Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s speech in Ashgabat was delivered at a moment when the language of peace risks sounding ceremonial rather than urgent. Yet the setting itself — Turkmenistan’s celebration of permanent neutrality and the UN’s declaration of 2025 as the International Year of Peace and Trust — invited something more reflective than routine diplomacy. Sharif used that space to articulate a worldview that is increasingly contested: that cooperation, not confrontation, remains the only sustainable answer to a fractured international order. At the heart of his remarks was a rejection of zero-sum thinking, the assumption that one state’s gain must inevitably be another’s loss. This mindset has come to dominate global politics, from great power rivalry to regional conflicts, and it has narrowed the scope for compromise.
Sharif’s appeal for a “new paradigm” was not naïve idealism; it was an acknowledgment that the existing paradigm is failing. Wars are longer, ceasefires more fragile, and multilateral institutions weaker than at any point in recent decades. Against this backdrop, calling for purposeful cooperation is less about lofty principles and more about collective survival. His emphasis on connectivity was revealing. Infrastructure has become a favored buzzword in international forums, often reduced to trade routes and transit corridors. Sharif’s insistence that connectivity should serve people as much as markets speaks to a deeper concern: that development stripped of social purpose can entrench inequality and fuel instability. Pakistan’s own struggles with uneven growth have shown how neglected regions and marginalized communities can become fertile ground for resentment and conflict.
Connectivity, if it is to promote peace, must bind societies together rather than simply speed up the movement of goods. The prime minister’s repeated invocation of dialogue and diplomacy was equally telling. In a world where force is increasingly normalized as the first rather than last resort, reaffirming commitment to the UN Charter sounds almost radical. International law has not disappeared, but its credibility has been eroded by selective enforcement. For countries like Pakistan, which sit at the intersection of regional rivalries, the erosion of norms is not an abstract concern. It raises the risk that disputes harden into permanent flashpoints, managed through deterrence rather than resolved through negotiation. Sharif’s linking of peace with sustainable development was perhaps the most substantive part of his address.
The argument that lasting peace cannot exist alongside mass poverty, inequality and climate vulnerability is no longer controversial, yet it is rarely acted upon with seriousness. Pakistan’s experience of climate disasters, from floods to heatwaves, has underscored how environmental shocks can undo years of development overnight. His reference to cleaner and greener solutions and ecosystem restoration was not simply a plea for international sympathy; it was a reminder that climate justice is inseparable from global stability. Countries least responsible for emissions are often those paying the highest price, a contradiction that continues to poison trust between north and south. This theme of shared responsibility ran through his comments on technology and inequality. Access to advanced and digital technologies has become a new dividing line in global politics, shaping economic opportunity and political power.
Sharif’s call for equitable access reflects a growing frustration among developing states that innovation is treated as a privilege rather than a public good. Without addressing this imbalance, promises of inclusive growth will remain hollow, and technological gaps will translate into deeper social and political fractures. Yet the speech was not only aspirational. It also reflected Pakistan’s immediate security anxieties. Sharif’s warning about a resurgence of terrorism emanating from Afghan soil was a blunt reminder that peace rhetoric cannot be divorced from hard realities. Pakistan has paid a heavy price for instability in its neighborhood, and the return of militant violence threatens both domestic security and regional cooperation. By urging the international community to press the Afghan Taliban to meet their obligations, Sharif was signaling that disengagement is not an option.
Afghanistan’s isolation may satisfy some moral impulses, but it does little to curb the threats spilling across its borders. His acknowledgement of diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, and gratitude towards regional actors working towards a fragile ceasefire, reflected Pakistan’s attempt to position itself as a constructive voice rather than a partisan one. Support for Palestinian self-determination remains a consistent pillar of Islamabad’s foreign policy, but Sharif framed it within a broader argument: that without peace, reconstruction and development are impossible. The reference to UN security council resolution 2788 was intended to anchor Pakistan’s stance in international consensus rather than rhetoric alone. The prime minister’s reaffirmation of support for the rights of Palestinians and Kashmiris also highlighted a persistent tension in Pakistan’s diplomacy.
Advocating self-determination while calling for peaceful dispute resolution requires careful balancing. It is a reminder that unresolved political grievances, when left to fester, undermine the very peace frameworks that global forums celebrate. Silence or ambiguity on such issues may be convenient for powerful states, but it is rarely sustainable. Finally, Sharif’s warm words for Turkmenistan’s leadership and its policy of neutrality carried a subtle message. In an increasingly polarized world, neutrality is often dismissed as irrelevance. Yet Turkmenistan’s example suggests another possibility: that staying outside rival blocs can create space for dialogue rather than deepen divisions. For Pakistan, which has historically navigated complex alliances, this lesson is not merely theoretical. The challenge, of course, lies in translating such speeches into sustained action. Editorials are rightly sceptical of lofty declarations unaccompanied by change. However, dismissing Sharif’s remarks as mere rhetoric would miss their significance. At a time when the global conversation is dominated by power, punishment and polarization, articulating a vision grounded in cooperation, development and dialogue is itself a form of resistance. Whether the world is prepared to listen — and act — remains the more difficult question.
