An underwhelming foreign policy Has Pakistan

 

An underwhelming foreign policy Has Pakistan performed well in coping with the challenges and opportunities presented by the new international relations environment that has emerged over the past few decades? The response is not entirely affirmative.

Although Pakistan has skilled diplomats who, on average, have a solid conceptual understanding of the developing international politics, this understanding has largely remained unrelated to policy. To be fair, politicians make policies, not diplomats. Additionally, this holds true worldwide. However, even politicians in Pakistan have a limited say in the formulation of foreign policy. And when they do play this role, the vast majority of them are uninterested in finding solutions to problems and have no comprehension of them.

The political system, social structure, power balances, and interests of the ruling elite all have an impact on a nation's foreign policy to varying degrees. The security establishment's role has historically been prioritized in light of Pakistan's foreign policy challenges. To justify this, legitimate security interests were overemphasized, resulting in an imbalance between domestic priorities of security, development, and political stability and foreign policy. The system remained the same under military or civilian administration: serving the strategic goals of the security apparatus and politicians' blatant pursuit of their own self-interest, as well as their class and institutional interests.

The friendship between Pakistan and China has undoubtedly been the crowning achievement in Pakistan's foreign relations. Pakistan has successfully resisted India's dominance. Pakistan's nuclear capability, for which both the civilian and military leaderships are to be commended, has been beneficial to both the region's peace and Pakistan's security. Pakistan has had excellent relations with the Muslim world and has been prominent in multilateral diplomacy.

However, our foreign policy's best days are long gone as more and more decisions are being made based on leaderships' own priorities, primarily the pursuit of political power, rather than the national interest. A widespread crisis of governance resulted as a result of the same objective defining domestic policies. The leadership achieved success, but the nation fell behind.

Pakistan became reliant on other nations and survived by serving their strategic interests, sometimes at the expense of the country's own. Geoeconomics has been the subject of recent discussion, but neither Pakistan's domestic circumstances nor its relations abroad make it feasible to achieve this goal.

To begin, Pakistan would do well to investigate the global transformations that have long existed. First, let's examine the global changes brought about by four historical events: revolutions in media and technology, globalization, and the end of the cold war These alterations have surrounded, prompted, or resulted in: the collapse of the Soviet Union, the decentralization and dispersion of global power, China's rise, nuclear proliferation, rapid industrialization, 9/11 and the "war on terror," the 2008 financial crisis, the Arab Spring, refugees, populism, Covid-19, breakdowns in supply chains, Ukraine, and, last but not least, the climate change that has been affecting the world for a long time. Not to mention the challenges that states like North Korea continue to pose to the West and its allies, as well as America's post-9/11 wars, which have proved to be more harmful than beneficial.

Domestic conditions have also been affected in numerous nations, particularly in the West. Anxiety about the economy has been brought on by domestic and international factors in times like these, when foreign nations and individuals are stealing your factories, jobs, and personal safety. The less privileged classes have been left behind as a result of social discontent and income inequality brought about by globalization. As a result, they have felt victimized and excluded by forces they do not comprehend.

We now face new geopolitics, rising powers, regional alignments, alliances, an increase in non-traditional threats and transnational challenges, and unforeseen opportunities as a result of all of this. The recent Xi-Biden summit demonstrated that the concerns about a new cold war were undoubtedly exaggerated. However, in the new international context, the rivalry and competition between the United States and China will continue. However, when the world is confronted with such a collection of challenges that are affecting the lives of the common man, it cannot become the sole issue that will define the 21st century. Domestic and international policies are now increasingly intertwined. Additionally, the economy has emerged as the main topic. President Biden has referred to his foreign policy in the United States as a middle-class foreign policy. He turned his back on the "forever wars" for that very reason.

In fact, every nation is questioning or reevaluating its foreign policy. Governments are concentrating on the economy everywhere, regardless of whether or not there is democracy. Take a look at how China's Xi was sought after at the recent APEC and G20 meetings in Thailand and Bali, respectively. Also, pay attention to the statements made by Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, French President Macron, and German Chancellor Sholz. These nations are attempting to find a middle ground between the United States and China in terms of geopolitics and economic interests due to their close economic ties with China.

It would be challenging to detach from China's economy or branch out. Geopolitics, on the other hand, cannot be wished away and will remain obscure. But the most important thing is that big powers will try to diversify their relationships with the rest of the world by opening up to and entering into an increasing number of markets as the economy takes center stage. As a result, opportunities exist for middle and small powers. And a nation like Pakistan, which has strategic relations with a China that is more widely accepted around the world, may have a good place in international relations.

However, Pakistan's foreign policy has largely stuck to outdated notions of the world and ourselves. Rather than seeking partners and allies, any recent attempts to establish new relationships, such as with Russia, were primarily made to diversify beneficiaries. The gap that exists between the challenges that are getting worse and our decreasing capabilities has grown. Pakistan has been at a disadvantage when dealing with major powers and has frequently ended up making poor compromises as a result of the elite's unwavering hold on the priorities that are most important to them over the national interest.

Extremist groups that emerged as a result of Pakistan's strategic ambitions in the region and Washington's misguided wars now pose a threat to our economic stability and future. Furthermore, Islamabad's fateful decision to prioritise its support for the Afghan Taliban has resulted in a backlash. Geo-economics is not dependent on resolving Pakistan's security issues or advancing regional stability. Social grievances and the lure of extremism are stoked as the economy continues to suffer and governance fails. When the state is weak and unable to act, forces of instability thrive.

A weak state eventually comes to rely on others to limit its options for foreign policy. Even Pakistan's relationship with China has grown in importance as a result of the dependency syndrome, though not always for the right reasons. It is inciting anti-Americanism, which has become a badge of "independent" foreign policy in the public's mind, and it is encouraging the public to believe that Pakistan does not need to worry about other relationships because it has China at its back.

Geo-economics is largely a slogan because Pakistan is unable to recognize its weaknesses and successfully implement the necessary change. Pakistan is not a good partner or an appealing market for foreign investors because of serious structural and underlying economic weaknesses. National independence, global engagement, and national strength are all interconnected. Geo-economics cannot exist without that. However, the self-serving elite continues to live in the past and searches for tried-and-true solutions to Pakistan's problems because it does not know any new ones. Another section places the blame for Pakistan's problems on other nations. Both lead to isolation abroad and, if not worse, domestic stagnation.