EVEN after three years, people do not understand Mukhtaran Mai’s case. It was not just the occasional rape of an individual in feudal Panjab, but a glimpse of the continuous rape of Pakistani society by an oppressive socio-political system.

There have been other cases as well including the rape of Dr Shazia in feudal Balochistan and the abduction and gang-rape of a woman near Multan on July 6, 2005, as punishment for the actions of a male relative.

Meanwhile on July 7, a man in Bahawalpur burnt himself to death when the police refused to register a case of gang-rape perpetrated on his wife. On the same day, there was another case of abduction and gang-rape in Chiniot. In addition, there are many unreported cases all over Pakistan.

This system has been assiduously developed over half a century by a sustained feudal-mullah-military collusion. General Musharraf has repeatedly ruled out land reforms while the clerics maintain that feudalism is Islamic. Former prime minister Jamali denied its existence in Pakistan, and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz plans to give global powers to the feudals by encouraging joint ventures with the multinationals for big farming.

Supported by ministers, loyalists and “independent” columnists, General Musharraf protests on his personal website that violence against women is “not peculiar to Pakistani society alone. It is a world-wide phenomenon”. The official line is why the issue i highlighted in the US and the UK when Pakistan ignores innumerable rapes in those lands. This protest is irrelevant because the focus of the foreigners is not on rapes as such, but on how the prevailing system in Pakistan handles shocking affronts to morality, legality and human dignity.

The details of the Mukhtaran Mai and Dr Shazia cases have exposed the entire weave and working of the system. Each thread has been frantically pulled to cover crime, save influential culprits, blunt police investigation, coerce and silence the victim and affect the course of justice. Every tier, from the lowest to the highest, issued ad hoc statements with dubious shifts and bends. These were mere district-level cases but, surprisingly, the president of the country justified his personal intervention, not only within the country but also in New Zealand during an official visit.

No wonder the world got interested. On July 2, 2005, a foreign newspaper reproduced the following from BBC On-Line. “On that day (June 22, 2002) Mukhtaran Mai, aged 30, (was) gang-raped allegedly on the orders of a village council of Meerwala in Pakistan. It is reported that the influential local Mastoi tribe had convened the council to seek punishment for Mai’s 12-year old brother Shakoor. The Mastois allege that Shakoor had been seen in the company of a Mastoi woman and that had brought shame to the Mastoi clan. Mai’s family says the charge against Shakoor is fabricated after he was sodomized by men from the Mastoi clan and the family had threatened to report the matter to the police.

“Shakoor, meanwhile, (was) arrested by the police on charges of adultery. (Three men were) eventually tried for sodomizing Shakoor and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment each.) The village council (suggested) that Shakoor marry the girl he was seen with and Mai, a divorcee, be married to a Mastoi man. The Mastois reportedly reject(ed) the deal, insisting that zina (adultery) must be settled with zina. Mai (was) called to the council to apologize for her brother’s conduct. She (apologised) but (was) dragged to a nearby hut and allegedly gang-raped by four men. The Mastois (informed) the police that the dispute has been settled and Shakoor (was) released”.

The establishment is ultra sensitive about its image. Its civil and military brains, however, are incapable of evolving an image based on performance or good governance. Their capacity is limited to hypocritical statements, hollow claims, and false promises, carrying a big stick all the while.

Efforts at damage control, could be made by instituting a valid inquiry into the police investigation, which failed to separate the grain from the chaff and created more legal gaps and escape routes for the influential culprits (e.g. nature of the “romantic” affair of a 12-year old boy, the claim of consequential shame for the clan, alleged sodomy with a threat to report to the police, alleged adultery, legality of settlement and gang rape etc).

It could also be done through a countrywide enquiry into village councils, exposing their legal status, authorized procedures, and untenable powers for assuming the role of the prosecutor, judge and the executioner, without any other forum for appeal. Nothing of the sort happened, because it never does. No one wants to expose the absolute hold of feudalism on our society, and its pivotal role in the system. The aim of the ruling elite is not to weaken feudalism, but to strengthen it.

In spite of its ill-repute, the system is not prepared for self-analysis with a view to improving itself, or its relations with its own people based on sincerity, or repair its tarnished image in the world. The same old exploitative approach of issuing hollow statements continues and the president is working even more diligently to further strengthen the existing set-up with a second round of local bodies elections leading to the jugglery of the 2007 ballots for securing the stage till 2012.

