Is Pompeo Turning Trump Against Pakistan to Target China?

Secretary Pompeo's salvo against China and Pakistan will likely further harden Beijing’s resolve in preserving its alliance with Pakistan at all costs.

Posted on 03/19/19
By Imtiaz Gul | Via CRSS
(Photo courtesy U.S. Dept of State: South and Central Asia, CC license)

Former US spymaster Mike Pompeo is back to CIA’s dated song on Pakistan. In a radio interview, Pompeo listed terrorism and the possible proliferation of Islamabad’s nuclear program among the five big issues that presented a threat to the American security.


“Whether it’s the threat that we’ve talked about today from China, the nuclear proliferation risk that extends from Pakistan, through all those folks who have these weapon systems – places like North Korea where they can sell these weapon……” said Secretary of State Pompeo. He also listed China among the biggest threats.


In the same breath, Pompeo blamed Pakistan for providing safe havens to terrorists, adding that “no other administration but the current administration had taken some action against Pakistan on the issue.”


Is Pompeo out to ‘trump’ and sabotage his president’s ambitious plan of political reconciliation in Afghanistan? And is he trying to turn his president against Pakistan? If yes, what could be possible motives behind such an attempt?


Unsurprisingly, in a reference to the Feb 14 Pulwama terror incident, Pompeo said that the recent conflict between Pakistan and India “was initiated because of cross-border terrorism.”


How else would you describe such posturing; if not self-righteously strident? This implies that “old narratives die hard” and officials pull them out as and when they deem fit.


Does this not, by implication, lend credence to the theory that “hawks” in Pakistan describe as the US “geo-political agenda” aimed at countries such as Iran and Pakistan?


How does the perceived proliferation of Pakistan’s nuclear program represent a direct threat to the American security? Or what terrorist havens is he talking about?


Does this include the terrorist and militant havens run by the Taliban, who are currently directly talking to the US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad? Or is one right in assuming that the US establishment stokes unrest and imposes wars across the world, and follows up with economic sanctions only to feed and fatten its military industrial complex?


Who will believe Pompeo’s narrative when it has become evident that the world currently is divided along two major geopolitical blocs; the US-led bloc comprising major NATO members plus India pitched against the China-led bloc comprising Russia, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan.


The real target is China and the obvious attempt is to cut and bruise its periphery; especially Pakistan. The western bloc has consequently indulged in a relentless campaign against China’s handling of its Muslim population in the western Xinjiang province.


It also suspects that the western powers use soft bellies i.e. border territories in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran for support to anti-state terrorist outfits operating not only in these countries but also in China.


The latest salvo against China and Pakistan will likely further harden Beijing’s resolve in not only preserving its alliance with Pakistan at all costs, but also more vigorously pursue its counter-terror and Muslim-mainstreaming policies in Xinjiang.


The author is Executive Director, CRSS

This article was first published in CRSS. Click here to go to the original.

Views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the ViewsWeek.

Check Also

Book Review: The Tribal Pakhtun as ‘Fixer’

Going by the warlike history of the region, journalism and the fixer within it become “short term slavery” in the service of relentless imperialist forces that have long kept the region unstable.

US Policy of ‘Pragmatic Engagement’ Risks Legitimatizing Taliban Rule

The Biden administration has a choice: Try to keep the Doha deal alive by pressuring the Taliban into intra-Afghan talks, or accept that the deal is now dead. Either way, “pragmatic engagement” with the Taliban has shown itself to be wanting.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.