A cipher sent to the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad by the ambassador of Pakistan to the US is making headlines again, after The Intercept claims it has a copy of the document in its August 9 report. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters are presenting it as vindication of its narrative – that the US-sponsored conspiracy was behind Imran Khan’s ouster last year. In contrast, the opponents of Khan and his party doubt the authenticity of the cipher.
The presence of the cipher has not been denied, however, interpreting it as a conspiracy has been questioned
Cipher is simply a term used to describe diplomatic communication between an ambassador and his home country’s foreign office. It normally contains the ambassador’s report on happenings, trends and attitudes in the host country and suggests an appropriate response based on his meetings with government officials, political leaders, businessmen, mediapersons and academia. The cipher contains classified information. It may include state secrets and negative trends that the host country may find objectionable. Also, they are mostly estimations and expectations that may contradict the findings of intelligence agencies. Secrecy allows the state an opportunity to plan a response on the basis of national interests.
The cipher presently in question is the one sent by Asad Majeed Khan, former ambassador of Pakistan to the US. It reports a conversation held between US officials, including Donald Du, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, and Asad Majeed Khan. The presence of the cipher has not been denied, however, interpreting it as a conspiracy has been questioned.
The Intercept reports that US officials had expressed displeasure with Imran Khan and his government’s neutrality in the Russian-Ukraine conflict, thus wanting his removal through a vote of no confidence (VoNC). It clearly takes a pro-PTI position by repeating what PTI leaders have said on numerous occasions. It cites examples of post-VoNC state actions against the PTI and also reports the mysterious murder of Arshad Sharif. It questions the US silence on the crackdown on PTI.
The write-up mentions the military-to-military relations between Pakistan and Ukraine without clarifying that these predate the VoNC and the government follows the same Pakistan-Russia policy to date. This critical omission gives a false impression to those not familiar with the history of relations between the two countries.
It appears there has been no fundamental change in Pakistan’s foreign policy post-VoNC with regard to the US, Russia or China or, more specifically, Ukraine
The report also does not mention the purchase of Russian oil in Chinese currency. One wonders if it is an attempt to portray that Pakistan changed its policy of neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict after the ouster of Imran Khan and his PTI?
This selective reporting and half-truths are interpreted as “In the cable, the US objects to Khan’s foreign policy on the Ukraine war. Those positions were quickly reversed after his removal, which was followed, as promised in the meeting, by a warming between the US and Pakistan”, even though nothing much has changed in reality. It appears there has been no fundamental change in Pakistan’s foreign policy post-VoNC with regard to the US, Russia or China or, more specifically, Ukraine.
No one can deny the language of the US official was threatening and undiplomatic. It reflected the US' high-handed approach in dealings with weak states.
It is true that the US pursues an interventionist foreign policy – overtly and covertly, successfully and unsuccessfully. The case of a coup against President Salvador Allende in Chile of 1973 is a glaring but not the only example.
There is a difference between regime change and government change. Regime change policy pursued by the US around the world refers to a policy to change the whole structure of the state – like wishing to replace the Islamic system in Iran with a secular democratic system or a Western-allied authoritarian regime. However, in Pakistan, the US has never shown an interest in the system, if it is democratic or not. Rather, it has always been comfortable with the military governments of Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haq and Musharraf. So far, the US has not initiated or shown an interest in a ‘regime change’ in Pakistan – not even after the VoNC.
The cipher is condemnable but not a conspiracy. An appropriate response from the government of Pakistan would have been an immediate diplomatic protest. It registered a delayed protest after a meeting of Pakistan’s National Security Council (NSC). Unless there was more to it, the cipher itself did not merit a meeting of the NSC.
Public debate on Foreign Policy choices and alternatives is a democratic norm as it enriches policy-making. But point scoring for domestic political gains weakens the state’s international standing. The debate on the cipher cannot be classified as a policy debate because it reflects political acrimony. It is polarising Pakistan’s already polarised society and is promoting jingoism. It is limiting diplomatic manoeuvrability and is harming Pakistan domestically and internationally.