The rape cases mentioned are merely the tip of the iceberg. What lies beneath is the sly operational intertwining of the three components i.e. the feudal heart and soul, the military head and the mullah’s moral tongue. The guns of the military dictators, with the sugarcoated veneer of public welfare, are mostly placed on feudal shoulders for a better aim at a crippled civil society.

Feudal politicians loudly invite military dictators, approve their LFOs, and indemnify their misdeeds. The mullah, with his age-old harmony with the intelligence agencies and hitherto a silent partner in this arrangement, has lately come in the open. The alliance pays heavy dividends to the three partners. There is a thick web of closely-woven perks, facilities, benefits and privileges for all.

If we simply zoom on the feudal thread they get, among numerous others things, a guarantee for their autocratic way of life, and job quotas to spread their tentacles to police circles and other services through the mass murder of merit, rules and discipline. The former gives them the freedom to order and organize rapes in any form they like, and the latter gives them the power to cover it, under the grand patronage of the system.

Ultimately, all the threads weave into the system which installs the local feudals and influentials as heads of the district and local administration, and their wives, children and relations in the lucrative abodes of legislatures and that twists and breaks, brick by brick, the constitutional, legal and administrative structure of state, with the sole objective of perpetuating in power.

It allows the electoral process to be moulded as wax into the desired shape and destroys the smooth flow of authority and the chain of command by confusing national, provincial and local demarcations. It avoids transparency and keeps decisionmaking the closed door prerogative of invisible protagonists thereby depriving the people of their inherent sovereignty. It also adopts corruption as a deliberate instrument of state policy to perpetuate its hold. These features, among others, are specially designed to, enhance the vitality of the three partners.

This system, thus, encourages such rapes of women in the name of self-styled “honour” and “shame”, because it wants to protect and build up its partners. It will not even pretend to scratch its head over the prevention of such shocking tragedies, as it triumphs by crushing the rule of law, morality, values, human dignity and, ultimately, the citizen himself. The half-hearted interventions by the president and the judiciary serve only to blunt criticism by the US State Department and the New York Times until the next pat on Musharraf’s back.

Let us not forget that Mukhtaran, Shazia and their co-sufferers, many of them unknown victims, are mere symbols of the unhindered rape of the entire society by this system for the last half a century. Pakistanis have, no doubt, angrily and loudly condemned these rapes but civil society, as a whole, is too scared to raise its voice against the organized rape perpetrated on a helpless society.

There may be lone protests against the system and the few odd attempts (to rectify matters) but the unhindered rape of our society is bound to continue till the people are willing to break their silence and organize themselves to resist the system. Silence is not golden, when it comes to saving a tormented society.

THE signing on June 29 of a 10-year defence agreement between US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld of the US and Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee in Washington reveals the outlines of the strategic partnership, that has been developing between them since 1995. Indeed, the 180-degree turn in US perceptions towards South Asia took place immediately after the end of the cold war in 1989, when sanctions were slapped on Pakistan under the Pressler Law in October 1990.

However, though it was decided as early as 1995 to set up a joint defence consultation group between India and the US, matters did not move seriously, even though the Asia Society had recommended in its report a year earlier that closer relations with India were desirable, in view of China’s rapid development, and other threats in the region, including religious extremism.

After India conducted its nuclear tests in May 1998, and Pakistan followed suit a fortnight later, the US initiated a bilateral dialogue with both countries, to lessen the chances of nuclear rivalry, and to enforce various safeguards against nuclear proliferation. The dialogues, both headed by the then deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, started with an assurance that the two countries would be treated alike in the discussions, even though different strategies emerged eventually on the basis of Washington’s perceptions of their future role.

In the case of Pakistan, stress was on constraining progress, and on adherence to non-proliferation agreements, while India managed to secure recognition of its future role as a major player, and partner, both in countering Islamic extremism, and in containing China.

Washington continued to slap sanctions against Pakistan, after the nuclear tests in 1998, and the military takeover in 1999, that was welcomed by the great majority of the people. At the same time, the trend to treat the two leading countries in South Asia differently continued. This was highlighted during President Clinton’s visit to the region in 2000, when he spent five days in India, and only five hours in Pakistan, during which he addressed the country, calling upon it to reject terrorism, and to practise democracy in governance.

On the other hand, in India, he conjured up a vision of growing cooperation with a democratic and dynamic India destined to play a leading role in the region. The reservations over Pakistan centred on its recognition of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, that the US itself had patronized in the early stages.

The 9/11 events, that were followed by a decision by Pakistan to join the war against terrorism, transformed the context of Pakistan’s relationship, with the US. Islamabad logistical support became a major factor in the speedy overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. Pakistan also won international recognition for its leading role in the war against terrorism, after it handed over more than 700 suspected Al Qaeda supporters and Taliban militants to the US.

Though President Musharraf has zealously fulfilled his obligations arising from the war against terror, the US and western media remain uncomfortable over Pakistan continuing as the only Islamic country with nuclear capability, which they fear might come under the control of extremist elements hostile to the West. The very existence of such political parties, though an outcome of the democratic process, has perhaps reinforced reliance on India that shares western concerns over are militancy it has been fighting in Kashmir.

Pakistan has treaded a difficult path in safeguarding its legitimate concerns on various issues, ranging from political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri freedom struggle, to its principled opposition to the war on Iraq. President Musharraf has also joined other prominent Islamic leaders to defend the Islamic world that has come under attack by the West for allegedly backing militancy and terrorism.

On the one hand, he has called for fullest cooperation by the Muslim world in the war against terror, and advocated an approach by Muslims based on enlightened moderation that constitutes the spirit of Islam. But to eliminate the root causes of terrorism, he has urged a role by the West in eliminating political and economic injustice from the world, and to address the major political disputes in which Muslims have been subjected to injustice and repression, such as those in Palestine and Kashmir.

Following the 9/11 attacks, India had tried to get Pakistan dubbed as a terrorist state, for backing the Kashmir freedom struggle. It also tried to use coercive diplomacy by concentrating its forces along Pakistan’s borders from December 2001 to October 2002. However, while taking appropriate defensive measures, President Musharraf called for a return to the dialogue process that had started in 2001. The US used its leverage, both to prevent a military conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours, and to promote the resumption of the dialogue to promote a peaceful settlement of disputes.

However, the pact signed in late June, and in particular, the landmark agreements concluded with India during the subsequent visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US cannot but raise serious concerns for the people and government of Pakistan. Despite the recommendations of the 9/11 commission of the US calling for special efforts to develop in-depth relations with Pakistan, the nature and content of the new agreements between the US and India prove beyond doubt that the relationship with India and Pakistan has been placed at different levels. Indeed, the Indo-US relationship has acquired the dimensions of an alliance, marking a departure from the Indian tradition of avoiding military pacts established since the Nehruvian period.

The direction taken by Indo-US relations appears to be in conformity with the announcement made in Washington last March that the US would “help India become a major world power in the 21st century.” The objectives set fort in the defence pact envisage a common approach to international security issues, and to the defeat of terrorism. India would be offered a choice of state-of-the art equipment for purchase or co-production, to enhance its capabilities to combat proliferation of WMDs. specific reference is made to collaboration in missile defence, an area over which differences of opinion exist between the US, Israel and India on the one hand and the EU, Russia and China on the other, since this would entail the militarization of outer space.

Apart from the far-reaching implications of the defence pact, the visit of Dr Manmohan Singh has been marked by the announcement of a decision by the US to transfer peaceful nuclear technology to India, for which the Congress will be approached to amend the 1978 Non-Proliferation Act. This amounts to virtually recognizing India as a nuclear power. Since Pakistan had carried out its nuclear tests around the same time, in response to those by India, and was promised equality of treatment by the US, Islamabad would have a just case for equal access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, under international safeguards.

Though Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice conveyed reassurances that these developments were not directed against Pakistan, the fact remains that the overall political, economic and strategic environment of Asia, and indeed of the world will be affected. India has great power ambitious, and apart from seeking hegemony in the India Ocean region, eventually aspires to being a major actor in Asia. Given the present thrust of US diplomacy, that is anchored in its military dominance, and special preoccupation with the threat from terrorism, the nexus between Washington and New Delhi has to be followed carefully.

