Iraq? I'd like... well, we've actually been in touch with Iraqis inside Iraq. From before the war we've been trying to talk to them in private. They're all worried about post-Saddam Iraq. And what they want is the initial military rule, although necessary, to be no longer than a few weeks. After that, they want a transition to a genuine democracy.

Robin Lustig:
Once Saddam had been defeated, the expectation in many parts of the world was that we would soon learn whether or not he had secretly been developing weapons of mass destruction. But by the end of April, when British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, was Bridget Kendall's guest on Talking Point, nothing had been found. And that's what Atef Eidaroos in Egypt wanted to ask him about.

Atef Eidaroos:
I would like to ask Mr Jack Straw about the result of invasion by the United States of America and Britain to Iraq - they were looking for weapons of mass destruction but they didn't find anything. And I know that this invasion killed thousands of people, made people homeless, destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq.

Bridget Kendall:
Actually among the thousands of e-mails we've had, this is the question that's come up again and again. The military action in Iraq seemed to be because of the weapons of mass destruction - we haven't found any yet.

Jack Straw:
Well let's be clear about this - military action was because of Iraq's failure fully to comply with the United Nations obligations going back over 12 years. And there isn't an issue about whether Iraq has had weapons of mass destruction - everybody knows that's the case. Atef, if I may call you that, there are thousands and thousands of victims of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons, there are some people who are still dying from the gas attacks. And as far as the biological weapons programmes are concerned, we know that they existed from the information given by Saddam Hussein's son-in-law back in 1995.

So, these programmes have existed and Saddam Hussein wilfully refused to comply with the weapons inspectors. Now, that tells its own story. And the military action was justified the day that we took it. Now we very much hope we do find a full account of this anthrax and all the other things. But whether we do depends not just on our detective capabilities but depends on the degree to which the Iraqi regime concealed these weapons and that remains to be seen.

Bridget Kendall:
We've got a caller on the line from Brazil, from Brasilia. Her name is Celia Mota, and she wants to pick on this. Celia, what's your question to the Foreign Secretary?

Celia Mota:
My question is about the destruction weapons. I would like to know is - these weapons have not been found at all. How is the credibility of the Labour Government after this?

Bridget Kendall:
Thank you Celia. That's a question about the credibility of the British Government about the weapons of mass destruction. I'd just like to add in here another e-mail we've had which is more specifically about Dr Hans Blix, who leads the UN weapons inspectors. Tony Agassori in the USA: Why can't you allow Hans Blix and the inspectors back into Iraq to continue their work to preserve the credibility of the discovery of possible weapons of mass destructions?

Jack Straw:
Let's deal with both those questions. First of all the lady from Brazil who's saying that our credibility will be damaged if we don't find such weapons. If I can turn the question around, of course I accept that the public justification for the military action will be made easier if we're able to say, well here were the 10,000 litres of anthrax, here they are physically. I don't however think it will be like that because of the months of warning that the Saddam regime had and their undoubted skill at hiding this material.

And I'll just give one example. We had been fighting a terrorist war in Northern Ireland and the provisional IRA did not use small-scale weapons like chemical and biological weapons, as we know, they used guns and explosives. They hid those guns and explosives in dumps. Despite having thousands of security forces in Northern Ireland - even now we still do not know where those dumps are. So trying to find this material will be difficult but we're put a lot of people on to finding it.

Now the second question which you've just raised from the e-mail was about whether Dr Blix and the UNMOVIC team should go back. Dr Blix actually told the Security Council earlier this week, when he was discussing the future of UNMOVIC, that the time was not right for UNMOVIC to go back because he accepted that there was a military situation where it would not be possible for the inspectors directly to work.

But there's a reality here as well, Bridget, which is this - given the fact that it will be American and British military who will be first on to any site it will always be possible for those who opposed this military action from the beginning to say, "oh well, they were planted." Now they won't be planted, we've gone to immense care to ensure the veracity of the finds and why the devil would we plant any of this, But I hope that we do find the material.

