91热爆

Arrival in Islamabad

• Nick
• 18 Nov 06, 07:05 PM

Islamabad: Blairforce One has just touched down in the Pakistani capital. The prime minister is here for talks on Sunday with President Musharraf.

No meeting could better illustrate the moral and political ambiguities inherent in the "war on terror". No relationship better demonstrates the limits of that war's rhetoric of black and white certainties. No alliance better explains why the idea of reaching out to the Syria and/or Iran, is now fashionable - providing they, like Pakistan, become "part of the solution and not part of the problem" .

Tony Blair will hail President Musharraf as a key ally in the war on terror. He will, I suspect, hold back from praising him for his role in the battle to spread freedom and democracy. General Musharraf, it's worth remembering, only became president once he took control of his country in a military coup. Since then he has talked much about encouraging the development of democracy without ever being elected himself. He was "deemed to have been elected" after being backed by Pakistan's electoral college.

Musharraf will be praised for his help in countering the threat of Islamic terrorism in Britain and Pakistan will be rewarded with a doubling of development aid over the next three years. There will be less talk, no doubt, about the widespread belief that the Taliban's strength in Afghanistan depends on their ability to operate with impunity in parts of Pakistan with the support of either rogue or retired officers from Pakistan's intelligence service (ISI). That view has been expressed recently by NATO commanders, the Afghan government and a leaked Ministry of Defence thinktank paper. This after a year in which 18 British soldiers have died fighting the Taliban.

It's worth remembering too that - according to his own memoirs - Musharraf was not an instinctive ally in the war on terror. He claims that the Americans threatened to bomb his country back to the stone age if he didn't come on side. By his own account he then calculated whether he could resist. Only when he'd decided he could not did he make his decision to form an alliance with the West.

So, why has the prime minister come to Pakistan to praise rather than to bury our reluctant ally in the war on terror?

First, Pakistan's security services are credited in London with helping stop terror attacks at home - not least in helping to capture Dhrien Barot the terrorist who was jailed for life recently. On this trip Tony Blair will offer 拢8miilion to help them with forensics, dealing with IEDs (improvised explosive devices) and tackling terrorist finances.

The president's policy of "enlightened moderation" is welcomed in London since it has led him to take on Islamic hardliners in the Sharia courts, the universities and Islamic schools. Indeed, much of the increased development aid Britain is offering will go to subsidise his programme of reforming the madrassa system to ensure that it does not educate the terrorists of the future how to hate the West.

Musharraf, it is also noted, has stayed in office for 7 years and survived two assassination attempts for his troubles.

PS: Downing Street now says that Tony Blair's two words - - were a "straightforward slip of the tongue". Some tongue. Some slip.

• Permalink
• Comments

Two little words

• Nick
• 18 Nov 06, 07:08 AM

"It has". Two little words that signify so much. They were uttered by Tony Blair in answer to Sir David Frost's suggestion that the situation in Iraq since the war had "so far been pretty much of a disaster". What do they signify? That the PM knows that there is simply no point any more arguing with interviewers, with the listening public and - arguably - with reality. Tony Blair knows that's an argument that has already been lost. He wishes instead to focus on the argument about who's to blame for the disaster - insurgents he insists - and what should be done now - staying there until "the job is done" he will continue to argue.

Political strategists call this strategy "concede and move on". There is one problem with this analysis. Downing Street deny he meant to say it. He was, they say, merely being courteous to his interviewer by acknowledging his question. Mmmm. As someone who's interviewed the PM more than a few times this argument's new to me. It is, of course, most likely that those two words were not a slip, not part of some strategy but were instead a reflection that Tony Blair doesn't regard the suggestion that the situation in Iraq has "so far been pretty much of a disaster" as remotely surprising.

More important than his views, though, are those of the politician visiting Basra today - Gordon Brown. Which words would he use to describe the situation in Iraq and, more importantly, how to improve it?

• Permalink
• Comments