Political Focus, with Bill Jacobs

ROBIN COOK'S fighting performance on Tuesday has bought him time, but many at Westminster think not much else. It was certainly a lot better than his initial statement the previous Wednesday which is being blamed for dramatically worsening the "Arms to Africa" crisis.

On the face of it, whether or not a few Foreign Office officials - or even Ministers - connived at supplying a few weapons to help the elected president of a small African state regain power is of little interest in the pubs of East Lancashire.

Even if British mercenary company Sandline International got "a nod and a wink" to break a UN arms embargo (and domestic law to boot), who cares?

As Prime Minister Tony Blair almost said "the good guys won."

But it was not until his dramatic intervention on Monday that the government finally got on top of the affair.

Till then it was showing all the signs of becoming a major scandal despite its far-away and small beginnings.

In order to right the ship of state, Mr Blair had once again to deploy his ability to make people trust him to get his Foreign Secretary off the hook.

It was only by taking the boss's line and by mounting the type of defence of his officials and his Africa Minister Tony Lloyd that was conspicuously lacking six days before that Mr Cook turned the tables.

In this he was helped by the fact that his prosecutor was Michael Howard, of whom it was famously said that every time as Home Secretary he duffed up his Labour Shadow Jack Straw he got the Blackburn MP sympathy as a victim of crime! If Mr Cook performed well, Mr Howard did badly and blew his chance.

But even on the facts of the matter there are still several unanswered questions.

The most important are what communications passed between Sandline and Foreign Office officials and what were Ministers told when.

The question of the involvement of the Ministry of Defence and MI6 also remain unresolved.

When the Foreign Office says Sandline were warned against breaking sanctions and the company denies it, who is telling the truth?

And similarly who is right between Sierra Leone's President Kabbah, who says the company's efforts were irrelevant and the Sandline which says they were vital.

The Customs investigation and the independent Foreign Office enquiry will answer some of these riddles - and those answers threaten to bring Mr Cook and Mr Lloyd back into the limelight and under threat.

But for Mr Cook there are more damaging personal and political questions that the affair has posed which may prove much more dangerous to his career.

His first statement nine days ago was widely interpreted as an attempt to pass the buck to Mr Lloyd and his officials. Despite furious denials by Mr Cook and his office, government Ministers and backbenchers have little doubt that the Foreign Secretary was ready to sacrifice Mr Lloyd to save his own skin.

And despite the public statements of support, it is well known at Westminster that Mr Blair is furious at this and Mr Cook's whole handling of the affair.

The fact that he had to take control of dampening down this "overblown hoo-ha" on Monday clearly shows this.

Officials at the Foreign Office are also clearly close to mutiny despite Mr Cook's belated defence of their integrity on Tuesday. Talk of the "arrogance", "pomposity'' and "idleness'' now emanates from Foreign Office sources.

The question of whether Mr Cook properly reads his documents has also been raised and despite his equally vehement denials, the question of whether he has been paying more attention to his complex personal affairs than affairs of state has been raised.

Another damaging accusation is that Mr Cook has lost control of his department, that he is a Minister in office but not in power. Coming after a string of problems as Foreign Secretary - the Royal Trip to India and Pakistan, his marriage split and remarriage to Gaynor, and the row over his trip to Israel - there is also the suggestion that Mr Cook is plain unlucky - a bad characteristic in politics.

But the real problem of the "Arms to Africa" affair is bringing together all the doubts about Mr Cook - his manner, the effect of his marriage problems on his professional political life, whether here - as over Gaynor - he panicked, and the long-standing questions about his loyalty.

They all combine into a serious question mark about his judgment.

Although he will almost certainly survive in his current job in any reshuffle this summer, no experienced government insiders would bet on him keeping it in a subsequent Cabinet shake-up.

The word at Westminster is that Mr Cook is terminally damaged goods and that unless there is clear evidence in the next 18 months that his judgement and luck have improved, an exasperated Mr Blair - whose patience has all but run out - will have little compunction in entering the next General Election with a new Foreign Secretary.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.