The complexities of the contemporary geopolitical landscape, particularly regarding the protracted humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza, demand more than just traditional diplomatic posturing. In her recent article, Board of contention, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi offers a skeptical evaluation of the Board of Peace, framing it as a US-led initiative that risks marginalizing Palestinian agency and reducing Pakistan’s role to a largely symbolic one. While Lodhi’s caution is rooted in a historical understanding of power asymmetries in multilateral forums, an analytical re-evaluation suggests that Pakistan’s participation is not a move toward subservience, but rather an attempt at realist-humanitarianism. By engaging with the Board, Pakistan is prioritizing tangible outcomes and strategic influence over the comfortable but ineffective isolation of the sidelines.
The primary critique leveled by Lodhi concerns the perceived lack of meaningful influence and the potential for Pakistani participation to be viewed as a secondary component of a US-led framework. However, this perspective overlooks the high cost of non-engagement. In the realm of international affairs, particularly when dealing with urgent humanitarian disasters, the empty chair policy is rarely a successful strategy for advocacy. Had Pakistan opted for complete disengagement or remained limited to issuing symbolic statements of condemnation, it would have effectively abdicated its responsibility to influence the very mechanisms currently dictating the flow of aid and the stabilization of the region. Pakistan’s decision to join the Board reflects a pragmatic recognition that presence equals leverage. By being inside the room, Pakistan ensures that its voice, and by extension, the voice of the Global South and the Muslim world, is integrated into the decision-making process, moving the needle closer to international law and humanitarian principles rather than leaving the vacuum to be filled solely by Western interests.
Furthermore, Lodhi raises valid questions regarding the tangible impact of such multilateral frameworks. Yet, the empirical evidence emerging from the implementation of the Board’s framework tells a different story. Since its inception, there has been a measurable decline in civilian casualties and a documented increase in the volume of essential humanitarian aid reaching populations that were previously entirely cut off. For an academic and professional audience, the distinction between rhetoric-based diplomacy and results-oriented diplomacy is crucial. Pakistan’s involvement highlights a preference for the latter. In an environment where every day of delay results in the loss of Palestinian lives, the moral and strategic imperative shifts toward supporting any coordinated political mechanism that can translate into life-saving improvements. To dismiss these gains as mere byproducts of a flawed system is to ignore the primary duty of the international community: the protection of human life.
A significant point of contention in Lodhi’s analysis is the potential for Pakistan’s role to be misinterpreted as military involvement, particularly in relation to the International Security Force (ISF). This is perhaps where the rebuttal is most vital. Pakistan has maintained a clear, deliberate, and surgical separation between its political-diplomatic engagement with the Board and any military components. This firewall is essential for safeguarding Pakistan’s national interests and upholding its long-standing principles of non-intervention in specific regional conflicts. By participating strictly in the political deliberation and humanitarian oversight of the Board, Pakistan is not offering boots on the ground, but rather eyes on the process. This approach exemplifies a careful balance, allowing the country to contribute to international stability without being sucked into the strategic or military pressures of a US-led security apparatus.
Crucially, the argument that the Board excludes Palestinians from meaningful decision-making is a point where Pakistan’s presence becomes a strategic necessity rather than a symbolic gesture. Lodhi suggests that Palestinian priorities might be sidelined, however, Pakistan’s unwavering stance on the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with Al-Quds as its capital acts as a persistent anchor in these deliberations. By occupying a seat on the Board, Pakistan ensures that these non-negotiable priorities remain central to the dialogue. Without Pakistan’s active participation, the risk of Palestinian voices being marginalized by more powerful actors would increase exponentially. Pakistan, in effect, serves as a diplomatic proxy for the 1967-border consensus, ensuring that the peace process does not drift toward a managed solution that ignores fundamental rights.
Finally, the suggestion that Pakistan’s efforts are more symbolic than strategic fails to account for the long-term geopolitical advantages of this engagement. In a volatile regional context, disengagement would not only have exacerbated the suffering in Gaza but would have also weakened Pakistan’s standing in multilateral coordination. Proactive participation allows Pakistan to protect Palestinian rights from within the very structures that have the most significant impact on the ground. Achieving sustainable peace is a slow, often frustrating process of incremental diplomatic gains.
In conclusion, while Dr. Lodhi’s skepticism provides a necessary check on the risks of multilateralism, it shouldn’t overshadow the strategic necessity of Pakistan’s current path. The Board of Peace represents a flawed but functional vehicle for stability. For Pakistan, the choice was never between a perfect solution and a US-led initiative, it was between active influence and passive irrelevance. By choosing to engage, Pakistan has demonstrated that measured, principled, and proactive diplomacy remains the most effective path toward achieving justice for Palestine and maintaining a meaningful role in the international order.
Pakistan, Gaza, and the Case for Realist-Humanitarian Diplomacy
The complexities of the contemporary geopolitical landscape, particularly regarding the protracted humanitarian and political crisis in Gaza, demand more than just traditional diplomatic posturing. In her recent article, Board of contention, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi offers a skeptical evaluation of the Board of Peace, framing it as a US-led initiative that risks marginalizing Palestinian agency and reducing Pakistan’s role to a largely symbolic one. While Lodhi’s caution is rooted in a historical understanding of power asymmetries in multilateral forums, an analytical re-evaluation suggests that Pakistan’s participation is not a move toward subservience, but rather an attempt at realist-humanitarianism. By engaging with the Board, Pakistan is prioritizing tangible outcomes and strategic influence over the comfortable but ineffective isolation of the sidelines.
The primary critique leveled by Lodhi concerns the perceived lack of meaningful influence and the potential for Pakistani participation to be viewed as a secondary component of a US-led framework. However, this perspective overlooks the high cost of non-engagement. In the realm of international affairs, particularly when dealing with urgent humanitarian disasters, the empty chair policy is rarely a successful strategy for advocacy. Had Pakistan opted for complete disengagement or remained limited to issuing symbolic statements of condemnation, it would have effectively abdicated its responsibility to influence the very mechanisms currently dictating the flow of aid and the stabilization of the region. Pakistan’s decision to join the Board reflects a pragmatic recognition that presence equals leverage. By being inside the room, Pakistan ensures that its voice, and by extension, the voice of the Global South and the Muslim world, is integrated into the decision-making process, moving the needle closer to international law and humanitarian principles rather than leaving the vacuum to be filled solely by Western interests.
Furthermore, Lodhi raises valid questions regarding the tangible impact of such multilateral frameworks. Yet, the empirical evidence emerging from the implementation of the Board’s framework tells a different story. Since its inception, there has been a measurable decline in civilian casualties and a documented increase in the volume of essential humanitarian aid reaching populations that were previously entirely cut off. For an academic and professional audience, the distinction between rhetoric-based diplomacy and results-oriented diplomacy is crucial. Pakistan’s involvement highlights a preference for the latter. In an environment where every day of delay results in the loss of Palestinian lives, the moral and strategic imperative shifts toward supporting any coordinated political mechanism that can translate into life-saving improvements. To dismiss these gains as mere byproducts of a flawed system is to ignore the primary duty of the international community: the protection of human life.
A significant point of contention in Lodhi’s analysis is the potential for Pakistan’s role to be misinterpreted as military involvement, particularly in relation to the International Security Force (ISF). This is perhaps where the rebuttal is most vital. Pakistan has maintained a clear, deliberate, and surgical separation between its political-diplomatic engagement with the Board and any military components. This firewall is essential for safeguarding Pakistan’s national interests and upholding its long-standing principles of non-intervention in specific regional conflicts. By participating strictly in the political deliberation and humanitarian oversight of the Board, Pakistan is not offering boots on the ground, but rather eyes on the process. This approach exemplifies a careful balance, allowing the country to contribute to international stability without being sucked into the strategic or military pressures of a US-led security apparatus.
Crucially, the argument that the Board excludes Palestinians from meaningful decision-making is a point where Pakistan’s presence becomes a strategic necessity rather than a symbolic gesture. Lodhi suggests that Palestinian priorities might be sidelined, however, Pakistan’s unwavering stance on the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with Al-Quds as its capital acts as a persistent anchor in these deliberations. By occupying a seat on the Board, Pakistan ensures that these non-negotiable priorities remain central to the dialogue. Without Pakistan’s active participation, the risk of Palestinian voices being marginalized by more powerful actors would increase exponentially. Pakistan, in effect, serves as a diplomatic proxy for the 1967-border consensus, ensuring that the peace process does not drift toward a managed solution that ignores fundamental rights.
Finally, the suggestion that Pakistan’s efforts are more symbolic than strategic fails to account for the long-term geopolitical advantages of this engagement. In a volatile regional context, disengagement would not only have exacerbated the suffering in Gaza but would have also weakened Pakistan’s standing in multilateral coordination. Proactive participation allows Pakistan to protect Palestinian rights from within the very structures that have the most significant impact on the ground. Achieving sustainable peace is a slow, often frustrating process of incremental diplomatic gains.
In conclusion, while Dr. Lodhi’s skepticism provides a necessary check on the risks of multilateralism, it shouldn’t overshadow the strategic necessity of Pakistan’s current path. The Board of Peace represents a flawed but functional vehicle for stability. For Pakistan, the choice was never between a perfect solution and a US-led initiative, it was between active influence and passive irrelevance. By choosing to engage, Pakistan has demonstrated that measured, principled, and proactive diplomacy remains the most effective path toward achieving justice for Palestine and maintaining a meaningful role in the international order.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
Pakistan, Gaza, and the Case for Realist-Humanitarian Diplomacy
As Gaza endures a prolonged humanitarian catastrophe, Pakistan’s decision to engage with the Board of Peace reflects a calculated shift from symbolic diplomacy to realist-humanitarianism. Rather than retreating into moral posturing, Islamabad has chosen presence as leverage, seeking to shape aid delivery, protect Palestinian priorities, and influence outcomes from within imperfect multilateral structures.
The Asymmetry at the Heart of the EU–India FTA
Presented as a landmark of global economic integration, the EU–India Free Trade Agreement masks a deeply unequal structure. While India dismantles protective tariffs central to its industrial base, European firms retain advantages through subsidies, non-tariff barriers, and green protectionism. Rather than enabling industrial upgrading, the deal risks locking India into a dependent trade pattern, importing high-value capital goods while exporting low-value products, undermining the very logic of Make in India.
Digital Control, Economic Enslavement and the Sleeping Ummah
Digital Control is reshaping freedom; the Ummah faces economic and moral enslavement if we stay asleep.
Minority Rights in India: Constitutional Promises and Political Realities
Minority Rights in India face challenges despite constitutional promises of equality and political representation.
Summary Article
Summary Article Janurary 20, 2026 Online SAT Web Administrator Share 20 Janurary 2025 Tuesday Roundtable Event South Asia Times Inqueries: info@southasiatimes.org Narratives are shaped by