Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan becomes yet another Prime Minister in the South Asian nation’s history who failed to complete a full five year term. Losing the no confidence motion in the National Assembly earlier this week, Imran Khan has left behind a trail of foreign policy challenges for the new government.
The Dramatic Rise and Fall
Imran Khan won the Prime Ministerial elections in 2018 by securing 110 out of 294 seats in the 2018 elections which were quickly alleged to be rigged. Coming to power after more than a decade of stepping into politics, the former cricketer promised to change the course of Pakistan’s elite dominated politics in his inaugural speech by formulating pro-poor policies, establishing peaceful relations with India, crafting beneficial relations with the United States, maintaining good relations with China, balancing relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran and bringing peace to Afghanistan. He promised to mend the economy, make the rich pay taxes, create jobs and mend relations with the turbulent Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATAs).
However, he fell short of all his promises. His policies to usher in a “Naya Pakistan” (“New Pakistan”) miserably failed on all fronts from economy to domestic and foreign policy.
Contrary to raising lifestyles as promised, his regime saw the pauperisation of the middle class as the country grappled with one of its worst inflation crises. As per the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, the Consumer Price Index rose to 13%, its highest in two years in January 2022. The prices of essential food items rose to 15.1%. Moreover, Khan’s comments that he ‘did not join politics to decide the price of potatoes and tomatoes’ angered the populace. Unemployment also surged with Pakistan Institute of Development Economics reporting 31% of the youth to be unemployed, 51% of them being women. His regime was also marked by massive economic mismanagement. The World Bank has slashed Pakistan’s economic growth rate forecast to 4.3%, a drop of one percent from last year, blaming the energy subsidies of the outgoing regime which destabilised the IMF programme.
Mr. Khan seemed to be on a fallout with both progressive and conservative sections.
While his derogatory remarks on women and support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan drew flak from liberal and progressive sections, he failed to woo the conservative elements as evident in a massive series of rallies led by the religious leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the powerful right wing party, Jamiat Ulema-e Islam (JUI-F) who alleged him of coming to power through rigged elections. Rehman joined the other opposition parties such as the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and Pakistan’s People Party (PPP) to form a cross party coalition called the Pakistan Democracy Movement which demanded Imran Khan’s resignation. Though the movement eventually fizzled out, the opposition continued to raise demands of passing a no-confidence motion against Imran.
Soon the demand gained momentum and calls for ousting the Imran government strengthened. In a live address to the nation, Imran Khan left no stone unturned to save face by defining the move against him as a “foreign conspiracy” and demanding people to hit the streets against it. However, none of this worked as the Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed for a no-confidence motion to take place in the National Assembly which had been rejected by the Speaker. After a day full of political drama, Imran’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party government was ousted at midnight, making Imran Khan Pakistan’s first Prime Minister to be ousted through a no-confidence motion. PML-N’s Shehbaz Sharif, the brother of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been elected the new Prime Minister. The PTI boycotted the session and Imran resigned from the Parliament stating an unwillingness to “sit alongside thieves”.
With Imran gone, the new government has a lot many challenges to deal with specifically on the foreign policy front.
Self Respect
In his address to the nation days before being ousted, Imran Khan squarely placed the blame for the chaos on the opposition parties and their ‘foreign collaborators’.
He took a trip down the memory lane fondly remembering Pakistan’s founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s vision of a prosperous Pakistan which he claimed was meant to stand on the legs of “insaniyat” (humanity) and “khudaari” (self respect) but had been miserably failed by the elite political nexus that has been ruling Pakistan for the past eight decades. Crafting himself in the same light as Jinnah, Imran made every attempt to distinguish himself from the opposition leaders by stating that he has no vested interests in politics unlike the rest.
Imran has been openly criticising General Musharraf’s compliance with the United States’ War on Terror which he stated brought immense suffering to both Pakistanis abroad and those who inhabit the FATA regions. Placing the events in the light of Pakistani leadership’s “fear” of the US, Imran pointed to how Islamabad was betrayed by Washington who did not prove to be as supportive.
His address was centred around a letter which he stated in a slip of tongue was received from the United States but soon retracted claiming it to be a “foreign country, not the United States” which allegedly claimed that Pakistan would ‘face consequences if Imran is not ousted’. The piece of paper has made repeated appearances at Imran’s recent rallies, waved to a crowd of hundreds to portray him as the only leader who dared to show teeth to the foreign powers for guarding Pakistan’s dignity.
