UK Prime Minister David Cameron is once again in the foreign policy news, this time for the grave error of saying what pretty much everyone knows to be true:
(After) a generally well-received speech to talk up the prospects of trade between India and Britain, a question and answer session moved on to the fraught relationship between India and Pakistan.
Although in his speech Mr Cameron had tried to suggest this was not a subject on which a British prime minister should opine, he appeared to accuse Pakistan of double dealing over terrorism: “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, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.”
Given the care with which he had avoided giving any judgement on this subject in his scripted speech, his comments came as rather a surprise.
And given just how fraught that particular relationship is, his intervention might not be seen by some as altogether wise.
In Pakistan – which after all, has suffered its own losses of blood and treasure in the War on Human Caused Disasters – the PM’s comments have created quite a stir, not merely for content but also for context: Taking heat from the former colonial power on the turf of the current geopolitical adversary seems a bit too much:
Pakistani intelligence officials have cancelled a visit to Britain in protest at comments made by David Cameron about the country’s alleged links to terror.
The prime minister warned Pakistan not to have any relationship with groups that “promote the export of terror”.
Senior intelligence agency officials had been due to come to London for talks on counter-terrorism co-operation with the UK security services.
Shadow foreign secretary David Miliband said the cancellation was “bad news”.
A visit by the President, Asif Ali Zardari, is still expected to go ahead.
If this were merely a governmental decision in Pakistan to demonstrate the price of trifling with the country’s honor, that would be one thing. But this, alas, is something else altogether:
Dr Farzana Sheikh, associate fellow at Chatham House think tank, said there was “deep disarray” inside the ranks of the Pakistani government, with the intelligence officials and military “clearly at odds” with the political leadership over how to react.
“It’s clear the military and intelligence services want to show that they can act quite autonomously of the political leadership by announcing that Lt Gen Shuja Pasha will not be joining the president on his visit to the UK.”
Nuclear armed Pakistan’s democracy is still fragile, with only the bureaucracy and the military considering themselves fixed institutions. Governments may come and go – by one method or another – but significant elements within the ISI and military remain more faithful to their own institutional survival than to the whims of transitory politicians. But until all power poles are consolidated under and accountable to the government – and thereby to the expressed will of the electorate – Pakistan will remain mired in squalid internal skirmishes, eruptive blood lettings and sordid alliances of convenience.
L’affaire McChrystal demonstrates that in this, at least, the US has got it right. The deeply flawed 2007 National Intelligence Estimate demonstrates that we should not break our arms patting ourselves on the back.
The truth – it hurts.
Yes – It does and how we react to that truth is the *real* issue.
We can’t continue to fund the trechery of Pakistan – We need to take them to task, Nukes or no Nukes.
Knowingly handing our tax dollars to Pakistan, which in turn gets handed to the Taliban is tantemount to treasonous behavior…..we must stop this buffonery and tell Pakistan it is time to *SHITE* or get off the pot…They can either assist us properly or suffer the consequences for being in bed with the Taliban.
SK1 – I couldn’t agree more. About a year ago I blogged on the subject of the money we give to Pakistan and the fact that barely 5% of it actually makes it to the people of Pakistan. It’s very interesting to learn in the past week that the money really goes to the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Treason indeed.
Yes it does, Kris. Nice to see a bit of backbone again in a Brit PM.
Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t Pakistan, more than Afghanistan, that needs a good shellacking. To this casual and largely Fox/MSM news briefed observer, it’s hard to know which way Pakistan is heading in the GWOT, let alone the regional balance of power. Afghanistan I sort of get. Pakistan? An open sore lying between Afghanistan and India, and it has to be hurting both neighbors tremendously.
One sometimes wonders if the best thing to do is call the PM of India and say “You know that whole ‘could be in Karachi by lunch if you really wanted to’ thing…Go ahead. One condition, don’t stop until you get to the Afghan border”
Probably not, but one sometimes wonders…
Might have worked. . . .BEFORE the Pakis got their nukes.
Helluva notion, Grandpa. One I wouldn’t have a problem with.
The Indians have been buying lotsa stuff from Russia over the years, the kind that makes big holes out of no holes. Tell the Indian PM to run a few Alpha strikes with Flankers carrying some “Whoops! Did I do that?” weaponry to neutralize the nukes, and you’re off to the races.”
Call ‘em Nukie Neutralizers. Sorta like the antacids you carry around in your pocket…
I read a story about the time Chuck Yeager was Air Attache to the Paks during the ’71 war. He said in meetings at the Embassy the Paks would be in New Delhi in 2 weeks. It didn’t happen, as we know, and the Bonanza he had there was destroyed by the Indians. Chuckie was not a happy camper for awhile.
But until all power poles are consolidated under and accountable to the government – and thereby to the expressed will of the electorate –
Given the large anti-Western segment of their population, that may not be the best thing to wish for.
Had the man perhaps, um, “had a couple” before talking? People talk about violent mean drunks, but in my experience, the worst bad effect of taking too much strong drink is that it might cause you to tell people EXACTLY what you think; of them, or of other people or things.
Good interview with the PM on BBC a few days ago in which he explained he prefers to be direct and truthful about reality. Especially with the whole dance around the issue of Pakistan’s apparent lack of effort to get rid the Taleban in their country. Refreshing to hear an elected leader be honest about the real problem.