Pakistan needs a balanced, not Independent Foreign Policy

[313ghazi]

We need an independent foreign policy. We can't have one whilst we are reliant on others. We'll actually we can but we have to be prepared to face the consequences of that.

 

[PakFactor]

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.

Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy | The Express Tribune

A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers

tribune.com.pk

Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy​

A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers

---

Syed Abdul Ahad WasimApril 19, 2022


The writer is a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (MALD) candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, focusing on International Security and International Development

---

In his last few weeks in office prior to the dissolution of National Assembly, Prime Minister Imran Khan continuously emphasised that under his leadership Pakistan pursued an “independent” foreign policy. In fact, he blamed the pursuit of such an independent foreign policy for his ouster from power as a result of a foreign conspiracy. In his March 31st address to the nation, Imran Khan defined an independent foreign policy in his own words “as one which is meant for Pakistanis” i.e. one that takes into account the aspirations or the will of the people of Pakistan.
If prime minister’s own definition of an independent foreign policy is taken as the guiding light, it would be difficult to make a case that he did actually pursue such an independent foreign policy. For instance, most Pakistanis would want Pakistan to at least condemn Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and other Muslim states for normalising diplomatic ties with Israel. Many would want an end to Saudi Arabia’s massacre of fellow Muslims in Yemen. A considerable number would also perhaps want Pakistan to voice concern regarding the treatment of Muslim Uighurs in China. Yet, it is hard to imagine that any government in Pakistan, let alone Imran Khan’s, would stand up to Saudi Arabia or the UAE or China regardless of what the aspirations of the people are.
Is it not then that an “independent foreign policy” is merely another name for defying the West — and the West only?
If so, such an independent foreign policy would only be partially independent because a true independent foreign policy would mean that Pakistan would freely choose its course of action in the best of its interests irrespective of whether such a policy defies not just the West but even the East, including China.
Even a cursory moment of reflection would make it clear that Pakistan cannot pursue such a “truly” independent foreign policy, even if it wishes to.
Under Imran Khan’s watch, Pakistan refused to participate in the Kuala Lumpur Summit under pressure from Saudi Arabia; did not join the global outrage against China’s actions in Hong Kong; did not condemn the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; did not share the worldwide condemnation of the treatment of Uighurs in China; could not expel the French ambassador after French President’s statement calling Islam as problematic despite Imran Khan being a vocal critic of Islamophobia and despite there being country-wide protests; and could not say a word of condemnation on normalisation of ties between Arab states and Israel and had to resign for a cautious reaction, “This is a development with far-reaching implications.”
The point here is not whether Pakistan should have or should not have done all this. The point here is that in international relations, middle or weak powers cannot always do what they wish to do because they are economically, militarily and diplomatically dependent on other powerful states. In other words, they cannot be truly “free” and thus “independent” in conducting their foreign policies. Any politician suggesting otherwise is only doing politics.
Nations are dictated by raison d’état or reason — at least supposedly. For middle powers like Pakistan, reason necessitates the pursuit of balanced, not a fictitious “independent”, foreign policy. Most ordinary Pakistanis miss this simple yet important point, or perhaps they never get told about it because it may be politically unattractive.
A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers. It would mean that Pakistani policymakers and Pakistanis understand that it is in their interests to have friendly and deep-rooted ties with not only China but with the West too. And for that to happen, we must stop viewing foreign policy from the lens of friend-enemy dichotomy.
West is not necessarily an enemy of Pakistan. And, China is our “permanent” friend only until we serve China’s interests. Beyond “West is enemy” rhetoric, Pakistanis must understand that West is one power pole. Anyone presuming that West’s interests are fundamentally and permanently antithetical to our interests does not understand how power operates in international relations. Because those who do understand the workings of power also understand the simple proposition that the West has its own interests that sometimes align with our interests and sometimes do not. Clichédly put, only thing that is permanent is interests, not enemies or friends. Over the course of our relations with the United States, Pakistan and America have — at more than one instance — deeply, strategically collaborated with each other to pursue mutually beneficial interests. 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.
Nor is West necessarily anti-Islam, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns regarding rising Islamophobia. If West was against Islam per se, logic dictates that it should have had the worst of relations with the Muslim-majority countries. But the reality is quite the contrary. America and Europe, for example, have deep-rooted economic, security and diplomatic ties with many Muslim states — especially with the Arabic-speaking Muslim Gulf.
The West — with an over 50 per cent share in global GDP — is as an economic hegemon, and, like other Muslim states, Pakistan too should maintain friendly relations with the West.
In his speeches, Prime Minister Imran Khan also cites India as an example of a country with an independent foreign policy. This too is only rhetorical because in reality Pakistan cannot pursue an independent foreign policy while India can simply because Pakistan is not India. Whereas India is an emerging economic giant with over a billion people, Pakistan is living off bailouts from the West-led international financial institutions. All countries — be they Pakistan’s “enemies” or “friends”, including China — wish to have stronger ties with India because they see it to be mutually beneficial. That gives India the leverage to exercise greater autonomy over its foreign policy. Any comparison between India’s independent conduct of its foreign policy with that of Pakistan’s constrained conduct is only either foolish or politically expedient. Before Pakistan can emulate India’s independent foreign policy, it should work towards emulating India’s economic strength.
Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy at least at this point in its history. It should actively work towards maintaining friendly ties with all those countries that can maximise its own benefits. Therefore, opposing West in the name of fictitious “independent” foreign policy, and thus unnecessarily intoxicating ties and forgoing important benefits, will be highly imprudent.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2022.

