摘要:In the aftermath of the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and the Col. Sergei Skripal incident in London, the British government sub mitted a proposal in Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) to enhance powers of the organization. As a result, an unprecedented historic voting took place in June 2018 during a special session of OPCW in Hague. The agenda of voting was to give the OPCW new rights and privileges to define the guilty side for chemical attacks. It is important to mention that Pakistan ‘abstained’ in voting and provided an official explanation that ‘Islamabad is against any kind of politicization in OPCW’. In this regard the following facts are interesting. According to recognized global security architecture there is United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the one and only authorized organization to ‘blame a country’ for violations and impose punitive countermeasures. Russia along with China strongly supports the idea of UNSC as the most respected and qualified authority in the World to invoke ‘blame ‘ against the state level cases. Therefore, it is a settled phenomenon that endorses the UNSC being the historical product of creating international mechanisms of solving global problems. One can argue about the effectiveness of the UN because some international disputes are still unresolved such as Kashmir, but this is the system and it works like this. Only UNSC has the right to initiate investigative procedures and impose sanctions. In November 2018 a special session of OPCW conference will take place in the Hague to implement the previously taken decision. This article draws an attention to the matters that are crucial to understand. Opting for ‘abstention’ would not serve the diplomatic posturing, rather a clear-cut ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ is deemed necessary for pragmatic foreign policy. Hence, this article is an effort to persuade the decision makers to make the correct choice which corresponds with the national interests of Pakistan..