Pakistan Press on: Trade, War, Tariff, Taxila, Egyptian: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 April 2025
By New Age Islam Edit Desk
14 April 2025
Pakistan’s Moment
Tariff Tensions
Trade War Tremors
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Revolutionising Plastic Recycling
Trump’s Tantrum
Think Like an Egyptian
Taxilas No More
----
Pakistan’s Moment
By Muhammad Umar
April 14, 2025
The recent imposition – and now partial suspension – of US tariffs on Pakistani exports sent ripples through Pakistan’s business and policy circles.
While headlines initially focused on the 29 per cent increase in duties, President Trump’s 90-day pause has offered a narrow but meaningful window for diplomatic recalibration. A senior Pakistani delegation is scheduled to visit Washington for trade and tariff negotiations. If this engagement is framed correctly, it could serve not just as damage control but as the beginning of a far more significant reset in US-Pakistan economic relations.
This isn’t just about tariffs but about timing, leverage, and strategy. President Trump’s return to office has brought with it a sharpened focus on economic security and supply chain resilience. Nowhere is this clearer than in the administration’s push to secure access to critical minerals.
In Trump’s worldview, minerals are national assets tied directly to sovereignty and security. That understanding is shaping America’s foreign policy in ways that offer Pakistan a unique opening – if we’re smart enough to seize it.
Pakistan is home to some of the most valuable untapped mineral deposits in the world, including copper, gold and rare earth elements. These reserves have been underdeveloped for decades, held back by inconsistent policy, governance issues and lack of foreign investment. Yet the global landscape is shifting. The US, once content to outsource mining and processing to distant suppliers, is now actively looking for new, trusted partners. Pakistan has the potential to be one of them but that will require vision, credibility and a decisive departure from the usual playbook of transactional diplomacy.
For decades, Pakistan’s engagement with the US has been shaped by cycles of aid, dependency and mutual frustration. That dynamic has left both countries fatigued and mistrustful. But strategic minerals offer a different lens, one that is not rooted in the politics of assistance but in the pragmatism of aligned interests. If we frame our engagement with the US not as a request for relief, but as an offer to become a serious player in one of the most critical areas of the 21st-century economy, the entire conversation changes.
This is not the time to approach Washington with a defensive ask to roll back tariffs or restore old preferences. That framing won’t land. It never has. The real opportunity lies in presenting a forward-looking, mutual value proposition – one that connects Pakistan’s mineral potential to the US’s strategic needs. The US isn’t in the mood for aid conversations. But it is actively seeking partners that can contribute to the long-term security of its supply chains in an increasingly fragmented world economy.
That’s the pitch. But here’s the challenge: we’re not delivering it with the urgency or clarity it demands.
Pakistan’s diplomatic staff in Washington have remained engaged and active across a range of traditional channels, particularly through the State Department. But the current moment requires a parallel track, beyond diplomacy-as-usual. There has been limited structured engagement with the national security and economic teams inside the White House, where the core of this administration’s mineral strategy is being shaped. While embassy efforts are important, the reality is that access and influence in this White House flow through a different set of doors. Unless we broaden our aperture, we risk missing the moment.
To course correct, the visiting delegation must arrive not with a defensive list of grievances, but with an offensive strategy. Pakistan should position itself as a long-term solution to a long-term American problem: how to reduce its dependence on hostile or unstable sources of critical minerals. That means bringing serious proposals to the table – concrete ideas for public-private partnerships, frameworks for regulatory transparency, and readiness for joint ventures that give US companies confidence in our mining sector.
It also means knowing who to talk to. Conversations limited to trade bureaucrats will get us nowhere. We need direct engagement with senior officials in the White House and the National Security Council because this is not just a commerce issue. It’s national security. And in Trump’s White House, those lines are blurred by design.
It is also time to be honest about the internal reforms we must undertake. Without regulatory clarity, enforceable contracts and a serious effort to de-risk investment for international partners, no mineral strategy will gain traction. Investors need structure. That’s on us to provide. But if we can do that, we bring real value to the table. This isn’t about handouts. It’s about helping the US solve a geostrategic challenge while unlocking economic opportunity at home.
Pakistan has stumbled through too many cycles of crisis diplomacy. But this is different. For once, the global need aligns with what we can offer. The US wants secure, friendly sources of critical minerals. We have them. But the deal won’t happen on its own. It needs to be constructed through strategy, storytelling and sustained engagement.
