A recent op-ed published in a foreign state-owned outlet presents a troublingly distorted picture of Pakistan’s investment climate. Framed as constructive criticism, the piece is in fact a case study in how vested interests exploit media platforms to pressure sovereign institutions and fast-track outcomes that bypass due legal and regulatory process.

The author fails to disclose ties to a power-sector entity amid an ongoing shareholder dispute.

The author, closely linked to a communications firm contracted by a key power-sector entity embroiled in a shareholder dispute, fails to disclose this relationship while advocating for urgent resolution in favor of foreign investors. This is a textbook conflict of interest, disguised as economic analysis. When paid advisors adopt the posture of neutral analysts while pushing for corporate outcomes, they compromise not just their credibility but the very policy process they seek to influence.

Worse, the narrative leans heavily on the author’s past role in investment facilitation, deploying institutional affiliations to manufacture legitimacy for one-sided arguments. This form of revolving-door advocacy undermines the credibility of existing state-led mechanisms, such as the Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC), which is actively engaged in structured dispute resolution. Rather than supporting this institutional evolution, the article dismisses it entirely, favoring investor privilege over procedural integrity.

The use of selective statistics further weakens the argument. Highlighting Pakistan’s FDI-to-GDP ratio without acknowledging global headwinds, fiscal austerity mandates, and persistent hybrid threats is analytically dishonest. For context, even regional and Gulf countries that are considered investment hubs often record modest FDI ratios relative to GDP. Singling out Pakistan in this manner fabricates a crisis narrative that is both inaccurate and counterproductive.

The piece dismisses Pakistan’s Special Investment Facilitation Council, undermining structured dispute resolution.

The choice of platform is equally revealing. Publishing the critique in a state-backed foreign outlet, particularly at a time when that state is negotiating investment flows with Pakistan, suggests more than mere coincidence. The omission of key facts, such as the regulatory breaches by the investor in question or the government’s ongoing efforts to resolve the matter, raises questions about the true purpose of such publications. This appears less like journalism and more like narrative engineering to amplify diplomatic pressure.

Calls to “act in days, not months” betray a disdain for national protocols. Strategic assets cannot, and should not, be handed over without thorough due diligence, including security clearances and financial transparency checks, particularly when shell entities in offshore tax havens are involved. Accelerating such processes for the sake of appeasing foreign capital not only risks institutional credibility but also sets a dangerous precedent for future disputes.

Equally problematic is the selective silence on threats that truly destabilize Pakistan’s FDI environment. While courting Western and Gulf interlocutors, there is no mention of targeted disinformation campaigns undermining economic corridors or foreign-backed subversion efforts in restive regions. Such omissions raise legitimate concerns about alignment with external lobbies rather than fidelity to national economic interests.

Portraying Pakistan as “unpredictable” and “high-risk” in international media, particularly without referencing recent institutional successes like the Reko Diq settlement, fuels a negative perception that harms rather than helps the country’s recovery narrative. This language, deployed uncritically, does real damage to investor confidence and national morale.

Selective statistics fabricate a false crisis narrative, ignoring global and regional investment contexts.

Lastly, there is a glaring inconsistency in calling for long-term investment frameworks while lobbying for one-off settlements for preferred clients. Criticizing institutions as outdated while ignoring their ongoing reform and performance undermines the very ecosystem required for sustainable investment flows. Reform cannot be selective; it must serve national interest, not private portfolios.

What is being marketed as an economic concern is, in essence, an attempt to leverage foreign capital against national policy autonomy. This is not how credible FDI climates are built. Pakistan must hold firm to due process, institutional transparency, and sovereign policymaking, no matter how sophisticated the pressure tactics may appear.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.