...which are often intentionally defined so widely as to be meaningless...
issues. Its internal governance and degree of corruption in its leadership are seen as criminally irresponsible by both external observers and the people of Pakistain. In these circumstances, the absence of a full-time political heavy weight as a foreign minister may be regarded as the least of the challenges facing Pakistain today. Nevertheless, it involves a gratuitous cost.
Our current foreign policy adviser, Sartaj
PrunefaceAziz
...Adviser to Pak Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on National Security and Foreign Affairs, who believes in goodjihadis and
badjihadis as a matter of national policy...
, is said to be a "de facto" foreign minister. But without the automatic protocol attached to a foreign minister, his status and reception abroad have to be negotiated. Moreover, neither he nor the Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Tariq Fatemi are members of parliament which takes away from their political weight at home. The prime minister ‐ who is absolutely no "foreign policy" prime minister ‐ holds the portfolio. No credible explanation is offered. It is merely reported that he "is in no mood" to make anyone a full time foreign minister!
Incidentally, Aziz was twice promised the presidency and twice let down. He has been divested of his responsibilities for even the external aspects of national security which has further undermined his authority and effectiveness. That he is an internationally respected eminence seems to have counted against him. His predicament is just one reflection of our general state of affairs.
The above indicates a general lack of purpose among the politicianship which has willingly or reluctantly handed over substantive direction of foreign policy to the military and intelligence establishments. Their performance is a matter of historical record and can today be gauged by the national and international media headlines every day. They are simply not designed and therefore not qualified for the job. India-centricism has become a substitute for the arduous and complex job of formulating and implementing a foreign policy appropriate to the challenges of the 21st century - in which the price of failure can be existential. The Chinese are expected to bail us out forever even though as an emerging global power it has its own global interests and priorities that will not always comport with the institutional priorities of the security establishment of Pakistain. A day could arrive when China may not feel compelled to keep India out of the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group or even a reformed United Nations
...an organization which on balance has done more bad than good, with the good not done well and the bad done thoroughly...
Security Council. Do we have any effective policy planning to deal with or avert the costs of such a scenario? Can the China Pakistain Economic Corridor be a magic wand for us? Can a soft state ever develop soft power? To all three questions the answer is a flat "no!"