Pakistan must carry out a careful analysis of the latest developments relating to the Indo-US partnership, and also exchange views with friends and neighbours. Obviously, these developments are likely to affect the political, economic and strategic milieu in our region, and the most serious effect will be on the military balance in South Asia. This would compel a response from us and it would be timely for political analysts, academics, scholars, and military planners to evaluate the situation, and to coordinate an appropriate strategy that should be backed by national consensus.

Dr Manmohan Singh has had some harsh things to say about our sincerity and seriousness in the dialogue process, though repression by India in occupied Kashmir continues to cause suffering and concern on our side. We should maintain the process, and seek progress on all issues. With the expected build-up of India’s strength, CBMs would remain important. Indeed, the introduction of missile defence into the region could stimulate an arms race that would be best avoided to maintain the priority of poverty alleviation measures.

As far as our diplomatic and strategic response is concerned, we should begin by conveying our concerns over the Indo-US pact to the US, which should be made aware of the need to maintain a military balance in the region. The projected visit of President Musharraf would provide an opportunity both to reinforce our friendly relations with the US and to update Washington on the latest developments from our perspective. Pakistan has a larger role to play on behalf of the Islamic world, especially bearing in mind our role to discourage extremism, and to follow the path of moderation.

There has to be a broader response internationally. There is need to maintain and develop close relations with other friendly powers, and revitalize our all-weather friendship with China, which is likely to have a special interest in the latest developments. We also need to focus on building bridges of understanding with Russia and Europe, while developing close links with neighbours like Iran and Afghanistan.

The effectiveness of our response will be determined by our internal strength and stability that will come from democratic institutions, economic dynamism, and national unity.

THE imperatives of geo-economics are competing with geopolitics and propelling countries in the region including Iran, Pakistan, and India towards closer economic collaboration. The three countries are contiguous to one another.

As to the future of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline (IPIP) project, serious negotiations are afoot among the three countries. Following the visit of the Indian petroleum minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, to Pakistan recently a joint working commission was established between the two countries. The project is expected to begin by 2006 and be operational by 2009. The final details about gas price, tenders for construction, and routes are still to decided.

Notwithstanding the US opposition, the issue is becoming so pressing that there is hardly any choice for these countries except to cooperate. In fact, it is a “win-win” game for the stakeholders: Iran gets much needed revenues for its gas sales. Regardless of the type of government in Iran, the compulsions for energy cooperation remain on top of the national agenda. Compared to Pakistan, India is energy-starved and is keen to be involved in the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) and Qatar-Pakistan gas project. China has also expressed its enthusiasm for the same.

Although contingent upon regional developments and US reaction Iran has its own perspective. Under the present circumstance, the US faces difficulties: is tied down in Iraq, and is preoccupied with recent Iranian overtures towards normalization of ties with Iraq. Moreover, Iran’s “look east” policy and the forging of ties with major regional powers (India, China and Russia) are to its advantage.

Given its size, population, economic strength and cultural nationalism, Iran is acting in a self assured manner, despite facing encirclement by the US forces. Interestingly, the regime in Iran is not as isolated as was that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq but is engaged with the European Union. As the US policy options for military intervention in Iraq are narrowing day after day, it is cumulatively adding to Iran’s sangfroid as a regional power of consequence.

On the energy front, the US preference is for the TAP gas pipeline project. This has to do with the bolstering of the pro- US Karzai government in Afghanistan and giving out the contract to a US company for pipeline construction, given the stake the US has in a country where it intends to stay lodged at least for the foreseeable future. However, this is not to suggest that the option is going to be easy.

The US opposition to the IPI is based on the following. First, the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 (ILSA) forbids more than $20 million of investment in Iran on the pain of the termination of US economic assistance and sanctions. Second, even if the US administration gives up its opposition the Congress, media, academia and other civic groups would continue to oppose it strongly, thereby adversely affecting Washington-Islamabad ties.

The US wants Pakistan and India to look at the TAP and Qatar- Pakistan options. However, from Pakistan’s view point these options are neither technically feasible nor cost-effective, as the Turkmenistan gas reserves are still unproven and instability mars the Afghan scene. The Qatar option, on the other hand, is quite costly.

