Syeda Ishal Fatima Naqvi

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a double-edged sword, especially for a developing nation like Pakistan. While AI promises to revolutionize education, healthcare, and industry, it also poses significant challenges that demand immediate attention.

AI-driven tools can enhance education by personalizing learning, improving accessibility, and equipping students with 21st-century skills. However, its unchecked growth could worsen unemployment and raise ethical concerns regarding data privacy and algorithmic bias.

Pakistan must act decisively. Policymakers need to create AI-friendly regulations, ensure inclusive access, and invest in AI education and research. At the same time, addressing ethical dilemmas and preparing the workforce for an AI-dominated future are equally critical. Without a balanced approach, the promises of AI could turn into pitfalls, leaving us vulnerable in an increasingly automated world.

The influence of AI relies on how we choose to use it. AI is neither fundamentally good nor bad. Now is the moment to take action.

Syeda Ishal Fatima Naqvi
[email protected]
HITEC University Taxila

By: Qamar Bashir

Macomb, Detroit, Michigan

After the nationwide abhorrent terrorist attacks in the USA, President-elect Donald Trump painted a grim picture of the country. He stated, “Our country is a disaster, a laughingstock all over the world! This is what happens when you have OPEN BORDERS, with weak, ineffective, and virtually nonexistent leadership.”

He blamed the United States Department of Justice and the FBI for their failure to ensure the safety and security of the American people, criticizing them for not fulfilling their responsibilities of enforcing U.S. laws, overseeing law enforcement, and representing the nation in legal matters, as well as administering justice at a federal level. Trump then added a third culprit to complete the triangle: the “Democrats.” He accused the Democrats of incompetence and corruption, claiming they spent all their time unlawfully attacking their political opponents instead of protecting Americans from violent elements that, according to him, have infiltrated every aspect of the government and the nation itself. He further stated that the Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for allowing such a situation to arise in the country.

Trump warned the CIA to intervene immediately, saying, “NOW, before it is too late.” He concluded his statement by declaring that the USA is breaking down, suffering from “a violent erosion of safety, national security, and democracy” nationwide.

He asserted that only strength and powerful leadership could stop this decline, ending with a pledge: “See you on January 20th. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The big question remains: how does Trump plan to make America great again? In his victory speech after his historic 2024 election win, Trump outlined his ambitious “Agenda 47.” While his policies appear promising on the surface, they carry both anticipated and unforeseen repercussions, not only for the U.S. but also for the rest of the world.

Trump’s top priority is improving the U.S. economy, recognizing that in today’s interconnected world, no country can act alone without risking adverse consequences. He pledged to impose universal tariffs of 10%-20% to protect U.S. industries and address trade imbalances, particularly with China, which accounted for $537 billion in imports to the U.S. in 2022. Tariffs could boost domestic manufacturing by reducing foreign competition but may raise consumer prices, disrupt supply chains, and exacerbate inflation.

On energy policy, Trump pledged to achieve energy independence by rolling back petroleum production regulations, exiting the Paris Agreement, and expediting oil infrastructure projects. This could drive economic growth, create jobs, and enhance energy security, strengthening the U.S. as a major energy exporter. However, it may increase carbon emissions, environmental harm, and weaken global climate leadership.

Trump’s tax reforms include extending the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, eliminating federal taxes on tips and Social Security income, and making car loan interest fully tax-deductible. These measures aim to boost disposable income, support retirees, and stimulate industries like automotive and hospitality. However, they risk widening the federal deficit, which already exceeds $33 trillion, without corresponding spending cuts or revenue increases.

On immigration, Trump pledged mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, completing the Mexico border wall, reinstating the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. These measures aim to deter illegal immigration but could cause labor shortages, legal challenges under the 14th Amendment, humanitarian concerns, and strained U.S.-Mexico relations.

Trump’s foreign policy priorities include resolving the Ukraine-Russia conflict within 24 hours, reducing involvement in “endless wars,” prioritizing U.S. interests in trade agreements, and pressuring NATO allies to increase defense spending. While these policies could strengthen military readiness and reduce long-term entanglements, critics warn they may alienate allies, destabilize alliances, and oversimplify complex geopolitical issues.

