PAKISTAN has officially joined the Trump-led Board of Peace (BoP), aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza. This decision reflects Pakistan’s usual realpolitik approach to the Middle East. However, in Pakistan, realpolitik is often seen as a national weakness.

Since the Kuwait invasion, the US invasion of Iraq, the deployment of forces in Yemen, and most recently, attempts to stop the Israel-Palestine conflict, Pakistan has chosen a pragmatic foreign policy. These decisions are justified by geo-economic needs and the desire to stay relevant in the West and Middle East. The key question is: if Pakistan had a strong economy and stable political and social systems, would it make the same choices?

This question is significant because, in such instances, the establishment often makes decisions that contradict prevailing public sentiments, sentiments shaped by opinion-makers and religious clergy who promote a moral narrative anchored in a narrow worldview. In contrast, the establishment tends to adopt a more grounded, interest-based approach.

Pragmatism exacts a price. Those who advocate a moral-politics narrative continue to delegitimise political and military decision-makers, widening the gap between public opinion and state policy. It is worth examining whether a stronger economy and greater political stability would compel Pakistan’s leadership to weigh public sentiment more heavily, or whether strategic interests would still dominate policy choices.

If Pakistan had a strong economy and stable systems, would it make the same choices?

Most countries that have joined........

© Dawn