We have a chance to shift the narrative. Instead of pleading for exemptions, we could be offering solutions. Instead of asking what Washington can do for us, we could be making the case for why Pakistan is central to America’s mineral future. If we get this right, the payoff could be long-term investment, jobs, and a credible role for Pakistan in the global supply chain of the future.
If we get it wrong, we’ll be left exactly where we are – on the margins of global conversations that we should be leading.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301015-pakistan-s-moment
---
Tariff Tensions
By Dr Muhammad Zeshan
April 14, 2025
When Trump dropped that bombshell about slapping 29 per cent tariffs on Pakistani imports, factory owners in Faisalabad didn't immediately lose their minds. They've been through tough times before. But once they ran the numbers? That's when the sweat started breaking out.
"I'm looking at pink slips for maybe a fifth of my people if these tariffs stick”, says a factory owner, whose textile mill puts food on the table for more than 500 families. "We're not talking about abstract economic theories here – we're talking about real people who might not make rent next month."
The US remains Pakistan's single largest export destination, with $5.3 billion in exports during 2024. The majority of these exports are textiles, alongside significant volumes of rice and surgical instruments. Conservative projections suggest the proposed tariffs would slash Pakistan's exports to America by 20-25 per cent – a staggering $1.1-1.4 billion annually, according to the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) in a policy note ‘Impact of Unilateral Tariff Increase by United States on Pakistani Exports’.
And here's the kicker: this isn't just Pakistan's headache. American shoppers and businesses are going to feel the pain too. Those cheap T-shirts at Walmart? They're about to get a lot less cheap. That surgical equipment keeping healthcare costs somewhat manageable? Price hike incoming.
The White House is pushing this line about fixing trade deficits, but that's economic thinking from the Stone Age. In today's connected world, this simplistic ‘I win, you lose’ approach to trade completely misses how supply chains actually work.
Take textiles. Pakistani mills buy American cotton, turn it into products, and sell those goods back to American consumers. American farmers win. Pakistani workers win. American families get affordable clothes. Everyone's happy! These tariffs throw sand in those gears.
And what about those surgical instruments Pakistan exports? Sialkot has been making world-class medical tools for generations. They're high-quality but affordable, helping keep America's already ridiculous healthcare costs somewhat in check. Making these more expensive seems like shooting yourself in the foot and then paying more for the bandages.
Pakistan needs to get its diplomats working overtime. High-level talks should hammer home how these tariffs hurt both sides. Pakistan could offer to lower its own tariffs on American cotton, machinery, or petroleum as a peace offering.
Pakistani manufacturers should also look at using more American materials in their products. Using more US cotton might help dodge some tariff bullets under the new rules.
Long term, though, this wake-up call shows Pakistan needs to quit putting all its eggs in the America-and-textiles basket. We need to aggressively expand into new markets – Asean, Africa, you name it – and diversify what we're selling.
We've been talking about export diversification for decades, now we're paying the price for dragging our feet. We need to accelerate efforts to break into new markets and expand our product range beyond the usual suspects. Perhaps the silver lining is that it forces us to finally address structural issues we've been ignoring for too long.
None of this will be easy or quick. These tariffs are going to cause real pain for real Pakistani workers and businesses. The textile industry employs most of Pakistan's industrial workforce. Layoffs represent families suddenly without income in a country with minimal social safety nets.
As for America? Policymakers should really think about whether these tariffs actually serve US interests. Sure, they might bring in some quick cash and sound tough on the campaign trail, but at what cost? Damaged diplomatic ties, higher prices at Target, and messed-up supply chains seem like a steep price to pay.
Trade isn't a boxing match where someone has to hit the canvas for the other guy to win. The best economic relationships create value for everyone involved. The US-Pakistan trade relationship has been doing exactly that for decades.
Instead of slapping punitive tariffs, wouldn't it make more sense to target specific trade concerns through focused talks while finding new ways both countries can benefit? That would save jobs, maintain strategic relationships, and ultimately serve both American and Pakistani citizens better.
Economic nationalism might feel good for a minute, but history shows it just makes everyone poorer in the end.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301016-tariff-tensions
---
Trade War Tremors
By Hissan Ur Rehman
April 14, 2025
As US President Donald Trump escalates the trade war by imposing a staggering 145 per cent tariff on Chinese imports, the global economic landscape is undergoing seismic shifts. Amid this upheaval, Pakistan stands poised to transform potential adversity into strategic advantage.
