Pakistan's New Leader Feuds With Washington

By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

The election of Imran Khan as Pakistan’s new prime minister following the country’s parliamentary election on July 25 has increased the country’s military power as never before.

Since its creation in 1947, after the partition of British India, Pakistan has had 30 years of military rule, over three periods: 1958-70, 1977-88 and 1999-2008. 

But for the past 10 years, the military has stayed in the background, allowing civilian politicians to take turns in power after elections that were always marred to some extent by electoral irregularities.

In fact in 2013, for the first time in Pakistan’s history, a democratically elected government completed its full term and there was a democratic change of government, with the centre-right Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) succeeding the centre-left Pakistan Peoples Party.

This strengthening of the democratic process was bound to disturb the military, which is known by its opponents as the ‘deep state’ because of the key role of its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). 

Indeed, some elected PPP and PML-N leaders tried to pursue policies that ran counter to the military’s wishes, especially towards India, which it regards as its principal enemy. 

Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party won 151 of the 342 seats in the lower house of parliament, defeating the PML-N party of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Khan has cobbled together a coalition government.

The Pakistani military is widely accused of skewing the election in favour of Khan, but it denied the charge. Most observers, including Sharif, believe they wanted Khan to win and rigged the vote.

The new prime minister indicated that he would move away from what he called a “clientalistic” relationship with Washington, whose drone attacks and war on terror he blames for fostering extremism within Pakistan, towards countries closer in the region. 

To make this point, he welcomed the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, as his first diplomatic guest and stated his support for the nuclear deal that U.S. President Donald Trump recently cancelled.

Irritation with this led the U.S. military to announce that it would be cancelling $300 million in aid to Pakistan.
 

It stated that this was over what it called Islamabad’s failure to take action against militant groups.

The State Department also has criticized Pakistan for failing to deal with terrorist networks operating on its soil, including the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan has been accused of providing covert support to the Haqqani network, a militant group that focuses most of its activities on neighbouring Afghanistan.

Kabul has complained for years that Pakistan allows it to operate unimpeded from its soil across the border. The group is linked to the Afghan Taliban. 

Trump in January accused Pakistan of deceiving the U.S. and suspended nearly all of the $1.3 billion in annual security aid given to Pakistan.

In May, the two countries even placed travel restrictions on the diplomats based in their respective capitals.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo made his first official trip to Pakistan on Sept. 5, saying that he hoped to “reset the relationship” with the new government after a period of sharp disagreements.

Pompeo met with Khan and Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Javed Qamar Bajwa. Washington is anxious to enlist Pakistan’s help in its efforts to end the war in Afghanistan. 

Pakistani commentators had been denouncing the United States as a hectoring bully that seeks to force Pakistan to do its bidding and fails to appreciate its efforts to fight Islamist terrorism.

One thing is certain, though: the Pakistani military will continue to hold the levers of power.

In the words of Mohammed Ayoob, a South Asia expert at Michigan State University, they will “keep Prime Minister Khan on a very short leash.” They always have the last word.