Robin Lustig:
That was in late April, and so far they still haven't found anything. Over the following months, we kept a close eye on events in Iraq, and we heard your views about the continuing violence, the attacks on the UN and the Red Cross and the debate over Iraq's political future.

In November, my guest on a special edition of Talking Point to discuss democracy was Adnan Pachachi, a former Iraqi foreign minister from before Saddam Hussein came to power, and now a leading member of the Iraqi governing council that was set up by the Americans. Riad al Taher, an Iraqi exile living here in London, challenged the council's legitimacy.

Riad al Taher:
Well, I really find it rich for Mr Pachachi and the governing council to talk about democracy when none of them are elected or even representative of the Iraqi people at large. They're simply appointees of Paul Bremer. They have no power - even if you apply the mode of democracy - collectively, their rules can be over-ruled by Paul Bremer. These people, Iraqi people, see them as a collaborator.

Robin Lustig:
Okay, Riad, you've made your point, but I think you wanted to ask Mr Pachachi something, didn't you?

Riad al Taher:
Well I really want to ask is can he reach the Iraqi people?

Robin Lustig:
Okay, let's get Adnan Pachachi's response to that. Mr Pachachi, you're there simply because the Americans put you there.

Adnan Pachachi:
I think what this man is saying is utter nonsense. The governing council was not appointed by Bremer or the Americans, it came as a result of extensive and intensive consultations among Iraqis of all political persuasions. We do not serve at the pleasure of anybody. We have appointed ourselves, and in fact we did that in response to the Security Council resolution 1483, which supports the Iraqi people to form an interim administration. And that's precisely what we did. And we are trying now to go through a constitutional process whereby a constitution can be enacted by Iraqis and then it will be submitted in a referendum to the Iraqi people, and then elections would be held under international supervision for a government that will derive its legitimacy from the people. So what this person has been saying is utter nonsense and abusive and I really find it extraordinary that you should allow people like that to use the airwaves.

Robin Lustig:
But Adnan Pachachi you will be aware that there is a perception in many different places - we've had callers and emails all making the same point - that your colleagues would not be there if the Americans hadn't put you there. Now you have answered that point very clearly...

Adnan Pachachi:
No! I would not be there if the Americans put me there. I wouldn't accept that. I was put there by Iraqis. I am sick and tired of being told we are being put there by Americans so stop saying that please.

Robin Lustig:
What I would like to do now is ask you a simple question, which is if you think it is possible in principle for a country like the US to export, encourage and facilitate the growth of democracy in a country like Iraq?

Adnan Pachachi:
It's not a question of facilitating or growing. Democratic principles are universal. They are applicable everywhere in the world. Things like the supremacy of the law, the periodic transfer of power by peaceful means, the subjugation of military power to civilian authority. These are universal values that we adopt. They are not exported from here and there. They are applicable everywhere in the world. And we are trying to start a diplomatic experiment. It won't be easy - it will be difficult, I suppose, from time to time. But we are determined to do it.

Robin Lustig:That was just last month, and the debate goes on. For President Bush, the war in Iraq was part of his continuing war against terrorism, following the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. Two years on, we broadcast a special series of programmes to see what you thought about the relationship between Islam and the West. On the second anniversary of the attacks, my guest was President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. Among our callers was Uzair Aziz Daoud in the United Arab Emirates.

Uzair Aziz Daoud :
Mr President nice to having the opportunity to talk to you. I'm from Karachi. My question to you is how do you as a realistic leader expect to bridge the ever deepening differences between the fiercely angry Islamic world and the West? Whereby the Islamic world views America and the West as imperialist regimes trying to suppress Islamic propagation and values. Whereas the West undoubtedly considers every practising Muslim and freedom fighter as extremist.

President Pervez Musharraf:
Yes. Well the answer - I would like to give an answer, this is a very important question. The issue as you have said yourself is that at the moment the difference has become so large that the Islamic world thinks that the West is targeting Islam as a religion, while the West thinks that Islam as a religion is a religion of extremism and intolerance and confrontation. Now we have to realise - the whole world has to understand that the world has become a very dangerous place to live in and therefore we need to bring about a change.

And my theory, as I always have been saying, is a two prong strategy required to be executed. One of the prongs of this strategy is to be executed by the Islamic world, in that we have to crystallise our thoughts, we have to decide whether the way forward is a way of confrontation, extremism, militancy. Or the way forward is one of human development, of emancipation of the Muslim world, which is the worst off at the moment in all social indicators.

Certainly the way forward is one, as I call it, enlightened moderation. Now this is what we need to analyse in the Islamic world and adopt the course of enlightened moderation. On the other hand the single strategy, only to be executed by the Islamic world will not work.

Therefore, the West has to deliver the other prong of the strategy. And the second prong that has to be delivered by the West, may I say, is that all political disputes, all of them involve Muslims unfortunately and Muslims seem to be on the receiving end of all of them, they must be resolved with justice and this justice needs to be seen to be done by the Muslim world. This is one... And secondly, I would urge the West to assist the Muslim world in poverty alleviation and education. Because this gives rise to extremism.

So therefore having addressed political disputes, poverty and education we would be addressing the core issue which leads to extremism, fundamentalism and militancy. But this is a two pronged strategy, I think it was a long answer but this question that you asked was very important, this is what I think ought to be done by the whole world.

In October, Lyse Doucet's guest on the programme was President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. He came to power after the overthrow of the Taleban, and Erik Cooke from Washington DC. had this question for him.

Erik Cooke:
Good afternoon Mr President. Do you feel that you have enough support in particular from the US government for you to exercise control over the entire country?

Hamid Karzai:
I have support enough from the US government and if I feel that the support is not enough I will speak about it, I will tell President Bush and I will talk about it. But at this point the support is good enough, I have the assurances. I just hope that Afghanistan will receive a lot more in reconstruction assistance which is vital for our economy to begin to live off its own development.

Lyse Doucet:
And Erik do you believe that the people of the United States still worry about Afghanistan, still care about it?

Erik Cooke:
Well I think that's why I asked the question because in our media today it seems as though we're focused so much on Iraq and we have no indication from - it seems to me from the Afghanistani people as to whether or not they feel that they're getting enough of the pie, whether we've committed enough resources to them.

Hamid Karzai:
Well there has been the commitment of resources. President Bush announced a few days ago in New York in the UN $1.2 billion for Afghanistan. If you're asking me if I'm satisfied with that I would say yes, we are grateful that the world is helping us. But if you ask me if I need more, I will say, yes I need more, the country needs more. And as far as the media is concerned it doesn't focus on Afghanistan now as much as it does on Iraq because Afghanistan is a relatively successful case, there is a political process going on there, there isn't a crisis that would warrant media's stronger attention. I hope they did focus more on the achievements in Afghanistan and highlighted that to the people of the United States for them to learn off it and to provide more assistance and attention. They've been kind to us already.

Lyse Doucet:
You're being very diplomatic President Karzai. It doesn't make you angry that of the $87 billion that President Bush has asked for only $1.2 billion goes for aid to Afghanistan? In Afghanistan and Iraq there are the same number of people but Afghanistan is getting 10% of what Iraq is getting.

Hamid Karzai:
Well I mentioned earlier if I get more money for reconstruction I'll be happy.

Lyse Doucet:
But do you warn the United States, other Western governments that there's a consequence - did you give those warnings?

Hamid Karzai:
Yes.

Lyse Doucet:
And they responded positively.

Hamid Karzai:
Yes, we will push them.

