By Mian F Hameed 29 April 2022
This article suggests the White House should stay on the sidelines, and should not engage with the Shabaz Sharif’s government in Pakistan. The developments in Pakistan and my premise explain why.
In a recent Coup D’eta—a regime change ousted an elected PM Khan’s government. The shameful Supreme Court’s justices of Pakistan in connivance took orders from the army chief Bajwa. Both the institutions precisely played out to a script that coincides with what the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu had ordered: For Pakistan to comply with – Pack Khan’s government, else face the consequences. Mr. Lu did not deny the allegation.
The Biden administration and the interest of the United States would fare well from an advice that takes into account the ‘new’ dynamics of the people of Pakistan. The recent advice from the Brookings Institute suggesting, the White House “should call Shabaz Sharif,” ignores such dynamics and it is not in the interest of the United States.
The said guidance from Brookings is based on a faulty premise, “With his [Khan’s] reliance on a U.S. conspiracy narrative as his government was about to fall…” From evidence prevailing, this premise is delusional. Additionally, Pakistanis think the U.S. is involved neck-deep in ousting Khan, matters in shaping the U.S. approach.
The “modern intellectuals,” in particular Mr. Bruce Riedel at the Brookings Institute that has miserably failed advising the U.S. governments on an ill-conceived AF-PAK policy, quickly took to pen. This time a ‘glorified graduate assistant’ tagged along, suggesting to the Biden administration of an “opportunity to reset” the U.S. relationship with PM Shabaz Sharif, is a jailed and out on a bail thug.
The Brookings should know better, the S. Sharif’s government will only last till the next elections rumored in May. The U.S. can show wisdom by distancing themselves from the Sharif’s cabinet constituted of “sixty-six percent” individuals charged with a crime and are strutting out on bail.
The beltway’s prestigious Brookings’ “muscular arm” is tied to the foreign and the corporate interest, which makes their advice per Forbes not quite “Open Minded.” The Brookings’ response to The New York Times allegations is found here.
It is in the long-term interest of the United States and the White House, not to engage with S. Sharif. To suggest for the White House to call Islamabad, it will be well below a prestige of a call placed during a period of a transactional relationship between the two countries.
A call to Sharif—an implanted reality, will further damage the already estranged U.S. relationship with Pakistan from an associated S. Sharif’s meta-tag, “brown slave, beggars, on ventilators” of the U.S.
President Biden had refrained from calling the former PM Khan—an upright man of free will; is again in a quandary. Should Biden call the newly elected PM Shahbaz Sharif—a certified money launderer out on bail?
The White House (WH) Press Secretary Jen Psaki, is struggling with this dilemma. To a question, if Biden will call Sharif; Psaki replied, “Obviously those are assessments made day by day.” Speaks quite worrying of the disposition of Shahbaz Sharif and the ‘possibility’ in the mix of the U.S. hatched conspiracy.
Is it the assessment for the WH to see, how the “Crime Minister” S. Sharif is fairing in a U.S. prescribed democracy? The “Crime Minister” is trending on social media should be one of the restraints in Biden not calling the implanted PM.
Should the WH congratulate PM S. Sharif, and later it becomes clear to the Pakistani people and the world that Bajwa, is the de facto dictator ruler, would be rather awkward. Would make the Brookings advice flatly a morbid stupidity.
It is naive to think of Bajwa, bidding goodbye or accepting retirement this November if Khan fails in his struggle to return. After all, this is a Coup D’eta on a familiar pattern supported by the mighty United States, and with the backup of the strongest institution, the Pakistan Army. From history, we know these coups have a longer life.
Knowing the U.S. throws away good power and money after the bad over a longer period, makes the U.S. a known and a well predictable entity in a syllogism supported by a delusional premise. It is expected from the U.S. and the supported think tanks, to support a delusion.
However, Bajwa, is a new variable in a regime change with a delusional premise—for Khan to lack the support of the people. Nonetheless, the recent events have provided us with vital questions to unveil the shroud of this variable—Bajwa.
Evidence in the following questions suggest that Bajwa, is the de facto ruler of Pakistan and he is here to stay:
- a) While Khan is still the Prime Minister between April 9, 2022 to 00.00 hours of April 10, 2022, under what authority after the sun set, did the Supreme Court and the High Court open for business in anticipation of an order (to sack the army chief) Bajwa? An order, which was not given.
- b) While Khan is the PM during the said hours, under whose authority after the sunset, police was deployed and the prison vans rolled in front of the PM House and the Parliament?
- c) Who ordered the 111 Brigade to patrol Islamabad after the sunset, between April 9, 2022 to 00.00 hours of April 10, 2022?
While Khan is still the Prime Minister between the aforementioned hours, and if the PM and his government did not order a, b, & c, who did?
It is believed that Bajwa has given such orders. The military rules and Pakistan’s Constitution does not allow the COAS to give such orders. Bajwa, has broken the barrier not to act as the ruler.
The delusional premise has limited options for Bajwa. Supporting the ‘out on bail’ cabal into the government by rigging the next election is not acceptable to the people. The primary reason would not be because of the rigged elections. In the eyes of the people, the cabal are ‘convicts,’ are no longer unacceptable.
Bajwa can attempt pulling off what Gen. Sisi did in Egypt. It would require neutralizing Khan. Bajwa, can do that from the playbook of Gen. Sisi, because in Pakistan, as seen, certain people have turned dogs—have acquired “faithfulness of a dog.” Sentiments of the people are taken from the social media.
Khan should count on several Supreme Court’s verdicts against him. A likely scenario as Morsi could play out. It would draw the peoples’ harsh reprisal.
Khan is a peaceful man; it is his strength and a handicap for a revolution. Khan, will likely not give a “call,” which he has mentioned in his speeches. Khan has also said not to back him against the wall. Disassociate Khan from the people’s hope will automatically trigger that call—people will merge on the army’s General Head Quarter (GHQ) and the Parliament.
Khan is using rational arguments appealing to the people – This is no demagoguery. Khan and the people have the same dream as the Ukrainians – To dream to live with freedom.
Khan has given hope to the people, not to live as the salves from the foreign dictates. He asks the people, why do you have to crawl like ants when you can fly. For Khan and the people, an “imported government” is not acceptable.
The ex-PM Khan is not an option for the U.S., the Sharifs and Zardaris repugnant to the people, the intellectually defunct and the capitulated generals from the U.S. threats can tempt fate in a presidential form of a government.
The lampoon idiom, ‘the generals are half-dead’ will playout. The corrupt GHQ as rulers, will turn into ‘the public enemy number one.’ This is the reset from a lapse in Bajwa’s and the DG ISI Anjum’s conscience—a two compromised, disloyal, the misbegotten sons of Pakistan held in contempt.
The White House has an opportunity here. If Khan makes a comeback, it is in the long-term interest of the United States to call on Imran Khan. The ex-PM Khan’s personality can be managed through the principles in Islam, the ethnic norms and the American diaspora to further the interest of the United States.