Indo-UK relations: UK PM David Cameron tries to cultivate a "special relationship"

[Neil]

An innocent abroad? Plain-talking Cameron alarms FCO veterans

As waiters in livery dispensed chicken curry canapes and a selection of colourful Indian summer fruit juices from silver trays, a tinkle on a glass indicated the guest of honour had something important to say. David Cameron stepped up in front of the guests gathered in the drawing room of the British high commissioner's palatial residence in New Delhi to say he had made a mistake.

With due apologies to Humphrey Bogart, the prime minister told scores of business leaders and diplomats he had quoted one of the great lines from Casablanca incorrectly when he concluded a speech to Indian business leaders with the words: "Let's build a beautiful relationship." Looking mildly sheepish, Cameron joked: "I should have said: 'This could be the start of a beautiful friendship'."

The audience laughed before filing out in the humid monsoon heat to the splendid gardens of the residence, in the heart of the Lutyens-designed New Delhi, the main feature of which is a croquet lawn. The guests were too polite to ask publicly whether the prime minister had made a rather graver mistake at the end of his speech to the Indian business leaders earlier in India's hi-tech centre of Bengalooru (formerly Bangalore).

In remarks which reverberated across the subcontinent within minutes, the prime minister blamed elements of the Pakistani state for promoting the export of terror. Islamabad was quick to criticise Cameron, saying the prime minister should not believe leaked US military documents. A central finding of the Wikileaks documents is that Britain and the US believe the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, is still encouraging the Taliban.

The prime minister's remarks raised eyebrows in the Foreign Office which believes that, given that most terror plots in Britain originate at some point from the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, Britain has a vital interest in maintaining warm relations with Islamabad. A message was quickly despatched to Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president who will be visiting Cameron at Chequers next week, that Britain believed his government is fighting hard against the terror threat. Cameron echoed this , though he insisted he would continue to talk frankly about Pakistan.

While experienced diplomats were alarmed, Cameron's colleagues saw nothing wrong with his remarks which demonstrated a refreshing approach in their eyes.

William Hague, the foreign secretary, said: "The prime minister is a great diplomat. He is a natural at it." A senior aide said: "What you see with David is what you get. He has always spoken his mind and told it exactly as it is. David does that back in Britain. After the Cumbria shootings he expressed his horror but said there was no need for fresh legislation. Imagine how many new criminal justice bills Gordon Brown would have introduced.

"David is also adopting this straightforward, open and frank approach abroad. It is so refreshing. With Labour you could never quite understand what they thought because they would always have convoluted ways of looking at issues abroad."

A series of interventions by the prime minister, during a frantic two weeks on both sides of the Atlantic, are held up by Downing Street as signs of this open and honest diplomacy. On the eve of his speech in Bengalooru, Cameron delighted Turkey with two pronouncements: accusing Israel of turning the Gaza Strip into a "prison camp" and indicating that Britain was prepared to battle France and Germany over Ankara's bid to join the EU.

The Cameron bluntness was given a high-profile outing the week before in the US, though the victims that time were patriotic readers of the Daily Mail. In an attempt to recalibrate Anglo-American relations to a more realistic level, the prime minister said Britain should accept it is the "junior partner".

To illustrate his point, Cameron said that this was even the case at the height of the "special relationship" in 1940 when Britain and the US stood shoulder to shoulder to meet the Nazi threat. He later admitted his remarks showed a shaky grasp of history because in 1940 Winston Churchill was embarking on his year-long campaign to persuade Washington to join the allied war effort.

Cameron had warmed up for his US trip by speaking his mind on a sensitive matter closer to home. The release, last year on compassionate grounds, of the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing by the Scottish authorities had been a mistake, he said. During his visit to Washington the prime minister also raised the case of Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker facing extradition to the US, asking whether McKinnon can serve his sentence, if convicted, in Britain.

Downing Street's firm defence of the prime minister's performance over the last two weeks shows that, as Cameron flew back to Britain at the end of the largest official visit to India since independence in 1947, he is convinced he is fashioning a new form of open and honest diplomacy. Where Labour wound itself up in intricate and complex explanations, Cameron will just speak his mind.

But old lags at the Foreign Office argue that the delicate art of communications overseas is a well-established practice known as diplomacy. In India's case it dates back centuries to the era when emissaries from the English crown came bearing gifts to princely rulers as they sought to trade. Diplomacy was quickly replaced with the sword in India, but an art form had made an early mark.

The need for a delicate approach to diplomacy today was highlighted, according to the traditionalists, when Cameron blundered into the tinder box of Indo-Pakistan relations this week.

Cameron believes the two countries can be broadly dealt with in two categories: trade with India and security co-operation with Pakistan. Diplomats say Cameron is overlooking lesson number one of the subcontinent: the nuclear neighbours, who formed one country under the British crown until 1947, can never be treated separately. Opening up Britain's civil nuclear technology to India in the hope of boosting trade, as Cameron did, will be hailed in Delhi. But Pakistan will be alarmed.

Cameron had an early taste of the perils of plain speaking the day before his India trip when he likened Gaza to a prison camp and warned of a battle with France and Germany over Turkey's EU membership bid. No 10 said his Gaza remarks were no different to his description of the Palestinian territory in June as a "giant open prison". The reaction from Israel may give the prime minister pause to reflect on whether it was wise to accuse the state created by Holocaust survivors of creating a prison camp.

Government sources said that his second message in Ankara – his warning to France and Germany – fits into an approach of delivering uncomfortable home truths to close allies. "It is really noticeable that the prime minister has been pretty outspoken to the US on BP, saying it is a multinational company," one senior figure said. "He has also not shied away from speaking his mind in the EU on financial services and the importance of not harming the City of London with undue new regulations. This approach is paying dividends."

Cameron will be on his diplomatic best when he hosts Zardari at Chequers next week. Perhaps this will serve as a reminder that life as the leader of a permanent member of the UN security council means every word has to be measured with care.

