Pakistan Press on: Hard State, Hostage, Bomb: New Age Islam's Selection, 15 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
15 April 2025
A Fund for The Frontlines?
Time for A Hard State
Literature Hostage to The Elite
Economic Miracles
Thanks Iran, For Refusing the Bomb
Unhinged America
Smart Futures
------
A Fund For The Frontlines?
By Raza Hussain Qazi
April 15, 2025
The fifth meeting (B5) of the Board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) has concluded in Bridgetown, Barbados, with a decision to launch the start-up phase of the FRLD under the name Barbados Implementation Modalities (BIM). The ‘start-up phase’ is a two-year (2025-2026) ‘test and learn’ period for the FRLD that is intended to guide the development of the Fund’s long-term operations.
In addition, the board met to establish a budget committee as a standing committee, replacing the existing ad-hoc subcommittee, approve the administrative budget for the independent secretariat, the interim secretariat, and the interim trustee for the period of July 1 to December 31, 2025. The board had on agenda to retroactively approve the expenditure incurred by the World Bank as the host and the interim trustee for the period from July 1 to December 31, 2024.
Retrospectively, the establishment of the FRLD took place at COP27 and was put into operation at COP28 after years of advocacy by developing nations. The Fund’s board, responsible for initiating the Fund’s activities, consists of 26 members representing 14 developing and 12 developed countries, with co-chairs from France and South Africa.
. These include the major international financial institutions involved in climate finance such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund and UN agencies. Critics warned that relying on these institutions could hinder rather than accelerate the Fund’s start-up. The concern stems from the need to adhere to these partners’ timelines and bureaucratic procedures, which could significantly delay loss and damage interventions – especially given the Fund’s intended two-year start-up timeline.
Similarly, the choice of implementing partners such as large commercial banks which are still involved in investing in fossil fuels, or equity investors prioritising shareholder returns over long-term community impacts, should not be deemed appropriate for FRLD. These actors may lack the alignment with the principles of climate justice, community empowerment and public transparency that must underpin the FRLD’s operations.
This time, the agenda once again focused on operational modalities. However, representatives of the most climate-vulnerable nations emphasised several critical principles that must shape the foundation of the Fund from the very beginning of its so-called start-up phase. Foremost among these is the need for early financial interventions to be exclusively grant-based – not loans or equity instruments.
These interventions must be framed as an issue of climate justice, not treated as commercial transactions. Countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh, already experiencing massive climate-related loss and damage amounting to trillions, cannot be expected to take on additional debt. Grant-based support ensures that the financial burden is not shifted onto those least responsible for the climate crisis.
It is also pertinent that the Fund’s start-up phase must be firmly rooted in the successful and timely mobilisation of resources – resources that are adequate, predictable and sustainable. Without such funding in place, even the most technically sound and well-intentioned strategies will remain aspirational. A filled and functioning Fund is a non-negotiable prerequisite for any meaningful progress. If funding fails to materialise, discussions around governance, allocation and impact will carry little practical weight.
In shaping the Fund’s initial interventions, it is crucial the Board takes a holistic approach to addressing loss and damage. This means tackling both rapid-onset disasters and slow-developing climate impacts, while also acknowledging economic losses and the often-overlooked non-economic harms such as cultural erosion and forced displacement. The interventions must be grounded in the priorities and lived experiences of the most affected countries and communities, particularly those in vulnerable situations.
The true measure of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) lies in its ability to provide tangible, timely support to all developing nations. This is not only the key to operationalising the Fund but also to laying a strong foundation for inclusive, transparent, and equitable allocation and governance structures that genuinely reflect the needs of those most impacted. In short, the Fund must walk the talk if it is to gain and maintain the trust of climate-vulnerable communities.
Community inclusion and leadership must be at the heart of all funding approaches. To this end, the start-up phase should promote direct community access through mechanisms like budget support, programmatic approaches, and small grants. These should be embedded at the Fund level and mandated for all implementing entities. A pilot programme for direct community access, administered by the Fund itself, would set an important precedent, showcasing the FRLD’s commitment to equity and innovation.
This pilot should not be treated as a side initiative but as a core part of the Fund’s DNA – a bold move distinguishing the FRLD from existing climate funds that have often struggled to reach the communities most in need. It offers an opportunity for the Board to establish an ambitious and visionary agenda, one that centres climate-impacted people and delivers real outcomes on the ground.
