What did Trump’s ‘lies and deceit’ Tweet achieve for Washington in Islamabad?
The U.S. President Donald Trump in his first social media message of 2018 gave a strongly worded statement against Pakistan, accusing Islamabad of sheltering terrorists and giving Washington nothing but “lies and deceit” in return of billions of dollars worth of aid offered to the country over the course of last 15 years. In response, Islamabad dismissed Trump’s outburst by terming it “incomprehensible” and as having “no importance.”
It is significant that President Trump decided to target Pakistan’s controversial counter-terrorism policy in his very first social media message when a number of other serious security concerns pose a challenge to America’s foreign policy worldwide. It’s likely that President Trump’s shapely worded statement was a reaction to the Pakistani military’s recent statement which gave an indication that Islamabad was done “doing more” for Washington. A week ago, the country’s powerful military in a statement said that it was “time for Afghanistan and the United States to do more rather than asking Pakistan”.
Apparently, Trump’s policy of offering Pakistan time to make appropriate changes to its security policy has run its course. However, the latest confrontation lands the Pak-US relationship in an undesired space.
Certainly, Trump’s outburst against Pakistan has only reinforced the existing endemic conspiracy mindset in the country which believes that Washington is working to undermine Pakistan’s unity and stability. With regards to Pakistan’s local politics, the government’s so-called policy of banning some proscribed organizations from taking part in the next general election is going to face a serious challenge now after the recent flare-up of tensions with the US. Islamist groups which already feel emboldened after the recent Faizabad confrontation with the state are only going to further deepen their influence and are likely to use the ongoing scuffle between Islamabad and Washington to push forward their political and religious agendas.
So far, it remains unclear whether Trump’s outburst is an actual policy shift or just a rhetorical endeavor to put more pressure on Pakistan as he has done in the past with other states such as Iran and North Korea. As of now, Washington has decided to withhold military assistance to Pakistan. But Pakistan is not likely to overlook this decision: in the coming weeks, Islamabad put some sort of resistance to manifest to Washington what sidelining and isolating Pakistan in its own neighborhood can mean for the US. Moreover, not too long ago, Trump, while using the same social media platform said that I am “Starting to develop a much better relationship with Pakistan and its leaders. I want to thank them for their cooperation on many fronts”. What remains to be seen is if Trump can take his “get tough” policy further, such as taking a unilateral military action, to force Pakistan to make desired changes into the latter’s regional security policy.
Washington continues to overlook that any sort of deterrence or compellence will not shake Pakistan’s policy which sees India’s presence in Afghanistan as a direct threat to its security
Among other things, Trump’s tweet points towards Washington’s enduring inability to find solutions to Afghanistan’s security problems on its own. Moreover, it’s unlikely that Trump’s latest burst against Pakistan is going to achieve anything for Washington when it comes to getting Pakistan to take action against certain insurgent groups in Pakistan and beyond. Washington continues to overlook that any sort of deterrence or compellence will not shake Pakistan’s policy which sees India’s presence in Afghanistan as a direct threat to its security. US’s policy of threats have failed elsewhere in the world: after decades of threats to North Korea and Iran, Washington has not been able to produce anything substantial that can be called the result of this policy.
Clearly, Washington is frustrated over not getting what it wants in Afghanistan. However, the country cannot expect to gain anything by coercing or threatening Pakistan when the latter sees this policy line as a direct threat to its national security. On the other hand, what this policy line achieves is that it further deepens Islamabad’s historic distrust towards Washington that continues to consider US’s partnership full of risks and liabilities. Therefore, policymakers in Islamabad believe that preparing for such sudden outbursts can only be possible if Islamabad has its own regional policy intact. Pakistan’s own regional security policy which doesn’t agree with Washington’s policy is one of the core reasons that annoy the latter.
It would be unwise to suggest that Washington’s tough approach will change Pakistan’s regional security policy in any way when “divergence of interests” has come to define the partnership. The U.S. needs to seriously reassess its policy of isolating Pakistan when it only undermines its leverage over Pakistan and offers other regional states more space and clout in the country. For Pakistan, attempts to find a solution in Afghanistan by humiliating Pakistan are not likely to succeed and that too when Islamabad sees them in the context of Washington and New Delhi’s tighter embrace.
