THE outcry in Pakistan over the US House of Representatives’ resolution HR901 demanding a probe into the Feb 8 elections and condemning human rights violations in the country has died down. But the prospect of overreaction to any future move by the US Congress remains. For a measured response, we need to understand the American political system and its peculiarities.

Non-binding resolutions such as HR901 are almost always ignored by the administration, especially if they run counter to US interests, which at the moment are focused on steadying ties with Pakistan following the turbulent years of the Afgh­anistan war and the aftershocks of the ci­­pher crisis. The supporters of the resolution should not have high hopes, and its opponents should not fear its implementation.

Why the resolution then? The US Congress does have a foreign policy role under the constitution, which it often exercises in strange ways. Americans’ historical experience has fostered feelings of superiority and a sacrosanct self-image of an indispensable, exceptional and saviour nation, especially since victory in World War II in the supposed cause of freedom. Coupled with the founding ideal of religious liberty, this has led to an American tendency to claim that its foreign policy is value-based, even when it largely rests on cold-blooded power politics. Many Americans behave as if they are entitled to hypocrisy and exempt from moral scrutiny. America’s actions, they feel, are righteous by definition.

The majority of the voting public considers America to be a force for good. It makes good politics, thus, for politicians to cater to such public sentiments.

Why did so many vote in favour of the resolution?

Even though America itself has fallen short of its ideals, it insists that others follow them to cover its own deficiency. But democracy- and human rights-related resolutions or rhetoric is not just politics. They can also be an instrument of pressure or a propaganda arm of policy. Initiatives like the Democracy Summit or President Joe Biden’s constant refrain about US-China rivalry being a struggle between “democracies and autocracies”, and Congressional rhetoric about the rights of the Uighurs, are an adjunct to the US policy of containment of China.

But HR901 was not policy-related. The resolution, a handiwork of the PTI in America, was a no-cost political move by the Congress in an election year to oblige some of the affluent PTI supporters who could be a prospective source of campaign funding. It also responded to pressures from a large swath of the wider voting public among the Pakistani diaspora, first alienated by the alleged US role in the removal of former prime minister Imran Khan, and then by the Gaza war.

Why did such a large number vote in favour of the resolution? By highlighting the importance of Pakistan as a key ally and partner of the US, the language of the resolution widened its appeal. Besides, in an election year, it was practically impossible for the Democrats to vote against a resolution whose title focused on human rights, while some Republicans who still held a grudge against Pakistan on account of the Afghan war found this an opportunity to voice their displeasure. Congressmen saw political benefit and no cost to US interests. They knew the resolution would not affect the administration’s policy on Pakistan.

It will be premature to suggest that HR901 signals the arrival of a Pakistan lobbying group. Pakistanis’ real lobbying success would involve getting the US Congress to take a practical step that benefits the country as a whole, for which the Congress may also have to compromise on some other Ameri­can interests. HR901 was an easy kill.

Much of the PTI’s support among the Pakistani diaspora in the US comes from a dedicated group of doctors, who served as the flagship of a lobbying group for Pakistan that has been long in the making. Their present lobbying efforts have, however, been focused on helping a particular political party in Pakistan, the legitimacy of their complaints notwithstanding. HR901 may have been a useful dry run, but they should debate whether it compromises their future potential to do some real good for the country. It will pit them against those with different political affiliations. At any moment in the future, one group or another will thus be publicising a negative image of Pakistan, thus undermining the diaspora’s long-term clout.

The PTI should continue its campaign for democracy, but in Pakistan and not in America. Americans would love to be part of our conflicts, which helps them manipulate our political system to their advantage, as the PTI itself claims to have experienced. Let us not play into their hands with such resolutions.

The writer, a former ambassador, is adjunct professor Georgetown University and Visiting Senior Research Fellow, National University of Singapore.

Published in Dawn, July 20th, 2024