The prime minister believes his trip has been a resounding success in boosting trade. So pleased is he with his debut that he was even heard saying it might be time to move on. "That's it, I retire," he said after realizing a childhood dream by hitting the Indian cricket legend Kapil Dev for six. Unlike his trip that was easy. Dev had bowled him a tennis ball.

Trips and slips
David Cameron has courted controversy for a series of outspoken remarks during his overseas tours:

"¢ On his first official visit to the US, he said Britain should accept it is the "junior partner" in the special relationship, adding Britain had even had this junior role in 1940. He later admitted he had shown a shaky grasp of history, because in 1940 Winston Churchill was embarking on his year-long campaign to persuade Washington to join the allied war effort against the Nazis.

"¢ During a state visit to Turkey, Cameron described Gaza as a "prison camp," infuriating some Conservative supporters of Israel. They were angry that he failed to apportion any blame for the siege of Gaza to Hamas, which controls the territory.

"¢ Cameron risked aggravating Britain's European partners over his pledge to battle those EU states resistant to Turkey's attempts to join the union. Some commentators observed that he had effectively accused France and Germany of protectionism and prejudice.

"¢ While visiting India, Cameron blamed elements of the Pakistani state for promoting the export of terrorism. Pakistan's high commissioner to Britain accused him of damaging the prospects for regional peace and the prime minister was forced to defend his comments ahead of a visit to Chequers next week by the president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/david-cameron-foreign-office-india

 

[ajtr]

David Cameron ambushed on Indian TV over 105-carat Koh-i-noor diamond as country demands its return​

David Cameron has rejected a plea to return the fabled Koh-i-noor diamond - now the most famous of the Crown Jewels - to India.
There has been a growing clamour on the sub-continent for the repatriation of the gem, and in an interview on India's NDTV channel the Prime Minister was asked directly if he would give it back.
After an awkward hesitation, Mr Cameron said 'that is a question I have never been asked before' and then insisted it could not be returned.
The challenge came as the Prime Minister faced controversy after accusing Pakistan of 'exporting terror' and offered to share nuclear secrets and sell military jets to India.
Mr Cameron is now on the final day of his whirlwind Indian trip, which has seen one of the largest UK delegations travel to the country since the sun set on the Raj in 1947.
The Koh-i-noor, whose name means 'mountain of light' in Persian, was originally discovered in India at least 700 years ago, and possibly 5,000 years ago, according to some Hindu scholars.
The 105-carat diamond was seized by the East India Company after the capture of Punjab in 1849 and later presented as a gift to Queen Victoria.
At that time it was owned by the Sikh Maharajah of Lahore (now in Pakistan), but had earlier been a prize possession of the Mughal emperors.
Mr Cameron said returning the legendary diamond to India would set a dangerous precedent for other priceless cultural items held in British museums.
Greece, for example, has mounted a long-running campaign for the return of the Elgin Marbles, looted from the Parthenon some 200 years ago and brought back to London by the Earl of Elgin.
The Prime Minister said: 'What tends to happen with these questions is that if you say yes to one you suddenly find the British Museum will be emptied.
'I know there is also a great argument about the original provenance of the Koh-i-noor diamond. I'm afraid this will disappoint viewers, but it's going to have to stay put.'
Earlier this month Labour MP Keith Vaz called for the diamond to be returned to India as a symbol of the Coalition Government's stated desire to build a special relationship with the former colony.
Mr Vaz said: 'This will certainly convey a new age of Indo-British relations. The Prime Minister will certainly win the hearts of all Indians if he is prepared to discuss the display of the Koh-i-noor in India itself, and possibly even its permanent return.'
There has also been a huge campaign in India on the social networking site Twitter for the stone's return.
Since Indian independence, there have been several requests for the return of the gem to what all Indians consider its home in India.
The latest was the demand made by the Archaeological Survey of India last month. It is also planning to join a campaign with the support of other countries to regain lost artefacts and treasures.
The British Government has rejected all previous requests for the return of the diamond, saying it was 'legitimately acquired'.
The Koh-i-noor diamond, once the largest in the world, was fought over for centuries and is surrounded by numerous legends.
Last year, Tushar Gandhi, the great-grandson of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi, called for the Koh-i- noor to be handed back, saying: 'Returning it would be atonement for the colonial past.'
Maurice Davies, head of policy and communication at the Museums Association, said: 'It is certainly not a good idea to have a knee-jerk reaction to something like this.
'As a grown-up civilised nation, Britain should think about it seriously and respectfully, especially attributing to how they came by the diamond in the first place.'
Labour's Tom Watson, who sits on the Commons Culture Committee, said: 'If you're looking for the symbol of a new relationship with our great friends in India, what greater gesture could there be than returning the diamond?'

 

[Daredevil]

David Cameron is making all the right noises to make the Indo-UK relationship special. It can only be strengthened by engaging in collaboration in diverse fields making the embrace of this relationship tight. Trade, infrastructure, education, research and strategic ties between India and UK should be fostered with full force to make it long lasting and interdependent, and useful for the development of people in the both countries more so for India.

 

[ajtr]

Cameron charms India,But scepticism remains about UK's relevance​

In some respects, Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to India is the most successful ever undertaken by a British Prime Minister to this country in recent times. For plain-speaking — whether on terrorism and role of the Pakistani state, or on India's economic potential — public symbolism and an obvious individual motivation to enhance the bilateral relationship, Mr Cameron has had few peers in 10 Downing Street. In that sense, he has picked up the thread from Mr Tony Blair, the first Western leader to talk of India's growing economic weight and to invite it as a guest to meetings of the Group of Eight. Unfortunately, in the post-Blair era, ties suffered somewhat. Britain encountered a bruising internal debate on Iraq and the larger war on terror; the economic recession crippled it; and despite good intentions, Mr Gordon Brown simply lost his way. India was the victim of confused thinking in Whitehall in this period, particularly when a whippersnapper Foreign Secretary turned up only weeks after the November 26, 2008, terror strikes in Mumbai, to give India a remarkably crude and unsympathetic lecture on how it had invited the attack on itself. That visit — in a history of British diplomatic disasters, it would probably rank just below Neville Chamberlain's trip to Munich — had a far greater impact than the immediate. It not only convinced the Indian strategic establishment that Britain was an unreliable and unwilling partner in the larger battle against pan-Islamism, it also suggested Britain's global role was sharply contracting and the process had more or less become irreversible. Indeed, in a reckoning of bilateral interlocutors, Washington, DC, Beijing, Paris, even Singapore and Canberra, have begun to upstage London in recent years. This is a telling commentary on how Britain has 'let itself go'.

