Trade Deal Disappointment
Pakistan is experiencing a wave of domestic discontent following the finalization of a new trade arrangement between India and the United States. Critics
in Pakistan are vocal about the perceived lack of tangible benefits from months of concerted diplomatic engagement aimed at Washington. Despite extensive overtures to the US administration, including notable gestures, Pakistan ultimately secured less favorable terms than India, particularly concerning tariff rates. The visual contrast was stark: the US President shared images highlighting India's positive engagement, ultimately announcing a reduction in tariffs on Indian goods to 18 percent, a full percentage point lower than the rate imposed on Pakistan. This disparity has fueled widespread disbelief and frustration across the border, with many questioning how India achieved a better outcome without resorting to what they view as excessive deference to the US leadership. The prevailing sentiment in Pakistan suggests a significant strategic miscalculation, leading to a less advantageous economic position compared to its neighbor.
Strategic Autonomy vs. Sychophancy
The trade deal's outcome has intensified scrutiny of Pakistan's foreign policy strategy, with many prominent figures contrasting India's approach with their own. Former Pakistani minister Hammad Azhar articulated a prevailing view that modern foreign policy hinges on economic leverage, including tariffs and market access, rather than optics or personal connections. India's recent trade agreements with both the European Union and the United States are cited as proof of this principle. Azhar argues that India's success stems from a position of 'strategic autonomy,' effectively negotiating from a place of strength. In contrast, Pakistan's leadership, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Chief General Asim Munir, is criticized for relying heavily on personal engagement and lobbying efforts, which have apparently yielded a less favorable outcome. Journalist Asad Toor has further highlighted that this tariff decision exacerbates Pakistan's existing economic challenges, such as declining exports and diminished foreign investment, pointing to a concerning erosion of the nation's negotiating power. This situation underscores a critical debate within Pakistan about the efficacy of its diplomatic and economic strategies in the international arena.
The Cost of Lacking Mandate
The perception in Pakistan is that the recent trade agreement with the United States has exposed a fundamental weakness in its governance and negotiating stance. Digital creator Wajahat Khan draws a stark comparison, suggesting that the US President, acting as a businessman, perceived India as a strategic partner and offered a corresponding deal, while Pakistan was viewed more as a transactional entity, receiving a 'shopkeeper's deal.' This is attributed to what many see as a government lacking the strong foundation of a public mandate, which ultimately impacts its ability to command respect and secure advantageous terms on the global stage. The narrative suggests that genuine respect and favorable economic outcomes are not commodities that can be bought through appeals or concessions, as echoed by journalist Imran Riaz Khan's critique of the 'Salesman-in-Chief' strategy. The recent trade pacts, including the one with the EU hailed as a landmark achievement, are anticipated to significantly boost India's economy, potentially increasing exports by billions over the next decade. This contrasts sharply with Pakistan's ongoing economic struggles, leading to amplified domestic criticism regarding the nation's foreign policy and trade negotiation capabilities.
