* 'I think there is plenty of
evidence of the way in which
the Pakistan military cosseted
the religious fundamentalists'
New Delhi
14 October 2008
There was plenty of evidence of the Pakistani spy agency ISI's involvement in terrorism, according to Lord Patten of Barnes. In an exclusive interview to this newspaper, he called for better political cooperation in combating the scourge of terrorism. Excerpts:
What motivated you to write your latest book, entitled "What Next? Surviving the 21st Century"?
First of all I was concerned that at the very moment when we need more international cooperation more multilateralism the outgoing American administration at least for its first four years had advocated a rather woeful and incompetent unilateralism. Secondly, I wanted to show that most of the problems that faces, are soluble.
What do you think would be the solutions to some of the problems we are facing today, be it in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the problem of terrorism?
Well, each of the ones you mentioned is slightly different but there's undoubtedly a dark side of globalisation. So what I wanted to point out was how we could deal with each of those problems by best of political cooperation between governments and of course ideally we would see a reformed United Nations as the fulcrum for that progress but we can't wait until the United Nations is reformed before taking actions, so we need to act sooner rather than later by better partnerships between nation-states.
If the war on terror has not yielded satisfactory results, would you advocate a change of tack?
I don't think there is a war on terror. I don't think you fights wars against proper nouns. It isn't a war in which there are advances and retreats and peace conferences and communiqués and it's a struggle against something that's always been present in human society and people's preparedness to use violence for political [ends] and because of modern technology they can do far more damage today than they could in the past. I think we need to better political cooperation in dealing with terrorism. I think we want to where there are legitimate grievances we obviously have to address them and this is above all the question of better policing on international level. One of the problems that we face is the close links between organised crime and terrorism and between failed states and terrorism, like Afghanistan.
You said Afghanistan is a failed state. How would you describe Pakistan today?
It's a state which will have an interest in helping to avoid fail but it's been a state which has been involved in nuclear proliferation through AQ Khan. It's a state which through the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) helped to invent the Taliban and sustain Al Qaeda and it's a state which has not done nearly enough to root out extremists. Pakistan has some huge problems. We didn't help Pakistan or help ourselves in the past by appearing to give General Musharraf carte blanche because there is plenty of evidence of the involvement of the ISI in terrorism and I think there is plenty of evidence of the way in which the military cosseted the religious fundamentalists. I think what's been happening in Pakistan is deeply worrying. I hope that the democratic government of Pakistan which is now in place will take tougher action on some of the extreme Madrasas. There is an area where the rest of the world can help by providing funding for a decent education in Karachi and elsewhere. The government in Islamabad has to extend its authority into Balochistan and north and south Waziristan because that is where the Taliban and Al Qaeda activity is based. It's just been tearing apart Helmand province and which has been destroying lives and many soldiers who were trying to establish order in Afghanistan [including] British soldiers.
Isn't the United States guilty of double standards too?
Well, I wouldn't seek to justify American double standards whether you are talking about civil liberties or torture or due process and whether you are talking about encouraging democracy in one place but not in another. Why do you go to war for democracy in Iraq and that refuse to deal with democratically elected politicians in Palestine. Why are you in favour of democracy in some places in Asia but not in Uzbekistan or ...
... China?
or China but China isn't making mischief and China isn't a failed or failing state. I look forward to having from the administration after the next [US] election which is once again able to lead the world through its moral example as well as through its economic and military power.
Your book talks about surviving the 21st century. What kind of a leader will it take to help us survive this century and who do you think fits the bill ?
One who can make us hope and who can give us hope and get us to believe in the effectiveness of political action once again. I hope Senator Obama will be able to rise to the challenge. His campaign is freighted with huge quantities of hope and I hope that and I trust that in office he's not weighed down by the expectations that people have of him. Unless there is some terrible racial stutter when people get into the polling station I think Senator Obama will win and quite handily. I hope that's what happens.
How do you see the trans-Atlantic relations after the November 4 presidential elections in the US?
I'm quite interested in paradoxes. Europe has been insisting to Washington for years that what it wants is greater multilateralism. I think there's a danger that the next president is more committed to multilateralism and says to Europe, okay I want to share leadership with you. If Europe would be able to rise to the challenge is my worry. And I can imagine circumstances in which paradoxically an American administration more committed to multilateralism and a Europe which isn't prepared to rise to that challenge produces a greater rift in the Atlantic. Now I hope that doesn't happen.
Who do you think is going to emerge the winner in the next election in the United Kingdom?
I think David Cameron but it will be quite a tough fight.
How do you see the Labour Governments first under Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown?
I think it's slightly unseemly for politicians whose political sympathies are as well known as mine are to criticise British prime ministers when I'm abroad. That's it's well known that I'm not a great admirer of Mr Blair and I think that Mr Brown is at least in part for responsible for some of the problems which the British economy faces today. He is a very intelligent man but whether he has the capacity to be a good prime minister is still open to doubt not least in his own party. I think he'll fight the next election as the Labour leader and I think the Conservative party will probably win that election but it's not open and shut.
You've been out of politics for some time now but do you intend to get back to politics?
No ... it's for younger men. I've had an interesting and very fulfilled life.
No regrets?
No (uhmm), no regrets. If I hadn't lost my seat in 1992 according to John Major's memoirs I'd have become finance minister and that might have destroyed me. As it was I had five exceptionally interesting years in Hong Kong. I had this difficult job reforming the police service in Northern Ireland which was one of the issues at the heart of the peace agreement and I had a job as well of acting as Europe's commissioner for external relations and I haven't had a boring life.
Talking about your work on police reform, what would be its likely lessons or implications for areas riven by sectarian conflict?
I think that it's very important that the composition of the police should reflect the community. Important that the police should be seen to be the servants of the whole community. Important that human rights should be seen as a central part of policing. Important that politicians should be distanced from policing. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the chief of police to be appointed by a political process as open as possible but I don't think politicians should be involved in appointments to the other police posts. I think that leads to an unhealthy relationship between politicians and policemen and it's important to be tough on corruption and absolutely clear that police procedures don't ever allow the sort of interrogation practices which invariably lead to greater political problems and the creation of martyrs.
Two years ago you came to India to encourage Indian students to study at Oxford. How have you fared in that endeavour?
Things are starting to move in the right direction. One of the things I was determined to do was to show that just as we were more interested in attracting more Indians to the UK so we were also interested in deepening out study of Indian issues. We have just started a Master's Programme in South Asian Studies and I hope I'll be able to announce the establishment of a new Indian business centre, so we're making progress.
You've held the post of environment secretary in the past. How would you respond to talk of nuclear renaissance?
I think that any sustainable energy policy which reduces carbon emissions is bound to include a more substantial nuclear component and I'm not one of those who regards nuclear energy as the work of the devil and I think we need more clean nuclear power and I'm sure that will happen in Asia, in Europe and in America.
* * * * * * *
Christopher Francis Patten (66) was elected a Member of British Parliament from 1979 to 1992. In November 1990 he was appointed chairman of the Conservative Party. He was appointed Governor of Hong Kong in April 1992, a position he held until 1997, overseeing the return of Hong Kong to China. He was chairman of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland set up under the Good Friday Peace Agreement. From 1999 to 2004 he was European Commissioner for External Relations. He was elected Chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2003. In January 2005 he took his seat in the House of Lords. In 2006 Lord Patten of Barnes was appointed co-chair of the UK-India Round Table.
No comments:
Post a Comment