Pakistan's Multidirectional Balancing: A Realist Analysis of Strategic Autonomy in an Era of Great Power Competition

Abstract

Pakistan's foreign policy is at its most critical crossroads as the international system is changing to multipolarity instead of American unipolarity, forcing the middle powers to find a novel approach to great power rivalry without losing their strategic autonomy. This paper discusses Pakistan's current foreign policy in terms of realism theory and explains how Pakistan has embraced the concept of a multidirectional balancing approach to the changing international system. The research illustrates that the foreign policy of Pakistan has been radically changed as a result of the Cold War-specific exclusive relationship between Pakistan and the United States to an advanced approach of contemporaneous relations with various great powers such as China, the United States, Russia, the Gulf states, and Turkey.

The study uses realist theory of international relations, namely, classical realism, neorealism, defensive and offensive realism, and small state realism to interpret the behaviour of Pakistan as a state. The discussion follows the historical development of Pakistan's foreign policy since the days of Cold War alliances and post-9/11 turmoil of partnerships up to the present day, as well as multi-polar interactions that defined the strategic realignment of Pakistan. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) comes out as the backbone of this plan, bringing in economic capacity and a strategic layer to the future of Pakistan, which can allow it to engage in more balanced relationships with various partners, and also rebrand Pakistan as a strategic link in the connectivity networks in the region.

The paper analyses the various aspects of the balancing policy of Pakistan in a methodical manner that encompasses the great power relationship, diversification in strategy towards Russia and the regional powers, regional relationship with India and Afghanistan, Middle Eastern diplomacy and involvement with the multilateral system. Nonetheless, there are major obstacles to this strategy: recurrent economic weakness that results in continued external reliance, escalating U.S.-China competition, causing the necessity to unite exclusively, instability within the region, internal political polarisation, lack of credibility among key powers, and the non-traditional form of security, especially climate change. The article has a theoretical contribution by showing how multidirectional balancing is a different approach in contrast to classical balancing, bandwagoning, or hedging, which involves simultaneous action through engagement between two or more powers. In practice, the study offers policy-relevant information on the matter of economic reform as the basis of strategic autonomy and incorporating non-traditional security threats in the planning of foreign policies. Its implications include better comprehension of the middle power behaviour within the multi-polar systems and empirically based analysis of the geopolitical South Asia in the age of the great power rivalry.