To avoid overlap and ensure coherence, any readiness support provided under the start-up phase must be closely coordinated with the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage. Duplication of efforts and competition for resources will only undermine the effectiveness of both institutions. A collaborative approach, with clear division of responsibilities and complementary support structures, will maximise impact.
The Board bears a critical responsibility in shaping the FRLD into a transformative force. From the outset, it must articulate the ambition of a Fund that is fundamentally different from predecessors. It must commit to principles of equity, climate justice, and community-centered finance, rather than falling into the patterns of technocratic solutions that fail to reach the grassroots.
Guaranteeing community access is not just a technical design issue but a political and moral imperative. The emphasis on community-centered design is not merely a value-based choice but a strategic necessity. Without ensuring direct access and representation for those on the frontlines, the Fund risks becoming another top-down institution, divorced from the people it aims to serve.
Pakistan serves as a casus illustris, having suffered over $30 billion in loss and damages from the 2022 floods. The economic toll of climate-induced disasters globally now runs into trillions, vastly surpassing the financial pledges made over the past decades – even the written commitments from the international community have fallen short in practice. To transcend mere symbolism, there is a pressing need for urgent, scaled-up financial contributions that are paid-in, grants-based, and sustained over the long term.
The immediate hope is the upcoming High-Level Dialogue, convened by the FRLD and the UN secretary-general on the margins of the IMF and World Bank spring meetings on April 25, and then Belem CMA7.
It is necessary that the FRLD be built on a foundation of integrity, ambition, equity and justice. Without adequate funding, transparent governance and true community participation, the Fund risks becoming yet another institutional failure. There can be no meaningful progress or justice without the people most affected at the centre of solutions. Let the start-up phase of the FRLD not be remembered for cautious bureaucracy, but for bold action and transformative change.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301378-a-fund-for-the-frontlines
----
Time for A Hard State
By Hafiz Ahsaan Ahmad Khokhar
April 15, 2025
In an era marked by political polarisation, economic instability and an erosion of trust in public institutions, Pakistan stands at a pivotal crossroads. The recent remarks by Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir before the National Security Committee of Parliament highlight a critical and urgent need for the nation: to move from being a ‘soft state’ to a ‘hard state’.
A hard state is one where rule of law is paramount, institutions are strong and governance is efficient and disciplined. The term ‘soft state’, first coined by economist Gunnar Myrdal, refers to a state where laws are present but rarely enforced. In Pakistan, this has become increasingly evident with widespread issues like rampant smuggling, tax evasion, unchecked land mafias and delayed or selective judicial decisions. The failure of governance in these areas has not only undermined the authority of the state but also diminished the public’s trust in its institutions.
For far too long has Pakistan operated as a soft state, where laws often exist on paper but lack rigorous enforcement. The consequences of this are apparent in the persistence of corruption, politicised institutions, lawlessness and the inconsistent application of justice. Weak institutional control, compounded by a culture of impunity, has allowed criminal networks, land mafias and economic irregularities to thrive unchecked. This environment has led to a severe erosion of public trust, stunting the nation’s progress and economic stability.
Pakistan’s current challenges, ranging from economic mismanagement to internal security threats, require more than short-term political fixes. The country needs a profound shift toward governance that consistently enforces laws, strengthens institutions and maintains policy continuity beyond political cycles. This is the essence of the ‘hard state’ model – not authoritarianism, but disciplined governance that places the national interest above political expediency. A hard state is one where justice is served without bias, institutions function independently and effectively and rule of law prevails.
Countries around the world offer valuable lessons for Pakistan as it seeks to reinforce governance. Singapore, once plagued by corruption and poverty, transformed into one of the world’s most efficient states through the establishment of strong institutions, strict enforcement of rule of law and merit-based governance. Similarly, China’s rapid transformation from a largely agrarian economy to a global economic powerhouse was powered by disciplined governance and long-term strategic planning. Even Turkey, amidst regional pressures and internal challenges, demonstrated how national cohesion and economic self-sufficiency could be achieved by reinforcing state strength.
