By Asghar Ali Mubarak
As conflict in Gaza draws the world’s attention yet again, Pakistan finds itself navigating the intricate and often perilous terrain of Middle Eastern diplomacy. Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif’s recent visit to Washington to attend the inaugural meeting of the so-called ‘Board of Peace’, hosted by former US President Donald Trump, is emblematic of Pakistan’s efforts to assert itself as a constructive player in international peacekeeping, while balancing its longstanding support for the Palestinian cause. The Board of Peace, a new multilateral forum, is intended to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza following the ceasefire agreement and to chart a course toward lasting stability in the region.
Approximately two dozen countries, including Pakistan, Israel, and several Arab and Islamic nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Indonesia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, have agreed to participate, although many European allies remain sceptical of its legitimacy and scope. The initiative has faced criticism for potentially sidelining the United Nations, and for questions about the role and mandate of its proposed International Stabilization Force (ISF). For Islamabad, participation in the Peace Board is a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, Pakistan wants to contribute to the protection of Gaza’s civilians and the post-conflict reconstruction of the territory.
As Foreign Office Spokesperson Tahir Hussain Andrabi explained, Pakistan’s red line is clear: the country can provide troops for peacekeeping, but not to disarm Hamas or impose political outcomes. Any decision on joining the ISF hinges on the details of its mandate, which must align with international law and operate under the oversight of the United Nations. This position reflects Pakistan’s broader diplomatic approach to Gaza. In the United Nations Security Council, Islamabad voted in favour of a resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces, and the establishment of an interim Peace Board to oversee humanitarian assistance and governance.
The resolution envisages an international stabilization force working alongside local police and Palestinian technocrats, with the goal of protecting civilians, maintaining security, and facilitating reconstruction. Pakistan’s support for the resolution underscores its commitment to a two-state solution and the principle of Palestinian self-determination, while also signaling its willingness to engage in multilateral mechanisms for conflict resolution. Yet the challenges are profound. Questions abound over whether the Peace Board can effectively stabilize Gaza without the direct participation of Palestinians in its governance structures. Hamas, which controls Gaza’s administration, has already rejected the initiative, portraying the international force as a potential tool of domination that could undermine local authority.
Critics, including several European countries, argue that the board’s legitimacy is questionable, given its formation under US leadership and the absence of direct Palestinian representation. Former Pakistani ambassador Dr. Maleeha Lodhi has warned that Islamabad’s hasty decision to join may complicate Pakistan’s position, emphasizing the need for a clear understanding of the board’s operational scope and long-term objectives before committing military or political resources. Despite these criticisms, Pakistan’s engagement with the Peace Board is shaped by pragmatic considerations. Its historical ties with the United States, combined with its influence among Middle Eastern nations, provide Islamabad with a unique diplomatic channel to support Palestinian interests while participating in global peace initiatives.
By joining the board, Pakistan positions itself as part of a broader coalition advocating for reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and security, without compromising its longstanding stance on Palestinian sovereignty. The government stresses that the board’s focus should be temporary, aimed at rebuilding Gaza and supporting the Palestinian people, rather than replacing the authority of the Palestinian National Authority or altering borders. Financial and operational aspects of the initiative further complicate matters. Trump has claimed that the member countries of the Peace Board have pledged more than $5 billion for humanitarian aid and reconstruction, alongside thousands of personnel for the stabilization force and local policing.
Pakistan, however, has made no formal commitment of financial resources, signaling instead that its contribution would be limited to peacekeeping personnel under a clearly defined UN mandate. This cautious approach reflects Pakistan’s experience in previous UN peacekeeping missions, where clear rules of engagement and international oversight were essential to avoid entanglement in local conflicts. The Peace Board also provides a platform to address broader regional dynamics. The ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, violations of UN resolutions, and the humanitarian crisis in the West Bank remain pressing concerns. Pakistan aims to use its presence to advocate for the protection of civilians, the upholding of ceasefires, and the recognition of Palestinian rights, while coordinating with fellow Islamic countries to ensure that reconstruction and security measures do not compromise Palestinian sovereignty.
(The writer is a senior journalist covering various beats, can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
