Khan’s rhetoric has become more anti-American and he expressed a desire to move closer to China and, recently, Russia – including talks with President Vladimir Putin on the day the invasion of Ukraine began. US and Asian foreign policy experts said that Pakistan’s powerful military has traditionally controlled foreign and defence policy, thereby limiting the impact of political instability. Pakistani political developments are largely irrelevant for the US,” said Curtis, who served as former US President Donald Trump’s National Security Council senior director for South Asia.
She added that Khan’s visit to Moscow had been a “disaster” in terms of US relations, and that a new government in Islamabad could at least help mend ties “to some degree”.
This week, the rupee fell to historic lows against the US dollar and the State Bank of Pakistan sharply increased interest rates in an emergency meeting.
In February, as opposition momentum against Khan built, the prime minister announced a cut in domestic fuel and electricity prices despite a global rise, pledging to freeze prices until the end of the fiscal year in June“Part of it was the situation they inherited from the previous government and part of it was of course COVID,” said Shahrukh Wani, an economist at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. “But the government fell quickly into firefighting and reforms were never taken up.
With Khan’s exit confirmed, former allies are increasingly candid about the third rail of Pakistani politics: civil-military relations.
The prime minister’s parliamentary support began to dissolve when the military signalled it would not side with Khan against the opposition, a policy of so-called neutrality.
Khan is the latest in a long line of Pakistani prime ministers who have fallen out with the military over key appointments and foreign policy.
According to a news reprot in Aljazera,’In October, simmering civil-military tensions exploded in public view when Khan tried to retain Lieutenant-General Faiz Hameed as the military spy chief, rejecting the nominee of army chief General Qamar Bajwa. General Bajwa’s nominee, Lieutenant-General Nadeem Anjum, was eventually appointed as the new director general of Inter-Services Intelligence, but the weeks-long standoff was bruising and ominous.General Bajwa’s second term as army chief will end in November, with General Hameed one of the senior-most generals eligible to replace him. The Pakistani prime minister appoints the army chief.’
Extraordinary, too, was Khan’s attempt to recast ties with the US, Pakistan’s largest trading partner and a fractious ally that the military has sought to maintain as an important partner.
In February, in pursuit of what Khan described as a neutral foreign policy, Khan travelled to Russia seeking trade deals on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. He left with only a handshake from Russian President Vladimir Putin hours after the attack began on February 24.
While the Pakistani military backed Khan’s Moscow trip, differences intensified after Khan made a high-stakes domestic pivot. Faced with defeat in the no-confidence vote in parliament, Khan alleged a US-led plot to remove him as punishment for his Russia trip and neutral foreign policy.
As evidence of the plot, Khan waved a letter in a public rally in Islamabad on March 27, claiming the US had delivered a diplomatic warning to Pakistan to remove him as prime minister.
The diplomatic missive, the alleged US threat, and Khan’s claim that the no-confidence was part of a US-led conspiracy roiled Pakistani politics and civil-military relations.
Retired Major-General Athar Abbas, a former military spokesperson and Pakistan’s Ambassador to Ukraine from 2015 to 2018, said: “The letter warranted a strong response and corrective measures. Response [in the military] is mixed on whether it should have been used to meddle with the vote of no confidence.”
General Abbas also described a number of differences between Khan and the military leadership that had accumulated over Khan’s time in office, including poor political and economic management by Khan that was acting as a drag on the military’s public image.
On Khan’s opposition to military operations inside Pakistan and US-led wars internationally since the September 11 attacks, General Abbas said: “PM’s position on war on terror is that we fought America’s war and suffered loss of men and material. Military’s view was that it was the fallout of the Afghan war and we had no choice.
“Pressure on military leadership is if it was America’s war, then all the sacrifices of young officers and soldiers were a waste,” Abbas said.
Another retired military official, Air Vice-Marshal Shahzad Chaudhry, suggested the tensions with the military also concerned Khan’s style of governing.
“On policy matters, Khan could be mercurial. There was no predictability or stability. Imran Khan is a populist, that’s his vulnerability too.”
Defeated inside parliament and undone outside, Khan though is unlikely to be a spent force politically. The cyclical nature of Pakistani politics has seen former prime ministers rebound before.
Khan also has the advantage of clawing his way back to power from a fertile political base.
Chan, the former special assistant to the prime minister, said, “A month ago, people were abusing [Khan and the PTI government] for inflation.
“Now, they say he’s stood up for a proud and independent Pakistan.”
The diplomatic missive, the alleged US threat, and Khan’s claim that the no-confidence was part of a US-led conspiracy roiled Pakistani politics and civil-military relations.