Mr Cameron's initiative to reinvent the equation with India has to be seen in this context. The recovery of Britain hinges upon its ability to put its economy back on the rails. Getting a slice of the India growth story will be an important parameter. Unlike the 1990s, it is not just a question of increasing British investment in India; the momentum has gone far beyond that. Today, Indian companies are significant investors in Britain, particularly in once-great but now decaying manufacturing companies. A combination of Indian entrepreneurship and component outsourcing can yet revive these declining brands. Tata Motors's purchase of Jaguar and Land Rover is a case in point. The second imperative is to make Britain attractive to skilled immigrants from India. London has a fair number of financial services professionals from India, but for the most part the rest of the country has not marketed itself to, for instance, Indian IT companies, which have set up facilities in even Ireland. There are also opportunities for British defence companies and universities in India, though here too they will find their American cousins ahead of the game. Finally, whether it is on terrorism or on any other international challenge, Mr Cameron's Government seems to find it important to establish Britain's credibility as an all-season friend and not one given to volatility in its approach to India. Too often in the past decades has Britain sought to second guess the United States and adopted a me-too policy on India. Consequently, India, realising this, has learnt to take Britain less seriously. There is a gap here that Mr Cameron needs to fill. The bells and whistles of his visit were chosen to do just that.

 

[Rage]

Why David Cameron's words disappoint Pakistan​

Pakistan has made huge sacrifices in the war on terror. Yet the PM criticises us based on intelligence leaks that lack credibility

I was surprised to read the reported remarks made by David Cameron when speaking to Indian businesspeople in Bangalore this morning, especially when he said: "We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country [Pakistan] is allowed to look both ways and is able, in any way, to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world". These remarks are completely contrary to the realities on the ground, and are intended to embroil Pakistan in issues for which it cannot alone be held responsible.

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 US 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.

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 mesmerised the west so much that it bestowed the title of "mujahideen" upon them. The new madrassas – in reality, more like guerilla training centres – were financed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the free world to recruit and train religiously fanatic elements as mujahideen.

The so-called intelligence leaks that allege Pakistani involvement do not have any credibility. The timing of the leaks is instructive. Just a week ago an international conference held in Kabul called for the need to stabilise the situation in Afghanistan through reconciliation, reintegration and the gradual withdrawal of coalition forces by 2014.

This conference offered an opportunity to stabilise Afghanistan by engaging antagonists in order to find a political solution. The overwhelming majority of the conference favoured this approach. However, a few factions within Afghanistan and some countries in the neighbourhood who are trying to dominate the country do not like the idea.

For the stability of Afghanistan and for a smooth withdrawal of coalition forces, it is important not only that the political process in Afghanistan should be led by Afghans themselves but also that the country's neighbours honour the commitments made at the Kabul conference of 20 July. Mere lip service will not bring stability.

Pakistan has proved through its actions that stability in Afghanistan is an imperative. Pakistan has taken firm action against terrorists and observes zero tolerance against foreign extremists trying to take refuge within its borders. More importantly, the democratic government in Pakistan believes in a stable Afghanistan and by extension a stable region so that all nations in the region may focus their energies on addressing the plight of their poor. Instead of manufacturing evidence against Pakistan, it would be advisable for us all to work for stability in Afghanistan through peaceful means.

So what will Pakistan do at David Cameron labeling them a terrorist state? Sweet fvcking fvck all.

The latest is that their shameless President, elected by their shameless nation, has gone to the U.K for some hiny-kissing and to ask for even more aid than has already been alloted them- in addition to the $39 million in humanitarian aid the E.U. has announced yesterday.

The feeble whelps coming from their High Commissioner in the U.K. didn't measure up much to a response either.

Now, contrast this with the last time Canada labelled the BSF a "notoriously violent force", they were forced to come to their knees and issue their "deepest regrets" within three days of the making of that statement. For all we cuss our diplomats, they do do something after all.

 

[ajtr]

Now we know why British PM David Cameroon was peeved at pakistan.Its not that he has special love for india but its the helmand province where pakistanis are killing british soldiers.cross posting....

Helmand despatch: 'Pakistan is the true enemy'​

The shadow of Pakistan hangs over British-led efforts to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, reports Nick Meo in Nad-e-Ali

