As I begin this column, I feel more than usually inadequate. If there is one thing that a current affairs commentator needs, it is a sense of certainty. It is our function to put bewildering events in some sort of order; to explain and illuminate. To do that, you need to be sure of your ground - and frankly, when it comes to Afghanistan and all that, I feel less sure about what's going on with every day that passes.

However, I suspect that I'm in distinguished company. Increasingly, I get the feeling that many of those most intimately concerned with the conflict are similarly confused about its conduct and its likely direction.

Initially, I felt that the bombing campaign had to happen. Although I instinctively sympathise with those who shout for peace rather than war, peace hasn't seemed like a realistic option since September 11. If Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were left intact, any 'peace' that ensued would seem distinctly conditional and temporary, likely to be shattered at any moment. Were all forms of military action to be called off now, bin Laden would look like a triumphant leader, and would be even more of a hero in those parts of the Muslim world that already admire him. Meanwhile, the loathsome Taleban regime in Afghanistan would become more entrenched, its authority enhanced by its ability to withstand the attacks of the 'infidel'.

But day after day the air raids go on, and to what effect? We hear of civilian housing and Red Cross buildings being hit. We do not hear of any major changes in the political situation in Afghanistan, and we certainly don't see bin Laden captured or killed.

But we do see changes in world opinion. More and more of the Muslim world is growing to hate the West, and many more in the west are becoming increasingly uncomfortable about what is being done in their name. The Taleban are still in place, their senior officials still apparently able to make international trips in order to make new offers over bin Laden. We keep being assured that the air strikes are hitting vital targets; but the only victims we know of for certain are innocent victims.

This week, after meeting US Secretary of State Colin Powell, Pakistan's military ruler General Pervez Musharraf commented:
'The military campaign should be short and targeted, and be followed by viable political and economic strategies'.

I couldn't agree more. What has happened thus far may have been necessary in order to disable the Taleban's military capabilities. But, as Labour MP George Galloway put it during the latest House of Commons debate on the conflict:
'To mercilessly pound the civilian population of Afghanistan is morally grotesque, and to expect that you can keep international opinion on your side with what is the equivalent of Mike Tyson in a ring with a five-year-old child... is ridiculous beyond words.'

President Bush has famously said that 'You're either with us or against us.' The more complicated and awkward truth is that a lot of the world is with him for now, with reservations. That broad coalition of opinion will only stay on Bush's side if the bombs stop falling sooner rather than later, and if the promises that have been made about rebuilding Afghanistan and creating a viable Palestinian state are then kept.

Since September 11, UK domestic party politics has seemed rather irrelevant, even to UK domestic party politicians. The party conferences have passed off with only half-hearted swipes at the opposing tribes, with all concerned keen to be seen to be standing shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism.

But quietly, almost unnoticed with all attention focused on Afghanistan, some changes have taken place that just might lead to the biggest re-alignment in British politics in decades. The possibility of a terminal decline for the Conservative Party now seems more than just a wild fantasy long dreamed of by those of us to the left of centre.

At this year's General Election, the Conservatives positioned themselves as the anti-Europe party. They pledged that if they were to be elected, Britain wouldn't be signing up to the unified European currency, the Euro, any time in the foreseeable future. For good measure, they threw in some extra xenophobia for those whose dislike of foreigners was not confined to those from continental Europe, pledging to open detention camps for all those seeking political asylum in the UK. It was a shameless appeal to the British public's basest, most mean-spirited and narrow-minded impulses.

It failed spectacularly. Having been hammered by Tony Blair's Labour Party in 1997, the Tories gained just one seat this time round. Their leader William Hague did the decent thing and resigned. For the first time, the party's membership made the final decision as to who the new leader should be. And they voted for more of the same, only even more extreme.

They could have chosen Kenneth Clarke, who wanted to take the party to the centre and fight Tony Blair on his political home ground. Instead, they opted for more of the same only more so.

Iain Duncan Smith, the new leader, bears an unfortunate physical resemblance to his unsuccessful predecessor. Politically, though, he's different - even further out on a limb. Not only will he flatly refuse to countenance joining the European currency, he's even hinted at the possibility of a Conservative government taking Britain out of the European Union if the EU declines to renegotiate certain key treaties to his satisfaction. In assembling his new alternative government, he's promoted figures previously seen as being so extreme in their anti-European views as to be almost beyond the reach of mainstream politics. All this at a time when world events have served to remind us all, in the most brutal way, that frontiers are fragile and that we all have to share this planet.

The average age of Conservative Party members is now well over 60. In choosing Duncan Smith as their leader, they seem to have sent a clear signal that they're too set in their ways to consider shedding ancient prejudices in search of a broader appeal. The Liberal Democrats will surely never have a better chance to take over as the UK's main opposition party.

In the British media this week, a previously obscure Government spin doctor by the name of Jo Moore has become a hate figure second only to Osama bin Laden.

Her offence was to send a breathtakingly cynical e-mail to colleagues on September 11, after the second plane hit the World Trade Center but before the towers collapsed. The e-mail suggested that the atrocities in America had made September 11 a great day to release bad news - or, as she put it, '...a very good day to get out anything we want to bury'.

One of the recipients of the e-mail was sufficiently disgusted by this rather extreme form of opportunism to leak it to the press. Great embarrassment has been caused to Ms Moore's boss, Transport Secretary Stephen Byers, and to his boss, Tony Blair.

This week, Ms Moore - who had already apologised for her message, appeared before TV cameras to issue a further apology.

She said:
'I fully understand people's disgust at what I wrote. It is something I wish I'd never done and indeed find it difficult to believe I did. It's something I'll have to live with for the rest of my life. I can't take it back - no matter how much I wish - this terrible error of judgement.'

Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, Blair responded to demands for her dismissal with the words:
'I do not defend in any shape or form what she said, which was horrible and wrong and stupid. I do however defend the decision that to sack someone and end their career was too heavy a penalty. That was the decision that was taken, I support it and I regard the matter as closed.'

Good for him. To be shocked because a spin doctor cynically manipulates the news is like being shocked because an advertisement talks up the virtues of product it's promoting. Ms Moore was doing her job! Granted, she was prepared to go unusually far in her news manipulation, but perhaps that's why she's risen so high in government. No wonder Blair and Byers were reluctant to let her go.

Blair has been much criticised for his refusal to force Byers to sack Ms Moore. His attitude has been seen by some as evidence of the cynical culture within the Labour Party. I think it would have been more cynical of him to have done the hypocritical thing by punishing Moore for doing the job his government has given her - and for getting caught.

And if anyone's still really shocked that people in senior government positions can act with such opportunism, I have some news for them.

You know those presents you get at Christmas? Well, they don't really come from Santa Claus.

Ormondroyd

18.10.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page