Michael Goldfarb's Notebook:

Blair testifies on Iraq: Again

London - The weather was cold and damp and so were the protests outside the QEII Centre as Tony Blair began his testimony before the Iraq Inquiry this morning.  This was the big news event of the week in Britain and a major demonstration had been expected but in the end nothing much happened.

It was similar inside the hearing room.  Over the years Blair has appeared before four major inquiries into Iraq.  He's been asked every question you could think of and his story has always been the same.  Today's questions were more thorough but rarely broke new ground and Blair himself after a few minutes seemed to relish being on familiar ground, justifying the decision by which history will judge him.

The man came prepared.  He frequently referred to several thick stacks of paper with tabs marking subjects by section.   The most interesting thing to come out of the morning session was when Blair was pressed by one of the inquisitors, Baroness Prashar, about a one-to-one meeting he had with U.S. President George Bush in Crawford, Texas in April 2002.  Blair has always said that a decision about going to war had not been made by then and was not made there.  I try hard not to go "bollocks" when I write the previous sentence, but I digress.

She asked him if he had given a private undertaking then to overthrow Saddam.  Blair avoided a direct answer, she interrupted and asked him again. "I said nothing in private that I wouldn't say in public."  She pressed him again. "Look," Blair said.  "This is an alliance we have with the U.S. not a contract," with everything clearly delineated by lawyers.  When he finished that answer he nodded his head firmly ... it was the one moment so far when the certainty and self-righteousness that makes him so unshakeable really bubbled up.

I hope that after the break for lunch the other members of the Iraq Inquiry panel get personal about his relationship with Bush ... this is one story he hasn't told and it would seem that it is the only window into the emotional core of the man who carries the weight of the failure in Iraq on his shoulders not just for the rest of his life ... but for as long as the history of Britain is studied.

London conference says: Bring (some) Afghan Taliban in from the cold

LONDON — They came. They talked. They agreed.  Foreign ministers from 70 countries met here today and an hour ahead of schedule agreed on the way to make Afghanistan finally work.  That is about as quick as it gets. 

To give you a frame of reference, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown spent the previous three days in Belfast trying to break an impasse on the final piece of the Northern Irish political puzzle — with no result — and Northern Ireland's problems are nothing compared to Afghanistan's. 

Perhaps the speed of today's meeting was because the final agreement was so vague.  At a post-meeting press conference Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband explained the key points in these soundbites: "2010 is the decisive year." "A civilian surge to match the military one." "Upgrade of international community's relationship" with Afghanistan President Karzai.  Miliband only verbalizes in think-tank management speak, his summary of the event was "The biggest deliverable of all" coming out of today's agreement was "coherence."

What is pending delivery is the Taliban.  Those Taliban fighters who want to come in from the cold will be welcome.  "Reintegration and reconciliation" is the term of art used by the diplomats here, along with "expanding the political space." 

The conference agreed on finding money to put fighters to work and other means to provide security for their families then membership in the Taliban.

This sounds reasonable, and given the experience in Iraq, possible.  But among those addressing the conference was a group of Afhgan women representing 200 women's organizations: local co-ops, education groups etc.  They were concerned that inviting the Taliban in from the cold would spell doom for whatever progress has been made on women's rights since the Taliban were driven from power.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the issue insisting there would be a women's action plan.  She added that Taliban joining the reintegration program would have to renounce violence and Al Qaeda and endorse the Afghan constitution.  That document includes the U.N.'s declaration of human rights which includes equal rights for women.  It is easier to imagine a Taliban fighter putting down his AK-47 and turning his back on Osama then it is to think of him seeing women as equal.

Extraordinary: Afghanistan's major human rights issue sits on the greatest cultural fault line between West and radical Islam.  The success of the plan agreed today may not depend on the amount of cash dispersed to Pashtun tribal leaders ... but on their willingness to let their daughters go to school and then get a job.  Or on the willingness of America and its allies to turn a blind eye to continued female oppression in the dry valleys of Pashtunistan.

The next space to watch on the never ending Afghanistan story will be at a Loya Jirga, a national tribal council, to be held in the spring.  It will be interesting to see how many former Taliban leaders attend. 

Afghanistan conference under way: Do they know about it in Kandahar?

LONDON —  "Afghanistan: the London Conference" is under way at Lancaster House overlooking Green Park.  The headlines:

Representatives of 70 countries are attending — including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Most of the 70 have reporters in the media centre so there is no place to sit. I am borrowing a chair in a multi-lingual enclave where I may be the only English speaker. I hear Russian, German and French in my immediate vicinity.

We are sequestered which means there is no possibility of inadvertent comments being made by officials ambushed on their way to the toilet. So more than is usual we are prisoner of spin and here is the spin so far.