Paradoxically, the US opposition to the pipeline goes against the grain of its philosophy of normalization of ties in South Asia through economic CBMs. Pakistan’s interest lies as a transiting state that would gain $600 million royalty a year. This would be almost close to $700 million a year that it gets from the US as economic assistance.

Its burgeoning domestic energy needs will double by 2010. The pipeline complex would boost industrial infrastructure, create jobs and help poverty alleviation in Balochistan and Sindh, besides contributing to resolution in the subcontinent.

Pakistan is not investing in Iran’s pipeline infrastructure for which the latter would be responsible as an exporting state. Pakistan will only act as an energy “corridor state,” and, in the process, also buy some gas besides earning royalties.

The US, that holds Pakistan as a “major non-Nato ally” and “strategic partner” committed to combating “international terrorism;” should be interested in the latter’s sustained economic development, especially of economically underdeveloped Balochistan.

The province has seen political violence stemming from a strong sense of deprivation. The IPI project, says the US scholar George Perkovitch, is an “economically necessary, environmentally-friendly and security-enhancing initiative” that the US has long advocated. Moreover, by trying to block Iran’s plans and selling India nuclear technologies, the US will be sending negative messages to Canada, Germany, Japan and others who would view this as going against its nuclear non- proliferation policies.

Iran has the second largest gas reserves (after Russia) and needs to export energy resources to earn revenues. In fact, having faced sanctions and isolation in the last 26 years the regime seems determined to pursue the generation of nuclear energy for peaceful use. Hence, it the US should engage Iran, assuage its acute security concerns and give it some space. Also, Pakistan should urge both countries to exercise restraint in their words and deeds.

Although Pakistan says that it cannot “abandon” the pipeline project circumstances may so shape that it may have to opt for the second best options i.e., TAP or Qatar-Pakistan projects. Perhaps China, India, Pakistan and others could persuade the US to review its opposition to the energy “link-up” plan in the region.

After all, it is going to be a boon for the region. A peaceful South Asia, hitherto a cauldron of poverty, extremism and nuclear weapons, would move towards a stable world order in the interest of the global community and the US. The building of energy grids through pipelines and the promotion of economic interdependency and interlinkages will be synergistic steps.

IT makes a nice change to hear one of President Musharraf’s homilies being delivered on his home turf instead of from one of those exotic tropical palm-fringed capitals that one dreams of visiting but can no longer afford. In fact, of late, the president has been doing a fair amount of touring in some of the more inhospitable parts of the country, where people still read with their lips and their fingers, that is, if they can read at all.

The point is, he is in a dreadful bind. Whatever he does is not quite good enough, and is bound to upset somebody or the other. On the one hand, he has the Americans and the Brits breathing down his neck, saying he isn’t doing enough to crack down on the madressahs that provide the training ground for the young holy warriors of Islam, and the banned extremist groups that are continuing to spew hatred against the West.

And on the other, he is faced with the growing realization within the country that after being taken for the shortest roller-coaster ride of his career, he has now been forced to play Judas.

After all, so the argument goes, aren’t the bearded warriors of the north (who have done everything possible to dispel the notion that Islam is a religion of peace, and whom general Musharraf has been asked to destroy) the descendants of the very same warriors who were spawned by the Pakistan military, with the blessing of various American administrations, to throw the Russians out of Afghanistan?

A section of the vernacular press in Pakistan which reflects the thoughts and theories of the world’s most cynical people, is not buying the story that suggests that three of the four bombers were Pakistanis. “Are they Pakistanis just because the British police say they were?” one of the broadsheets asked.

Doubt was also expressed by a minister from Iran, who was probably enthused by the stories that spun off on different trajectories from the granddaddy of conspiracy theories — Fahrenheit 9/11. He suggested that the bomb blasts were the work of British intelligence, possibly because Mr Blair was looking for an excuse to introduce an American-style crackdown on Muslims in Britain. It was a preposterous accusation and the British foreign office was fully justified in demanding an apology.

President Musharraf, who has already survived three attempts on his life, said in a recent address to the nation on radio and television that Pakistan is doing what it can to stamp out the menace of extremism, and it was time Britain also did its bit by clamping down on groups that spread hatred and in ensuring that extremist organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Al Muhajiroun were expelled from Britain.

