Leader: Pakistan — the laboratory for world destruction

Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, said on a recent trip to Pakistan to visit flood-ravaged towns and villages: ''In the past, I have witnessed many natural disasters around the world, but nothing like this." Despite the relatively few deaths so far (in comparison to January's Haiti earthquake, for example), the UN estimates that 14 million people have been affected by the floods: more than were harmed by the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, the 2004 Asian tsunami and the Haiti earthquake put together.

The floods have dominated headlines across the world in recent weeks, but this special issue of the magazine had been scheduled long before they struck. Why? Pakistan matters. It is the world's second most populous Muslim country and is considered by the west to be the front line of the so-called war on terror. It is a nuclear-armed power that has gone to war four times with neighbouring India, and its armed forces are mired in a long, bloody struggle with Islamist insurgents on its border with war-torn Afghanistan. In 2009, a record 3,021 people died in terrorist attacks across Pakistan. So disturbed is the country that no cricket team will tour there.

Yet, amid all this, astonishingly, as William Dalrymple writes (on page 26): "The army continues to obsess about India." Polls show the public shares this obsession -- in a Pew Global Attitudes survey in July, 53 per cent of Pakistanis cited India as the greatest threat to their security, compared to 23 per cent for the Taliban and just 3 per cent for al-Qaeda.

Meanwhile, as the recent WikiLeaks war logs revealed, Pakistan's military intelligence service, the notorious ISI, continues to collude with the Taliban in a duplicitous state of affairs that was rightly denounced by David Cameron. The British mission in Afghanistan is imperilled by Pakistan's double game. So, too, is our security at home: British officials claim that three out of four terror plots discovered here in recent years can be traced back to camps in that country.

Pakistan -- flooded, bombed, bloodied, broke -- continues to teeter on the edge, some reports suggesting that the military is poised to return to power in yet another coup. Founded as a democratic nation, Pakistan has been ruled by military dictators for 33 of the 63 years that have passed since its creation in 1947. The country languishes at 141st out of 182 countries on the UN's Human Development Index. It stands at 139th out of the 180 countries on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.

Indeed it is, above all else, the venal corruption of the Pakistani ruling classes that continues to blight this once-proud nation -- and fuel the destabilising rise of radical Islam. The former cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan, in his interview on page 30, refers to the "collective political mafia" in Pakistan, which views politics as a "business". We hope Mr Khan is correct in his belief that there is a "general movement for change" inside the country, based around a free press, an independent judiciary and an idealistic younger generation.

But it will be up to the Pakistani elite ultimately to realise that the greatest threat that the Islamists and jihadists pose is to the very survival of Pakistan. At present, the liberal, secular, democratic Pakistan conceived by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (profiled by Akbar Ahmed on page 34), is very much a lost ideal.

Karl Kraus, the great satirist, once called fin-de-siècle imperial Vienna "the research laboratory for world destruction", because the most dangerous currents of his age flowed through the city. It is something similar with Pakistan today, which can stake a claim to being the world's most dangerous country.

This article first appeared in the 23 August 2010 issue of the New Statesman, Pakistan

The Prime Minister still has questions to answer about his plans for Syria

Cameron needs a better plan for Syria than mere party-politicking, says Ian Lucas.

I was unfortunate enough to hear our Prime Minister discussing the vexed issue of military action in Syria on the Today programme yesterday. It was a shocking experience - David Cameron simply cannot resist trying to take party political advantage of an extremely serious crisis. It is quite clear that there are massive humanitarian, military and political issues at stake in Syria. A number of international and national powers including the United States and Russia are taking military action within Syria and David Cameron said in the broadest terms that he thought that the UK should do so too.

The questions then arise - what should we do, and why should we do it?

Let me make it clear that I do believe there are circumstances in which we should take military action - to assist in issues which either affect this country's national interest and defence, or which are so serious as to justify immediate action on humanitarian grounds. It is for the Prime Minister, if he believes that such circumstances are in place, to make the case.

The Prime Minister was severely shaken by the vote of the House of Commons to reject military action against President Assad in 2013. This was a military course which was decided upon in a very short time scale, in discussion with allies including France and the United States.

As we all know, Parliament, led by Ed Miliband’s Labour Opposition and supported by a significant number of Conservative MPs, voted against the Government’s proposals. David Cameron's reaction to that vote was one of immediate petulance. He ruled out military action, actually going beyond the position of most of his opponents. The proposed action against Assad action was stressed at the time by President Obama to be very limited in scope and directed specifically against the use of chemical weapons. It was not intended to lead to the political end of President Assad and no argument was made by the governments either in the United States or in the UK that this was an aim. What was proposed was short, sharp military action to deal specifically with the threat of chemical weapons. Following the vote in the House of Commons, there was an immediate reaction from both United States and France. I was an Opposition spokesman at the time, and at the beginning of the week, when the vote was taken, France was very strident in its support for military action. The House of Commons vote changed the position immediately and the language that was used by President Obama, by John Kerry and others .

The chemical weapons threat was the focus of negotiation and agreement, involving Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and his connections with Syria.  The result was that Assad agreed to dispense with chemical weapons on a consensual basis and no military action took place.

David Cameron felt humiliated by this outcome and loses no opportunity to suggest that the decision was wrong.  He is determined that he should revisit the issue of bombing in Syria, though now action there has elided to action against Islamic State. He has delegated Michael Fallon to prepare the ground for a vote on military action in Parliament. Fallon is the most political of Defence Secretaries - before he became a minister he was regularly presented by the Conservative party as its attack dog against Labour. He gives me the impression of putting the Conservative Party’s interest, at all times, above the national interest. Nothing in his tenure at Defence has changed my view of him.

I was therefore very sceptical what when, in September, Fallon suggested that there should be briefings of members of Parliament to inform us of the latest position on Syria. It turns out that I was right - at the Conservative party conference, Mr Fallon has been referring to these briefings as part of the process that is changing minds in the House of Commons towards taking military action in Syria. He is doubtless taking his orders from the Prime Minister, who is determined to have a vote on taking part in military action in Syria, this time against Islamic State.  

If the Prime Minister wishes to have the support of the House of Commons for military action he needs to answer the following questions: 

What is the nature of the action that he proposes?

What additional impact would action by the UK have, above and beyond that undertaken by the United States and France?

What is the difference in principle between military action in Syria by the UK and military action in Syria by Russia?

What would be the humanitarian impact of such action?

What political steps would follow action and what political strategy does the government have to resolve the Syrian crisis?

The reality is that the United States, UK, France and other western powers have been hamstrung on Syria by their insistence Assad should go. This situation has continued for four years now and there is no end in sight.

The Prime Minister and his Defence Secretary have yet to convince me that additional military action in Syria, this time by the United Kingdom, would help to end Syria's agony and stem the human tragedy that is the refugee crisis engulfing the region and beyond. If the Prime Minister wishes to have support from across the House of Commons, he should start behaving like the Prime Minister of a nation with responsibilities on the United Nations Security Council and stop behaving like a party politician who seeks to extract political advantage from the most serious of international situations.

Ian Lucas is the Labour MP for Wrexham.