Imran Khan Is Right: The Establishment Is More To Blame For His Ouster Than The US Is
There are five reasons why the former premier is correct, which discredit the malicious information warfare campaign against him falsely claiming that he’s opportunistically flip-flopping out of political desperation.
Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, who was ousted from office in early April by a US-orchestrated but superficially democratic post-modern coup as punishment for his independent foreign policy, shared some intriguing insight with the Financial Times during his latest interview with them. Referring to the aforementioned regime change, he claimed that his own government was more at fault for it than America itself was, which prompted critics to claim that he’s opportunistically flip-flopping.
In his words, “As far as I’m concerned it’s over, it’s behind me. The Pakistan I want to lead must have good relationships with everyone, especially the United States. Our relationship with the US has been as of a master-servant relationship, or a master-slave relationship, and we’ve been used like a hired gun. But for that I blame my own governments more than the US.” He’s right, and the five reasons why will now be explained in order to discredit the malicious information warfare campaign against him.
First, the former premier has always been pro-Pakistani and never anti-American, to which end he’s simply sought to reform their relations so that his country can finally get the respect it deserves from its partner as the equal that it truly is in the eyes of international law. This accounts for his consistent critiques of their historically lopsided relationship, which has indeed always been a “master-servant” or “master-slave” one wherein Pakistan was always exploited as a “hired gun” to do the US’ bidding.
Second, his sharp critique of The Establishment’s role in his ouster and perpetuating the aforementioned unequal relationship with the US that he compellingly argues has always been at the expense of Pakistan’s objective national interests is also consistent with his stance since April. He once again articulated this in mid-August when talking about what he argued was The Establishment’s responsibility to thwart the foreign-orchestrated plot against him instead of remain “neutral”.
Third, the interview that he gave to Dawn a few days prior to his one with the Financial Times sheds further insight into his views about The Establishment’s lack of responsibility. Former Prime Minister Khan explained how key military-security figures refused to prosecute corrupt politicians like he expected they’d do in favor of blackmailing them through these means. In hindsight, it’s self-evident that they colluded with those same crooks to carry out the post-modern coup against him.
Fourth, the US has only been able to perpetuate Pakistan’s proxy role in its grand strategy through its co-opting of these same elite echelons within The Establishment. It’s unimportant in this context whether those influential elements went along with this due to their misguided views that it was supposedly in their country’s best interests or if some sort of corruption played a role in their decision-making process since the strategic significance lies in drawing attention to these “fellow travelers”.
And fifth, the post-modern regime change against former Prime Minister Khan would never have succeeded had it not been for these same elite-level Establishment figures’ collusion with corrupt politicians and their shared American patrons. The US’ enduring interests from its position as the declining unipolar hegemon will always be to manipulate other countries into becoming its proxies so there’s nothing new in that, but The Establishment can rightly be faulted for facilitating this latest plot.
Having explained the reasons why the former premier is right in extending greater blame to The Establishment for his ouster than to the US, which has always consistently been his stance despite disinformation from his opponents to the contrary as evidenced by his sarcastic description of them as “neutrals” for precisely that reason, a few words should also be shared about the potential purpose of once again clarifying his approach at this particular point in time.
The ultimately unsuccessful assassination attempt against him earlier this month that he claims was orchestrated by The Establishment’s elite echelons (and which appears to be the most obvious explanation) catapulted Pakistan to the forefront of global attention. Objective strategists inside the US would have realized that this failed plot by its proxies (irrespective of whether it was informed in advance or not) risked throwing this geostrategic country into civil unrest.
That outcome would be against their envisaged grand strategic reorientation of South Asia that they planned to complete throughout the course of indefinitely perpetuating their foreign-installed post-modern coup regime in Pakistan, hence the potential need to pragmatically recalibrate their policy in response. To that end, it’s sensible that they’d reportedly maintain some channels of communication with former Prime Minister Khan like were reported to exist in August and September.
The purpose of these speculative engagements could be to probe the sincerity of the ousted leader’s stated approach to America, which to remind the reader has always been pro-Pakistani and never anti-American as was earlier explained. If he’s assessed as being sincere and their puppet government appears to credibly be on the brink of collapse like it arguably seems to be at present in the event that the former premier’s Long March continues as expected, then they might countenance early elections.
A free and fair vote as early as possible is the only realistic pressure valve for averting seemingly inevitable civil unrest since nothing else could credibly serve to offset this trajectory, which America has an interest in averting so as to not risk losing all of its influence in Pakistan in that disastrous scenario. To be absolutely clear, this doesn’t mean that the US will indeed pressure its local compradors into complying with the people’s demands, but just that it certainly can’t be ruled out.
With this possibility in mind, the timing of former Prime Minister Khan’s latest reaffirmation of his stance towards America and The Establishment suggests that he might also be tacitly trying to advance that logical outcome by appealing to his puppet government’s patron and its public. Speculation aside, all that’s largely known for sure is that Pakistan is on the path to civil unrest in the event that the present trajectory doesn’t soon change, hence why it’s hoped that his possible outreach will succeed.