Earlier this year, Guyanese President Irfaan Ali coached a BBC journalist, challenging the developed world’s double standards when asked about Guyana’s oil drilling plans amid a climate crisis. In a show of controlled anger, the president questioned the journalist about his right to lecture a country that has kept vast forests alive, for the benefit of the world, without receiving any value in return. This incident is neither the first time that Western media have targeted countries in the South in an attempt to escape dependence on the North, nor the first time that a leader from the South has opposed Western hypocrisy. However, this example resonated with citizens of the South who feel silenced by the West’s condescending approach.
Among these citizens are individuals like me, who belong to an economically crisis-ridden state, Pakistan. Despite being a nuclear power and having years of service with superpowers such as China and especially the United States, Pakistan finds itself constantly obliged to respond to the demands of the North. Amid their economic dependence on loans from the IMF and various countries that view Pakistan as an economic hard case, perpetually begging for help, Pakistanis are desperately waiting for any sign of courage from their leaders . They long for moments, however brief, when their soulless leaders stand up to the West and give them a taste of their own medicine while Pakistan is ridiculed on the world stage. It is undeniable that Pakistan’s insecurities and weaknesses in various sectors have contributed to this submissive behavior. Yet any proud nation must demonstrate a certain firmness when it is taken for granted and expected to conform at all times. Today, the countries of the South are starting to react despite their limited capacity for action. They constantly highlight Western injustices; However, when Pakistan’s current Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif, openly calls his citizens beggars for seeking foreign loans, only a gloomy hope remains that the pride of the nation can be preserved.
Historically, Pakistan’s diplomatic engagements reflect a sad history of incompetence, greed and opportunism that has damaged the country’s global image. Pakistani leaders, both under military dictators and democratic governments, have always bowed to Western domination – except for a few moments during the Ayub Khan era, when Pakistan’s stature improved, and the media International experts have even called Ayub Khan the “De Gaulle of Asia”. Whether it is minor issues, like the plastic rice controversy, or major issues, like safeguarding national interests in diplomatic negotiations with the United States on the War on Terrorism (WOT) in 2000s, Pakistani policymakers collapsed under pressure, revealing their incompetence. When the United States pressured Pakistan to join its military intervention in Afghanistan with the ultimatum “You are either with us or against us”, the Pakistani government was among the first to respond. comply with it. Pakistani academic and media discourse has long argued that neutrality is a better option, given Pakistan’s historically unreliable and turbulent relations with the United States. However, the false dilemma blinded General Parvez Musharraf’s leadership, who ultimately ignored this option. Unsurprisingly, the consequences of the war spread to Pakistan, as many already feared. To add insult to injury, Pakistan’s obedience to fair-weather ally the United States has also caused dissatisfaction with the all-time friendship with China, which considers submission of Pakistan to Western demands such as a lack of strategic independence.
Cleverly, Pakistan’s hostile neighbors, namely India and Iran, have always avoided succumbing to Western pressure. Indian diplomats, for example, strategically opted for technology transfer deals when dealing with the West, even during their times of economic hardship. Moreover, they have skillfully managed to maintain strong ties with the United States despite their close alliances with American adversaries like Russia and Iran. Meanwhile, Pakistan still finds itself in a precarious position, often acting as a geopolitical football, caught in the tug-of-war between the United States and China, both competing for influence in the region. Like India, Iran has resisted Western imperialism since the 1980 revolution, despite numerous adversities. On the other hand, Pakistani diplomats rarely demonstrated the intelligence or courage necessary to outwit their Western counterparts, even when Pakistan was more economically or militarily robust than its neighbors. Due to this obliging and consistent behavior, Pakistan has made it a breeze on the world stage. As a result, Pakistan’s educated youth are far from satisfied with their country’s reckless modus operandi in international relations and affairs.
A country that was once a key player in the Global South is gradually becoming the laughing stock of diplomatic affairs. The youth yearns for a charismatic leader who can be at the forefront of addressing issues of sovereignty and ideological importance, such as those of Kashmir and Palestine, on international platforms. Despite former President Musharraf’s controversial complacency toward the United States during the war on terror, many Pakistanis remember him as one of the last leaders to effectively silence Indian media. Similarly, charismatic leadership traits, such as the ability to rally people around a cause, partly explain why convicted former Prime Minister Imran Khan continues to enjoy a cult following among Pakistan’s youth. His speech to the United Nations General Assembly, where he addressed the global rise of Islamophobia, was widely praised. Additionally, his engagement with former US President Trump, who said “Pakistan never lies”, was seen as a rare moment when Pakistani leaders contradicted the narrative of deception that has long surrounded the country in Washington .
In contrast, politically prominent leaders like former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (weak and dedicated civilian) and Bilawal Bhutto failed to win the respect of the educated youth. They are criticized for failing to influence the United Nations to take decisive action on the Kashmir issue and for embarrassing Pakistan during diplomatic interactions, such as when Mr. Bilawal clashed with the Indian business minister Foreign Affairs, S. Jaishankar. Furthermore, the widespread perception in the West that Pakistan has not done enough to combat terrorism, despite being a significant victim, underscores the erosion of Pakistan’s diplomatic influence over the the last decade.
Unfortunately, the timid approach of Pakistan’s leaders does not appear likely to change anytime soon, especially under the current administration, which is mired by a host of unresolved issues. The PML-N administration’s poor diplomatic record only compounds the disappointment of the country’s increasingly disillusioned youth, who expect its diplomats to respond when necessary, particularly on issues of sovereignty. or ideology. If this does not happen, frustrated young people may resort to symbolic protests, much like the Chinese citizens who sent calcium tablets to their diplomats to strengthen their “spines” in the face of submissive diplomacy. However, despite this gloomy outlook, Pakistan still has potential to regain its place on the world stage. By adopting a more assertive yet strategic diplomatic approach, which carefully balances national interests with global realities, Pakistan can begin to rebuild its lost international relevance. Leadership that can stand firm on sovereignty while engaging in judicious negotiations with world powers rather than automatic compliance could reinvigorate the nation’s pride and honor. Such a path to recovery may be tedious, but with exemplary orchestration and a commitment to upholding Pakistan’s dignity, there is hope for a better diplomatic future for Pakistan.
Further reading on international electronic relations