The district governor of Nad-e-Ali pointed across parched fields towards a line of trees where the Taliban attacks come from.
"That's where our enemy is," said Habibullah Shamalany, 58, standing outside a police fortress, the ground around his feet littered with discarded cartridge cases from recent battles. "Their shadow government begins over there."Behind him a teenage police recruit wearing jeans and an Adidas shirt squinted down the gun sight of his machine-gun at imaginary Taliban where the governor was pointing.
Mr Shamalany is a close ally of the British soldiers who patrol the dangerous roads around Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital 20 miles away. The Taliban sow fear in the villages, he said, but it is Pakistan that is the true enemy of Afghans like him.
"Yes, our Afghan village boys join the Taliban," he conceded. "But only because they are scared by Taliban threats to their families.
"It is Pakistan that trains, funds and leads them. When we capture their fighters they confess that they are trained in Pakistan. The Pakistanis find religious boys, give them weapons, and send them across the border into Afghanistan to kill us, and to kill your British soldiers."
Villagers grunted in agreement. "Pakistan is against Afghanistan, they want to destroy us," said Mullah Yar Gul, 29, to approval.
They had gathered to discuss a new "safer fields" scheme, described by the commander of British forces in the district, Lieutenant-Colonel Lincoln Jopp MC, as Neighbourhood Watch, Helmand-style. "The difference is that instead of reporting possible burglars, farmers are encouraged to keep their land free of bombs and landmines by keeping an eye out for suspicious activity," he said.
The colonel arrived with a detachment of 1st Battalion Scots Guards in armoured vehicles to be embraced as an old friend by the governor.
Only a year ago the area was under Taliban control, and it remains frighteningly violent. Last Sunday three Taliban died in a gunfight with police a mile from the fortress, a mudbrick construction festooned with razor wire and with an Afghan flag fluttering over it.
Days before that, two of Colonel Jopp's soldiers died when they came under fire trying to rescue an injured comrade.
At dawn British and American soldiers had launched operation Tor Shezada to push the Taliban out of one of the few pockets of Nad-e-Ali they still controlled, a few miles to the north of the fortress. Two A-10 ground attack aircraft roared in low on their way to the battle as helicopter gunships circled nearby.
The governor had just broadcast a message on the radio urging families in the area where the British were advancing to stay in their homes where they would be safe.
Villagers said they were glad the Taliban were being pushed back again. They queued up to denounce the Taliban, who they said had stolen food and press-ganged their young men when they still controlled their area - which they did until a year ago.
They believed that many of the gunmen, who they were forbidden from talking to, were Pakistani fighters, speaking Pashtun with unfamiliar foreign accents.
The governor was delighted to hear that David Cameron last week accused Pakistan of promoting the "export of terror", insisting that Helmand was one of the places to which it is exported.
"I agree with your Prime Minister," he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis. "I am glad he said this about Pakistan. Almost every day here we see the bloody consequences of their work."
The Prime Minister's accusation, made on a visit to India, was greeted with fury by Pakistan, coming soon after the Wikileaks reports alleging that Pakistan's notorious Inter-Services Intelligence agency orchestrated Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. Afghans have long believed they are victims of the ISI, which is also accused by India of supporting a twenty-year campaign of terrorism on its soil.
Pakistan openly supported the Taliban regime before 2001, and Afghans believe it has secretly done so ever since. Afghan police and intelligence chiefs say captured Taliban fighters often have Pakistani rupees and receipts from Pakistani shops in their pockets, or Pakistani phone cards.
For several years they have accused the ISI of helping organise terrorist attacks on Afghan soil, and insist that the Taliban leader Mullah Omar lives in the major Pakistani city of Quetta, where his fighters allegedly go for rest and recreation between bouts of jihad against Afghan security forces and Nato troops.
They are claims which are privately accepted by many Nato officers, but Pakistan is rarely condemned in public because it is officially an ally of the West in the war against terror.
Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, tried to rally support last week for Nato attacks on Taliban based in Pakistan, asking why they had not attacked guerrilla sanctuaries on Pakistani soil.
Enmity between Kabul and Islamabad over a disputed border goes back decades, and no Afghans hate Pakistan more than Helmandis. Hajji Abdul Wahab, 48, the gnarled police chief in charge of the fortress, said: "The Taliban leader here is a man called Pahlawan, he is from the Pakistani Punjab. He is out there somewhere beyond the trees, probably planning bomb attacks as we speak.
"This is a war of Pakistan against Afghanistan. We are determined to resist them. When we find the Taliban we will kill them."
A major concern for many Afghans is that Pakistani jihadists could impede negotiations which they hope will one day end the war.
"Peace with the Taliban is possible," said Hajji Abdul Ajan, 38, a member of the provincial council in Lashkar Gah. "But the Pakisani Taliban won't accept it. They will never reconcile and they will try to stop the Afghan Taliban from doing so."
British soldiers also believe Pakistanis fight alongside the Taliban, although they stop short of accusing the ISI of helping them.
"We do encounter some evidence of Pakistani involvement in the insurgency in Helmand," said Colonel Jopp.
He believes the counter-insurgency strategy his men are following has dramatically improved security in the flat farmlands around Lashkar Gah. It is slow, dangerous and fantastically expensive: Britain alone is now spending about £6bn ammually on the war.
For the Scots Guards, trained as warriors, the new strategy has meant a profound culture shock.
"Before I came here I didn't think I would be interacting with the locals much," said Sergeant Allan Reid, 29, from Ayrshire. "I thought I would be fighting them."
Sergeant Reid was one of a small detachment based at a small fort built just months ago, living alongside a group of Afghan policemen. The Scots have been given the task of getting to know villagers and protecting them from the Taliban.
He said attacks had dropped drastically since the unit was first set up and they hadn't been shot at since last week. "The locals say they don't like the Taliban, but you can't really be sure. I trust the police we work with though, they are good guys," he said.
One of them was Bismillah Khan, 22, the deputy leader of the Afghan police contingent. Mr Khan said he chose to work for the police because the Taliban was against Afghanistan and killed innocent people.
"Friends from my village joined the Taliban, and there is a lot of trouble now at home. My family has been threatened," he said.
Like other Helmandis, he fears what may happen when the British and other Nato troops finally pull out, a process which is expected to begin next year.
"The Afghan security forces are not strong enough by themselves. There will be civil war again," he said.
It is a prospect which haunts Afghans. A British stabilisation advisor said that with deadlines being discussed for withdrawing troops by 2014, villagers are starting to ask if they can arm themselves for their own protection.
"Our withdrawal is being discussed at village meetings," he said. "Afghans are getting worried."
Ironically, Afghan government in parts of Helmand has never looked in better shape. The Army is confident that its counter-insurgency campaign is bearing fruit as intelligence improves and they insist that the quality of Afghan police – once a notoriously corrupt force of hashish smokers – has improved, to the benefit of security.
The Provincial Reconstruction Team – a mix of Foreign Office civilians and servicemen and women on a heavily fortified base in Lashkar Gah - buzzes with a can-do optimism which is a surprising contrast to the gloomy mood about the war in Britain.
British civil servants praise their Afghan government counterparts, who for the first time now have to sit exams, and proudly describe how the Kabul government has a presence in 10 districts in Helmand, up from four in 2008.
The economy is booming and property prices are rising in Lashkar Gah, and travel between central Helmand's towns is said to be faster than ever on new roads, at least for those willing to risk suicide bombs.
Education projects are a major success, but the armoured cars used by the PRT's civilian contractors have cracked bullet-proof windows from rocks thrown by schoolchildren.
The PRT, the nerve centre of Western efforts to stabilise Helmand, is proud of what it has achieved, but its staff know that they are now in a race against time to strengthen the government and security forces enough for them to survive when Nato troops come home.
Afghans fear what could happen then if they are not ready. "In 2008 when they launched an offensive there were real fears that the Taliban was going to overrun Lashkar Gah, and they found a death list of 3000 names of people who worked with the Afghan government or for the British, on the body of a dead Taliban fighter," said one educated Afghan in the city.
"That really makes us worry about the future."

