In his speech, Prime Minister Imran Khan read from the same script he has used in recent interviews with CNN and Newsweek. He would like the world to believe that Pakistan desires peace with India, that it is a victim of terror, not a country that gives sanctuary to terrorists.
If that narrative was designed to earn the sympathy of the world and to earn a token of thanks from the US, it was a spectacular failure. There are several reasons why that’s the case.
First, he said that those Western powers that had exploited people in the developing world during the colonial age were continuing to act in the worst traditions of the British East India Company. Grave economic injustice was being meted out by the West to poor countries. He said the West had turned a blind eye to the transfer of looted wealth by the corrupt elite of the developing world to the developed world. That indictment was delivered in an acerbic and accusatory tone.
Was he expecting the West to acknowledge its sins and apologise? No, he could not have been so naïve. He was once again indulging in populist rhetoric, playing to the gallery in Pakistan which loves nothing more than to invent conspiracy theories.
Surprisingly, he did not bring up the issue of why New Zealand pulled out its cricket team from Pakistan and why the UK canceled its cricket team’s visit to Pakistan.
Second, he criticised India by saying it was in the grip of a fascist ideology that was committing criminal acts on a wide scale directed at marginalising its minorities, especially the 200 million Muslims living there. This would be considered interference in India’s internal affairs. It contrasts with his attitude toward China. Whenever he has been questioned about China’s treatment of its Muslim minority in Xinjiang, he has said he cannot comment on its internal affairs.
Third, he turned to Kashmir. He said India had sent in 900,000 troops to impose a ‘final solution’. He said that Kashmiris had lost their freedoms, their dignity, and their civil and human rights because of the Indian occupation. He asked the UN to ensure that its resolutions about holding a plebiscite in Kashmir were implemented. Was he really expecting that to happen? They have been on the books since 1949.
Fourth, he called on the West to accept the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. During the CNN interview, he was asked whether he would approve of the Taliban if they did not form an inclusive government, engaged in misogynistic treatment of women and children, and imposed the draconian precepts of Sharia law. He ducked the question. He was asked if he had been supporting the Taliban since their creation by Pakistan in 1996. Once again, he ducked the question.
Giving the UN speech was easier by comparison to the CNN interview since no one would ask him tough questions. Imran Khan went on to say that President Ronald Reagan had welcomed the Mujahideen to the White House and hailed them as the counterparts of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. Was he suggesting that President Biden welcome the Taliban to the White House as the second set of Founding Fathers?
He said the 300,000 strong Afghan army had surrendered to the Taliban without a fight, implying that they had tacitly accepted the Taliban as the new rulers. That’s not true. He must have known that the Afghan army was nowhere as large. That number included people who had deserted, those who had died, and those that had never joined.
The real strength was closer to 80,000. The soldiers were unmotivated to fight, several were dropouts from society, and some had no training on how to fight. They did not even know how to carry their rifles, let alone aim them and fire them. It was not uncommon to see them wearing their helmets backwards.
Imran Khan implied that the Afghans were welcoming the Taliban. He must know that many Afghans are fleeing the country and women are demonstrating against the Taliban.
The prime minister’s speech was pre-recorded. Why did he not deliver the speech in person like other world leaders? Was that because he was feeling snubbed, after not receiving a call from President Biden, let alone receive an invitation to visit the White House? Should he have not used a less hostile tone towards the US?
In his CNN interview, he had referred to the US Secretary of State as being ‘totally ignorant’ about Afghanistan. Even Imran Khan must have known that countries do not make friends by hurling insults at each other. He said that the US had attacked Pakistan with hundreds of drone strikes, and said he could not figure out why an ally would attack another ally. Did he not know that the US was attacking terrorists who had taken shelter in Pakistan?
It is doubtful that his speech will move the West closer to Pakistan. It is more likely to further distance the West from Pakistan. Imran Khan probably knows that. The people to whom he is beholden for holding the prime minister’s office also know that.
