Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has never been known for delegating responsibility. Nevertheless, his reluctance to appoint a full-time foreign minister is most intriguing. Few other countries have more serious foreign policy challenges than Pakistan, and the absence of an effective minister to take charge of the portfolio concerned has compounded our problems. The Yemeni crisis has brought home the issue more starkly.

The absence of a minister was most conspicuous during the critical foreign policy discussion at the recent joint session of parliament. The debate was opened by the defence minister and wound up by the ubiquitous finance minister.

Read: Shahbaz Sharif briefs civil, military leadership on Saudi visit

Surely we have an adviser to the prime minister and a special assistant for foreign affairs. But neither seems to be really in charge. Brother Shahbaz Sharif, too, dabbles in external affairs frequently accompanying the prime minister on foreign trips. His latest visit to Saudi Arabia at the head of a high-level delegation that also included Sartaj Aziz has sparked a new controversy. Then parts of foreign policy remain the sole domain of GHQ.

“There are too many cooks, but no clear policy,” says Dr Rifaat Hussain, a professor of strategic studies at the National University of Sciences and Technology.

When Mr Aziz was appointed adviser on foreign affairs it was generally believed he would be made minister after the Senate elections. But strangely, he was not even given a party ticket. Mr Aziz, before becoming foreign minister in the second Sharif government, had served as finance minister. In this term, he is also holding the position of adviser on national security which itself needs a full-time minister.

Highly respected, the 85-year-old former international bureaucrat Mr Aziz was seen as the right man for the job despite his advanced years. But he is constrained without full power over policy formulation. The responsibility of running the ministry is shared by Tariq Fatemi, a former ambassador. This duality has its own problems. Mr Fatemi had also applied for a Senate seat, but he too was ignored for reasons best known to Mr Sharif.

Many insiders see the position of adviser as relegation for a former foreign minister. The portfolio is held by the prime minister. “The position of an adviser is certainly different from that of a minister,” says Riaz Khokhar, a former foreign secretary.

Foreign ministry officials maintain that it also creates protocol problems.

“He may be given any fancy title, but will not be treated as a minister,” says one former diplomat. Some foreign ministry officials confirm that this situation often creates problems at conferences and in meeting counterparts.

So why not appoint a foreign minister? “It is hard to read the mind of the prime minister, but it seems he does not trust anyone even in his party,” says former ambassador Ashraf Jehangir Qazi. This appears plausible given Mr Sharif’s style of governance. Some key cabinet and other vacancies are still waiting to be filled.

Rumours have been circulating for a while about an impending reshuffle and expansion of the cabinet, but this exercise seems to have been put on the back burner once again. It is obvious that, true to form, Mr Sharif wants to keep matters under his own control. “He is perhaps looking for a pliant person,” says a retired diplomat.

What is, however, most intriguing is the role of Shahbaz Sharif in running foreign policy. He has been involved in everything including talks with India and China. His presence at meetings with foreign leaders has already provoked criticism. One wonders why he was chosen to lead the delegation to Saudi Arabia that also included Mr Aziz. “Like everything, foreign policy is also run as a family enterprise,” says Mr Jahangir.

With serious challenges confronting the country, we need a full-time foreign minister who must also be effective and proactive. The existing confusion and disarray in foreign policy is mainly caused by fickleness that has become a hallmark of the Sharif government. As one former foreign ministry official puts it: “There is no policy or even a process.” It is disastrous when foreign policy becomes a means of protecting family, rather than national interest.

Published in Dawn, April 17th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play