How has being a hired gun served Pakistan in the past?

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.

The author brings up some good points but he failed to mention one thing in that we have failed to extract our cost for Western support throughout the last 70+ years. It's not the Wests fault but our own due to incompetent bureaucracy and foreign policy making. But most importantly we do not improve our learning curve as we have incompetency in all our institutions, including the military as the recent events has shown not just the Pakistanis but the World, you toss a system that's developing and bring back the rot whereas 24+ individuals taking oath are convicts out on bail, in which society would this be acceptable. You take out an Oxford grad individual and put Sherry Rahman who's a MA in History, the f**k? Never learned to milk all sides to your benefit, and position others to fight it out themselves.

I myself 100% agree on his economy thought as we've all been taught and shown in the West that, "its the economy stupid". The gravitational pull the West has is due to the shear size of its economy which brings it stability, and long term growth and investment in education that leads directly into R&D. Just look at COVID-19 it was Western powers that utilized its' combined resources to conjure up a cure while name me 1 Muslim run country that was able to present something? I will go so far as saying we can't manufacture basic maternity ward materials for new born if we're cut out from the global economy.

India & Bangladesh versus Pakistan, Pakistan is the type when a group of gangs are about to engage someone its the skinny kid that pops out of the group to show his chest just to be pounded a few seconds later, it's created an image of self importance when there was none and utterly failed to live up to it, to just become the laughing stock of the world it might hurt but that's the truth. India & Bangladesh never went out and wanted to be an alternative and never cared for the West's political ambitions, while we self-styled ourselves as anti-communist? Why, did communist's steal your sister before her wedding night? Why stick your head out unnecessarily. What those two nations did was develop there basic infrastructure and economy. Doesn't matter if India is a call center power house at-least it feeds there people and provide the basic necessities and increase purchasing power, while Bangladesh focus on agri-textile and soon going into manufacturing, what have we done rather than playing follow the leader.

Problem lies in our education system we create more followers through our ratta education system of learning than molding true leader's who can helm the country's various economic sectors in public institutions. We've failed our people from the beginning, we've failed in selecting proper leaders and they succeeded running this country into the ground. You fix this key issue it'll solve 80% of your problems while you just have to focus on the other 20%.

 

[Goenitz]

IK is not anti-america. Please keep that in mind. He is just pacifist and cannot tow US line to contain any country. IK himself wants balance foreign policy. You know why Chinese firms got angry with IK? Do you remember IPPs issue? IK negotiated new delas with pakistanis IPPs' owner but cannot with Chinese. It is also a blessing that Chinese firm didn't take it to int courts but it shows IK try to pursue Pak's interests only.

