It’s hard to recall a more grisly complement of newspaper covers than those this morning. Only the FT refrains from showing either
Gaddafi’s stumbling last moments or his corpse, whereas the Sun runs with the headline, big and plain: "That’s for Lockerbie".
The insides of the papers are more uncertain. There are doubts about the details, such as
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051503/Gaddafi-dead-Dictators-children-killed-fled-Libya.html?ITO=1490">what has happened to Gaddafi’s infamous son Saif. And there are doubts about
the general tide of events too. Several commentators, including "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8838577/With-Gaddafi-gone-who-will-run-the-new-Libya.html">Peter Oborne, make the point that the passing of Gaddafi is only
the first phase in Libya’s struggle towards democracy — and it is a struggle that might easily be forced off course by various factions, splinter groups and madmen. As the New York Times
puts it, "The conflicting accounts about how [Gaddafi]
was killed seemed to reflect an instability that could trouble Libya long after the euphoria fades…"
As significant as all this is, however, we should also alight on the news from another area of instability: Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hillary Clinton visited Kabul yesterday, where she not only
heard about the Gaddafi’s death in photo montage-friendly fashion, but
took some very clear swipes at Pakistan for being the Taliban’s favourite holiday destination. Here are some extracts from the full transcript of her speech and Q&A "http://thecritical-post.com/blog/2011/10/secretary-of-state-hillary-rodham-clintons-speech-in-kabul-with-afghan-president-hamid-karzai-transcript-text-tcpchicago/">here:
"We will be looking to the Pakistanis to take the lead, because the terrorists operating outside of Pakistan pose a threat to Pakistanis, as well as to Afghans and others. And we will
have ideas to share with the Pakistanis. We will certainly listen carefully to the ideas that they have. But our message is very clear: We’re going to be fighting, we’re going to
talking, and we’re going to be building. And they can either be helping or hindering, but we are not going to stop our efforts…
…So my message will be as it just was to you: We have to deal with the safe havens on both sides of the border. It is not enough to point fingers across the border; we must work together
to end the safe havens. We must send a clear, unequivocal message to the government and the people of Pakistan that they must be part of the solution, and that means ridding their own country
of terrorists who kill their own people and who cross the border to kill in Afghanistan.
I think that how we increase that pressure, how we make that commitment, is the subject of the conversations that President Karzai and I have had, and that I will have in Pakistan. But
we’re looking to the Pakistanis to lead on this, because there’s no place to go any longer. The terrorists are on both sides. They are killing both people. No one should be in any
way mistaken about allowing this to continue without paying a very big price. So I will deliver the message on behalf of the mothers of Afghanistan and on behalf of my own country."
Just words, perhaps. But these words are some of the firmest that Obama’s adminstration has directed towards Islamabad since the death of Osama Bin Laden. In a news interview last night
(do watch it if you’ve got two minutes), Clinton suggested that "something has changed" in the relationship between the two
countries, and that Pakistan needs to "make some some serious choices". That change could well define much of what lies ahead for Afghanistan and the wider region.