What's new

American press view of Imran Khan's victory

Yes. Do you think that IK will not be pliable to the Army? As the quote says, this is perhaps an "ideal outcome".
With respect Vcheng this is why I find your irritating. In your commentary your so loaded of this superiority and expect Pakistan to be perfect. You know my politics is heavily informed by Britain. Looked through the prism of Britain, Pakistan is a unadulterated disaster. But grinding that axe is pathetic because so is most of the world.

And every country has differant dynamic. Every country has a establishment. USA and Britain included which brings enormous pressure to bear on society including elected governments. No elected government will function very well, in fact it will even struggle to win if it is too much at variance with the establishment. For instance Jeremy Corbyn is a saint but his leftist views are way too removed far the establishment to digest. Thus Labour will never win until they get a guy who resonates more with the establishment.

In most developed countries the establishment is a very complicated mix of vested interests but in developing countries they tend to be narrower and crude. In Pakistan the core of the establishment is the military sans whom Pakistan as a state would just fall part and cease to exist. It would fracture along ethnic, tribal, sectarian lines like Libya, Syria or Iraq or even Somalia.

Theefore in the smooth running of the state a PM has to take on aboard all vested interests in his/her country or else governance would start failing. As regards the clout that depends on the leader. If he has mandate and is strong military influence will be reduced but if he is incompetent and weak military influence will increase. Time will tell how this moves forward.
 
.
Theefore in the smooth running of the state a PM has to take on aboard all vested interests in his/her country or else governance would start failing. As regards the clout that depends on the leader. If he has mandate and is strong military influence will be reduced but if he is incompetent and weak military influence will increase. Time will tell how this moves forward.

So you are agreeing that IK's election is the "ideal outcome". I agree, also.
 
.
But when respected mediums like Economist start being redictive in their reporting it begins to smack of bias. That would be like a Pakistan report citing Trump as being nothing but a hit man for the Jewish lobby and pliable to the US military/industrial complex.

So you are agreeing that IK's election is the "ideal outcome". I agree, also.
You know politics is the art of what is possible. You deal with the hand you have and not dream up of choices that do not exist. What was the other outcomes that The Economist would have considerd less pliable?

  1. Nawaz Sharif - a bastard child of Gen Zia's 1980s dictatorship that has been plundering PK for over 3 decades
  2. Bhutto - 29 year old pup of a brand Bhutto born in the womb of another military dictatorship - Gen. Ayub Khan.
  3. Altaf Hussain - mafia warlord of Karachi residing in London.

Those who complain about IK never give us a insight into alternatives. Maybe they want Maulana 'deisel' Fazlulah?
 
. .
F**K America............we don't need them. They mean nothing and are completely irrelevant to us.........AS LONG as Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state and the americans are UNABLE to destroy us like they have done to the Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians etc they will ALWAYS hate and MALIGN us.

Hey americans, White americans are dying out and being replaced by blacks and Latinos. When whites lose their power and become a minority as the projections show, america will cease to be a superpower..........:lol:........you guys need to worry about that than Pakistan and our leadership..........:lol:........Richard Spencer says "Hello".........8-)
 
.
Looks like IK's government will be short lived and we will be having martial law in 2019.
 
.
Pakistan’s Likely New Leader Could Complicate Afghan Peace Talks
Image
merlin_141760461_cbe21a98-f8b2-4b0c-a12e-18209868aa85-articleLarge.jpg

Imran Khan, the presumptive prime minister of Pakistan, has voiced past support for the Taliban’s fight in the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan and has accused the United States of recklessness in its use of drone strikes on suspected extremists in Pakistan.CreditAamir Qureshi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

By Eric Schmitt, July 31, 2018

WASHINGTON — The rise of Imran Khan, a former cricket star who is Pakistan’s likely next leader, could complicate new talks between American diplomats and the Taliban about ending the war in Afghanistan, officials said, fraying an already strained relationship between the nuclear-armed Islamic nation and the Trump administration.

Tensions between Pakistan and the United States were exacerbated in January when the Trump administration suspended nearly all American security aid to Islamabad.

But the relationship threatens to be further inflamed by Mr. Khan, who has voiced past support for the Taliban’s fight in the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan, calling it “justified.” He also has accused the United States of recklessness in its use of drone strikes on suspected extremists in Pakistan, signaling he wants them to stop.