Robin Lustig:
Later that month, Lyse's guest in Kuala Lumpur was the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohammad, who was stepping down after 22 years in power. He'd called Malaysia a model Islamic state and had condemned the US-led military attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among our callers on that programme was Andrei in Hong Kong.

Andrei:
Good morning, Dr Mahathir. My question is this: during your term as prime minister, you have highly appreciated the West for its various achievements. On the other hand you, sir, often would curse the West for various misdeeds. So can these contradictions be seen in one way or another as a manifestation or reflection of the so-called "clash of civilisations"?

Dr Mahathir Mohamad:
We there is apparently a clash of civilisations because today a lot of people feel that Muslims are terrorists led by a prophet who was a terrorist. Obviously there is enmity towards the Muslims. But we have a need to explain what Islam is all about. A lot of people think that the teachings of Islam make them confrontational. But in fact if you go to the fundamentals of Islam, we are urged to live in peace with each other and with others. It is the lack of understanding of Islam that has led to this present situation. Not only a lack of understanding among the non-Muslims, even Muslims are subjected to different interpretations of Islam. We seem to emphasise the need for Muslims to be apart from people of other religions. That is why, because of these teachings, which I think is wrong, the Muslims, seem to be confrontational and unable to cooperate with others.

Lyse Doucet:
Andrei thank you for joining us from Hong Kong. A number of the people who e-mailed us had similar questions. David Hebblethwaite, e-mailed us from London, England: He wanted to know whether you thought there was a need for, what he called, an "Islamic Reformation", to allow that modernisation to take place? If so, is not the battle within Islam itself, rather than between Islam and the West? The "clash of civilisations" which you seem to have agreed with?

Dr Mahathir Mohamad:
To a certain extent yes. But as I made the comparison with Christianity - even among Christians before there were different interpretations which led to some taking very extreme action. For example, the Spanish Inquisition is not a manifestation of Christianity but it is the result of people with vested interests interpreting Christianity in a way that suits their purposes.

The same thing is happening with the Muslims. We have people who are making interpretations which are contrary to the true teachings of Islam. There is no need for a reform of Islam. But there is a need to go back to the original true teachings of Islam.

Robin Lustig:
Another world leader who joined Bridget Kendall this year was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Helen Clark Among the questions for her was one that had nothing to do with Iraq, Afghanistan or Islam.

Bridget Kendall:
Let's move on to something slightly different now. There's been a lot of interest around the world in this new law that's been passed by your parliament to legalise prostitution. It was passed very narrowly, in fact I believe you had the casting vote. And we have on the line now Ryan Mahon from Washington USA, who's got about that. Ryan what would you like to say to the Prime Minister?

Ryan Mahon:
Good morning Prime Minister Clark. I'm an anthropology student at an American university in Washington DC. I've done some interviews with service providers, to survivors of sex trafficking, and that's really where my question comes from. I was wondering how you think legalising prostitution will impact on sex trafficking of children and women? And if you could, in your response, address how you think legalised prostitution will impact, not only organised crime networks and gangs, but less formal networks of peers and friends interested in exploited children and women?

Helen Clark:
Well I think the most adverse impacts that you talk about actually thrive in a situation where prostitution is in the twilight, it's not legal and therefore it's most likely to attract the attention of criminals, to put no finer point on it.

We had this bill passed very narrowly through the New Zealand parliament, it was a members' bill, not a government bill. The result was 60 votes for, 59 against and one abstention. So at that point any single person changing their mind could have changed the overall result. Why did I support it? I supported it not because I favour prostitution - I personally find prostitution quite abhorrent and if you want to use words about morality I don't like it at all. But I have to distinguish between my personal moral views on it and what's appropriate for women and then the difficulties of having an activity in society, which has always been with us, operating beyond the law and where the people engaged in the trade - and it's generally women - are very, very vulnerable. They've got no proper protection of the law, no issues of health and safety can be dealt with, employment law etc. etc. So they're very vulnerable and marginalised people.

