Strategic Autonomy or Strategic Confusion?

Pakistan must pick its way very carefully

Those times have passed when the world order was methodical, organized and systematic; legal certainty and stability were an essential feature of global interactions. Foreign policies were forged independently of any influence, keeping in mind the international laws and conventions.

Unfortunately, in today’s world foreign policies of countries are shaped by several global and institutional stakeholders, such as the IMF, where strategic autonomy seems a fable. In the midst of it all, an ordinary Pakistani citizen earnestly supplicates: is Pakistan’s foreign policy strategically autonomous? Is it influenced by institutional stakeholders, such as the IMF and the World Bank?

Strategic autonomy refers to an idea that a state’s policies about national interest and foreign affairs are not cardinally shaped by external powers. In simpler terms, it means a state can diversify its strategic options without any concern. A state may achieve strategic autonomy if it is institutionally coherent, financially resilient and self-reliant, and doctrinally clear. However, for developing states like Pakistan and Sri Lanka, economic dependence and reliance serve as instruments for strategic confusion, driving them away from an independent strategic stance. For instance, Pakistan’s foreign policy has been susceptible to the IMF’s conditions and Saudi Arabia’s regional goals.

In the wake of this economic reliance and dependence, Pakistan strives to formulate a balanced approach. A delicate diplomatic posture that not only reflects Pakistan’s commitment to its economic partnerships with the Gulf countries and Tehran, but also signals Washington and international lenders that Pakistan is determined to uphold international laws and pacific settlements. However, the recent US-Israel led attacks on Iran have pushed Islamabad into an awkward position. Adding salt to injury, cross-border terrorism from Afghanistan has left Islamabad with no option but to opt for military operations to protect its sovereignty.

Essentially, the imposition of structural and fiscal constraints by the IMF has narrowed the choices available to Islamabad. Not only have those conditions been influential in internal policymaking, but they have also played an important part in external affairs. In such circumstances, Islamabad must carefully maintain relations with its fiscal partners and strategic allies, including China, Saudi Arabia and the USA. Ultimately, this underscores that fragile economic foundations often lead to strategic confusion.

The question here arises: why are these conditions pivotal enough to undermine strategic autonomy? The answer lies in the very mechanisations of the covenants of the deal of economic surrender. A deal between an economically fragile country and international lenders such as the IMF is based on the principle of compliance. Once a country signs the agreement, the very choices it had in the absence of the deal vanish. For instance, Pakistan’s $7 billion Extended Fund Facility loan programme hinges upon Pakistan's policy compliance with the IMF conditions. It highlights that Pakistan’s government can’t decide important fiscal policies such as energy prices, tax reforms and subsidy adjustments. Moreover, in the event of deviation, Pakistan risks delays in the disbursements of funds, which are critical to Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves. Thus, the jeopardy of a bold diversified stance towards non-Western partners is much more than its benefits.

A country that suffers from limited foreign policy options due to economic fragility must stay neutral, for it is the only autonomous option available to them. In the meanwhile, every nation should contribute to the promotion of peace, integrity and respect. Otherwise, the anarchical global order will annihilate anyone that comes in its way.

This crucial time aptly describes the conundrum that Pakistan is facing. Irrespective of cultural, regional, trade and historical ties with Iran, Pakistan can’t take a bold stance in Tehran’s favour, as it will upset the Gulf countries, more importantly Saudi Arabia, because of the Bilateral Strategic Defense Agreement. Furthermore, a pro-Iran stance also holds the potential to perturb the USA and international lenders. On the contrary, a more Western-Saudi-oriented stance is likely to upset China, which may also result in internal resentment due to the growing anti-Western and anti-US sentiment. Hence, the lack of strong economic foundations serves as a cause of economic confusion, and economic confusion in such critical times is something which a nation like ours can’t afford.

Although the government of Pakistan is aware of its limited choices, it has treaded carefully thus far. The government has condemned the US-Israel led attacks; it has offered its solidarity to Iran and the Gulf countries. This suggests that Islamabad has favored neither side. Though it may look like strategic confusion, given the circumstances, it is the only autonomous resort available to them.

A country that suffers from limited foreign policy options due to economic fragility must stay neutral, for it is the only autonomous option available to them. In the meanwhile, every nation should contribute to the promotion of peace, integrity and respect. Otherwise, the anarchical global order will annihilate anyone that comes in its way.