US President Donald Trump's tweet in which he attacked Pakistan on New Year's Day seems to have thrown up a new opportunity for the beleaguered former prime minister to vent his anger. Speaking at a press conference after his much-awaited return from Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, Nawaz Sharif tried to shore up public support ahead of the elections by announcing that he would "advise" Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi to formulate a plan to ensure that "we don't need any US aid" to see to it that "such attacks are not made on our self-respect." His words are an expression of pious intentions in response to the growing popular anti-US sentiment, but the question is whether or not these can be translated into some firm actions. Unfortunately, his remarks show that he still does not fully appreciate the fact that it is not only aid that constitutes the cornerstone of a multi-faceted US-Pakistan relationship; convergence of interests on numerous strategic issues, a significant contribution of remittances from Pakistani Americans, military assistance in the shape of arms and training. The profound US influence on global lending institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, requires our policymakers to think deeper before demonstrating belligerence against the world's sole superpower and the largest economy.
At his press conference, Nawaz was visibly upset over rumours making the rounds during the absence of the Sharifs from the country, threatening to lift the curtain on "what has been happening in Islamabad for the past four years if they do not stop their propaganda." The interpretation of his remarks by some analysts was spot-on. According to them, Nawaz has clearly criticized the country's "powerful establishment." They have rightly questioned Nawaz as to whether or not his visit to Saudi Arabia had emboldened him to make such outspoken, if not outrageous, claims. He camouflaged his attack on the army by claiming that a civilian government would never have "sold itself" to the US in the post-9/11 scenario. In other words, he was insinuating that unlike the army rulers he had willingly paid a price for his decision not to become embroiled in the Yemen conflict by not committing Pakistani troops to another Middle East war theatre. Ironically, his argument recalls the response of former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the Arab Spring that had led to the removal of many autocrats in the Arab world.
Asked whether he considered the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a blunder on the part of the Bush administration because the Arab Spring would have helped remove Saddam Husain anyway, a shamed Rumsfeld answered: "May be and may not be; but you know he [Saddam] was a very brut dictator." Secondly, doesn't Mian Sahib remember anymore that he as prime minister had over-reacted to General Aslam Beg's "another Karbala is being enacted" remark that the then army chief had made in response to the US-led military coalition strikes on Iraq during the first Gulf War? How could Nawaz Sharif ignore the fact that the Mumbai attacks by non-state actors that have damaged the Indo-Pakistani relations beyond repair took place during a period of a democratically-elected civilian government? The Abbottabad incident that had led to exerting unprecedented "do more" US pressure on Pakistan also did not happen under a military rule. In a nutshell, civilian and military governments are equally responsible for the country's woes and predicaments as both sets of governments have mixed records of successes and failures. How ironic it is that a three-time elected prime minister has embarked on a path to hurt not only his party's electoral prospects but also cause unimaginable harm to the future of democracy in the country.