sur
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,829
- Reaction score
- 4
A great article that addresses this issue of anti-Americanism, espoused by many, head-on despite all the talk by very many of our governments including PTI to have an "independent" FP. When we dig in, which most in the public don't bother with as sloganeering is enough to keep them busy, we realize that Pakistan's options are extremely limited. This is the realpolitik facing Pakistan.
Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy | The Express Tribune
A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powerstribune.com.pk
Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy
A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers
Syed Abdul Ahad WasimApril 19, 2022
The writer is a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (MALD) candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, focusing on International Security and International Development
In his last few weeks in office prior to the dissolution of National Assembly, Prime Minister Imran Khan continuously emphasised that under his leadership Pakistan pursued an “independent” foreign policy. In fact, he blamed the pursuit of such an independent foreign policy for his ouster from power as a result of a foreign conspiracy. In his March 31st address to the nation, Imran Khan defined an independent foreign policy in his own words “as one which is meant for Pakistanis” i.e. one that takes into account the aspirations or the will of the people of Pakistan.
If prime minister’s own definition of an independent foreign policy is taken as the guiding light, it would be difficult to make a case that he did actually pursue such an independent foreign policy. For instance, most Pakistanis would want Pakistan to at least condemn Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and other Muslim states for normalising diplomatic ties with Israel. Many would want an end to Saudi Arabia’s massacre of fellow Muslims in Yemen. A considerable number would also perhaps want Pakistan to voice concern regarding the treatment of Muslim Uighurs in China [that's exaggerated western propaganda - Chinese head attends mosques in same province too]. Yet, it is hard to imagine that any government in Pakistan, let alone Imran Khan’s, would stand up to Saudi Arabia or the UAE or China regardless of what the aspirations of the people are. ["ھم کسی کی جنگ میں حصہ نہیں بنیں گے" answers this]
Is it not then that an “independent foreign policy” is merely another name for defying the West — and the West only? [Negative - - - see above]
If so, such an independent foreign policy would only be partially independent [busted above - - - hence any repetition of this poor logic in rest of this article is null & void] because a true independent foreign policy would mean that Pakistan would freely choose its course of action in the best of its interests [writer nullified his own logic- if it's in Pak best interest then Pak may not object to China Saudi Arabia UAE - that does NOT make it a non-independent policy - it's just interest-driven-police which as per writer is the very definition of "independent policy"] irrespective of whether such a policy defies not just the West but even the East, including China.
[ - - - Reading beyond this is waste of my time - so I stop here - - - ]
Even a cursory moment of reflection would make it clear that Pakistan cannot pursue such a “truly” independent foreign policy, even if it wishes to.
Under Imran Khan’s watch, Pakistan refused to participate in the Kuala Lumpur Summit under pressure from Saudi Arabia; did not join the global outrage against China’s actions in Hong Kong; did not condemn the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; did not share the worldwide condemnation of the treatment of Uighurs in China; could not expel the French ambassador after French President’s statement calling Islam as problematic despite Imran Khan being a vocal critic of Islamophobia and despite there being country-wide protests; and could not say a word of condemnation on normalisation of ties between Arab states and Israel and had to resign for a cautious reaction, “This is a development with far-reaching implications.”
The point here is not whether Pakistan should have or should not have done all this. The point here is that in international relations, middle or weak powers cannot always do what they wish to do because they are economically, militarily and diplomatically dependent on other powerful states. In other words, they cannot be truly “free” and thus “independent” in conducting their foreign policies. Any politician suggesting otherwise is only doing politics.
Nations are dictated by raison d’état or reason — at least supposedly. For middle powers like Pakistan, reason necessitates the pursuit of balanced, not a fictitious “independent”, foreign policy. Most ordinary Pakistanis miss this simple yet important point, or perhaps they never get told about it because it may be politically unattractive.
A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers. It would mean that Pakistani policymakers and Pakistanis understand that it is in their interests to have friendly and deep-rooted ties with not only China but with the West too. And for that to happen, we must stop viewing foreign policy from the lens of friend-enemy dichotomy.
West is not necessarily an enemy of Pakistan. And, China is our “permanent” friend only until we serve China’s interests. Beyond “West is enemy” rhetoric, Pakistanis must understand that West is one power pole. Anyone presuming that West’s interests are fundamentally and permanently antithetical to our interests does not understand how power operates in international relations. Because those who do understand the workings of power also understand the simple proposition that the West has its own interests that sometimes align with our interests and sometimes do not. Clichédly put, only thing that is permanent is interests, not enemies or friends. Over the course of our relations with the United States, Pakistan and America have — at more than one instance — deeply, strategically collaborated with each other to pursue mutually beneficial interests. In fact, during the Cold War, the United States was thought of as being closer to Pakistan as India was deemed to be closer to the USSR.
Nor is West necessarily anti-Islam, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns regarding rising Islamophobia. If West was against Islam per se, logic dictates that it should have had the worst of relations with the Muslim-majority countries. But the reality is quite the contrary. America and Europe, for example, have deep-rooted economic, security and diplomatic ties with many Muslim states — especially with the Arabic-speaking Muslim Gulf.
The West — with an over 50 per cent share in global GDP — is as an economic hegemon, and, like other Muslim states, Pakistan too should maintain friendly relations with the West.
In his speeches, Prime Minister Imran Khan also cites India as an example of a country with an independent foreign policy. This too is only rhetorical because in reality Pakistan cannot pursue an independent foreign policy while India can simply because Pakistan is not India. Whereas India is an emerging economic giant with over a billion people, Pakistan is living off bailouts from the West-led international financial institutions. All countries — be they Pakistan’s “enemies” or “friends”, including China — wish to have stronger ties with India because they see it to be mutually beneficial. That gives India the leverage to exercise greater autonomy over its foreign policy. Any comparison between India’s independent conduct of its foreign policy with that of Pakistan’s constrained conduct is only either foolish or politically expedient. Before Pakistan can emulate India’s independent foreign policy, it should work towards emulating India’s economic strength.
Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy at least at this point in its history. It should actively work towards maintaining friendly ties with all those countries that can maximise its own benefits. Therefore, opposing West in the name of fictitious “independent” foreign policy, and thus unnecessarily intoxicating ties and forgoing important benefits, will be highly imprudent.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2022.
Writer contradicts himself. Some of my thoughts in RED in-line text
These two terms don't seem mutually exclusive! "balanced, not independent". As the title seems to put it.
IK's statement in KHI jalsa "ھم دوستی سب سے چاھتے ھیں، غلامی کسے کی نہیں" paraphrase the same concept that writer probably wanted to bring up.
Or, the writer probably wanted to say what Bajwa "allegedly" said before ex-comrades:
"میں نے اس سے کہا آپ جو مرضی کریں، بس اوپنلی امریکہ کی برائی نہ کریں، انہوں نے ھمیں پیسے دینے ھوتے ھیں".
Last edited:
