When Putin’s army invaded Ukraine in February 2022, many argued that Ukraine would collapse in a few days. Today, it is crystal clear that the people of Ukraine are resilient and their success against blatant invasion is crucial for a rules-based world order.
Ukrainian forces even successfully invaded the Kursk region, which could be used as a bargaining chip or for land swaps. This incursion is important because this is the first time that the Soviet Union or Russia has been invaded since Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
However, Pakistan’s neutrality on the Ukraine war is disturbing due to three self-evident reasons: one, it is against the UN charter and key principles of international law; two, it violates the country’s principled foreign policy stance on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all nations; and three, even if we look at the situation from a realist perspective, neutrality, especially in this case, is a bad choice. By changing the foreign policy and supporting Ukraine, Pakistan could benefit enormously.
Before I delve deep into why Pakistan must support Ukraine, it is important to share its current position on the war in Ukraine and why some foreign policy pundits support this position. Governments in Pakistan, including the last one, have refrained from condemning Russia for invading Ukraine; they have also abstained from voting on resolutions at the UN, and called for dialogue and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. In June 2024, the government also turned down Swizerland’s invitation to attend the Ukraine Peace Summit and abstained from voting on a resolution denouncing the Russian invasion at the emergency meeting of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Europe Can’t Fund War in Ukraine if US Withdraws Under Trump, Orbán Says
Foreign policy experts who support this policy bring forward these arguments: one, it is in Pakistan’s national interest to avoid entrapment in camp politics (Russia has acted to secure its periphery); two, the democratic world’s opposition to Pakistan’s interests in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) or the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) or their indifference to the plight of Kashmiris and the embrace of Hindu nationalist BJP government in India; and three, the US had itself committed aggressions against sovereign nations.
The presented arguments may seem reasonable at first glance, but upon closer examination, it becomes evident that Pakistan’s current stance of “neutrality” not only conflicts with the UN charter but also runs counter to its national interests. From a pure realist perspective, the world is bipolar, not yet multipolar as assumed by some, where the US and China are competitors and all other powers are still much behind these two powers.
Fortunately, Pakistan enjoys a good relationship with both of these powers. Russia holds a significant position as a major power, although its influence is not yet on par with the leading two powers. More importantly, Russia is India’s largest arms supplier, even France and the US come after it.
On the other hand, Pakistan has no dependence on Russia, as it is neither a strategic defense partner nor an important trading country. Hence, the unintended consequence of Putin’s defeat in Ukraine is the disruption of a significant defense supply route to India. By firmly denouncing the unauthorized intervention in Ukraine, Pakistan can further enhance its soft power in the global democratic community, which previously opposed Pakistan’s interests regarding NSG and FATF.
This approach also appears to offer the most effective means of addressing the international community’s apparent apathy towards the challenges faced by the people of Kashmir and countering the portrayal of Pakistan as a non-democratic and isolated state. True independence is demonstrated not through neutrality in the face of injustice, but through the condemnation of illegal invasions, as evidenced by the 141 nations that took a stand at the UN in March 2022.
Pakistan has consistently upheld the principles outlined in Article 2 (4) of the UN charter, which calls for refraining from the use of force in international relations and respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. This stance was evident in Pakistan’s opposition to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan, as well as its stand against Serbia’s aggression toward Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Furthermore, in the 21st century, Pakistan maintained its principled position by opposing the US-led invasion of Iraq and expressing reservations about the application of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) norm, particularly when wielded for unilateral interventions by powerful states. For instance, Pakistan firmly rejected foreign military interventions in the Syrian civil war.
Last but not least, Pakistan itself faces serious tension on its eastern and western borders. It is evident from the recent clash on the Afghan border, India’s illegal cross-border strikes in Balakot, in February 2019, and Iran’s unprovoked missile strikes into Pakistan’s Balochistan province.
Pakistan’s establishment should carefully consider the changing global landscape, where authoritarian leaders present a significant threat to neighboring nations, and acknowledge that a principled stance is vital for Pakistan’s enduring national interests.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