So my view is it's better to be absolutely honest about the fact that your society has prostitution and everyone knew that the signs that said massage parlour were really something else and by bringing in a control system about it, I think we can try and minimise the worst effects of it.

Bridget Kendall:
You don't worry that with the best of intentions you could be making prostitution into a problem for New Zealand because people may think of it as a possible career?

Helen Clark:
No I don't think that as a result of what has happened they'll be a single more person attracted to work in this rather unpleasant profession and I don't think they'll be a single more client. I think what we do in New Zealand is endeavour to have the law deal with reality rather than some sort of illusion that it doesn't happen.

Robin Lustig:
Last month, the BBC World Service broadcast a special two-week season of programmes about the global Aids epidemic. It was launched here on Talking Point, when my guests included the head of the United Nations agency that coordinates the fight against HIV and AIDS, Peter Piot. Among our callers was Charles Delevigne.

Charles Delevigne:
There is so much stigma still attached to HIV and AIDS in South Africa. Basically a lot of people live under denial, they think that HIV and AIDS will never touch them, until unfortunately it's too late. And when they finally realise that this is it, I have got it, they set about going through a denial pattern where they lose their jobs, they become unemployed, they haven't got money to back themselves to get medication, there is no welfare state in South Africa to help people with this, to help them with education. We've had so many past leaders in our country that have said - well let's rather give some free condoms to people, let's rather teach them, sort of like rejecting everyone that is HIV already.

Robin Lustig:
And you speak from personal experience Charles do you?

Charles Delevigne:
Yes, I have full blown AIDS. I've actually had to come to England because there was no help for me in South Africa, I didn't have any medication, I didn't have any money to fall back on to pay for it. I'm actually in England at the moment, I have applied for asylum here and I am getting antiretrovirals right now, through the NHS. Ashamedly I'm admitting this because I just don't think that it should be happening. South Africa has had so many international countries offer help, either subsidised medication or free medication, and they continue to say - look, HIV is not a death threat - but there are so many people dying each day, so how do we explain it all?

Robin Lustig:
Charles, thank you for the call. Peter Piot I want to come on to medication in a moment but first on the question of stigma. We've had an e-mail from Colin Murray in Northern Ireland who says: What can be done to de-stigmatise this disease worldwide?

Peter Piot:
Well first I'd like to say Robin that stigma and discrimination associated with HIV is not specific to any single country. I've seen it in every single country I've been in. And it can go down - we've seen it where there are good campaigns but it's everywhere. I was in China and in India last week and I can tell you there is a lot of stigma that makes it very difficult to speak openly about HIV and to even offer treatment to those who have it because why would they come forward?

Robin Lustig:
Is it possible to deal with stigma - is it possible somehow?

Peter Piot:
I think so. Yes in UNAIDS it's been one of our top priorities and with several countries what we've done is campaigns. First of all there's information, when people know that you can't get AIDS from sitting next to someone on a bus that already helps but information isn't everything. There are campaigns where people living with HIV, who are open about it, appear with public figures - can be the president of a country, we've got a whole series of posters with famous football stars, cricket stars, pop singers, there are also politicians, and they're there and they say look these are our brothers and sisters. Supporting people living with HIV to come out. In many countries the fact that Magic Johnson, that Philly Lutaya, a famous singer in Uganda who's now unfortunately died from AIDS, they came out and they said - I have it, I'm HIV positive. That also changes it from a statistic, from a bad boy or a girl who has it, it's now a famous person, a role model often for youngsters particularly who has it, that also helps. And then finally one of the things we're doing is supporting groups of people living with HIV to come out, provide safe space, it's important that they go and talk in schools, on the radio and the TV and at the same time that we have laws that protect people from being discriminated.

Robin Lustig:
Two weeks later, Roger Hearing was discussing the same issue with President Festus Mogae of Botswana - which has the highest incidence of HIV/Aids in the world. Taylor Ahlgren called into the programme from Botswana's capital, Gaborone.

Taylor Ahlgren:
I've been here for approximately five months now, and one thing that I have noticed is a great fear about discussing HIV/Aids, just on a casual level. It seems like there's a strong stigma here against those that do have HIV/Aids and those that do have done wrong. It seems like many in Botswana here are even afraid to get tested because of this strong fear.

I was really impressed that you announced your negative HIV status to the public and I was wondering what else is being focused on from your government in order to increase discussion within the public about HIV?

Roger Hearing:
Let's put that to President Mogae, what else do you have to try and change the stigma that's attached to all this?

President Festus Mogae:
It's the most difficult part - there is stigma and has been for some time and for a long time - for the last couple of years people are not willing to talk about it - first about sexual matters and secondly about the HIV/Aids pandemic. But I should have thought that that has changed very substantially because now whenever I make a public statement or address meetings - whenever ministers and members of parliament address public meetings they speak about HIV/Aids. We never make address public meetings without talking about HIV/Aids and I think the public officials, not only health officials, as was the case at the beginning. But I must acknowledge that stigma persists, stigma persists and I agree and that is part of the reason why many people are reluctant to know their HIV status because of the social stigma attached to the disease.

Roger Hearing:
But you yourself had a test and it was clear.

President Festus Mogae:
Yes I had a test but it's only part of the effort to try and encourage people to know their status especially as antiretroviral therapy is available. One tries to say look it's very important to know your status, your HIV status, so that if you are negative then you try to remain negative and if you are positive you can get be assisted. Being positive is no longer the death sentence that it used to be and that HIV is just a disease like any other.

Roger Hearing:
You had an HIV test - would you encourage all your ministers to do it, would that help perhaps?

President Festus Mogae:
Many of them have.

Roger Hearing:
Would you ask them all to do it perhaps - would that be a way forward?

President Festus Mogae:
Well I will, I have asked them and they are testing - even members of parliament. Just this week three members of parliament were tested and announced it. What we are doing is that with the effect from the 1st January, anybody who goes to a government medical facility and needs to be tested unless they refuse they will be tested for HIV/Aids.

Robin Lustig:
But it wasn't all war and disease on Talking Point this year. Back in May we marked the 50th anniversary of the first ascent of Mount Everest with our guest Chris Bonington, the British Mountaineer who got to the top in 1975 at the age of fifty. Alexander Dunn phoned in from Madrid in Spain to ask what it's like on the top of the world.

Alexander Dunn:
Basically I have always been quite curious about the area at the summit of Mount Everest? I'd like to know how large an area is it at the summit? And what does it look like? Is it flat? Is it steep? How many people could you fit on there more or less?

Sir Chris Bonington:
Well it's a really nice summit actually. Some summits are big round dome things and you can't really tell what the summit is - Everest isn't like that. The actual top is about the size of I'd say a pool table. There were six of us that went to the top in 1985 and there was just room for all six of us to be on top and mill around a tiny bit but not very much.

The view from it is absolutely incredible - we got up on a fine day. To the north, you're looking across the Tibetan plateau and I reckon you can see 250 - 300 miles at least to the north. You can see the full curvature of the earth and the Tibetan plateau is not flat, it's rounded rolling hills with the occasional snow-capped mountain, and then to the east and west you've got the chain of the Himalayas - these wonderful jagged peaks. And then to the south, you've got India and there you have cloud but you also have pollution so you can't see a thing, there's just a haze. It's a wonderful place to be.

Robin Lustig:
Alexander, have you sometimes dreamt of being there? Have you wondered what it would be like to stand there?

Alexander Dunn:
I sure have. I'm very interested in mountaineering. I've begun to climb some mountains here in Spain. The highest I've been so far is 2,500 metres which is not that much. But I'd love to continue doing some and hopefully in the future climb a higher mountain.