AN ROINN STÀITEACH U.S brosnachadh riaghaltas Pacastan ann an coinneamh air 7 Màrt 2022, gus Imran Khan a thoirt air falbh mar phrìomhaire a thaobh cho neo-phàirteachd a thaobh ionnsaigh na Ruis air an Úcráin, a rèir sgrìobhainn seòrsaichte riaghaltas Pacastan a fhuair The Intercept.
Tha a’ choinneamh, eadar tosgaire Pacastan dha na Stàitean Aonaichte agus dà oifigear bho Roinn na Stàite, air a bhith na chuspair air sgrùdadh dian, connspaid agus beachdachadh ann am Pacastan thairis air a’ bhliadhna gu leth a dh’ fhalbh, fhad ‘s a bha luchd-taic Khan agus an luchd-dùbhlain armachd is sìobhalta aige a’ magadh airson cumhachd. Mheudaich an strì phoilitigeach air 5 Lùnastal nuair a chaidh Khan a chuir gu trì bliadhna sa phrìosan air cosgaisean coirbeachd agus a chuir an grèim airson an dàrna turas bho chaidh a chuir a-mach. Tha luchd-dìon Khan a’ cur às do na casaidean mar gun stèidh. Tha an t-seantans cuideachd a’ cur casg air Khan, an neach-poilitigs as mòr-chòrdte ann am Pacastan, bho bhith a’ strì airson taghaidhean ris a bheil dùil ann am Pacastan nas fhaide air adhart am-bliadhna.
Aon mhìos às deidh na coinneimh le oifigearan na SA a chaidh a chlàradh ann an sgrìobhainn riaghaltas Pacastan a chaidh a leigeil ma sgaoil, chaidh bhòt gun mhisneachd a chumail sa Phàrlamaid, a lean gu Khan a thoirt air falbh bho chumhachd. Thathas a’ creidsinn gun deach a’ bhòt a chuir air dòigh le taic bho armachd chumhachdach Phacastan. Bhon àm sin, tha Khan agus a luchd-taic air a bhith an sàs ann an strì leis an arm agus a charaidean sìobhalta, a tha Khan ag ràdh gun tug e air falbh e bho chumhachd air iarrtas bho na SA.
Cha deach teacsa càball Pacastan, a chaidh a thoirt a-mach bhon choinneamh leis an tosgaire agus a chuir gu Pacastan, fhoillseachadh roimhe seo. Tha an càball, ris an canar "cypher" air an taobh a-staigh, a’ nochdadh an dà chuid na currain agus na maidean a chuir Roinn na Stàite a-steach san oidhirp aca an-aghaidh Khan, a’ gealltainn dàimhean nas blàithe nan deidheadh Khan a thoirt air falbh, agus aonaranachd mura robh e.
Tha an sgrìobhainn, leis an ainm “Secret”, a’ toirt a-steach cunntas air a’ choinneamh eadar oifigearan Roinn na Stàite, a’ toirt a-steach Leas-Rùnaire na Stàite airson Biùro Cùisean Àisianach a Deas agus Meadhan Àisianach Dòmhnall Lu, agus Asad Majeed Khan, a bha aig an àm na thosgaire aig Pacastan don bhuidheann. U.S.
Chaidh an sgrìobhainn a thoirt don Intercept le stòr gun urra ann an armachd Pacastan a thuirt nach robh ceangal sam bith aca ri Imran Khan no pàrtaidh Khan. Tha an Intercept a’ foillseachadh corp a’ chàball gu h-ìosal, a’ ceartachadh clò-bhualaidhean beaga san teacsa oir faodar mion-fhiosrachadh mar sin a chleachdadh airson sgrìobhainnean comharra-uisge agus lean an sgaoileadh.
