ISLAMABAD:
Officials on Thursday moved to counter what they described as a “misleading narrative” surrounding Islamabad’s decision to associate with the Board of Peace, stressing that the move does not involve, nor could it lead to, the deployment of Pakistani troops to Gaza under any arrangement aimed at disarming Hamas.
Pakistan formally joined the Board of Peace, alongside around 20 other countries, at a signing ceremony held in Davos on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in the presence of US President Donald Trump.
But the move drew criticism and objections from opposition parties, which warned of potential implications for joining the US-led body.
Officials, however, in the background discussions insisted that the confusion had been deliberately created by conflating the Board of Peace, a political and diplomatic forum, with a hypothetical International Stabilisation Force (ISF), which, they noted, does not exist and would require an entirely separate mandate if ever proposed.
They underscored that Pakistan’s position on troop deployment is categorical and non-negotiable. No Pakistani forces will be sent to Gaza under any ISF or similar framework, particularly for coercive military tasks. Officials said this position had been clearly communicated during consultations and remains unchanged.
According to officials, the Board of Peace is designed as a diplomatic platform to facilitate coordination on humanitarian access, reconstruction, and civilian protection in Gaza, and should not be mischaracterised as a military mechanism.
Any future discussion on security arrangements, they added, would fall outside the BoP’s scope and would be subject to separate political, legal, and constitutional processes.
Officials also rejected claims that participation in the Board of Peace undermines or bypasses the United Nations, arguing that such assertions ignore how multilateral diplomacy functions. They maintained that the UN remains the central legal and institutional framework for conflict resolution, while complementary forums operate to build political consensus and coordinate implementation.
In this regard, officials pointed out that the Gaza peace plan underpinning the Board of Peace carries formal international legal backing following approval by the UN Security Council in a 130 vote, countering suggestions that the initiative lacks legitimacy.
Pakistan’s engagement, officials said, is anchored in three non-negotiable principles: unhindered humanitarian assistance for Palestinians without political conditionalities; the ability to undertake reconstruction without the risk of renewed Israeli military action; and the safety and protection of Palestinian civilians as a core priority rather than a secondary consideration.
They stressed that Pakistan’s policy on Palestine reflects long-standing continuity rather than tactical positioning. Islamabad continues to support the establishment of a contiguous, independent Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, and officials said no multilateral engagement would dilute that stance.
Responding to criticism that Pakistan should avoid platforms where Israel is present, officials described the argument as strategically flawed. They noted that Israel’s participation in international forums, including within the UN system, has never prevented Pakistan from advancing its principled positions through diplomacy.
Officials argued that absence from such forums would only allow others to shape narratives and outcomes without challenge, often presenting contested proposals as international consensus while marginalising Palestinian concerns. Participation, they said, should not be confused with endorsement, but viewed as a means of retaining leverage and influence.
They also highlighted that Pakistan’s association with the Board of Peace places it within a diverse, cross-regional grouping of countries from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, disputing claims that the forum represents a narrow or exclusively Western initiative.
Regarding reports of a proposed $1 billion contribution linked to the Gaza framework, officials clarified that any financial commitment is voluntary and does not imply military, operational, or political alignment beyond humanitarian and reconstruction objectives.
Officials further emphasised that the decision was taken through established constitutional channels and formally approved at the highest political level, dismissing suggestions of institutional freelancing.
