[the Independent]
Streets burn with hatred as Blair visits newest ally
War on terrorism: Pakistan
By Peter Popham in Peshawar
05 October 2001

Why, it may be asked, is Tony Blair coming to Pakistan today instead
of Donald Rumsfeld? Could it be anything to do with the large number
of effigies of George Bush that have gone up in smoke here during the
past three weeks?

Washington has been showing signs of deep unease with its long-term
south Asian ally ever since Pervez Musharraf seized power in a coup
almost two years ago. President Bill Clinton did actually visit
Pakistan, the only important world leader to pay the general that
honour until Mr Blair's visit today, but it was one of the more
extraordinary diplomatic events of recent times: dubiously and
controversially tacked on to the fag end of Clinton's tumultuously
successful Indian tour, it lasted half a day.

A succession of decoy Air Force Ones landed at Islamabad's airport to
reduce the probability of the President being blown up; several
armour-plated black limousines rolled through the capital for the same
reason. Mr Clinton refused to smile and did not even permit a
photograph of the two of them shaking hands.

That's a measure of how much the world has changed. Pakistan's
self-declared President is now the West's valued ally; Pakistan,
tossed in the strategic garbage bin in preference for huge, sexy
India, finds itself fished out again. And mirabile dictu, here comes
Mr Blair to press the flesh.

It's unlikely, when they were deciding who should go where this week,
that Mr Blair plumped for Pakistan on the grounds of Raj nostalgia,
Commonwealth fellow-feeling or affection for the Queen.

Pakistanis still smoke Gold Flake cigarettes and drink Lipton's tea,
and the defence of Pakistan's realm takes place in the vast and still
gleaming cantonments the British built to defend what was always the
most troublesome and volatile part of the Indian empire. But for the
Islamist hardliners here, Mr Blair is just another crusader,
representative of the two nations explicitly targeted by Osama bin
Laden, military and civilians alike, for righteous attacks.

And what can he hope to achieve? What can he realistically ask the
general to provide? Despite the trappings of absolute power, Pervez
Musharraf this week finds himself in the most ticklish quandary any
Pakistani leader has ever confronted. And it is ticklish in the same
skin-crawling, incalculable way that life in the West is now
terrifying and strange. The dangers are hiding in the shadows, biding
their time, keeping their ammunition dry. No one knows how or where or
when they will strike, or how far General Musharraf dares to push his
pro-West line before they strike for all they are worth.

It is likely, for example, that General Musharraf got a vivid glimpse
of the fanatical power on the side of his hidden enemies on Monday,
when an attack by a suicide bomber on the state legislature of
Srinagar, the summer capital of Indian Kashmir, killed 34 people and
injured more than 70.

Ostensibly an attack on Indian rule in Kashmir, it was in fact
directed squarely at General Musharraf. Responding to the West's
demands in the wake of 11 September, he has moved to shut down some of
the mujahedin outfits fighting India in Kashmir which have their
offices and training camps in Pakistani Kashmir.

Pakistan has always maintained that it gives Kashmir's "freedom
fighters" - who include associates of Mr bin Laden - moral support
only; the world has always, with good reason, believed the support
went much further. The struggle to "liberate" the Muslim-majority
state of Kashmir, generations of Pakistanis have been told by their
rulers, is at the heart of Pakistan's identity. Now President
Musharraf must execute a U-turn and tell his people that no, that was
all rubbish, actually these are terrorists just like the scoundrels
who killed all those innocent people in New York and Washington.

That's what the West wants him to do. But if the general's utterances
have been getting more mouse-like these days, it is because that is
one thing he cannot bring himself to say - for at least three reasons.
One, he himself was, as Indians like to say, the "architect of
Kargil", the mountain war of 1999 that was Pakistan's last, doomed
attempt to prise Kashmir away from India. Two, he cannot do it because
when he makes a gesture in that direction mass murder occurs in
Srinagar - distant thunder warning of terrible storms at home if he
pushes his luck. And three, in his new guise as the West's obedient
servant, he cannot betray the "freedom fighters" of Kashmir because
their comrades are deeply insinuated in high positions in every
important institution of the Pakistani state.

The people who brought the Taliban into existence, who funded and
armed them, who gave this rag-tag band some know-how and pushed them
in the right direction - they have been sitting across the officers'
mess from General Musharraf throughout his career.

So if Mr Blair's conversation with the general is punctuated by long,
pregnant pauses, there is a reason. He has made the right noises; he
has offered use of airspace. What else can he offer? And what price
would he pay? The most obvious and in a sense important contribution
he could make is intelligence: no one knows more about what is
happening inside Afghanistan than Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence Directorate (ISI). But the reason it knows so much is
because the ISI is staffed, at least in part, by true Islamist
believers. So it is impossible to know the value of the intelligence
offered.

"You never know who you are dealing with," a US official told The
Washington Post anonymously this week. "You're always dealing with
shadows."

According to reports published in America this week, on seizing power
on 12 October 1999, one of the first things General Musharraf did was
to abort the joint operation between the US and the former prime
minister, Nawaz Sharif, to capture or kill Mr bin Laden.

But he will shake Mr Blair warmly by the hand today, and he will
proceed to do as much as he dares to betray the freedom
fighters/terrorists of Kashmir and his own past - because to do
otherwise would be to deprive Pakistan of all influence over what form
the next government in Kabul takes.

It would be to invite the Russian bear, in the guise of an
American-backed Northern Alliance, to squat on his Western border,
hungrily eyeing the warm waters of the Arabian Sea. And that, as all
his predecessors, British as well as Pakistani, could tell him, is one
thing you must never do.

Reply via email to