"Cameron Direct" - A new approach to diplomacy? (News Feature)

By Anna Tomforde Jul 29, 2010, 15:50 GMT

London - During his first major foreign trip as British prime minister this week, David Cameron has ruffled feathers by addressing delicate issues in a blunt and, some critics say, hurtful and entirely undiplomatic style.

Discussion is raging in Britain over whether the 43-year-old Conservative leader, who has been prime minister for just 11 weeks, is advocating a new kind of honesty in politics or just blundering his way around the world.

His style, already dubbed 'Cameron Direct,' has sparked outrage in some countries and prompted quiet astonishment in others as observers assess the merits and drawbacks of Cameron's plain speaking.

They point out that the controversial off-the-cuff remarks were all made in question-and-answer sessions, following scripted speeches.

'I cannot believe that the decisions about what he says are not carefully taken,' said Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House, the respected foreign policy think-tank.

'But the trouble is, you never have a second chance to make a first impression,' Niblett said in a BBC interview on Thursday.

While in Turkey earlier this week, Cameron upset major European Union (EU) partners by stating that he was 'angry' at the slow pace of membership negotiations, and hit out at Israel by describing Gaza as a 'prison camp.'

The Gaza remark, made clearly in the context of Israel's storming of the aid flotilla in May in which a number of Turkish activists died, is seen as the potentially most harmful of Cameron's comments, analysts in London said.

But as he proceeded on his journey, Cameron really put his foot in India.

Speaking in a question-and-answer session following a speech in Bangalore, he warned Pakistan, India's rival, not to tolerate or promote the 'export of terror whether to India, whether to Afghanistan or to anywhere else in the world.'

'We cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country (Pakistan) is allowed to look both ways,' added Cameron in a phrase taken to suggest double-dealing over terrorism.

Senior Pakistani officials accused the British leaders of 'stoking anti-Western, anti-American feeling' on the streets of Pakistan.

In London, Pakistan's High Commissioner, Wajid Shamsul Hasan, said people in Pakistan had been 'really hurt' by the remarks and called on Cameron to 'make amends.'

'He is new in government, maybe he will learn soon and he will know how to handle things,' added the High Commissioner.

William Hague, Britain's Foreign Secretary, tried to explain that Cameron's remarks had not been targeted at the Pakistani government, but at 'elements within the country.'

But Cameron, described by Hague as a 'natural diplomat,' showed no remorse.

'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,' the prime minister said in a BBC interview.

Officials in London were meanwhile at pains to stress that Cameron's conduct was in line with the resolve of the Conservative-Liberal government to take a 'hard-headed, realistic and practical approach' to foreign policy.

But critics were harsh. David Miliband, foreign secretary in the previous Labour government, said Cameron was clearly out of his depth when he had 'no autocue or script' to stick to.

'Making a splash is not the same as making a difference,' said Miliband. In the case of Pakistan, Cameron's remarks had told 'only half the story' as countless Pakistanis, including former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, had fallen victim to terrorism.

'Candid Cameron brings clarity to foreign affairs,' hailed the Daily Telegraph in a leading article Thursday. But it also expressed the hope that Cameron would learn from the 'mini-furore' over his remarks.

The Guardian warned that by appearing to come close to endorsing India's view that Pakistan as a state was responsible for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, Cameron had entered 'boggy terrain.'

Britain's 'greenhorn prime minister,' fired by a 'mix of energy and determination,' had opted for a 'kick-and-run diplomacy,' wrote Guardian columnist Simon Tisdall. 'Call it naive. Or call it radical. But it's certainly different.'