On 9/11 (11 September 2001) Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, launched four co-ordinated terrorist attacks on the United States of America killing 2996 people and injuring more than 6000; as well as causing considerable destruction to Lower Manhattan and the Pentagon. Fifteen years later on the inverted date - 11/9 (9 November 2016) which no doubt our fake pirs (spiritual guides) and Satanists may have a field day interpreting - Donald Trump was declared victorious due to strategic (electoral) votes cast in his favour.
This week past the victory of Donald Trump in the US elections dominated not only the US media but media the world over and Pakistani media was no exception. Our political reporters/pundits who had travelled all the way to the US were no less wrong than the US pollsters and analysts though they were a lot less apologetic than their US counterparts. On a facetious note I mention three who correctly predicted a Trump win: (i) Geda (meaning goose bumps), a mystic money resident in Changsha, China, regularly used to predict soccer results prophesised a Trump win. He was dressed in a yellow t-shirt shirt and given a choice of selecting bananas placed in front of a life sized cardboard cut-out of Trump and Clinton; (ii) Chanakya II, a fish in India, known for correctly predicting World Cup (cricket) win, was given two feed sticks with Clinton and Trump photographs and it swam towards Trump's photograph; and (iii) Allan Lichtman, an American University professor, like the monkey and the fish, did not rely on polls, demographics or swing states to predict who would win the elections but unlike the two non-human seers, relied on 13 elements to make his prediction - elements that have enabled him to correctly predict who will win the elections since 1984.
While the US media is leading a debate on how it got it so wrong based on polls that also got it so wrong yet the world is shocked to see spontaneous protests against the Trump win in several states. In true Trump style he tweeted: "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!" While Trump's victory is hard to stomach for thousands of protesting Americans yet it has been accepted graciously by his opponent Secretary Clinton. Indeed the results are not in doubt and, in all fairness to the President elect, US mainstream media was almost vituperative in its dismissal of his candidacy, though one has to acknowledge that Trump did provide much ammunition; however his latest tweet may exacerbate rather than ease relations between the two.
For Pakistan, a country embroiled in a war on terror post 9/11, courtesy the ultimatum given by his Republican predecessor George Bush 'you are either with us or against us' any new US administration raises concerns about implications on our economy (the amount of financial assistance and trade), on the military (supply of hardware/training/other support) and its position with respect to our neighbours - India and Afghanistan. In this context it was disturbing to note that a Trump win was followed by a congratulatory letter written by the Prime Minister (in contrast the Indian Prime Minister called Trump personally to congratulate him) while he remained focused on domestic politics. Fatemi (a retired bureaucrat resurrected into a position of relevance by his benefactor Nawaz Sharif) stated on television that the government is carefully studying what effect a Trump presidency would have on Pakistan, rather late in the day, and that the embassy staff has been asked to become close to those around Trump, one wonders if those close to him in elections would also be crucial members of his administration given that Chris Christi has been replaced by his vice president as the head of the transition team though he could be given a cabinet position.
So what has Trump said as a presidential candidate in relation to Pakistan that maybe a source of concern; "When will Pakistan apologise to us for providing a safe sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden for 6 years?! Some ally." On mediating on Kashmir he stated: "If we could get India and Pakistan getting along, I would be honoured to do that. That would be a tremendous achievement... I think if they wanted me to, I would love to be the mediator or arbitrator." But he also stated that "people with roots in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia pose threat to US" and "Pakistan is a very vital problem and really vital country for us because they have nuclear weapons and they have to get a hold of the situation." However perhaps most disturbing of all at an event sponsored by Republican Hindu Coalition he stated "If I'm elected president, the Indian and Hindu community will have a true friend in the White House, that I can guarantee you... We will defeat radical 'Islamic terrorism' when I'm president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually." These are disturbing statements from Pakistan's perspective however there is a big difference between a presidential candidate and a president-elect and there is little doubt that his actions as president would be tempered by the briefings/advice he gets from relevant US bureaucrats on the subject.
I too was wrong in projecting a Clinton win but in my defence I would like to state that I neither publicly commented on the likely winner in the US elections nor do I hold any public office which necessitates my taking appropriate action prior to or after the results of the US elections. In our media's defence one would be tempted to point out that it was ill-prepared to cover the US elections mainly because the focus till 1 November was on the lockdown call by Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan and, once he announced that the call for the lockdown was replaced by a call for thanksgiving there was a frantic scramble to procure a US visa by the media representatives.
Pakistanis were more concerned with Imran Khan's claims that his party's efforts succeeded in getting the apex court mobilised on investigating the Panama papers starting from the Prime Minister. To determine whether his claim has any merit the following sequence of events needs to be highlighted: (i) 30 August 2016 the Registrar of the apex court turned down the petitions seeking the Prime Minister and close family members disqualification on the grounds that it was frivolous and the petitioner had not approached the high court in the matter; (ii) 27 September the objections of the Registrar were removed and on an appeal the apex court admitted the petitions; (iii) 20 October notices were issued to all parties for a hearing two weeks later; and (iv) November 1 (one day prior to the scheduled lock down) the hearing took place. The sequence of events led some of our political pundits to maintain that the timing reflected non-political forces coming together to avert a political crisis while others argued that the timing was simply fortuitous. Whichever view one may lean towards our political leaders remained focused on domestic politics. The Prime Minister was in Sanghar this week past where he did what is by now the usual: a harangue against his political opponents and the announcement of sweeteners (gas connections, road connections in the area) at the expense of the taxpayers. Imran Khan remained focused on the Supreme Court proceedings and whenever he was interviewed he challenged the Prime Minister's moral credentials, and those of his darbaris (courtiers) and for good measure those of other party leaders as well; and Asif Ali Zardari is still out of the country for more than a year.