The Tribune

Since the US media tends to concentrate on domestic news and, nowadays, in particular on the behaviour and tribulations of their President, it is hardly surprising that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s visit to Pakistan last week has not attracted much attention this side of the Atlantic. During a jam-packed five-day tour, which was the first royal visit there for a decade, the general view has been that they did not put a foot wrong on what was their own first trip to the country and that overall it was an outstanding success.

Receiving a warm welcome and red carpet treatment wherever they went, William and Kate were praised on all sides for the way they conducted themselves as two young, photogenic and popular British royals. They travelled around this huge, predominantly Muslim country with a population of over 200 million, from the capital Islamabad, where they met the President and Prime Minister, to Lahore, known as the city of culture, and the Hindu Kush mountains in the north east on the edge of the Himalayas as well as the rugged region to the west near the border with Afghanistan.

They were shown examples of Pakistan’s rich culture, diverse communities and fine varied landscape. They visited mosques, schools, a cancer hospital, an orphanage and a canine training centre and participated in local activities including a special showcase cricket match -- and they met a wide range of people, including breaking off from their fixed schedule for a spontaneous encounter with a family in their simple home in the remote area of the Hindu Kush.

Having been part of a team organising many years ago a similar visit to Nigeria by the Prince and Princess of Wales, one can only shudder to think of the complexity of the logistical and security arrangements for this latest visit to Pakistan. But, reportedly, everything went smoothly apart from one frighteningly bumpy flight in their special RAF aircraft which was forced twice to abort a landing at Lahore because of bad weather.

The purpose of such royal visits is to strengthen ties between Britain and the receiving country and to promote British values as a democratic, responsible and caring nation while also indirectly encouraging trade links. This visit will also probably have helped Pakistan’s tourism sector and will have boosted the country’s image and reputation on the world stage and created a distraction from its social, political and economic problems. What is more, through the royal couple’s meetings with politicians, cultural figures, sports stars, school children and others, their visit will have strengthened - to use the vernacular - ‘people to people ties’; and it is worth noting Pakistanis are the single largest minority ethnic group in the UK.

From researching their visit to Pakistan, it seems to me the success of these two fine representatives of The Queen was attributable to their informal, relaxed, warm and unstuffy approach, all the while smiling to adults and children alike and showing genuine interest in them. At the same time, they were calm and dignified and willing to engage in conversation about issues like education, care of the needy and disabled, climate change and the environment, to name just a few.

They themselves obviously enjoyed the trip, describing it in an interview at the end as “fantastic”. Of course, this was an especially poignant visit for William since, in a sense, he was following in the footsteps of his mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who went to Pakistan in 1996, a year before her death, and had left a legacy of generosity and philanthropy. It was noticeable that he and Kate visited the same cancer hospital as she had done.

Some commentators describe all this as the royal family doing what they do best without unnecessary drama - they understand what is required of them and some win hearts and minds wherever they go, though, sadly, not all are as good at it as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Meanwhile, perhaps this is an opportunity to remind readers that, as head of state for seven decades, The Queen has been at the centre of Britain’s national life during a sustained period of relative peace and prosperity. She is, of course, also head of state of The Bahamas as a realm rather than a republic.

She has been a beacon of decorum and decency in serving the nation with - in the words of the Prime Minister when she became Britain’s longest-serving monarch in 2015 - unerring grace and dignity. Her calm and reassuring presence provides stability, unity and continuity while politicians are impermanent and often transient figures who, as everybody knows, seem to be forever at odds with one another. The Queen’s longevity also makes her the most experienced and knowledgeable head of state - probably of all time - for she has been seeing state papers and meeting world leaders continuously since her coronation in 1953.

So, while praising the new generation of royals as appropriate - and most certainly after last week’s visit to Pakistan - the evidence is that most people recognise only too well the vital role of the monarch herself and offer Her Majesty every good wish for the future.