The US administration's recent move has raised tariffs on a wide range of Chinese goods to an unprecedented 145 per cent, citing concerns over trade imbalances, national security, and global supply chain risks. China has now hit back with a 125 per cent retaliatory tariff on American imports, signaling the fiercest escalation in the ongoing trade war.
This tit-for-tat tariff duel has sent shockwaves through global markets. American stock indices have taken a hit -- Apple and other manufacturing giants face skyrocketing costs as their China-based supply chains get taxed into oblivion. Relocating production to the US is an expensive and time-consuming ordeal that’s rattling investors.
Pakistan has a strategic opportunity amidst these global realignments. While the US-China conflict deepens, Pakistan finds itself in a unique position. As Trump announced a 90-day pause on new tariffs for all countries -- except China -- Pakistan's stock market surged. The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) saw a sharp rebound, fueled by a sigh of relief from exporters and investors who saw breathing space and an opening to capitalise.
Consider the following: Pakistan’s annual imports total $56 billion, resulting in a $30+ billion trade deficit. Yet, with the US, Pakistan enjoys a $3 billion trade surplus. In FY24, textile exports hit $16.7 billion, of which $14 billion were value-added. With a $25 billion installed capacity, $8 billion is still untapped.
In just the first eight months of FY25, Pakistan’s exports to the US reached $4 billion, expected to cross $6 billion by year-end.
This is not just a numbers game; it’s a moment of recalibration. Pakistan’s three-step playbook to capitalize is to: one, forge a tactical trade pact with the US. The US needs new sourcing allies. Pakistan should offer zero-duty access to selected American goods -- agri-tech, energy parts, medical devices -- in exchange for preferential treatment of Pakistani textiles, leather and surgical goods.
Two, fill the vacuum left by China in fashion and footwear. Chinese suppliers are becoming too expensive. American buyers are scouting new partners.
Pakistani manufacturers, particularly in Sialkot and Lahore, must rise to the occasion with speed, scale, and global quality compliance.
Three, invite Chinese industry to relocate through Pakistan. With 9.5 cents/kWh power, $100/month labour costs, and major ports like Karachi, Pakistan is a strategic sweet spot. Chinese firms can build here and export tariff-free to the West under a ‘Made in Pakistan’ label.
This is geoeconomic strategy. The US-China tariff standoff is redrawing the global supply chain map. Pakistan has 90 days to manoeuvre smartly.
We don’t need bailouts. We need buyers. We don’t need debt relief. We need deal-making.
With China penalised, America recalibrating, and global firms hunting for efficiency, Pakistan can be the supply chain solution they didn’t know they needed.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301017-trade-war-tremors
---
Something Wicked This Way Comes
By Kamila Hyat
April 14, 2025
We live in a world where we are increasingly depending on artificial intelligence (AI) to generate answers to our multiple questions and in some cases to write text for voice memos, and even college tests or high school papers. This is perhaps inevitable. But is it safe? The answer may be in the negative.
According to a review conducted using eight points of interaction with AI conducted this year by the Columbia Journalism Review, it was found that at least 60 per cent of answers given by AI were inaccurate or blatantly incorrect. Other studies have come up with similar results and some have suggested that as many as 80 per cent of answers may be inaccurate in one way or the other. It is of also known that AI cannot pick up nuance the way humans can and simply churns out information and presents it in a form that is now known to many as being single-dimensional in its approach.
So far, humans are proving to be more intelligent than AI. For example, school and college teachers have been educated in many countries and have themselves picked up the means to discover AI-generated texts given that the same algorithm is used again and again. One example of this is the frequent use of why ‘x is better than y’ and to continue from that point on. There are of course other, possibly more serious problems coming up with AI and its use.
In the first place, AI is being pushed by social media at an extremely rapid pace. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other platforms frequently come up each day with new advertisements and new suggestions on how AI should be used. There are also scores of advertisements on social media and in other forums on how to enroll for classes in AI, especially for seniors or those over 40 years of age who may not be so familiar with AI and its usage. In other words, those who have escaped this method of information gathering are being taught how to use it.
The other problem lies in the fact that there are at least considerations and plans in multiple companies to use AI as a means to ascertain the efficiency of workers and to test their ability. There are even suggestions it may be used as a means to hire or dismiss people. This in itself is extremely dangerous. In the first place, AI misses the subtleties of the human mind. It cannot, for instance, judge who is ethical and who is not. It may place a worker who takes a longer period of time to produce high-quality material in, say writing, scientific work, or mathematical equations at a low point than somebody who produces low-quality work at a faster pace. This raises all kinds of issues about the future and how humans will be judged by a technology which threatens to overtake them.
The person who is understood at Google to be the father of AI, Jeffrey Hinton, has joined a group of other researchers in AI to begin a campaign against his own creation. These scientists and programmers warn that AI may be at least as dangerous as the nuclear bomb. They say that by picking up information generated by other AI tools, the use of AI technology and its creations may overtake those produced by humans. This is dangerous in many ways and undermines human creativity and talent. It undermines the delicate nuances and the arts human minds are able to put together because of their versatility and their ability to generate poetry of the standards of the classical poets as well as so many modern poets and modern writers in every genre that exists around the world.
There are also other things we need to be wary of. In Pakistan, researchers have pointed out that AI is contributing to fake news of every kind and is dangerous in that it can falsify information far faster than humans and put out fake news which can be used to even bring blasphemy charges against people. We all know that AI can be used to replicate voices extremely closely and at a level not discernible to the ordinary listener or sometimes even to experts. This is obviously extremely problematic, especially in the environment we live in today.
We have also seen how US President Donald Trump has produced cartoons through the use of AI depicting the arrest of young people, notably Hispanics and non-white persons, by ICE teams. These cartoons replicate those created by liberal, progressive cartoonists in other countries. This itself is a problem of one kind or the other, touching on plagiarism and other issues which should warn us that AI is a tool we need to be wary of. Its high use of energy levels and inputs is a different topic, something else that we should be on the alert for in today's world.
In other words, AI is not as safe or as useful as some of us would like to think. The open encouragement to writing falsified essays or plagiarism put out by some AI companies in their ads is essentially immoral. Students and schoolchildren need to be encouraged to use their own minds and put forward their own thoughts. AI takes away this ability and threatens to create a robotic world in which everyone is uniform and can access only specific types of information based on the phrases they write out and ask AI to form into essays or the materials for them.
There is, of course, a possibility that AI will simply self-destruct by picking up material from one form of AI and using it in all forms to create a kind of endless stream of repetitive material. In some cases, this is already happening. But as humans, we need to find a way to stop the techniques being used by AI before it consumes us and takes away all that we have learned over the years of human innovation.
Somewhere the human mind needs to live on. Scientists warning about this need to be understood and at least listened to. They have already written letters to the top owners of tech companies and warned that this iteration of technology is pushing unneeded AI at us. As intelligent beings, we need to watch out for this and protect ourselves against technology that in some ways threatens all of us and our future generations as we become more dependent on what can be an extremely problematic tool.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301018-something-wicked-this-way-comes
----
Revolutionising Plastic Recycling
By Dr Intikhab Ulfat
April 14, 2025
Plastic pollution is not a recent concern. Before synthetic plastics, natural polymers like rubber and cellulose were widely used. However, the invention of Bakelite by Belgian chemist Leo Baekeland in 1907 marked the beginning of large-scale plastic production.
By the mid-20th century, global plastic manufacturing reached approximately two million tonnes annually. Today, this number exceeds 400 million tonnes, and if current trends persist, it is projected to reach an astonishing 1100 million tonnes by 2050.
Despite recycling efforts, only about 10 per cent of the seven billion tonnes of plastic waste produced globally has been effectively recycled. Since plastic does not naturally decompose, it breaks down into microplastics, contaminating air, water, and soil – even in remote locations like Antarctica.
Plastic recycling primarily relies on mechanical and chemical processes. Mechanical recycling, which involves sorting, washing and grinding waste into raw materials, is widely used due to its cost-effectiveness. However, its limitations include quality degradation with each cycle and difficulty processing mixed or multilayered plastics. Chemical recycling, which breaks plastics down into their molecular components for reuse, can handle mixed waste but is costly due to high energy demands and infrastructure requirements.
Radiation technology, particularly using gamma rays and electron beams, is transforming plastic recycling with a cleaner, more efficient, and sustainable approach. Unlike conventional methods that rely on energy-intensive processes and chemical additives, irradiation modifies the chemical structure of plastics at the molecular level, improving their recyclability and compatibility. This method enables the processing of mixed plastics without extensive sorting and facilitates the production of high-performance materials, such as durable tiles, bricks, and construction boards.
Another key advantage of irradiation technology is its role in developing bio-based plastics from renewable sources like agricultural waste and biomass. These eco-friendly alternatives often lack mechanical strength, limiting their industrial use. However, irradiation enhances their structural properties, making them viable for broader applications. Blending irradiated plastic waste with natural fibres, such as rice husk or bamboo, produces superior strength and thermal resistance composites, benefiting industries like packaging, automotive and construction.
Irradiation also improves sorting by refining polymer identification, leading to higher purity and better-quality recycled plastics. It enhances chemical recycling methods like pyrolysis, where plastic polymers break down into fuel or raw materials for new products without requiring virgin plastics. Beyond conventional recycling, irradiation enables innovative applications, such as blending plastic waste with other materials to create high-performance products.
In the Philippines, irradiated plastics have been successfully used to enhance mechanical properties like tensile strength and abrasion resistance in construction materials. Similarly, in Indonesia, irradiated plastic waste has been used as a compatibilizer for thatch made from recycled plastic and rice husk.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is spearheading the fight against plastic pollution through its NUTEC Plastics initiative, which leverages nuclear science and radiation technology to tackle plastic waste at its origin and in marine environments. By integrating innovative recycling techniques and scientific monitoring, this programme aims to reduce plastic pollution's environmental and health impacts while promoting sustainable waste management solutions.
A key aspect of NUTEC Plastics is improving recycling efficiency and increasing the use of upcycled plastics. Traditional recycling methods face challenges due to contamination, mixed polymers, and material degradation. The IAEA is addressing these issues through radiation-assisted recycling, which restructures plastic polymers, allowing for the processing of previously non-recyclable materials. This technique enhances durability, strength, and usability, expanding applications in industries such as construction, automotive, and packaging.
In addition to recycling advancements, NUTEC Plastics tackles plastic pollution in marine environments. Plastics that escape waste management systems enter rivers and oceans, threatening marine ecosystems. Nuclear techniques, such as radiotracer technology and neutron activation analysis, allow scientists to trace, monitor and analyse plastic pollution – particularly microplastics – providing valuable data to identify pollution sources, assess impacts, and develop mitigation strategies.
To scale up these efforts, the IAEA has partnered with nine countries across Asia, Latin America and Africa to establish radiation-assisted pilot plants. These facilities serve as innovation hubs for refining and expanding radiation-based recycling on an industrial scale, demonstrating its effectiveness and encouraging broader adoption by governments and industries. By supporting these projects, the IAEA is empowering developing nations to utilise nuclear technology in tackling plastic pollution while fostering expertise in nuclear science applications.
Through NUTEC Plastics, the IAEA is driving scientific and technological innovations that bridge the gap between plastic waste management and nuclear science. By addressing plastic pollution at its source and in marine environments, this initiative plays a crucial role in environmental conservation, marine protection, and sustainable recycling solutions. The collaboration among participating countries signals a growing global commitment to harnessing nuclear technology for a cleaner, more sustainable future.
The role of irradiation in tackling plastic pollution will be a key topic at the Third International Conference on Applications of Radiation Science and Technology (ICARST 2025), scheduled to take place in Vienna this month. This conference, organised by the IAEA, will bring together experts from diverse fields such as radiation physics, chemistry, materials science, and engineering. The event aims to highlight the latest advancements in radiation technologies and their applications in sustainable plastic recycling. Participants will have the opportunity to discuss how nuclear techniques, including gamma and electron beam irradiation, can be utilised to enhance plastic waste management, improve polymer properties, and support the development of circular economy models. To ensure accessibility, the conference will offer a livestream option, allowing global audiences to participate in the sessions remotely.
Beyond ICARST 2025, two other significant international events in 2025 will focus on advancing NUTEC Plastics, an initiative that integrates nuclear science and technology into plastic waste management and marine pollution monitoring.
In October, the Republic of Korea will host an event featuring IAEA tools for circular economy assessment and technological maturity evaluation. This gathering will emphasise how radiation technology can support the sustainable management of plastic waste by improving recycling processes and assessing material lifecycle impacts. Experts will present case studies demonstrating the successful implementation of radiation-assisted recycling technologies and discuss strategies to integrate these innovations into industrial applications. The event will also explore public-private partnerships as a means to drive large-scale adoption of nuclear-assisted plastic recycling solutions.
In November, the Philippines will host the first high-level international forum on NUTEC Plastics, which will focus on the initiative's recycling and marine monitoring components. This forum will bring together policymakers, nuclear scientists, environmental organisations, and industry leaders to discuss the role of radiation-based techniques in addressing plastic pollution in oceans and coastal environments. Special attention will be given to radiotracers and neutron activation analysis, which are being used to track plastic waste dispersal in marine ecosystems.
The forum will also provide insights into the progress of radiation-assisted recycling pilot plants in various regions, including Asia, Latin America and Africa. These pilot projects are critical in demonstrating the feasibility and benefits of nuclear technology in plastic waste management and will inform future policy decisions and investment strategies.
The upcoming conferences in 2025 underscore the importance of international collaboration in advancing radiation-assisted plastic recycling. By bringing together experts from multiple disciplines, these events will facilitate knowledge exchange and drive the development of innovative technologies for sustainable plastic waste management. As nuclear-assisted recycling continues to gain recognition as a viable solution to plastic pollution, these forums will help shape the global approach to waste reduction and circular economy initiatives.
Through collaborative efforts, the IAEA and its partners are working towards a future where plastic waste is effectively managed, environmental impacts are minimised and sustainable practices become the standard in industries worldwide.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1301019-revolutionising-plastic-recycling
----
Trump’s Tantrum
Umair Javed
April 14, 2025
RECENT convulsions in the global economy mark another curtain call for the long 20th century. The worldwide economic system put in place during the 1970s appears to be unwinding.
The system was built on the back of American political-economic hegemony. It featured an increasingly liberalised global trade regime facilitated by the US dollar, especially through an exclusive trade in oil, and free(er) movement of capital across national borders, especially towards financial assets such as bonds and equities.
Clubbed under the larger rubric of neoliberalism, the system produced several long-term shifts. It shifted manufacturing from the West to East/Southeast Asia, creating value chain booms in the latter and cheap consumer goods for the former. It created new and increasingly risky avenues in global financial markets, which offered astronomical returns to a small segment of the population. And, most of all, it helped subsidise consumption through debt for the American population far beyond any actual growth in wages.
Critical voices spent many years pointing out the crisis-inducing impact that such unhindered liberalisation posed to economies, especially of the developing world. It led to premature deindustrialisation for many countries in Asia and Africa, including Pakistan, made the world prone to financial crises, and heightened inequality across a variety of metrics. Such critiques were labelled as archaic, anti-development, anti-freedom and summarily dismissed.
Progressives in Europe and the US too spent much of the 1990s and early 2000s warning about the corrosive impact that neoliberalism was having on their own domestic economies. Between 1979 and 2022, real (ie, inflation adjusted) wages for middle and low-income workers in the US, showed paltry growth of a mere 12 per cent, even when overall productivity has increased by almost 80pc.
So who benefited from this gain in productivity if the average worker is still where they were 40 years ago? Unsurprisingly, wealth and incomes for the top earners and incomes from capital (profits, rents, and returns from stocks and bonds), increased significantly, widening overall inequality.
Four decades of a widening gap between the haves and the have-nots mean the proverbial chickens have finally come home to roost. For the last decade and a half, inequality has staged a comeback as a political issue in Western politics. Unfortunately for everyone else, the issue is finding its expression through a variety of regressive political forces, especially in the US and UK.
In a recent note, Stephen Miran, one of the architects of Trump’s tariff policy, cited a decline of stable manufacturing jobs across the Midwest and the South as a key justification for the US president’s tariff antics of the past few weeks. As free trade became the norm, he argued, good jobs went offshore in search of cheaper labour costs, leaving behind increased dependence on precarious, service sector employment for American workers.
In rhetoric at least, the Trump administration wants to ‘reshore’ industrial production so that white male workers in Ohio can relive a mid-20th-century golden era, ie, the fantasy of an archetypical breadwinner who could buy a house, car, and provide for his stay-at-home wife and three kids.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with giving workers better jobs. But as many have pointed out, there is no going back to this golden past. Most manufacturing jobs rely on cheap labour, which Asia and Latin America have plenty of and the US simply cannot provide. As per some reports, an iPhone if made entirely in the US, would cost $25,000. No company in their right mind could sell a mass consumer product at that price tag.
This is one reason why the Trumpian diagnosis, even if one takes it at face value, is seriously flawed. In rhetoric, it seeks to go back to a long distant past, without giving up the debt-based consumption privileges that the US has attained through its dominant political and military position in the world.
On the other hand, if the precarious material conditions of blue-collar workers in places like Ohio is of actual concern, then one should be considering an entirely different set of solutions. For example, there are jobs that cannot be sent offshore (such as in personal services and care work), which remain remunerated very poorly. Why not think of ways to raise incomes for those actual working-class people doing such jobs, and ensure they have a better standard of living?
If the average worker is struggling to afford housing and other basic needs, why can’t the state redistribute a greater share of the profits accrued by big companies and wealthy individuals? This is not some alien concept. It formed the basis of social democracy in the mid-20th century, a period that saw some of the greatest gains towards equality and improvements in overall standards of living. As one economist put it wryly, if inequality in the US is your concern, how does taking jobs away from Vietnamese workers act as the solution?
The simple fact is that the rhetoric of bringing back good jobs for American workers is eyewash. The real goal, as it so often is for governments of this ilk, is to secure returns for some section of the capitalist class. In this case, raising some revenue through performative tariffs may act as a convenient and stealthy way of providing further tax cuts for high-income earners. The end result will be more inequality and more immiseration for workers.
The political and economic costs of America’s domestic dysfunction are borne by everyone else. The erratic display of decision-making witnessed in the last month is reflective of a hegemon confronted with internal contradictions and faced with external decline. Unfortunately, we mere mortals located elsewhere have to put up with these symptoms of morbidity, which will only distort and escalate till something else is ready to take its place.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904096/trumps-tantrum
----
Think Like An Egyptian
Huma Yusuf
April 14, 2025
WHEN tour guides in Egypt describe how ancient Egyptian tombs were robbed of their treasures, they include a clarification: we mean by indigenous grave robbers, not the Western archaeologists who took the antiquities to museums and private collections abroad.
On a recent trip to Egypt, I was struck by several guides’ lack of ambiguity that Western exploration was tantamount to theft, and their confidence in the rightful place of Egyptian antiquities. Seeing Egyptian engagement with the country’s heritage is among the strongest cases for cultural repatriation that I have encountered.
It is difficult in a world of tariff wars, looming recessions and Trumpian imperialism to recall that in recent years the issue of cultural repatriation was among the most charged topics.
The Global South (and other countries such as Greece) has been asking for the return of cultural treasures that had been looted, procured under dubious circumstances or in the context of skewed colonial power dynamics to their countries of origin or the heirs of original owners.
Western governments, museums and some pockets of academia have been resisting these requests.
Arguments for keeping artefacts in Western museums are wide-ranging: developing countries do not have the resources and expertise to maintain cultural objects; corruption and theft will endanger the objects and facilitate illicit trading. When all else fails, Western museums argue that they have more foot traffic and so artefacts left in situ are likely to be more accessible to more people.
These arguments seem less compelling than others, given that knowledge transfer, trainings and partnerships between museums around the world could help plug any gaps in resources and know-how. My support for cultural repatriation is occasionally tempered by concerns that certain artefacts could be intentionally destroyed, for example, by religious extremists (think of the Bamiyan Buddhas).
Alternatively, there is concern that the provenance and history of certain objects could be suppressed or rewritten in service of contemporary national narratives or strategic imperatives. One can certainly envision scenarios in which Pakistan’s pre-Muslim history or anti-establishment art are subject to destruction, censorship, or decontextualisation.
This is where Egypt offers a valuable model. The country takes a whole-of-society approach to ensuring that cultural nationalism does not become an indulgence that breeds complacency and corruption, and is something that is, instead, nurtured through education, critical thinking, policy implementation. and international cooperation.
In El Hegez, a village on the bank of the Nile south of Luxor, a girl proudly explained how she is learning about the pharaohs in primary school. Her mother, the first generation of women in her family to receive an education, hopes her daughter will become a diplomat to promote Egyptian heritage globally.
A tour guide in Edfu explained that he began planning his career as a child. Official guides must speak several languages fluently, study Egyptology and related subjects at university level and pass exams to get their licences. They are also subject to extensive security screening and background checks before being unleashed on tourists.
A bookshop outside the souk in Luxor holds an impressive collection of books on Egyptian history, art, artefacts, geography and anthropology, one that would rival any major university library. The Arabic language section is as extensive as the English one, and the man at the till explains that students and locals with an interest in their heritage are a key part of the customer base along with tourists.
Every ancient Egyptian temple and tomb we visit hosts a foreign mission partnering with Egyptian universities or government departments for restoration or excavation projects. The flags of France, Poland, Germany and other countries are proudly pointed out by guides, touts and ticket sellers.
Egypt is not perfect. Illegal antiquities sales soared post-Arab Spring turmoil. A decade ago, some cleaners at the Egyptian Museum damaged Tutankhamun’s burial mask. The opening of the impressive Grand Egyptian Museum was repeatedly delayed.
But there is little risk that Egyptians will take their cultural heritage for granted or neglect it. It is too much a part of their national identity and integral to their lived reality (and economy). There is social consensus on the value and centrality of Egyptian culture, one that is bolstered through education and intellectual curiosity.
Countries demanding cultural repatriations or seeking to boost tourist economies can learn from Egypt’s example, and understand that investments must be made not just in the artefacts themselves but in society as a whole.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904094/think-like-an-egyptian
-----
Taxilas No More
Shahzad Sharjeel
April 14, 2025
IF you have travelled on the Grand Trunk Road, which we insist was built by Sher Shah Suri, towards Peshawar, some 90 kilometres from Islamabad, you come across a town called Kamra in Attock district, Punjab. Its namesake Kunal Kamra is in hot water in India these days as his stand-up act has not gone down well with the Shiv Sena and BJP. When people and institutions take themselves so seriously that they cannot take a joke, there is usually something very wrong with the ecosystem.
More on this some other time. For now, back up a little on the GT Road of Chandragupta Maurya vintage and stop at Taxila, then Takshashila. This prominent site in the Buddhist tradition, home to one of the earliest universities anywhere, today presents a ruinous view with tombstone-carving workshops lining both sides of a narrow excuse for a road leading up to the archaeological treasures of the Dharmarajika Complex and Sirkap.
That knowledge is power is not lost on conquerors. They want the vanquished to lose their cultural moorings and slightest pride, even in the deep recesses of libraries. The faith of opponents seems to make no difference. Bakhtiar Khilji is known to have ransacked the Buddhist seat of knowledge at Nalanda and burnt its libraries in the late 12th century.
Salahuddin Ayyubi, who lived around the same time, is alleged to have treated his co-religionists similarly at the Al Azhar Library in Cairo. Some accounts assert that Saladin, as he is known to the West, replaced the Fatimid era tomes of Shia tradition with Shafai’i literature instead of burning them upon assuming power in Egypt. The Fatimids, who rightly lamented the loss of Al Azhar’s treasures, glossed over their own alleged sacking of the great library at Aleppo, as per some accounts, when they took power in 1076, as the contents were not in keeping with Ismaili jurisprudence. Hulagu Khan’s sacking of Baghdad came in 1258.
Known for pilfering and looting antiquities and everything of value from wherever they went, the Brits burnt the Library of Congress alongside much of the US Capitol in Washington, D.C., in 1814. The attack on its former colony was in retaliation to the American attack on Canada and the burning of public buildings in York.
Universities continue to have a rough time everywhere. In a recent interview, Nobel Prize-winning professor of economics Amartya Sen pointed out ‘bureaucracy’ as the most persistent challenge for Indian universities. The problem, he said, is now compounded by two more factors: communalism and thought control by the executive. Our universities are no strangers to direct intervention by state institutions and their proxies. They are battlegrounds for ideological dominance supported by both state and non-state actors, local and foreign.
Much as one would like universities to compete in the realm of ideas and innovation, they are bogged down in existential battles ranging from federal to provincial funding to the appointment of vice-chancellors. Lately, Sindh has become a hotbed of controversy as the provincial government has empowered itself to appoint bureaucrats as VCs in universities across the province. The MQM, largely representing urban Sindh, asks that university admissions in Karachi be restricted to its residents. The senior minister representing the PPP, with its power base in rural Sindh, accuses the MQM of fomenting communalism. No matter who the perpetrators are, Dr Sen seems to have rightly pointed out that bureaucracy, communalism, and the executive’s desire for thought control are wreaking havoc in seats of higher learning.
Modi wants India to become a vishwaguru (teacher of the world). Amid newfound nationalistic and religious fervour, efforts are afoot to purge everyday Hindi of foreign influences and strengthen its Sanskrit core. The Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan governments have approved bills to call university VCs kulgurus; whether or not it revives the guru-shishya parampara (teacher-student tradition) remains to be seen. Our courts, too, from time to time, order the adoption of Urdu as the official language. The VCs are sometimes called ‘shaikh-ul-jamia’ and department heads ‘sadr-i-shoba’, lending Arabic gravitas to titles without any discernible improvement in the quality of instruction or research.
The university at Taxila was disrupted around the 5th-century CE, as the White Hun attacks from Central Asia made knowledge creation and sharing unfeasible. The monks, along with books and centuries-old oral traditions, moved to Nalanda, helping it become the mahavihar (grand monastery). Khilji’s sacking caused an 800-year pause at Nalanda, which was revived in 2010. Taxila, unfortunately, stands no chance of revival.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1904095/taxilas-no-more
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/trade-war-tariff-taxila-egyptian/d/135151
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