fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
COMMENT: The London caper Zafar Hilaly
The sight of Mr Zardari, for example, clutching a rescued child to his chest while being pulled up into a helicopter, would have done more for his personal image than a whole year spent with Cameron at the latters retreat at Chequers
If the most devastating flood in Pakistans history, the dislocation of nearly three million people and the destruction of nearly a fifth of the nations food production could not persuade Mr Zardari to stay at home and add his weight to the relief effort, why should the frequent and tedious allegation of exporting terrorists levelled against Pakistan persuade Mr Zardari to put off his jaunt to Britain? Especially when Mr Zardari believes that sticks and stones may break his bones but words can never hurt him.
Mr Zardaris capacity to act wisely is limited. In the past too, in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) matter and the restoration of the chief justice (CJ), he has demonstrated a limited capacity to function. His mind has to be made up for him, and while on the two earlier occasions, the establishment stepped in to do just that, on this occasion they did not insist. Instead, they cancelled the far more consequential visit of the ISI chief to London while letting Mr Zardari proceed with his own.
Camerons remarks against Pakistan were an opportunity for Mr Zardari to make political capital and demonstrate that he, like Erdogan, had the spunk to tell his mentors that enough is enough and that such criticism would exact a cost. Even Karzai did so on occasion. Instead, all that we heard from the Presidency was Mr Zardaris disappointment at the remarks which must surely qualify as the understatement of the year, when describing the outrage felt by some Pakistanis.
Inestimably, more important was the golden opportunity the unprecedented floods presented Mr Zardari to cancel the visits and thereby deflect criticism that he remained immersed in foreign jaunts, which prevented him from caring about the suffering that the flood affectees were undergoing. The sight of Mr Zardari, for example, clutching a rescued child to his chest while being pulled up into a helicopter would have done more for his personal image than a whole year spent with Cameron at the latters retreat at Chequers or whatever is finally contained in the vacuous communiqué that will issue from their meeting.
Had Mr Zardari been a genuine politician, he would have seized such an opportunity and known instinctively what to do. Alas, he is not. Actually, one is not quite sure what Mr Zardaris profession is. He has never had a job, much less a vocation, until he became president. A businessman is probably what he could most plausibly claim to be and in a sense he has acted like one. Only a businessman, for example, would keep silent and largely ignore the crass and undiplomatic nature of a clients unguarded remarks directed against him in view of the businessmans need to safeguard his business interests. Besides, who better than a salesman to appreciate that a fellow salesmans sales pitch needed to be couched in a manner to please a prickly client. However, Mr Zardaris problem is not that at heart he remains a businessman, or his lack of experience in running the affairs of government, or that he is a novice in such matters as diplomacy and the management of the economy. His problem is his reputation. My reputation, Iago, my reputation, lamented the tormented Othello, grieving for what he called the immortal part of my self. Sadly, Mr Zardari lost his reputation, undeservedly or not, a long time ago and once reputation is lost, it is almost impossible to regain. But perhaps Mr Zardari, like the actress Mae West, feels that his critics exaggerate the effect of the damage done. Asked how she felt about losing her reputation, Mae West had replied, I never missed it. Or perhaps he agrees with Alan Clarke, the British politician, who, when asked whether he had any skeletons in the cupboard responded insouciantly, Dear boy, I can hardly close the door.
It was typically banal of Mr Zardaris opponents to quibble at the cost incurred on the board and lodging of his entourage. The reason not to go had nothing to do with the expense and everything to do with national solidarity and the feeling that the nations leaders, headed by the president, were united in their condemnation of Cameron but also, and more importantly, that all of them were manning their posts and doing their utmost to alleviate suffering during an extreme national emergency. The announcement by a PPP spokesperson that the expenses of the trip would be met from PPP funds showed that the point of the public clamour for calling off the visit had also escaped the speaker.
After the farce that attended the CJs restoration, one felt that at the rate the PPP government seemed to be unravelling, it was time to consider composing, if not Mr Zardaris political epitaph, then at least his political obituary. One was wrong. Mr Zardari recovered and by the time he returns from his forays to Paris and London, his decision not to cancel the visits might also seem inconsequential. But, while the memory and the circumstances in which the visits were undertaken may be forgotten, what will not cease is continued questioning of his judgement, which he can ill afford. Neither being liked nor respected by more than a fraction of the public, according to polls, is a lethal disadvantage for a leader at the hustings. Of course, public memory is short and by the time the next elections are due, Mr Zardaris unpopularity may diminish. But that is wishful thinking. Nine tenths of wisdom consists of being wise at the right time, something Mr Zardari by undertaking the visit manifestly proved otherwise.
