The EU and UK’s Alignment with Pakistan’s Shahbaz Sharif Government
A Deep Dive into Geopolitical Influence
The 2024 general elections in Pakistan were widely seen as a critical moment for the country’s democratic trajectory. However, the process was marred by widespread allegations of rigging, manipulation, and a systematic sidelining of opposition forces. Despite this, the EU and UK, nations that frequently position themselves as global defenders of democracy, remained largely silent. Their failure to challenge the electoral irregularities in Pakistan is not an oversight but rather a deliberate geopolitical calculation.
This article explores why the EU and UK support Shahbaz Sharif’s government, how their soft power influence operates globally, and how this aligns with broader Western and Gulf interests. Drawing parallels with their stance on Ukraine and Donald Trump, as well as the Gulf states’ role in shaping Pakistan’s political landscape, we will examine how Pakistan is kept in a state of controlled dependency.
The EU and UK’s Selective Democracy Promotion
Western governments frequently use democracy and human rights as tools to advance strategic objectives. When elections in Belarus, Venezuela, or Russia appear manipulated, the EU and UK are quick to issue condemnations, impose sanctions, or call for international oversight. However, when a strategically aligned government like Shahbaz Sharif’s secures power under questionable circumstances, their response is notably restrained.
The 2024 elections in Pakistan serve as a perfect case study. With clear evidence of voter suppression, political engineering, and the sidelining of opposition figures, one would expect strong Western condemnation. Yet, the response from the EU and UK was lukewarm at best, with generic statements about “monitoring the situation” but no tangible diplomatic consequences. This was in stark contrast to their approach in other nations where electoral integrity is questioned.
The reason? Shahbaz Sharif’s government aligns with European geopolitical interests, and democracy is only a concern when it serves the West’s broader objectives.
Soft Power and Influence Operations: The Ukraine Parallel
A useful comparison here is the EU and UK’s stance on Ukraine. Since Russia’s invasion in 2022, Western governments have gone to great lengths to ensure unwavering support for Kyiv. Billions in military and economic aid have flowed into Ukraine, and any leader who questions this support—such as Donald Trump, is immediately targeted by media and political elites.
Trump’s skepticism about continued U.S. aid to Ukraine has led to a sharp rise in European hostility toward his potential return to power in 2025. British and European leaders have openly criticized him, while Western media has ramped up attacks, portraying him as a disruptor of the “rules-based international order.”
This mirrors how the EU and UK treat governments in regions they seek to control. In Pakistan’s case, Shahbaz Sharif serves as a reliable partner, ensuring stability in South Asia, keeping trade flowing, and preventing any shift toward China or political Islam. Just as Ukraine is used as a proxy against Russia, Pakistan is kept within the Western orbit through financial and diplomatic incentives.
Had Pakistan’s election produced a government less aligned with the West, we might have seen a very different response from Brussels and London. The lack of concern about electoral integrity is not an oversight—it is a conscious choice to maintain the status quo.
The Role of the Gulf States: Suppressing Independent Political Islam
Another key factor in this equation is the role of Gulf Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE. These countries have long sought to suppress political Islam, viewing it as a direct threat to their monarchies. Pakistan, as a major Muslim-majority state with a history of Islamist political movements, is a critical front in this ideological battle.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE have historically supported Pakistani governments that align with their interests, whether military-backed or Western-leaning. This explains their financial support for leaders like Shahbaz Sharif while maintaining a cautious distance from more Islamist-leaning factions. The Gulf states fear that an independent Pakistan, especially one influenced by political Islam, could inspire similar movements within their own borders.
One method they use to counteract this is funding anti-Islamic disinformation campaigns in the West. The UAE, in particular, has invested heavily in media and lobbying efforts that frame political Islam as a form of extremism. By shaping European perceptions, they ensure that Western governments remain hostile to any leader or movement in Pakistan that could challenge their influence.
This aligns perfectly with EU and UK interests. If Pakistan were to move toward a model of political Islam, whether through democratic or populist means, it could disrupt the carefully managed balance that the West and Gulf states maintain. Hence, there is a mutual understanding: Western powers provide diplomatic legitimacy, while Gulf states provide financial backing to keep compliant governments in power.
The IMF, Economic Leverage, and Pakistan’s Dependence
Pakistan’s economy is another major factor that ties it to Western and Gulf interests. The country remains dependent on IMF loans, foreign aid, and Gulf investments, all of which come with strings attached. The Shahbaz Sharif government has proven itself willing to comply with IMF demands, including tax hikes, subsidy cuts, and financial transparency measures that align with Western economic prescriptions.
Had the 2024 elections brought to power a leader less willing to adhere to these dictates, someone who might push for a more independent economic policy, Western financial institutions could have responded with increased pressure or even economic isolation. The IMF’s ability to dictate terms to Pakistan ensures that economic sovereignty remains limited, reinforcing the country’s dependence on Western-aligned governance.
Meanwhile, Gulf countries provide financial aid selectively, ensuring that Pakistan remains in need of their support. By extending loans and investments to preferred governments while withholding them from less cooperative ones, they exert control over the country’s political direction. This strategy was evident when Saudi Arabia and the UAE provided critical financial assistance to Pakistan during times of crisis under Shahbaz Sharif while showing hesitation under previous administrations that sought a more independent course.
The Bigger Picture: Pakistan as a Managed State
Putting all these elements together, it becomes clear that Pakistan is not an independent actor in its political and economic decisions. The EU and UK, along with Gulf monarchies and international financial institutions, have created a framework that ensures compliance while maintaining the illusion of sovereignty.
By selectively acknowledging or ignoring election irregularities, the EU and UK determine which governments receive international legitimacy.
Through the IMF and targeted foreign investments, Western powers and Gulf states ensure that Pakistan remains financially dependent.
As long as Pakistan’s government aligns with Western interests, particularly in relation to China, Afghanistan, and regional stability, it will continue to receive diplomatic support.
Any movement that promotes political Islam or challenges Gulf monarchies is countered through media narratives, disinformation campaigns, and financial isolation.
The EU and UK’s silence on Pakistan’s 2024 elections is not an isolated case. It is part of a broader pattern in which Western powers support regimes that serve their interests, regardless of democratic legitimacy. This is the same reason they remain hostile to figures like Donald Trump, who challenge their geopolitical objectives, while embracing governments like Shahbaz Sharif’s that guarantee stability at the cost of sovereignty.
Conclusion
Pakistan’s political landscape is shaped not just by internal dynamics but by a complex web of external influences. The EU and UK’s alignment with Shahbaz Sharif’s government is a direct reflection of their strategic priorities. Western governments prioritize stability over democracy when it suits them, ensuring that Pakistan remains within their sphere of influence.
Meanwhile, Gulf states play a parallel role, ensuring that political Islam remains suppressed while leveraging financial incentives to maintain control. Pakistan’s dependence on IMF loans and foreign aid further limits its ability to chart an independent course.
By connecting these dots, it becomes evident that Pakistan is managed through a combination of economic leverage, political engineering, and ideological suppression. The EU and UK’s selective stance on democracy is not about principles, it is about power. And as long as Pakistan remains strategically aligned, concerns over election integrity will continue to be ignored.
Would a truly independent Pakistan be allowed to emerge under such conditions? That remains the fundamental question.