These examples demonstrate that the transition to a hard state is crucial for Pakistan’s survival and future success. The transformation from a soft state to a hard state requires more than just military or executive action. It demands a national consensus involving political parties, the judiciary, civil society, the media and the public. Rebuilding trust in Pakistan’s governance system is a collective endeavour. The time has come for the country to embrace the hard state model – not as a distant ideal, but as an urgent national imperative.
A hard state is not synonymous with authoritarianism. It is about effective governance, rule of law and national discipline. Countries like China and Singapore succeeded by prioritising strong institutions, unwavering adherence to rule of law, and fostering integrity in governance. For Pakistan to follow suit, certain key reforms are essential. We need institutional reforms. Depoliticise the civil service, police and regulatory bodies, ensuring they operate based on merit and performance.
Judicial overhaul and timely justice: Ensure speedy, transparent, and equitable access to justice, eliminating delays and ensuring judicial accountability. We need to uphold rule of law. A depoliticised and effective police force is critical for impartial law enforcement. A police force free from political influence ensures that justice is applied uniformly, irrespective of individuals’ status or connections.
There is a need to combat corruption. A corruption-free environment is foundational for a hard state. Restoring public trust in state institutions requires transparency, accountability, and fair law enforcement. We need economic sovereignty as well. Integrate the informal economy into the formal tax system, tackle smuggling and hoarding, and ensure that state agencies coordinate effectively in enforcement.
Strengthening local governance would go a long way. We must empower local bodies with adequate resources, training and autonomy to address the needs of citizens at the grassroots level.
Pakistan must counter divisive narratives – whether ethnic, sectarian or political – by implementing inclusive policies and fostering civic education. The country also needs to work on strategic communication. Engage the public proactively, combat misinformation and reinforce a collective sense of national responsibility.
The bureaucracy must be depoliticised, focused solely on service and efficiency. There is also a need for consistent, impartial law enforcement across the board to eliminate selective justice and political victimisation. Through sustainable policy implementation, policymakers must focus on long-term strategies that transcend electoral cycles to ensure stability and continuity.
Another reform area is to ensure public trust and accountability so that citizens see that the law applies equally to all, with accountability enforced fairly and transparently. Apart from that, there should be efforts at fostering a sense of civic responsibility and patriotism, especially among the youth, to create a disciplined, informed and unified citizenry.
Pakistan urgently needs taxation reforms to broaden the tax base, ensure fairness and reduce dependence on foreign loans. A streamlined tax system will help fund essential services and social welfare while curbing corruption.
A fair and transparent National Finance Commission (NFC) award is vital to equitably distribute resources across provinces and reduce regional disparities. This would promote national unity and address the development needs of all regions.
A common education syllabus can foster national cohesion by promoting shared values and a unified identity across all regions, preparing students for future governance challenges.
Pakistan finds itself at a critical juncture. The concept of a hard state is not merely an ideal but a necessity for Pakistan’s future. To build this hard state, Pakistan must focus on depoliticised policing, judicial reforms, economic discipline and national unity. By enforcing laws equally, empowering institutions and promoting a culture of accountability, Pakistan can begin to rebuild the trust of its citizens and pave the way for a stable and prosperous future.
Only through the establishment of a hard state can Pakistan secure its future and ensure justice, security and economic opportunity for all its citizens.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301379-time-for-a-hard-state
-----
Literature Hostage to The Elite
By Sasha Javed Malik
April 15, 2025
There was a time when literature throbbed with the heartbeat of the people, a time when the pens of writers shook empires, exposed social inequalities and sparked revolutions.
Literature was not a commodity – packaged, marketed and sold in a system that prioritises spectacle over substance – but a lifeline, roped to the struggles of workers, peasants and marginalised communities.
The revolutionary fervour that dominated literary circles now seems to be disappearing very fast. Literary spaces are now dominated by elite-organised festivals, state-sponsored, and corporate-funded platforms that have commercialised what was once a tool of resistance. Recent ‘spring’ literary festivals and biennales in Pakistan reflects autumn on literature.
In a society torn apart by class inequality, literature too reflects this divide. Once rooted in the experiences of everyday people, literature has now been hijacked by the elite. The privileged dominate literary festivals and book launches, while writers from marginalised backgrounds struggle to gain visibility.
The streets and fields may be bursting with poets and storytellers who entwine the words of resilience and pain, but their work rarely finds its way into mainstream literary discourse. Instead, the literary spotlight remains steadily fixed on a limited cast – mostly urban, opulent and English-speaking writers whose lives and concerns bear little resemblance to those of the majority. Year after year, we see the same familiar faces on every panel, reinforcing the exclusivity of these spaces.
This is not a coincidence. It is a symptom of a deep neoliberal system that values economic wealth and privilege, as well as marketability above authentic diversity. Literature, once a mirror of society’s struggles, has become an ornament of the elite, a badge of cultural capital rather than a force for social change.
This divide is deeply ideological. The progressive literary movements that once flourished in Pakistan have been replaced by an arid, apolitical literary culture.
In the past, literature challenged power. It questioned imperialism, critiqued capitalism and amplified the voices of the oppressed. Today, much of what passes for ‘intellectual’ literature stays safely within the bounds of acceptability, avoiding uncomfortable truths that might upset sponsors, institutions or the state.
Even when marginalised voices are included, they are often tokenized, invited to speak but not to challenge. Writers who critique corporate power, state violence or class exploitation are excluded, while those who conform to elite tastes are celebrated. This ideological policing ensures that literature remains subdued, polished, and politically neutral, devoid of the radical energy that once made it a medium for change.
One of the most visible signs of this literary elitism is the dominance of the English language in Pakistan’s literary spaces. Attend any major literary festival, and you will notice the imbalance: English-language books and discussions take center stage.
This linguistic hierarchy is not accidental. It reflects the colonial legacy that equates English with sophistication, intellect, and cultural superiority. But it also reinforces class divisions, honouring those who have had access to elite education while marginalising the voices of rural poets, regional storytellers and labour writers who create in their native tongues.
The result is a literary culture that is increasingly disconnected from the realities of the majority. The stories of poverty, displacement and resistance that are being written in local languages remain largely invisible to the mainstream, overshadowed by English-language narratives that cater to elite audiences.
Literary festivals and corporate-sponsored platforms often market themselves as spaces for free thought, open dialogue and intellectual exchange. But in reality, these spaces are tightly controlled. Discussions on social justice may take place, but they rarely cross the line into truly radical territory.
The boundaries of acceptable discourse are carefully policed and channeled. Conversations that challenge systemic power, whether by addressing labour exploitation, state censorship or imperialism, are either diluted or excluded altogether. Instead, we see an overemphasis on issues such as sexual politics.
This is not to diminish the importance of gender and sexual equality, but to highlight the selective nature of these conversations. The voices of workers, peasants and other marginalised groups are missing, and with them, the possibility of a truly transformative literary culture.
Perhaps the most treacherous aspect of this literary capture is the growing nexus between literature, academia and institutional power. Awards, grants and publishing opportunities are often tied to academic credentials, with PhD professors and elite intellectuals dominating the field.
The English departments of universities, once pivotal spaces for shaping progressive discourse, have now become disconnected from social realities. Instead of engaging with the lived experiences of the majority, they have become inward-looking spaces, circulating the same elite discourses, ideas and theories limited to text and linguistic interpretation.
These departments now function as gatekeepers of literary and intellectual production, determining what kinds of literature are considered valuable, which themes are worthy of exploration, and which voices deserve to be heard. The knowledge they produce reflects institutional interests more than the concerns of society at large.
This institutionalisation of literature has created a closed circle, where literature has become a subject to be studied, theorised, and dissected - rather than lived, experienced and created by those outside these institutions.
True literature cannot be tamed. It cannot exist solely in the sanitised spaces of literary festivals, universities and corporate book launches. It must break free from these structures and return to the people.
The challenge for writers, readers, and activists today is to break down the barriers that divide literature from the people it is meant to serve. To create spaces where true free thought can flourish. And to ensure that literature remains not just a mirror of society’s struggles, but a force for change.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301381-literature-hostage-to-the-elite
----
Economic Miracles
Arifa Noor
April 15, 2025
“EARLIER it was CPEC — a game changer!
“Then, SIFC — agriculture export boom!
“Now minerals!
“All claimed to rain foreign investment $s!… final solution to foreign debt crisis!
“Results zilch!
“How long will we continue to be subjected to such gimmickry?”
This was a recent tweet by Kaiser Bengali, an economist who has also served in government more than once, and it came shortly after the most successful mineral conference in Islamabad.
But as someone who follows the claims and promises of those in charge, he is right in that governments in Pakistan have always promised an overnight miracle rather than explained the need for it, and then led the people down a long and slow path to success and fortune. We are always just one twist away from the proverbial happy ending, and this seems to have been the case since I opened my eyes in journalism, as the saying goes.
Other than CPEC, there was also a mine in Chiniot during the earlier PML-N government, which was to bring fortune and happiness. In a similar vein, the PTI held its breath as some offshore drilling took place, while Faisal Vawda promised jobs, employment and migration to Pakistan.
After that, there was the possibility of an exports bonanza — once the rupee had been devalued — and when all else failed, there were the overseas Pakistanis, who were to invest in Pakistan (this is mentioned even now). The PDM since then has promised foreign investment in various shapes and sizes.
There is an entire story to this obsession with manna from overseas — mostly the West and now China — but that too is neither new nor recent. But the need for a quick fix or a ‘Hail Mary’ is rooted in far more than our ability to flourish only when foreign aid has reached Pakistani shores and crash once the moolah dries up.
Is it essentially due to the weak position of those who come to power, be it through elections or brute force or power? In either case, the absence of legitimacy or weakness because of the civil-military imbalance forces those in power to look for quick fixes, in the hope of shoring themselves up rather than focusing on long-term planning.
Most civilian (and elected) officials are so besieged, thanks to their own weak positions, strong oppositions and the machinations of the establishment, that they spend their time firefighting and looking to the fabled second term when the ‘real work’ will be carried out — even if they have it all figured out. And this second term, it is assumed, requires ‘growth’ at whatever cost necessary.
The net result is a balance-of-payments crisis and the election victory is never had. Then the cycle begins again.
A similar dance for survival also confronts our dictators. They face fewer machinations but there is opposition in the shape of politicians, who can win elections, and a lack of legitimacy which bothers them greatly. For it is not without reason that they need to hold referendums or local government elections or general elections. Indeed, one can say ‘humain to dictators bhi achay nahee milay’ (we didn’t even get good dictators) for they immediately want to be liked and loved — even if in background conversations, people are told that elections are for the politicos.
As a result, these exercises (however managed), instead of shoring up their position, leave dictators in vulnerable positions, where they too are aiming for ‘growth’, miraculous recoveries and an election victory. As someone once pointed out, Gen Musharraf’s problem was that he wanted to win popularity like a politician. And so he left us with an overvalued rupee, utility prices that needed revision and a tough IMF prescription.
But the problem is to assume this is the personal choice of individual dictators rather than a compulsion; once in place they have little choice but to compete with the politicians.
In the previous two election cycles with their orchestrated results (to varying degrees), both Imran Khan and Shehbaz Sharif were left struggling with a legitimacy crisis as well as an opposition that seemed to be more popular than the government. As a result, their choices, like Musharraf’s, were aimed at winning over the people rather than readying and then guiding them through the pain of reform.
That is why the current government would also clutch at investment from the Gulf states or a mineral miracle; with a legitimacy crisis greater than the one that Musharraf faced, it is scrambling to ‘fix’ the economy rather than working on reforming it.
Indeed, these are far-from-ideal circumstances for any long- or medium-term planning — with an opposition leader sitting in jail, who is now more popular than the entire government put together, who is going to tell the people to prepare for hardship or take on special interests? No wonder then that there are whispers about how Imran Khan’s release or the next election is dependent on the economy.
This is the reason why economic illiterates such as myself are so sceptical of the government’s claims of success. And so are those who insist the problems in the economy will not be resolved till the political issues are. The latter do not just require a fair election but also a resolution of the civil-military imbalance — political governments looking over their shoulder for the latest ‘cunning plan’ of the establishment can and will do no better.
In the meantime, those in power, or rather anyone in power, will be fixated on pulling the rabbit out of the hat. And now that foreign investment from the Gulf hasn’t materialised, minerals are the next great hope. What will follow once this too proves to be a mirage is anyone’s guess. But I am quite sure, fixing the economy will not be a possible solution.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904347/economic-miracles
----
Thanks Iran, For Refusing the Bomb
Jawed Naqvi
April 15, 2025
COL Lawrence Wilkerson was the chief of staff of the US secretary of state Gen Colin Powell. He is today among the most vocal American critics of the US-sponsored war in Ukraine, the genocide of Palestinians by Israel and the US-Israeli plans to wage war on Iran.
Wilkerson is certain, however, as are his former military associates, that if a war does break out against Iran, it is Iran that would win. And it would win not by acquiring the nuclear bomb, or by other means that would destroy the region and its neighbourhood, but by conventional and asymmetric methods to foil American superiority.
“I recently met the man who did the war-gaming between Iran and the US years ago. He still believes the outcome he found then remains valid — that Iran would win a conventional war against the US.”
Iran’s vast experience of fighting wars, which it is never known to have started, goes back to the 1980s when it thwarted an Iraqi assault for eight years. US-backed Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons but could not prise away an inch of Iranian territory. I walked the barely two feet-wide uneven road snaking through the totally flattened erstwhile city of Khorramshahr. A wrong step on either side of the landmine-infested zone would be fatal, as it was sadly for Reuters colleague Najmul Hasan.
The war eventually came to an end when a US warship in the Gulf apparently mistakenly shot down an Iranian Airbus, killing hundreds of civilians in 1988. Iran has since spawned a bevy of fighting groups among Arab partners, training them to defend the quest for a free Palestine. Though the Houthi government and its fighters in Yemen no longer seek help from Iran, they have been readied to confront the might of powerful coalitions as they did against the Saudi-led war machinery. Like Iran, they remain sworn to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza come what may.
So how is Iran prepared to counter Donald Trump’s threats?
Trump says he would bomb Iran as never before if Tehran doesn’t strip itself of all its missiles, not just forsake nuclear weapons forever. Iran says the threat won’t work, but level-headed diplomacy could. The first round of indirect talks between Iran and the US ended on a positive note in Oman on Saturday. And there is distinct relief after many tense days that war may not be an option for Trump. Which implies that Benjamin Netanyahu would be left to fend for himself against the rising chorus of protests targeting him in Israel.
This reminds one of the four slogans Iranian worshippers raised during Friday prayers at Tehran University in the 1980s. As parliament speaker Hashemi Rafsanjani, Kalashnikov in left hand, signalled in between his religio-political sermon, the crowd chanted death to America, Israel, USSR and Saddam Hussein, probably in that order. Two of those wishes have been fulfilled. And the two remaining quarries are struggling to keep their democratic façade intact, and their restive people in check against heavy odds.
What made Col Wilkerson exude trust in Iran’s victory in a war with the US? He did so without the usual references to Vietnam and Afghanistan, where the US military suffered humiliating defeats. Wilkerson was talking about the outcome of US war games, which simulated conflict with Iran, particularly the Millennium Challenge 2002. The computerised outcome of MC02 revealed significant vulnerabilities in American military strategy and highlighted the effectiveness of asymmetric tactics. Iran was made the Red Team and the US was assigned the Blue Team.
Iran’s Red Team was led by retired Marine Lt-Gen Paul Van Riper. He employed unconventional tactics to devastating effect. Using motorcycle messengers, coded signals via mosque loudspeakers, and swarms of small boats armed with missiles, Red launched a surprise attack that overwhelmed the Blue Team.
A massive cruise missile salvo sank 16 US warships, including an aircraft carrier, and decimated amphibious forces, theoretically killing over 20,000 personnel. The simulated attack exploited gaps in Blue’s reliance on advanced technology and rigid command structures.
Interestingly, following the Red Team’s apparent success, the Pentagon suspended the exercise, ‘re-floated’ destroyed Blue forces, and imposed restrictions on Red’s tactics. Red was ordered to reveal anti-aircraft radar positions, avoid targeting paratroopers, and adhere to a script ensuring Blue’s eventual victory.
Van Riper criticised this as a betrayal of the exercise’s purpose. He resigned in protest. Critics say the $250 million mock war was turned into a scripted validation of existing US doctrines rather than a genuine test of the strengths of both sides.
Nowhere in the war games was the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran factored in. The unsung credit for this goes to Iran’s relentlessly demonised leadership, which staunchly opposes the making of a nuclear bomb. Ayatollah Khamenei would probably not accept any temporal award, let alone the Nobel Peace Prize should it be offered. This was not only because too many questionable people have been given the prize, belittling its importance, not least its Zionist racist recipients.
Seen objectively, one of the greatest and least acknowledged acts for global peace has come from the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has the capacity to build the nuclear bomb, but its revered leader will not allow that crucial half-screwdriver-turn even if the decision brings devastation to his people.
The moral spine of Iran and its supreme leaders, in particular, actually deserves a resounding applause. Khamenei’s 2003 fatwa against assembling a weapon of mass destruction has played an unsung role in keeping the world from untold harm.
There is enormous pressure on Khamenei from his countrymen to let Iran make the bomb. It was the only way to rein in Israel and thwart frequent challenges from US presidents, it’s been argued. But Khamenei has remained loyal to his innate wisdom that the bomb is an immoral device. For that he deserves our gratitude.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904344/thanks-iran-for-refusing-the-bomb
----
Unhinged America
Dr Niaz Murtaza
April 15, 2025
IT is scary to see a mad elephant run amok, ravaging tiny villages until it is tamed. It is more terrifying to see the world’s sole superpower do so globally — with its nukes, financial volatility and carbon emissions posing far greater risks than wild tuskers. This is happening under a party — symbolised by an elephant — that had turned erratic long ago. Donald Trump’s actions now are truly manic.
Ordinary Americans come to office one morning only to find they have lost their jobs. Foreign aid that saves countless lives is cut overnight. Compassion is seen as weakness by a macho party for which profits trump all else. These acts were carried out intentionally, to make it clear that the mean business tycoon Trump and the meaner and richer Elon Musk mean business.
Tariffs were imposed on friend and foe alike to help jobless American workers, though economists warn that this may cause a global recession. The proper way to help the jobless is to tax the rich. But such sane actions irk the right wing. ‘Illegal’ and legal migrants face crackdowns, although both contribute to the US economy. First-time ‘illegal’ entry into the US was widely seen as a mere misdemeanour — like traffic violations that even dutiful citizens commit. But it is now treated as a crime, enabling the separation of families and the deportation of people who have lived in that country for decades — even as felons from the Jan 6 mutiny go free.
All this may spur inflation by increasing the cost of domestic labour and imported goods that many Americans crave. Trump won by pledging to cut inflation, which had surged under Joe Biden due to the Covid-19 crisis. It will rise again under him. States are being encouraged to invest in the US. Actions like hiking tariffs violate the Republican mantra of ‘no state intrusion in markets’. But in truth, that mantra means that the state can only aid the rich, not the poor. All Trump’s actions target vulnerable groups, while the rich get tax breaks. Poor Americans who voted for his false promise to uplift them now realise they were taken for a ride so that the elites could enjoy a free ride.
A pushback has begun, both at home and abroad. Polls show his support is declining as the pain spreads across America. Even that loyal barometer of elite opinion — the stock market — slipped into correction territory, prompting a policy shift that only came after the panic reached Trump’s core base. Courts, even those packed with Trump nominees, are striking down some of his actions. Other nations are slapping retaliatory tariffs on the US. Whether any of these steps can tame the wild elephant remains to be seen. A nervous world braces for further shocks.
Trump says he’ll ‘Make America Great Again’. In fact, the US achieved greatness in the 1940s via high productivity, reduced inequality and racism, investment in global forums and the opening of its markets to the world. The formula was creativity, some equity, globalism and a long-term view. Trump’s brew, however, is meanness, pettiness, myopia and insularity. America’s gradual embrace of such crudity is why it has lost its hegemony — and may never reclaim it. The right wing is too blind to see this. The Democrats — whose donkey symbol is fitting — are clueless, meek, and unable to come up with a counter-narrative to the irate elephant. A society gripped by dehumanisation and hyper-capitalism can’t summon the intellectual or moral greatness required to be truly great — economically or politically.
Trump falsely claims that the world exploits the US. In reality, the US exploits the world by setting the rules of global finance, enabling itself to thrive despite its fiscal and trade deficits, as seen in its billionaires’ growing wealth, and strong growth and low inflation beyond the Covid era. Even its deficits help keep the dollar as the dominant currency. Trade deficits supply dollars globally; surplus dollars return to fund its fiscal deficits. The US just wants to extract more from others, rather than tax its elites to support its jobless. Its problem is not the global economy, but domestic politics that sustain inequity. Its deficit-cutting, Nato-bashing, migrant-barring actions may accelerate its fall from a valued global power to a hated bully.
The world faces pandemics, climate change, and economic volatility. A wise global leadership must move us towards a post-material, fairer world that is no longer dominated by the elites who drive these crises. The US lacks the vision to lead and is, in fact, the main barrier to it. Yet other major powers also fall short. As a result, the world appears headed for greater misery and turmoil.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904343/unhinged-america
------
Smart Futures
Zehra Waheed
April 15, 2025
THERE is a dominant consensus among practitioners and academics alike that the world’s most pressing environmental, resource-related, and economic challenges assume global dependencies and demand global collaboration. Yet, time and again, the Global South — resource-constrained, capability-limited, and grappling with multi-level, multi-sectoral problems — has found that external support remains elusive, especially in times of the greatest need. Pakistan has witnessed this during its worst disasters, when investment for large-scale sustainable solutions was most critical.
Pakistan’s challenges are huge. Air pollution chokes our cities, water scarcity threatens agriculture and livelihoods, urban expansion accelerates ecological degradation, and natural disasters devastate communities with alarming frequency. The country’s high vulnerability index underscores the urgency of addressing these issues. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) followed universally offer a framework, but they also demand a realistic assessment of our capabilities and a reimagining of how we allocate our limited resources. This realisation necessitates a paradigm shift — one that prioritises self-reliance, contextual relevance, and strategic innovation. For countries like ours, this shift is not just an option — but an imperative.
The SDGs, against which we position our efforts, essentially serve three roles. First, they are an empirical tool, enabling us to scrutinise global issues across economic, social, and environmental spheres. Second, they act as a diagnostic tool, identifying the leadership and accountability required across governments, international institutions, civil society, and the private sector. Third, they serve as a bridging tool, harmonising efforts across sectors to create cohesive, impactful action. Yet, as the 2023 midpoint assessment of the SDGs reveals, the global picture is far from rosy. Only 15 per cent of assessable targets are on track to be achieved by 2030, while 48pc are moderately or severely off track. Worse, over 37pc of targets have either stagnated or regressed since 2015.
While Pakistan remains behind its targets (but so does the rest of the world), we must recognise that the global landscape has recently shifted dramatically. Turbulent politics, the rise of inward-looking policies, and the volatility of international relations have left nations to fend for themselves. The return of Donald Trump as US president, for instance, reflects a broader trend of reactionary politics that prioritises national interests over global cooperation. With somewhat estranged relations with the US and increasing dependence on Chinese technology, finance, and political support, Pakistan must think smart, focusing on solutions that align with its specific realities.
For Pakistan, this means asking the right questions: what are the specific problems we need to solve? What are our strengths, and how can we build on them? Take, for example, the National Research Programme for Universities, the Higher Education Commission’s flagship research programme, which prioritises natural sciences and engineering disciplines. An analysis of 1,891 completed projects reveals a clear focus on primary, natural science and engineering-centric research.
As a nation that has historically been a consumer rather than a creator of technology, products and services, it is unrealistic to assume we can compete with giants like China, the US, Britain, or Germany in producing cutting-edge technologies from scratch. Instead, it may be prudent to spend on research focusing on downstream opportunities — exploring ways to add value midway in the supply chain. This approach allows leveraging existing global advancements while creating realistic, context-specific solutions that address our unique challenges. This also means more social science and management research.
Repositioning research funding is not just about shifting priorities; it’s about aligning them with emergent global realities and our national capabilities. It’s about funding explorations that enable us to extract maximum value from limited resources. It’s about fostering innovation that responds to our immediate needs while contributing to the global SDG agenda.
The path forward requires a dual focus: that of urgency tempered with pragmatism. This means prioritising research that delivers realistic, actionable solutions, ensuring that our efforts are grounded in a realistic understanding of our capabilities and the global reality.
By repositioning our research funding, we can not only address our immediate challenges but also contribute to a more sustainable, equitable future for all. The time to act is now. The stakes, for us, are too high to defer.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904342/smart-futures
-------
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/hard-state-hostage-bomb/d/135164
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism