Opinion | A mediator in international issues and the domestic story

Pakistan frequently presents itself as a champion of dialogue, a bridge between rival powers and an advocate for peace in international affairs. Yet its diplomatic record deserves closer scrutiny. Behind the language of mediation lies a foreign policy shaped by strategic opportunism, security-driven calculations and the pursuit of international relevance. The central contradiction is that Islamabad seeks recognition as a peacemaker while its own policies and unresolved domestic challenges repeatedly undermine the credibility of that image. Pakistan’s role in facilitating secret communications between the United States and China in 1971 was a significant diplomatic achievement. It helped pave the way for President Richard Nixon’s historic visit to Beijing in 1972. However, that episode is frequently invoked as evidence of a diplomatic stature that cannot simply be assumed to endure. A historical success does not provide permanent credentials for mediation. Credibility must be earned through consistent conduct, transparency and a demonstrated commitment to peaceful solutions.

One of the most serious criticisms of Pakistan’s diplomacy concerns its long-standing security-centric approach to Afghanistan. Islamabad has sought influence over Afghan affairs for decades, often viewing developments across the border through the lens of its own strategic interests. Afghan governments have repeatedly accused Pakistan of interference and of allowing militant networks to operate from its territory; Pakistan has disputed various allegations. The continuing cycle of mistrust, border tensions and militant violence demonstrates the limits of a policy that prioritises strategic leverage over durable regional confidence. The resurgence of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan has further exposed the costs of persistent insecurity. Islamabad now faces a violent challenge from a group that rejects the Pakistani state, while its relations with the Afghan Taliban remain fraught with tension.Pakistan’s diplomatic messaging on international conflicts also warrants scrutiny whenever it emphasises sovereignty, political rights and peaceful dispute resolution. Such principles carry weight only when applied consistently. Selective emphasis on international grievances, without comparable attention to accountability and rights within one’s own sphere of responsibility, risks turning diplomacy into an instrument of political positioning rather than a principled pursuit of peace. International audiences increasingly judge states not merely by their statements, but by the consistency between those statements and their actions.

The contradiction is visible in Pakistan’s domestic political landscape. Repeated military interventions and the enduring influence of powerful security institutions have weakened confidence in uninterrupted civilian democratic rule. The imprisonment of former prime minister Imran Khan and the continuing confrontation surrounding his party have deepened political polarisation. Authorities cite legal and security grounds, while Khan’s supporters allege political victimisation. These disputes underline the need for transparent judicial proceedings, constitutional safeguards and genuine political competition. A country seeking to facilitate dialogue between international rivals should be equally committed to resolving political disagreements through credible institutions at home.Economic diplomacy presents another uncomfortable reality. Pakistan has repeatedly depended on International Monetary Fund assistance to manage balance-of-payments pressures and avert deeper financial instability. External financing can provide temporary relief, but it cannot compensate indefinitely for structural weaknesses, including a narrow tax base, debt burdens, energy-sector problems and inconsistent economic policymaking. Islamabad’s efforts to attract investment and strengthen strategic partnerships are understandable, but they will remain constrained unless economic governance becomes more predictable and public confidence improves.

Regional grievances further complicate Pakistan’s diplomatic claims. Protests in Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir over electricity tariffs, wheat prices and living costs, alongside continuing unrest and allegations of rights violations in Balochistan, raise difficult questions about governance, representation and accountability. These challenges cannot be resolved through international messaging or security measures alone. They require meaningful political engagement and institutions that citizens trust.Ultimately, Pakistan’s diplomatic standing should not be measured by the number of international meetings it attends or the strategic relationships it cultivates. It should be assessed by the outcomes it helps produce and the consistency of its conduct. Its historic contribution to US–China rapprochement remains real, but it does not exempt contemporary policy from scrutiny. If Islamabad wishes to be taken seriously as a mediator, it must move beyond diplomatic optics, abandon policies that perpetuate regional mistrust and demonstrate a sustained commitment to peace, accountability and constitutional governance. Otherwise, its diplomacy risks being perceived less as principled mediation and more as an effort to secure influence and international legitimacy amid persistent domestic difficulties.

Author can be reached at Email id: Syedjahanzeeb2@gmail.com