Five reasons Imran Khan will return to lead Pakistan

There are good reasons to believe the unfairly removed Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, will achieve political victory and be able to lead the country again.

#1 All opponents gather together

Because they conspired to create the current government, any blame for shortcomings in government policy will fall on all of Imran Khan's opponents in a single blow to them all, creating the distinct impression that Imran Khan is the only alternative to their rule. This may turn Imran Khan into a far more powerful figure than he already was, as the people will see him as a force equal to all his enemies. The anti-PTI parties may be perceived as one entity and be ineffective at competing with each other as if they have independent visions, because they may all be perceived to share blame for the country's problems equally following Imran Khan's removal. The 'imported' government are simply the same group responsible for decades of mishandling the economy and are likely to only worsen life across the nation, discrediting any claim that they needed to remove Imran Khan to save the economy.

#2 Imran Khan's popularity

Despite efforts to tarnish his character on an international level, Imran Khan has remained popular within Pakistan. Pakistan's people don't seem susceptible to the influence of the international media, which labours to discredit Imran Khan. People get their information from each other, which causes smear campaigns to be less effective against an honest leader. This seriously complicates the efforts of the new authorities, because they desperately needed to perform a character assassination on Imran Khan and seem to be clueless about how to achieve this. Instead, we could see Imran Khan become even more popular.

#3 Reversed US coups are a thing

US coups have been reversed quite effectively in other parts of the world. Foreign propaganda campaigns and repressive rule have proved ineffective against mass movements in countries such as Brazil and Bolivia. In Brazil, former president Lula da Silva was impeached and jailed and his successor Dilma Rousseff faced impeachment as well. However, Lula is now free once again and is making a successful political comeback, being expected to return to power and replace Jair Bolsonaro in the October election. In Bolivia, despite a US-encouraged coup against him that created a floundering puppet regime for a single year, Evo Morales' popular Movement for Socialism returned to power. As such, even if Imran Khan is jailed on some false charge, this will only be a temporary setback for his movement. In such an event, people will contrast his behaviour with his opponents fleeing abroad when under investigation. If he were to stay in Pakistan against all pressure, this could only make him appear to be a more patriotic and righteous person. Despite whatever hardships he and his movement may be put under, his return to power and his reversal of the US-led regime change is an eminently realistic and likely outcome based on precedents in other countries.

#4 US impatience

The US helped Imran Khan's opponents into power with a goal to get specific policies enacted in Islamabad that are against the nation's interests. These policies are actually foolish and unlikely to be implemented even by the usurper government. The hope to separate Pakistan from China in the economic and military spheres is likely to be at the top of the wish list of US diplomats, but will never be implemented as the cooperation of Islamabad and Beijing is likely too advanced at this point. As a result, the US will only increase pressure once again on the current authorities in a vain attempt to get the results they want. This will ultimately empower Imran Khan, who will be in a position to simultaneously show the current authorities as ineffective at maintaining relations with the US, while at the same time being the US's corrupt puppets. The usurping authorities will appear to be corrupt and incompetent even at their one purpose of serving the US's will.

#5 Instability

A lack of acceptance of the perceived usurpers is widespread. The resulting weak mandate to rule will result in an inability to effectively handle or be perceived to handle internal and external security threats. If any kind of violence or terrorism grows, perhaps encouraged by the ongoing political crisis, the dubious legitimacy of the regime itself will be first thing to be blamed for any ineffectiveness on the part of authorities. This will intensify any such crisis, perhaps also causing the Army to lose confidence in this regime and creating the possibility that they will prefer the return of Imran Khan.

With patience, it is likely that Imran Khan and his party will return to power. Bumbling conspirators and corrupt leaders may destroy themselves. They will to fail to satisfy anyone, abroad and at home, and it is possible that conniving elements of the establishment will realise that going against the people's will was impractical and destabilising even for their own interests.

Read More »

Imported government rule, or unpredictable uprising?

Pakistanis may be forced to choose between accepting the imported government that was imposed by the removal of PM Imran Khan, or setting a course into destabilisation as the West’s agents and local traitors use any trick to keep control.

Some commentators such as George Galloway (tweet deleted but I linked it when it was still live, anyway) seemed to suggest there could be some sort of conflict breaking out between the people and the imported government of Shehbaz Sharif. The demand of everyone concerned is just that there should be an election soon, rather than an acute political conflict, but how likely is a peaceful and valid election to happen in a country just recently subjected to US-led regime-change? It seems more likely that protesters would have to fight, just for this modest demand to be met. The question then is, is it really worth it?

State effective at suppressing the people

One must consider that any organised aspect of mass disobedience is always suppressed quickly if the state takes serious action to stop it (this applies in any country). The people themselves are never a sufficient force for regime change (or in this case, restoration), which is only ever orchestrated successfully by people with foreign backing or substantial state-like powers, regardless of how much support they have among everyday citizens.

