Pakistan is in the news. Islamabad seems to be heading towards having a brand-new foreign policy. Or, has a policy change already taken place?
Technically, the idea of having an independent foreign policy is not only desirable but also augurs well for any country’s dignified stature in the comity of nations. However, in the present complex geo-political global environment, it is indeed difficult to stay completely ‘independent’ in one’s approach while interacting with more than 200 countries of the world particularly at a time when major powers of the world are fighting for their future politico-economic space and a new cold war is breathing heavily around the corner.
Strictly speaking, barring a few militarily and economically powerful countries, no country could truly claim to have an entirely independent foreign policy. Looking around, one would find countries of the first world like England, France and Germany showing a visible tilt towards the US when it comes to dealing with any important regional or international issue. The ongoing war in Ukraine could be taken as a living example. The collective decision taken by the US and EU to aide Ukraine militarily and financially while avoiding taking Russia head-on until perhaps Moscow used chemical weapons, points towards this direction. In no way does that mean the UK, France and Germany do not follow independent foreign policies.
On the other hand, countries of the third world particularly those struggling with domestic political uncertainties or in the IMF’s grip could hardly claim to have an entirely independent approach in their foreign policy domain. Pakistan’s decision to conduct the nuclear test in May 1998 is a good example of promoting an independent foreign policy standpoint but such secluded instances could not be taken as a general rule. These are exceptions to the general rule and may be taken as such. How many times has Pakistan went outside the imposed ambit of limitations without facing severe reprimand and sanctions or suffer ‘consequences’? Cuba is still facing the US embargo and Iran is still paying the price of going beyond its respective limits set by the powers that be. Even a powerful country like Russia is likely to pay dearly for challenging the status quo determined by the West.
In a democratic system, foreign policy or a change therein is made by the government of the day but after consulting all stakeholders and taking its parliament into confidence. A country’s foreign policy depicts the domestic political and economic policies and the prevailing regional and international environment. The stronger a country is militarily, economically and politically, the stronger its foreign policy could be. Furthermore, being ‘strategically located’ could be one of the many determinants of foreign policy but it is by no means the only factor allowing you to strengthen your foreign policy. Secondly, this factor could hardy prove beneficial if you do not know how to translate this geographical advantage into real time economic gains.
Pakistan is a nuclear power but with a weak and incoherent economy. As its nukes are neither for sale nor could these be utilized in boosting the economy, mixing the two divergent aspects and issuing generalized statements are not going to help. Nuclear capability is a national asset and must be seen as an effective ‘deterrent’ against any hegemonistic designs. Indeed, Pakistan acquired nuclear capability to create the much-needed meaningful balance of power in South Asia. Fortunately, it is serving the purpose and Islamabad’s enemies know the consequences of any military adventure undertaken by any irresponsible adversary. Therefore, having nuclear capability ipso facto could not be made the basis of promoting an independent policy. In fact, it is the other way around. One of the main facets of Pakistan’s foreign policy is to safeguard its nuclear assets and not vice versa.
Simple defiance cannot be construed as propagating an independent foreign policy. If the ultimate aim is to bring prosperity to Pakistan, a positive, pro-active, mature and patient approach is needed. Aimlessly giving defiant gestures to those who matter in international political, security and economic domains could only be counterproductive, to say the least. In any case, defiance for the sake of defiance at best could provide you a card or two to play in domestic politics but could have long term ramifications for the country. Even if you have decided to change the course of your foreign policy or any major contour thereof, there is hardly any need to announce it publicly. In diplomacy, you do not display your cards on the table unless it is absolutely inevitable. Even in such extreme circumstances, you choose your words carefully leaving at least some space for defending your postures if something backfires.
Next comes the ‘affordability’ aspect. Calculating the risk factors alone in making a change in any policy is not enough. Even if you have found ways and means to ‘afford’ the ensuing ‘change’ politically and financially, finding effective alternatives to stay the course is but essential. What is the plan of action to implement such an ‘independent’ foreign policy in a way that suits Pakistan in a massively confused global environment? Would the serpents of FATF and IMF stop poisoning Pakistan by adopting a defiant posture towards the US? Would China be able to completely replace the US as far as Pakistan’s national interest is concerned? Hasn’t Islamabad already overburdened the only true friend it has earned through the passage of the last seven decades? Interestingly, China would perhaps be the first country advising Pakistan to refrain from straining relations with the US and the European Union.
Considering all domestic, regional and international constraints, at least emotions should not be allowed to overrun logic and wisdom. The need of the hour is not to make any big changes in the foreign policy. Perhaps, it is time to bring sanity in the internal political environment through early elections so that the process of achieving the stated objectives of geo-economics could commence on a firm footing. The need of the hour is to focus on mending ways both internally and externally. Perhaps, it is time to save the country from any further embarrassment and think beyond personal likes and dislikes. No one is going to live or stay in power forever. Instead of leaving a personal example, leave a legacy worth emulating by future generations.
