Declassified Pakistan Cable Reveals Alleged U.S. Involvement in Imran Khan's Ouster

 


"Forgiven will be all," uttered a U.S. diplomat, should the no-confidence motion against Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan find success.

On August 9, 2023, reporters Ryan Grim and Murtaza Hussain revealed an intriguing tale of diplomatic maneuvering and political turbulence. The leaked document, obtained by The Intercept, unveiled a classified cable originating from a March 7, 2022, meeting between the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. and State Department officials. The cable exposed how the U.S. State Department nudged Pakistan's government to remove Imran Khan from power due to his neutrality on the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The meeting's significance reverberated across Pakistan's political landscape over the past year and a half. The struggle for power intensified, culminating in Khan's imprisonment on corruption charges. The ousted prime minister's supporters claimed that his removal was orchestrated by the military with U.S. backing.

The cable disclosed the U.S.'s dual approach—carrots for compliance, isolation for resistance. Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu voiced displeasure with Khan's stance on Ukraine, hinting at improved relations if Khan were removed from power. Lu even speculated on a successful no-confidence vote leading to forgiveness from Washington.

The leaked document stirred a storm of controversy and scrutiny in Pakistan. Khan's removal triggered protests and economic turmoil. Censorship tightened, dissent was suppressed, and the military's influence escalated. The public fearlessly embraced the truth behind the cable, which emerged as a symbol of defiance.

This saga underscored the intricate dance between democracy and military power in Pakistan. The leaked cable exposed the U.S.'s historic patronage of the Pakistani military, fueling suspicions of external interference. The document spurred the Pakistani populace to confront their military's pervasive influence and its exploitation of geopolitical rivalries to preserve dominance.

As Pakistan's political landscape shifted, so did its foreign policy. Khan's removal signaled a pivot toward aligning with the U.S. and Europe against Russia in the Ukraine conflict. The realignment prompted Pakistan to supply arms to Ukraine, replacing its neutrality with active military support.

The leaked cable's contents were consistent with earlier reporting and marked the dynamics of the Pakistan-U.S. relationship. Yet, the document's veracity remained contested, and U.S. officials repeatedly denied interference in Pakistan's internal affairs.

Ultimately, the leaked cable offered a rare glimpse into the intricate interactions between nations and the complex interplay between democracy, military power, and international diplomacy. It highlighted the delicate balancing act that countries like Pakistan must perform as they navigate their domestic politics while facing external pressures.

 

The leaked cable not only revealed the behind-the-scenes diplomatic maneuvering but also exposed the vulnerabilities and complexities of Pakistan's political landscape. As the controversy surrounding the cable intensified, the Pakistani military's grip on power tightened further, resulting in a crackdown on dissent, suppression of the press, and a growing sense of disillusionment among the public.

Khan's repeated references to the cable only added to the intrigue, with the former prime minister's claims and the subsequent investigations contributing to his legal troubles. The document had become a symbol of resistance against the military's influence and a rallying point for those seeking a more transparent and accountable government.

Despite the U.S. government's repeated denials of interference, the leaked cable highlighted the historical pattern of U.S. support for the Pakistani military. This history had long been a point of contention among Pakistanis who yearned for true democratic representation, economic growth, and an independent foreign policy. The document's revelations fueled public demands for a more genuine democratic process and an end to military manipulation of politics.

The leaked cable also showcased the intricacies of international diplomacy and how geopolitical conflicts can shape nations' policies and alliances. The shifting dynamics in Pakistan's foreign policy after Khan's removal, particularly in the context of the Ukraine conflict, highlighted the country's willingness to realign itself strategically to meet its own interests while navigating global power dynamics.

The leaked cable, whether fully authenticated or not, had a profound impact on Pakistan's political discourse. It emboldened both Khan's supporters and opponents, sparked discussions about the role of the military in Pakistani politics, and led to calls for greater transparency and accountability. In the end, the cable became a focal point for the nation's struggles with democracy, governance, and its complex relationship with global powers.

As Pakistan continued to grapple with its internal political turmoil and external pressures, the legacy of the leaked cable endured as a reminder of the challenges faced by nations striving for genuine democratic representation, sovereign decision-making, and equitable governance in an interconnected world.

Amidst the ongoing political turmoil, economic challenges, and international pressures, Pakistan found itself at a crossroads. The leaked cable had brought to the forefront long-standing issues of political manipulation, military dominance, and the need for a more transparent and accountable government. The public discourse around the cable became a catalyst for change, pushing Pakistanis to demand a more equitable distribution of power and a stronger voice in their own governance.

