|
 Lady Luck sure doesn't seem to be on Pakistan's side lately. Facing frequent and harsh criticism from its strongest allies, the country could certainly use some pixie dust to help it fly away from the numerous problems facing it at the home front or in the international arena.
Apart from the usual cases of domestic disturbances, such as growing corruption or the case of innumerable fake degrees that have plagued the Pakistani political and social fabric, comes a new kind of spotlight laden with bad publicity. The 92,000 secret and classified U.S .documents, titled ‘the Afghan War Diaries 2004-2010,' recently released on the WikiLeaks website have accused Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency of never severing ties with the Taliban and secretly continuing to aid the Afghan insurgency by playing both sides. This classic perception of U.S. taxpayers' money being spent to kill U.S. troops has aroused quite a reaction from the general American public. However, those in the government, media, academia and many policy makers have looked onto this leak with, perhaps, indifference. The documents focusing on the Afghan war, which will be remembered as one of the biggest failures of this decade, do not offer anything new, groundbreaking or particularly alarming. Civilian deaths are unaccounted for, drone attacks are out of control and the ISI is involved; it's an old story. However, in the case of Pakistan, the ISI cover up has instigated a very unexpected and shocking reaction, that too from a rather unlikely source.
British Prime Minister: David Cameron, is the man in question. Perhaps listening too hard to President Obama's vows to come down stronger on the Pakistani government, Mr. Cameron seems to have really taken it upon himself to deliver the American President's message personally. Speaking in Bangalore on July 28, the Prime Minister initiated the row when in response to a question regarding Pakistan's double dealing nature, he replied, "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able to promote the export of terror, whether to India or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world." Speaking later to reporters after the speech in Bangalore, Mr. Cameron came uncomfortably close to endorsing New Delhi's accusation of ISI involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks by stating, "It was well-documented that Pakistan had in the past, used its links with terror groups to pursue its foreign policy. We should be very, very clear with Pakistan that we want to see a strong, stable and democratic Pakistan." Prime Minister Cameron's comments have created quite an outrage both in Pakistan and Britain. Many feel that Mr. Cameron's blatant and baseless comments have alienated the very large British-Pakistani community and can seriously hamper his popularity. Labour MP Khalid Mahmood stated, "A lot of people of Pakistani origin are hugely inflamed by this. They feel their country of origin has been criticized for no reason other than point scoring. He (Mr. Cameron) is just trying to curry favor with the Indians." Following the comments, an angered mob in Karachi also burned an effigy of Mr. Cameron. Criticisms against the youngest British prime minister in two centuries are freely flowing from all directions. Former foreign secretary and Labour leadership contender, David Miliband, has perhaps been Mr. Cameron's loudest critic. Speaking with BBC Radio 4's World at One, he claimed that there was a "big difference between straight-talking and being a loudmouth. It is very, very important that the prime minister, who in three unscripted appearances at press conferences has gone off script understands that we have got two ears and one mouth and it is very important to use them in that proportion. Diplomacy is about making friends and influencing them. We need to support Pakistan's intelligence services, not undermine them - their work protects the people of Britain as well as the people of Pakistan. We have a strong Pakistani community in Britain and we have troops in Afghanistan - the stakes are simply too high to go hunting headlines with thoughtless remarks." Attempting to perform some immediate damage control, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague stated that, "He wasn't accusing anybody of double dealing," and reassured the Pakistani government that they had indeed made great progress in tackling terrorism. But Mr. Cameron seems adamant to stick to his word despite the flurry he has caused. Refusing to withdraw his statements or offer an apology to the Pakistani government, the young Prime Minister stated, "I think it's important to speak frankly and clearly about these issues. I have always done that in the past and will do so in the future. I choose my words very carefully. It is unacceptable for anything to happen within Pakistan that is about supporting terrorism elsewhere. It is well documented that that has been the case in the past, and we have to make sure that the Pakistan authorities are not looking two ways." This frank and blatant approach newly adopted by Britain's Prime Minister may earn him more enemies than admirers. Many have claimed that the British prime minister should get himself a reality check before making such irresponsible statements. Clearly, clueless of diplomatic practice, Mr. Cameron had perhaps failed to weigh the consequences of his statements. More than the content of his comments was the time and place of the delivery. The New York Times quoted an officer at the ISI as saying "Do you make such remarks when visiting a third country, a country we consider an enemy? It was done to appease [India]. You can sit in England and say what you want, but sitting in India gives it a completely different connotation." Such criticisms came at a time when Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, director-general of the powerful Inter-Services Intelligence, cancelled a visit to the UK, which was planned to hold high-level security consultations with British intelligence officials. The decision was a "direct response to the uncalled for and completely unwarranted remarks by David Cameron," a Pakistani cabinet minister said. Prime Minister Gilani further criticized Mr. Cameron's comments by stating that he had tried to target Pakistan while forgetting to mention numerous human rights violations carried out by Indian forces in Kashmir. While prominent politicians like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have urged President Zardari to cancel his visit to the UK as a mark of protest and symbol of self-respect, the President's aides have advised him to embark upon the visit in hopes of speaking with Mr. Cameron on an equal footing regarding Pakistan's fight against ‘violent extremism' and simmer down the currently heated British-Pakistan ties. The meeting at Chequers may be Mr. Cameron's one last chance to mend ties with Pakistan as well as his own public image. It is important that he acknowledges and appreciates the war efforts made by Pakistan - it's military and more importantly its people who have lost more in fighting this war than any other foreign country involved. It is imperative that Mr. Cameron expresses Britain's dedication to working with Pakistani authorities and not pick sides between its former colonies as his apparently deliberate remarks have shown. Adopting a frank attitude will only lead to alienating the Pakistani society in Britain and may even create further problems for the country the same way America struggles with homegrown terrorism today - a side effect of the War on Terror.  Arsla Jawaid is a recent graduate in International Relations from Boston University. She is currently interning with the Asia Society, New York.
Arsla Jawaid is Assistant Editor at SouthAsia Magazine. She holds a B.A in International Relations, with a focus on foreign policy and security studies, from Boston University.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
