By Nazim Malik
Senate Opposition Leader Allama Raja Abbas Nasir had denounce the Shehbaz Sharif government’s decision to join US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace saying it is morally incorrect and indefensible, both on principle and on policy.
“The initiative was problematic from the outset. Conceived as an externally managed arrangement for post-war Gaza, it effectively removes the right of governance from the Palestinian people themselves,” he said.
By placing reconstruction, security and political oversight in the hands of outside actors, the project carries the unmistakable imprint of a neo-colonial enterprise. Such frameworks rarely end at administration.
An unwise decision for many reasons. The govt has overlooked the fact that Trump wants states to join the board to secure international support & legitimacy for what are & will be unilateral actions by him. The board's remit is v broad and beyond Gaza, another reason not to join https://t.co/RncJmWQRTR
— Maleeha Lodhi (@LodhiMaleeha) January 21, 2026
I denounce the government’s decision to join US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace as it is morally incorrect and indefensible, both on principle and on policy.
— Senator Allama Raja Nasir (@AllamaRajaNasir) January 21, 2026
The initiative was problematic from the outset. Conceived as an externally managed arrangement for post-war Gaza,…
I denounce the government’s decision to join US President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace as it is morally incorrect and indefensible, both on principle and on policy.
— Senator Allama Raja Nasir (@AllamaRajaNasir) January 21, 2026
The initiative was problematic from the outset. Conceived as an externally managed arrangement for post-war Gaza,…
Trump’s initiative will, over time, erode the very right to self-determination it claims to safeguard.
“What makes Pakistan’s participation more troubling is that an initiative initially sold as a limited mechanism for rebuilding after the genocide in Gaza is now being openly expanded,” he said.
Statements by its principal sponsor and the contents of its draft charter suggest ambitions well beyond Palestine, with little regard for the United Nations. The absence of clear UN oversight and the board’s widening mandate point towards an attempt to supplant, or at the very least marginalise, the existing multilateral system.
“By lending its name to this effort, Pakistan appears to endorse a structure that sidelines the UN and replaces international law with a personalised political platform. This sits uneasily with Islamabad’s own reliance on multilateral forums and UN resolutions, particularly on issues such as Kashmir, where Pakistan consistently argues for the primacy of international legality,” Nasir says.
The inconsistency is difficult to explain. Pakistan cannot credibly uphold UN centrality where it suits its interests while participating in initiatives that weaken the institution elsewhere.
“Nor does this alignment serve the Palestinian cause, which has always rested on the principles of self-determination and UN-backed legitimacy, not externally imposed governance models.
Foreign policy decisions driven by short-term calculation often produce lasting consequences,” he declared.
By associating itself with a project that undermines both Palestinian agency and the UN system, Pakistan risks diluting its moral standing and strategic coherence. It is a decision Pakistan will regret, he lambasted.