 

[OverandOut]

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.

Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy | The Express Tribune

A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers

tribune.com.pk

Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy​

A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers

---

Syed Abdul Ahad WasimApril 19, 2022


The writer is a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (MALD) candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, focusing on International Security and International Development

---

In his last few weeks in office prior to the dissolution of National Assembly, Prime Minister Imran Khan continuously emphasised that under his leadership Pakistan pursued an “independent” foreign policy. In fact, he blamed the pursuit of such an independent foreign policy for his ouster from power as a result of a foreign conspiracy. In his March 31st address to the nation, Imran Khan defined an independent foreign policy in his own words “as one which is meant for Pakistanis” i.e. one that takes into account the aspirations or the will of the people of Pakistan.
If prime minister’s own definition of an independent foreign policy is taken as the guiding light, it would be difficult to make a case that he did actually pursue such an independent foreign policy. For instance, most Pakistanis would want Pakistan to at least condemn Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and other Muslim states for normalising diplomatic ties with Israel. Many would want an end to Saudi Arabia’s massacre of fellow Muslims in Yemen. A considerable number would also perhaps want Pakistan to voice concern regarding the treatment of Muslim Uighurs in China. Yet, it is hard to imagine that any government in Pakistan, let alone Imran Khan’s, would stand up to Saudi Arabia or the UAE or China regardless of what the aspirations of the people are.
Is it not then that an “independent foreign policy” is merely another name for defying the West — and the West only?
If so, such an independent foreign policy would only be partially independent because a true independent foreign policy would mean that Pakistan would freely choose its course of action in the best of its interests irrespective of whether such a policy defies not just the West but even the East, including China.
Even a cursory moment of reflection would make it clear that Pakistan cannot pursue such a “truly” independent foreign policy, even if it wishes to.
Under Imran Khan’s watch, Pakistan refused to participate in the Kuala Lumpur Summit under pressure from Saudi Arabia; did not join the global outrage against China’s actions in Hong Kong; did not condemn the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; did not share the worldwide condemnation of the treatment of Uighurs in China; could not expel the French ambassador after French President’s statement calling Islam as problematic despite Imran Khan being a vocal critic of Islamophobia and despite there being country-wide protests; and could not say a word of condemnation on normalisation of ties between Arab states and Israel and had to resign for a cautious reaction, “This is a development with far-reaching implications.”
The point here is not whether Pakistan should have or should not have done all this. The point here is that in international relations, middle or weak powers cannot always do what they wish to do because they are economically, militarily and diplomatically dependent on other powerful states. In other words, they cannot be truly “free” and thus “independent” in conducting their foreign policies. Any politician suggesting otherwise is only doing politics.
Nations are dictated by raison d’état or reason — at least supposedly. For middle powers like Pakistan, reason necessitates the pursuit of balanced, not a fictitious “independent”, foreign policy. Most ordinary Pakistanis miss this simple yet important point, or perhaps they never get told about it because it may be politically unattractive.
A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers. It would mean that Pakistani policymakers and Pakistanis understand that it is in their interests to have friendly and deep-rooted ties with not only China but with the West too. And for that to happen, we must stop viewing foreign policy from the lens of friend-enemy dichotomy.
West is not necessarily an enemy of Pakistan. And, China is our “permanent” friend only until we serve China’s interests. Beyond “West is enemy” rhetoric, Pakistanis must understand that West is one power pole. Anyone presuming that West’s interests are fundamentally and permanently antithetical to our interests does not understand how power operates in international relations. Because those who do understand the workings of power also understand the simple proposition that the West has its own interests that sometimes align with our interests and sometimes do not. Clichédly put, only thing that is permanent is interests, not enemies or friends. Over the course of our relations with the United States, Pakistan and America have — at more than one instance — deeply, strategically collaborated with each other to pursue mutually beneficial interests. 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.
Nor is West necessarily anti-Islam, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns regarding rising Islamophobia. If West was against Islam per se, logic dictates that it should have had the worst of relations with the Muslim-majority countries. But the reality is quite the contrary. America and Europe, for example, have deep-rooted economic, security and diplomatic ties with many Muslim states — especially with the Arabic-speaking Muslim Gulf.
The West — with an over 50 per cent share in global GDP — is as an economic hegemon, and, like other Muslim states, Pakistan too should maintain friendly relations with the West.
In his speeches, Prime Minister Imran Khan also cites India as an example of a country with an independent foreign policy. This too is only rhetorical because in reality Pakistan cannot pursue an independent foreign policy while India can simply because Pakistan is not India. Whereas India is an emerging economic giant with over a billion people, Pakistan is living off bailouts from the West-led international financial institutions. All countries — be they Pakistan’s “enemies” or “friends”, including China — wish to have stronger ties with India because they see it to be mutually beneficial. That gives India the leverage to exercise greater autonomy over its foreign policy. Any comparison between India’s independent conduct of its foreign policy with that of Pakistan’s constrained conduct is only either foolish or politically expedient. Before Pakistan can emulate India’s independent foreign policy, it should work towards emulating India’s economic strength.
Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy at least at this point in its history. It should actively work towards maintaining friendly ties with all those countries that can maximise its own benefits. Therefore, opposing West in the name of fictitious “independent” foreign policy, and thus unnecessarily intoxicating ties and forgoing important benefits, will be highly imprudent.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2022.

Screw this!

People who write such articles of balance approach should open their eyes.
Where does this stupid writer see balance in the current world. With this article the writer has exposed his lazy school of thought that is just live and let live. Even animals don’t live and let live. The notion of convenience is against Islam. Islam teaches you to struggle for what is right. The action may be insignificant but will be counted nonetheless.

Ye hath pe hath rekh ker baithney wali soch hai.

You should be firm in your decisions and fight for the right cause.

I’d like to him to tell this balanced approach mentality to Allah on the day of judgement.
(May Allah have mercy on me and all of use for our sins. Ameen)

 

[Clutch]

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.

Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy | The Express Tribune

A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers

tribune.com.pk

Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy​

A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers

---

Syed Abdul Ahad WasimApril 19, 2022


The writer is a Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (MALD) candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, focusing on International Security and International Development

---

In his last few weeks in office prior to the dissolution of National Assembly, Prime Minister Imran Khan continuously emphasised that under his leadership Pakistan pursued an “independent” foreign policy. In fact, he blamed the pursuit of such an independent foreign policy for his ouster from power as a result of a foreign conspiracy. In his March 31st address to the nation, Imran Khan defined an independent foreign policy in his own words “as one which is meant for Pakistanis” i.e. one that takes into account the aspirations or the will of the people of Pakistan.
If prime minister’s own definition of an independent foreign policy is taken as the guiding light, it would be difficult to make a case that he did actually pursue such an independent foreign policy. For instance, most Pakistanis would want Pakistan to at least condemn Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and other Muslim states for normalising diplomatic ties with Israel. Many would want an end to Saudi Arabia’s massacre of fellow Muslims in Yemen. A considerable number would also perhaps want Pakistan to voice concern regarding the treatment of Muslim Uighurs in China. Yet, it is hard to imagine that any government in Pakistan, let alone Imran Khan’s, would stand up to Saudi Arabia or the UAE or China regardless of what the aspirations of the people are.
Is it not then that an “independent foreign policy” is merely another name for defying the West — and the West only?
If so, such an independent foreign policy would only be partially independent because a true independent foreign policy would mean that Pakistan would freely choose its course of action in the best of its interests irrespective of whether such a policy defies not just the West but even the East, including China.
Even a cursory moment of reflection would make it clear that Pakistan cannot pursue such a “truly” independent foreign policy, even if it wishes to.
Under Imran Khan’s watch, Pakistan refused to participate in the Kuala Lumpur Summit under pressure from Saudi Arabia; did not join the global outrage against China’s actions in Hong Kong; did not condemn the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi; did not share the worldwide condemnation of the treatment of Uighurs in China; could not expel the French ambassador after French President’s statement calling Islam as problematic despite Imran Khan being a vocal critic of Islamophobia and despite there being country-wide protests; and could not say a word of condemnation on normalisation of ties between Arab states and Israel and had to resign for a cautious reaction, “This is a development with far-reaching implications.”
The point here is not whether Pakistan should have or should not have done all this. The point here is that in international relations, middle or weak powers cannot always do what they wish to do because they are economically, militarily and diplomatically dependent on other powerful states. In other words, they cannot be truly “free” and thus “independent” in conducting their foreign policies. Any politician suggesting otherwise is only doing politics.
