Romancing Trump

It's a risky move. But Pakistan has gone ahead and done it. Will it pay off?

The optics at Davos were heartening. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif all smiles with US President Donald Trump on the stage as they lean towards each other and exchange hushed words. Then the PM points forward with a smile. Trump peers into the crowd and breaks into a grin of recognition while pointing at someone off camera. It turns out later, as confirmed by the PM to journalist Ansar Abbasi of The News, that Trump had indeed asked about Field Marshall Asim Munir and then acknowledged him in the audience when the PM told him he was in attendance.

The bromance, it appears, is still smouldering.

Which can't be bad for Pakistan. After all, this is what repeated Pakistani governments have desperately strived for. The cherry on the cake is that Washington is toasting to Pakistan at the expense of India. There is plenty that can go wrong — Trump being transactional and all that — but why look at the glass half empty? At a time of great chaos and collapse of the post-World War order, and when Trump is busy redesigning the trans-Atlantic relationship with a sledgehammer, it makes sense for Pakistan to resist swimming against the tide.

But which direction is the tide headed? This question tested the nerves of top Pakistani decision-makers when they received Trump's invitation to join his Board of Peace. The decision was however simpler than it appeared. There were two choices: be like jilted France and tell Trump to take a hike; or be like Saudi Arabia and Turkey and hitch your wagon to the Trumpian one. There were two choices — but actually there was only one.

Could our decision go south? Yes, if Trump insists we contribute troops to the so-called stabilisation force in Gaza; or if he forces the Board to legitimise Israeli land grab at the expense of the Palestinians; or if, in fact, he tries to orchestrate thawing between Israel and Islamic nations on the Board. These are all raging red flags, and they would make the situation extremely uncomfortable for governments like Pakistan.

But there's the flip side which, in my opinion, weighs heavier. It is clear as day that Trump's Board of Peace, authorised by the United Nations for Gaza, is not going to confine itself to Gaza. He has already hinted in his interviews that the Board could be — as BBC journalist Lyce Doucet has termed — a "mini-me" UN. While the long-term prospects of the Board of Peace as a substitute for the UN remain dodgy, for the near future - Trump has three more years to go - it could be fairly consequential as a powerful organisation that can have deep impact on global conflicts. Yes, conflicts that could — and should — include Kashmir.

This is where things get interesting. But first, some context.

Pakistan has hedged its risk by joining the Board of Peace as a group. And this is no ordinary group. Included are most countries that have grown closer to each other in the past year. Those who have joined as a group are Egypt, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In the wake of Pakistan's victory over India, and of the joint efforts of Muslim nations to engage Trump over Gaza at the UN General Assembly session in September 2025, the enhanced coordination between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, and now Bangladesh is well recognised and acknowledged. A joint position on Gaza and now together joining the Board of Peace, are moves that are aimed at ensuring no single country carries the risks that come with such decisions. It is also an effective way to deal with public opinion at home.

With Europe smarting from Trumpian insults and unlikely to join the Board in large numbers, and with a large swathe of countries not even invited, there are bright chances that Pakistan and its group will carry significant sway in at least the initial days of the Board. While the Gaza situation will dominate the agenda, it is likely that Trump will start mentioning various other global conflicts as being on the Board's radar. Trump knows he has three years to stamp his legacy on world affairs, and the Board is the vehicle through which he intends to do this. This means the struggling UN will struggle even more as the United States de-prioritises it as part of a deliberate policy. In the White House, UN's failure will be seen as the Board's validation.

As we are repeatedly reminded, Pakistan-US relationship has always been transactional — and mostly at our expense. Well, now we have the opportunity to leverage this transactionalism in our favour. The romance with Trump should therefore lead to specific dividends that have otherwise remained elusive for Pakistan. As members of the Board of Peace, and as a country that is now increasingly relevant in Trump's policy towards the Middle East and Iran, Pakistan would not be asking for too much if it wants the Kashmir issue brought back into global — and Trumpian — spotlight. Within the traditional US foreign policy establishment, Trump's White House is driving America's pro-Pakistan policy while the State Department lags behind. This time won't last forever. Neither will the romance. We have waited seven decades for the UN Security Council to enforce its resolutions on Kashmir. Why not give Trump's Board of Peace a chance to deliver where the UN hasn't?