The recent report in the Financial Times suggesting that Pakistan has “pitched” a proposal to the United States for developing a new port at Pasni has stirred unnecessary debate. The story, built on unnamed sources and speculation, is misleading and detached from the realities of Pakistan’s foreign policy and decision-making framework.
There has been no official communication or policy move by the Government of Pakistan offering Pasni—or any other coastal site—for a US-backed project. The claim runs contrary to both Islamabad’s strategic posture and the institutional process that governs such national decisions.
Pakistan’s policy is guided by balance, not alignment
Pakistan’s foreign policy today is defined by balance, economic pragmatism, and sovereignty. It is not driven by geopolitical alignments or bloc politics.
The country maintains deep strategic cooperation with China, friendly relations with Turkiye and the Gulf states, and a constructive dialogue with the United States.
To suggest that Islamabad would quietly “offer” a deep-sea port to one major power, just 70 kilometers from China’s Gwadar, is to ignore this carefully maintained balance.
Such a step would directly contradict Pakistan’s own long-term strategic interests and its commitments under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
The reality on the ground
Pasni lies within Balochistan’s Gwadar district, a region that has witnessed repeated instability and requires sensitive handling. The idea that Pakistan would create new geopolitical controversy there by inviting a foreign power’s involvement simply defies logic.
Large-scale port projects in Pakistan go through multiple layers of evaluation—economic, environmental, security, and diplomatic. Any such proposal would require approvals from the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, the Planning Commission, and the federal cabinet. There is no record of such a process being initiated.
In short, the “Pasni proposal” exists only in media imagination.
Why Pakistan would not float such an idea
There are several reasons why Pakistan cannot and would not make such an offer.
First, Islamabad cannot afford to create unnecessary tension with Beijing, its most significant development partner. CPEC remains the backbone of Pakistan’s infrastructure and connectivity strategy.
Second, Balochistan’s sensitivities demand a cautious, consultative approach to any major investment. Local voices and provincial interests must be part of every developmental plan—something that is entirely missing from this speculative narrative.
Third, Pakistan’s National Security Policy clearly defines sovereignty as the foundation of national prosperity. The country welcomes foreign investment and partnership, but without compromising its autonomy or national control over strategic assets.
Broader picture: from geopolitics to geo-economics
Pakistan’s real focus is on economic cooperation, not military alignments. Islamabad has consistently sought US engagement in areas such as renewable energy, technology transfer, higher education, and critical minerals development. None of these discussions involve control or basing rights.
It is in Pakistan’s interest to rebuild its economy through trade, investment, and stability—not through the politics of ports and bases. The era of transactional security relationships is over.
Media responsibility and strategic accuracy
The Financial Times story reflects a recurring tendency in Western reporting to interpret every development in Pakistan through a Cold War lens.
This outdated mindset frames every initiative as a power play between Washington and Beijing, ignoring the nuance and agency of states like Pakistan.
Such stories might create headlines but they distort understanding. In today’s multipolar world, Pakistan has the right—and the responsibility—to pursue multi-alignment based on its own interests, not external expectations.
Pakistan’s approach to foreign policy is guided by balance, economic priorities, and respect for sovereignty. There is no “Pasni deal,” no secret understanding, and no policy shift away from traditional partners.
Speculative reporting of this kind only complicates diplomatic efforts and misinforms readers. Pakistan’s message remains clear: it seeks partnerships, not patronage; cooperation, not confrontation.
