By Uzma Ehtasham
The recent use of British soil by elements associated with Pakistan’s political party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), to circulate threats against Pakistan’s military leadership marks a worrying escalation in the entanglement of domestic politics with international responsibility. On 23 December 2025, the party’s official UK social media account shared a video in which demonstrators openly threatened to assassinate a Field Marshal in a bomb attack. In the footage, a woman declares explicitly that anyone should kill the military leader with a car bomb — a statement that moves well beyond political dissent into the realm of incitement to violence. Even more concerning is that PTI-affiliated social media operatives reportedly amplified the video through official channels, lending institutional weight to a message that, under any measure, constitutes extremist rhetoric.
The implications of this incident are serious, both legally and diplomatically. Within the framework of international law, states are obligated to prevent the use of their territory for acts of terrorism, including incitement and encouragement. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, passed in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, imposes a clear duty on member states to suppress terrorist acts and ensure that their territory is not exploited for violent or extremist agendas. In the UK, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2006 specifically criminalizes the encouragement of terrorism, meaning that the dissemination of content threatening to kill a high-ranking military official is not merely provocative, but potentially punishable under domestic law.
From Islamabad’s perspective, the situation is especially sensitive. Pakistan maintains that PTI’s actions are not spontaneous expressions of political opinion but rather a coordinated attempt to exploit foreign territory to undermine the state. The party’s public face may speak of dialogue and reconciliation, but, according to Pakistani authorities, its UK operations are being used to pursue an agenda in direct opposition to the country’s national interest. In practical terms, the incident demonstrates a troubling duality: political actors, operating from abroad, are able to mobilize platforms and audiences in ways that transcend borders, challenging the sovereignty of their home state while evading immediate accountability.
The Pakistani government responded promptly, issuing a formal demarche to the Acting British High Commissioner in Islamabad. With the High Commissioner away, Deputy Head of Mission Matt Kennel was summoned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where officials expressed strong concern over the threats made against Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces. The message was clear: while the UK enjoys freedom of expression and assembly, these rights do not extend to allowing its territory to be used as a staging ground for terrorism or violent intimidation against another state. Islamabad demanded a thorough investigation, the identification of responsible parties, and that legal action be taken in accordance with British law.
In London, the British High Commission sought to clarify the limits of its authority. A spokesperson emphasized that police and prosecutorial bodies operate independently of government direction and that any evidence of criminal activity should be shared with the appropriate police liaison. They added that, should any violations be substantiated, criminal proceedings would follow. While the statement stops short of promising immediate action, it underscores the procedural mechanisms through which the UK upholds its counter-terrorism obligations and reflects the delicate balance between protecting civil liberties and preventing foreign interference.
Beyond the immediate legal and diplomatic dimensions, the episode exposes broader questions about the role of social media in international politics. Platforms once seen primarily as tools for civic engagement and debate have increasingly become arenas where political parties and activists project power, sometimes with destabilizing effects. In this instance, the amplification of violent messaging by official party channels blurred the line between domestic political mobilization and incitement to terrorism. The reach of such content is global, and its consequences are real: it forces states to respond not only through legal channels but also through public diplomacy, potentially straining relations with host countries and complicating broader bilateral engagement.
For Pakistan, the incident is more than an affront to national dignity; it is a matter of security. Threats against senior military officials are treated with the utmost seriousness, not least because they signal an intention to intimidate or coerce institutions critical to the functioning of the state. The government’s insistence that the UK take responsibility reflects a principle central to international norms: sovereignty entails the right of states to be free from external interference in matters of security and governance. Equally, it highlights the responsibilities of states that host foreign actors to prevent their territory from being exploited for illegal or violent ends.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
