Pakistan: Without congratulating PM Shehbaz, Biden assures continuous support!

Virendra Pandit

New Delhi: Imran Ahmed Khan Niazi waited and waited in vain for years even for a telephonic call from the US Presidents—Donald Trump and Joe Biden—while he was Pakistan’s Prime Minister from 2018 to 2022.

His successor, Mian Mohammed Shehbaz Sharif, is faring a little better. President Biden has written to him, assuring him of America’s “continuous support” to Pakistan.

This ‘gesture’ comes after Washington, time and again, questioned the sanctity of the February 8 elections to the National Assembly and even sought an inquiry into its fairness, something Islamabad officially protested against.

Now Biden, himself facing a challenge from Trump for the November 2024 elections, has tried to reconnect with Islamabad, without, of course, changing much. For, he is seeking support from the Pakistan lobby in the US and “continuous support” to a former ally’s new government, he thought, would be a good gesture.

Without congratulating PM Shehbaz on the controversial elections’ outcome.

That explains why the Pakistani media and experts are circumspect about Biden’s letter to Shehbaz. They noted that although the US President extended a gesture to Shehbaz he had denied to Imran, Biden has refrained from even congratulating the PM.

“What distinguishes this anodyne message to the Pakistani leadership is the absence of any reference to the elections that US Assistant Secretary Donald (Lu) testified recently could not be characterized as free and fair,” said Shuja Nawaz, who is associated with the South Asia Centre at the Atlantic Council, Washington, according to a report in Dawn.

“What should the people of Pakis¬tan expect from the US President on that issue?” Nawaz asked, adding, “This may further estrange the diaspora Pakistanis who expect the US to support a visible and verifiable review of those election results that reek of manipulation after polling.”

This letter must be seen in the context of the reality of US aid requested for Pakistan in recent years, which has been gradually reduced. In fiscal 2022, it was USD 218 million, which was reduced to USD 136 million in fiscal 2024 and may further decrease in 2025.

“Pakistan needs substantial economic and military assistance directly from the United States, in addition to critical aid from international financial institutions where the US holds sway,” he said. “These small numbers don’t represent the kind of aid that will improve the lives of its 245 million citizens.”

Michael Kugelman, the director of the Wilson Centre’s South Asia Institute, focused on the letter’s impact on Pakistan’s domestic politics. “The biggest thing that stands out is it’s a message that Imran Khan never received as PM,” he said.

The letter “is not a note of congratulation, whether for the election or for assuming power…It strikes me as a fairly routine missive that pledges to continue the partnership with Pakistan in the areas that have marked bilateral relations post-US Afghanistan withdrawal.”

“To be sure, though, the fact that it’s the US president that is offering this message makes it far from routine,” he noted.

Murtaza Haider, a professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, observed that the letter “skilfully avoids all meaningful matters that concern US-Pakistan relations”.

“It makes no commitment to Pakistan in financial or other support, while it ignores the political turmoil resulting from the controversial elections on February 8,” he said. “If the Sharif government was looking for an endorsement, this letter certainly isn’t.”

Uzair Younus, a non-resident senior fellow and the former director of the Pakistan Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Centre, pointed out that President Biden’s letter focuses on themes American diplomats have identified as priorities.

“But what stands out is that Biden has not found it necessary to congratulate the Prime Minister on winning the elections,” he said. “The letter does focus on regional challenges, which can surely be interpreted to include terrorism, but does not explicitly call out this topic.”