Man at large

There were nice stories about his honesty, humility. Too nice for politics? Remember the 8216;8216;Incident of the File that was Slapped Rather Hard on the Desk8217;8217;. For Time, Singh is a pragmatist, can temper liberalisation to satisfy the rural poor and, in the words of a former colleague, can 8216;8216;transcend the battle8217;8217;. Singh, it concluded, may be 8216;8216;just what the country needs8217;8217;.

The Wall Street Journal interviewed India8217;s PM and highlighted his pledge to further open up India8217;s economy to the world and his view that India could offer lessons in how to avoid going 8216;8216;further down the road to the thesis that goes by the name of 8216;clash of civilisations8217;8217;8217;. Manmohan Singh spoke of how India is negotiating a difficult path between the demands of security and the need to protect basic human liberties. He cited his government8217;s decision to repeal POTA.

India8217;s PM advised the EU, specifically. He cautioned it against rejecting Turkey8217;s application for membership, because it will send 8216;8216;a very wrong signal8217;8217;. In a few days, the European Commission is scheduled to publish its assessment of whether Turkey has done enough to meet the criteria that govern eligibility to join the EU. Turkey is very large, very poor and very Muslim. The debate over its inclusion in the EU is warming up.

When Mush met Bush

To The New York Times, Pakistan8217;s General explained why he dared not keep his pledge to step down as army chief.

Because that would jeopardise the national 8216;8216;renaissance8217;8217; underway in Pakistan. Because he was freeing his country from extremism. That effort required 8216;8216;continuity8217;8217;.

The paper wasn8217;t convinced. When Musharraf met Bush, it put its ear to the wall and clinically picked out the words from the silences. Bush and Musharraf discussed Osama bin Laden, said the NYT, whom Bush no longer speaks of in public. Bush made 8216;8216;little effort8217;8217; to persuade Musharraf to step down as army chief though he holds forth on democratisation in public. Bush did not persuade Musharraf to let American officials interview Abdul Qadeer Khan, the former head of Pakistan8217;s nuclear programme, though the CIA is publicly suspicious that the Pakistani intelligence service and military aided Dr Khan in his nuclear trade.

Apparently, on the campaign trail, Bush cites 8216;8216;Pakistan8217;s turnaround8217;8217; as one of his biggest foreign policy achievements.

The UN catwalk

This year8217;s issues from South Asia at the UN have a 8216;8216;retro8217;8217; look, scoffed the Christian Science Monitor. Who wants to hear India8217;s PM on India8217;s growing economic and strategic importance, and the country8217;s claim, for the nth time, to a place on the Security Council. The mind wandered to South Asian leaders8217; 8216;8216;sartorial decisions8217;8217;.

To Manmohan8217;s gray achkan8212;very Nehru, 8216;8216;crisp and professional, but uncompromising8217;8217;. To the general 8216;8216;shabbiness8217;8217; of Indian leaders at home, a 8216;8216;form of reassurance8217;8217;, an act of overcompensation by politicians seen to be 8216;8216;impossibly corrupt8217;8217;. To Musharraf8217;s sharp western suits abroad, a signal to the West of his will to ally. On to Hamid Karzai, 8216;8216;the greatest clotheshorse of them all8217;8217;, the man with 8216;8216;the least power but the most flair8217;8217;.

And before anyone should accuse the American media of trivialising South Asia8217;s Issues, an article in The New York Times cheerfully expounded on an Iron Law of American political history. Apparently, it has been a near-century8217;s worth of 8216;8216;beardless presidential leadership8217;8217; in the US.

Going backward

Democracy was the good word last week. It peppered the speeches at the UN, not least by US President George Bush.

In The Washington Post, Fred Hiatt articulated a spreading unease. Ten years ago, he recalled, democracy seemed on the march, its progress looked inevitable. Today those assumptions seem 8216;8216;blithe8217;8217;. Democracy no more appears inevitable, it seems 8216;8216;distressingly reversible8217;8217;.

In Russia, an elected KGB apparatchik has reconstituted the security state without opposition at home or abroad. An elected leader in Thailand choreographs a clampdown on freedoms and rights. In Pakistan, the General promises never to fade away. China refuses to allow Hong Kong the freedoms it craves. After 9/11, 8216;8216;pushing for democracy strikes many policymakers as an unaffordable luxury8217;8217;.

There are few clear answers left about the best ways to promote freedom. Disagreements over Iraq have shown that even in a fully democratic world, the promised harmony may elude8212;democracies can fundamentally disagree.