By Gideon Rachman
Published: January 25 2008 02:00 | Last updated: January 25 2008 02:00
Why are you in Davos? It is a question we all struggle with in our different ways. But when our three-man FT delegation posed it to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president seemed incredulous. Were we implying, he asked, that Pakistan was an unstable country that could not be left to its own devices? There is no danger in Pakistan, he assured us. Business is bustling.
Does this reaction suggest the president is cool, calm and in command? Or completely detached from reality? Or presenting a cynical front to the world, while he battles to contain the forces that threaten to engulf him? During the course of our audience with him written up in Thursdays paper I got flavours of all three ideas.
Perhaps the most surreal moment was when Mr Musharraf tried to assure us that everything he was doing was completely in line with the constitution. I pointed out that this was a difficult argument to make, when the former head of the Supreme Court is under house arrest. But Mr Musharraf was having none of it. He is not under house arrest, he replied, arguing that, on the contrary, the government wants to repossess the judges official house. So far from being a political prisoner, Iftikhar Chaudhary is it seems an illegal squatter. Mr Musharraf did accept that there were restrictions on the judges right to free speech. This, said Mr Musharraf, was because he is an agitator and the situation in Pakistan at the moment is too unstable to allow agitation. He also coolly rejected the idea of a UN investigation into Benazir Bhuttos death, saying this would infringe Pakistans sovereignty.
The only moment, it seemed, when the president lost his cool was when we asked him about a recent letter from retired generals, accusing him of undermining democracy. Who are these retired generals? he said, suddenly flustered. It is the serving generals who are important. But Mr Musharraf is now a retired general himself. The question of the loyalties of the army and intelligence services is going to loom large over the next year.
On Thursday I moderated a session on geopolitical risk. My first aim with this kind of thing is to avoid any disaster drying up on stage or saying: A question from the lady at the back, oh sorry youre a man. Judged by these standards, the session was a resounding success.
It was also surprisingly upbeat. Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, mixed big-picture stuff about the need to fight world poverty with detailed accounts of negotiations on Iran and Lebanon. Gareth Evans of the International Crisis Group said there were at least 20 serious conflicts around the world with the potential to cause misery and instability but that the last 20 years had seen a big diminution in global conflict. We are getting better at handling these things.
After all this cheer, I feel in need of some gloom: a session on the Middle East and a dinner devoted to the melting of the Arctic should do the trick.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Published: January 25 2008 02:00 | Last updated: January 25 2008 02:00
Why are you in Davos? It is a question we all struggle with in our different ways. But when our three-man FT delegation posed it to Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president seemed incredulous. Were we implying, he asked, that Pakistan was an unstable country that could not be left to its own devices? There is no danger in Pakistan, he assured us. Business is bustling.
Does this reaction suggest the president is cool, calm and in command? Or completely detached from reality? Or presenting a cynical front to the world, while he battles to contain the forces that threaten to engulf him? During the course of our audience with him written up in Thursdays paper I got flavours of all three ideas.
Perhaps the most surreal moment was when Mr Musharraf tried to assure us that everything he was doing was completely in line with the constitution. I pointed out that this was a difficult argument to make, when the former head of the Supreme Court is under house arrest. But Mr Musharraf was having none of it. He is not under house arrest, he replied, arguing that, on the contrary, the government wants to repossess the judges official house. So far from being a political prisoner, Iftikhar Chaudhary is it seems an illegal squatter. Mr Musharraf did accept that there were restrictions on the judges right to free speech. This, said Mr Musharraf, was because he is an agitator and the situation in Pakistan at the moment is too unstable to allow agitation. He also coolly rejected the idea of a UN investigation into Benazir Bhuttos death, saying this would infringe Pakistans sovereignty.
The only moment, it seemed, when the president lost his cool was when we asked him about a recent letter from retired generals, accusing him of undermining democracy. Who are these retired generals? he said, suddenly flustered. It is the serving generals who are important. But Mr Musharraf is now a retired general himself. The question of the loyalties of the army and intelligence services is going to loom large over the next year.
On Thursday I moderated a session on geopolitical risk. My first aim with this kind of thing is to avoid any disaster drying up on stage or saying: A question from the lady at the back, oh sorry youre a man. Judged by these standards, the session was a resounding success.
It was also surprisingly upbeat. Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, mixed big-picture stuff about the need to fight world poverty with detailed accounts of negotiations on Iran and Lebanon. Gareth Evans of the International Crisis Group said there were at least 20 serious conflicts around the world with the potential to cause misery and instability but that the last 20 years had seen a big diminution in global conflict. We are getting better at handling these things.
After all this cheer, I feel in need of some gloom: a session on the Middle East and a dinner devoted to the melting of the Arctic should do the trick.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