 

[ajtr]

'Cameron's call for close ties with India resembles UK-USties'​

Beijing: British Prime Minister David Cameron's visit to India and his moves to take bilateral cooperation to a new high resembles the close ties the UK has with the US, China's state media said on Friday.

An article in the web edition of People's Daily, the mouthpiece of ruling Communist Party of China, said Cameron underscored the special British-Indian ties in his just concluded trip to India.



He illustrated his wish for enhanced bilateral cooperation in the three major fields of economy and trade, the defence and the nuclear power is particularly obvious.

The article titled "Britain, India also to make bilateral ties special" said "for Britain, this kind of relationship usually refers to the ties of alliance between Britain and the United States, so the implication of Cameron's remarks seems to be quite profound."

Without making any reference to Cameron's criticism of Pakistan, China's close ally, the article picked on British Business Secretary Vince Cable's remarks that British government will first permit the export of nuclear energy to India for civil use.

"India has so far not signed the Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty and the British government had long been in opposition to exporting its nuclear technology and equipment to India," it said without referring to the Indo-US nuclear deal.

"Nevertheless, the British government considers it necessary now to differentiate the civil and military nuclear facilities and, so it would be likely to issue a nuclear export permit to India as soon as possible.

"Furthermore, he acknowledged frankly that India has a civil nuclear power market of more than 100 billion US dollars and, once the ban is lifted, British business is expected to win huge amounts of orders," it said.

On UK-India defence ties, it said "India is well-known for relying on foreign in particular Russian military equipment and technology to modernise its military forces.

In recent years, India has reportedly stepped up its pace to diversify its weapon supply channels and the potential for the diversification of its defence market is immense.

"And Britain has a certain appeal in this regard. So, Prime Minister Cameron's trip to India opens the door for British arms manufacturers to expand their weaponry exports to India," it said.

 

[ajtr]

The week that revived my love affair with India - and convinced me that Britain's future lies there​

By VINCE CABLE, BUSINESS SECRETARY
Last updated at 4:26 AM on 1st August 2010
Comments (0)
Add to My Stories
For several days last week the Prime Minister, five Cabinet Ministers, myself included, and some of Britain's top business people decamped to India. The size and seniority of the official visit reflect India's growing importance.
A rapid shift is taking place in the balance of power in the world. India, with China, is becoming a new economic superpower.
It is expanding and developing at breakneck speed. It demands to be taken seriously and with respect. And Britain's national interest demands that we respond positively.Our jobs, living standards and long-term security depend on it.
When I was born, India was a British colony shortly to emerge as an independent country amid the carnage of partition.
I grew up with a mental picture of a country populated by tigers, elephants, maharajahs and palaces surrounded by a sea of abject poverty.
My sense of history was largely confined to Robert Clive's military triumphs, the Black Hole of Calcutta, the Indian Mutiny and a strange-looking, half-naked man with a spinning wheel.
The only point of contact was cricket, after my father took me to see my first Test match, in Leeds, where Vijay Manjrekar scored a century and Fred Trueman terrorised the Indian tailenders.My first visit was 45 years ago as a student on an overland trek, and it left a deep and lasting impression.
There was grotesque poverty and visible hunger but great human warmth, infectious energy and a sense of security and solidity amid the apparent anarchy.
I have returned many times as traveller, son-in-law, economic writer, business representative and parliamentarian.
My late wife Olympia had family in India and the subcontinent has always been a special place for me.My fascination and affection for the country have been heightened by my admiration for the remark able economic transformation that has taken place: a green agricultural revolution, an industrial revolution and an information-technology revo lution all within half a century.
Hundreds of millions have progressed from poverty to modest pros perity; a vast pool of educated and ambitious talent has been created; while a vibrant democracy and free Press have become permanent fixtures.
I don't want to be too starry-eyed: vast rural areas and a sizeable percentage of the population of more than one billion remain wretchedly poor; conflicts based on caste, religion and class are barely contained in parts of the country.
But, overall, India is a success story.
In truth, Britain has been slow to recognise the change. Despite the ties of history, language, a shared political system and cricket, trade has slumped to abysmal levels.
This partly reflects India's policy, until recently, of 'self-reliance'.
But 17 other countries export more to India than we do. European countries such as France and Germany, with much less in common, have established a stronger commercial presence.
A generation of young Indians is growing up looking to the United States for inspiration and higher education.
To the extent that modern India has registered, beyond the remote telephone voice from a call centre, it is because of the Indian presence in Britain rather than the British presence in India.
An Indian investor, Tata, now owns and runs what used to be British Steel and British Leyland.
The Indian immigrant minority's educational and economic performance is way above the British average but, all too often, is portrayed as part of the immigration 'problem' (although, to be accurate, there has been abuse of the immigration rules by some Indian nationals).The high-level visit to India was designed to raise Britain's overall profile in India; to reverse some of the negative perceptions and to lay the foundations for growing long-term business relationships and trade. We achieved a lot in a
few days.
My own role was to work with British business to make progress on contracts that will deliver British jobs and to encourage Indian businesses to establish in the UK.
This involved overcoming the damaging stereotypes that Britain is no good at manufacturing and that India is just a base for cheap labour.
Both ideas are hopelessly outdated and wide of the mark.
In the course of our visit, British companies successfully negotiated contracts for architectural services, hovercraft, earth-moving equipment, sophisticated IT and tele communications and back-office processing, and a major deal to supply Hawk jets for the Indian military was completed.We also discussed British industry's potential role in the massive programme of investment now under way - in Indian roads, ports, airports, power generation and water supply.
We discussed co-operation in civil nuclear power and collaboration between universities (Britain has four of the top ten universities in the world; India a mammoth appetite for higher education).
No one pretends that any of this will be straightforward: India can be a difficult place to do business; the bureaucracy is legendary and, in some states, corruption is serious. But we have made a big step forward.
Two episodes signified for me what the future holds. One was a visit to a 'hospital city' built outside Bangalore by a group of NHS-trained clinicians.
They perform oper ations on an industrial scale: heart surgery, orthopaedics and cancer treatment.
The cardiac hospital carries out more heart operations on children than any other in the world.
Its mission is a combination of idealism - to save or transform the lives of as many people as possible - and tough business methods, driving down costs by operating on a large scale.
The Indian doctors have a touching commitment to the NHS and want to bring their model to the UK.
My other encounter was with a leafy, modern campus for 20,000 young Indian professionals performing sophis ticated IT services for global companies.
Indian com panies have long passed the grunt stage of low-grade, simple routines.
I met the founder of one of the Indian companies: a man who ranks only a little below Bill Gates in the pantheon of IT gods.
He wants to recruit young British graduates to come and do their apprenticeships in India before taking up high-level jobs back in the UK.
What struck me most on this trip was the big change in attitudes to Britain since I first visited India almost half a century ago.
British influence was then very strong and memories of imperial rule were fresh.
There was some nostalgia for those aspects of British rule that worked well - like honest and efficient public administration - but there was also an angry anti-colonialism, blaming Britain for the poverty and divisions of the subcontinent.
Those feelings have now largely gone. Britain's problem is no longer the baggage of this imperial past but a slowness to recognise the oppor tunities presented by a re-emerging India (and Asia in general).
Taking advantage of these opportunities requires dumping a lot of prejudices about India. We must. There is no future for Britain looking inward and backward, or being trapped in a Eurocentric world. Our country must be open for global business.