When people, such as Donald Trump’s supporters in the United States, believe too much in American national founding myths and consequently think that popular disaffection alone can result in regime change, they are invariably disappointed. Real regime change, or even a successful movement, is coordinated by organised actors, whether for good or evil ends.

It is clear that the Shehbaz Sharif government (likely with the blessing of the Democrat-controlled White House) is okay with treating Imran Khan supporters in a repressive way via arrests, much the way Trump's supporters were treated after the Capitol Attack.

Even the most unpopular regimes are able to maintain their grip on power, only really losing it if they cannot maintain the living standards, food supply and necessities that keep the people indebted to their power.

If it were to happen, the only likely regime change or even guarantee of prompt elections in Pakistan would have to probably come from the intervention of the Pakistani Army, who are accused anyway of playing a big role in removing Imran Khan in the first place. And a scenario of the Army or security forces mutinying, even to side with the people, is dangerous, especially considering the possible foreign involvement of the US and its ability to sponsor violence if it does not like such a change of power.

First and foremost, the top concern should be that people of Pakistan should stay safe, even if it results in a puppet regime. It is a difficult moral choice between being a subservient nation for the sake of order and safety, or a defiant nation that could risk chaos and strife.

All stability is precious

Pakistan is by no means exceptionally vulnerable or contemptible, even as a US puppet. Britain is also not its own master, compelled by what are arguably pro-American and pro-European traitors into ignoring the national will or treating it with disdain, as seen with Brexit. It seems to be in our character that we make the choice for stability rather than for confrontation on an insurmountable issue, because people are just more worried about anarchy than injustice, and we have always been this way.

What marks good people apart from the kind of psychopathic warmongers who drive US foreign policy plotters and their coups is the view that stability is a precious oasis in a chaotic world. Order is invaluable to the lives of the vast majority of people, however suffocating the status quo may be to an idealist. US warmongers and Neocons cannot hold such a view, because their distorted morals hold that mass death and misery on any scale and for any duration are justifiable to satisfy their often crazed and anarchistic political demands (which are often based on propaganda and fakes anyway). They are uniquely evil among sentient beings for this reason (the only other faction like this being ISIS, which many Neocons were apologists for in Syria). Responsible players need not be like them, and should instead opt for stability and reconciliation even when their political wishes are not quite met.

Uprisings and acute political conflicts are tolerable only if the alternative is known to be worse. If the imported government in Pakistan creates intolerable conditions for the nation because it places Western masters over the people, then the time is right that the people and state must take risks to save themselves. Until then, everything should just be subjected to a risk-benefit assessment, with any sort of dramatic regime change or restoration being understood to be a dangerous course.

Read More »

On Imran Khan's fight against international evil

The much-loved (now former) Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan maintains a demand for a snap election in his country.

The case that had been made against Mr Khan's PTI-led government focused on the idea that he was not delivering economically, and that his popularity was in decline. It was a case amplified by the international media, primarily from the United States, to the benefit of the then-opposition.

Why not put Imran Khan to the test?

Regardless of how the United States and its local toadies may feel about Mr Khan, large-scale rallies on the ground tell a starkly different story than theirs. These rallies indicate more than nationwide discontent at the no-confidence vote that removed him, they suggest a real national awakening and peaceful national liberation struggle against the country's foreign shackles.

Strangely, smaller rallies are often cited by the United States as a reason for immediate regime change. The difference, of course, is that in other cases, the United States was likely supporting fake demonstrations or violent riots by its local mercenaries and clients, having no real interest in the democratic will of any nation.

The fear of the new regime towards the people is on display. In the first place, Imran Khan's opponents and the Supreme Court torpedoed the possibility of taking any grievances about the PTI's governance to the people with an election. A no-confidence vote to remove him was preferred, and the idea of an election was resented, because the ones responsible seem to avoid the will of the people.

Conspiracy or compromise?

While the military denies that the US conspired to remove Imran Khan by encouraging the no confidence vote, no denial has been made that the US was calling for the no confidence vote or that the whole thing was their idea. One can argue about the semantics of such things as treason and conspiracies, but if the US declared the need for the no confidence vote, then the individuals in Parliament who complied are impossible to view favourably, and it is perhaps more alarming that the military would make excuses for them.

The urgently needed general election, even if the new regime agrees to hold it, can be expected to take a long time. The Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP) had already suggested an extensive delay of months, even when Mr Khan was still PM. It is possible that the bodies of the state not only abandoned Imran Khan but also, for whatever reason, are determined to be deaf to the wishes of the people.

The US desired policy shifts in Islamabad to help it break the international isolation faced by the Western alliance group from the rest of the world in its efforts to condemn Russia and China. There is reason to believe that such policy shifts (likely a complete departure from alliances with China in favour of the US) will not be achieved, even with Imran Khan gone, as these would likely be too economically costly to the country.