The writer is a former ambassador. He can be reached at charles123it@hotmail.com
The sight of Mr Zardari, for example, clutching a rescued child to his chest while being pulled up into a helicopter, would have done more for his personal image than a whole year spent with Cameron at the latters retreat at Chequers
If the most devastating flood in Pakistans history, the dislocation of nearly three million people and the destruction of nearly a fifth of the nations food production could not persuade Mr Zardari to stay at home and add his weight to the relief effort, why should the frequent and tedious allegation of exporting terrorists levelled against Pakistan persuade Mr Zardari to put off his jaunt to Britain? Especially when Mr Zardari believes that sticks and stones may break his bones but words can never hurt him.
Mr Zardaris capacity to act wisely is limited. In the past too, in the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) matter and the restoration of the chief justice (CJ), he has demonstrated a limited capacity to function. His mind has to be made up for him, and while on the two earlier occasions, the establishment stepped in to do just that, on this occasion they did not insist. Instead, they cancelled the far more consequential visit of the ISI chief to London while letting Mr Zardari proceed with his own.
Camerons remarks against Pakistan were an opportunity for Mr Zardari to make political capital and demonstrate that he, like Erdogan, had the spunk to tell his mentors that enough is enough and that such criticism would exact a cost. Even Karzai did so on occasion. Instead, all that we heard from the Presidency was Mr Zardaris disappointment at the remarks which must surely qualify as the understatement of the year, when describing the outrage felt by some Pakistanis.
Inestimably, more important was the golden opportunity the unprecedented floods presented Mr Zardari to cancel the visits and thereby deflect criticism that he remained immersed in foreign jaunts, which prevented him from caring about the suffering that the flood affectees were undergoing. The sight of Mr Zardari, for example, clutching a rescued child to his chest while being pulled up into a helicopter would have done more for his personal image than a whole year spent with Cameron at the latters retreat at Chequers or whatever is finally contained in the vacuous communiqué that will issue from their meeting.
Had Mr Zardari been a genuine politician, he would have seized such an opportunity and known instinctively what to do. Alas, he is not. Actually, one is not quite sure what Mr Zardaris profession is. He has never had a job, much less a vocation, until he became president. A businessman is probably what he could most plausibly claim to be and in a sense he has acted like one. Only a businessman, for example, would keep silent and largely ignore the crass and undiplomatic nature of a clients unguarded remarks directed against him in view of the businessmans need to safeguard his business interests. Besides, who better than a salesman to appreciate that a fellow salesmans sales pitch needed to be couched in a manner to please a prickly client. However, Mr Zardaris problem is not that at heart he remains a businessman, or his lack of experience in running the affairs of government, or that he is a novice in such matters as diplomacy and the management of the economy. His problem is his reputation. My reputation, Iago, my reputation, lamented the tormented Othello, grieving for what he called the immortal part of my self. Sadly, Mr Zardari lost his reputation, undeservedly or not, a long time ago and once reputation is lost, it is almost impossible to regain. But perhaps Mr Zardari, like the actress Mae West, feels that his critics exaggerate the effect of the damage done. Asked how she felt about losing her reputation, Mae West had replied, I never missed it. Or perhaps he agrees with Alan Clarke, the British politician, who, when asked whether he had any skeletons in the cupboard responded insouciantly, Dear boy, I can hardly close the door.
It was typically banal of Mr Zardaris opponents to quibble at the cost incurred on the board and lodging of his entourage. The reason not to go had nothing to do with the expense and everything to do with national solidarity and the feeling that the nations leaders, headed by the president, were united in their condemnation of Cameron but also, and more importantly, that all of them were manning their posts and doing their utmost to alleviate suffering during an extreme national emergency. The announcement by a PPP spokesperson that the expenses of the trip would be met from PPP funds showed that the point of the public clamour for calling off the visit had also escaped the speaker.
After the farce that attended the CJs restoration, one felt that at the rate the PPP government seemed to be unravelling, it was time to consider composing, if not Mr Zardaris political epitaph, then at least his political obituary. One was wrong. Mr Zardari recovered and by the time he returns from his forays to Paris and London, his decision not to cancel the visits might also seem inconsequential. But, while the memory and the circumstances in which the visits were undertaken may be forgotten, what will not cease is continued questioning of his judgement, which he can ill afford. Neither being liked nor respected by more than a fraction of the public, according to polls, is a lethal disadvantage for a leader at the hustings. Of course, public memory is short and by the time the next elections are due, Mr Zardaris unpopularity may diminish. But that is wishful thinking. Nine tenths of wisdom consists of being wise at the right time, something Mr Zardari by undertaking the visit manifestly proved otherwise.
The writer is a former ambassador. He can be reached at charles123it@hotmail.com
