In Pakistan’s media, a debate rages on about whether or not the President-Elect of the United States (US), Donald Trump, will show concern for the political situation in Pakistan. Many commentators opine that the US’s plate is already full, leaving little chance of sparing a thought for Pakistan.
However, there is a reason why the Trump administration will show concern. History dates back to late July 2019, when Pakistan’s former Prime Minister, Imran Khan, paid a three-day visit to the US. On 22 July, Khan called on Trump at the White House, where Trump publicly offered his services to mediate in the India-Pakistan conflict in Kashmir. Trump said, “I am making the offer after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has requested me to mediate or arbitrate in the 70-year-old territory dispute between the two nations.” Hitherto, it is not known how and when Modi conveyed his intent to Trump.
Interestingly, after the Shimla Agreement of 1972, India’s stated position has been that all issues with Pakistan would be discussed and decided bilaterally, without any third-party mediation. Moreover, after 1972, no Indian leader has asked for or accepted any offer of mediation or arbitration by the US on the Kashmir dispute. This simply means that, through his statement, Trump made a pre-emptive move in case any new conflict appeared between Pakistan and India in the future. Precisely speaking, Trump had an idea of what would happen in the coming days.
During the trip, rumours ran rife that certain Pentagon officials held a meeting with the then visiting top brass of the Pakistan army (General Qamar Javed Bajwa and Lt. General Faiz Hameed) to convey that India would introduce certain changes in its administered part of Kashmir and that the Pakistan army should not react to it.
Soon afterwards, on 5 August, India revoked the special status (autonomy) of its part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (known eponymously as Kashmir) granted under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution and merged the area into the federation of India. In response, neither did Trump mediate or arbitrate, nor did the Pakistan army show any reaction by moving troops to the Line of Control (LoC). Other than raising a few slogans in Islamabad on this or that day (as a token of protest) and changing the title of a road to Srinagar Highway, no one sobbed. Serenity prevailed.
Pakistan is a country where even talks on trade with India heat up the streets, with religious fanatics coming in droves from madrassas. In religion lies the handle of politics. This time, however, the streets remained calm, devoid of any stir. Similarly, the LoC, which otherwise is kept on the boil, remained quiescent. Silence indicated that a change on Kashmir was scripted.
On 8 August, Modi appeared on Indian media to say that a “new era” was beginning for the Indian-administered part of Kashmir, where “hindrances” to its development had been lifted. That is, Modi declared that the main reason for the change in the status of Indian Kashmir was development. In the past, India had raised a similar point publicly with the US several times, stating that Pakistan had been fuelling unrest, which was hindering development in Indian Kashmir, thereby keeping the area in a perpetual state of deprivation. That is, if development were introduced into Indian Kashmir, discontent would fade away. Presumably, this point convinced Trump to give India a signal to go ahead with its plans.
On 23 September, Pakistan’s Foreign Office issued a statement: “Prime Minister Imran Khan met President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York today…Prime Minister Khan appreciated President Trump’s continued offers of assistance in mediating the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Describing India’s draconian lockdown in Occupied Jammu and Kashmir as a dire humanitarian crisis with implications for regional security, the Prime Minister highlighted the importance of immediately lifting the curfew and other restrictions and resolving the Kashmir dispute for durable peace and stability in South Asia.”
There were two issues with the Foreign Office’s statement. First, the statement indicated that Pakistan was still naïve enough to believe in Trump’s offer of mediation or arbitration in the Kashmir dispute, despite the fact that, on 23 July, India’s Foreign Minister (External Affairs Minister) Dr S. Jaishankar had clarified in the Indian Parliament (the Rajya Sabha) that Modi had not made any such request to Trump. Second, the statement was so cleverly orchestrated as to exclude any hint of Pakistan’s agitation against the 5 August act of India. Interestingly, the statement restrained itself to condemning the lockdown and demanding the lifting of the curfew and other restrictions but deliberately evaded any mention of the change in the status of Indian-administered Kashmir. In short, the statement showed that Pakistan reminded the US of its promise to mediate or arbitrate and that Pakistan condemned the lockdown, knowing fully that both points had lost their relevance to the Kashmir dispute. This is called diplomacy—a voice raised, disgorged of essential contents. Above all, the statement implied that the rumours bandied about earlier had some substance.
Trump is now known as a person who interfered without interfering in the affairs of South Asia, where he brought about a change to establish a new status quo. Whereas Trump used the soft power of the White House to offer India a chance to fulfil its desire for development to appease the Kashmiris in its part of Kashmir, he offered Pakistan a chance to deal with the challenges of insurgency ravaging its western half instead of focusing on the LoC. With the forthcoming arrival of Trump in the White House, more use of soft power is confirmed, which includes sparing a thought for his old friends in Pakistan.
Dr Qaisar Rashid
The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com