The 80th United Nations General Assembly was not just a diplomatic summit—it was a global media spectacle. Each year, the big question for the Pakistani delegation is what can be achieved from this global platform other than photo-ops with some dignitaries and the customary addresses at a venue that seems to have lost its ability to find meaningful solutions for many global crises.
Pakistan’s delegation, led by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, arrived this year amidst a more upbeat environment following the war with India and the lavish praise the country had received from US President Donald Trump. The delegation conveyed a message of moral clarity, strategic ambiguity, and assertive symbolism.
The Prime Minister’s speech at the UN General Assembly was emotionally charged and rhetorically bold. He condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, reaffirmed support for Kashmir, and praised Donald Trump for brokering peace with India. The optics were designed to position Pakistan as a moral voice for the Muslim world. However, the praise for Trump sounded out of place and raised questions about strategic coherence.
Sharif’s speech, it seemed, was more tailored to domestic audiences than reflective of a clear foreign policy agenda. If the country is eyeing a new position in the rapidly changing global diplomatic chessboard, it was not apparent. Sharif’s address and his subsequent meeting with US President Donald Trump received moderate coverage in American media. Most of the reporting came from international and diaspora-focused outlets rather than mainstream US networks.
This coverage focused more on the symbolism of the meeting and its context in the broader diplomatic efforts to address the Gaza crisis. There was no major commentary or analysis from leading US outlets like CNN, The New York Times, or The Washington Post, suggesting that the event was not a top-tier diplomatic priority in American media narratives.
Some members of the contingent accompanying the Prime Minister raised slogans from the gallery. This violation of diplomatic norms earned them the ire of other delegates and was deemed in bad taste. UN security officials have since launched an investigation into how these individuals gained access and why slogans tied to Pakistan’s internal politics were voiced in such a formal diplomatic setting.
The United Nations General Assembly maintains strict protocol, especially in the visitors’ gallery, which is accessible only through passes issued by member states’ diplomatic missions.
Adding to the controversy was the presence of Dr. Shama Junejo, a UK-based columnist and social media activist, as part of Pakistan’s delegation at the 80th UNGA session. Her seating directly behind Defence Minister Khawaja Asif during a United Nations Security Council session on artificial intelligence sparked social media commentary. This raised a fundamental question: how did an individual not officially listed in the delegation’s letter of credence gain such proximity to Pakistan’s top diplomatic representatives?
Denials did little to clear the air, especially as Junejo claimed that she had been formally included by Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and had contributed to drafting his UNGA speech. The episode raised concerns about communication and transparency within Pakistan’s diplomatic institutions. In international forums like the UNGA, seating arrangements and delegation compositions are tightly regulated.
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif was the only senior official from the Pakistani delegation to give a widely circulated interview to a Western media outlet. CNN and Al Jazeera spotlighted his interview with journalist Mehdi Hasan, which became a flashpoint in Pakistani mainstream and social media.
The interview was tense and confrontational, with Hasan posing pointed questions. Khawaja Asif struggled to defend hybrid governance and appeared to contradict himself on issues such as the validity of the 2024 elections, the country’s governance, and Imran Khan’s social media activity. This sparked intense debate, particularly around civil-military relations and the treatment of Imran Khan. CNN’s Becky Anderson even fact-checked Asif’s claims, highlighting a lack of evidence.
The interview exemplified typical journalistic scrutiny and political deflection. Mehdi Hasan sought to expose contradictions in Asif’s narrative, while Asif’s responses reflected the entrenched challenges facing Pakistan’s democratic evolution.
Despite these controversies, the day was saved by visuals from the meeting at the Oval Office, where Pakistan’s civil and military leaders rubbed shoulders with the US President, Secretary of State, and other high-ranking officials. Although the White House did not issue an official readout of the meeting, President Trump, in his brief remarks before the gathering, did not mince words in praising the Pakistani leaders.
Critics on social media notwithstanding, the majority of mainstream Pakistani media framed the UNGA presence as a diplomatic victory, emphasizing Sharif’s strong speech and meetings with Trump and leaders of other Islamic countries. The tone was largely celebratory.
Pakistan’s UNGA 2025 campaign was bold but brittle. The delegation commanded attention but struggled to maintain coherence under scrutiny. The optics were emotionally resonant but strategically inconsistent. Social media added another layer, with viral moments, hashtags, and influencer narratives shaping perceptions far beyond the UN floor.
Pakistani leaders and the domestic audience are slowly coming to terms with the realities of new media, where narratives are shaped beyond the traditional editorial controls exercised by mainstream outlets.
In the age of global diplomacy, optics are not just about visibility—they are also about credibility, coherence, and control.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1348316-pakistans-bold-yet-brittle-moment