The cable's contents also underscored the delicate balance between international diplomacy and domestic politics. The leaked document shed light on the intricacies of how global powers exert influence over smaller nations, sometimes at the expense of their internal stability and democratic processes. This revelation prompted broader discussions within Pakistan about the importance of maintaining national sovereignty while engaging in international relations.

The aftermath of Khan's removal saw the emergence of new political players and alliances. The struggle for power intensified, with various factions vying for control and attempting to reshape the political landscape. While the military sought to consolidate its influence, civil society activists, opposition parties, and concerned citizens continued to call for greater political freedom and respect for human rights.

As time went on, the significance of the leaked cable went beyond its initial revelations. It became a symbol of the larger issues facing Pakistan – the struggle for democracy, the challenge of countering military influence, and the need for a balanced foreign policy. While the specific events and individuals mentioned in the cable remained relevant, its broader impact was in galvanizing a larger movement for change.

Internationally, the leaked cable prompted discussions about the role of powerful nations in shaping the internal affairs of smaller countries. It raised questions about the ethics of such actions and whether they aligned with the principles of self-determination and international law. The episode served as a reminder that global powers often have their own interests at heart, and that smaller nations must navigate these dynamics carefully to safeguard their sovereignty.

As the years went by, the legacy of the leaked cable continued to influence political debates in Pakistan. It played a role in shaping election campaigns, policy decisions, and public sentiment. The struggle for democracy and transparent governance remained ongoing, with citizens demanding accountability from their leaders and institutions.

In conclusion, the leaked cable and its aftermath exemplified the complex interplay of geopolitics, democracy, and national sovereignty. It highlighted the challenges faced by Pakistan as it sought to navigate its way through internal and external pressures. The legacy of the cable served as a reminder of the importance of open discourse, informed decision-making, and the enduring pursuit of a just and equitable society.

 

The recently appointed Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, has confirmed the existence of the cable and admitted that some of the content conveyed by Lu was inappropriate. He noted that Pakistan formally raised its concerns but cautioned against interpreting the cable as conclusive proof of Khan's broader claims.

Khan has made repeated public assertions that the classified cable implicated the U.S. in orchestrating his removal from power. However, he later adjusted his stance, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to condemn human rights violations against his supporters. In a June interview with The Intercept, Khan suggested that the U.S. might have suggested his removal, but only under the influence of military manipulation.

With the full text of the cable now disclosed, more than a year after Khan's removal and subsequent arrest, a platform is provided to evaluate the conflicting claims. On careful examination, the content of the cypher leans towards the notion that the U.S. played a role in encouraging Khan's departure. While the cable does not explicitly command Khan's removal, Lu's language implies dire consequences, including international isolation for Pakistan, if Khan continued as prime minister. Simultaneously, hints of potential rewards for his removal were apparent. This served as a subtle signal for the Pakistani military.

Adding to Khan's legal challenges, he remains a target of the new government due to his handling of the classified cable. Just last month, Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah revealed plans to prosecute Khan under the Official Secrets Act. The accusation is that Khan orchestrated a conspiracy against the state's interests, warranting legal action for exposing a confidential diplomatic communication.

Khan's situation places him in a long line of Pakistani politicians who faced truncated terms in office due to their conflicts with the military. Quoting from the decrypted cable, Khan is attributed with being personally blamed by Lu for Pakistan's policy of nonalignment during the Ukraine crisis. Throughout their conversation, the implications of the impending vote of no confidence and its potential impact on U.S.-Pakistan relations remained central themes.

In the document, Lu is quoted as expressing concerns about the isolation of Khan if he remains in power. The cable, dated March 7, 2022, captures a meeting between Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu and Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S., Asad Majeed Khan.

The Intercept, in its release of the cable, made minor text corrections to avoid watermarking. They omitted classification markings and tracking elements, ensuring transparency in the interactions between Lu and Khan.

Their discussion revolved around Pakistan's stance on the Ukraine crisis. Lu questioned Pakistan's stance, suggesting it wasn't as neutral as claimed. Khan clarified that Pakistan's position stemmed from thorough interagency consultations. He attributed the Prime Minister's public response to European Ambassadors' letter in Islamabad.

Lu denied that the U.S. reaction was due to Pakistan's UNGA abstention, linking it instead to the Prime Minister's Moscow visit. He speculated that a successful no-confidence vote could mend ties, but a failure could pose challenges. The potential for isolation from Europe and the U.S. was also noted.

Khan countered misperceptions about the Moscow visit's timing and context, highlighting its careful planning over several years. He stressed that the visit predated the Russian invasion of Ukraine and was not an endorsement of it.

The cable shed light on concerns regarding the Ukraine crisis's implications for Afghanistan. Khan emphasized the need for open channels with major powers like Russia for regional stability. Discussions also touched on U.S.-India relations, with Khan noting differences in criteria for India and Pakistan.

The cable's disclosure prompted questions about the propriety of Lu's remarks on Pakistan's internal politics. It led to considerations of a potential demarche to the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in Islamabad, as Lu's statements appeared to require White House approval.

As the narrative unfolded, the cable highlighted the intricate interplay between internal politics, international relations, and the complexities of diplomacy. It underscored the challenges of balancing national interests within a backdrop of global pressures.

 

March 7, 2022 Pakistani Diplomatic Cypher (Transcription)

The Intercept is publishing the body of the cable below, correcting minor typos in the text because such details can be used to watermark documents and track their dissemination. The Intercept has removed classification markings and numerical elements that could be used for tracking purposes. Labeled “Secret,” the cable includes an account of the meeting between State Department officials, including Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs Donald Lu, and Asad Majeed Khan, who at the time was Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S.

I had a luncheon meeting today with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu. He was accompanied by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Les Viguerie. DCM, DA and Counsellor Qasim joined me.

At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” He shared that in his discussions with the NSC, “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.” He continued that he was of the view that this was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face.” I replied that this was not a correct reading of the situation as Pakistan’s position on Ukraine was a result of intense interagency consultations. Pakistan had never resorted to conducting diplomacy in public sphere. The Prime Minister’s remarks during a political rally were in reaction to the public letter by European Ambassadors in Islamabad which was against diplomatic etiquette and protocol. Any political leader, whether in Pakistan or the U.S., would be constrained to give a public reply in such a situation.

I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.” He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.” Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.

I told Don that this was a completely misinformed and wrong perception. The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time. Don interjected that “those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons.” I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed, was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine. I said that our position is dictated by our desire to keep the channels of communication with all sides open. Our subsequent statements at the UN and by our Spokesperson spelled that out clearly, while reaffirming our commitment to the principle of UN Charter, non-use or threat of use of force, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and pacific settlement of disputes.

I also told Don that Pakistan was worried of how the Ukraine crisis would play out in the context of Afghanistan. We had paid a very high price due to the long-term impact of this conflict. Our priority was to have peace and stability in Afghanistan, for which it was imperative to have cooperation and coordination with all major powers, including Russia. From this perspective as well, keeping the channels of communication open was essential. This factor was also dictating our position on the Ukraine crisis. On my reference to the upcoming Extended Troika meeting in Beijing, Don replied that there were still ongoing discussions in Washington on whether the U.S. should attend the Extended Troika meeting or the upcoming Antalya meeting on Afghanistan with Russian representatives in attendance, as the U.S. focus right now was to discuss only Ukraine with Russia. I replied that this was exactly what we were afraid of. We did not want the Ukraine crisis to divert focus away from Afghanistan. Don did not comment.

I told Don that just like him, I would also convey our perspective in a forthright manner. I said that over the past one year, we had been consistently sensing reluctance on the part of the U.S. leadership to engage with our leadership. This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored and even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate and we do not see much U.S. support on issues of concern for Pakistan, particularly on Kashmir. I said that it was extremely important to have functioning channels of communication at the highest level to remove such perception. I also said that we were surprised that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote. (The State Department had raised it at the DCM level.) Pakistan valued continued high-level engagement and for this reason the Foreign Minister sought to speak with Secretary Blinken to personally explain Pakistan’s position and perspective on the Ukraine crisis. The call has not materialized yet. Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.

I reiterated our position that countries should not be made to choose sides in a complex situation like the Ukraine crisis and stressed the need for having active bilateral communications at the political leadership level. Don replied that “you have conveyed your position clearly and I will take it back to my leadership.”

I also told Don that we had seen his defence of the Indian position on the Ukraine crisis during the recently held Senate Sub-Committee hearing on U.S.-India relations. It seemed that the U.S. was applying different criteria for India and Pakistan. Don responded that the U.S. lawmakers’ strong feelings about India’s abstentions in the UNSC and UNGA came out clearly during the hearing. I said that from the hearing, it appeared that the U.S. expected more from India than Pakistan, yet it appeared to be more concerned about Pakistan’s position. Don was evasive and responded that Washington looked at the U.S.-India relationship very much through the lens of what was happening in China. He added that while India had a close relationship with Moscow, “I think we will actually see a change in India’s policy once all Indian students are out of Ukraine.”

I expressed the hope that the issue of the Prime Minister’s visit to Russia will not impact our bilateral ties. Don replied that “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective. Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”

We also discussed Afghanistan and other issues pertaining to bilateral ties. A separate communication follows on that part of our conversation.

Assessment

Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process. We need to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad.