Fazal-ur-Rehman Accuses Pakistan’s Leadership of “Double Standards” in Foreign Policy
Senior Pakistani politician Fazlur Rehman accuses the country’s leadership of following a duplicitous foreign policy, alleging Pakistan aligned with the US during the Afghanistan war while also accommodating the Taliban, a strategy he says damaged national interests and global credibility.
Speaking in Islamabad, Rehman alleged that Pakistan adopted contradictory positions during a critical period of regional conflict. He pointed to the time when the United States launched military operations in Afghanistan, claiming that Pakistan simultaneously aligned itself with Washington while also allowing space and support to the Afghan Taliban. According to Rehman, this dual approach reflected a lack of clarity and consistency in state policy.
The senior leader argued that such decisions did not merely create short-term diplomatic complications but inflicted lasting damage on Pakistan’s international standing. He said the country’s perceived inconsistency eroded trust among global partners and left Pakistan exposed to pressure and criticism in international forums. Rehman maintained that national interests were compromised as a result of these policy choices, placing Pakistan in an increasingly difficult geopolitical position.
While he did not name specific individuals, Rehman’s remarks were clearly directed at successive leaderships responsible for shaping Pakistan’s security and foreign policy during the Afghan conflict. His comments come amid renewed scrutiny of Pakistan’s historical role in regional politics and ongoing discussions about redefining its diplomatic posture.
Rehman’s intervention underscores a broader political and strategic debate within Pakistan about accountability, transparency, and the need for a coherent foreign policy framework. As the country navigates complex regional dynamics and evolving global alliances, his criticism highlights lingering questions about past decisions and their enduring impact on Pakistan’s diplomatic credibility and national interests.

Comment List