Asif slams govt spokesperson’s ‘irresponsible’ remarks on Gaza peace force

• Defence minister distances govt from Danyal Ch’s statement on ‘disarming Hamas’
• Says Pakistan has taken no such decision, terms comment contrary to policy
• Says Pakistan will act only under collective decision and UN-backed mandate

ISLAMABAD: Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif on Friday categorically distanced the government from a controversial statement made by federal spokesperson Danyal Chaudhry regarding the role of Pakistani troops in a proposed Gaza peace force, saying such remarks were “irresponsible, misleading, and against Pakistan’s stated position.”

Chaudhry, who serves as the federal parliamentary secretary for information and broadcasting, had suggested during a TV interview that Pakistan’s forces would play a central role in maintaining security in Gaza—including the disarmament of Hamas—as part of a new multinational International Stabilization Force (ISF) to be deployed under a US-brokered Gaza Peace Agreement.

However, Asif strongly rejected the assertions, describing them as “personal views” that neither reflected the government’s stance nor aligned with Pakistan’s foreign or defence policy.

“I will say God forbid on all these three remarks; what kind of statement has he given? Nothing from this is our target or suits us,” Asif said in a televised response. “Pakistan will follow whatever collective decision is taken, not personal interpretations of policy.”

The defence minister, visibly irked, questioned on whose behalf the parliamentary secretary was speaking and stressed that no such mandate had been discussed at any official level.

“I have no information about this. I am frankly saying that if we are making such statements on a personal level on television, it is inappropriate,” Asif remarked, adding that “there has been no discussion like this anywhere.”

When asked directly whether Pakistan would agree to participate in a mission that included disarming Hamas, Asif was unequivocal:

“I won’t be in favour then. There has been no discussion like this.”

He agreed that the inclusion of Pakistani troops in Gaza under such a sensitive mandate — particularly amid continued Israeli bombings—would create “a complicated and untenable situation.”

Chaudhry’s controversial remarks

Chaudhry, in his televised comments a day earlier, had claimed that Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries “would ensure there is no extremism or violence” in Gaza and that “Pakistan will enforce that.”

He further said that the security of Pakistani soldiers deployed in the force would be the government’s top priority. “We will fulfil our duty and protect our Muslim brothers,” he said, adding that the mandate would also include preventing “cross-border violations or terrorism.”

Asked if this mandate extended to the disarmament of Hamas, he replied, “Yes, absolutely. If [Hamas] is disarmed, only then will the other force be able to carry on. Things will only move forward after disarmament.”

His remarks sparked immediate backlash within political and security circles, as well as on social media, where critics accused him of misrepresenting Pakistan’s foreign policy stance on Palestine.

Pakistan’s position and evolving deliberations

The controversy emerged amid ongoing high-level deliberations within Islamabad’s political and military establishment over the possible participation of Pakistani troops in the Gaza peacekeeping mission.

Officials familiar with the discussions—who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter—said that talks were at an “advanced stage,” but no final decision had been made. They confirmed that Pakistan was among several Muslim-majority countries approached to contribute troops to the ISF, which forms a key component of the US-brokered Gaza Peace Agreement.

According to these officials, the ISF’s broad mandate would include maintaining internal security, disarming militant factions, securing border crossings, and assisting humanitarian operations and reconstruction efforts under the supervision of a transitional Palestinian authority.

While acknowledging Pakistan’s moral responsibility to support stability in Gaza, officials emphasised that the final decision would depend on the legal framework of deployment.

“Ideally, we would like this deployment to take place under a UN mandate,” one official said.

Another official noted that “there is still no clarity on operational control, command structure, or engagement rules.”

Pakistan’s peacekeeping track record

Officials supportive of the deployment argue that Pakistan’s participation would underscore its global credibility in peacekeeping and its longstanding commitment to international stability.

Pakistan remains one of the largest troop contributors to United Nations peacekeeping operations, having deployed over 200,000 personnel to more than 40 missions across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

“Pakistani forces are well-trained for post-conflict environments and have consistently upheld neutrality and discipline in complex zones,” an official noted, adding that such experience would “lend legitimacy” to the ISF’s mission.

They further argued that Pakistan’s participation would signal consistency with its role in the original eight-country peace proposal conceived in late 2024—a plan backed by several Muslim-majority states and forming the foundation of the Gaza peace framework finalised earlier this month.

Diplomatic calculations and challenges

Analysts say Pakistan’s potential inclusion in the ISF also carries diplomatic implications. Officials believe that joining the mission could strengthen relations with the United States, which have been improving since Donald Trump’s return to the White House.

Islamabad’s participation in a US-supported multilateral initiative, they contend, might further this thaw and open new channels for economic cooperation, defence assistance, and regional engagement.

Still, government insiders caution that such a decision carries significant domestic risks. Public opinion in Pakistan, deeply sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, may interpret participation in a US-designed mission as serving Israeli or Western interests—especially if the mission’s objectives include disarming Hamas.

“It’s a difficult but defining choice,” said one senior official. “Our moral commitment to peace must be balanced with our political realities at home.”

‘Decision still under consideration’

Reiterating his position, Asif said earlier this week that the decision to send Pakistani troops was still being finalised. “It is in process,” he stated, adding that all decisions would be made “collectively and in accordance with national interest.”

He underscored that Pakistan would not act unilaterally and that participation, if approved, would only occur under internationally recognized authority, ideally sanctioned by the United Nations.

Afghan Taliban issue and border security

Meanwhile, addressing recent developments in Pakistan’s western neighbourhood, the defence minister also discussed the agreement with the Afghan Taliban to extend the existing ceasefire and establish a joint monitoring and verification mechanism for any violations.

Asif suggested that multiple countries could be included in the monitoring framework to ensure its long-term sustainability and prevent another breakdown “in 12 or 15 months.”

He warned that allowing militant infiltration across the border amounted to abetting terrorism, stressing:

“If they don’t stop this or monitor this, then it means they have connivance, and their agreement is involved in terrorists coming and spilling blood in Pakistan.”

When asked whether the Afghan Taliban had accepted the presence and activities of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on their soil, Asif replied:

“They accept this privately.”

He claimed that the entire TTP leadership was based in Kabul, adding, “The sanctuaries in Kabul must have been provided by the Afghan Taliban—they (TTP) won’t be living in hotels.”