Technically, the idea of having an independent foreign policy is not only desirable but also augurs well for any country’s dignified stature in the comity of nations. However, in the present complex geo-political global environment, it is indeed difficult to stay completely ‘independent’ in one’s approach while interacting with more than 200 countries of the world particularly at a time when major powers of the world are fighting for their future politico-economic space and a new cold war is breathing heavily around the corner.
Strictly speaking, barring a few militarily and economically powerful countries, no country could truly claim to have an entirely independent foreign policy. Looking around, one would find countries of the first world like England, France and Germany showing a visible tilt towards the US when it comes to dealing with any important regional or international issue. The ongoing war in Ukraine could be taken as a living example. The collective decision taken by the US and EU to aide Ukraine militarily and financially while avoiding taking Russia head-on until perhaps Moscow used chemical weapons, points towards this direction. In no way does that mean the UK, France and Germany do not follow independent foreign policies.
On the other hand, countries of the third world particularly those struggling with domestic political uncertainties or in the IMF’s grip could hardly claim to have an entirely independent approach in their foreign policy domain. Pakistan’s decision to conduct the nuclear test in May 1998 is a good example of promoting an independent foreign policy standpoint but such secluded instances could not be taken as a general rule. These are exceptions to the general rule and may be taken as such. How many times has Pakistan went outside the imposed ambit of limitations without facing severe reprimand and sanctions or suffer ‘consequences’? Cuba is still facing the US embargo and Iran is still paying the price of going beyond its respective limits set by the powers that be. Even a powerful country like Russia is likely to pay dearly for challenging the status quo determined by the West.
In a democratic system, foreign policy or a change therein is made by the government of the day but after consulting all stakeholders and taking its parliament into confidence. A country’s foreign policy depicts the domestic political and economic policies and the prevailing regional and international environment. The stronger a country is militarily, economically and politically, the stronger its foreign policy could be. Furthermore, being ‘strategically located’ could be one of the many determinants of foreign policy but it is by no means the only factor allowing you to strengthen your foreign policy. Secondly, this factor could hardy prove beneficial if you do not know how to translate this geographical advantage into real time economic gains.
Pakistan is a nuclear power but with a weak and incoherent economy. As its nukes are neither for sale nor could these be utilized in boosting the economy, mixing the two divergent aspects and issuing generalized statements are not going to help. Nuclear capability is a national asset and must be seen as an effective ‘deterrent’ against any hegemonistic designs. Indeed, Pakistan acquired nuclear capability to create the much-needed meaningful balance of power in South Asia. Fortunately, it is serving the purpose and Islamabad’s enemies know the consequences of any military adventure undertaken by any irresponsible adversary. Therefore, having nuclear capability ipso facto could not be made the basis of promoting an independent policy. In fact, it is the other way around. One of the main facets of Pakistan’s foreign policy is to safeguard its nuclear assets and not vice versa.
Simple defiance cannot be construed as propagating an independent foreign policy. If the ultimate aim is to bring prosperity to Pakistan, a positive, pro-active, mature and patient approach is needed. Aimlessly giving defiant gestures to those who matter in international political, security and economic domains could only be counterproductive, to say the least. In any case, defiance for the sake of defiance at best could provide you a card or two to play in domestic politics but could have long term ramifications for the country. Even if you have decided to change the course of your foreign policy or any major contour thereof, there is hardly any need to announce it publicly. In diplomacy, you do not display your cards on the table unless it is absolutely inevitable. Even in such extreme circumstances, you choose your words carefully leaving at least some space for defending your postures if something backfires.
Next comes the ‘affordability’ aspect. Calculating the risk factors alone in making a change in any policy is not enough. Even if you have found ways and means to ‘afford’ the ensuing ‘change’ politically and financially, finding effective alternatives to stay the course is but essential. What is the plan of action to implement such an ‘independent’ foreign policy in a way that suits Pakistan in a massively confused global environment? Would the serpents of FATF and IMF stop poisoning Pakistan by adopting a defiant posture towards the US? Would China be able to completely replace the US as far as Pakistan’s national interest is concerned? Hasn’t Islamabad already overburdened the only true friend it has earned through the passage of the last seven decades? Interestingly, China would perhaps be the first country advising Pakistan to refrain from straining relations with the US and the European Union.
Considering all domestic, regional and international constraints, at least emotions should not be allowed to overrun logic and wisdom. The need of the hour is not to make any big changes in the foreign policy. Perhaps, it is time to bring sanity in the internal political environment through early elections so that the process of achieving the stated objectives of geo-economics could commence on a firm footing. The need of the hour is to focus on mending ways both internally and externally. Perhaps, it is time to save the country from any further embarrassment and think beyond personal likes and dislikes. No one is going to live or stay in power forever. Instead of leaving a personal example, leave a legacy worth emulating by future generations.