1. The number of countries lending a hand in Afghanistan has grown: Armenia, Mongolia, Montenegro and South Koreaare joining the NATO-led ISAF.

2. "We have brought our ambitions and our resources into line," said Mark Sedwill, a British diplomat just appointed to head NATO's civilian affairs operations. What Sedwill meant is that there is enough money genuinely available rather than vaguely "pledged" to begin the hearts and minds civilian reconstruction projects that are necessary for something like success in stabilizing Afghanistan. 

What he doesn't mention (cannot mention) is that some countries — Germany for example — cannot legally just ship the money off to Kabul or NATO ... these countries maintain strict accounting procedures on aid projects and so money that is available is frequently not spent owing to the corruption in Afghanistan.

And if that isn't important enough here is spin point number 3:

Talking to the Taliban. It's been out there in the press for a while but today it has been officially endorsed by the assembled foreign ministers. 

Speaking at the conference Afghan President Hamid Karzai went further and asked the Saudi government to "kindly play a role to guide peace and assist the process."  The Saudis have close contact with the Taliban.

It will be interesting to hear what the Foreign Ministers have to say after their deliberations —Thankfully, we don't have long to wait — this is a one-day meeting and will be over in a couple of hours.  Just as well, as I have to give my chair back to the person I stole it from.  

Prince William wows the ex-colonials Down Under

This is what they were hoping for when the ill-fated marriage of Britain's Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer began — "they" being the members and employees of "The Firm," as the Royal Family refers to itself — handsome offspring rejuvenating and re-enthusing the world for the extraordinary anachronism that is the British Monarchy.

Prince William, who one day will be His Majesty William the Fifth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King and Defender of the Faith, has over the last week been on a goodwill tour in a couple of those far away dominions: New Zealand and Australia. Press reports of his journey have made a wonderful counterpoint here to the grim photos from Haiti and the relentless chill and damp of Britain in mid-winter.

We've had photos of the sporting Prince tossing a rugby ball around in New Zealand and  padding up and going to the crease to show his form as a cricket batsman — very good form it is — in Australia. We've had TV news reports of the multi-cultural Prince being welcomed by the traditional Maori Haka in NZ and checking out Aborigine art in OZ. There is no doubt, looking at the photos, that the gene pool worked out the way the royal matchmakers wanted it to when Diana became Princess: William is as handsome as his mother was beautiful and wears his inherited charisma as lightly as an old cardigan.

Underlying the pictures is something more serious. At least some of the justification for the British taxpayers' lavish dispensation to the Royal Family — over $12.8 million is what we pay them — is the vestigial connection of the monarch to the Old Dominions. The Queen is still Australia's "Head of State." In the recent past there has been a strong political movement in Australia to change that relationship and make Australia what the U.S. is — a republic. But Prince William's visit moved the leader of the Republican movement, Malcolm Turnbull to write in the Times: "He is a young, handsome and charming prince, not a stitched-up aristocrat of the old school ..."

So,  job well done, William. Make a happier marriage than your Pa and you will secure the throne into the next century. 

British hostage release in Iraq raises questions about Iran

London — In a surprise to all concerned, Peter Moore, a British IT worker kidnapped in Baghdad more than two years ago was released by his captors on Wednesday.  The British Foreign Office as always said no deal was done ... but almost immediately  the leader of a radical Shiite group, an imam named Qais al-Khazali, was released from American custody in Iraq.

Khazali had been arrested in connection with an attack on an American base in the holy city of Kerbala three years ago in the Shi'ite south of Iraq. At the time, Khazali was believed to be under the command of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

No deal or coincidence?  You decide.  But here are some other strands to the story you may want to know:

The Guardian newspaper is reporting that Iran was behind the kidnapping of Moore. There is a mountain of evidence to show that Moore was held for part of his captivity in Iran. American General David Petraeus told the BBC this morning he was 90 percent certain Moore had spent part of his captivity in Iran.

I would say the general's admission of 90 percent certainty is tantamount to saying it's a fact. Certainly Moore's British bodyguards who were abducted with him were shortly afterwards murdered in Iran.

Finally, Iran, which has deep contacts in Iraq's Shiite community may well have had motive for doing this. Moore was working in Iraq's Finance Ministry at the time of his abduction.  He was installing an ultra-sophisticated system for tracking the billions of pounds of aid money that were flowing into the country and seemed to be disappearing.  It was believed a good deal of the funding was being diverted to Iran.

The main point underlying all this cloak and dagger stuff is this:  Iran, the U.S. and Britain seem to have been in contact via Baghdad and negotiated something successfully. 

I wonder if there any other issues on which the Islamic Republic and the West might be having discussions in secret in the Iraqi capital?

Michael's Links:

More Dispatches:

• Latest