Accentuating the negatives

[sonicboom]

Accentuating the negatives

Malik M Ashraf


What David Cameron had said during his visit to India, was irresponsible, naïve and reflected extreme insensitivity to the role that Pakistan was playing in the war on terror as a frontline state. The government of Pakistan, the people, intellectuals and media rightly felt incensed by that unimaginative indiscretion by the British Prime Minister. Whether he did it in one of his moments of levity or as a deliberate expression to please his hosts, it unnecessarily generated a negative fall out in the form of a diplomatic row between UK and Pakistan. The accusation sounded quite painful in view of the fact that it came from a major ally in the war against terrorism, more so because it fitted well into the Indian strategy of maligning Pakistan. It was indeed flabbergasting how conveniently he over-looked the Indian atrocities in Kashmir and its involvement in terrorist acts within Pakistan, especially in Balochistan.

His remarks were ill-advised and uncalled for was also corroborated by the reaction of the British politicians and intellegentia. Former British foreign secretary David Miliband in an article in The Independent said that the words of the Prime Minister were “copious and created mess” In other words he committed a diplomatic faux pa. Britain’s Stop the War Council asked Cameron to apologize to Pakistani people for deeply hurting them. A former Director General of MI-5 Baroness Buller told the Chilcot panel “ I am surprised that Cameron had the nerve to say such a thing. By speaking in India against Pakistan David Cameron has renewed tensions between the two nations. He has become part of the proxy war between Pakistan and India and has clearly taken Indian side. This should not be the role of the British Prime Minister.” Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime Minister also distanced himself from what Cameron said. Similarly a number of MPs and leaders of the Muslim community also rubbished his utterances.

To the extent of showing resentment and condemning the contents of Cameron’s convulsions by the politicians and the media, the reaction was fully justified. But the loud voices of some politicians and a section of the media in Pakistan demanding cancellation of Zardar’s visit to UK as a mark of protest, belied pragmatism and smacked of a typical impulsive propensity of accentuating the negatives. Undoubtedly, the utterances of the British Prime Minister constituted an unpalatable diplomatic provocation but what our politicians and a section of the media proposed, was also not desirable from the perspective of handling bilateral and international relations. In suggesting this course of action the basic premise was that in the backdrop of the outlandish statement of the British Prime Minister, the visit of the President will tantamount to compromising the national honour. Opposition leader Nawaz Sharif particularly was the most vociferous in stressing this point. Just for the sake of an argument one may ask him, where was the national honour when he dashed to Washington for a photo session with Bill Clinton and beg him to persuade India for a ceasefire in Kargil ? This rhetoric of national honour was too familiar to breed the proverbial contempt. In Pakistan, national honour, unfortunately is extensively used as the last resort by the hypocrites and as a first button hole by the scoundrels.

Relations between states are conducted in consonance with the internationally recognized diplomatic norms and require a deft and visionary approach. They cannot be fall prey to such statements and consequent impulsive responses. Such an approach can further exacerbate the damage. In the conduct of international relations, dialogue through continued engagement and keeping the channels of communication open is invariably a preferred option and arguably the most effective way of promoting understanding and resolving the conflicts. If we have national consensus on resolving our disputes with India through continued parleys, despite its incessant propaganda and allegations of Pakistan exporting terrorism, then why can’t we show similar attitude towards a long time friend? Does that not show double standards on our part? The government very rightly registered its protest through diplomatic channels by calling the British ambassador to the foreign office and conveying to him Pakistan’s stance on the statement of the British Prime Minister. The visit of President Zardari has afforded yet another opportunity of interaction between the two countries at the highest level to smooth out the diplomatic row as is evident from the outcome of talks between the two leaders. The joint statement issued after the talks says “Both leaders discussed the role being played by the democratic government in the fight against terrorism.

Another encouraging outcome from this interaction was the reiteration by both sides to further deepen the strategic dialogue between the two countries and UK making a commitment for further closer development, economic and trade co-operation as part of the intensified Strategic Dialogue. The British government also pledged 10 million pounds as immediate relief for flood victims and to accelerate an already agreed 10 million pound bridge reconstruction programme. These are definitely positive results of this diplomatic offensive and only fools would give credence to the view that President Zardari failed to plead Pakistan’s cause appropriately.

Accentuating the negatives