 

[Ray]

His classifying Pakistan as a terrorist exporting country seems to have upset the Pakistanis.

The ISI Chief and his team has cancelled the visiting of UK on a terrorism discussion!

I wonder if the UK is really bothered, more so, since it has become a regularity of British servicemen being killed. In the light of the leaked US documents, the British are justified as the ISI is teaming up with the Taliban who are targeting the ISAF.

 

[Phenom]

By and large western conservatives seem to be pretty good for India. May be one of the reason is that western conservatives don't worry about "addressing the root causes" and what not when it comes to terrorism. Also they seem to have de-hyphenated India and Pakistan, which most western liberals haven't done yet.

 

[ajtr]

A snub for Pak as UK woos India​

This week,British prime minister David Cameron declared in public what his predecessors have restricted to private conversation: that Pakistan has been running with the hare and hunting with the hounds in the war against terror.This may have sounded like music to South Block's ears,but has clearly blared cacophonously for Pakistan.The Pakistani high commissioner in London,Wajid Shamsul Hasan,desperate to contradict Cameron,but finding few platforms,decided to eventually contribute to The Guardian newspaper's "Comment is Free" website."One would have wished," he moaned,"that the prime minister would have considered Pakistan's enormous role in the war on terror and the sacrifices it has rendered since 9/11."

The Anglo-Pakistani differences will undoubtedly surface during Pakistani President Asif Zardari's meeting with Cameron at the latter's official country residence at Chequers next week.Yet it is time for the United States and its allies who have paid Islamabad's bills and averted its bankruptcy to demand their pound of flesh;and not succumb yet again to the perennial Pakistani blackmail.

However,it is a moot point as to how much Cameron's civil servants,even some cabinet colleagues,have appreciated his transparency.Indeed,while he in course of his India sojourn persisted with repeating his Conservative party election manifesto pledge of a "special relationship",Queen's Elizabeth's policy speech at May's state opening of the British parliament had actually rephrased this to an objective of an "enhanced partnership".Indeed,throughout a recent interview,his foreign minister,William Hague,refrained from referring to the former.

Besides,Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats - the junior partner in the current coalition administration in the United Kingdom - and an influential minister for business,innovation and skills rather brushed aside the term."We don't want to trade on that;we want to approach this in a sort of a hardheaded,business-like way."

The British foreign office assessed that a commitment to elevate Whitehall's entente with India - even if only on paper - to the dizzy heights of the unique relationship with the US established over 70 years of total trust was unrealistic and potentially provocative.It has already disturbed Pakistan,which is nearly being labelled a pariah,whereas India is being feted as the great hope for 21st century Britain.But Pakistan's state sponsorship of terrorism means that in the foreseeable future it can only be viewed as more of a problem,not a solution.

Cameron's signal is an unmistakable preference for a democratic India as compared to a totalitarian China.He can ill-afford to ignore Beijing's economic importance;and it is unlikely to do so.But beyond this there will continue to be limits to collaboration,especially in defence and intelligence sharing;whereas with India the scope is limitless.Different British cabinet ministers descending on different Indian cities was manifestation of an unprecedented multipronged effort to splice open several fronts for greater economic co-operation.From military hardware to nuclear energy,financial markets to higher education,not to mention proximity in cultural and sporting spheres.

