GST refunds, corruption and delays: Why Pakistan’s Foreign Office is facing flak from foreign missions

Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar - File Photo

Pakistan’s Foreign Office faces criticism from diplomats over inefficiency, poor coordination, and corruption, including delayed tax refunds and bribery in attestation services, damaging its credibility and risking Pakistan’s international reputation.

Did our AI summary help?

Pakistan’s Foreign Office, which is meant to project the country’s image to the world, is drawing sharp criticism from diplomats and foreign missions posted in Islamabad over what they describe as chronic inefficiency, poor coordination and entrenched corruption.

According to a report by The Islamabad Post, diplomats from multiple countries have privately complained about the Foreign Office’s slow pace of work and lack of responsiveness in handling even routine diplomatic matters. Foreign missions say repeated follow-ups are often required for basic coordination, with files moving sluggishly and communication breaking down at crucial stages. The delays, diplomats argue, fall well short of the standards expected from a country’s principal diplomatic institution.

One of the most persistent grievances relates to Goods and Services Tax refunds that foreign missions are entitled to under diplomatic conventions. Diplomats say that while such refunds are processed smoothly in most countries, in Pakistan they are routinely delayed or ignored altogether. Several missions have raised the issue multiple times, but without resolution. The prolonged failure to address the matter has become a major irritant and is seen as a clear violation of diplomatic norms.

The Foreign Office’s credibility has taken a further hit due to a corruption scandal in its attestation department. According to reports, corrupt practices in the department have continued for years, with officials allegedly demanding bribes to speed up document attestation. Diplomats and applicants say what should be a routine service has effectively turned into a rent-seeking operation, reinforcing perceptions of systemic corruption within the ministry.

This is not an isolated case. In the past, the Foreign Office has been rocked by scandals involving the misuse of liquor quota permits issued to foreign missions and irregularities in the import of vehicles under diplomatic privileges. Those episodes led to disciplinary action against officials, including dismissals. In some cases, even diplomats were removed from their posts for their role in corrupt dealings.

Ironically, the Foreign Office is often described as the “face of Pakistan” abroad. Its job is to facilitate diplomacy, uphold international obligations and build confidence among foreign partners. Instead, diplomats say repeated failures and scandals have damaged its standing and undermined trust. Many argue that Pakistan cannot expect respect on the global stage if its own diplomatic machinery is seen as inefficient and compromised.

The growing dissatisfaction has broader implications. Diplomats are key intermediaries in shaping how their governments view Pakistan. Negative experiences at the Foreign Office risk colouring those perceptions, potentially affecting cooperation in trade, investment, security and cultural exchanges. A dysfunctional diplomatic institution, observers say, directly weakens Pakistan’s international credibility.

Analysts believe the situation calls for urgent reforms. Measures such as digitising services, reducing discretionary powers, enforcing strict accountability and removing corrupt officials are seen as essential to restoring confidence. Without such steps, complaints from foreign missions are likely to grow louder.

For now, the criticism directed at Pakistan’s Foreign Office serves as a stark warning. Diplomats expect efficiency, transparency and respect for international norms. Persistent mismanagement and corruption not only frustrate foreign missions but also deepen Pakistan’s reputation problem at a time when the country can least afford it.