Nations are dictated by raison d’état or reason — at least supposedly. For middle powers like Pakistan, reason necessitates the pursuit of balanced, not a fictitious “independent”, foreign policy. Most ordinary Pakistanis miss this simple yet important point, or perhaps they never get told about it because it may be politically unattractive.
A balanced foreign policy would mean a policy of cooperation and co-habitation with all major powers. It would mean that Pakistani policymakers and Pakistanis understand that it is in their interests to have friendly and deep-rooted ties with not only China but with the West too. And for that to happen, we must stop viewing foreign policy from the lens of friend-enemy dichotomy.
West is not necessarily an enemy of Pakistan. And, China is our “permanent” friend only until we serve China’s interests. Beyond “West is enemy” rhetoric, Pakistanis must understand that West is one power pole. Anyone presuming that West’s interests are fundamentally and permanently antithetical to our interests does not understand how power operates in international relations. Because those who do understand the workings of power also understand the simple proposition that the West has its own interests that sometimes align with our interests and sometimes do not. Clichédly put, only thing that is permanent is interests, not enemies or friends. Over the course of our relations with the United States, Pakistan and America have — at more than one instance — deeply, strategically collaborated with each other to pursue mutually beneficial interests. 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.
Nor is West necessarily anti-Islam, notwithstanding the legitimate concerns regarding rising Islamophobia. If West was against Islam per se, logic dictates that it should have had the worst of relations with the Muslim-majority countries. But the reality is quite the contrary. America and Europe, for example, have deep-rooted economic, security and diplomatic ties with many Muslim states — especially with the Arabic-speaking Muslim Gulf.
The West — with an over 50 per cent share in global GDP — is as an economic hegemon, and, like other Muslim states, Pakistan too should maintain friendly relations with the West.
In his speeches, Prime Minister Imran Khan also cites India as an example of a country with an independent foreign policy. This too is only rhetorical because in reality Pakistan cannot pursue an independent foreign policy while India can simply because Pakistan is not India. Whereas India is an emerging economic giant with over a billion people, Pakistan is living off bailouts from the West-led international financial institutions. All countries — be they Pakistan’s “enemies” or “friends”, including China — wish to have stronger ties with India because they see it to be mutually beneficial. That gives India the leverage to exercise greater autonomy over its foreign policy. Any comparison between India’s independent conduct of its foreign policy with that of Pakistan’s constrained conduct is only either foolish or politically expedient. Before Pakistan can emulate India’s independent foreign policy, it should work towards emulating India’s economic strength.
Pakistan needs a balanced, not independent, foreign policy at least at this point in its history. It should actively work towards maintaining friendly ties with all those countries that can maximise its own benefits. Therefore, opposing West in the name of fictitious “independent” foreign policy, and thus unnecessarily intoxicating ties and forgoing important benefits, will be highly imprudent.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2022.

He is advocating for Beggars can't be Choosers foreign policy....

 

[Ghazwa-e-Hind]

Pakistan needs independent foreign policy. That Imran Khan is working for.

No master/slave FP that we currently have.

 

[mudas777]

A balanced foreign policy is what Imran Khan wanted.
That is the reason we are where we are.
It's the Americans that don't want Pakistan to have a balanced foreign policy.

