Connect with us

Pakistan News

The Man Between Fire and Peace: Asim Munir

Published

on

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The Middle East today stands dangerously close to the edge of an abyss. What began as a regional confrontation between Israel and Iran has expanded into a multi-layered conflict involving the United States, proxy actors, and a widening arc of instability stretching from the Gulf to the Eastern Mediterranean. Civilian populations are bearing the brunt of the devastation, critical infrastructure lies in ruins, and the global economy trembles under the threat of disruption to vital energy routes. At the heart of this unfolding crisis—where the specter of a wider, even nuclear, confrontation looms—stands one pivotal figure attempting to reverse the tide: Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir.
Munir’s emergence as a central mediator is neither accidental nor symbolic. It is rooted in a demonstrated ability to navigate crisis, build trust across rival blocs, and deliver results under pressure. Having stabilized Pakistan during a period of acute economic, political, and social turmoil—through strategic engagement with China, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar—Munir now applies the same disciplined approach to a far more volatile international theatre.
At the core of his current diplomatic effort lies what has come to be known as the Islamabad Accord, a structured, two-phased framework designed not only to halt hostilities but to address the deeper causes of conflict. Unlike previous fragmented peace attempts, this initiative integrates immediate de-escalation with a pathway toward sustainable peace. The framework rests on a series of clearly defined points, factors, and conditions that collectively shape the possibility of ceasefire, stabilization, and long-term resolution.
The first and most urgent pillar is the immediate ceasefire, intended to halt ongoing military operations across all fronts. This is not merely a pause in fighting but a critical intervention to stop further civilian casualties, prevent destruction of infrastructure, and create diplomatic breathing space. Closely tied to this is the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery through which a significant portion of global oil and gas flows. Restoring navigation through this chokepoint is essential not only for regional stability but for preventing a cascading global economic crisis.
The second phase of the Islamabad Accord envisions a time-bound negotiation window—ranging from 15 to 45 days—during which all stakeholders would engage in structured dialogue aimed at reaching a comprehensive settlement. This phase is designed to transform a temporary truce into a durable peace agreement by addressing the underlying drivers of conflict.
Among the most critical factors shaping the success of this process is the issue of mutual security guarantees. Iran has made it clear that any agreement must include firm assurances against future attacks by the United States and Israel. Without such guarantees, Tehran remains reluctant to commit to even temporary concessions. On the other side, Washington seeks verifiable commitments regarding Iran’s nuclear program, including assurances that it will not pursue nuclear weapons. Bridging this gap requires a carefully balanced framework that provides both deterrence and reassurance.
Equally significant is the question of sanctions relief and economic normalization. The proposed framework includes provisions for the release of frozen Iranian assets and the gradual lifting of sanctions in exchange for compliance with agreed terms. This economic dimension is not merely transactional; it is fundamental to rebuilding trust and integrating Iran into a stable regional order.
Another key factor is the establishment of a regional security architecture, particularly concerning the Strait of Hormuz. The proposal envisions a cooperative mechanism involving regional stakeholders to ensure freedom of navigation while addressing Iran’s security concerns. This would mark a shift from unilateral control and confrontation toward shared responsibility and oversight.
The success of the Islamabad Accord also hinges on addressing the pervasive trust deficit that defines the current conflict. Years of hostility, broken agreements, and proxy warfare have created deep skepticism among all parties. As observers have noted, this is not merely a strategic conflict but a psychological one, driven by ego, fear, and historical grievances. Overcoming this requires not only policy solutions but credible mediation—something Munir has worked to establish through sustained engagement with all sides.
In this regard, his ability to maintain direct lines of communication with key actors is critical. He is actively coordinating with Donald J. Trump, whose shifting negotiation posture adds complexity to the process, as well as with Iranian leadership, which remains firm in its demands. His ongoing dialogue with JD Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Abbas Araghchi reflects a continuous effort to align positions and narrow differences.
Beyond these immediate stakeholders, the framework also incorporates broader regional and global considerations. Engagement with countries such as Turkey and coordination with major powers like China and Russia are essential for ensuring that any agreement is not only accepted but supported by the wider international community. This multi-layered diplomacy acknowledges that the conflict’s implications extend far beyond the immediate parties involved.
Timing, too, plays a decisive role. The narrow window leading up to critical diplomatic deadlines has intensified negotiations, creating both urgency and pressure. While parties seek to maximize their strategic advantage, there is also a growing recognition that prolonged conflict offers diminishing returns and escalating risks. This convergence of urgency and pragmatism may provide the opening needed for agreement.
Yet the path forward remains fraught with challenges. Iran’s reluctance to accept externally imposed deadlines, the United States’ demand for rapid compliance, and the broader geopolitical rivalries at play all complicate the process. The possibility of miscalculation or escalation cannot be ruled out. However, the very intensity of the current crisis has also created a shared awareness of the catastrophic consequences of failure.
In this volatile environment, Munir’s role transcends that of a traditional mediator. He operates as a strategic bridge—linking adversaries, aligning interests, and crafting solutions that acknowledge both the realities of power and the necessity of compromise. His approach combines firmness with adaptability, recognizing that peace is not achieved through idealism alone but through pragmatic, incremental progress.
The Islamabad Accord, therefore, is more than a diplomatic proposal; it is a comprehensive framework that integrates ceasefire, economic stabilization, security guarantees, and long-term conflict resolution. It reflects an understanding that sustainable peace requires addressing both immediate triggers and structural causes of conflict.
As the world watches the unfolding negotiations, the stakes could not be higher. A successful agreement would not only end the current hostilities but also set a precedent for resolving complex, multi-actor conflicts through inclusive diplomacy. Failure, on the other hand, risks plunging the region—and potentially the world—into deeper chaos.
At this critical juncture, Field Marshal Asim Munir stands as a central figure in the effort to avert disaster. His leadership, shaped by experience and defined by resolve, offers a pathway—however narrow—toward peace. Whether that path is taken will depend on the willingness of all parties to move beyond confrontation and embrace the difficult but necessary work of compromise.

