Pivoting between geopolitics and geo-economics

When Field Marshal Asim Munir walked out of the White House after the recent luncheon with President Trump, it was apparent that the Pak-US relationship was taking another tactical shift.

This relationship has seen numerous highs and lows in the past. However, the recent war-like situation between Pakistan and India and President Donald Trump's role in the ceasefire have unfolded events unexpectedly.

Lately, Pakistan seems to have navigated its relations well with both the US and China. The country now stands at a crossroads: whether to continue with a familiar path of transactional geopolitics or commit to geo-economics as mentioned in the National Security Policy (2022-2026).

Not long ago, Pakistan was almost written off for its strategic importance by the policymakers in Washington, DC, after the fall of Kabul. From being a close ally, Pakistan had overnight become almost insignificant for the Biden administration to give a call back to the Pakistani authorities or even to get a mention in the US's National Security Strategy.

So much so that Pakistan had to go through tougher conditions while seeking bailout packages from the IMF and was subject to harsher rhetoric. Nevertheless, the situation has changed significantly after the Indo-Pak military clash of May 2025.

On April 22, 2025, a terrorist incident resulted in 26 tourists losing their lives in Pahalgam. Reports also claim that this attack was religiously motivated.

Such a tragedy deserves utmost condemnation, and those responsible must be punished for their brutal actions. India's knee-jerk response was that Pakistan was somehow behind this attack, and therefore, the decades-long Indus Water Treaty, which had survived through the worst of the Indo-Pak relations, was suspended.

Subsequently, India also launched a series of attacks on several Pakistani cities on the pretext of targeting the terrorist hideouts only.

For the next two days, the situation between India and Pakistan remained extremely tense. Both attacked each other's multiple military facilities and neutralised drone incursions, while Pakistan, with the help of Chinese technology, downed multiple Indian fighter jets.

Eventually, mediated by the US, both countries reached a ceasefire agreement, but the threat still looms as PM Modi has insisted that Operation Sindoor will continue if there is any other terrorist attack in India.

Whether keeping South Asian peace a hostage with such statements is good or bad, one thing is clear: after the ceasefire, Pakistan's profile on the international political front has witnessed a significant rise, something totally against New Delhi's policy of isolating Pakistan internationally.

Post-ceasefire, Pakistan's relations with China have reached new highs. For Pakistan, China has emerged as one dependable partner. China, on the other hand, fully supported Pakistan's retaliation against Indian attacks.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated that Pakistan is an "ironclad friend" and vowed to deepen the "all-weather strategic cooperative partnership." It must also be noted that the use of Chinese defence technology appeared as free marketing, since after the ceasefire, China's defense stocks have surged.

Presently, what still remains a matter of concern for both is the security of Chinese personnel and investments in CPEC. Pakistan, therefore, must ameliorate threats from sub-nationalist movements.

Pakistan's relations with the US have also taken a stark turnabout. President Trump has taken the credit for the ceasefire a number of times, although India, the US's most allied ally in South Asia, has refuted such claims repeatedly.

He then offered to mediate for the long-overdue Kashmir issue, again upsetting India. And lately, the US Department of State issued a travel advisory to "exercise increased caution in India due to crime and terrorism." All these developments, along with President Trump's invitation to Field Marshal Asim Munir, have left the Indian side quite disgruntled.

Many argue that the lunch meeting was also crucial because of the Israel-Iran conflict, but whatever the reason may be, Pakistan must be in a state of euphoria over these happenings.

One must also recall that Pakistan has served as US strategic partner in the past. During the Cold War, Pakistan was an active member of the capitalist camp against communism in South Asia; it played a crucial role against the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan; and it was the US strategic partner during the war on terror.

But as denoted appropriately, the Pak-US relationship has remained 'transactional' in nature, and Pakistan has repeatedly complained of being abandoned as soon as US interests change. Following the same pattern, Pakistan was cast off after the fall of Kabul in 2021, too. Hence, it must remain wary in the future as well.

Considering the post-ceasefire events, Pakistan may again be lured to find solutions to its internal and external crises in forming strategic partnerships, especially with the US. Previously, Pakistan has leveraged its geographical location for geopolitical gains, but apart from temporary relief, it has only guided towards much deep-rooted problems.

The country gravely suffers from growing poverty, economic inequality, policy discontinuity, unemployment, poor education and healthcare facilities, etc.

The current situation presents Pakistan with a dilemma: whether it would keep using its strategic advantage for temporary gains or realise the vision of geo-economics that the country's National Security Policy introduced in January 2022.

Becoming a melting pot for global economic interests through strengthening regional connectivity and development partnerships will help Pakistan address its structural problems related to non-traditional security aspects.

Additionally, it will also ensure that the country has enough resources in the pool to improve its traditional security apparatus. Certainly, now this is more important because Operation Sindoor is not over yet. Pakistan needs to build its economic muscle against India, which is reportedly set to become the fourth-largest economy in the world.

It is also arguably correct that the path to geo-economics will be long, and considering the world today, which has almost become a war theater, Pakistan will have additional hindrances when anchoring geographic location for economic benefits.

Nonetheless, with the alternate strategy, Pakistan has tried and failed again and again, and not changing the approach will not help address the deep-rooted structural issues the country has been suffering from since its inception in 1947.