BS DARA
bsdara@gmail.com
Pakistan’s decision to join Donald Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ has sparked renewed hopes in Islamabad of internationalising Kashmir. But in a global order driven by power, not platforms, symbolic diplomacy cannot substitute for economic strength, institutional credibility, or strategic relevance.
Pakistan’s decision to join Donald Trump’s proposed ‘Board of Peace’ has triggered predictable excitement in Islamabad, with sections of its media portraying the move as a diplomatic breakthrough, and some even daring to suggest that it could help internationalise the Kashmir issue once again. From a strategic standpoint, such optimism, however, appears misplaced. Participation in symbolic forums does not automatically translate into real power. In global politics, influence is not built on visibility alone but on economic strength, institutional credibility, and sustained strategic relevance, areas where Pakistan remains chronically deficient.
The structure of Trump’s Board of Peace itself exposes the fragility of the claim. As reported by the BBC, the initiative was initially presented as a mechanism to oversee ceasefire arrangements and reconstruction in Gaza. Its leaked charter, however, reveals ambitions that go far beyond humanitarian oversight, encroaching into roles traditionally reserved for the United Nations. Trump chairs the body personally, retains the authority to appoint executive members, dissolve subsidiary organs, and shape its mandate at will. Membership terms are renewable, and permanent seats appear linked to financial contributions. Far from being a consensus-driven institution, it is a leader-centric initiative that mirrors Trump’s style of privileging disruption over diplomacy and performance over structure.
Pakistan’s quick endorsement of such a forum is therefore unsurprising. Islamabad has historically sought third-party involvement in its disputes with India, particularly on Kashmir. Supporting such ad hoc initiatives allows Pakistan to project itself as peace-seeking and responsible on the global stage while reopening diplomatic space to internationalise bilateral issues, something New Delhi has consistently resisted. For Pakistan, the cost is minimal. There are no binding commitments, no policy concessions, and no strategic risks. It is low-cost diplomacy designed for high-visibility returns.
Pakistan’s participation in Trump’s peace board offers headlines, not leverage. Real influence in global affairs flows from economic resilience, political stability, military credibility, and institutional trust. Pakistan struggles across all four dimensions. Its economy remains fragile, its politics unstable, its civil-military imbalance unresolved, and its credibility compromised by decades of policy incoherence. No global platform, whether UN-backed or personality-driven, can compensate for these structural weaknesses.
The belief that Kashmir could be revived as a global mediation issue through such forums misunderstands how the international system currently works. Over the past decade, the global context around Kashmir has shifted decisively. Major powers today no longer view it as an international dispute requiring mediation. The dominant diplomatic position across Washington, European capitals, and much of the Gulf is that Kashmir is a bilateral matter between India and Pakistan. This consensus has hardened since 2019, when India reorganised Jammu and Kashmir constitutionally. While Pakistan vocally opposed the move, it failed to mobilise sustained international pressure. That outcome reflected structural realities rather than diplomatic failure.
India today occupies a fundamentally different position in the global order. It is a key economic partner for the West, a strategic counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific, and an influential voice in global trade, technology, and climate negotiations. It chairs and plays a central role in forums such as the G20, QUAD, and various Indo-Pacific initiatives. Pakistan, by contrast, remains economically fragile, politically unstable, and heavily dependent on external financial assistance from the IMF and friendly capitals. These structural asymmetries matter. Diplomacy ultimately follows power.
For Kashmir to re-emerge as a serious global mediation issue, Pakistan would require unified backing from major powers, sustained economic credibility, institutional stability at home, and evidence-based diplomacy rather than narrative campaigns. None of these conditions currently exist. Symbolic forums and ad-hoc peace platforms do not override entrenched strategic calculations. No serious power today is willing to jeopardise its relationship with India over Kashmir.
From New Delhi’s perspective, the issue has moved from global diplomacy to regional management. India’s rejection of third-party mediation reflects strategic confidence rather than diplomatic rigidity. Even during moments of crisis, whether Pulwama in 2019 and Pahalgam in 2025, India resisted external mediation and acted unilaterally. That message has been internalised internationally. India is no longer viewed as a reactive regional power but as a self-confident strategic actor capable of managing its security environment independently.
Pakistan’s participation in Trump’s initiative may generate speeches, talking points, and media cycles, but raising an issue rhetorically is not the same as changing its status. Global diplomacy operates on interests, not sympathy. Countries may listen, but they will not act. International relations are driven by strategic calculations, not emotional appeals.
Trump’s diplomatic style explains much of this initiative’s appeal and its limitations. He favours headline-driven announcements, personal engagement, and transactional deals. While such an approach may attract states seeking shortcuts to relevance, global diplomacy is not built on shortcuts. It is built on institutions, credibility, and consistency. The fact that Slovenia has publicly rejected the board, warning that it interferes with the international order, and that Israel itself has objected to parts of the structure, underscores the scepticism surrounding the initiative. Canada and the United Kingdom remain non-committal.
For decades, Pakistan’s foreign policy has leaned heavily on symbolism to compensate for structural weakness. From repeated attempts to internationalise Kashmir at the UN to lobbying foreign parliaments and media, Islamabad has relied on narrative diplomacy. But narratives unsupported by economic and institutional strength rarely deliver policy change. Power today is
measured not by speeches but by trade volumes, technological depth, diplomatic networks, and strategic partnerships.
India’s advantage lies precisely here. Its growing economy, expanding defence partnerships, and rising global profile provide diplomatic insulation. This does not mean India is immune to pressure, but it does mean it can afford to be patient. Strategic restraint, when backed by capability, becomes a form of strength. Kashmir will not return to the international negotiating table because Islamabad joined a new forum. Power optics cannot substitute for structural influence. In diplomacy, platforms create noise; power creates outcomes. India remains militarily strong and strategically confident, while Pakistan remains diplomatically vocal but structurally constrained. That asymmetry defines South Asia today.
For India, the challenge is to maintain restraint without ceding narrative space. For Pakistan, the task is deeper, internal reform, economic revival, and civilian authority over security policy. Until then, global platforms will offer Pakistan visibility, not victory. Kashmir, meanwhile, will remain where the world has quietly placed it: a bilateral issue, managed, not mediated.
From a foreign affairs observer’s perspective, this trajectory is unlikely to produce diplomatic revival. Such initiatives will create short cycles of attention, followed by strategic indifference, and to fade quickly. This poetic lament captures, with quiet irony, Pakistan’s recurring diplomatic impulse where the language of peace rises repeatedly, yet remains fearful of consequence.
Yeh jo aman ke mimbar pe naya shor utha hai
Yeh bhi aik khwab hai, tabeer se darta hua
Follow our WhatsApp channel
