Daily Times

What’s the commonality about Pakistan in foreign press reports? Is it the cuisine, tourism opportunities or cultural diplomacy? None, to be precise. It’s all about an underwhelming economic outlook, political wrangling, extremism, and a headless foreign policy. In short, it is understood that political stability and foreign policy are two sides of the same coin which have a trickle-down effect on the economy.

While the debate on the country’s political dynamics is long and arduous, this piece would rather delve into the specifics of foreign policy. These include Palestine & Kashmir diplomacies and ties with several key allies and global bodies.

Historically speaking, the Palestinian Question and Kashmir are one of the earliest disputes still pending at the UN. The sheer disregard and selective actions of those who claim to champion the cause of human rights and moral values reminds us that realpolitik takes precedence. For instance, the Russo-Ukrainian conflict has all the hallmarks of the crises witnessed in Occupied Palestinian Territories, but the latter has little to no importance for some G20 and P5 member states. Similarly, the actions of the NDA government in Occupied Kashmir post-August 2019 are disregarded with either token statements or indifferent attitude. Yet people asking all the right questions and raising voice for the oppressed are what gives us a glimmer of hope.

Citizens and governments in key parts of the Global North are gradually taking a moral and diplomatic stand for Palestine with Tel Aviv’s isolation increasing day by day. Not to mention the Israeli military’s brutal genocidal tactics in Gaza standing exposed by the ICJ, media platforms such as Al Jazeera and influential journals such as the Lancet. In short, the timeline of events since October 2023 has awakened swathes of younger people to be on the right side of history which has shaken the political foundations of those deliberately looking the other way. In the United States alone, the Democrats are under heavy scrutiny by their traditional voters over the upcoming November elections despite ‘assurances’ for a formidable ceasefire plan in collaboration with Cairo and Doha. The Iranian factor comes into prominence here with its new leadership facing a litmus test to navigate complex ties with Washington.

While the situation in Occupied Kashmir is not as grave, the forced annexation in 2019 under the garb of ‘inclusivity’ has caused deep resentment amongst the local populace who strongly fear of becoming strangers or being pushed out of their lands. Their concerns aren’t in vain since New Delhi has taken steps in line with the aspirations of those who believe in the majoritarian yet fascism-laced Hindutva ideology. Legislative ‘elections’ are underway with Lt. Governor Manoj Sinha’s role becoming pivotal as the region’s de facto viceroy. Of course, the Abdullah and Mufti dynasties are contesting with the opposition’s INDIA alliance diving in. But the question remains: Will the Kashmiris forgive the NDA government for backstabbing them five years ago when the final tally is counted in October?

In the context of the evolving situation in these two flashpoint regions, Islamabad’s diplomatic influence shall be assessed with additional takes. To understand it, I reached out to some veteran diplomatic and academic experts. Moreover, analysts and activists from the younger generation provided their informed opinions as well.

I asked Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi, a household name in diplomacy and journalism, on why the PDM government is unable to move beyond token statements of solidarity for the Kashmiris and what future lies ahead for the region? Her opinion matters the most since she closely dealt with the 2019 crisis as the country’s then top diplomat at the UN. She was of the view that the government needs to revive its diplomacy on Occupied Kashmir. Adding that the issue does not seem to figure in its diplomatic efforts. This is exactly what’s causing a directionless Kashmir diplomacy, and I couldn’t agree more with her.

Ambassador Lodhi further suggested that a campaign needs to be launched and sustained at global level to highlight India’s illegal actions in contravention of UNSC resolutions. Her belief is that global focus today is on Gaza and Ukraine but navigating Kashmir is a challenge PDM has to push through along similar lines. Emphasising that at the very least, efforts should’ve been made to adopt appropriate resolutions in the 47-member UN Human Rights Council in Geneva against Raisina Hill’s aggressive steps.

On this note, the level of seriousness is clearly lacking at Islamabad’s Red Zone in comparison to some previous governments, but can the diplomatic cadre be solely held responsible? It has much to do with the will of the political leadership which does not seem have the capacity to go beyond firefighting measures and meaningless statements.

I also approached Michael Kugelman, the Director of Wilson Centre’s South Asia Institute, for his take on Islamabad’s foreign policy blues. He believes that as far as it has no serious takers for Kashmir and Palestine amongst other constraints pertaining to economic diplomacy and ties with key allies, especially the US.

He pointed out that it faces opposite problems on the two flashpoint regions. On Kashmir, he states that the country is struggling to convince the international community on buying its narrative on the disputed region when even most key allies are shying away on getting ‘involved’.

Whereas, on Palestine, he thinks that Islamabad’s decision makers have no ‘particular space’ on playing a major role regardless of the strong global support and its own efforts in providing solidarity which I would tend to agree with him to be the bare minimum. He added that despite the country’s close ties with the Gulf, its stakes are overshadowed by global players such as the United States and other regional powers having a greater weightage on the Palestinian Question.

Speaking of global players, China’s efforts in bringing together Fatah and Hamas in July is noteworthy since it not only signalled a proactive diplomacy but defined why countries like Pakistan are fast becoming irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. Hence, Kugelman’s context is of significance.

Before I further discuss his views on economic diplomacy and ties with Washington, I sought additional opinions on Kashmir and Palestine from Zeyd Jooma and Nayab Arshad. The former is a London-based analyst with interesting takes on foreign policy while the latter is a British-Pakistani corporate professional and rights activist who attended numerous Palestine solidarity marches.

Jooma believes that Pakistan needs to review its policies on both regions even though they’re about systematic oppression. In his perspective, ‘tying’ them together hasn’t always helped especially for the Kashmiris and the first thing Islamabad needs to do is utilise means for public diplomacy measures that resonates with the youth worldwide and steer human rights advocacy. Adding that this would help establish a narrative for both the Kashmiris and Palestinians.

Secondly, he states that multilateral diplomatic engagement is of key importance and Pakistan should engage platforms such as the UN and EU by reframing the causes from the angle of democracy and freedom of expression. Thirdly, he thinks that engaging non-state actors in Kashmir for a robust dialogue is a possible outcome since they’re major stakeholders. However, Jooma strongly advised that the state should avoid historical aberration of supporting militancy and move towards diplomacy.

Some of these solutions are partially time tested but the gist of his take remains in line with the views of diplomats and academics on a wider scale. However, steering Pakistan’s foreign policy on these issues in its present form is a major headache for policymakers who need to step out of the ‘comfort zone’.

Nayab had an intriguing view on the country’s foreign policy on the Palestinian cause. She stated that whilst Pakistan’s long-standing position of not recognising Israel as a state is symbolically powerful, the current government’s discourse on Tel Aviv’s assault on Gaza lacks leadership and moral clarity. Further adding that Israel is a ‘pariah’ state, with the ICC and ICJ respectively demanding an end to its war crimes in Gaza, amid the most heinous and well-documented genocide in modern times. In a no holds barred take, she believes that it is unforgivable that Pakistan is choosing to tread ‘cautiously’ on the international stage, in order to ‘appease’ Washington. Emphasising that the world is witnessing an unprecedented and rapid decline of US hegemony with powerful state actors from the Global South uniting against neo-colonialism. In her frank conclusive remarks, she stated it is time for Pakistan to take a bolder and radical approach; not only for the liberation of Palestine, but also, for the ‘liberation’ of Pakistan itself implying the ongoing political instability .

The context of her views are linked with the Foreign Office’s haphazard press releases over several months that received much criticism from the media and retired diplomats. Hence, her strong opinions as an activist are to be duly noted.

Coming back to Kugelman, he had some ‘out of the box’ takes on economic diplomacy and bilateral ties with Washington. On the IMF, he states that the struggles and challenges for the past year or so indicate a ‘bigger problem’ for Pakistan’s foreign policy when its closest friends and donors such as China and key Middle Eastern powers are showing reluctancy in providing prompt relief.

He emphasised that for years Pakistani officials would try to sell a narrative that the country is ‘too big to fail’ and should be bailed out but it doesn’t get that kind of traction anymore. He further pointed out that the unusual delay in IMF Executive Board’s meeting, which now took place on 25 September with an approval of the loan, is interlinked with Pakistan’s political instability when in the past it used to be overlooked by major players. Hence, the complexities on the economic front with Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar’s undiplomatic jibes at the global lending body raising eyebrows earlier this month.

On ties with Washington, Kugelman thinks that the arrival of the new Pakistani Ambassador Rizwan Saeed Sheikh won’t lead to any major changes with the relations treading waters over the next few months till a new US administration is in place. That itself shall navigate bilateral diplomacy but for now, the ambassador’s role shall be ‘limited’ to continuing talks as they stand and ‘focusing’ on Capitol Hill. However, he strongly believes that with multiple domestic and global challenges in key parts of the world alongside a busy election season, neither the Biden Administration nor Congress would be willing to get Ambassador Sheikh’s required attention at this point.

From what’s gathered, Pakistan’s foreign policy is underwhelming which requires major reframing and introspection on part of the diplomatic cadre. While the preceding Foreign Secretary Syrus Sajjad Qazi couldn’t perform as per expectations, his successor Amna Baloch’s role could be redefining subject to political stability returning.

There are challenges beyond the ones mentioned yet the country continues to head towards an unchartered territory with no relief in sight. Bold leadership, meritocracy, and the will to stand on ground is what Islamabad needs at this hour.

The writer is an entrepreneur and former Editor (Special Reports), Daily Times. He’s an alumnus of King’s College London.