Tha susbaint na sgrìobhainn a fhuair The Intercept co-chòrdail ri aithris ann am pàipear-naidheachd Pakistani Dawn agus ann an àiteachan eile a’ toirt cunntas air suidheachadh na coinneimh agus mion-fhiosrachadh sa chàball fhèin, a’ gabhail a-steach na comharran seòrsachaidh a chaidh fhàgail a-mach à taisbeanadh The Intercept. Chaidh daineamaigs a’ chàirdeis eadar Pacastan agus na SA a chaidh a mhìneachadh sa chàball a dhearbhadh às deidh sin le tachartasan. Anns a’ chàball, tha na SA a’ cur an aghaidh poileasaidh cèin Khan air cogadh san Úcráin. Chaidh na dreuchdan sin a thionndadh air ais gu sgiobalta às deidh dha a thoirt air falbh, agus chaidh sin a leantainn, mar a chaidh a ghealltainn aig a’ choinneimh, le blàthachadh eadar na SA agus Pacastan.
Thàinig a ’choinneamh dioplòmasach dà sheachdain às deidh ionnsaigh na Ruis air an Úcráin, a chuir air bhog fhad‘ s a bha Khan air an t-slighe gu Moscow, turas a chuir dragh air Washington.
Air 2 Màrt, dìreach làithean ron choinneimh, chaidh Lu a cheasnachadh aig èisteachd Comataidh Dàimhean Cèin an t-Seanaidh mu neo-phàirteachd nan Innseachan, Sri Lanka, agus Pacastan ann an còmhstri na h-Ucrain. Mar fhreagairt do cheist bhon t-Seanadh Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Mu cho-dhùnadh o chionn ghoirid le Pacastan gun a bhith a’ seachnadh rùn bho na Dùthchannan Aonaichte a’ càineadh àite na Ruis anns a’ chòmhstri, thuirt Lu, “Thadhail am Prìomhaire Khan air Moscow o chionn ghoirid, agus mar sin tha mi a’ smaoineachadh gu bheil sinn a’ feuchainn ri faighinn a-mach ciamar a thèid sinn an sàs gu sònraichte leis a’ Phrìomhaire às deidh a’ cho-dhùnadh sin.” Bha e coltach gu robh Van Hollen tàmailteach nach robh oifigearan bho Roinn na Stàite a’ conaltradh ri Khan mun chùis.
An latha ron choinneimh, bhruidhinn Khan ri cruinneachadh agus freagairt gu dìreach ri fiosan Eòrpach a bhios Pacastan a’ cruinneachadh air cùl na h-Ucrain. “An sinne do thràillean?” Khan tàirneanach do'n t-sluagh. “Dè do bheachd oirnn? gur sinne do thràillean agus gun dèan sinn rud sam bith a dh'iarras tu oirnn?" dh'fhaighnich e. “Tha sinn nar caraidean don Ruis, agus tha sinn cuideachd nan caraidean dha na Stàitean Aonaichte. Tha sinn nar caraidean de Shìona agus an Roinn Eòrpa. Chan eil sinn nar pàirt de chaidreachas sam bith.”
“Measadh” Pakistani
Thog beachdan maol Lu air poilitigs dachaigheil a-staigh Phacastan rabhaidhean air taobh Pacastan. Ann an earrann ghoirid “measadh” aig bonn na h-aithisg, tha an sgrìobhainn ag ràdh: “Cha b’ urrainn dha Don a bhith air a leithid de dhearbhadh làidir a chuir an cèill gun chead soilleir bhon Taigh Gheal, air an do bhruidhinn e a-rithist. Gu soilleir, bhruidhinn Don a-mach às a chèile air pròiseas poilitigeach taobh a-staigh Phacastan. ” Tha an càball a’ tighinn gu crìch le moladh “a bhith a’ meòrachadh gu mòr air seo agus a ’beachdachadh air gluasad iomchaidh a dhèanamh gu Cd’ A ai na SA ann an Islamabad ”- iomradh air a’ chargé d’affaires ad eadar-amail, gu h-èifeachdach mar cheannard an gnìomh misean dioplòmasach nuair a bhios e. chan eil ceann barrantaichte. Bha gearan dioplòmasach ann nas fhaide air adhart le riaghaltas Khan.
Air 27 Màrt 2022, an aon mhìos ri coinneamh Lu, bhruidhinn Khan gu poblach mun chàball, a ’crathadh leth-bhreac fillte dheth san adhar aig cruinneachadh. Thuirt e cuideachd gun tug e fiosrachadh do choinneamh tèarainteachd nàiseanta le ceannardan diofar bhuidhnean tèarainteachd Phacastan mu na bha ann.
Chan eil e soilleir dè thachair ann am Pacastan-SA conaltradh anns na seachdainean an dèidh na coinneimh a chaidh aithris sa chàball. Ron ath mhìos, ge-tà, bha na gaothan poilitigeach air gluasad. Air 10 Giblean, chaidh Khan a chuir a-mach ann am bhòt gun mhisneachd.
Dhaingnich am Prìomhaire ùr, Shehbaz Sharif, mu dheireadh an a bheil an càball ann agus dh'aidich e gu robh cuid den teachdaireachd a chuir Lu seachad neo-iomchaidh. Tha e air a ràdh gu robh Pacastan air gearan foirmeil a dhèanamh ach thug e rabhadh nach do dhearbh an càball tagraidhean Khan san fharsaingeachd.
Tha Khan air moladh a-rithist gu poblach gun do sheall an càball àrd-dhìomhair gu robh na SA air stiùireadh a thoirt air falbh bho chumhachd, ach às deidh sin ath-sgrùdadh air a mheasadh agus e a’ cur ìmpidh air na SA ana-cleachdadh chòraichean daonna a chàineadh an aghaidh an luchd-taic aige. Na SA, thuirt e ris The Intercept ann an agallamh san Ògmhios, is dòcha gun do chuir e ìmpidh air an ouster aige, ach rinn e sin a-mhàin leis gun deach a làimhseachadh leis an arm.
Leigidh foillseachadh làn chorp a’ chàball, còrr air bliadhna às deidh Khan a bhith air a chuir a-mach agus às deidh a chur an grèim, mu dheireadh gun tèid na tagraidhean farpaiseach a mheasadh. Gu h-iomlan, tha teacsa an cypher a’ moladh gu làidir gun do bhrosnaich na SA gun deach Khan a thoirt air falbh. A rèir a ’chàball, ged nach do dh’ òrduich Lu gu dìreach Khan a thoirt a-mach às an dreuchd, thuirt e gum biodh Pacastan a ’fulang droch bhuaidhean, a’ toirt a-steach aonaranachd eadar-nàiseanta, nam biodh Khan a ’fuireach mar phrìomhaire, agus aig an aon àm a’ toirt iomradh air duaisean airson a thoirt air falbh. . Tha e coltach gun deach na beachdan a ghabhail mar chomharradh airson armachd Phacastan a chuir an gnìomh.
A bharrachd air na duilgheadasan laghail eile aige, tha Khan fhèin air a bhith ag amas air mar a làimhsicheas an riaghaltas ùr an càball dìomhair. Aig deireadh na mìos a chaidh, thuirt Ministear an Taobh a-staigh Rana Sanaullah gun deidheadh Khan a chasaid fo Achd Dìomhaireachd Oifigeil co-cheangailte ris a’ chàball. “Tha Khan air co-fheall a chuir an-aghaidh ùidhean na stàite agus thèid cùis a thòiseachadh na aghaidh às leth na stàite airson a bhith a’ briseadh Achd nan Dìomhaireachd Oifigeil le bhith a ’nochdadh conaltradh dìomhair dìomhair bho mhisean dioplòmasach," Thuirt Sanullah.
Tha Khan a-nis air a dhol còmhla ri liosta fhada de luchd-poilitigs à Pacastan nach do chrìochnaich an teirm aca san dreuchd às deidh dhaibh a bhith a’ ruith às an arm. Mar a chaidh ainmeachadh anns an cypher, bha na SA a’ cur a’ choire gu pearsanta air Khan, a rèir Lu, airson poileasaidh neo-thaobhadh Phacastan aig àm còmhstri na h-Ucrain. Bha a’ bhòt gun mhisneachd agus a’ bhuaidh a bhios aige air na ceanglaichean eadar na SA agus Pacastan san àm ri teachd gu mòr tron chòmhradh.