During the Cold War,Britain not only mollycoddled the juntas in Pakistan but failed to restrain their visceral hatred of India.An acid test of Whitehall's sincerity in wanting better ties with New Delhi will be its attitude towards Pakistani instigated terrorism in India.Cameron pressed the right notes this week.But for words to be meaningful they need to be translated into effective action.

Just as much as Rome wasn't built in a day,an enhanced partnership was not going to magically emerge in the space of a couple of days.It's only a beginning.Britain has expressed its intent;and India has demonstrated a willingness to respond.The amalgamation is now a process.Proof of the pudding will be evident not before two to three years.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/30/indians-david-cameron-visit

Why Indians don't care about David Cameron

"What? James Cameron is in India?" My friend, the editor of a popular New Delhi magazine, was terribly excited for about eight seconds until I broke it to him that our present visitor was not, in fact, the multi award-winning American filmmaker but merely the British prime minister. His attitude reflects the utter lack of interest in David Cameron's recent jaunt to Bangalore and New Delhi.

In the past few days, the Times has twice carried editorials about Cameron in India, Comment is free has devoted several blogs to the excursion, and the BBC spent a significant few minutes of its Wednesday night bulletin covering the trip. Meanwhile, in India, we're more concerned about internal security, the Commonwealth Games (HM the Queen has declined to attend – now that pisses us off) and, of course, celebrities.

Such are the priorities of the Indian press that on Wednesday, when the British media was busy working itself up over Cameron's remarks in Bangalore about Pakistan's ambivalent attitude towards terrorism, India's best-regarded television news channel, NDTV, picked up on a different aspect of Cameron's speech: his references to Indian cricketer Sachin Tendulkar and Bollywood superstar Shah Rukh Khan. This could, of course, be because Cameron was merely stating what both the Indian state and public consider painfully obvious.

Meanwhile, the broadsheets were enthused by Cameron but only to the extent of giving him space in the occasional editorial and perhaps some op-ed pieces. But then leaders tend to be written by the sort of journalists who studied at Oxbridge a generation ago and still cherish a sentimental attachment to the British Isles. For their readers, however, this morning's Hindustan Times front page in Delhi sums up what Indians think about when we think of Britain: the paper carried a picture of Cameron swinging a cricket bat (and not very well).

Not so long ago, if the British head of government had visited our nation, the papers would have been full of reports about his living arrangements, his schedule and even, as in the case of Bill Clinton's trip in 2000, his lunch menu. In the UK, the PM's tour of India would have been unremarkable.

How did this happen? How did the world turn upside down? The most obvious reason is Cameron's relative newness. Indians like celebrities. Cameron hasn't been prime minister long enough, done anything significant enough (like, say, start an unnecessary war) or been hyped up enough for Indians to even know who he is, let alone care that he's come calling. Arguably, Tony Blair would get a warmer reception in India. He's famous.

The second explanation could lie in the attitude of the visitors themselves. While Cameron has been both realistic and honest in facing up to the fact that Britain needs to seek a relationship with India for its own benefit, admitting as much has been perhaps a tad too much honesty. You may have a weak hand and everyone may know it, but that's no reason to go about telling the whole world how awful your cards are.

Third, the callousness with which the Indian political establishment has treated Cameron – turning down his request to address parliament, for example – and the joy the press has taken in reporting the new power relationship (when it has bothered reporting anything at all) suggests that India, with a giant chip on its shoulder, is finally getting the chance to feel just a little smug.

But while these may all have been contributing factors, far more likely is simply that the people of India – especially the navel-gazing middle class – were just too busy being self-obsessed, going to malls and reading about Bollywood actress Mallika Sherawat's latest PR stunt to notice that they had a guest. And even if they did, they probably dismissed him as what an Englishman-gone-native friend described as "just another white guy who's shown up to make some money".

 

[LETHALFORCE]

His classifying Pakistan as a terrorist exporting country seems to have upset the Pakistanis.

The ISI Chief and his team has cancelled the visiting of UK on a terrorism discussion!

I wonder if the UK is really bothered, more so, since it has become a regularity of British servicemen being killed. In the light of the leaked US documents, the British are justified as the ISI is teaming up with the Taliban who are targeting the ISAF.

Ray isn't this the same old game a feel good statement for India and aid or Pak.

 

[thakur_ritesh]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/30/indians-david-cameron-visit

Why Indians don't care about David Cameron

i think that perception changed quite dramatically, infact with in a matter of hours. till that remark was not made no one really bothered who the british PM was or what was he doing in the country, may be had to do something with the comment made my miliband on 26/11 and his attempt to correlate it to kashmir, but once that statement was made the first to pick on that was the british media and very soon by the indian media, to the extent that till that comment british PM's visit had been tucked right into the middle pages of dailies but all of a sudden he was on the front page of almost every daily with editorials written on his comment on export of terror by pakistan, his desire to forge a special relationship (now what ever that is supposed to mean) to live coverage by all indian channels of the press conference held by the british and the indian pm followed by extensive debates on what this visit really meant to much more.

now if the author of that article was expecting a coverage similar to what the american presidents get on their visit then he will be disappointed since no one comes anywhere near to all those chaps, but still the british PM stood out when compared to other top dignitaries from various countries which would include the french president, the russian president or the chinese president who come and go and there is hardly any mention.

 

[nrj]

Pakistan withdraws from terror talks in Cameron protest

Is Pakistan having plan to withdraw talks with rest of the world? UK chose India over Pak's terror talks. Was this the plan of UK government? :happy_2:

Prime Minister's comments on terrorism provoke anger in the government and streets of Karachi

David Cameron's comments about Pakistan's alleged links with terrorism threatened to cause a full-scale diplomatic row last night after the country's intelligence officials boycotted a counter-terrorism summit in the UK and demonstrators burned an effigy of the Prime Minister on the streets of Karachi.

