Pakistan’s Unifying Move for Peace at the UN

Pakistan’s Unifying Move for Peace at the UN

Although the world is failing to elude war and hostility, Pakistan’s  scored a significant milestone in a diplomatic move getting the full support of the United Nations Security Council in peaceful resolution of disputes. During the July stint of Pakistan in the UNSC, the organization has created history by being able to end a third armed conflict since 1967 with the help of a negotiated settlement instead of aggression.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, in his capacity as chairman of the meeting made a constructive and opportune open discussion on the theme of the principal of international peace, security and promotion using peaceful solution to disputes. This resolution not only highlights the changing role of Pakistan as a responsible and active element of international community, but it also offers the outline of decision of addressing the conflicts without using violence.

A Diplomatic Milestone

As the concept of military interventions, economic overplaying and unilateral measures start taking a heightened form in the international relations system, the gesture by Pakistan is a welcome jolt at the fact of multilateralism and diplomacy. Owing to the approval of the resolution, the foreign office of Pakistan notes that the existing mechanisms of the conflict resolution would be strengthened and that better collaboration of the global world in the maintenance of peace could be reached. It is a significant development that promises to ensure that diplomacy is relevant once more but essential in conflict prevention and resolution.
The resolution was applauded by UN Secretary General António Guterres who warned that it was sobering. Although he accepted the peace pledge whole heartedly and also stressed the conspicuous disparity of the Israeli deeds in Gaza—one of the most repugnant examples of a situation that occurs when countries leave peace making and resort to naked military power. The statement made by Guterres was a tribute to the current realization of the vision of the nation in general and Pakistan in particular as well as commentary on the current situation of hypocrisy and unwarranted bias in the world particularly reserved towards state sponsored violence and impunity.
Real and meaningful action needs to be taken by the international institutions to support peace initiatives. The diplomatic statements should be accompanied with economic, legislative and political sanctions against those states which continue flouting international conventions. The world should not only talk about peace but should be ready to implement it across the world. The actual test that Pakistan and the UN ought to face is the ability to implement this resolution which might be difficult or even more disastrous in conflict areas such as the Middle East where diplomacy has proved difficult or in the worst case has been used as a precursor in manufacturing aggression.

Syria Conflict

As Pakistan was arguing on the case of peace at the UN, a fresh attack of military aggression was going on in the Middle East by Israel against Syria. On July 15, Israeli forces made a dramatic attack on the strategic Israeli military bases, the Ministry of Defence and the presidential palace in Damascus. The attack did not lead to heavy losses in the number of victims as three people were reportedly killed and eighteen were injured but its strategic implications are dramatic. The repeated attacks of Israel on Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and even Iran in the recent months indicate a strengthened military approach by the nation to establish a dominant position in the region and the same is irrespective of international condemnation.
The recently launched Israeli attack occurred in a very explosive environment. After the overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, Ahmed al-Sharaa, better referred to as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, came to power. Having history of association with the jihadist group such as Al-Nusra Front and ISIS, the rise of al-Sharaa has raised geopolitical tremors in the Middle East. Although he came to power through a coalition composed of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, among others he has brought back to life the death of fears of sectarian and ethnic war in Syria. Among the grimmest consequences of this shift in power the vicious attack of the Syrian army again the Druze people in the province of Al-Suwayda should be mentioned as a direct result of kidnapping a Druze merchant by the Bedouins tribesmen. The Syrian forces responded by killing more than 360 Druze civilians, creating backlash.
Things were even worsened when Druze communities living in the Israeli occupied Golan Heights indicated that they wanted to cross into Syria to support their fellow. Rather than pursue a diplomatic end, vreacted therewith to attack the Syrian city of Damascus directly under the pretense of protecting the Druze minority. That brings up some big ethical and strategic concerns. Did the Israeli raid act to perpetrate the existence of the Druze or merely to another excuse attacking the Syrian regime and flex its military muscle on an unstable scene?

Knowing the Druze

One must dive into the peculiarity of the identity of Druze religious community to see why Israel is so eager to protect this religious group. Druze is an elusive and unique group which started in 11th century under the Fatimid caliphate. Although they are usually claimed to be a sect of Shia Islam their theological line of thought greatly differs with that of the widely spread Islamic beliefs. They also worship the Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim as an incarnation of God and incorporates theological aspects of other philosophies such as the ancient Iranian, Greek, Hindu and Jewish backgrounds. They oppose most of the fundamental Islamic activities that include praying during the day and fasting and practice prayers interiorly at night.
In the past the Druze have been ushered with suspicion and persecution by orthodox Muslim leaders. Such major scholars as Ibn Taymiyyah proclaimed them as heretics, though a more moderate and credible institution like Al-Azhar University of Cairo have categorized them as belonging to the Shia tradition. Druze have long been highly concerned about their own independence and could usually find themselves in the service of the most promising forces or heads of state that could offer to protect their peoples, the Syrian regime, Lebanese fighters or the Israeli government.
Druze are slightly privileged in Israel and enjoy more freedom than other Arab minorities. Most have joined the Israeli army and become part of the political system of the nation. This association has sensitized Israel especially in matters affecting Druze even outside Israel. But this sensitivity should not prove to be the excuse of military adventurism. Diplomatic means should be used to justify the cause of a minority community and not by creating further instability in an already unstable region.