other blogs

Zorain Nizamani’s “It is Over” captures the growing frustration of the young generation toward a seemingly unresponsive and outdated political and institutional order. His argument resonates with many: there is a disconnect between the youth’s aspirations and the establishment’s inertia. However, the claim that the generational contract is broken beyond repair may be premature. It’s not over yet. Beneath the noise of cynicism and disillusionment lies an undercurrent of transformation, collaboration, and constructive activism redefining civic engagement in the 21st century.

Over the last six months Afghanistan diplomacy has evolved into a pattern of steady engagement marked by frequent meetings targeted outreach and a deliberate effort to appear as a functioning and predictable state actor. Rather than dramatic diplomatic announcements the period has been defined by continuous contact with regional and international actors as reflected in official meetings hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kabul and through sustained telephonic diplomacy. These engagements together provide a clearer picture of where Afghanistan foreign relations are heading and what limits continue to shape them.

China’s evolving connectivity strategy from BRI 2.0’s economic corridors to the Global Security Initiative’s security architecture reflects Beijing’s ambition to shape a stable, multi-polar world order while expanding influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe through integrated development and security frameworks.

The Pakistan foreign policy has been languishing in a Principal-Agent relationship with the US over the decades. The needs of aid dependency and counter-terrorism have essentially weakened national sovereignty to the point where the strategic interests of the Islamabad government are subjected to the regional ambitions of Washington

The perpetual crisis on the Durand Line between Pakistan and Afghanistan is fueled by Kabul’s ideological rejection of the border that is rooted in irredentism, and damaged by Islamabad’s internal incoherence, preventing a realistic resolution to the TTP-driven security dilemma.

The EU approach to the Russia-Ukraine war is a mixture of sanctions, military and financial aid to the Ukrainian government, diversification of the European energy sources, humanitarian intervention, and long-term security planning to enhance the stability of Europe and to defeat the aggression of Russia.

EU Strategic Autonomy is the ambition of Europe to act on its own in terms of defense, technology, economy and in world affairs. Sweden is empowering the EU to respond to crisis and protect the sovereignty and resilience by joining NATO through integration and technological capabilities.

The possible deployment of Pakistani troops to Gaza represents a landmark decision in Pakistan’s foreign policy and must be guided by the principles of legality, legitimacy, and a clear humanitarian focus. While moral duty and long-standing historical ties with the Palestinian people may encourage active engagement, concerns over operational risks, political fragility, and the complex dynamics of regional powers warrant caution. Any use of force should occur strictly within a UN-backed multilateral framework, with a mandate limited to humanitarian purposes and full parliamentary approval. Without these safeguards, such a move could undermine Pakistan’s international credibility, strain its security posture, and risk unnecessary military involvement. Therefore, a prudent approach combining effective diplomacy, sustained humanitarian assistance, and strictly regulated peacekeeping would best preserve Pakistan’s moral authority, safeguard its national interests, promote long-term regional stability, and meaningfully alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people.

Few conflicts have captured global attention for as long, and with as much moral weight, as the Israeli–Palestinian struggle. Each side claims legitimacy grounded in history, law, and justice. Yet, as this comparative analysis shows, the Palestinian and Israeli perspectives operate within fundamentally different frameworks: one seeks liberation from occupation, the other the preservation of sovereignty and security. Using a comparative methodology allows us to examine the assumptions, values, and contradictions that shape both narratives and how they interact with international law and global ethics.

In the chorography of global politics, Pakistan’s foreign policy has experienced the burden of previous decades of turbulence, missed opportunities, and irrelevancies. After years of defensive measures, Islamabad is now unveiling itself as an assertive, cooperative, and indispensable partner at both regional and global levels. Before Marka-e-Haq, the country had remained quite sidelined in the theatre of international politics. However, since May 2025, after the victory of Operation Bunyan ul Marsos, it has actively engaged in intensive bilateral and multilateral engagements with all major powers across the globe to achieve tangible national interests. In this regard, Pakistan’s engagement with China, the USA, and bilateral cooperation with Russia, as well as in the Muslim world, is meticulously planned to secure the country’s economic and political interests.