The United Nations was a grand experiment for global peace after the Second World War, but by granting veto power to the permanent members of the Security Council, a fundamental flaw was purposely embedded at the heart of this experiment. This veto has become an instrument that sustains power politics instead of implementation of international law, safeguarding interests rather than justice.
The vetoing of resolutions in the Security Council regarding Gaza peace is a manifestation of this reality: the global institution often becomes helpless before the will of the UN Security Council’s permanent members. As a result, Donald Trump prioritized managing the Gaza issue through an alternative platform, the Board of Peace. In Paragraph 16 of the OIC Charter’s preamble, the Palestinian issue is declared significant, yet despite the existence of a bloc of 57 Muslim countries, no decisive progress has been achieved on Palestine, nor on Kashmir. This diplomatic paralysis demonstrates that shared identity alone is insufficient; shared power and political will are also required. When institutions like the OIC and the UN were rendered incapable of taking practical action, Donald Trump seized the opportunity to propose the draft of the Board of Peace, placing the world at a crossroads: either pave the way for total bloodshed and complete occupation in Gaza, or freeze the conflict through a political and administrative framework to ostensibly maintain the global balance of power, though tilted toward powerful states.
The key question is whether the Board of Peace could be an alternative to United Nations. The reality is that the UN employs more than 60,000 staff, has an extensive global network, and possesses institutional expertise that cannot be replaced by any new forum. However, the United States is the world’s largest military power, with the most powerful naval fleets and approximately 800 military bases that represent the real manifestation of power in global politics. Consequently, it can accept or reject UN Security Council resolutions at will. It is also evident that just last year, the United States vetoed peace resolutions on Gaza. Now, if the same United States and its leadership, with the support of 60 members, can steer the conflict through the Board of Peace in a way that stops the bloodshed in Gaza, this initiative would be of immense significance and superiority not only for Palestinians but for all humanity.
America’s economic decline, more than 38 trillion dollars in debt, growing pressure on its economy, and the global shift from the Global North to the Global South all indicate that centralized power is fragmenting. In this context, the Canadian Prime Minister warned at Davos: “We have entered an era in which the rules-based global order is gradually dissolving, and where the powerful can impose their will while the weak must endure what fate has written for them.” This was not merely a speech but an intellectual indictment of the structure of global power.
Initially, 25 countries signed the Gaza Peace Board Charter, and 35 provided written assurances of participation, with expectations that 60 countries will soon join. This is extraordinary progress for any new global forum. Pakistan’s inclusion in this board is a continuation of its proactive foreign policy. Since the “Battle of Truth,” Pakistan’s foreign policy has taken a positive impetus, and this is a manifestation of that upward trajectory. The Security Council’s endorsement of Trump’s 20-point peace plan is an acknowledgment that traditional institutions now require new political frameworks. I have personally worked at the United Nations and understand the institution’s capabilities. Its subsidiary bodies play crucial roles in conflict regions worldwide, particularly in rendering humanitarian assistance. The Peace Board’s Charter allows it to address conflicts beyond Gaza, and there is no objection to this. Due to the veto, the UN could not implement the Gaza peace plan, creating space for an alternative forum.
For decades, Pakistan has maintained a clear stance on the Palestinian issue. Whether it is the Oslo Accords or UN resolutions, Pakistan’s policy has not fundamentally changed. Pakistan’s Permanent Representative reiterated this position at the United Nations’ Security Council. Due to transparent and consistent foreign policy, the world understands Pakistan’s stance, and if this consistency is maintained, the younger generation will begin to see its benefits in the near future.
Some circles within Pakistan argue that Israel’s inclusion in the Gaza Peace Board will weaken Pakistan’s ideological position. However, the reality is that Israel has been a member of the United Nations for decades, and Pakistan is also part of the same global institution, yet Pakistan has never recognized Israel. Ideological disagreement remains, but no solution to Gaza is possible without Israel’s inclusion. If the objective is to compel Israel to negotiate peace, excluding it from the negotiation framework would be diplomatic suicide.
Furthermore, had Israel not been included, the Board of Peace itself could have failed due to opposition from the Israeli lobby in the United States, and bloodshed in Gaza could have resumed. India was also invited, and Pakistan should not have objection to this, because more than 56 other members of the Board are not obliged to follow India’s position. In diplomacy, participation itself is power, and non-participation is equivalent to surrendering to isolation.
In fact, global politics has entered a new era where institutions are weakening and powerful states are becoming more assertive and defiant. In such circumstances, countries like Pakistan must adopt pragmatic and proactive diplomacy without abandoning principles, and must be part of every platform where the global agenda is shaped—just as Pakistan joined a powerful institution like the Board of Peace, which is a concrete practical step in light of contemporary realities. Critics may be welcomed if they can present alternative solutions, but mere rhetoric and endless criticism cannot stop the resumption of bloodshed in Gaza.
