The Ouster Of Imran Khan: How Much Involvement Did the US Have in Pakistan’s Coup?

The Ouster Of Imran Khan: How Much Involvement Did the US Have in Pakista’s Coup?

On a regional level, the Khan administration has also taken steps that have angered the world’s sole superpower. Khan has attempted to increase close bilateral collaboration to improve trade and transport links with Iran, describing their 517-mile border as a frontier of “peace and friendship” and expressing his happiness at the “positive momentum in brotherly relations between the two countries.” In 2019, he also tried to broker peace negotiations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, an agreement that could have brought considerably more peace to the Middle East. The Trump administration vehemently opposed these negotiations, scuppering them weeks later by assassinating Iranian General Qassem Soleimani.

While he has supported Iran, he has also publically opposed many of the policies of key U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Israel. Khan successfully campaigned against Pakistani involvement in the Saudi-led war on Yemen, while he has consistently championed Palestinian rights and demanded the Muslim world do more to help them. “A day will come when Palestinians will get their own country, a just settlement, and they will be able to live as equal citizens,” he said last year, comparing their struggle to that of the worldwide campaign against Apartheid South Africa. Meanwhile, he has also publicly supported imprisoned publisher Julian Assange.

The Pakistani military is thought to possess around 165 nuclear warheads. The country’s nuclear status came into sharp relief just as the campaign to oust Khan was heating up. While the world was concentrating on Ukraine, a potentially far more deadly incident occurred when India mistakenly fired a BrahMos cruise missile – the sort it uses to deliver its nuclear warheads – into Pakistan. In the course of routine maintenance, the rocket was accidentally launched. India did not immediately inform its neighbor of its mistake.

The Left’s Covid Failure

Mainly, though, this has been a historic failure from the Left, which will have disastrous consequences. Any form of popular dissent is likely to be hegemonized once again by the (extreme) Right, poleaxing any chance the Left has of winning round the voters it needs to overturn Right-wing hegemony. Meanwhile, the Left holds on to a technocracy of experts severely undermined by what is proving to be a catastrophic handling of the pandemic in terms of social progressivism. As any kind of viable electable Left fades into the past, the discussion and dissent at the heart of any true democratic process is likely to fade with it.

The Left’s Covid Failure

Social Democrats are Fooling Themselves: We Can’t Vote our way out of Neoliberalism

Social Democrats are Fooling Themselves: We Can’t Vote our way out of Neoliberalism

The social democrats may argue that the people’s interests have been represented under capitalism in the past through the New Deal, but this argument is based in multiple layers of deception. Firstly, the interests of the proletariat and the poor will never truly be represented under a capitalist state; the New Deal (which didn’t even advance the wellbeing of those outside of the favored white settler population) was easily undone the moment the capitalist class decided that neoliberalism was necessary. Scandinavia’s descent into neoliberal austerity in recent decades is another example of how under capitalism the capitalists, not the people, have the final say. Secondly, social democracy within an imperialist country still means a perpetuation of imperialist violence and exploitation against colonialism’s victims; even the Scandanavia model, which is idealized by social democrats, has been built upon the profiting off of Western imperialism. And thirdly, capitalism’s crises have made it so that it’s no longer viable to establish social democracy.