The US President is still smarting from the Republicans’ losses in the recent midterms. The Democrats’ taking back control of the House of Representatives may have two direct consequences for Trump. One, it will gum up whatever limited legislative agenda the White House has. And two, Democrats will raise the specter of made-for-TV investigations into Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia in 2016 elections.
All of which will serve to focus Trump’s attention – or his ‘fire and fury’ – on foreign affairs. History has shown that several American presidents, who were rendered lame-duck at home thanks to midterm losses, went on to carve out some foreign legacies in the remainder of their electoral term. In Trump’s case, the legacy thus far has been attempts to tear up the post-war global, multilateral order. In Trump’s case, one can expect more of that soft destruction instead of creation of a tangible legacy abroad.
An unrestrained Trump abroad is not good news for Pakistan, or for other countries like China that find themselves in the eye of the storm. In that context, earlier this week, it was perhaps unwise for Pakistan’s premier to take on Trump’s baseless accusations so directly when a federal minister would have done the trick. A tough response sells among the Pakistani public, but there are several reasons why a measured response – which the Pakistani state had adopted since Trump took office – was better this time, too.
First, Trump’s tirade against Pakistan wasn’t a policy statement per se. Those words sounded more like a by-the-way comment made in response to an unrelated question in a long interview. Second, there was nothing in Trump’s comment that he had alleged but not responded to by Pakistan before. Third, Pakistan mustn’t feel indignant at being the object of Trump’s ire – close US allies such as France, Germany, Canada and Britain have all fared worse under Trump. But those countries ignore him and get on with it.
And the fourth, but foremost, reason why it was advisable to not engage Trump in a war of words, albeit indirectly, is that it can paint Pakistan and the US into a tight corner at a time when both countries need to work together. For Pakistan, it would be better to keep the US on its side so that it does not meddle in Pakistan’s requests and reviews at multilateral bodies like the IMF and the FATF.
As for the US, it needs Pakistan’s help in winding up its Afghan adventure next door. Kabul is descending into chaos by the day, despite the relatively beefed-up presence of the US-led coalition forces there. It appears that Trump requires a face-saving exit from Afghanistan before his re-election in 2020. But Trump will be Trump – he will continue to say hurtful things no matter the consequences.
Pakistan has more to lose in case Trump raises the rhetoric. Better, then, for Pakistani leadership to ignore the mercurial president’s occasional outbursts and work with the saner minds in the US to secure the country’s interests.
Doing so cannot be called ‘appeasement’, as some have suggested – it’s simply buying some time and breathing space to get the economic house in order.
Comments
Comments are closed.