On January 28, Pakistan’s top court ruled that the key suspect in the 2002 kidnapping and murder of American journalist Daniel Pearl should be freed.
In its finding, the Supreme Court upheld the Sindh High Court’s earlier decision to free Omar Saeed Sheikh and three other suspects accused of murdering Pearl.
The high-profile case has generated much attention over the years and the court’s verdict has drawn concerns and condemnation from the international community, particularly from the Biden administration.
In the past, various U.S. governments have offered to prosecute Sheikh in American courts if he is released by the Pakistani courts. The Biden administration’s response on the issue so far has been interesting and offers lessons about the shape of bilateral engagement in the months to come.
A day after Sheikh’s acquittal, the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in his first major statement about Pakistan, said that America was ready to prosecute Sheikh. “We are also prepared to prosecute Sheikh in the United States for his horrific crimes against an American citizen,” his office said in a statement.
Blinken’s statement further noted that he was “deeply concerned by the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision to acquit those involved in Daniel Pearl’s kidnapping and murder and any proposed action to release them.”
The statement didn’t criticize Pakistan’s government or security agencies involved in the case. One of the reasons for that is Pakistan’s present and past governments have actively pursued the case in courts to keep Sheikh in prison. A month ago, the Sindh High Court termed the detention of all accused in Pearl’s case “null and void” and ordered their immediate release. In April of last year, the same court overturned Sheikh’s death sentence. However, the Sindh government kept Sheikh and three other suspects in prison, using emergency detention powers by describing his release as a threat to national security. The Sindh government also filed a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the provincial court’s decision, which has now also been rejected. Following the the Supreme Court’s verdict, the Sindh government has filed another review petition against the acquittal of Sheikh. Similarly, the federal government has filed a separate case challenging Sheikh’s release.
Blinken’s statement termed Sheikh’s acquittal an “affront to terrorism victims everywhere” and said that the U.S. expected Pakistan’s authorities to “expeditiously review its legal options to ensure justice is served.” The Pakistani government should view the tone and language of the statement as looking to secure cooperation rather than demanding action or threatening action in case Pakistan failed to hold Sheikh accountable.
Moreover, the statement also said that the court’s verdict is an insult to terror victims in Pakistan as well. “The United States recognizes past Pakistani actions to hold Omar Sheikh accountable and notes that Sheikh currently remains detained under Pakistani law,” noted the statement.
Blinken’s mention of Pakistani terror victims and Pakistani law, and his recognition of the previous government’s efforts to keep Sheikh in prison, suggests that the Biden administration may not adopt the “do more” approach of the previous administration to extract cooperation from Pakistan. Or perhaps a less conciliatory message from the United States to Pakistan will be conveyed behind closed doors and away from the media’s glare. The Biden administration would know that assertive and demanding American statements only add to the confusion considering the public pressure that usually mounts on the government in the wake of threats hurled from the White House.
However, in the wake of the acquittal, a high-level reaction from the U.S. government shows that the Biden administration is going to be tough on the question of human rights in Pakistan. In a separate statement, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that the U.S. is “outraged by the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision” and demanded that the Pakistani government review its legal options. This essentially means that more assertive and forceful language can follow Blinken’s toned-down statement if the Pakistani government doesn’t ensure further action in the case. Perhaps, the statement is laying ground for other questions including those about other areas of cooperation and confrontation between the two countries.