Mr. Khan tempered his harsh anti-American language with an olive twig, if not a branch, in his victory speech last week.

American diplomats held face-to-face talks with Taliban representatives in Qatar without Afghan government officials present. It was a significant shift in American strategy toward the Taliban in Afghanistan, and analysts said Mr. Khan’s victory could now set up Pakistan to play the role of spoiler in the peace process.

“The U.S. doesn’t care much about Pakistan right now, but that issue will rise to the top,” said Shamila N. Chaudhary, a former State Department and White House official who oversaw Pakistan issues during the Obama administration.

“Khan and the Pakistani military will want Pakistan to have a very strong role in shaping Afghanistan’s future,” Ms. Chaudhary said. “I don’t think the U.S. is angling for Pakistan to have a strong role.”

Still, “the U.S. needs Pakistan’s acquiescence, if not cooperation,” said Laurel Miller, a senior foreign policy expert at the RAND Corporation, who was a top State Department official with responsibility for Afghanistan and Pakistan in both the Obama and Trump administrations.
Administration officials and independent analysts voiced doubt that Mr. Khan will have much say in the issues that currently concern Washington about Pakistan: its extremist groups and steadily growing nuclear arsenal, as well as Afghanistan.

Those are the domain of Pakistan’s powerful military and intelligence agencies, which critics say influenced the elections in Mr. Khan’s favor. Mr. Khan is still trying to gather enough support to form a majority coalition in Parliament, but the Pakistani news media is already calling him the prime minister in waiting.

“His ascension will have little impact on U.S.-Pakistani relations,” Ms. Miller said. “The situation in Afghanistan, the nuclear issues — those are tightly controlled by the military establishment.”

The State Department has responded tepidly to Mr. Khan’s apparent victory.

“The United States takes note of yesterday’s election results in Pakistan,” a State Department spokeswoman, Heather Nauert, said last week in a statement that condemned violence at polling stations and allegations of elections rigging.

Much of what kept these habitually sparring allies together over the past two decades is no longer a top priority, analysts said.

Al Qaeda is not the threat it once was in the Pakistani tribal areas along the Afghanistan border. In each of the past three years, the United States has carried out fewer than 10 drone strikes in Pakistan, down from a high of 117 in 2010, according to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Long War Journal.

complained on Twitter that Pakistan had “given us nothing but lies & deceit” and accused it of providing “safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan.”

The aid suspension underscored how quickly ties with Pakistan deteriorated after Mr. Trump took office.

But it mirrored several previous rifts between the countries over Pakistan’s role as a sanctuary for extremist groups — a role that has poisoned Islamabad’s up-and-down relations with Washington since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.

Last September, with the help of American intelligence, Pakistani commandos rescued an American woman, Caitlan Coleman; Joshua Boyle, her Canadian husband; and their three children.

But analysts and diplomats say it is more likely that Mr. Khan will move Pakistan much closer to the expanding sphere of China, a neighbor that he has praised conspicuously as a role model and that Islamabad increasingly relies on for aid to shore up its weak economy.

Last week, Mr. Khan’s party tweeted in Chinese — apparently for the first time — about “strengthening and improving” ties with China.

Whether the relationship remains in traditional diplomatic and security channels or is elevated into Mr. Trump’s realm of personal diplomacy remains unclear.

“I think Trump and Imran Khan would get along fine if they get the chance,” said Vikram Singh, a former top State and Defense department official in the Obama administration who is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

“Each country resents its ongoing dependence on the other,” Mr. Singh said, “but ultimately, the U.S. and Pakistan need to find ways to cooperate despite deep mistrust.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/31/world/asia/imran-khan-pakistan-us-afghanistan.html
 
.
I think the Economist said it better:

"This time the soldiers have in their sights their ideal outcome: a pliable leader and a minority government that will not be too powerful."

https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/07/28/imran-khans-unsportsmanlike-win-in-pakistan
how in the right mind will believe that khan is pliable leader...?

and govt by no means is weak.., PTI hold 158 seats just short of 14 seats to form a govt alone, its bigger than all other parties combined (PMLN,PPPP, MMA holds 148 seats together), the only real issue would be the upper house thats it, otherwise PTI is going to be one of most comfortable govt in decades, it will have govt in 3 provinces with opposition only in sindh, this luxury didnt even exist in PML N era!

