By The South Asia Times 

WASHINGTON - The US has confirmed that Washington was not happy with the decision of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan to visit Russia last year.

During his press briefing on Wednesday, Matthew Miller, the Department of State spokesperson, however, denied the US role in ousting Khan from power last year in April 2022 through a no-confidence vote in the Pakistani parliament. 

“We express concern privately to the Government of Pakistan, as we express concern publicly, about the visit of then-Prime Minister Khan to Moscow on the very day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We made that concern quite clear,” said Miller while responding to a question regarding a latest story published by The Intercept in which they also published a purported cable known cipher in Pakistan in which it claimed the US has conveyed to Pakistan to remove Khan otherwise face consequences. 

“As the former Pakistani ambassador to the United States himself has stated, the allegations that the United States has interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false. As we’ve stated, they’re false. They’ve always been false, and they remain false,” Miller added.

The following is a transcript of Miller's questions answers, published on the Department of State website 

.

QUESTION: The cipher cable supposedly that’s been reported. Just – I know you’ve had some on-record comments on this, but I wanted to ask you about the veracity of the comments. It’s obviously a Pakistani document. Does the United States generally think that what was reported there was accurate?

MR MILLER: So a few things. One, yes, it’s a report – reported to be a Pakistani document. I can’t speak to whether it is an actual Pakistani document or not; just simply don’t know. With respect to the comments that were reported, I’m not going to speak to private diplomatic exchanges other than to say that, even if those comments were accurate as reported, they in no way show the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan ought to be. We express concern privately to the Government of Pakistan, as we express concern publicly, about the visit of then-Prime Minister Khan to Moscow on the very day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We made that concern quite clear.

But as the former Pakistani ambassador to the United States himself has stated, the allegations that the United States has interfered in internal decisions about the leadership of Pakistan are false. As we’ve stated, they’re false. They’ve always been false, and they remain false.

QUESTION: Just to pursue that briefly, the – I guess the money quote in that was saying that Pakistan would – or that Imran Khan personally would have continued isolation because of his visit to Moscow. Is that – can you explain that in terms of, I mean, if we take that as given that that was an accurate comment, what that meant?

MR MILLER: So without stipulating whether it’s an accurate comment or not, if you take all of the comments in context that were reported in that – in that purported cable, I think what they show is the United States Government expressing concern about the policy choices that the prime minister was taking. It is not in any way the United States Government expressing a preference on who the leadership of Pakistan ought to be.

QUESTION: Well, but Matt, just – you can – they – I think what I’m hearing is that essentially the substance of this report and the purported Pakistani cable back to Islamabad is accurate, but you’re saying that it – but it is not the U.S. saying that —

MR MILLER: So —

QUESTION: — Prime Minister Khan, then-Prime Minister Khan has to – should leave office. Is that —

MR MILLER: I —

QUESTION: Is that correct?

MR MILLER: Close-ish. I cannot speak to the veracity —

QUESTION: Close-ish?

MR MILLER: Close-ish, and then I’ll explain what I mean – I’ll explain what I mean by —

QUESTION: Ish? I understand that’s a fine – that’s a diplomatic term of art.

MR MILLER: I’ll explain what I mean by that, which is I cannot speak to the veracity of this document.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: What I can – let me just finish. What I can say – let’s even just – even if those comments were all a hundred percent accurate as reported, which I do not know them to be —

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR MILLER: — they do not in any way show a representative of the State Department taking a position on who the leadership —

QUESTION: Okay.

MR MILLER: They’re commenting on —

QUESTION: But you can understand, though, perhaps – perhaps you can understand why other countries might think when the U.S. weighs in, even in a way like this, that it is taking a position on it. I mean, I can think and name, like, five or 10 leaders who the United States has sought to oust, including some that it has been successful in ousting, although not – only after military invasions. So, it’s not an unprecedented thing or – for a country to think that the U.S. is trying to pressure it into – or trying to make its views known about who it thinks should be the leader of a country, right?

MR MILLER: I will say that I can understand how those comments, number one, could be taken out of context; and number two, how people might have the – might desire for them to be taken out of context, and might try to use them to advance an agenda that is not represented by the comments themselves.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you think – and do you think that’s what’s happening here?

MR MILLER: I think a number of people have taken them out of context and used them for political purposes.

QUESTION: Intentionally for – to —

MR MILLER: I won’t speak to intentions, but I think that’s what’s happened.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News. A couple of days ago, on the arrest of Imran Khan, you said there are cases that are so obviously unfounded that United States believe it should say something about the matter, and the U.S. has not made that determination in this case. So what is it in Khan’s case that makes you think it is not unfounded? What criteria do you use to make that determination, if it is a founded or unfounded case?

MR MILLER: I will just say that we continue to believe that these are matters for the Pakistani people to decide. Our bottom-line principle is that we continue to call for the respect of democratic principles, human rights, and the rule of law in Pakistan, as we do around the world.

QUESTION: So Pakistani Ambassador Masood Khan called on the U.S. to engage more closely with Pakistan, as it continues to grapple with a host of threats including last week’s suicide bombing that killed at least 63 people. How can U.S. can help Pakistan counter the ongoing terrorism threat to the region that threatens both U.S. economic and security interests in the region?

MR MILLER: So we deeply value our relationship with Pakistan, including our relationship with respect to counterterrorism. We have supported Pakistan through a number of pieces of assistance to help with counterterrorism, with other law enforcement activities, and we’ll continue to do so.

QUESTION: So one last question, if you allow me. What is the U.S. role in tamping down terrorism in the region after 20 years of war in Afghanistan?

MR MILLER: I’ll just say, as I said, we continue to support Pakistan’s counterterrorism operations.

Go ahead, you’re next.

QUESTION: Thank you so much. We have seen ups and downs in U.S.-Pakistan relations in recent past. What kind of confidence-building measures are being taken to avoid mistrust between these two countries? My second question is there is upcoming elections in Pakistan, we already spoke few days ago – will U.S. sending a independent observer to monitor the general elections in Pakistan?

MR MILLER: I’m not aware if a decision has been made with respect to sending observers. With respect to your first question, we will continue to engage directly with the Pakistani Government, as we do at a number of different levels. And we will continue to engage in people-to-people contacts with Pakistan, who we consider a close partner.