The political opposition in the country has, predictably, taken the tedious sermonizing with a pinch of salt, treating it as a lot of rhetoric without any real foundation. The crackdown in which over 200 suspected terrorists have been arrested is seen by them as an obligatory action that is performed at regular intervals with varying degrees of intensity.

The opposition doubts the president’s sincerity and wants to know why the clean-up didn’t take place four years ago when the president was at the height of his power. They believe the administration has neither the will nor the resources to sustain the state of siege for any length of time, and that as soon as the crop dusting is overs the militant shoots will rise once again, especially in the northwest which is the epicentre of anti-American feeling. This is what makes the general’s task so daunting and formidable.

Currently, the US is showering praise on President Musharraf and calling him their great ally in the war on terror. One wonders if this has something to do with the fact that Islamabad is miffed by the 10-year defence treaty the US recently signed with India and the reception given to Mr Manmohan Singh.

President Musharraf is not the only leader who has his share of problems. Mr Blair is also in a dreadful bind. The suicide bomber, the ultimate in logical negativism, who operated initially in Lebanon and Palestine, has now become ubiquitous. He is more or less invisible, an elusive enemy, an implacable foe in the global war. He strikes without warning at a time and place of his choosing. And since he has no value for his own life, he is a dangerous adversary.

Where Mr Blair is apparently parting company with many of his supporters and members of the Conservative opposition is in his pronouncement that the bombings have nothing to do with Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq. That, at least, is his official position.

Privately, he probably knows there is a connection. After all, he has the Spanish experience before him. However, in spite of the chilly conclusions of the think tanks and what the Telegraph says, he cannot make such an admission. It would mark the end of his political career. But if the terrorist attacks continue the political flak will start to fly.

By all accounts, Mr Blair has been having a pretty rough time. One of his severest critics is and has been Mr Robert Mugabe, who is perched at the top of the pecking order in Zimbabwe. He blames all the ills of his country on the British prime minister, including the loss of fish from Lake Kariba and the country’s fuel crisis. He continually rants and raves that Mr Blair spent many sleepless nights plotting to bring down the Zimbabwe government. Sometimes one wishes that he had.

Africa has an appalling record of dictators, among which Mr Mugabe is something of a star. He presides over a country where half the population is on the verge of starvation, life expectancy has fallen to 33 and 80 per cent of the population is unemployed.

In spite of these fearsome statistics he proudly opens parliament in his gleaming Bentley and his wife Grace was one of the biggest spenders at Harrods. He is jolly lucky there isn’t a Che Guevara or a Charu Mazumdar lurking in the shadows in Harare.

Mr Mugabe is probably the only foreign politician who built his campaign around Mr Blair. This year in early April and throughout the election campaign the state-owned Herald newspaper carried full-page advertisements headed ‘2005 Anti-Blair Campaign’ ending with the terse message ‘Bury Blair Vote Zanu-PF.’ And even in non-election times the paper runs a daily UK-Watch on its front page.

Another of Tony Blair’s critics is President Jacques Chirac who dealt a blow to his attempt to heal the wounds between the US and Europe last year by saying that the prime minister had won nothing for supporting the war against Iraq.

He could have at least demanded the re-launch of the Middle East peace process in return for backing the war in Iraq. But then, it is not in the nature of America to return favours systematically.

As Mr Blair used a keynote speech to present Britain as a bridge across the Atlantic, Mr Chirac doubted whether anybody could really play the honest broker. As it is the British prime minister had suffered a setback when the former US secretary of state, Colin Powell, the administration figure most trusted by Europe, resigned. Doubts were expressed over whether US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be more accommodating.

That was the time when Mr Chirac had outlined his vision of a multipolar world in which a united Europe would be equal with the US and had mocked Mr Donald Rumsfeld for his division of Europe into old and new, hastily adding that there would be no division between Britain and France.

The comments made at that time underlined the scale of the task that faced Mr Blair as he tried to forge a bridge between Europe and America. He knew at the time that Mr Powell’s departure would be received with apprehension by European governments and bluntly told the US administration to reach out to Europe and enlist its support against terrorism.

Mr Blair also said that Europe had a big opportunity because the US had realized that lasting security against terrorism could not be provided by conventional military force but required a commitment to democracy and freedom — the meeting point for the two power blocs. One wonders how long it would be before Mr Blair and Mr Bush set their sights on this part of the world and extend their commitment to democracy and freedom.