yes the opposition is big but vastly divided which makes it meaningless...

what people fail to understand is that govt is always strong in Pakistan as the system was made as such a party that takes leads simply gains all support via indepedents and reserved seats..

so if i was the military establishment i would have fired who ever managed the votes that led to a strong single party govt

western media doesnt knows the first thing about our system, the economist cant even tell the difference between a PM and president..


all foreign pre election polls suggest the same out come, what they failed to predict was that PTI chief will cheat by wining 5 seats (boasting no. and reserved seats) and that KPK will give 2/3 majority, a feat that has never happened..this lead to 35 seats from KPK and FATA a feat which completely tilted the tide (punjab won 60 votes for PTI but has 3x more propulation)

this happened when prepolls suggested that PTI had>50% popularity with no parties even crossing 10% in KPK,
FATA inflated seats (2X) , lastly karachi was a surprise..

otherwise position else where was pretty much expected...

infact PML N won more national assembly seats in punjab that PTI did
the other factor was TLP/religious extremist which ate up PML N votes..infact PMLN lost in most areas due to this

ofcourse apart from pakistani media no one has clue of what i just wrote..infact they are writing about IK joing hands with muala(MMA)..i mean really
 
. .
What is devastating in Imran Khan's change for west in its allies...

Since the purpose of establishing Pakistan in the sight of international establishment after the disintegration of Soviat Russia was done, the international establishment wants to break Pakistan by weakening and the biggest obstacle of their path is Pakistan's strong establishment, international establishment and local establishment's cat and Mouse game is going on for three decades and now both of them have clearly came face to face with each other. Nawaz Sharif had become the pawn of international establishment, so it was imperative to take him out. With Khan's success the international establishment looking at him with a Crave sight, live coverage of Khan's victory speech by BBC and CNN is a clear example of this rage.

In the coming days, Khan will be given complete protocol in the US and West(as u can see their almost 180 degree turn in their statements and in their media like this one too indicates), and will try their level best to make Khan stand against the army and make him do this task Nawaz Sharif could not do. This will be the biggest test of Khan's personality, on one side, the international fame, power, women, money, through his children and old family living in British and on the other hand, to share power with the army. Suddenly if there is a rift in the Khan and the army, then it will be destructive for this country. May Allah put Khan and the army on same page, and make them both powerful enough to confront all the methods and tricks of international establishment and fail them like they together made them fail in the case of Iram's victory- Amin
International establishment isn't that powerful any more!!! Otherwise, nationlist leaders like Erdo'an would have been gone long time back!!! Let's wait and see Imran Khan's postures!!!! My gut feelings is that he'd be able to change Pak for better....
 
.
Previous regime changes happened with Pakistani military being bribed by US gov. The Pakistani military is in no mood to do what the US wants anymore, and Trump has all but guaranteed that US influence is going to die very very soon.
key is ''if he delivers or not.''
 
.
how in the right mind will believe that khan is pliable leader...?

Please read the quote again. It clearly uses that adjective to describe the relationship of said leader with the military, hence the "ideal outcome" for Pakistan.
 
.
I think the Economist said it better:

"This time the soldiers have in their sights their ideal outcome: a pliable leader and a minority government that will not be too powerful."

https://www.economist.com/asia/2018/07/28/imran-khans-unsportsmanlike-win-in-pakistan
Stupid claim, this is what research was quoting before elections ,,, it was all predicted, KPK belongs to PTI, and Sindh to PPP, Balochistan will be distributed and tough battle in Punjab, ,, this is all as per on ground situation ...
 
.
Stupid claim, this is what research was quoting before elections ,,, it was all predicted, KPK belongs to PTI, and Sindh to PPP, Balochistan will be distributed and tough battle in Punjab, ,, this is all as per on ground situation ...

Do you wish to assert that IK's ascension to the office of PM is not an "ideal outcome" for Pakistan, as the quote clearly says?
 
.
It's interesting seeing how the West views IK. But, we certainly should not take their words seriously. There is deep seated racism in the media that runs so deep against Pakistanis that it cannot be compared to anything else.

Their coverage of Pakistan has always been a joke. The Washington Post in specific has always been very hostile towards Muslims. Not sure why we should take a bunch of angry racist white people seriously.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom