Opinion by Humayun
At a time when Pakistan’s diplomatic role on Gaza is drawing global attention, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf has put forward a fresh “rationale” to oppose the peace initiative, demanding an immediate withdrawal from the Board of Peace.
In a statement issued by the PTI central secretariat, the party said it rejects the government’s decision to join the so-called Board of Peace.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Statement on Government of Pakistan’s Decision to Join the “Board of Peace”:
— PTI (@PTIofficial) January 22, 2026
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf does not accept the Government of Pakistan’s decision to join the “Board of Peace.” PTI emphasizes that decisions of such international…
PTI said decisions of global importance must involve all major political forces, and such matters should be debated openly in parliament.
PTI again questioned the legitimacy of the present parliament and claimed the 2024 elections were manipulated.
The party said the ruling coalition does not have a real public mandate.
The party stressed Pakistan should work within the United Nations framework. It warned against parallel peace structures that could weaken global governance.
PTI said Pakistan’s foreign policy must protect sovereignty and constitutional values.
Referring to Gaza, PTI said it stands firmly with the Palestinian people, adding that no peace plan is acceptable without the consent of the Palestinians.
The party linked this position to the policy of former prime minister Imran Khan. PTI demanded that Pakistan suspend its participation in the Board of Peace.
It called for parliamentary debate, political consultation, and a public referendum. Pakistani newspapers note PTI has consistently opposed foreign policy moves taken without consensus.
The statement reflects the party’s broader criticism of the government’s Gaza policy.
Fact check
Pakistan is a sovereign state, and foreign policy is constitutionally the prerogative of the government.
No public referendum or special approval is required for participation in international forums. In fact, previous PTI governments have made similar decisions without parliamentary debate.
Parliament is constitutionally established and functioning within the framework of the state. No court has declared it unconstitutional, and political grievances do not invalidate state institutions.
Participation in a diplomatic forum is an executive decision, not an international treaty. Lack of parliamentary discussion does not make the decision unconstitutional.
This forum is not a substitute for the UN. Pakistan remains a member of the UN system, and this participation is simply an additional diplomatic platform.
The state functions through institutions, not individuals. No former prime minister, even one convicted by the courts, has a veto over foreign policy. National decisions are never determined by a single person’s preferences.
Pakistan’s stance on Palestine remains clear, firm, and consistent. The country continues to support an independent Palestinian state and the rights of Al-Quds.
Participation in an additional forum does not compromise this principle. Pakistan is not alone in this forum; eight major Muslim countries are also members, so it is unreasonable to suggest that Pakistan should deny the collective will of the Muslim world to satisfy a single individual.
No country holds referendums on foreign policy. Referendums are meant for constitutional or territorial issues. This demand is impractical and legally baseless.
Pakistan’s dignity is maintained through active, balanced diplomacy. Isolation from the international community would harm national interests. State policy is above political slogans and personal agendas.