“Gu h-onarach,” thathar ag ràdh gu bheil Lu ag ràdh anns an sgrìobhainn, a’ toirt iomradh air an dùil gum fuirich Khan san dreuchd, “Tha mi a’ smaoineachadh gum fàs aonaranachd a ’Phrìomhaire gu math làidir bhon Roinn Eòrpa agus na Stàitean Aonaichte.”
7 Màrt, 2022 Cypher dioplòmasach Pacastan (Tar-sgrìobhadh)
Tha an Intercept a’ foillseachadh corp a’ chàball gu h-ìosal, a’ ceartachadh clò-bhualaidhean beaga san teacsa oir faodar mion-fhiosrachadh mar sin a chleachdadh airson sgrìobhainnean comharra-uisge agus lean an sgaoileadh. Tha an Intercept air comharran seòrsachaidh agus eileamaidean àireamhach a thoirt air falbh a dh’ fhaodadh a bhith air an cleachdadh airson adhbharan tracadh. Leis an ainmeachadh “Secret”, tha an càball a’ toirt a-steach cunntas air a’ choinneamh eadar oifigearan Roinn na Stàite, a’ toirt a-steach Leas-rùnaire na Stàite airson Biùro Cùisean Àisianach a Deas agus Meadhan Àisianach Dòmhnall Lu, agus Asad Majeed Khan, a bha aig an àm na thosgaire aig Pacastan dha na SA.
I had a luncheon meeting today with Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu. He was accompanied by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Les Viguerie. DCM, DA and Counsellor Qasim joined me.
At the outset, Don referred to Pakistan’s position on the Ukraine crisis and said that “people here and in Europe are quite concerned about why Pakistan is taking such an aggressively neutral position (on Ukraine), if such a position is even possible. It does not seem such a neutral stand to us.” He shared that in his discussions with the NSC, “it seems quite clear that this is the Prime Minister’s policy.” He continued that he was of the view that this was “tied to the current political dramas in Islamabad that he (Prime Minister) needs and is trying to show a public face.” I replied that this was not a correct reading of the situation as Pakistan’s position on Ukraine was a result of intense interagency consultations. Pakistan had never resorted to conducting diplomacy in public sphere. The Prime Minister’s remarks during a political rally were in reaction to the public letter by European Ambassadors in Islamabad which was against diplomatic etiquette and protocol. Any political leader, whether in Pakistan or the U.S., would be constrained to give a public reply in such a situation.
I asked Don if the reason for a strong U.S. reaction was Pakistan’s abstention in the voting in the UNGA. He categorically replied in the negative and said that it was due to the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow. He said that “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister. Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.” He paused and then said “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar.” He then said that “honestly I think isolation of the Prime Minister will become very strong from Europe and the United States.” Don further commented that it seemed that the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow was planned during the Beijing Olympics and there was an attempt by the Prime Minister to meet Putin which was not successful and then this idea was hatched that he would go to Moscow.
I told Don that this was a completely misinformed and wrong perception. The visit to Moscow had been in the works for at least few years and was the result of a deliberative institutional process. I stressed that when the Prime Minister was flying to Moscow, Russian invasion of Ukraine had not started and there was still hope for a peaceful resolution. I also pointed out that leaders of European countries were also traveling to Moscow around the same time. Don interjected that “those visits were specifically for seeking resolution of the Ukraine standoff while the Prime Minister’s visit was for bilateral economic reasons.” I drew his attention to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly regretted the situation while being in Moscow and had hoped for diplomacy to work. The Prime Minister’s visit, I stressed, was purely in the bilateral context and should not be seen either as a condonation or endorsement of Russia’s action against Ukraine. I said that our position is dictated by our desire to keep the channels of communication with all sides open. Our subsequent statements at the UN and by our Spokesperson spelled that out clearly, while reaffirming our commitment to the principle of UN Charter, non-use or threat of use of force, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, and pacific settlement of disputes.
