Prime Minister Imran Khan’s “absolutely not” riposte to the question posed by the Australian journalist, Jonathan Swan, in his interview for HBO Axios has taken the media world by storm. Swan had asked if Khan would allow the US government operational bases in Pakistan so that the CIA and American armed forces may conduct reconnaissance over Talban and launch an offensive if the latter appear to be going overboard.

The Pakistani premier said, “we will be partners in peace but not in war.” He said Pakistani space would not be used to carry out military attacks inside Afghanistan. Khan looked stiff while answering that question. His tone was definitive, indicating that if Pakistan had to make a choice, China will be the obvious pick even if it meant parting ways with the West.

Many PTI supporters and some neutral observers have praised Khan for being forthright and brave. The staunchest of his detractors have kept quiet about it.

Maybe they are not keen squander away their energy on matters related to foreign relations. It is, however, ironical that The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian chose not to report this interview.

Social media activists and members of civil society were incensed by Khan’s opinion that scantily dressed women arouse sexual desire among males leading to sexual assault or rape.

Khan’s apologists have accused HBO Axios of censorship for excising the part they say provided the context in which he made his remarks. They say the part that infuriated the civil society activists had been streamed out of context. CNN too ran the news without making any reference to the rebuttal.

For a bit of damage control, the Pakistan government streamed it with Urdu subtitles. This did not help much and Khan is still getting flak from the liberals, of whom the civil society forms an important constituent. They are Khan’s ideological nemesis on account of what the call his “right-wing views reflected in his vision for the state.”

In the remaining part of this column, we are concerned with the earlier part of Imran Khan’s interview. Will it be easy for Pakistan to change its foreign policy orientation? Can China, projecting its self-image of a world power, substitute the US with regards to Pakistan? This is a question worth mulling over.

In economic terms, China has the reputation of a terribly hard negotiator with no corresponding imperial interests. The US for the sustenance of its influence had been soft on occasions in its dealing with under-developed countries like Pakistan. In the 1950s the American government came to Pakistan’s rescue by providing us wheat when Pakistan faced a food crisis. Whenever a calamity has hit Pakistan, be it floods or earthquakes, the US has extended material support. Can we expect the same from China, which h is reputed to shown no softness in its dealing with Pakistan?

It is possible to have cordial relations with China at the state level but the Chinese might not permeate into the cultural and societal recesses of the Pakistani populace.

These questions should be studied in a dispassionate manner. A careful strategy needs to be devised before pinning high hopes on China. Historically speaking, as a post-colonial state, Pakistan earned its liberation from the Great Britain. Its political elite needed some protection from India and the resources to meet the immediate needs of a state with depleted coffers.

After a bit of hum and haw, the United States showed readiness to provide to a newly founded South Asian state. Switching from the imperialist hegemony of Great Britain to the neo-Imperialist/protective canopy of the United States was not difficult, even if it was not entirely natural. These matters deserve serious deliberation and if the people at the helm have credible answers, they must share those with the citizenry.

I have alluded to the definitive tone of Khan while talking to Jonathan Swan with respect to China. It indicated unequivocal faith in China. But China keeps it cards remarkably close to its chest. The warmth, if at all it has any for Pakistan, has been rarely on display. Does it consider us anything more than a client state? Does going from one hegemonic dispensation to another constitute liberation?

The Western world feels threatened by China and its assertiveness as a world power through schemes like ‘one belt one road’. If groups like G7 decide to hold China back by forging an economic block, what would become of Pakistan? Can it sustain economic or social ostracism in case G7 countries opt to be tough on China and its ‘clients’?

I don’t see any other country showing such extraordinary level of unconditional commitment to China. If somebody has an apprehension that Pakistan risks being treated as a scapegoat, I think that apprehension is not entirely misplaced.

Pakistan’s elite is markedly orientated to the West and particularly towards the United States. The relationship manifests itself in the culture and ‘mentality’ of our elite and upper middle class. It is deeply entrenched. It is possible to have cordial relations with China at the state level but China will be unable to permeate into the cultural and societal recesses of the Pakistani populace any time soon. Thus, there will be divergence between state and the society. I suggest that we must have a debate on this paradigm shift in our diplomatic priorities.

The writer is a professional historian and an author. He can reached at tk393@cam.ac.uk