Johnson’s plan is now the best on offer

There continues to be so much publicity about Brexit that the latest significant developments do not bear much repetition here. But, as events move at a feverish pace in the run-up to the departure date of October 31, some comment might be helpful as the current political crisis in Britain continues despite hopes of some resolution last week when a new Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK government was finally reached.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson planned to put his hard-fought deal to the House of Commons at its ‘super Saturday’ emergency sitting on October 19. But this highly charged affair ended in stalemate because, instead of voting on it, MPs considered first an amendment to withhold approval of the deal until it becomes law. This was passed narrowly and meant that Mr Johnson, pictured right, was required by law to ask Brussels for another extension of the Article 50 withdrawal process.

The latest news from Downing Street is that the Prime Minister remains bullish about having a meaningful vote on his deal and securing parliamentary approval sometime this week. At the time of writing the details are unknown, but it is clear that he will table as soon as possible a draft Withdrawal Agreement Bill – and it is now possible some MPs who supported the amendment will fall into line and vote this week for the actual agreement itself.

Nonetheless, the Sunday newspapers in Britain made alarming reading, reflecting, as they did, on the public fury at MPs for potentially delaying Brexit yet again. People are now saying the failure by the House of Commons on Saturday to vote on Mr Johnson’s deal shows the contempt of MPs for democracy and the national interest.

It now looks as though faith in the Westminster Parliament as a place of wisdom and experience has been weakened further and many agree with the Prime Minister’s own view that the behaviour of MPs is corroding public trust.

Having watched on TV some of the proceedings of the historic Saturday sitting, I was appalled at the views expressed by certain MPs who by their actions are continuing to stop implementation of the will of the people. To my mind this is no longer about the finely-balanced arguments for and against the UK’s departure from the EU. For better or worse, we have gone beyond that and it is now about respecting democracy.

One of the best interventions was by Mr Johnson’s immediate predecessor, Theresa May, who reminded the House that both main parties had pledged in their manifestos at the time of the 2017 general election to honour the result of the 2016 referendum and not to do so now was an ‘egregious con trick’ on the people. Many are saying that the UK has been humiliated by the political class’s failure to implement the result of the referendum, with some now asking how the so-called political elite can believe it has the moral right to overturn a decision by 17.4 million voters to leave because it disagrees with them.

With the country still in a state of crisis over Brexit, there can be little doubt that, even though debate will continue about the content of the new Withdrawal Agreement, the majority of people want a resolution of the dispute in order to end the uncertainty that is particularly damaging for businesses. The division of opinion will remain, but it is clear Mr Johnson’s new deal with Brussels is the best obtainable and that Brexit should proceed by the end of October. The government can then embark on negotiations about a future relationship, including a trade deal, with the EU.

Out of Africa - but why?

I wonder whether others might be as surprised as I was to learn that Kenya has launched a satellite into space which is now in ‘earth orbit’. After spending time in African countries during a diplomatic career, it seems to me there must be some doubt about the availability of resources and expertise in some of them to launch such satellites when a large proportion of their citizens are living in poverty.

A Google search reveals that some eight countries in Africa have a presence in space or plan to launch satellites in the near future. But they can only do so with the help of larger nations like the US, Russia, Britain and others. For example, reportedly, Kenya’s satellite was launched from the Japanese module of the International Space Station - and Nigeria, with the largest economy in Africa, has a relatively advanced space programme operating its own satellites and collecting a range of data, but these were built in the UK and launched from a Russian space port.

Apparently, the purpose of these so-called artificial satellites is, for example, to develop scientific research, to monitor the environment and the weather and to collect data needed to manage agriculture. That seems admirable, but there must surely be doubts about their need and usefulness when US satellites are already monitoring the earth and providing data from space concerning just about everything that is happening in the world. Barriers to space exploration are clearly being lowered and the layman might wonder about the scope for misuse, abuse and criminal or politically-motivated activity.

Big Brother has always been watching us, but now it’s the rest of the family as well!