ISLAMABAD – Pakistan has suffered leadership stagnation for years. ButImran Khan has changed it. The troubled country received some of the bestinternational coverage after word got out he swept the July 25 election.Even in countries with little or no interest in Pakistan, newspapers and TVstations devoted space and airtime to Pakistan and Imran Khan.

This is impressive considering most of the world does not even know whatcricket is. So, Khan to them was not a sporting hero. The fact that hegarnered so much interest is testament to his charisma. He is a heartthrobat 65. The only other celebrity in this age group to garner this level ofinternational adulation is Tom Cruise, who is 56 this year.

Imran Khan offers a smart, globalist face of Pakistan to the world. Hiselection is an opportunity to push a new global narrative and restore thecountry’s activist role regionally and internationally.

Not since Benazir Bhutto’s election in 1988 has an elected Pakistani leadercreated this much goodwill for Pakistan across the world. Military leaderslike Gen. Musharraf and Field Marshal Ayub Khan had this effect.

But Imran Khan is different. He evinces a modern, attractive andinternationalist image of Pakistan. He represents a different Pakistanipersonality that had disappeared in recent years: a global citizen, acelebrity, proud of the country’s culture and religion and open to theglobal civilization.

He is as much at ease in Pakistan as he is in London, Genève or Monaco. Heis a natural in the traditional Pakistani dress and in western attire.

From 1988 to 2018, it took Pakistan thirty years to elect someone who putsthe country into international newspapers and television without spending asingle advertising penny. India is spending hundreds of millions of dollarsto give Indian leaders and celebrities the kind of publicity space in worldmedia that Pakistan’s Imran Khan receives for free.

Pakistan can and should use Khan to make new inroads in India, the West,and the Middle East. This does not mean compromise. It means finding newand creative ways to promoting Pakistani interests.

In India, the ruling establishment in New Delhi was alarmed at how enamoredthe Indian media and public were with Pakistan’s new leader. The Indianpublic was ready to believe what Khan said over what their own governmentwas telling them.

In America, despite some acerbic commentary on Pakistan’s election, Khan’srise led to rekindling of sympathy for the country. For example, columnistArthur Cyr lamented that American media forgets that Pakistan was a closeAmerican ally.

He wrote nostalgically, “The British-trained military is extremely capable.During the Cold War, Pakistan was generally a conservative counterweight toneutralist India and communist China.”

And even when writing a negative article on the Pakistani election, formerCIA analyst and long-time critic of Pakistan Bruce Riedel acknowledged thatAmerica has been as much an ‘unreliable partner’ to Pakistan as it isaccused of being to the US.

The Israeli media too is interested in Pakistan after Khan’s election. Andthis is an area of foreign policy that Pakistan should consider. Islamabadis receiving help from China, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia to help easetensions with the United States. Israel can play this role effectivelyunder Trump administration.

Earlier this year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu became the firstIsraeli leader to publicly send a message of friendship to Pakistan fromthe Indian soil. A senior Indian journalist nudged Netanyahu during atelevision interview in New Delhi, in January this year, to say somethingagainst Pakistan.

“We (Israel) are not an enemy of Pakistan and Pakistan should not be ourenemy either,” said Netanyahu, much to his interviewer’s dismay. He wentout of this way to emphasize the economic nature of Israel’s cooperationwith India and that it is not military and not directed at Pakistan.

Netanyahu’s Indian hosts may not have been very pleased with the Israelileader using a visit to India to flirt with Pakistan. This bold Israelimove prompted some discussion in Islamabad on whether Pakistan shouldpublicly welcome the Israeli statement.

Earlier this year, Palestine withdrew its ambassador in Pakistan on Indianrequest after he was photographed with a Pakistani clerical leader wantedin India. The Palestinians ignored Pakistani request to keep the ambassador.

Interestingly, the Palestinians established direct contacts with Israel in1994, resulting in self-rule agreements in Gaza and West Bank. Even today,Hamas and Fatah have contacts with Israel.

Relations between Pakistan and Israel will not come at the expense ofPakistani support to an independent Palestinian state. This is acornerstone of Pakistani policy. But introducing a balance in relationswith the Palestinians and Israel is a good idea. Turkey, Egypt, Jordan,Indonesia, Azerbaijan and many Muslim nations do this.

There is also the question of reciprocity on Kashmir. During the debate onJerusalem at the UN earlier this year, Pakistan drew the ire of the US bycosponsoring Egyptian and Turkish resolutions.

Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi delivered hard hitting speeches, linking Kashmirand Palestine. In return, the Palestinian envoy failed to show reciprocityby mentioning Kashmir.

I like the Turkish policy in this regard. Ankara robustly supports thePalestinian right to self-determination and simultaneously maintains aprofitable business relationship with Israel.

Turkey did not hesitate to send its troops to participate in wars in Muslimterritories like Syria and Afghanistan when Turkish interests were atstake. And when Washington slapped sanctions on it this month, PresidentErdogan wrote an op-ed in New York Times emphasizing how Turkey stood‘shoulder to shoulder’ with America on many occasions, but that Ankara willseek other allies if America mistreated Turkey.

BY: Ahmed Qureshi