Blair made Musharraf fall in line after 9/11

[Maddy]

Blair made Musharraf fall in line after 9/11

By By Rauf Klasra

LONDON: Alastair Campbell, press secretary and official spokesman of Britain’s ex-prime Minister Tony Blair for 12 years, in his diaries published here has revealed after six years that Blair was dispatched to Islamabad immediately after 9/11 by a George W Bush to get a “proper fix” on General Pervez Musharraf to stop his support to Taliban and terrorism in Indian held Kashmir and how the uniformed general was “convinced” to fall in line on both the issues.

Campbell’s diaries published in London after the departure of Blair from his office on June 27 which is selling like hot cakes, also reveal how Musharraf was “convinced” by Blair not to talk about Kashmir as a “freedom struggle” and instead use the word “indigenous” struggle”, in his future speeches on the subject.

It is also disclosed that under pressure from the Indian leadership, Musharraf was made to change his line on Kashmir to accommodate the concerns of Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee.Campbell writes that the decision to get a “proper fix” on Musharraf was taken by Bush and Blair on October 1, 2001.

The book which is a best seller here as it contains many startling revelations not only about the internal politics of Britain but about the world leaders particularly about Pakistan and India.

The disclosures may not be a good news for Musahrraf as he is already taunted by his critics that just one phone call from Colin Powell on the night following 9/11 event had made him fall in line.

This might give fresh stuff against him to his critics and opposition parties particularly when he is already under mounting pressure to quit after Supreme Court verdict in favour of chief justice of Pakistan.

Alastair Campbell, a journalist by profession, was working with Daily Mirror group when Blair asked him in 1994 to become his press secretary. He also acted as advisor to PM Blair and Labour party.

Campbell says that once it was decided that US would attack Afghanistan as a tit for tat attack on Taliban, Blair and Bush had decided that Blair should go to see Russian president Putin to secure bases and then to Pakistan to try to get a “proper fix” on Musharraf.

Campbell who was present in this meeting between Musharraf and Blair in Islamabad says that it was a friendly meeting with the usual josh and laughter amid the “heavy stuff”. After getting required cooperation Tony Blair (whom he always calls TB in the book) was constantly thinking of rewarding Pakistan and in this connection solution of Kashmir was prominent in his mind. What followed was a forceful diplomacy by TB on Kashmir over which tensions were running high those days.

He writes that it was thought that the Kathmandu Saarc summit should at least be a chance to calm down things but the tensions were pretty strong. Therefore TB first went to India where he met Vajpayee. During his talks, TB pushed hard but got very little change out of Vajpayee. He was holding out for a lot more from the Pakistanis. “He was pretty shrewd and his total lack of embarrassment at long silence was a real strength”, he observes in his diaries.

After visiting India, next stop of TB was Islamabad where his first task was to persuade Musharraf to get tougher with terror groups and use that to engage India. TB wanted Musharraf to have an absolute break with Taliban and any of the groups they supported. Musharraf was not easy to be convinced and at one stage he even baulked on TB on the plea that it suggested that Pakistan and its government supported terrorism.

“We persuaded him (Musharraf) that the best thing to do then was for him to stay right at the top (saying) that he opposed terrorism in all of its forms”, Campbell writes. He claims that we also persuaded him (Musharraf) not to talk about Kashmir as a “freedom struggle” but an “indigenous struggle”, because that would be better understood by public opinion in UK and US, Campbell discloses. “We spent an awful lot of time but eventually he (Musharraf) agreed.”

“It was funny too how both sides (Pakistan and India) seemed to talk of the other as equals even though India was so much bigger and more powerful”, Campbell makes a satirical comment on the insistence of Musharraf that his country should be treated on equal footing with India.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=9206

 

[roadrunner]

It's already been said by Musharraf in his book that Armitage said he'd bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if he didnt fall in line, so I don't think he needed much convincing. Just another load of bull.

 

[Maddy]

It's already been said by Musharraf in his book that Armitage said he'd bomb Pakistan back to the stone age if he didnt fall in line, so I don't think he needed much convincing. Just another load of bull.

Guess, it just boils down to who rather believe.

 

[roadrunner]

Guess, it just boils down to who rather believe.