I also told Don that Pakistan was worried of how the Ukraine crisis would play out in the context of Afghanistan. We had paid a very high price due to the long-term impact of this conflict. Our priority was to have peace and stability in Afghanistan, for which it was imperative to have cooperation and coordination with all major powers, including Russia. From this perspective as well, keeping the channels of communication open was essential. This factor was also dictating our position on the Ukraine crisis. On my reference to the upcoming Extended Troika meeting in Beijing, Don replied that there were still ongoing discussions in Washington on whether the U.S. should attend the Extended Troika meeting or the upcoming Antalya meeting on Afghanistan with Russian representatives in attendance, as the U.S. focus right now was to discuss only Ukraine with Russia. I replied that this was exactly what we were afraid of. We did not want the Ukraine crisis to divert focus away from Afghanistan. Don did not comment.
I told Don that just like him, I would also convey our perspective in a forthright manner. I said that over the past one year, we had been consistently sensing reluctance on the part of the U.S. leadership to engage with our leadership. This reluctance had created a perception in Pakistan that we were being ignored and even taken for granted. There was also a feeling that while the U.S. expected Pakistan’s support on all issues that were important to the U.S., it did not reciprocate and we do not see much U.S. support on issues of concern for Pakistan, particularly on Kashmir. I said that it was extremely important to have functioning channels of communication at the highest level to remove such perception. I also said that we were surprised that if our position on the Ukraine crisis was so important for the U.S., why the U.S. had not engaged with us at the top leadership level prior to the Moscow visit and even when the UN was scheduled to vote. (The State Department had raised it at the DCM level.) Pakistan valued continued high-level engagement and for this reason the Foreign Minister sought to speak with Secretary Blinken to personally explain Pakistan’s position and perspective on the Ukraine crisis. The call has not materialized yet. Don replied that the thinking in Washington was that given the current political turmoil in Pakistan, this was not the right time for such engagement and it could wait till the political situation in Pakistan settled down.
I reiterated our position that countries should not be made to choose sides in a complex situation like the Ukraine crisis and stressed the need for having active bilateral communications at the political leadership level. Don replied that “you have conveyed your position clearly and I will take it back to my leadership.”
I also told Don that we had seen his defence of the Indian position on the Ukraine crisis during the recently held Senate Sub-Committee hearing on U.S.-India relations. It seemed that the U.S. was applying different criteria for India and Pakistan. Don responded that the U.S. lawmakers’ strong feelings about India’s abstentions in the UNSC and UNGA came out clearly during the hearing. I said that from the hearing, it appeared that the U.S. expected more from India than Pakistan, yet it appeared to be more concerned about Pakistan’s position. Don was evasive and responded that Washington looked at the U.S.-India relationship very much through the lens of what was happening in China. He added that while India had a close relationship with Moscow, “I think we will actually see a change in India’s policy once all Indian students are out of Ukraine.”
I expressed the hope that the issue of the Prime Minister’s visit to Russia will not impact our bilateral ties. Don replied that “I would argue that it has already created a dent in the relationship from our perspective. Let us wait for a few days to see whether the political situation changes, which would mean that we would not have a big disagreement about this issue and the dent would go away very quickly. Otherwise, we will have to confront this issue head on and decide how to manage it.”
We also discussed Afghanistan and other issues pertaining to bilateral ties. A separate communication follows on that part of our conversation.
Assessment
Don could not have conveyed such a strong demarche without the express approval of the White House, to which he referred repeatedly. Clearly, Don spoke out of turn on Pakistan’s internal political process. We need to seriously reflect on this and consider making an appropriate demarche to the U.S. Cd’ A a.i in Islamabad.
Tha ZNetwork air a mhaoineachadh a-mhàin tro fhialaidheachd an luchd-leughaidh.
Tabhartasan