Three days before President Asif Ali Zardari is due to arrive in London, members of his intelligence services cancelled a planned conference with British counterparts over the stinging criticism delivered by Mr Cameron in India last week.

Pakistan's information minister Qamar Zaman Kaira said yesterday that there was "resentment" in his country over the comments made during a visit to its traditional rival. But, amid warnings that the intervention could cause unrest among young British Pakistanis, he said he hoped the crisis could be resolved when the leaders meet this week at the PM's country retreat, Chequers.

Mr Cameron provoked fury when he said Pakistan should not be able "to look both ways" on terror, after a speech in Bangalore last Wednesday. He also said Pakistan must not "promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world".

Former foreign secretary David Miliband joins criticism today, accusing Mr Cameron of "chasing headlines". In an exclusive article for The Independent on Sunday, he likens Mr Cameron to "a cuttlefish squirting out ink" during his visits to Turkey and India last week. "Pakistan is the region's tinderbox," Mr Miliband writes. "We have 10,000 young men and women at risk in Afghanistan. Only a political settlement can bring an end to the war.

"For that we need Pakistan; and they need our economic and military support. David Cameron is right that terrorist groups have launched attacks from Pakistan. But that is only part of the picture. Pakistan has also been the victim of terror. But the Prime Minister, in attacking Pakistan for 'looking both ways', did not tell this side of the story."

Mr Cameron's comments were particularly damaging as they came soon after leaked US documents suggested Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI) had been helping the Afghan insurgency. Pakistan officially referred to the remarks as "surprising, to say the least" and pointed to the "innumerable sacrifices" it had suffered at the hands of terrorists.

Mr Cameron's spokeswoman said he was referring to Pakistan as a country, not its government, but the PM did not row back in media appearances. But the row was reignited yesterday when the ISI director general, Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, cancelled his UK visit, due to begin tomorrow, and confirmed that the decision had been made in direct response to Mr Cameron's comments. Sources in Islamabad said Pakistan had been outraged at the suggestion that it was playing a "double game" in Afghanistan.

In a sign of mounting public resentment, activists from the radical group Shabab-e-Milli burned a dummy of Mr Cameron outside the Karachi Press Club, and called for Pakistan to cut diplomatic ties with the UK. The protesters held up a banner reading "David Camroon – The loos mouth".

"There should be a protest on an international level as Pakistan is working in co-ordination with the international community in its war against terror," said organiser Mohammad Yousuf Munir. "It's a sheer injustice."

A former ISI head, General Hamid Gul, said Mr Cameron's comments were a "huge mistake" which had upset the nation – and could cause dangerous resentment among British youths with connections to Kashmir, the region claimed by both India and Pakistan.

General Gul added: "The UK has always maintained a very delicate balance between India and Pakistan and this has been rather rudely broken. And this has upset many Pakistanis; in fact the entire nation is really up in arms, but more than that, I don't see the sagacity in it. If you are talking about combating terrorism, this is not the way."

Sir Hilary Synnott, a former British high commissioner to Pakistan, said India and Britain had shared interests as both had been affected by the activities of such groups as Lashka-e-Toiba and Hakani network. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's quite clear Pakistan hasn't been controlling these groups sufficiently, so there comes a time, and it's for a politician to judge this time, when these matters have to be said more strongly."

Source

 

[arya]

well he si man who can speak truth with strong notes and its good for uk health

uk should come out from usa shadow

 

[venkat]

keep watching. uncle sam will give an ear twist to mr.cameron.Be a Roman in Rome . he will say he has been misquoted and will woo the ISI &Co again and will smoothen ruffled feathers of pakistan.Even if British PM is really interested in establishing a cordial relationship with India ,ppl around him will not allow it . He came to India with a purpose. he got what he wanted.Remember Mr.putin was the chief Guest at the R-day parade, when MMRCA campaign was at its peak? He came to push MIG-35!!!

 

[arya]

keep watching. uncle sam will give an ear twist to mr.cameron.Be a Roman in Rome . he will say he has been misquoted and will woo the ISI &Co again and will smoothen ruffled feathers of pakistan.Even if British PM is really interested in establishing a cordial relationship with India ,ppl around him will not allow it . He came to India with a purpose. he got what he wanted.Remember Mr.putin was the chief Guest at the R-day parade, when MMRCA campaign was at its peak? He came to push MIG-35!!!

well no for mig35 but yes we can go for 100 su35 planes

 

[SHASH2K2]

Is Pakistan having plan to withdraw talks with rest of the world? UK chose India over Pak's terror talks. Was this the plan of UK government? :happy_2:

Prime Minister's comments on terrorism provoke anger in the government and streets of Karachi

why always these angers spill in streets of Pakistan. It shows their mentality. They are like insecure child who keeps on making noise for almost everything. They don't want to take up the responsibility to behave in responsible manner but moment someone spill the truth protesters are out on streets. I never find any Pakistani protecting against government inaction against terrorism. This is just the beginning and many more such harsh comments are about to come for them.

 

[venkat]

shash!! why talk about ppl on the pakistan streets? Their honourable ministers Qureshi and malik have behaved the same way as the street ppl of pakistan,with PC and SM krishna!!!They have deliberately put the Indian flag upside down and pretended to be innocent. I am not trying to stoke some fire ,the truth which obviously our ministers know is that its a deliberate act.pakistan agents in J&K will bring the situation to a flash point as CWG are approaching, where there will be international attention and presence. it will be a golden oppertunity for pakistan to show the world its game in Kashmir. Added to this ,allegations,counter allegations of mis-mangement and corruption between ministers and personalities,which is presenting a pathetic picture to the whole world on CWG!!! IM and LeT will have a field day triggering a blast or two, creating confusion in the minds of international sports personalities. Pakistan govt never talked to rebels in their country. Bugti and other Baluchistan leaders have been mercilessly eliminated. Talks wont work with Pakistan as long as ISI and PAk Army are in command.!!!:angry_1: