By Uzma Ehtasham
In the labyrinthine world of international diplomacy, moments of engagement often conceal the complexity beneath them. Prime Minister Mohammad Shehbaz Sharif’s recent visit to Washington and his meetings with the United States International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and senior US officials highlight both the opportunities and the enduring challenges in Pakistan-US relations. On the surface, the trip underscored an eagerness to deepen economic collaboration: Shehbaz Sharif pressed for increased DFC financing in joint ventures across sectors critical to Pakistan’s development, extended an invitation for participation in an upcoming minerals conference in Islamabad, and sought to invigorate private-sector engagement. Yet, as the Prime Minister navigated these corridors of power, the weight of history remained palpable.
Pakistan’s engagement with the DFC, a central instrument of American development financing, is strategically significant. For Islamabad, attracting international investment has never been merely about capital; it is about signaling stability, competence, and readiness to the global business community. By positioning Pakistan as a regional economic hub, Shehbaz Sharif seeks to marry domestic development with international confidence. The sectors highlighted—minerals, energy, information technology—are not only engines of economic growth but also points of convergence for shared interest with the United States, where investment in emerging markets offers both commercial returns and geopolitical leverage.
Parallel to the economic dialogue, Shehbaz Sharif met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss broader bilateral priorities: trade, economic activity, and counterterrorism cooperation. Both sides emphasized continuity in high-level engagement, reflecting a mutual recognition that in a rapidly shifting global order, episodic interaction will not suffice. The Prime Minister also acknowledged US leadership on humanitarian concerns, congratulating President Donald Trump on convening the Gaza Board of Peace. Pakistan reaffirmed its commitment to work alongside the board to advance initiatives aimed at stabilizing Gaza, signaling a willingness to engage on humanitarian and regional security fronts alongside economic interests.
Yet beneath these diplomatic niceties lies a complex and sometimes uneasy history. Pakistan-US relations have oscillated between periods of strategic alignment and mutual suspicion. During the Cold War, Pakistan was a frontline ally; in the Afghan jihad, it was a crucial facilitator; in the global war on terror, it bore the brunt of frontline operations. Each era brought rewards, often in the form of military and financial aid, but also recurring admonitions from Washington that Pakistan must “do more.” Post-conflict recalibrations have frequently deepened mistrust rather than alleviating it. Today, with tensions in the Middle East and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza testing global conscience, questions remain about US policy priorities and whether commercial and strategic engagement will ever be free of political strings.
For Pakistan, the calculation must remain sober and strategic. As a nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority country with considerable regional significance, its foreign policy cannot be reduced to an extension of another power’s agenda. Collaboration against terrorism is plainly in the interest of both nations, given Pakistan’s own long and costly struggle against militancy, which has claimed thousands of lives and incurred billions of dollars in economic losses. Yet such cooperation must remain balanced, transparent, and respectful of sovereignty; historical experience shows that unconditional support can lead to dependency or even diplomatic isolation when policies shift.
The promise of investment, particularly from American private and development capital, must also be weighed carefully. Pakistan’s ambitions are long-term: it seeks industrial projects that generate employment, diversify exports, and strengthen economic resilience. Energy, IT, agriculture, and infrastructure are not just commercial priorities—they are instruments of national self-sufficiency. Any economic cooperation must therefore be measured against these objectives, avoiding the trap of short-term projects designed primarily to secure political leverage. Genuine progress requires transparency, accountability, and mutual benefit rather than transactional gestures.
Pakistan’s principled stance on Gaza illustrates the broader principle that underpins its foreign policy. Support for an independent Palestinian state and opposition to the forced displacement of its people reflect a values-based approach that cannot be compromised for expedience. If the United States wishes to cultivate a reliable partner, it must act consistently, in accordance with justice and international norms, rather than offering temporary gestures that skirt deeper commitments. Diplomatic engagement without moral clarity risks eroding trust and diminishing credibility.
In a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, Pakistan must pursue a policy of balance and diversification. Engagement with the United States is necessary, but it is only one axis of a broader foreign policy. Relations with China, Russia, the Gulf states, and other regional powers are equally vital. Strategic partnerships must be evaluated on national interest, not ideological or bloc loyalty. Domestically, political coherence, economic stability, and social unity are essential; without these, even the most promising foreign engagements can falter under pressure.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
