He called him a “man of peace” and even a “saviour of South Asia.” He went so far as to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize. But Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s praise for US President Donald Trump did not appear to translate into visible diplomatic warmth during Trump’s first “Gaza Board of Peace” meeting on Thursday.
Several videos from the summit have gone viral, showing Sharif appearing somewhat isolated during the high-profile gathering attended by representatives from around 40 countries. India participated as an observer. For Pakistan, which has been attempting to underline its global relevance, the optics of the event drew significant attention back home.
The awkwardness began even before Sharif reached Washington. A Foreign Ministry statement about his US visit circulated online with noticeable typographical errors, including referring to the “United States of America” as the “Unites States of Americas.” The mistakes were widely shared and criticised, including by Pakistani social media users. Some also recalled Sharif’s earlier “I condom the attack” typo — instead of “condemn” — while reacting to Israel’s airstrikes on Iran last year.
At the summit itself, Sharif’s positioning during the official group photograph became a talking point. Trump stood prominently in the front row, flanked by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Leaders from Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Qatar were positioned just behind him. Sharif, by contrast, was seen towards the side, barely visible in some frames — a detail that fuelled online commentary.
In diplomacy, such visual cues are often read symbolically. For a country seeking to strengthen ties with Washington, the perception of being sidelined can carry weight, especially at a multilateral event meant to showcase cooperation on Gaza’s reconstruction.
During his speech, Trump at one point asked Sharif to “stand up,” prompting the Pakistani Prime Minister to rise from his seat. The moment quickly circulated on social media, where critics portrayed it as awkward. Trump then praised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a “great man” and a “very good friend,” a comment that drew additional attention given the regional context.
When Sharif addressed the gathering, he devoted a significant portion of his remarks to praising Trump’s role in mediating last year’s India-Pakistan ceasefire — a characterisation that India has consistently disputed, maintaining that the truce was achieved bilaterally.
“Your timely and effective intervention to achieve a ceasefire potentially averted the loss of tens of millions of people… You have truly proved to be a man of peace. You are truly a saviour of South Asia,” Sharif said.
Observers noted that while the summit focused on Gaza’s reconstruction, Sharif’s emphasis on South Asia and his effusive praise stood out.
Another widely discussed moment came at the end of the event, when Sharif appeared to move in for a warm exchange with Trump. Though there was initial hesitation, Trump later shared a brief embrace and remarked, “I like this guy.” He also repeated earlier praise for Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir.
Beyond the optics, however, a more substantive issue looms. Reports suggest friction between Washington and Islamabad over Pakistan’s reluctance to contribute troops to a proposed stabilisation force in Gaza. In his remarks, Trump listed several countries — including Indonesia, Morocco, Albania, Kosovo, Kazakhstan, Egypt and Jordan — that had agreed to send personnel. Pakistan was not mentioned.
For Islamabad, the issue is politically delicate. Palestine remains an emotionally charged subject domestically, and Pakistan does not recognise Israel. Any deployment that involves coordination in Gaza could trigger political backlash at home.
In that context, Sharif’s visit highlighted the complexities of Pakistan-US ties. While public praise and personal gestures may generate headlines, they do not necessarily translate into strategic leverage — particularly when concrete commitments are expected.
For Pakistan, the Washington trip was a reminder that diplomatic optics matter — but so do policy decisions.