Cameron and Zardari to hold talks
Updated on 06 August 2010
As Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari meets David Cameron for formal talks at Chequers, leading security analyst Nigel Inkster tells Channel 4 News the West must reassure Pakistan it is more than a "fairweather friend" in the fight to beat terror.
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari, who dined with David Cameron at Chequers last night, today will sit down for formal discussions with the prime minister.
The two men meet amid a political row between their two countries, as well as the ongoing flooding disaster in Pakistan.
A spokesman for the prime minister said: "It is an important opportunity to reinforce the strong links between the UK and Pakistan and continue to support stability, security, democracy and prosperity in Pakistan."
Nigel Inkster, director of transnational threats and political risk at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, told Channel 4 News that the West had a chance to prove to Pakistan that its relationship was not just about terrorism by providing aid to the country in its hour of need.
The UK government has already pledged £10m in aid, and the USA has given $10m, and humanitarian agencies have also launched appeals globally.
Mr Inkster said: "There is a need to reassure the Pakistani government that the key Western states and there for the long term and they are not just fairweather friends.
"With the flood – and we saw this with the earthquake a few years ago – the jihadists move in very ostentatiously and can deliver things quickly, and also rebadge Western aid as coming from them.
"So this is an important battle as such, and it remains to be seen if the West can make itself look better at providing aid."
He also said that both Mr Cameron and Mr Zardari would be working to smooth over their "very important" relationship, after both ruffled some diplomatic feathers with comments over the last week.
Cameron last week warned that Pakistan could not "look both ways" on terror, while on Tuesday this week Mr Zardari warned that NATO forces were "losing the war against the Taliban."
"In essence, what David Cameron said in public was no more than is regularly said in private," said Mr Inkster, who served in the British Secret Intelligence Service before his current role for more than 30 years.
He said that Pakistan's preoccupation with the threat of India meant that the country almost had to look both ways, or at least felt that it had to, to secure its future.
"The Pakistani intelligence community has done a lot of good work preventing terror and extremism," he said.
"But at the same time, they have their own preoccupations and they don't see entities like the Afghan Taliban as enemies as such, but as allies in some kind of post NATO/ISAF resolution of the Afghan problem. They see them as a strategic asset, an insurance risk against India gaining disproportionate influence in Afghanistan and effectively achieving strategic encirclement of Pakistan."
The full interview is below 
Have British and Pakistani relations been damaged by the recent diplomatic spats? I think this will be shown to be a storm in a teacup.
What you have to remember is that this is a three cornered contest – there's a tension that exists within Pakistan between the Pakistani military, the Inter-Services Intelligency agency (ISI) and the Pakistani government. This is an important factor in what happens.
I expect, having made their point, the ISI will resume the relationship. They haven't broken it off, just cancelled a meeting, which I expect will be rescheduled.
Pakistan's ISI (or Inter-Services Intelligence agency) has throughout its 62 years of existence played a unique and rarely uncontroversial role, wedged tightly between its handling of the country's relations with the West and of those Pakistanis who support violent jihad.
Founded shortly after Pakistan gained its independence in 1947, the ISI reached its highest profile when Soviet forces invaded neighbouring Afghanistan just over 30 years later. Through much of the 1980s the agency trained and equipped tens of thousands of the mujahideen fighters who streamed to wage jihad against the Russians.
Crucially the ISI also helped distribute the CIA-supplied Stinger missiles that all but ended hitherto lethal offensives by Soviet planes & helicopters. (This unusual alliance of hardline Islamists and Capitalist ideologues against a shared Communist enemy leads some commentators to blame the West for itself setting in train the forces that would strike it on September 11 2001.)
With Moscow defeated, the ISI began the 1990s by supporting the creation of the Afghan Taliban to preserve Pakistan's strategic influence in the region. But, long after the US-led coalition claimed victory in 2001 in routing the Taliban from Kabul, many analysts have accused elements within the ISI of continuing to train and support the jihadists against the West.
What is the UK's relationship with Pakistan generally?
It's never been an easy relationship. And the recent accusations of collusion in torture have not made it easier.
The problem is the ISI as an organisation is hard to situate in Pakistan's constitutional and legal framework, which presents complications.
Pakistan sees Britain as the demandeur. After all, the problem is terrorist attacks being planned and terrorists being trained in Pakistan, not the other way round. The UK is not sending terrorists to Pakistan at the moment – although conceivably that could change over time. If you look at the number of attacks taking place or being disrupted in the UK, the overriding majority have external connectivity which in most cases leads to Pakistan.
Is it an important relationship?
It's a very important relationship. The ability to monitor groups and individuals in Pakistan and understand their connections and the relationships between them is vital. And really only the ISI can provide that.
What's the risk of a terror attack in the UK at the moment?
Well, the formal guidance suggests that the risk is not at its highest, but it is still reasonably high. Plots in the UK remain a significant preoccupation. There has been evidence of similar plots elsewhere in Europe recently as well in Denmark, and particularly in Germany.
How much did David Cameron's comments, when he accused Pakistan of looking both ways on terrorism, damage this vital relationship? Were his comments accurate?
In essence, what David Cameron said in public was no more than is regularly said in private.
It's a very complicated situation.
The Pakistani intelligence community has done a lot of good work preventing terror and extremism but at the same time they have their own preoccupations and they don't see entities like the Afghan Taliban as enemies as such, but as allies in some kind of post NATO/ISAF resolution of the Afghan problem.
They see them as a strategic asset, an insurance risk against India gaining disproportionate influence in Afghanistan and effectively achieving strategic encirclement of Pakistan.
President Zardari's schedule in the UK
Thursday: President Zardari met with Home Secretary Theresa May, Education Secretary Michael Gove and Minister Without Portfolio Baroness Warsi. He did not, however, meet with Labour's Khalid Mahmood and Lord Ahmed, British politicians of Pakistani origin, who shunned an invitation to meet him as they believe he ought to be in Pakistan supporting the flood relief effort.
He dined at Chequers with David Cameron on Thursday night.
Friday: Zardari is set for a formal meeting with David Cameron, still at Chequers.
Saturday: Zardari is set to attend a rally at Birmingham's International Convention Centre, where he is widely expected to launch the political career of his son, Bilawal Zardari Bhutto, son of his assassinated wife, Benazir Bhutto.
Bilawal is currently studying at Oxford University and due to graduate this year. He was understood to be due to address supporters of the Pakistan Peoples Party, of which he is co-chair with Zardari, in Birmingham with his father on Saturday. However he has now issued a statement saying he will stay in London to organise relief for flood victims.
Zardari is set to leave the UK on Sunday.
What is the relationship of the Pakistani authorities or the ISI with terrorist groups?
It is not entirely clear what the relationship is between ISI and groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba [blamed for the attacks in Mumbai in 2008 which killed 174 people]. They are a trans-national group and there has been evidence of collaboration between them and al-Qaida, for example.
The ISI used to fund Lashkar-e-Toiba, they no longer do so there is less control.
There is an entity called the "S Wing" within the ISI - which is made up of retired officers to provide a degree of deniability – which maintains links with groups of this kind. So the relationship is very complicated.
Al-Qaida has lost ground as a terror organisation – its numbers are constrained and its finances are constrained. Funders providing money for al-Qaida now see the Afghani Taliban as a better bet.
How does the UK's relationship with Pakistan fit into a wider global context? What about India?
The relationship is further complicated by the complexities of the relationship between Pakistan and India, and the UK and India.
I think the Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid put it rather well recently when he said: "While Pakistan is obsessed with India as a strategic preoccupation, India is not that bothered about Pakistan and has bigger fish to fry."
This is further complicated by the international community and businessmen currently beating a path to India's door, while all Pakistan gets asked for by other countries is more co-operation over terrorism and then they are often very critical when they don’t get it.
What is the biggest global terror risk right now?
The biggest risk is the continuing attraction that al-Qaida and the jihadist ideology has to a generation of young Muslims.
I don’t think it is sticking my neck out too much to say that al-Qaida has peaked as a global insurgency but as a motivating ideology it will be around for a long time and applied to lots of conflicts in lots of ways.
What is Pakistan's role in combating the ideological attraction of terrorism and jihad?
Undoubtedly, a number of countries need to rebut this ideology.
For Pakistan, it's incredibly complex as the jihadist ideology arises from the anti-Soviet movement. And if you combine this with a lack of education and economic opportunities, it is a particularly fertile environment.
It is urgent that more is done. I think the Islamic world needs to take the lead and have a debate with itself about this. Saudia Arabia, for example, has done a lot and has extensive and well-funded de-radicalisation programmes.
But there is a huge amount to be done.
What about the West's relationship with Pakistan?
The relationship between the West and Pakistan has suffered from short term-ism and a narrow focus. It has been looked at purely through a security lens.
The general recognition now, in Washington and in the UK, is that the relationship with countries like Pakistan has to encompass all facets, with a particular focus on economic development.
We've seen the US introduce legislation providing providing development aid packs but if you compare it to the military or security aid provided to Pakistan the numbers are still very small.
The big problem is Pakistan felt abandoned by the West at the end of the anti-Soviet jihad. They felt the West did not have the stomach for the long-term in Afghanistan. All they are seeing now confirms their suspicions – that the West will toss the keys back to the Afghans and head for the exit, leaving Pakistan to pick up the pieces, again.
There is a need to reassure the Pakistani government that the key Western states and there for the long term and they are not just fair-weather friends.
Can it be improved through providing aid after the floods happening now in Pakistan?
With the flood – and we saw this with the earthquake a few years ago – the jihadists move in very ostentatiously and can deliver things quickly, and also rebadge Western aid as coming from them.
So this is an important battle as such, and it remains to be seen if the West can make itself look better at providing aid.
Nigel Inkster is director of transnational threats and political risk at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