Evil by weakness

We should consider the self-serving and poor moral character of the new regime. The new PM, Shehbaz Sharif, already issued a diplomatic passport to his brother Nawaz Sharif, who had been the subject of corruption probes. So now you have a regime that, while unmoved by the people or any need to gain legitimacy with them, is moved at once to save a corrupt individual as its first act.

Despite all of the above, it still seems possible that to assert that the new regime is fully loyal to the United States would be an exaggeration. Nevertheless, the leadership this regime represents is now one that is more susceptible to manipulation and corruption. It is compromised.

It may be unfair to call the new PM evil, but what is happening in Pakistan is a clear and obvious struggle between good and evil. It is, more scientifically, a conflict between the ones standing for independence, prosperity and defiance, and the opponents who succumb to weakness, corruption and subservience too easily.

Refusal to be slaves

Imran Khan may be out as Prime Minister, but Pakistanis will grow increasingly aware of foreign interference and the foreign role in manifestations of corruption and treachery. It is likely that increasing numbers will want something to be done, and will at least wonder how different things might be if the country rid itself of all foreign-inspired intrigue.

The darkest talk surrounds the suspicion that there may be a threat to Imran Khan's life or to the wellbeing of his supporters, as the US tries to suppress a nation that defied them. However, this would be playing with fire. Regardless of what the new regime wants to be, the Pakistani people won't be slaves, at least knowingly.

People should watch, with great suspicion, attempts to contrive some character assassination or criminal case against Imran Khan in an effort to reduce his popular support, with the collusion of the international media. Rather than actual assassination, this seems more likely. It will be undertaken if the people grow quiet, refusing to counterpunch but allowing the corrupt elite and the collaborators of international evil to make their next move.

Read More »

With NATO or against NATO, no neutrality allowed?

Former Bolivian president Evo Morales described NATO as something that should be eliminated, linking the alliance to imperialistic wars and the plundering of natural resources.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is popular, out of habit, among the more cohesive mass of simpletons whose votes settle the outcomes of elections in countries such as my own Great Britain. However, in fact, the US-led bloc is detrimental to the national interests of any country whose obligations lie elsewhere abroad and not in propping up America-centric strategies.

The Bushism and Neoconservatism of NATO

An increasingly immature and intellectually bankrupt attitude is guiding Western foreign policy, with leaders seemingly less and less familiar with the normal behaviour expected in diplomacy. There seems to be absolutely no appreciation of the complexity of other countries' foreign policy, as Western governments think in black and white terms. You are with them, or you are against them.

You are either supporting democracy, in which case you support all countries joining NATO or being forced to comply with the US government's policies (what Pakistan's Imran Khan called being their slaves), or you are siding with the dictators and the terrorists. One must collude with and enchain their nation to the American master, or they are to be condemned and their legitimacy somehow questioned.

The reign of the neoconservatives, who gave rise to George W. Bush's maxim, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists", overrides all Western foreign policy thought, rather than being rejected as it should have been when it led to the terrorist blowback problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. The NATO powers are increasingly obsessed by the idea that everyone must join them, and that there can be no neutrality anymore. Even Switzerland seems to have somehow been pressured into aborting its neutral status.

What is happening now poses an existential threat to the Global South. The US will demand that they all join NATO, whether officially or unofficially, aligning with the West. Those who do not ally with them will be deemed to be authoritarian despots - a qualification that is met solely if you do not support American military deployment on your territory.

The NATO of the South

The 120 countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) are all perpetual candidates for violent regime-change and chaos, as the US supported in Ukraine in 2014 in an action that ultimately led to the current conflict underway in that country. What the assassinated former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi called a "NATO of the South" was and is a necessity, because the non-aligned countries remain the most vulnerable to wars of aggression and regime-change attempts by the West.

Both Muammar Gaddafi and Hugo Chavez, the latter also being an advocate of South-South cooperation and mutual defence, perished under conditions that suggest the United States gave the orders for their deaths. If true, it is because, even without Russia and China, a cooperative Global South represents a potentially insurmountable military obstacle to the Western imperialism and parasitism against the sovereign natural resources of the colonised nations.

Yes, without being able to, metaphorically, suck the blood of the people of the Global South, the Global North and NATO are deprived of the raw materials that provide for their supreme military strength. They cannot have these countries outside their control and, in future, even nonalignment and pacifism in the oppressed South will be increasingly seen by NATO as hostile as the Western powers seek to enslave them as servants.

Pacifism is not the way. A good course for non-aligned countries is to build an intimidating network of defences to repel NATO attack, develop economic self-sufficiency to resist sanctions, and nationalise so as to return control of natural resources to the people.

Read More »