Mr Akram's helpful comments

The Guardian (and others) write that Pakistan's UN ambassador, Mr Akram, has said that the bombings in London are due solely to problems with Britain's foreign policy and British society. Mr Akram is wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start. But I'll try!

The whole point about al Qaeda is that it is an international network.

It's ambitions are global. To start to say the bombings were carried out purely for local reasons is ludicrous. There are reasons, such as Britain's involvement in Iraq, why London was specifically targeted (more on this later), reasons, such as poor community integration in some areas of the UK, why British bombers could be found, but these do not provide the whole explanation.

The only way we're going to counter an international network is by international cooperation. Weaknesses inherent in a world order of competing nation states are being savagely exposed by the terrorists. As the diplomats say, in this context Mr Akram's comments are "extremely unhelpful".

Perhaps Mr Akram has spoken out for domestic political reasons or for reasons of UN politics. After all, as the article goes on to say, there have already been a number of arrests in Pakistan. Nevertheless, why is he saying anything at all? All Mr Akram and, I should also note, the Egyptian interior minister, should be saying is that they are doing everything they can to help with the investigation.

On a common-sense level: we don't know who else was behind the bombings so it might be best not to jump to conclusions. I trust the Brits won't turn round in a few months and say (in public anyway) that see, the "mastermind" did live in Pakistan.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding: sure, there's veiled criticism of the madrassas in Pakistan in the press here in the UK, but it's nothing compared to the hand-wringing that's going on about local problems. If I may try to summarize the British attitude: the madrassas are part of the problem, but not something we can directly change.

Perhaps a final word should be reserved for another politician who can't keep his mouth shut: the suave Mr Sarkozy. If he's the best France has to offer after the anachronistic Chirac we're in for at least another decade of cross-Channel sniping. By commenting on detail of the investigation - whether misinterpreted or leaked - he is saying subtly what Mr Akram is saying bluntly: these stupid Brits have brought this on themselves, we're so much smarter we can even tell you things about the investigation that they won't. Shut up, Sarkozy. Shut up, Mr Akram.