Yesterday the Pakistani foreign office summoned the British envoy for a meeting to discuss a broad range of bilateral issues, including President Zardari’s planned visit to the UK. There have been widespread protests in the country, which has more recently included the burning of an effigy of our Prime Minister, following comments by Cameron which insinuated that Pakistan was ‘looking both ways’ and helping terrorist groups operating in the neighbouring country Afghanistan. The Pakistani intelligence agency has already cancelled a trip to the UK to express their disapproval over Mr Cameron’s words.
This incident in Pakistan is the latest in a new approach to foreign policy by the new government, and follows directly from a speech given by Cameron in Turkey in which he referred to Gaza as ‘an open prison’, a comment which angered Israel. But is this, as the former foreign secretary David Miliband described, an example of the Prime Minister being a ‘loudmouth’ or is this a welcome relief for Britain who under a Labour government became renowned for its ‘owner pet’ relationship with the US and its diplomatic gaffes everywhere else?
William Hague, the new foreign secretary has ‘torn up the book on foreign policy’ from the off. He says from now on Britain will, ‘unashamedly pursue a foreign policy which benefits the national interest’. If it has been decided that a war against terror in Afghanistan is in our national interest, then Pakistan’s ‘playing of both sides’, as strongly suggested by numerous intelligence reports and leaked information provided by Wikileak, conflicts with this. It is for this reason that I do not agree with David Miliband that our Prime Minister is acting like a ‘loudmouth’ when he openly and shamelessly defends the British Army’s efforts in Afghanistan by his ‘no nonsense’ approach in condemning Pakistan’s actions.
Furthermore, it would be wise to take criticism from Miliband with a pinch of salt when considering his record on the international political scene. The shambolic tour of India he embarked upon with Gordon Brown which left ties damaged could perhaps be topped only with his assertion that the war on terror was ‘a mistake’ in George W Bush’s last days of office.
So it would seem that the days of a clumsy British foreign policy are thankfully over and we can now look forward to a period of diplomacy that gives the UK a reputation as ‘straight talking’ and necessarily ‘to-the-point’.
2 comments:
You ignore the wider context of diplomacy and foreign affairs Chris; be as straight-talking as you like as a nation and assert that you are acting in the national interest by offending allies and key states, but actually all Cameron serves to do is undermine important trade links and alienate states that (although have their problems, as we do) have proven crucial in stabilising the very unstable region they are situated in.
If Cameron really were a credible Prime Minister and politician he would realise there are better ways to deal with his counterparts and states he may have issues with other than via megaphone diplomacy on the TV or radio.
Diplomacy isn't a case of either or as you suggest, it is by its very nature complex and subtle, if Cameron doesn't learn that very quickly the UK's position as an influential actor in all regions of the globe will be severely damaged.
Interesting that you also paint Cameron's foreign affairs gaffes as deliberate strategy yet you fail to mention Cameron's reference to the UK as the junior partner to the U.S.A in 1940 against Germany and its allies (Cameron should return to key stage 2 History lessons and remind himself of the chronology of WWII).
Michael,
Thank you for the comment. You raised some interesting points from my post and I will address some of them here:
Firstly, the comments made by Cameron show no evidence of damaging trade links. The main purpose of his trip last week was business (as I mentioned in an earlier post), particularly with India where the comments were made. Bearing in mind the nature of India’s relationship with Pakistan, Cameron’s strong approach to the latter is likely to go someway to repairing the damage Labour did to ties with the former.
Furthermore, admittedly I did fail to mention Cameron’s ‘gaffe’ in the US where he declared Britain the junior partner to America during WWII – clearly inaccurate and actually quite embarrassing. However, a ‘gaffe’ like this has not worsened any ties with the US or with any other nation. The Labour party’s mistakes across the globe did have adverse effects on British relations that we couldn’t afford; India once again springs to mind.
Finally, the approach Cameron has adopted is new. It is perhaps risky. But it is by no means a mistake on his part or on the part of the coalition government. When the issue being dealt with is as serious as Afghanistan is, and when Britain is committed as we are, failure to address the problem of Pakistan ‘looking both ways’ cannot and must not be ignored. His manner of approaching it may not be the conventional way, but we still have the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zadari, in the UK as planned for talks.
Over the coming months we will see the effects of the coalitions new approach to foreign policy, but my thoughts remain that it will be a dramatic improvement to the ‘poodle approach’ favoured by your party.
- Chris
Post a Comment