According to Imran, the letter is a consequence of his meeting with Russian’s Vladimir Putin, days before the ongoing Moscow led invasion of Ukraine which Islamabad has abstained from criticising. Khan had previously criticised the alleged pressure put on Pakistan to come out in open support of Ukraine by claiming that Islamabad is ‘not a slave of the Western powers’. Emphasising on Pakistan’s sovereign right to chart an independent foreign policy course without being influenced by any foreign power, Imran has created a discourse where only an independent leader with no strings attached to any foreign power or vested interests such as himself could restore the khudaari that Pakistan was meant to symbolise while painting all other leaders in a grim light of being collaborators who keep their petty interests over those of the nation.
However, restoring Khudaari would not be an easy task. As Pakistan knocks on the IMF’s door again for yet another bailout while already drowning in debt from both the United States and China, it is nearly impossible for it to have an independent foreign policy which would be influenced by either of the powers, whichever pays more.
Between Washington and Beijing
The harsh criticism that Imran has spewed against the United States is reflective of a bleak reality. While the United States continues to be a top investor, Islamabad, which was once the path through which the United States reached out to Beijing resulting in the 1972 Shanghai Communiqué, is no longer relevant for Washington post the withdrawal from Afghanistan, who sees India as a possible power to curb the growing influence of China as reflected in the decision to form the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or Quad.
The United States President Joe Biden has repeatedly expressed concerns over Pakistani soil being used as a safe haven for terrorism. While Islamabad has continuously escaped the FATF’s black list, the issue coupled with its falling significance in American eyes has tarnished bilateral relations to the extent that Biden has not even cared to meet Imran since attaining power in 2020.
Mr. Khan’s open criticism of the United States has also irked the military which remained ‘neutral’ when the former, who was once their blue eyed boy, was being ousted.
Moreover, the Imran government has clearly allied Pakistan with the China-Russia nexus on the Ukraine issue. While many nations like India and South Korea have similarly refrained from sanctioning Russia, China and now Pakistan have come out in clear defense of Russia and its ‘legitimate security concerns’ while mooting the discourse on clearly allying with it either. Imran has also routinely praised China’s foreign policy describing it as a good friend.
The friendship between Islamabad and Beijing dates back to the 1960s. Pakistan was one of the first countries to recognise the Communist regime in 1949 as well as the first non-Communist regime to have direct airline connectivity with China. At that time, Pakistan was a staunch ally of the US and a member of both the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). Washington’s refusal to aid Pakistan during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan War made Islamabad drift closer to China which shared a common animosity towards India. However, Beijing did little to help its ally during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan War when East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh) was severed from the country.
Though China has not signed any major mutual defence agreement with Pakistan, the extent of its economic aid is unparalleled, evident in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (一带一路).
Originally valued at US$ 47 billion, CPEC’s estimated value in 2020 rose to US$ 62 billion. As per official records, 20% of CPEC is debt-based financed while 80% are investments in Joint Ventures. The project is expected to create 40,000 jobs for Pakistanis and is expected to boost the economy by enhancing connectivity and transportation which will benefit the agrarian and industrial sectors. Beijing offers Islamabad low-interest loans which critics like the United States and India have labelled as its “debt diplomacy”. Though Pakistan claims it to be equity-based financing, it is drowned in massive debt which increased the debt-to-GDP ratio by 6 percentage points from 67% in 2016-17 to 73% in 2017-18. With a sluggish economy, chances of repayment are razor-thin. Moreover, the project remains only partially functional and has shown sluggish progress which has created friction between China and Pakistan.
While a regime change would definitely better ties with the United States, to what extent Pakistan would delink with China and re-ally with Washington on issues such as the Ukrainian crisis where both stand diametrically opposed would be a major challenge.
India
Though marked with certain positive developments such as the opening of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor for pilgrimage, the Imran government has failed to make a major breakthrough in rekindling relations with India as top level peace talks and track two diplomacy remain non-existent.
