Cameron is right to be a ‘loudmouth’ on Pakistan

Is David Cameron displaying an unexpected degree of confidence in his handling of foreign affairs - or the bravado of an ingenu on the world stage? Has he, as David Miliband suggested yesterday, crossed the line from straight-talking and behaved like a "loudmouth"?

Commentators are divided following his "outburst" or "powerful remarks" - take your pick - in Bangalore on Wednesday, when he accused India's neighbours Pakistan of exporting terrorism.

"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," said Cameron, "whether to India or Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world.

"Democratic states that want to be part of the developed world cannot do that. The message to Pakistan from the US and from the UK is very clear on that point."

The PM was, of course, making his remarks only 24 hours or so after the Wilileaks disclosure of US military files which suggested that the Pakistani intelligence outfit, the ISI, has been supporting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

But he was also referring to the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai for which the Indian government directly blamed the Pakistani authorities. And he named several terror groups which, according to the Indians, are sponsored by factions within Pakistan.

He told his audience in Bangalore: "We  like you  are determined that groups like the Taliban, the Haqqani network or Lakshar-e-Taiba should not be allowed to launch attacks on Indian and British citizens in India or in Britain."

Pakistani government anger at Cameron's remarks was to be expected, as was the Miliband attack. It was a chance for the Labour leadership contender to do his "actually I was once the Foreign Secretary and I know what I'm talking abut when it comes to diplomacy" routine - a rabbit neither his brother Ed nor 'third man' Ed Balls are able to pull out of their hats.

Less expected was the tough-talking line from the BBC's political reporter Laura Kuenssberg, who, in the absence of Nick Robinson, has been covering Cameron's trip to Turkey and India and wrote an unusually opinionated piece for the BBC website from Bangalore.

Given how "fraught" relations are with Pakistan, Kuenssberg wrote, "his intervention might not be seen by some as altogether wise".

She also pointed out that this was the second time in 24 hours that remarks by the PM "may have arched a few diplomatic eyebrows". She was referring to his description of Gaza as a "prison camp" during his visit to the Turkish capital, Ankara. She added: "The PM's defence that he said the same thing in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago does not quite explain it away."

In the London /Evening Standard/, political columnist Anne McElvoy, friendly to the Tories, wrote: "Like President Obama, he [Cameron] thinks the best chance to establish his own approach is to act early - before vested interests get to him, or events impose themselves. I do, however, detect just a bit of the cocksure ingenu in his tone."

Calm down girls, as Michael Winner would say. The Mole's source at the Foreign Office had a very different view yesterday. "It was time someone said something about Pakistan. There was very little revelatory about the Wikileaks disclosures, certainly not in regard to Pakistan. Everyone knows the ISI [the Pakistani intelligence service] has supported the Taliban insurgency.

"Some would say it's worse than that - that we've lost the Pakistan army.

"This issue has been avoided this for too long. Miliband is as much at fault as anyone and he has no right to criticise Cameron on this score. It's good news that the PM's put this on the table before Zardari arrives."

He was referring to next week's scheduled visit to Chequers by the Pakistan president, Asif Ali Zardari. Which should be interesting. ·