Some thoughts on the next man at 10 Downing Street
By M. Ziauddin
THE year ahead is likely to be an extremely exciting one for British politics. One could even see snap polls during the year. David Cameron, the charismatic leader of the Conservative Party, is all for it. He is even goading the prime minister-in-waiting, Gordon Brown, into taking up his challenge by questioning the Chancellor’s mandate to lead the country for the remaining two years of Tony Blair’s term.Personality-wise the Chancellor is said to be cool as a cucumber to react to such provocations. So, whether the Tories like it or not, it is going to be Mr Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street for the next two years.
But who is Mr Brown and what would he be like as prime minister? As the Chancellor of Exchequer he has been a success all the way. The British economy never had it so good in recent years. He is seen as the author of the ten-year long economic boom in this country.
In fact, it seems to be his performance as the Chancellor rather than his politics that catapulted him into a position of a reluctant leader of the labour rebels who revolted last year against Tony Blair’s foreign policy, in particular against his stand on Iraq and his total subjugation to President Bush.
Besides the economy, education is Mr Brown’s pet subject. Britishness -- built around shared values of fairness and social justice rather than ethnicity -- is his next favourite.
He seems all set to fight against what is being perceived as secessionist tendencies in Scotland, Wales and England. And he is all for multiculturalism -- one that recognises diversity but rejects over-emphasising separateness.
While his domestic policies and priorities could always be anticipated to a large extent, his foreign policy directions and priorities were still in the speculative realm until his interview to The Daily Telegraph, published on Jan 8, in which he indicated in no uncertain terms that he would neither be a ‘poodle’ of Mr Bush nor would he support continued presence of British troops in Iraq.
“I believe it is true to say that by the end of the year, there may be thousands less in Iraq than there are now,” he said.
And true enough, on the very day that President Bush was announcing a ‘surge’ of 21,500 additional troops into Iraq, the British government was leaking to media its intention to withdraw 3,000 troops from Basra by May this year… about the time Gordon Brown would be entering 10 Downing Street.
Suggesting that he would not follow Washington into any future military action against nations such as Iran, Mr Brown told the Daily Telegraph that the kind of ‘cultural war’ or the ‘war for hearts and minds’ being fought by the West against Communism in the 1940s and 1950s could be a ‘model’ for the next chapter of the ‘war on terror’.
He actually vowed to take on President Bush and the Americans over foreign policy as he spelt out plans to break from Tony Blair’s approach to the ‘war on terror’.
“Obviously, people who know me know that I will speak my mind. I will be very frank. The British national interest is what I and my colleagues are about,” he said.
The Chancellor pledged a ‘new settlement’ between parliament, government and the electorate. He promised ‘a new kind of politics in this country... a new style of government in the future’.He promised a ‘government of all the talents’ and added that he would listen more to the views of Labour MPs. He said: “You have got to listen and then you have got to be prepared to talk, consult and debate.”
AMBIGUITY ON EUROPE
The Chancellor’s attitude towards Europe, however, still remains ambiguous. Britain clearly does not want to become economically subservient to Germany, as France has already done. However, relative to the US, Britain under Gordon Brown is more likely to go along with Europe on foreign and defence policies.
While taking a very close look at the personality and anticipated policies of the prime minister-in-waiting, Pakistan’s foreign office would do well to go through the text of the lecture of outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair. It was delivered recently at RUSI, an influential British think tank, with a fine tooth-comb. With British troops likely to remain in Afghanistan for ten years, it is imperative that Islamabad keeps a close tab on what the opinion makers in this country are thinking and talking about. It is in this context that Mr Blair’s ideas seem crucially relevant to Pakistan.
The prime minister spoke to RUSI members on Jan 12 onboard HMS Albion, on Defence Perspectives -- defending the United Kingdom and its interests -- addressing the need for both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power and a ‘versatile’ armed forces to meet the current challenges and commitments post-9/11.
In the opinion of Tony Blair, the attacks of Sept 11, 2001, were a product of a world-wide movement, with an ideology based on a misreading of Islam.
“We face something more akin to revolutionary communism in its early and most militant phase. It is global. It has a narrative about the world and Islam’s place within it that has a reach into most Muslim societies and countries. Its adherents may be limited. Its sympathisers are not. It has states or at least parts of the governing apparatus of states that give it succour.
“So our enemy will see their strategic advantages as terrorism and time. They are not a conventional army. They can’t be defeated by conventional means. The battle will be long. It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It will, in all probability, take a generation to defeat.
“The frontiers of our security no longer stop at the (English) Channel. What happens in the Middle East affects us. What happens in Pakistan; or Indonesia; or in the attenuated struggles for territory and supremacy in Africa, for example, in Sudan or Somalia. The new frontiers for our security are global. Our armed forces will be deployed in the lands of other nations far from home, with no immediate threat to our territory, in environments and in ways unfamiliar to them.
“Poverty in Africa can’t be solved simply by the presence of aid. It needs the absence of conflict. Failed states threaten us as well as their own people. Terrorism destroys progress. Terrorism can’t be defeated by military means alone. But it can’t be defeated without it.
“Indeed, for government, domestically and internationally, our commitment has to go beyond our armed forces. In truth, this is a hearts and minds battle as much as military one. Reconstruction and reconciliation, development and governance are every bit as crucial in Iraq or Afghanistan as military might. Indeed the might is only effective as a means of making possible the political progress. We do this better than most countries, perhaps better than any.”