Apart from raising the age-old rhetoric of Pakistani sovereign claims over Kashmir, his last few days in office saw Imran showering praises on India for leading an “independent and people-oriented” foreign policy which he finds to be lacking in his country. His pro-India statements have drawn flak from opposition leaders like Maryam Nawaz who now lead the government. With the new Prime Minister already spewing criticism against India, mending bilateral relations remains a crucial challenge, for the failure of the new regime in negotiating with India would only make Imran come out looking better.
Afghanistan
Imran Khan’s open affinities with the newly established Taliban regime in Afghanistan, with statements such as Taliban has “broken down the shackles of slavery“, as part of an anti-US move would also be a major challenge for the new regime. Though the opposition parties including the PML-N had emphasised on the takeover being an “internal matter” of Kabul, 55% of the Pakistanis expressed satisfaction with the takeover, pointing to a rising wave of radical conservatism. While this rhetoric would be mellowed down as the new regime would try to ease tensions with the US left behind by Imran, simultaneously negotiating with the Taliban would be difficult, for the Taliban possesses the capacity to infiltrate Islamabad’s already volatile regions of FATA and establish terror hubs there.
West Asia
Relations with West Asia have also been strained specifically after Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi blasted the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), blaming it for failing to take a hardline stance against India’s conversion of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into a centrally administered Union territory.
Qureshi’s words infuriated Islamabad’s ally Saudi Arabia which froze a US $3.2 billion oil credit facility to Pakistan and demanded early partial repayment of a US $3 billion loan. General Qamar Bajwa visited Riyadh in order to ease tensions however, ties remain strained. Saudi eyes closer relations with New Delhi and Beijing as part of Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s Vision 2030 which aims to modernise the Saudi economy and make it less dependent on oil. However, owing to its economic dependence, Pakistan can not afford to isolate Saudi Arabia and tried hard to mend ties.
Another fallout soon came when Riyadh turned down Pakistan embassy’s request to observe public events on October 27, the day Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India, as a ‘Black Day’. Iran also declined such requests, spoiling Mr. Khan’s dreams of playing a major role in mediating between the two rival powers.
Many Pakistan watchers noted that such a disenchantment stemmed from Islamabad’s embrace of the Erdogan regime in Turkey, whose ambitions in the region have irked both Riyadh and Tehran.
The Shadow of Imran
Though out of both the office and the National Assembly, the shadow of Imran Khan still lurks in Pakistan’s politics.
First, A national cricket hero, Mr. Khan still remains a charismatic leader among the radicals, upper middle class as well as Pakistanis abroad as depicted in the large crowd that hit the streets on his emotive calls to restore Pakistan’s self respect vis à vis the ‘foreign collaborators’.
Second, Mr. Khan has efficiently encashed his image to dangerously destabilise popular faith in the functionality of Pakistan’s democracy, which needless to say remains defunct. His constant claims of the new regime being a ‘foreign import’, the suspicions over the no-confidence vote as a ‘foreign conspiracy’ and recently, questioning the impartiality of the judicial order that gave a green light to the no-confidence motion against him work against the spirit of democracy and would pose a grave challenge to the new regime.
Third, Imran and his PTI have been masters of street campaigning and would leave no stone unturned to challenge the legitimacy of the new regime at every level.
Fourth, though inefficient, the hard reality is that Imran Khan is one of the few faces which do not form a part of the elite family nexus of Pakistani politics which has hampered the development of democracy in the South Asian country. While the alleged level of American interference is unfounded, it cannot be denied that past regimes in Pakistan have kept democracy at stake to pursue their own vested interests. As a person aloof from such notorious family nexus, Mr. Khan might recuperate support in his favour.
Fifth and most importantly, Imran Khan has commenced a dialogue with regard to Pakistan’s foreign policy in the public realm which seems to have no end. The dialogue around khudaari, that he himself forgot during three and a half years of his rule, would act as a parameter on the basis of which all future governments might be judged and opposed. While chances are that it might dissipate, the anti-West or to put more precisely, the Anti-American attitude that has been created in the region, reflected in both the rise of Taliban and the anti-US demonstrations in Pakistan on Imran’s call, points to the fact that it might intensify to become a permanent feature of Pakistan’s political life where too much affinity with Washington might be perceived as being antithetical to national interests.
While only time would tell how far Imran Khan would be able to impact the course of Pakistan’s politics, the whole episode points yet again to the pressing need of bringing in structural reforms so as to strengthen democracy in Pakistan.
