Is Hafiz Saeed's house arrest merely a ploy by Pakistan to avoid the wrath of Donald Trump?

“Things can, however, take an ugly turn in Pakistan-US relations if Washington under (Donald) Trump comes to the conclusion that Pakistan is not cooperating wholeheartedly in combating terrorists… These developments may evoke a robust US response under Trump to the detriment of Pakistan,” read a prescient article in The Nation on 22 November last year, 13 days after Donald Trump won a historic US presidential election. [caption id=“attachment_3239578” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with business leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Monday. AP[/caption] On Friday, the US president announced a ban on immigrants from seven nations, sparking off all sorts of global and domestic outrage . The rationale provided by  Chief of Staff Reince Priebus clarified was that “Congress and the (Barack) Obama administration identified (them) as being the seven countries that were most identifiable with dangerous terrorism taking place in their country”. He was quick to add the little caveat that “(Y)ou can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others. Perhaps we need to take it (the ban) further”. And Pakistan, it appears, is wisely/opportunistically/pragmatically/conveniently (delete as you deem appropriate) making moves to avoid both the ’taking further’ of the ban and the ‘robust US response’ by placing Jamaat-ud-Dawah chief Hafiz Saeed and four others under house arrest in Lahore. The Ministry of Interior in Punjab issued the order on 27 January and the JuD’s headquarters was surrounded by police. It may be recalled that in the past, Pakistan has given Saeed and his cohorts a great deal of leeway — something noted with consternation by the Barack Obama administration. Speculating on whether or not Islamabad took Washington’s displeasure seriously in the past — knowing that Pakistan’s perceived importance to the US and its proximity to China would insulate it from any American response — serves no real purpose. What is worth looking at, however, is whether pronouncements by Trump (in the lead-up to and after the election) and indeed his administration have rattled Pakistan. Here’s a brief rundown: Back in 2011 after Osama bin Laden was eliminated in Abbottabad and when Trump featured nowhere near the presidential picture, he is widely reported to have said, “(Pakistan) are not friends of ours. (There are) plenty of other terrorists in Pakistan, we know that.” A year later, he tweeted:

When will Pakistan apologize to us for providing safe sanctuary to Osama Bin Laden for 6 years?! Some "ally."

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 5, 2012

While on the campaign trail, when Trump was asked by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly about the fate of Shakeel Afridi — the doctor who helped the CIA hunt down bin Laden and has languished in a Pakistani prison for over five years — and whether he would be able to get him out, Trump had the following to say: “Yes, I do. I think I would get him out in two minutes. I would tell them (Pakistani government) let them out and I’m sure they would let them out. Because we give a lot of aid to Pakistan. We give a lot of money to Pakistan. And frankly, they will do — they don’t have any respect for our president. But when you say they take advantage or they are no friend. Nobody is a friend to us. They just take us like a bunch of suckers, Bill.” Although the then presidential candidate did add the caveat that “Pakistan certainly takes advantage like everybody else. Nobody is different”, his comments didn’t go down too well with  Pakistani interior minister Chaudry Nisar Ali Khan, who fired back, “Pakistan is not a colony of the United States of America… He (Trump) should learn to treat sovereign nations with respect.” A month later,  Trump was quoted by Reuters as suggesting that “(w)hen I’m elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats.” The report added that these ‘areas of the world’ included Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. And most recently, in his written submission to the Senate Armed Services Committee ahead of his confirmation as secretary of defence, General James Mattis stated his aim to work with Islamabad to “focus on Pakistan’s need to expel or neutralise externally-focused militant groups that operate within its borders”. He added, “We should urge Pakistan to take further action against the Taliban and the Haqqani network… We have long faced a lack of trust within the Pakistani military and government about our goals in the region.” On the strength of the above instances and the urgency with which Trump has been signing executive orders since taking office, it’s not inconceivable that Pakistan is a bit more wary of the 45th President of the United States than any of his predecessors. Risking the rancour of Washington — which could very easily translate into a rolling-back of the supply of financial and military aid — in the present political climate is clearly unwise from Islamabad’s point of view. And whether Saeed is under house arrest to protect the world from him or (again, it’s not inconceivable) vice versa, Pakistan appears rattled and in the mood to appease Trump. Where — if anywhere — this will ultimately lead is, however, as hazy as ever.