a weak Foreing policy.

[zaheer baloch]

When we talk about Pakistan’s foreign policy there is always a weak image in front of all countries we are weak , we are always ashamed and humble and not having a strong and to the point foreign policy .

The recent Mumbai bomb blasts are the outcomes of India’s own discriminatory society , caste system and Hindu dominating culture, and these are a black spot on the democratic and secular face of India and the real culprits of Mumbai blasts have been caught and traced but they are blaming Pakistan for that . it is to be noted that about 17 insurgencies are going on in India at the moment

And we always having a very lenient and humble attitude in the past 7 years of musharraf government what we did? Keeping aside the UN resolutions upon Kashmir, allowing all trade and other delegations even there films, allowed them to make a strong barriers on the border of Kashmir and a lot of ideas from our side on Kashmir resolution like self governance , demilitarization and whatever. and no such idea hs been ever given by indian side , yes it is true to condemn the mumbai blasts and we are with International community on the war agan terrorism but we are not to be blamed for this and we have to be clear cut .

Again refusing the Musharraf ‘s invitation of mutual investigation by India recently has created a lot of confusion in my mind that why we are lacking a perfect and absolute answer? why we are ashamed in our talks ? why we are unable to deliver that BLA in Balochistan is being sponsored by India and we have facts even ? why ?

[I M Possible]

Pakistan's Foriegn Policy Is Inflexible !!!!

They say,

"It is good to be good but it is not good to be very good."

Well they are right. Pakistan always try to be very good with others specially with India so it has to bear the consequences. Pakistan's foriegn policy is changing since 1947 but these changes even failed to make it pretty flexible. Its good to adopt a changing foriegn policy but it should be flexible too. The basic objective of Pakistan's foriegn policy was to make good relations with the muslim world. Today Pakistan has good relations with a number of Muslim states but it has to bear some other issues in the wurrent world.

Foriegn policy is the way a country interact with the other countries and respond to the world. Pakistan always follow the order of the world in onw way or another. It tries its best to keep pace with time but it cannot. The very reason is its impractical foriegn policy. It should make working policy and should follow it stricktly.

Domestic policy has an impact on the foriegn policy. Pakistan's domestic policy is formulating steps to fight with the insurgents, to interact with Talibans, to solve economy problems, to control population growth, to provide qualitative education to the countrymen, etc. Pakistan has to take over a number of problems at domestic level. It is trying to overcome the tensions the way it could.

They say,

"If you are having a relax and tension free environment at home, then you can do wonders because your mind will always be free from tensions."

I just want to convey the point that if Pakistan would be able to solve internal issues then it would be able to make an everlasting impression on the world and will interact with the world at its best. But we are hoping against hope because Pakistani people are fed up with their politicans. Pakistan has an unstable political system which is not democratic too.

Pakistan is an ideological state and it came into being on the base of Islam and two nation theory. It has its indeginous culture and Pakistanis are very possesive for their traditions. This is very good on one side but it also become problematic on the other side when government fail to resolve the religious issues created by misinterpretation of Islam e.g overpopulation, less education, no education for females, women issues, etc.

Pakistan is holding the 9th position on the list of failed state. What a pity? We are even not developing. We are still behaving like infants but we should realize that Pakistan will become 59 years old in the next month so it should act like an grown up state. It should have its own rules to be followed and should be mature enough to guess that how world is using it. It should not let others (India, USA, Afghanistan, etc) to fish in troubled waters.

Pakistan's image has been spoiling due to its everchanging foriegn policy. If it would have a strong image then today India would not had that much courage to blame Pakistan for Mumbai blasts. Anyways India just needed another envent to linger with. it has got another chance to put Indo-Pak Peace Talks in abeyance. Musharaf is acting humbly with India and ofering them Pakistan's beneficent help as ever. But India would take full advantage of the situation by delaying special talks b/w India and Pakistan.

Not only Pakistan but other states are also responsible for Pakistan's weak foriegn policy. USA is playing with Pakistan by calling it an ally in War of Terror. India is pretending that it is cooperating with Pakistan and trying to solve the issues but actually it is just passing the time since last 59 years. Even US failed to solve the issue of Kashmir due to blatant silly reponse of India. Afghanistan is a Muslim neaighbour of Pakistan. Pakistan always helped it the way it wanted Pakistan to help it out but what it i gifting us in return? It is spoiling the image of Pakistan by calling it a terrorist state who provides sancturies to the terrorists/talibans, whoever they are.

Another critical factor that is impacting Pakistan's foriegn policy is its geographical location that is responsible for its alliance with USA in War of Terror, Indo-Pak issues, border conflicts, Pak-Afghan issues, etc.

I hope this much would be enough to give an idea of the current inflexible foriegn policy of Pakistan. There are a lot many points to elaborate but i would like to read from others too. I hope others would elucidate this issue in a better way.

Thanks
Regards

[zaheer baloch]

and one thing i want to add that in foreign policy the ideology of that country plays a vital role , now we are a Islamic State and pakistan has been made in the name of religion , now the question arises either there would be a islamic system in judiciary,education and all spares of lives or a western system ?

we are in between we are not like Turkey, India and other sucular states where every body has a right what to do and One thing important that Government has nothing to do with it , but here in pakistan our leaders want western slogans with pan-islamism our each move is to promote western culture but in the disguise of islam , so we are in the middle in our foreign policy and as well as no democracy here. many problems to discuss. LOL

[hira iftikhar rana]

PAKISTAN'S FOREIGN POLICY
PAKISTAN AND THE WESTERN POWERS:
1.Pakistan and the Commonwealth
On the eve of independence it was generally believed that, afterwards, India would not stay in the Commonwealth,
while it was taken for granted that Pakistan would. For Britain to be able to reconcile India and manage to keep
both theDominions with in the Commonwealth was a notable diplomatic achievment, to understand the extent of which it is necessary to go back some years.
The Indian National Congress had commited itself to serving the Commonwealth link atleast as early as 1930. On 2 january that year the Working Commitee decided that 26 January be observed as purna swaraj day (complete independence day).A declaration drafted at that meeting was read to the people all over India on 26 January 1930 as part of the celebrations, all the recitation was repeated annually till independence became a fact. The declaration stated inter alia :"The British Government in India has not only deprived the Indian people of their freedom but has based itself on the exploitation ofthe masses, and has ruined India economically, politically, culturally and spirtually. We beleived, therefore, that India must sever the British connection and attain purna swaraj or complete indepence." On the eve of independence day Gandhi emphasized: "Remember the 26th is the day not to declare the independence but to declare that we will b satisfied with nothing less then complete independence as opposed to Dominion Status so called."
Nehru, who was the chief spokesman for Congress on external affairs, reiterated on numerous occasions that India would never agree to have any constitutional link with Britain after independence.
To Nehru the 'idea behind Dominion Status, of a mother country closely connected with her daughter nations, all of them having a common cultural background, seemed totally inapplicable to India'. In August 1940 he said the whole conception of Dominion Status for India was dead as a door nail.
The Muslim League, on the other hand, had no anti-British tradition. As a matter of fact, during the difficult years of the Second World War, when the Congress party first declined cooperation in the war effort and then launched the,Quit India, movmet, the more estranged Congress became from the British Government, the more were the latter forced to rely o the Muslims. For their part the Muslims fully realized that they had little chance of winning Pakistan against the much more powerful Congress Party unless they were backed up by the British. The Muslim League deprecated the 'Quit India resolution and allowed the Muslims to co-operate in the war effort.
Naturally, however, this special relationship between the British Government and the Indian Muslims could endure only as long as it suited both sides. It was clearly beneficial for Britain to lean towards the Muslim minority while she intended to rule India and had to keep the Hindu majority in check. But once she had decided to relinquish powe,the balance of her national interest immediately shifted in the direction of favouring the Hindus, for it seemed clear that, wether India remained unitedor was split into two, the Hindus of India under the banner of the Congress Party would be a far more important factor in international life then the Muslims. That the Labour Party at this time happened to be in office in the United Kingdom greatly facilitated the process of rapprochement between Britai ad the Congress leadership.Labour traditionalyy had been smpathetic to Congress causes and many members of the top echelons in both parties had been long on terms of personal friendship with one another. Attle, Cripps, Pethick-Lawrence and others in Labour ranks admired the Congress leaders as progressive intellectuals and doughtly fighters for freedom of their country.
Jinnah and the League, on the other hand, were pictured by them as reactionaries and treated with scant respect. This was vividly brought ut i a BBC-TV 'Coversation' between Attlee and Francis Williams in 1959:
Attlee: I never liked Jinnah. I knew him as long ago as 1927.I ever liked him.
Wiliams: Why?
Attlee: I don't think he was very genuine, you know....I thought a great deal of his ambition was for Master Jinnah rather than anything else.
Personal friendships between Labour and Congress leaders notwithstanding, the task before the British statesmen was a formidable one, because a lot of the lost ground had to be recovered. Britain had to soothe the feelinnnnnnng of hostility betwee herself and the Congress Party which only recently---during the 'Quit India' movement---had stood at his highest point, and she had to demonstrate by positive action, to the satisfaction of the Congress leaders, that the game of favouring the Muslims had definitely ended.
A beginning was made by getting rid of Wavell, who had incurred the wrath of Congress, and replacing him as Viceroy by mountbatten, who was more acceptable to that party and who was directed to work towards'a unitary Government for British India ad Indian states, if possible with in the British Commonwealth'. The phrase'if possible with in the British Commonwealth' had been inserted in Attlee's directive at the special request of Mountbatten, 'who feels that he must strive for a solution which leaves such good feeling that indian Parties will want to remain within the commonwealth'.
by April, however, Mountbatten had lost the first round. Jinnah remained implacable ad Mountbatten come to the conclusion that Pakistan was inevitable.This further cocession to Muslimm opinion, though wrested from the hands of an unwilling British Government, didn't make Mountbatten's objective, of keeping India within the Commonwealth, any easier. Quite obviously, the only way in which he could now win over new India was to side with her on the crucial issues of the day. How he managed to succeed, and at what price to Pakistan, must now be told.
I also hav more information abt it if some wants more then i can provide.
REGARDS

[sim]

Foreign policy of Pakistan just like the government of Pakistan has nothing to do with the aspirations and ideals of the people of Pakistan. If that would have been the case Pakistan would not have been so clearly on the American side in this war on terror.
Pakistan helped America attack Afghanistan and thus Gen. Musharraf saved his skin first and not as he would like to say "sab say pehlay Pakistan".
For a good foreign policy we require consistency that we never have had. No democratically elected government has been successful ,to the chagrin of the people of Pakistan, while the dictatorships have been quite the pictures of blooming economy,of growing strategic importance etc. with the blessing of democracy loving almighty America.
These all and various others are the causes of weak, humble,and inflexible foreign policy as has been so rightly quoted by you people.

[Qurratulain]

Originally Posted by sim

Foreign policy of Pakistan just like the government of Pakistan has nothing to do with the aspirations and ideals of the people of Pakistan............................

Totally agree sim.

But i just want to know the way out of this trouble......there may be some...



Regards

[I M Possible]

How to strenghten Pakistan's foriegn policy?

Keeping in view the above mentioned weaknesses of Pakistan's foriegn policy one can only hope that things would be up someday or other because there is always a ray of hope. In my opine, there are a lot many way outs but the only thing that is the very first requisite is that Pakistan's politics should be stable. A stable political system can run the country in a best way.

Islam is our religion and we should bound ourselves to it. It has the solutions of each and every problem then why we are not taking advantage of its golden principles? It is a religion for all the times. It is not an old religion. Its principles are practical even in this modern world.

Pakistan is in a dire need of Islamic democratic government. Pakistan's polititians should join hands for the sake of Pakistan - "Union is strenght." A stable government can at least solve the domestic problems of Pakistan because Pakistan's domestic issues have an impact on its foriegn policy. We cant change things but can ameliorate them at least.

It would be easy if i exemplify the India's foriegn policy. India is such a smart country in keeping the pace with world hat nobody can even reach their minds. They have a stable political system. They have democratic government. Their foriegn policy is an everchanging document but it is very much pragmatic and flexible. They just use to highlight the top priority things in their foriegn policy and throw away the unnecessary ones. The main principle of their foriehn policy is Alighnment which is not mentioned there but they just become an ally of the strong nations and superpowers at the time of need.

Well i am not saying that Pakistan should start playing ambiguous games with the world. i just wanted to say that Pakistan should think for it and should edit the foriegn policy according to the need of the day. Pakistan should be a little diplomatic. The very thing that Pakistan should limit its alliance with USA because it is creating a lot many internal problems. Pakistan should resolve the issues on the national as well as international front. Pakistan should make a good impression in the world.

If Pervaiz Musharaf says SAB SE PEHLAY PAKISTAN then he should give priority to Pakistanis and not the USA and others. He should listen to the voices of pakistanis. He should be well aware of the problems of Pakistanis. He should resolve the social, religious, educational, and other issues of Pakistanis that he is avoiding for the time being.

Pakistani people also need to be cooperative and well aware of the current scenerio to take the right decision because now it is a new world and we are living in the 21st centuary. We are not those old time people who just used to follow the instructions of their governments. We have our says and we would be listened if we convey our messages through proper channels. But we are also following the other nations in many regards. We are forgetting our golden Islamic principles. Actually we are in search of an escape but it is needless to escape because Pakistan is our country and we should have faith in our country.

Let me conclude it by saying that there are many way outs but the only thing we have to do is to think and act practically.

Thanks
Regards

[sim]

Yes, there is a way out if not many( usually we have many solutions, many ways to solve one problem).

To enable the government to speak the language people are speaking we must have a government that has its hand at the pulse of the people i.e. a democratic government, democratically elected, governing us democratically.

Many of my fellow nationals would like to object that such a government is an ideological labyrinth invented to save us from facing the blind and blinding reality.As it is impossible( the democratically elected government ) right now so we must be told some thing that is possible to be done right here, right now.

An American leader(I can not recall the name correctly) said vigilance ensures whether people are going to have their representative governments or not. As the amount of vigilance increases governments, the foreign policy formulators come to have an increasing realization that they can not do without the support of masses who are clamouring for their rightful representation. This requires educated, active, vigilant masses and these are the solutions EDUCATION( quite possible : slow but sure to make a difference) POLITICAL PLATFORMS( where people may realize the power of the collective effort.Indeed they can become more powerful than the government) and ofcourse VIGILANCE(which is nothing more nor less than the first measure of democracy).

All the social and political REFORMS are inter-related and any positive change on the social level is thus an assurance of changing political scenario for the better one.

Consistent DEMOCRACY (as I have said earlier) and GETTING RID OF DICTATORSHIP would be healthy solutions too but unfortunately they seem to be the only looming realities now.

Regards.