Trump’s foreign policy on Palestine, Syria, and Iran emphasizes a mix of disengagement and assertive measures. He aims to resolve the Gaza conflict and weaken Hamas by targeting Iran’s support network. In Syria, he opposes U.S. military involvement, maintaining it is not America’s fight, even as opposition forces gain ground. Toward Iran, he is likely to revive his “maximum pressure” campaign with stringent sanctions to curb its nuclear ambitions and regional influence. The upside is that it could reduce U.S. military entanglements, weaken adversarial groups like Hamas, and apply economic and diplomatic pressure to contain Iran’s influence. The downside is that the potential destabilization in the region, humanitarian crises from inaction in Syria, and the risk of further isolating the U.S. from diplomatic solutions, potentially exacerbating tensions without resolving underlying conflicts.

He pledged to obliterate the Deep State, downsize bureaucracy, and cut expenditure. The upside is that reducing bureaucratic red tape and government spending could streamline operations, enhance efficiency, and return power to citizens by limiting overreach. Cutting unnecessary expenditures may lower the national debt and improve fiscal responsibility. The downside is that drastic downsizing could lead to the loss of experienced personnel, reduced oversight, and disruption of essential services. Efforts to dismantle the “Deep State” might politicize government institutions, erode trust in public administration, and create instability in critical governance functions.

His other domestic policies are even more sweeping.  He pledged a patriotic curriculum and school choice to promote national unity and empower parents with educational options. The downside is that centralized credentialing and removing federal oversight may create disparities in educational quality across states.

He promised harsh penalties for serious crimes and structured facilities for homelessness could improve public safety and order. The downside is that these measures may oversimplify complex issues, neglect rehabilitation, and raise ethical concerns.

He pledges to improve infrastructure and Urban Development by creating “Freedom Cities” and cultural initiatives to spur innovation, economic growth, and national pride. The downside is that these projects may face high costs, feasibility challenges, and potential public resistance to large-scale federal developments.

When America sneezes, the world catches a cold. The election of Donald Trump has sparked both hope and nervousness within the American nation and across the globe. The entire world waits with bated breath, fingers crossed, to see whether his promises will make America great again or lead to unforeseen consequences. Americans and global observers alike are anxiously anticipating the rollercoaster ride under Trump’s unpredictable, mercurial, and impulsive leadership. This time, he is flanked by figures like Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kash Patel—business leaders and technocrats with proven records of success and remarkable achievements. Let us hope his presidency not only revitalizes the United States but also creates a better world for everyone.

By: Qamar Bashir

Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

Former Press Minister at Embassy of Pakistan to France

Former MD, SRBC

Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer

South Korea’s reliance on the United States to counter the nuclear threat posed by North Korea has been a cornerstone of its national security strategy for decades. The alliance between Seoul and Washington, solidified by the 1953 defense pact following the Korean War armistice, has long provided South Korea with a sense of security under the American nuclear umbrella. However, this assurance is increasingly being called into question due to both North Korea’s expanding capabilities and shifting dynamics in U.S. foreign policy. North Korea’s nuclear ambitions date back to the Cold War era, culminating in its first successful nuclear test in 2006. Since then, Pyongyang has not only advanced its nuclear arsenal but also developed intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology capable of reaching American cities. This development raises significant doubts about whether the United States would risk nuclear retaliation to defend South Korea in the event of a conflict. North Korea’s growing capabilities have introduced a new level of uncertainty into the U.S.-South Korea alliance, as the potential costs of American intervention now include direct threats to U.S. soil. Compounding these concerns is the potential return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency. During his first term, Trump openly criticized the U.S.-South Korea alliance, framing it in transactional terms and suggesting that the United States bore an undue burden in the partnership. His statements and actions during that time, including private remarks about dismantling the alliance, have fueled apprehension in Seoul about the reliability of American commitments under his leadership. Trump’s approach underscores broader concerns about the United States’ willingness to honor its defense obligations, especially in the face of existential nuclear threats from Pyongyang. These developments have driven South Korea to reconsider its longstanding reliance on the U.S. nuclear umbrella. The increasing fragility of this arrangement has led to growing support within South Korea for developing an independent nuclear arsenal. Public opinion surveys reveal a significant shift in attitudes: a 2021 poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs found that 71% of South Koreans favor nuclearization, a notable increase from 56% in 2010. This growing public support reflects deep-seated concerns about the reliability of U.S. commitments and the pressing need to address the asymmetric nuclear threat posed by North Korea.

Despite the domestic momentum behind nuclearization, the primary obstacle remains international opposition, particularly from the United States. Washington has consistently opposed nuclear proliferation, even among its allies, and has worked to dissuade Seoul from pursuing an independent nuclear capability. The Biden administration, for instance, has sought to reassure South Korea by reaffirming its security commitments through joint declarations and increased military presence in the region. However, these measures fall short of addressing the core issue: whether the United States would truly risk nuclear retaliation to defend its ally. The debate over South Korea’s nuclearization highlights the limitations of extended deterrence in the current geopolitical context. During the Cold War, similar doubts were expressed by U.S. allies in Europe, who questioned whether Washington would “trade New York for Paris” in a nuclear standoff. Today, South Koreans face a comparable dilemma, exacerbated by the unprecedented nature of the North Korean threat. Unlike other nuclear-armed states, Pyongyang’s regime is uniquely vulnerable to conventional military defeat, making it more likely to resort to nuclear weapons in a conflict. This heightened risk underscores the need for South Korea to reassess its security strategy. Proponents of South Korean nuclearization argue that an independent arsenal would enhance regional stability by creating nuclear parity on the Korean Peninsula. A self-reliant South Korea would be better positioned to deter North Korean aggression without relying on potentially unreliable American guarantees. Moreover, a nuclear South Korea could free the United States to focus on its broader strategic priorities in East Asia, particularly its competition with China. Historical precedents, such as U.S. alliances with nuclear-armed Britain and France, demonstrate that Washington can maintain strong ties with allied nations that possess independent nuclear capabilities. Critics of South Korean nuclearization, however, caution against its potential consequences for the international nonproliferation regime. They argue that South Korea’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) could set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other countries to follow suit. Nonetheless, advocates counter that the unique circumstances of the Korean Peninsula, marked by the acute and asymmetric threat from North Korea, justify an exception. Furthermore, they contend that South Korea’s democratic governance and responsible stewardship of advanced technologies make it a trustworthy nuclear power.

In practical terms, South Korea’s path to nuclearization would not require an arsenal comparable to those of great powers like the United States or Russia. A modest stockpile of approximately 100 warheads, coupled with existing delivery systems such as fighter jets and submarines, would suffice to establish credible deterrence against North Korea. This limited capability would address the immediate security challenges without escalating regional tensions unnecessarily. The urgency of this debate is underscored by North Korea’s rapid advancements in nuclear and missile technologies. Under Kim Jong Un’s leadership, Pyongyang has conducted multiple nuclear tests and developed a range of delivery systems, including short-, medium-, and long-range missiles. The regime’s recent efforts to miniaturize nuclear warheads, pursue hypersonic missile technology, and deploy submarine-launched ballistic missiles further exacerbate the security dilemma faced by South Korea. These developments, combined with North Korea’s increasingly aggressive rhetoric, underscore the inadequacy of existing deterrence mechanisms. The Washington Declaration of 2023, which established a U.S.-South Korean Nuclear Consultative Group, represents a step toward addressing Seoul’s security concerns. However, its provisions fall short of resolving the fundamental issue of extended deterrence. The declaration’s emphasis on rotational deployments and consultation mechanisms does little to mitigate the underlying doubts about U.S. willingness to risk nuclear retaliation for South Korea’s defense. As long as these doubts persist, the debate over South Korea’s nuclearization will remain a central issue in the country’s national security discourse.

The evolving security landscape on the Korean Peninsula demands a reexamination of South Korea’s defense strategy. The combination of North Korea’s expanding nuclear capabilities and uncertainties about U.S. commitments has created a pressing need for South Korea to explore alternative security arrangements. While the prospect of nuclearization raises complex challenges, it also offers a potential solution to the asymmetry that currently destabilizes the region. For South Korea, achieving greater self-reliance in its national defense may be the only viable path to ensuring its long-term security in an increasingly uncertain world.