So why did he go on this rant? His primary audience was domestic. It was designed to curry favour with the ‘patriots’. There is little doubt that it found a worthy reception among them. In that sense, the speech can be called a success. He has succeeded in extending his tenure.
If that narrative was designed to earn the sympathy of the world and to earn a token of thanks from the US, it was a spectacular failure. There are several reasons why that’s the case.
First, he said that those Western powers that had exploited people in the developing world during the colonial age were continuing to act in the worst traditions of the British East India Company. Grave economic injustice was being meted out by the West to poor countries. He said the West had turned a blind eye to the transfer of looted wealth by the corrupt elite of the developing world to the developed world. That indictment was delivered in an acerbic and accusatory tone.
Was he expecting the West to acknowledge its sins and apologise? No, he could not have been so naïve. He was once again indulging in populist rhetoric, playing to the gallery in Pakistan which loves nothing more than to invent conspiracy theories.
Surprisingly, he did not bring up the issue of why New Zealand pulled out its cricket team from Pakistan and why the UK canceled its cricket team’s visit to Pakistan.
Second, he criticised India by saying it was in the grip of a fascist ideology that was committing criminal acts on a wide scale directed at marginalising its minorities, especially the 200 million Muslims living there. This would be considered interference in India’s internal affairs. It contrasts with his attitude toward China. Whenever he has been questioned about China’s treatment of its Muslim minority in Xinjiang, he has said he cannot comment on its internal affairs.
Third, he turned to Kashmir. He said India had sent in 900,000 troops to impose a ‘final solution’. He said that Kashmiris had lost their freedoms, their dignity, and their civil and human rights because of the Indian occupation. He asked the UN to ensure that its resolutions about holding a plebiscite in Kashmir were implemented. Was he really expecting that to happen? They have been on the books since 1949.
Fourth, he called on the West to accept the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. During the CNN interview, he was asked whether he would approve of the Taliban if they did not form an inclusive government, engaged in misogynistic treatment of women and children, and imposed the draconian precepts of Sharia law. He ducked the question. He was asked if he had been supporting the Taliban since their creation by Pakistan in 1996. Once again, he ducked the question.
Giving the UN speech was easier by comparison to the CNN interview since no one would ask him tough questions. Imran Khan went on to say that President Ronald Reagan had welcomed the Mujahideen to the White House and hailed them as the counterparts of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic. Was he suggesting that President Biden welcome the Taliban to the White House as the second set of Founding Fathers?
He said the 300,000 strong Afghan army had surrendered to the Taliban without a fight, implying that they had tacitly accepted the Taliban as the new rulers. That’s not true. He must have known that the Afghan army was nowhere as large. That number included people who had deserted, those who had died, and those that had never joined.
The real strength was closer to 80,000. The soldiers were unmotivated to fight, several were dropouts from society, and some had no training on how to fight. They did not even know how to carry their rifles, let alone aim them and fire them. It was not uncommon to see them wearing their helmets backwards.
Imran Khan implied that the Afghans were welcoming the Taliban. He must know that many Afghans are fleeing the country and women are demonstrating against the Taliban.
The prime minister’s speech was pre-recorded. Why did he not deliver the speech in person like other world leaders? Was that because he was feeling snubbed, after not receiving a call from President Biden, let alone receive an invitation to visit the White House? Should he have not used a less hostile tone towards the US?
In his CNN interview, he had referred to the US Secretary of State as being ‘totally ignorant’ about Afghanistan. Even Imran Khan must have known that countries do not make friends by hurling insults at each other. He said that the US had attacked Pakistan with hundreds of drone strikes, and said he could not figure out why an ally would attack another ally. Did he not know that the US was attacking terrorists who had taken shelter in Pakistan?
It is doubtful that his speech will move the West closer to Pakistan. It is more likely to further distance the West from Pakistan. Imran Khan probably knows that. The people to whom he is beholden for holding the prime minister’s office also know that.
So why did he go on this rant? His primary audience was domestic. It was designed to curry favour with the ‘patriots’. There is little doubt that it found a worthy reception among them. In that sense, the speech can be called a success. He has succeeded in extending his tenure.