Power can silence a voice, redraw a boundary and cast a long shadow over a nation. But can power, by itself, make an action right?
That is the question the world must confront whenever the language of law grows quiet before the language of force. For a country such as Pakistan, the answer is not merely a matter of diplomatic theory; it touches the foundations of sovereignty, security and justice. A world in which rules bend to the will of the powerful is a world in which no nation can feel entirely secure.
This thought returned to me on 8 October 2026, during a parliamentary discussion convened by Norwegian parliamentary representative Farrukh Qureshi, attended by Norway’s Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide, Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Ali Khan and members of the Pakistani diaspora. The discussion followed the Norwegian foreign minister’s recent visit to Pakistan and his address to the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 25 September. One sentence from that address captured the urgency of the moment:
“International law is not a menu you can choose from at will.”
The words are simple, but their implications are profound. International law cannot be invoked when it serves a country’s interests and set aside when compliance becomes inconvenient. If rules are to mean anything, their application cannot depend solely on the identity of a state, its political alliances or the strength it possesses.
When principles become selective
In his address to the General Assembly, Eide warned that respect for international law and confidence in international cooperation were under growing strain. He challenged the double standards that emerge when the same principles are defended in one crisis but disregarded in another. As he put it, “Double standards quickly translate into no standards at all.”
This warning deserves attention far beyond the diplomatic halls of New York. When violations are condemned selectively, the credibility of the rules themselves suffers. Smaller and less powerful states have particular reason to be concerned, because common rules offer protection that raw power alone cannot provide.
For Pakistan, this is a matter of direct national interest. Its sovereignty, territorial integrity, security and international standing are all connected to the credibility of the rules governing relations between states. Pakistan’s case for a rules-based international order is strongest when it is advanced as a universal principle, not as an argument that applies only to disputes in which Pakistan has a particular interest.
Consistency is the test. A principle loses its meaning when it is defended for one country but denied to another because political sympathies or strategic interests have changed. The same standards must be applied regardless of the identity of the state involved.
This does not mean that every international dispute is straightforward or that every allegation can be judged without examining evidence, context and applicable law. It means that the principles used to assess such disputes should remain consistent. International law cannot retain its authority if its application depends on who has the greater influence or who enjoys the support of powerful capitals.
Pakistan and the responsibility of diplomacy
The Norwegian foreign minister’s message also carries particular relevance in light of his August 2026 visit to Pakistan. During that visit, Norway publicly recognised Pakistan’s efforts to reduce tensions between the United States and Iran and acknowledged the country’s role in seeking a path towards de-escalation. This recognition matters not because Pakistan needs praise from another country, but because it highlights a constructive role Pakistan can play in a region where conflict carries consequences far beyond national borders.
Pakistan’s diplomatic importance is shaped by its geography, its relationships across the region and its ability to maintain channels of communication with different parties. These circumstances bring serious challenges, but they also create opportunities to contribute to peace. When tensions rise, the ability to facilitate dialogue and encourage restraint can be as important as the ability to demonstrate strength.
Eide’s words in New York offered a useful reminder: “Diplomacy can work. If we allow it to.”
For Pakistan, this is a practical proposition rather than a sentimental one. Diplomacy requires patience, preparation and political will. It does not guarantee that every disagreement will be resolved, nor does it require a country to abandon its legitimate interests. It offers a means of pursuing those interests while reducing the risk that confrontation will make a difficult situation worse.
Pakistan should continue to defend its security and national interests with clarity, while using its diplomatic relationships to encourage peaceful outcomes wherever possible. Its influence will be strengthened when its positions are principled, its commitments credible and its contribution to regional stability sustained.
The wider lesson is that power has limits. Military capability may alter the balance on the ground, but it cannot by itself establish a durable peace or create lasting confidence between nations. Stability requires more than the ability to compel; it requires rules, dialogue and arrangements that can endure beyond the immediate balance of power.
A question about Pakistan, and the importance of careful judgment
The parliamentary discussion also brought the conversation closer to Pakistan’s domestic affairs. During the question-and-answer session, a participant raised a political question concerning the rule of law in Pakistan and Imran Khan’s imprisonment. As I recall the exchange, Eide responded by observing that countries have different ways of being governed and referring to the rules prescribed in the international order.
