Donald Lu’s testimony — a tale of two nations

Over two years have elapsed, yet the intricacies surrounding whether the ouster of Imran Khan’s government was orchestrated by the United States or if the change transpired from within the parliament under the influence of General Bajwa remain entangled and unresolved.

Meanwhile, American diplomat Donald Lu testified before the US Congress, engaging in a lengthy question and answer session on the issue at hand. The entire process was globally broadcasted live, showcasing the admirable transparency of the American system. Regardless of the nature of their actions, Americans exhibit a commitment to openness, readily sharing proceedings on television for the world to see. In the age of social and digital media, attempts to conceal information are increasingly futile. Notably, even amidst the Monica Lewinsky scandal involving President Bill Clinton, American parliamentary proceedings were aired on CNN, exemplifying their willingness to hold even their highest officials accountable in full view of the public. This unwavering transparency suggests that leniency is not granted to anyone, irrespective of their status. Since then, numerous critical and sensitive matters have been openly discussed, leaving one in awe of the Americans’ candidness. They view this transparency as the pinnacle of accountability, ensuring that those in positions of power understand that mistakes will not be met with leniency. The higher the rank, the more stringent the accountability. If a leader conducts themselves as an ordinary citizen, they should relinquish their throne and embrace a life devoid of special treatment, protocols, and privileges. In such a scenario, whether civilian leaders, military generals, or heads of intelligence agencies like the CIA or FBI, they often document their experiences in books.

In contrast, Pakistan’s approach tends towards secrecy, with leaders and officials reluctant to disclose information. Take, for instance, the operation targeting Osama bin Laden: from President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and CIA Chief Leon Panetta, they openly documented the unfolding events and the execution of the operation in books. However, during the same period in Pakistan, figures like President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, Army Chief General Kayani, and DG ISI General Shuja Pasha remained silent, failing to provide their perspective or write about the Pakistani side of the story. Consequently, the narrative accepted by the world is the one penned by the Americans.

It’s plausible that had President Zardari, General Kayani, and General Pasha perused the books authored by their American counterparts, they might have felt compelled to respond. The portrayal of these Pakistani officials in American literature was far from flattering, prompting the thought that perhaps they would have penned their own accounts to set the record straight.

“My friend once jestingly advised me, ‘Dear brother, spare yourself the trouble of reading those American books. Why bother inviting trouble? If you do happen to read them, refrain from writing about them.’ He chuckled, ‘Who can endure such unfiltered truth?’ I retorted, ‘Yet, we bear the truths written by the Americans.’ He quipped back, ‘Dear brother, because no one can cause harm to them.’ It’s true; we cannot do anything against the Americans, and the rationale is crystal clear: if anything is to be done, it’s invariably to our own people.

Consider the recent extensive statement delivered by Donald Lu before the committee; all parties find satisfaction in it. In Pakistan, there’s jubilation all around, with claims that Donald Lu has endorsed our stance. A quick glance at Twitter reveals supporters from every party sharing clips of Donald Lu, each convinced that it supports their narrative. Now, how can several opposing parties all claim validation on the same issue? In response, I tweeted likening Donald Lu’s appearance before the Congress committee to the practices of Seraiki Pirs in our regions. Like those revered figures, who bless every visitor seeking a child, sending them away with prayers and the promise of good news, Donald Lu seemed to have managed to appease all. He made everyone content.”

Similarly, in his extensive statement, Donald Lu has managed to appease supporters of Imran Khan, the military, and the Shehbaz Sharif government. Now, backers from these three factions—military, Khan, and government—are cherry-picking their preferred segments and proudly proclaiming victory on social media.

All three camps claim that Donald has vindicated their stance.

This is the hallmark of a skilled diplomat: administering bitter pills disguised as sweets, and receiving gratitude in return.

The Shahbaz Sharif government finds solace in Donald Lu’s affirmation that, despite Imran Khan and his party’s lobbying and campaigning, the American government expresses willingness to collaborate with the new government. This implies acceptance of Shahbaz Sharif as Prime Minister, contrary to Imran Khan’s expectations of American rejection due to alleged election rigging. Moreover, there’s a warning to the IMF: if Pakistan fails to comply with demands, the next installment may be withheld, posing a threat to the country’s economy and pressuring the Pakistani government to concede.

Contrary to Imran Khan’s narrative, the American diplomat debunked the cipher issue Khan had propagated for two years, dismissing it as baseless. There were no threats to remove Imran Khan’s government, as claimed. This revelation alone serves as a significant victory for the Shahbaz Sharif government, regardless of Imran Khan’s assertions that Sharif has obtained the American endorsement he coveted.

On the flip side, the establishment finds solace in the absence of any detrimental remarks made on this prominent platform. On the contrary, it was emphasized that the Pakistani army ranks as the sixth-largest globally and boasts of longstanding traditional ties with the Americans.

What’s intriguing is that even Imran Khan’s supporters are jubilant, attributing their victory to their relentless efforts, lobbying, and financial contributions. They see it as a significant triumph that their concerns regarding election rigging in Pakistan were elevated to the level of the Congressional committee. Here, congressmen’s probing questions compelled Donald Lu to acknowledge election rigging and elucidate how Imran Khan’s party was marginalized before and after the elections.

In a notable instance, a congressman even suggested that the American ambassador should visit jail and engage with Imran Khan.

Consequently, supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) are highlighting this segment of Donald Lu’s discourse on social media, interpreting it as a validation of their cause.

Kudos to American diplomat Donald Lu, who, in a single briefing, managed to appease supporters of Imran Khan, Shahbaz Sharif, and the establishment alike, prompting them to exclaim, “Behold, our champion has triumphed.” This is diplomacy, what else is diplomacy?