Pakistan News

New Chapter for Dragon Boating in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial associations officially set up with sights locked on national competitions and international representation.

Published

on

By

Dragon Boat Associations Established in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
PSHAWAR/LAHORE: Dragon boat associations have been established in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, marking a step towards organising and promoting the sport across Pakistan.
Prominent political and social figure Ameer Bahadur Khan Hoti will serve as president of the Punjab Dragon Boat Association (PDBA), while a notification has been issued confirming the election of former bureaucrat Javed Marwat as president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Dragon Boat Association (KPDBA). At a meeting in Lahore, prominent sports journalist Muhammad Yousuf was elected secretary general of the Punjab association. Uzma Zaidi will serve as senior vice president and Naveed Akhtar Malik as treasurer.
At a separate meeting in Peshawar, Javed Marwat, who previously held several senior administrative positions in the province, was unanimously elected president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa association, while renowned sports organiser Naeem Gul was elected secretary general. Shamim Akhtar Jadoon will serve as senior vice president, Junaid Khan vice president and Bilal Aslam as treasurer. Newly elected Punjab association president Ameer Bahadur Khan Hoti said Pakistan’s first dragon boat festival and competitions on the Kabul River had opened new avenues for the sport’s development. He said the enthusiasm shown by participants and the sport’s promising prospects had highlighted the need to establish a Pakistan Dragon Boat Federation to coordinate training, organise competitions and support athletes. Dragon boat associations would be established in all four provinces and the federal capital, Islamabad, before the formal announcement of the national federation, he added.
Newly elected Khyber Pakhtunkhwa association president Javed Marwat said efforts would focus on introducing the sport at the provincial level and providing athletes with opportunities to compete nationally and demonstrate their abilities. Teams would also be sent to represent Pakistan in international competitions. He said the sport would help strengthen people-to-people exchanges and further promote Pakistan-China friendship. Marwat expressed confidence that dragon boat racing would soon gain popularity throughout Pakistan.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan’s Yemen Dilemma

Published

on

By

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Pakistan’s military commitment to Saudi Arabia raises a question that cannot be answered simply by identifying where its soldiers are stationed. Modern warfare allows forces to attack through aircraft, missiles, drones and targeting support without sending infantry across a border. The decisive issue is whether Pakistani personnel and capabilities will participate in hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis—and what consequences could follow.
Scott Ritter, renowned American podcaster, military and geopolitical analyst captures the central danger: Saudi Arabia could obtain through collective defence the Pakistani involvement in Yemen that Islamabad previously resisted. An initially limited commitment could expand through casualties, retaliation and demands for reinforcement, leaving Pakistan responsible for a war whose objectives it does not control.
CNN reported on October 7 that Pakistani troops were already stationed in Saudi Arabia. In the interview, Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, director general of Inter-Services Public Relations, declined to disclose their numbers or capabilities. Asked about operations across the Yemeni border, he invoked military confidentiality, explaining that participating countries do not publicly disclose how and where they will employ their forces. His response offered no categorical exclusion of ground operations or offensive action inside Yemen, even as he described Pakistani involvement as defensive.
That distinction matters. Operational secrecy may protect military personnel, but it also leaves the public without clear answers about the mission’s boundaries. The description “defensive” cannot establish those boundaries by itself. Governments routinely invoke defence to justify attacks beyond their territory; the relevant questions concern what forces actually do, whom they target and under whose authority.
Pakistani forces operating from Saudi territory could potentially support or conduct attacks inside Yemen without deploying infantry there. Air operations and targeting assistance could carry substantial consequences. If Pakistani personnel participate in attacks against Houthi positions, Ansarullah could regard Pakistan as belligerent. Tehran could interpret the same activity as participation in a campaign against Iranian regional interests.
The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye on August 7, 2026, reportedly treats an attack against one member as an attack against all three. Its deterrent promise is substantial, but so is the danger of importing one member’s confrontation into the security calculations of the others.
An October 5 statement published by Türkiye’s Foreign Ministry committed the partners to implement collective defence arrangements and rapidly deploy agreed military forces and capabilities to Saudi Arabia, subject to national legislation. Türkiye therefore shares the deployment commitment. However, the evidence reviewed does not establish a Turkish ground combat commitment against the Houthis or an equal distribution of operational risks.
For Islamabad, the unanswered questions are fundamental. Who authorizes Pakistani involvement in cross-border attacks? Can Pakistan refuse a particular operation? Who finances a prolonged deployment, and what conditions permit withdrawal? Confidential operational details need not be published to explain the political mandate governing the use of force.
Pakistan brings potential strengths to the alliance: experienced personnel, established military institutions and longstanding cooperation with Riyadh. Saudi infrastructure and financing could support a substantial deployment. Islamabad’s relationships with both Riyadh and Tehran might also create diplomatic opportunities, provided military involvement does not undermine its credibility as an intermediary.
Yet those strengths do not resolve the weaknesses of an extended campaign. Destroying particular weapons or positions is different from ending an adversary’s ability and determination to fight. Dispersed forces, local networks and adaptation can frustrate superior firepower. Tactical gains could therefore coexist with an expanding mission and an elusive political settlement.
Ritter’s warning is strongest when understood in these terms. Predicting inevitable Pakistani defeat is less useful than asking what victory would require. Protecting defined facilities offers measurable objectives. Permanently eliminating the Houthi threat could entail commitments far beyond what Pakistan initially intended—and costs that additional military capability cannot necessarily overcome.
Saudi financial assistance complicates Islamabad’s freedom of choice. The State Bank of Pakistan confirmed that a $3 billion Saudi deposit maturing in December 2025 was extended for another year. Such support gives Pakistan a substantial interest in maintaining Saudi confidence.
Saudi’s financial influence does not require an explicit threat. A government facing external financing pressures may find it difficult to reject security requests from an important creditor. The danger is that short-term economic reassurance encourages military obligations carrying much greater long-term costs.
Iran introduces a further risk. Pakistani attacks against an Iranian-supported movement could damage relations with a neighbouring country and generate security pressures closer to home. The Houthis also possess their own Yemeni objectives, and attacking them is not automatically equivalent to attacking Iran. Political escalation, however, can advance through perceptions and retaliation before governments agree on legal distinctions.
International law offers no reliable assurance that this confrontation would remain contained. Legal obligations persist, but their enforcement is uneven, and states may invoke self-defence while pursuing military objectives beyond their borders. Pakistan therefore cannot assume that legal distinctions between defending Saudi territory and attacking Houthi positions would restrain retaliation. If Tehran perceives Pakistani operations as threatening its interests, the danger would turn on strategic calculations, perceived threats and the risk of escalation—not simply on competing interpretations of the UN Charter. Shared religion and geographical proximity would offer no dependable protection against that outcome.
Pakistan’s domestic divisions make a widening conflict especially consequential. The supporters of imprisoned former prime minister Imran Khan began marching from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa toward Islamabad on October 4, demanding his release, hospital treatment and family access. An overseas campaign would impose additional demands on resources and political legitimacy amid an already polarized environment.
Parliament’s April 2015 resolution remains relevant. It supported neutrality in Yemen alongside solidarity against threats to Saudi territorial integrity and the holy sites, while urging diplomacy through the United Nations and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That distinction deserves renewed parliamentary examination before military commitments overtake political debate.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye should pursue an emergency OIC initiative linked to UN diplomacy, involving Iran and meaningful Yemeni participation. Reciprocal de-escalation, civilian protection and humanitarian access should take priority. Their collective influence should also sustain action for Palestinian rights rather than dissipate through another prolonged regional confrontation.
The Makkah Pact’s credibility will depend on whether it improves security. Secrecy about military methods cannot replace clarity about political objectives. Before Pakistan’s commitment deepens, its leaders must explain what they are defending, how far that obligation extends and how they intend to prevent it from becoming an open-ended war.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan Reaffirms Commitment to Multilateralism, Peace and International Cooperation at the Executive Board of UNESCO

Published

on

By

Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Representative of Pakistan to UNESCO, Syed Tauqeer Hussain Shah, delivered Pakistan’s national statement at the 225th Session of the UNESCO Executive Board in Paris, France, reaffirming its steadfast commitment to multilateralism, international cooperation and the promotion of peace through dialogue and mutual understanding.

In his statement,

  • Underscored Pakistan’s firm support for multilateral institutions, South-South cooperation and collaborative efforts to address global challenges, particularly those confronting developing countries;
  • Highlighted the urgent need to protect human life, educational institutions and cultural heritage amid conflicts and crisis, especially in Gaza;

-Called for an international action plan to confront the challenge of out-of-school children;

  • Stressed the importance of equitable access to scientific knowledge, international scientific collaboration and reducing technological inequalities;

-Underlined the need to combat racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, disinformation and hate speech, while encouraging responsible and ethical governance of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies; and

  • Expressed support for institutional reform of UNESCO to enhance its effectiveness and impact worldwide.

Continue Reading

Trending