Strategic communication is an important component of statecraft. Narratives project one's self-image to the world while the other's narratives about one's country and people reflect the world's perception of what the country and its people stand for.
World really doesn't give two hoots about anyone's perception. Everyone is more interested what are the capabilities of your nation-state and how you are going to benefit them.
The negativity associated with Pakistan has cost us tremendously in terms of lack of political and economic support from world powers.
There was no negativity ever. Pakistan was a tool to neutralise a pro-Soviet socialist neo-communist state India which later became a libertarian capitalist society more favourable to west. Pakistan remains in mind of western and Chinese strategists because it is a chapter in India's diplomatic rulebook. Once India is thrown to weakness from a potential threat by USA or China, Pakistan will also be left to rot like Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan.
While negativity towards Pakistan has been deliberate and served Western interests, it is also a fact that strategic communication has not been Pakistan's strong suit. Pakistan's own narrative has been reactive and defensive, centered on traditional security issues with Eastern neighbor or demands for assistance rather than projecting an image that would create positive interests for the world in Pakistan. It could be argued that our narratives have often reflected lack of self-confidence that is unusual for a nation of our size, importance. and potential leading to our increased global isolation.
This got nothing do to with western interests. Pakistan doesn't even have embassies in a large number of countries. For existing partners, it didn't even have proper communication networks (not even eMails). It's own incompetence had a bigger role to play in isolating it and not India.
To the contrary, many countries particularly India have managed to project a grossly exaggerated positive image of themselves (Shining India; Incredible India) and even used their elevated position to harm
India doesn't have any "positive image". India just goes and tells them to choose between India and Pak and they choose India, it being more profitable. Unlike Pakistan, India isn't all about mouthjob and photos. It has a reasonable chunk of industries, certain booming technologies and only country to look at outside far east and north west.
India is relatively poor and backward but only major country to be enrolled in the game.
CPEC: Principle example of the connectivity paradigm.
CPEC is more of an insurance to China's oil security since Indian navy can block Chinese supplies from Indian ocean in case of major war. There is no reason for anyone switch a much cheaper route to much costlier land route, that even through a dangerous nationstate where American drones and local terrorists strike on cities and routes regularly.
East-West (India) Connectivity: In principle, we also want East-West connectivity because the focus of the region should be on working together to alleviate poverty and deprivation. But this avenue is blocked by India's expansionism and Hindutva ideology that shuns cooperation with its neighbors.
India doesn't have trade-barriers or any major territorial disputes with of any its smaller neighbors except Pakistan. In fact, India has open borders with Nepal & Bhuta like EU and has highly liberalised trade with Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Multinational Corporations have consistently made astronomically higher profits
Low labour costs.
70% Increase in International Tourists within 3 years.
Still receives one of lowest number of tourists in the world. Figure hence fluctuates greatly every year.
Continued to counsel restraint in the China-India standoff and did not take advantage of the situation despite sustained Chinese pressure for the same.
Neither of China & India have ever even factored Pakistani suggestions in their bilateral disputes, leave alone rest of the world.
Comparative case: Highlight that we introspect and learn lessons from the past, unlike India that is on an ideological drive and is moving from bad to worse.
For that, you will have to convince them India is moving to bad from worse.
India meanwhile here is only country which received positive FII throughout pandemic, surpassed US and Japan in steel and electronics production, capturing companies moving out of China and also has its own capitalist class. India is a net creditor unlike indebted Pakistan and can never default.
All we can see that India, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Nepal are heading to become upper middle income countries till 2030-35 at worst what Pakistan is unlikely to do even in 2050.
The international community can help Pakistan by playing its part in stabilizing the region and assist in resolving regional conflicts because: Pakistan cannot focus attention and resources on geo-economics and economic diplomacy in the presence of conflict.
Major Powers should use their influence to soften the politicized position of global financial and anti-money laundering institutions - especially FATF, towards Pakistan. The world must be forced to focus on our progress and trajectory.
In order to benefit from Pakistan's offer of Economic Bases, the world should become Pakistan's developmental partner where private business can flourish.
For becoming an economic base and forcing foreign powers to act in favour, Pak actually has to be a potential economic power.
Apart from the fun Pakistani fanboys make of India of being far behind China & Japan in skill development, Pakistan lies even behind skill levels India had in 1991. It's 2/5 population is illiterate, leave alone millions thousands of engineers, scientists, doctors, programmers, technicians, managers, bankers etc. what India produces even though they aren't considered as capable as their western or east Asian counterparts in general, Pak doesn't produce anything. If US is a luxury company, China is a new company, India is yet just a factory and Pakistan is just a cottage shop.