Imran Khan! A Diplomatic Blunder

Aspirations for an Independent Foreign Policy: Hopeful or Unrealistic?

This article examines Imran Khan's vision for an independent foreign policy, evaluating its feasibility and implications through a comparative lens.

Pakistan's First Challenge: The West or China?

Pakistan’s economic interests are deeply tied to the West. The European Union grants Pakistan the GSP Plus status, offering tax exemptions that enable Pakistan to export 35% of its products to Europe—significantly more than to either the U.S. or China. Losing this status could cripple Pakistan’s textile industry and leave the country struggling to afford essential imports, such as oil.

After the EU, the U.S. ranks as Pakistan's second-largest trading partner, importing $6 billion in goods annually—the highest volume from any single country. Additionally, the U.S. holds the largest share and influence within the IMF, a critical lender for Pakistan. Consequently, straining relations with the U.S. is no trivial matter.

The U.S., Afghanistan, and Pakistan

Regarding the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Imran Khan's comments on “breaking chains” appeared somewhat naive, casting doubt on Pakistan’s stance. It signaled to the U.S. that Pakistan might have maintained a double game regarding Afghanistan. Despite being a “non-NATO frontline ally” after 9/11 and receiving $33 billion in aid, Khan’s rhetoric suggested otherwise, perpetuating a motivational yet idealistic approach even as Prime Minister. His inclination towards idealism overshadowed pragmatism, often hindering tangible achievements.

 

Historically, Pakistan’s foreign policy leaned towards the West. Despite ups and downs, Pakistan has remained within this bloc, receiving substantial economic and military aid from the West, which it failed to leverage effectively. Transforming this alliance to pursue an independent foreign policy is neither a quick shift nor within the capacity of a single leader or a mere visit to Russia. Even the U.S. has acknowledged that recent maneuvers reflect the personal ambitions of Imran Khan, not Pakistan’s state policy. 

Imran and China

Imran Khan’s approach to foreign policy was marked by rhetorical posturing rather than substantive success. His first major move, submitting the CPEC agreements to the IMF, antagonized China—a strategic investor in Pakistan’s critical sectors during economically challenging times. The agreements aimed to boost sectors of Pakistan’s economy, yet Pakistan's administration failed to harness these benefits effectively. Notably, countries like Sri Lanka, which channeled foreign loans into non-productive projects, suffered immense economic strain; Pakistan is at risk of a similar fate.

 

China values confidentiality in its economic agreements, particularly when involving countries like the U.S., which criticizes China’s global investments as strategic coercion. The revelation of CPEC details to the IMF was seen by China as an indirect leak to the U.S., risking further criticism of its investments.

Turkey or the Arab World?

 

Imran Khan’s attempt to forge an alliance with Iran, Turkey, and Malaysia created tensions with Pakistan’s longstanding Arab allies. A particular misstep was relaying sensitive information about Saudi leadership to Erdogan, estranging key economic partners in the Gulf, whose support is crucial for Pakistan’s workforce and remittances, worth $14 billion annually. Additionally, Saudi Arabia provides direct financial aid to Pakistan, which was jeopardized when Pakistan’s Foreign Minister issued veiled threats about the bilateral relationship.

Imran and Kashmir

On Kashmir, Imran Khan's foreign policy faced severe setbacks. Although he spoke passionately about the Kashmir issue in the United Nations, during his tenure, Indian Prime Minister Modi revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and annexed Ladakh as a separate union territory under India. In comparison, during Nawaz Sharif’s tenure, Modi refrained from such aggressive moves. Ironically, Imran Khan now lauds India’s independent foreign policy, seemingly highlighting the contrast with his own struggles.

Visit to Russia: Wrong Time, Wrong Place

 

Khan’s visit to Russia amid a burgeoning conflict was a strategic misstep. Western economies, with whom Pakistan shares crucial trade interests, were unified against Russia. Meanwhile, Khan’s negotiations on wheat and gas with Russia were viewed as impractical agreements that neither served Pakistan’s immediate needs nor aligned with its primary economic partnerships.

Evaluating Imran Khan’s Foreign Policy

 

The U.S. has been quick to observe that the inconsistencies in Pakistan’s foreign policy are largely Khan’s personal missteps. Khan’s desire for an independent policy is fueled by an idealism that sometimes ignores practical realities. He aspires to replicate his personal achievements in public policy, but as a leader of a debt-laden nation, grand plans for independence are ungrounded. Unlike cricket, politics demands continuous performance, strategic insight, and collaborative strength, rather than individual heroics.

 

While Khan has managed to reframe his political setbacks as a struggle against “foreign conspiracy,” echoing Bhutto’s legacy, he falls short of Bhutto’s stature in international politics. His efforts to portray himself as a nationalist leader clashing with American influence may hold appeal domestically, yet they lack the geopolitical weight that made Bhutto’s stance historically significant.

 

A Psychological Profile of Imran Khan

 

Imran Khan’s worldview, shaped by personal successes, fuels his belief that he can achieve equally grand results for the nation. However, politics requires more than conviction; it demands a grounded understanding of economic and geopolitical realities. While he envisions himself as a global leader on par with those like Bhutto, he overlooks that a nation's independence in foreign policy rests on a self-sufficient economy. Idealism alone cannot liberate a debt-dependent nation.

Ultimately, Khan’s rhetoric may resonate with those disillusioned with Pakistan’s current alliances, yet his actions highlight the limitations of an approach rooted in lofty ideals over pragmatic statecraft.