A brief exchange should not be turned into a comprehensive verdict on Pakistan’s political or legal system. Nor should a recollection of spoken remarks be presented as a verbatim quotation without a recording or transcript. The more important point is the question the discussion invites us to consider: how should countries understand the relationship between national sovereignty, their own political and constitutional arrangements, the rule of law and the international commitments they have accepted?
For Pakistan, these questions deserve serious consideration on their own merits. Sovereignty and the rule of law need not be treated as competing ideals. A country’s independence is fundamental, while the credibility of its institutions and the confidence citizens place in the justice system are also important to its strength.
Such questions are best approached through evidence, constitutional principles, due process and informed national debate. They should neither be dismissed simply because they arise in an international setting nor reduced to sweeping judgments delivered from abroad.
The same discipline of thought must apply to international affairs. No country should assume that its own political model makes it the unquestionable judge of another society. At the same time, differences between political systems do not erase the importance of the legal obligations and principles to which states have committed themselves. Respect for national context and respect for universal principles can coexist.
That balance is especially important for a country such as Pakistan, which must defend its sovereignty while remaining an active participant in international institutions and diplomacy. A credible voice abroad is strengthened not by avoiding difficult questions, but by engaging with them thoughtfully and consistently.
The quiet value of humility
Beyond the substance of the discussion, one small personal observation stayed with me: the minister’s unassuming manner, including the impression he gave of managing his own luggage. It was a modest detail, not proof of political virtue and certainly no substitute for examining policy. Yet it offered a reminder that public office need not always be accompanied by visible ceremony.
The true measure of a public figure lies in the quality of judgment exercised in office, the consistency between principles and decisions, and the willingness to recognise the limits of power. Humility matters because it encourages listening. It reminds those who hold authority that responsibility is not the same as entitlement.
Norway should not be imagined as a perfect society, just as Pakistan should not be defined solely by its difficulties. The two countries have different histories, institutions and circumstances. There are experiences to share, differences to understand and lessons that can travel in both directions. Meaningful engagement begins when neither side assumes it has nothing left to learn.
The personal observation, therefore, is secondary to the larger lesson. What matters is not a gesture or an impression, but the principle that authority is most credible when exercised with restraint, seriousness and respect for others.
A bridge between Pakistan and Norway
The presence of Pakistani representatives and members of the diaspora gave the parliamentary discussion significance beyond a single meeting. Diaspora communities can connect societies that might otherwise encounter each other mainly through headlines, official statements or moments of disagreement. They bring lived experience of both countries and can help make international relations more informed, human and enduring.
Such connections are valuable when they encourage honest discussion rather than uncritical agreement. Pakistan and Norway may not approach every international issue in the same way, but constructive engagement allows differences to be discussed without diminishing the relationship. It also creates opportunities to identify shared interests in peace, stability, lawful conduct and effective international cooperation.
Farrukh Qureshi’s role in convening the discussion provided a setting for this exchange, while Ambassador Asim Ali Khan’s participation reflected the importance of sustained diplomatic engagement. The value of such a gathering should not be measured by whether every participant agreed. Its worth lies in making room for questions, listening to different perspectives and continuing a conversation that connects international principles with Pakistan’s realities.
For Pakistan, the challenge is to ensure that its voice in international affairs remains principled, credible and constructive. That means defending the equal application of international law, supporting peaceful solutions where possible and recognising that the strength of a diplomatic argument depends partly on the consistency with which its principles are upheld.
Eide’s address at the United Nations provided a timely reminder of what is at stake when international rules lose credibility. The parliamentary exchange brought that larger debate closer to Pakistan and its concerns. Neither occasion removes the difficult choices that states face. Both invite a more serious examination of how those choices are made.
Ultimately, international influence is not measured only by military capability, economic weight or the volume of a country’s voice. It is also measured by the responsibility with which power is exercised and the consistency with which principles are defended.
International law cannot be a menu from which states select only what suits them. For Pakistan, as for every country, the enduring task is to insist that the rules apply universally-and to help build an international order in which principle carries weight alongside power.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or position of this website. The website does not endorse or oppose any opinion presented herein.