Pakistan needs a balanced, not Independent Foreign Policy

[lastofthepatriots]

In Punjabi they say pao dusre de marzi naal te khao avde marzi naal. Wear what others want you to and eat what you want to. I think that’s a basic foreign policy rule. Just pacify everyone and do whatever it is you want to do while flying under the radar.

However, disrespect should not be tolerated.

 

[Bilal.]

because we are not trying to convert them , nor do katti with them if they interact with Pakistan.
Also our officials are not obsessed with Pakistan and perpetually bad mouthing or bench marking ourselves against any particular country.

We don’t. You should stop listening to what your Pakistan obsessed media is peddling.

95% of the time you guys don’t even register in our national discourse.

On the other hand. You guys do try to katti with everyone who tries to talk to Pakistan. It was not Pakistan that declared that it would try to isolate anyone. Obsessed bunch, you guys…

 

[nahtanbob]

Please focus on your Hindustan,, things aren't going well for minorities there.

what is new ? shooting the messenger

 

[TechMan]

See kids this what a few F16 and few million dollars can do to lumber 1.

 

[RIP Pak LAW]

Independant foreign policy actually means balanced foreign policy.

 

[graphican]

Its not "either-or" question, we need both independence as well as a balance, but:

Pakistan needs independent foreign policy (first) and Pakistan's best interest is in a balanced foreign policy because that maximises benefits for the state and people of Pakistan. But if sense of balance is your unbending principle of foreign policy then you'll be pulled by one player or the other, all the time.

The core question is: what is your centre of gravity. What is one principle that you never compromise when laying out other principles? It that independence or is that balance? Regardless of your choice, the other aspect will continue to be there but by choosing between one or the other, you will either evolve into an Independent state that is friends of all, or a friendly state that has no face of it sown. First state is called "Independent friendly state", other is called "Everyone's bit*ch". As an independent friendly state, we do - what - we - find - right without worrying to create a necessary balance, and when we chose its time when we take a balanced side, we chose that stance at will. For any respectable Nation, that is right model to built itself upon.

 

[ARMalik]

The PRESENT Foreign Policy of Pakistan is that a 3rd Grade US Official picks up a phone and threatens Pakistan, and the COAS of Pakistan Army TOPPLES AN ELECTED GOVERNMENT !! I mean even a MICKY MOUSE HAS MORE INTEGRITY THESE DAYS THAN COAS OF PAKISTAN.

 

[SIPRA]

See kids this what a few F16 and few million dollars can do to lumber 1.

Lumber 1 has proven to be Lumber 10.

 

[WotTen]

Some people just have a servant mentality

It's the "beggars can't be choosers" mentality.

It's like telling a woman whose husband beats her that she should stay with the abusive husband and not make him angry because he gives her food and spending money.

 

[White privilege]

Not independent...nuff said...slave forever mentality.

 

[VCheng]

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.

Any analysis of Pakistan's foreign policy must start with these two basic questions in order to make any sense of it: Who actually decides it, and for whose benefit is it run?

Once those two aspects are understood, it all becomes clear and perfectly logical.

 

[Tomcats]

People here think that pragmatism is equivalent to BDSM slavery...

 

[SQ8]

I agree with the seasoned thing. Even for small things like tourism, railway, etc we need expert leading it. However, a country needs a leader and an organic politcian, rest is compensated by his advisors. The problem lies there. Like for IT we have a minister who probably doesn't know WhatsApp.

True - but the leader should have right advisors and should listen to and trust their judgement.

 

[Joe Shearer]

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.

Don't know when this changed, as it did in the perception of fanboys.

Before Pakistan can emulate India’s independent foreign policy, it should work towards emulating India’s economic strength.

....that it even needs saying!

Yet a neighbor right next door gets away with exactly that, i.e. sitting on the fence, balancing. Look further East, a former wing of ours too does the same and gets away just fine. Some introspection is needed to make hay while the sun shines. This is what the rest of the world does.

Speaking as a disconnected person, less might mean more in this case. If Pakistani diplomats and Pakistani leadership simply stopped trying to be the Great Britain of the second tier of world powers, they might get into less complications, find themselves on fewer branches, leave many more blind alleys thankfully unexplored.

Bigger rocks are harder to push.

The other facter giving India a free pass is their opposition to China. China is a greater threat than Russia to the US.

India is not opposed to China. China is opposed to India. Just think about it. If it had not been for that, India would have been far closer to China and would have been an asset for China to have in her corner, as representing an enormous opportunity for continued growth.

 

[Joe Shearer]

multi-polar world

Normally would mean at least three.

You take out an Oxford grad individual and put Sherry Rahman who's a MA in History,

An Oxford grad ranks over a Masters degree holder?