Undoubtedly he did ask him, but it's what Armitage said that convinced him. it's all pretty much acknowledged in his book. This is just someone trying to dramatize pretty much a non event to sell his book.

 

[roadrunner]

i dont how how a country with a nuclear arsenal should fear other countries pakistan should do whats in its own interest and not worry about threats

because that country can flatten most of the others.

 

[blain2]

“It was funny too how both sides (Pakistan and India) seemed to talk of the other as equals even though India was so much bigger and more powerful”, Campbell makes a satirical comment on the insistence of Musharraf that his country should be treated on equal footing with India.

Pakistan's insistance on equality is not based on size etc. Its actually in the ability of the two to totally F*** up each other. Secondly, Pakistan does not want to be seen in a situation that since its the smaller country, it should eat **** and shut up. Pakistan does not want India to represent South Asia (something that most of other smaller countries have allowed India to do) for as long as there are acrimonius relations between the two countries.

 

[blitz]

But in reality the equal-equal is long lost, no matter how much someone wishes otherwise.

 

[BATMAN]

But in reality the equal-equal is long lost, no matter how much someone wishes otherwise.

You are definately in a state of some complex.
All states of the world give each other equal status and we all know any disrespect from either side immediately result in tit for tat treatment.

 

[BATMAN]

i dont how how a country with a nuclear arsenal should fear other countries pakistan should do whats in its own interest and not worry about threats

Pakistan's neuclear arsnels are only meant for detterence.
So far, It has actually helped to put an end to regular aggressions by its classic enemy.

 

[roadrunner]

Pakistan's insistance on equality is not based on size etc. Its actually in the ability of the two to totally F*** up each other. Secondly, Pakistan does not want to be seen in a situation that since its the smaller country, it should eat **** and shut up. Pakistan does not want India to represent South Asia (something that most of other smaller countries have allowed India to do) for as long as there are acrimonius relations between the two countries.

It's just Campbell showing his lack of worldly political knowledge. Obviously he doesnt know the "smaller and weaker" Pakistan was undefeated in two conventional wars against the "stronger and bigger" India aka Bharat, and the third one only led to a defeat because of desertions and another country joining in. One thing Pakistan definitely proved over the years is that a smaller country is not necessarily the weaker one.

 

[blitz]

roadrunner, some questions for you. But first i will state the universal law of war. Victory is decided by achievement of ones objective, not kill/death ratios. I hope you will agree to this.

Now try and answer for each of the following 4 cases: 1947 -- 1965 --1971 -- 1999

Who initiated it ?
What was the initiators objective ?
What was the defenders objective ?
Were the objectives achieved ?

Thanks

 

[Keysersoze]

O great here we g again over the same old ground lol

 

[roadrunner]

roadrunner, some questions for you. But first i will state the universal law of war. Victory is decided by achievement of ones objective, not kill/death ratios. I hope you will agree to this.

Now try and answer for each of the following 4 cases: 1947 -- 1965 --1971 -- 1999

Who initiated it ?
What was the initiators objective ?
What was the defenders objective ?
Were the objectives achieved ?

Thanks

To answer your questions. Your "universal law of war" is an internal critique, not a neutral viewpoint. One example, me and you have a fight. My aim is to make you bleed, your aim is to punch me and run off. I floor you 6 times (as would most likely happen which would count you out of most boxing matches) but you're not bleeding just dazed with two black eyes and a broken nose and arm, you finally punch me once and run off. Does your universal law of war still apply to our fight? no

Same with Pakistan. Looking at it from the neutral pov, both the first two wars were draws (Pak did better in the second one than Bharat imho), so I would say that your point is moot, and my assertiosn before that Campbell is naive on military and political history of the subcontinent stands.

 

[Munir]

As usual they all try to sell their books. UK soldiers or whatever. They all throw crap on others while they are doing a terrible job...

Why not adding that while UK is a superpower it still acts like a poodle for Bush... You can make a lot of jokes about Pakistan but the western powers are atleast equal to blaim for the results.

 

[blitz]

roadrunner, i will not get down to your level of personal insults. But you said that first two were draw, right ? Third was obviously our gain. 4th id assume you would say was a draw again. So

Pak = 0, 0, -1, 0 = -1

India 0, 0, 1, 0 = 1

Have fun