Switzerland – Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s decision to join US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace for Gaza has ignited a fierce political controversy in Islamabad. The signing ceremony at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which Sharif portrayed as a significant diplomatic achievement, has been condemned by opposition parties as non-transparent and morally indefensible, triggering demands for withdrawal and even a national referendum.
Pakistan Board of Peace Decision Sparks Political Firestorm
During the World Economic Forum gathering, Sharif joined world leaders in signing the charter for Trump’s Board of Peace initiative. However, the Pakistan Board of Peace membership decision has created intense domestic backlash, with opposition parties questioning the lack of consultation and transparency in committing the nation to this controversial international mechanism.
The Board of Peace was formally unveiled by Trump as part of the second phase of his 20-point plan aimed at ending the Gaza conflict. Beyond Gaza, the board is intended to serve as a new international mechanism for resolving global conflicts, with a mandate encompassing governance capacity-building, reconstruction, investment attraction, and large-scale funding mobilization.
PTI Leads Opposition Against Pakistan Board of Peace Membership
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), the party of jailed former Prime Minister Imran Khan, has led the charge against the government’s decision regarding Pakistan Board of Peace participation. In a stern statement, PTI announced it does not accept the decision, arguing that matters of such international significance require full transparency and inclusive consultation with all major political stakeholders.
PTI leaders emphasized that any participation in international peace initiatives should complement and reinforce the United Nations’ multilateral system rather than creating parallel structures that could complicate global governance. The party views the Pakistan Board of Peace commitment as potentially undermining established international frameworks.
Demands for Referendum and Parliamentary Scrutiny
Imran Khan’s party has called for the government to withdraw Pakistan Board of Peace formal participation until a complete consultative process is conducted. This process, according to PTI, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must involve consultation with Imran Khan himself, despite his current incarceration.
In an unprecedented demand, PTI has even called for a national referendum on the Pakistan Board of Peace decision, underscoring the gravity with which the opposition views this international commitment. The party argues that such a significant foreign policy decision requires broader national consensus.
Opposition Leader Denounces Move as Morally Incorrect
Adding to the mounting pressure on Sharif over the Pakistan Board of Peace issue, Allama Raja Nasir Abbas, chief of the Majlis Wahdat-e-Muslimeen (MWM) and Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, denounced the move as “morally incorrect and indefensible.”
While expressing support for the Palestinian people, PTI clarified it would not accept any plans that go against the wishes of the people of Gaza or Palestine as a whole. This stance reflects concerns that the Pakistan Board of Peace framework may not adequately represent Palestinian interests or aspirations.
Trump’s Ultimatum Complicates Pakistan Board of Peace Position
The criticism of Pakistan Board of Peace membership intensified as Trump used the Davos platform to issue stark ultimatums, stating that Palestinian militant group Hamas must disarm or face “elimination.” This hardline position has raised questions about whether the board genuinely serves Palestinian interests or primarily advances American strategic objectives in the region.
The timing and nature of Trump’s statements have strengthened opposition arguments that the Pakistan Board of Peace participation may not align with the country’s traditional support for Palestinian self-determination and sovereignty.
Limited International Participation Raises Questions
The Pakistan Board of Peace initiative itself has faced significant scrutiny regarding its legitimacy and international support. While the Trump administration invited around 60 countries, including major powers like India and China, fewer than 20 ultimately participated in the Davos launch.
Those countries that signed on to the Pakistan Board of Peace framework are joining a body where permanent membership reportedly carries a $1 billion price tag, raising concerns about the financial implications of participation.
Member Nations and Global Response
The countries that have accepted Trump’s invitation to join alongside Pakistan Board of Peace include Argentina, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Morocco, Mongolia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.
Notably absent from the Pakistan Board of Peace membership are permanent members of the UN Security Council (except the United States) and other G7 nations. This limited participation from major global powers has fueled speculation that the initiative may struggle to achieve its ambitious goals.
Concerns About UN Replacement
Many countries view the Pakistan Board of Peace and the broader Board of Peace initiative as a move to supplant the United Nations. The board is being projected by Washington as a new international body to usher in peace and stability in Gaza and beyond, triggering speculation that it may respond to other global conflicts as well.
Critics argue that creating parallel international structures undermines the multilateral system built over decades and could fragment global governance mechanisms. The Pakistan Board of Peace controversy reflects these broader concerns about the future of international diplomacy and conflict resolution.
Background and Context
In October, Israel and Hamas agreed to Trump’s peace plan, setting the stage for the Board of Peace initiative. The Pakistan Board of Peace participation represents Sharif’s attempt to position the country as a significant player in Middle Eastern diplomacy, though domestic opposition suggests this strategy may carry substantial political costs at home.
