Rude, Loudmouthed David Cameron’s rude politcal immaturity

World Friday, July 30th, 2010

The Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is Britain’s youngest leader–and it shows. His off the cuff remarks have created diplomatic rows with Israel and Pakistan. His undiplomatic language in Delhi has infuriated the Pakistanis and will have consequences for British Foreign Policy in South Asia. He didn’t have to unnecessary provoke Islamabad, but he did. Creating a storm is the work of a good politician. Mr. Cameron has now upset the majority of people in Bradford and Luton. Mr. Cameron’s government is allied with the Liberal Democrats. That alliance is not in jeopardy if Mr. Cameron continues his rhetoric.

Some British analysts are giving Mr. Cameron some free advice. Con Coughlin writing for the Telagarph says the following:

Mr Cameron might revel in his “Cameron direct” approach, but he risks alienating a great many of this country’s important allies unless he learns to balance his plain speaking with some good old-fashioned common sense. It is a long time since a serving British prime minister has managed to cause two major diplomatic incidents during an overseas jaunt, but Mr Cameron has managed precisely that during this week’s visit to Turkey and India. Telegraph.

The Independent says:

There have been those who have suggested that David Cameron has been incautious in his utterances in foreign countries in recent days. A Pakistani diplomat yesterday suggested it may have been a “slip of the tongue” for the British Prime Minister to have accused certain Pakistani authorities of giving covert support to terrorists. Commentators have suggested that perhaps he has yet to find his feet on the world stage when it comes to understanding the niceties of diplomatic affairs.

• Pakistan does not deserve David Cameron’s insults. Con Coughlin

• At home, Cameron angered some voters by asserting that Britain was the junior partner in the World War II fight against Germany in 1940 — a point when the U.S. had not even entered the war. The gaffe angered British veterans, but also harkened back to Blair, who was caricatured as George W. Bush’s poodle for agreeing to join the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

• The most politically divisive comments, however, were aimed at Pakistan during Cameron’s visit to rival India — just a week before Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari comes to Britain.

• Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Thursday hit out, though mildly, at what a junior minister called “surprise” remarks by British premier David Cameron over alleged “export of terror” by Pakistan.

• “Such statements could affect the war against terrorism,” Mr Gilani said in the Senate in response to protests from some members from both the opposition and treasury benches against what they saw as a warning to Pakistan. PM Gilani.

Paisley Dodds writing for the Associated Press describes the hot water that Prime Minister Cameron’s lose tongue has gotten him into.

LONDON — In just a few days, new Prime Minister David Cameron has openly declared Britain is no more than the “junior partner” of the U.S., irritated Israelis by calling Gaza a prison camp and enraged Pakistanis by suggesting their country exports terrorism.

So what is the game plan of Britain’s youngest prime minister in nearly 200 years?

Is it youthful inexperience, or is the 43-year-old calculating a new chapter in British diplomacy — casting himself as a truth-teller distinct from his Labour predecessors, whom he has accused of relying on spin?

“It’s an immature reaction from an immature politician,” Pakistan’s High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hasan told The Associated Press on Thursday after Cameron criticized the country’s counterterrorism efforts during a visit to India, Pakistan’s nuclear rival.

“He should choose his words more carefully.”

Cameron says he will continue the plain diplomatic talk — a contrast to the political waffling of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Tony Blair’s accused sycophancy with his U.S. counterparts.

But Cameron’s attitude also bears a striking similarity to Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher, who made a virtue of upsetting her European counterparts and once famously told one of her lawmakers “your spine does not reach your brain” after a dispute over a key parliamentary vote.

“I believe in speaking clearly and plainly about these matters,” Cameron said Thursday, wrapping up his trip to India.

Countered ex-Foreign Secretary David Miliband: “There’s a difference between being a straight talker and a loudmouth.” Outspoken British PM embroiled in diplomatic rows By PAISLEY DODDS.

• While Hasan, the Pakistani high commissioner, conceded more could be done to battle terrorism, he said Cameron risked undermining the vital partnership between Pakistani and British intelligence.

• “Cameron’s comments — essentially blaming Pakistan — are a kick,” he said, noting that Pakistani intelligence worked closely with British counterparts to investigate the 2005 London suicide bombings that killed 52 commuters in London and to thwart several planned attacks, including the 2006 trans-Atlantic airliner plot.

• He said Pakistan also helped identify terrorism targets to U.S. and British forces within its own borders, often resulting in the deaths of Pakistani civilians.”To fight terrorism, Cameron should have encouraged India and Pakistan to come together rather than using a divisive statement like this to ingratiate himself with India,” Hasan said.

The Independent also adds:

But there are dangers in saying so fully what his hosts want to hear. His remarks on sections of the Pakistani security services have caused fury in Islamabad with officials describing them as crude, self-serving and unverifiable and accusing him of “damaging the prospects of regional peace”. The Prime Minister’s calculation is probably that this matters less than his “jobs mission” to India. He wants British troops out of Afghanistan and has set the wheels in motion. That is to the good. But those wheels turn slowly and in the meantime our troops’ lives are at risk in Afghanistan. The goodwill and co-operation of the Pakistani security services is a desideratum in that. Mr Cameron should remember that Britain has strategic interests as well as economic ones. In making new friends it is wise not to be seen to scorn old ones.

The angry Pakistanis used diplomatic language to respond to PM Cameron’s undiplomatic barrage.

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Thursday hit out, though mildly, at what a junior minister called “surprise” remarks by British premier David Cameron over alleged “export of terror” by Pakistan.

“Such statements could affect the war against terrorism,” Mr Gilani said in the Senate in response to protests from some members from both the opposition and treasury benches against what they saw as a warning to Pakistan.

The prime minister referred to Pakistan’s role in the war on terror, pointing out that the country had suffered more casualties and deployed more forces to fight terrorism than the entire US-led Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Malik Amad Khan earlier told the house that Mr Cameron’s remarks made on Wednesday in the Indian city of Bangalore had come as a “surprise to us” and were “totally in conflict with our interaction” with Britain in the past.

He said the remarks, made to reporters after a speech, were also in “complete conflict with facts” because “Pakistan did not export but suffered at the hands of terrorism”.

Mr Cameron is reported to have said: “We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan.

“We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.”

PPP Senator Raza Rabbani raised the issue, calling the British prime minister’s remarks “insensitive, incorrect and unsubstantiated”, and said it was all the more inappropriate for Mr Cameron to make such utterances in India.—Raja Asghar

The anger at the UK government was universal.

Pakistanis across the political spectrum angrily denounced the Prime Minister’s claim. “Mr Cameron’s double-speak is in bad taste,” said Marvi Memon, a leading opposition parliamentarian.

Many took issue with the timing of his remarks – just hours after Pakistan suffered the largest plane crash in its history. Citing their own losses to terrorism, Pakistanis bristle at suggestions that they are not doing enough to fight against Islamist militancy. The Pakistan army, senior military officers point out, have lost more soldiers in recent years than US and Nato forces. “Desperate to sell Hawk jets [to India], Mr Cameron sank to his knees,” snorted Salmaan Taseer, the Governor of Punjab and a leading Pakistani businessman. “Mr Blair came grovelling after 9/11 to Pakistan for help against the Taliban,” he added. “To sell £700m jets and nuclear technology, Mr Cameron now accuses us of duplicity.“The Independent.

The New York Times describes the Pakistani anger.

Wajid Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan’s high commissioner in Britain, called Mr. Cameron’s remarks “completely contrary to the realities on the ground.” He also suggested that they might have been prompted by the WikiLeaks disclosures, writing:

One would have hoped that the British prime minister would have considered Pakistan’s enormous role in the war on terror and the sacrifices it has made since 9/11. He seems to be more reliant on information based on intelligence leaks, despite it lacking credibility or corroborating proof. A bilateral visit aimed at attracting business could have been conducted without damaging the prospects of regional peace.

His remarks have come soon after the leak of U.S. military documents about the war in Afghanistan and the alleged involvement of Pakistan’s security institutions. As far as Pakistan’s role in the war is concerned, it is sufficient to quote the Persian proverb: “Fragrance does not need recommendations of a perfume seller.” The sacrifices endured by Pakistan are enormous. Since 2001 more than 2,700 members of the security forces have laid down their lives and more than 9,000 have been severely wounded. These figures far exceed the total casualties suffered by NATO allies in the region over the same period.

The Pakistani diplomat went on to place the blame for militant Islam in Pakistan and Afghanistan squarely on the shoulders of Western countries, like the United States and Britain, and even seemed to suggest that WikiLeaks might have been involved in a conspiracy to make Pakistan look bad:

For the West, it may seem as though terrorism began on 9/11. But Pakistan’s experience started back when the Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan. The invasion posed a threat to the “free world”, so we were told, and Pakistan was declared a “bulwark against Communism.” We are still struggling with the devastating and economically crippling fallout with limited resources and in an environment of mistrust.

We should not forget that the resistance offered by the Afghans against the Soviets mesmerized the West so much that it bestowed the title of “mujahedeen” upon them. The new madrasas — in reality, more like guerrilla training centers — were financed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the free world to recruit and train religiously fanatic elements as mujahedeen.

The so-called intelligence leaks that allege Pakistani involvement do not have any credibility. The timing of the leaks is instructive.

President Zardari has expressed sadness about the British PMs statement.

Pakistan said on Thursday it was “saddened” by remarks by British Prime Minister David Cameron that it was exporting terror, adding these did not reflect ground realities. Pakistan is a key ally of the United States whose help is crucial for US efforts to stabilise neighbouring Afghanistan. Cameron’s remarks, made on Wednesday during a visit to Pakistan’s arch-rival India, came days before an expected visit by President Asif Ali Zardari to Britain. The Pakistani foreign ministry said Zardari would visit Britain despite Cameron’s remarks. “Obviously, we are saddened by Prime Minister Cameron’s remarks in Bangalore to an Indian audience. These remarks are contrary to the facts on the ground,” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit told a news briefing. Basit said Cameron’s remarks were prompted by classified US military reports published by the whistle-blowing WikiLeaks Website. Some of of the classified reports appear to reveal that Pakistan secretly aided Taliban militants while taking billions of dollars in US aid.

Moin Ansari

Short URL: http://www.daily.pk/?p=19349