Once we are get through this establishment treachery and came out at the other side in one piece, we must focus at our economic policy for next 10 years. Once we are economically free choice of our foreign policy will fall into its own place and we will find our own place which suits us.
China is our neighbour and only true friend and our friendship is mutually beneficial. Friendship with the US is necessity but we have got our own people who have got their interests and they think they are more important then the country one. If this is not bad enough then we have got sheep's who simply living with the white man complex as they are incapable of achieving anything themselves.
We need to have a law where any one businesses or interests abroad must not be allowed to get promotion then certain level which can influence our policies, as its simply conflict of interest.

 

[Sugarcane]

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.

Foreign policy have been under control of establishment, they think they're the chosen one for this job. So, they should be answering that why it has been disasters .

 

[Ghazwa-e-Hind]

Foreign policy have been under control of establishment, they think they're the chosen one for this job. So, they should be answering that why it has been disasters .

There cannot be 2 caliphs at the same time.

Martial Law or Civilian supremacy, you can only choose one.

 

[TheSolution]

Pakistan needs independent foreign policy. That Imran Khan is working for.

No master/slave FP that we currently have.

Pakistan needs a foreign policy where it can attract the most benefit, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sugarcane]

There cannot be 2 caliphs at the same time.

Martial Law or Civilian supremacy, you can only choose one.

I always propose
1. Martial Law in current system, Fauji Incorporation should directly rule instead of democracy drama and hiding behind politicians.
Or
2. Rollup this f*g constitution and system and start from scratch after doing mob justice to corrupt and crooks in all institutions.

 

[Ghazwa-e-Hind]

I always proposal
1. Martial Law in current system, Fauji Incorporation should directly rule instead of democracy drama in current system.
2. Rollup this f*g constitution and system and start from scratch after doing mob justice to corrupt and crooks in all institutions.

Exactly, if establishment does not like Imran Khan's independent foreign policy, then come out and rule openly, declare martial law. Dont plant puppet pdm government

30 years of civilian rule, 22 prime ministers, not a single PM completed full term.

 

[Ghazwa-e-Hind]

Its a interdependent world as turkey has shown after riding at the windmills for a few years.
Pakistan should just concentrate on its people and forget about its overly ambitious Islamic ambitions. Literary is at 56 % in Pakistan.
Learn from the Chinese, they talk less and just react in a dry manner to western needling.
While imran , goes around asking for western aid and loans, and simultaneously poking them in the eye.
No need to give bombastic statements like " Afghans have broken their shackles " , pouring salt into western wounds.
Or being the face of anti west posturing on Islamophobia. The western countries and the whole world know that the prejudices and anti minority practices in Muslim countries are much worse than any Islamophobia in the liberal west.
Imran wants to retain his 2 faced foreign policy (not touching any human rights issues in China as example), while lecturing the west on human rights. Its not a local jalsa that he can whip up into a frenzy with some half truths.

Shut up pajeet, mind your own business.

Riots are taking place in many states in India, focus your energy on that. Dont pollute this thread with your unwelcome comments

 

[TheSolution]

Its a interdependent world as turkey has shown after riding at the windmills for a few years.
Pakistan should just concentrate on its people and forget about its overly ambitious Islamic ambitions. Literary is at 56 % in Pakistan.
Learn from the Chinese, they talk less and just react in a dry manner to western needling.
While imran , goes around asking for western aid and loans, and simultaneously poking them in the eye.
No need to give bombastic statements like " Afghans have broken their shackles " , pouring salt into western wounds.
Or being the face of anti west posturing on Islamophobia. The western countries and the whole world know that the prejudices and anti minority practices in Muslim countries are much worse than any Islamophobia in the liberal west.
Imran wants to retain his 2 faced foreign policy (not touching any human rights issues in China as example), while lecturing the west on human rights. Its not a local jalsa that he can whip up into a frenzy with some half truths.

Agreed... for the most part

 

[ARMalik]

I think some one should tell this paid goon that INDEPENDENT POLICY IS ACTUALLY A BALANCED POLICY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND !!