The world is in flux: kinetic wars, trade wars, diplomacy, shows of power, alignments and realignments. Since 10 May, when Pakistan defeated India both in the air and on the ground, much has changed. Immediately afterwards, the Americans began to rebuke India and cosy up to Pakistan. This inevitably raised questions about the nature of China–Pakistan ties, as the combination appeared too formidable for American ambitions in the region.
For over two decades, the United States had nurtured India, only to be disappointed by its lacklustre military performance. Some say Trump was particularly disillusioned with his friend Modi, who failed to acknowledge Washington’s role in quelling the fires of war. These stories are now widely circulated – so often repeated that they appear to be undisputed facts. Yet, in truth, we cannot know what actually transpired.
What we do know is this: American tariffs on India seemingly pushed New Delhi into the embrace of the Russia–China duo at the SCO summit, where a reluctant Modi appeared with a forced smile and heavy heart. This, in turn, brought renewed attention to the iron-clad friendship between China and Pakistan. Pro-China voices such as Dr Hasnain Javed, on the Federal Post programme Political Zone, repeatedly argued that Pakistan must decouple from the Americans and take an unambiguous pro-China stance. Perhaps many in China expected the same – and why not?
Yet Field Marshal Asim Munir’s luncheon with President Trump at the White House, followed by a successive visit to Washington within two months, unsettled many observers. Was Pakistan once again leaning towards the United States, given the chequered history of this unlikely partnership?
Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s presence at the SCO and the Victory Day parade was equally intriguing. How was he positioned in the group photographs? What reception and protocol were extended to him on these occasions? Every detail was scrutinised with a single question in mind: where does Pakistan’s allegiance truly lie? How are our Chinese friends taking the US–Pakistan renewed warmth? Our hearts declare affinity with China, yet our actions suggest accommodation with America. Do we truly want China? Or America? China is our steadfast friend; America, a fleeting partner.
Against this backdrop, decoupling from America remains more of a wish than a viable reality, however desirable it may seem
And yet, the uncertainty remains.
During these two months, analysts around the world have argued that the unipolar order has ended and that we now live in a multipolar world – with the United States, Russia and China sharing the stage. The display of advanced weaponry at the Victory Day parade, alongside the speeches of President Xi and President Putin – both emphasising that the Global South and Eurasia will no longer accept Eurocentric policies imposed by former colonial powers – carried a powerful message. President Xi’s five-point Global Governance Initiative further reassured many that the Global South could finally be freed from Western hegemony and that together we might build a fairer and more just international order.
Yet developments in recent days have raised pressing questions. Perhaps therein lies the explanation for Pakistan’s reluctance to fully embrace the Chinese camp – or at the very least, its apparent hesitation in doing so.
The overthrow of regimes in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Nepal – three nations positioned at crucial points in the project to contain China – by an apparently leaderless crowd sent a message loud and clear: no, we have not given up; yes, we can act without relying on a faltering Indian military; we possess both the capability and the will to fight. At the same time, the attack on the Hamas bureau in Doha on Tuesday reaffirmed another signal to the world: we can strike wherever we choose, and we will.
This is how superpowers behave – ruthlessly, without hesitation, and entirely at will.
A non-confrontational policy is incompatible with superpower status. If the Victory Day parade was a spectacle of strength, recent American actions were an assertion of intent. And, to borrow Hamlet’s words, such actions “perplex the will” of a medium-range power like Pakistan, burdened with debt, weighed down by economic mismanagement, and mired in political uncertainty.
My dear Chinese friends, please pay attention to this.
Twelve years ago, you very sincerely launched your flagship project, the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor – CPEC. President Xi, with great graciousness, visited Pakistan in 2015 to inaugurate it. Yet you know as well as we do that progress has been sluggish, hindered by terrorism in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan, engineered political instability, bureaucratic inertia, and many other factors – some visible, many hidden. In short, the project has never gained the traction it deserved. You know, as we do, who bears responsibility. But reopening old wounds will serve no purpose.
The United States, meanwhile, has long invested in Pakistan – in its institutions, its bureaucracy, its education. Scratch beneath the surface and you will find how many key positions in this country are held by recipients of Fulbright scholarships, Ivy League graduates – even principals of elite schools. America is deeply embedded here: in our music, films, fashion, language, idioms, ideals – you name it.
Against this backdrop, decoupling from America remains more of a wish than a viable reality, however desirable it may seem.
Yes, this is frustrating – for you and for us. The advent of CPEC brought great hope, for Pakistan as much as for China. Yet compare the $62 billion investment with Washington’s seven decades of cultural, political and institutional influence, and the challenge becomes evident. You have shown remarkable patience, and we are grateful. But perhaps the times demand more than patience. Perhaps they demand action – while your strategy still emphasises non-confrontation.
For decades, the sole superpower has held Pakistan by the throat. It is not easy, my friends, to simply follow where the heart would lead.