Intercept’s military leak claim disputed; Bilawal calls cable ‘inauthentic’; Experts find no evidence of “US conspiracy.”
ISLAMABAD: The authenticity of the alleged content within a diplomatic cable, which outlines a meeting between Pakistan’s former ambassador to the US and senior State Department representatives last year, has become a significant source of disagreement.
Although Pakistan’s Foreign Office has chosen not to comment on the leaks, a diplomatically crafted statement made by Matthew Miller, the spokesperson for the US State Department, in a recent briefing, has sparked curiosity about the source of the alleged leak.
The US State Department spokesperson, Matthew Miller, made a diplomatically phrased comment during a recent briefing, stirring speculation about the origin of the leaked information. The Intercept, a news outlet based in the US, claimed to have obtained the cipher in question and attributed it to an “anonymous source in the Pakistani military” who asserted no connections to Imran Khan or his party. Despite this, numerous individuals—largely critics of Mr. Khan—insist that the leak must have originated from the PTI.
Even Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, the departing foreign minister, holds the belief that the document published by The Intercept is “inauthentic.” He pointed out that the timing of the purported leak raises doubts since the military didn’t even have access to the diplomatic cable.
Mr. Bhutto-Zardari informed that the Foreign Office adheres to a “very strict protocol,” restricting the sharing of such cables to the prime minister, the foreign minister, the head of the country’s spy agency, and a select few. He further clarified that the Foreign Office subsequently receives all cables.
sources and doubts
Following the release of the alleged cable, journalists from The Intercept have been actively engaging with skeptics who are raising doubts about the authenticity or source of the diplomatic cable. They have challenged these doubters to substantiate their claims regarding the origin of the purported document.
In the initial report, the writers dedicated several lines to address the origin of the document—indicating a foreknowledge of potential inquiries on this matter.
“The Intercept‘s source, who had access to the document as a member of the military, spoke of their growing disillusionment with the country’s military leadership, the impact on the military’s morale following its involvement in the political fight against Khan,” the news organisation said in its Aug 9 story.
Nonetheless, Mr. Bhutto-Zardari echoed the doubts expressed by his fellow cabinet member, the departing interior minister Rana Sanaullah. He indicated that only a single copy of the cable had disappeared, specifically “the one given to the then PM [Imran Khan], who even told the media he lost it”.
“So, either the leak is fake, or it came from Imran. Perhaps, Imran Khan said to his supporters that if I go to jail, leak this cable to claim I went to jail because America wanted it. And if it came from him, then it’s a clear violation of the Official Secrets Act and he should be tried for it.”
Mr. Bhutto-Zardari also highlighted that the publishers had not presented any evidence thus far to validate the alleged leak. “Anything can be typed up on a piece of paper. No one can say what was there in the telegram and what was not. Without authentication, it does not have any value. It should be verified first,” he said.
Any Evidence of conspiracy?
Debates surround the authenticity of the leaked cable’s contents, raising questions about its ability to provide evidence of a plot against Mr. Khan’s government.
The US State Department, represented by Mr. Miller, clarified that the document doesn’t express any US preference for Pakistan’s leadership.
When asked about the report’s accuracy, Mr. Miller’s “Close-ish” response indicated that even if accurate, it wouldn’t imply State Department support for specific leadership.
Prof. Touqir Hussain, a former diplomat, suggested the published cipher lacks a “conspiracy” or “specific threat,” resembling a typical superpower’s diplomatic approach for influence. He added diplomats often voice concerns about policies without signaling leadership preference.
On X (formerly Twitter), Ahsan I. Butt, an associate professor at George Mason University, highlights that the cipher implies US preference without advocating regime change.
Husain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ex-ambassador to the US, questions how a US diplomat expressing preference equates to pressure or threat.
Michael Kugelman, a Wilson Centre scholar, notes the document reaffirms previous reports of improved ties if Khan’s rule ends.
Yet, Khan’s supporters argue Ambassador Asad Majeed Khan’s remarks in the cipher indicate a conspiracy. This perspective resonates with critics of US foreign policy, drawing parallels with historical interventions in other regions.
Chronology of Events
Mr. Bhutto-Zardari highlighted that the PTI’s claim of Washington orchestrating last year’s no-confidence vote was baseless, as the plan had been internally discussed and publicly disclosed prior to the alleged cable leak, undermining the idea of a conspiracy.
“On Jan 5, 2022, we discussed the long march and the vote of no confidence at our central executive committee. I announced the planned vote at my long march (held between Feb 25 and Mar 7), and on March 8 we moved the no-confidence motion,” he said.
Asked about the leaked cable’s impact on voters in the upcoming elections, the departing foreign minister noted that individuals inclined to believe the narrative might support it, while others would not.
He observed that the leaked document might briefly rejuvenate the PTI’s narrative before fading again.
