Dangerous Unrest in Pakistan

Military experts are watching Russia closely after Putin’s nuclear threat toward the West. Political analysts are looking eastward toward China after Xi Jinping’s unprecedented consolidation of power during last week’s National Party Congress. Few, however, are paying attention to the supercharged environment in Pakistan since April when then-Prime Minister Imran Khan was ousted in a parliamentary no-confidence vote.

He blames the United States, claiming Washington colluded with Pakistan’s Army to remove him from office. When he demanded the new government step down, it responded by cracking down on Khan and those attending his expansive rallies. A week ago, the Pakistan Election Commission found Khan guilty of corrupt practices and barred him from politics. The charge was that he allegedly failed to disclose money he received from gifts sold that were given to him by foreign dignitaries.

“Two days later, Arshad Sharif, one of Pakistan’s most prominent journalists, was killed” by police in a case of mistaken identity in Nairobi, according to Reuters. “These developments not only threaten to intensify Pakistan’s political polarization, but they also increase the uncertainty swirling around its immediate political future,” according to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Affairs. Although Khan acknowledges his opponents had a political motivation, there is less certainty about the length of time he is disqualified from the political arena.

One High Court judge in Islamabad stated the punishment only extends over the present parliamentary term ending in fall 2023. If this is determined to be accurate, Khan would be free to run in Pakistan’s next national elections. Sharif’s death hit the nation hard. He was known to be close to Khan. Kugelman points out that he also supported the military until he lost his position at ARY News this summer after allegedly criticizing the military on social media. There is widespread speculation the current Pakistan government was involved in the killing with Kenyan authorities.

Pakistan has a history of assassinating Pakistani trust in the security institutions in the country has dramatically decreased recently while support for Khan is growing among his popular base. Despite the government offering to investigate the killing, few are satisfied that Islamabad will find the answer. This week Khan announced a modern “long march” of over 235 miles from Lahore to Islamabad, with supporters scheduled to arrive in the capital next Friday, November 4. They are demanding early elections. The government, fearing a loss, has rejected new elections. The big question remaining is how the government will react to the protesters once they reach the capital. In the past, Khan backed down when the government threatened a crack down. There are concerns he may not back down next week.

Kugelman says that in an extraordinary press conference on Thursday, “Pakistan’s army spokesperson and spy chief both denied many of Khan’s allegations about the military and the US government colluding in his ouster.” Analysts see this as an indication that the government will take a hard line when Khan and supporters arrive. Further confusing politics is Army Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa’s decision not to seek another term next month in what is essentially the government’s most powerful position. The current government has yet to announce who will replace him, although it is unlikely to be a Khan supporter. Kugelman says the political atmosphere lately has the nation on edge.

The country already is suffering from high inflation with millions still in need of help from catastrophic flooding earlier this year. Pakistan is reeling from one problem to another, making it a hotbed for instability in the region. According to the Economic Times, on October 21, Khan announced he will remain “silent” as he does not want to “damage” the country and its institutions.

The question remaining is whether his statement is enough to keep a lid on potentially explosive violence in the capital once he and his supporters arrive. Khan says that although the government failed to protect protesters on May 25, his march will be peaceful and not enter the high security “red zone” in the capital. The government has yet to confirm its position on the march although Interior Minister Rana Sanaullah did tell reporters in Islamabad this week that if anyone is out of order the government plans to respond with an “iron hand.”

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.