By: C Shraddha

The relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia is one of historical richness. This can be mapped back to the 7th century when the archipelagos were indispensable parts of ancient kingdoms and empires of Majapahit, Johor-Riau, Aceh and Srivijaya. As the colonial powers spread their reign across continents, they carved up territories in Indonesia and Malaysia through different treaties. In 1641, Malaya fell into the reign of the Dutch, who were succeeded by the British Empire in 1824 through the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. Under the treaty, Malaya was to be under the governance of the United Kingdom, while the East Indies was dominated by the Dutch.

The region witnessed shifting power dynamics throughout the war. During World War 2, Japanese forces had a stronghold over Malaya and the East Indies. However, this proved to be futile when the brutal defeat of the Japanese forces in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined with the rise of nationalism within the East Indies, led to the declaration of independence by Soekarno and Mohammad Hatta. However, despite their efforts, the Dutch forces were fixated on recolonising the region. What followed was a violent four-year war from 1945 to 1949, which ended with the transfer of sovereignty from the Netherlands to Indonesia during the Dutch-Indonesian Round Table Conference.

The life of the archipelago was navigated by the Malay way of life, which consisted of three primary elements- the language, the religion of Islam, and the notion of the Kingdom. Adhering to the structures of a kingdom, the dominant ethnic community in the archipelagic Southeast Asia spoke the Malay language and followed Islam. Because of their interlinked identities, leaders of newly independent Malaysia and Indonesia shared familiar strategic apprehensions of the regional order. The leaders viewed the region as a singular unit represented and protected by the Malay World. Nevertheless, this common outlook marked the extent of their strategic alignment.

The two nations differed widely on their strategic interests. Indonesia viewed itself as the superior nation due to its momentous independence struggle, its territorial vastness and population density. Malaysia faded further into the background as the Soekarno regime asserted its dominance in a bid to establish Indonesia’s strategic foothold over archipelagic Southeast Asia. In his eyes, the two countries lacked any common strategic interest. Indonesia did not consider Malaysia powerful or capable enough to be perceived as a reliable ally. So, instead, they aimed to overpower Malaysia.

Malayan leaders, however, opted for a contrary stance. They believed that the survival and security of the archipelagos depended on each other. In 1963, then-Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman expressed the country’s interest “to forge the closest links with Indonesia.” Common identities and shared strategic interests became the pillars on which these imagined ties were placed. For the leaders, Indonesia was not only their nearest neighbour, rather they shared deep “sentimental and blood ties” with each other. However, their geographical proximity to Indonesia facilitated the realization of mutual strategic dependence. 

The sheer influence and power possessed by Indonesia could be observed in the way it unintentionally impacted Malaysia’s foreign policy. Their two common links inculcated an understanding of the necessity of the Malay Archipelago for the survival of the states, the geographical expanse of Indonesia necessitating Malaysia to establish itself closer. “As we were too small to stand alone, our only hope for security was to live in close association with Indonesia in particular, and other countries in Southeast Asia in general,” Tunku expressed. Their need to position themselves closer to Indonesia generated unified aspirations of peace.

To maintain and promote peace, cooperation, and stability in Southeast Asia, they established the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1967, along with the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore. This period in the Indonesia-Malaysia relationship was “marked by friendship, harmony and cooperation.” The newly established Suharto government aimed to reverse the old ways of political confrontation with Malaysia and actively engage in building regional cooperation. Considered to be the most influential player in Southeast Asia, the country’s involvement in the establishment of ASEAN undoubtedly ensured harmony and stability in the region.  

Despite their commitment to uphold ASEAN goals, the Indonesia-Malaysia relationship is not one without skirmishes. Sipadan and Ligitan, two islands in the Sulawesi Sea, became the epicentre of the territorial dispute between the two nations. Although territorially compact, the question regarding the ownership of these Islands and the continental shelf consequently led to the involvement of international bodies. The negotiations reached an impasse as both sides insisted on using maps that excluded each other’s claim to the two islands. Consequently, in 1969, all negotiations were suspended as Indonesians claimed that it was beyond their power to negotiate the sovereignty of the Islands. For the Indonesians, the questions regarding the ownership of the Islands were to be left unsettled while maintaining the status quo. However, as far as Malaysian negotiators were concerned, the Sipadan and Ligitan belonged to Malaysia.

In December 1979, the Malaysian government issued a new map that showed Sipadan and Ligitan as part of their territory, thus publicizing the dispute. By February of the following year, the Indonesian government “formally objected to the new map”. However, the resulting discussions between President Soeharto and Prime Minister Hussein Onn failed to resolve the territorial dispute. Subsequently, the usage of the Islands by private dive companies, rising ownership claims over the territory by Malaysia and violation of status-quo led the countries to consult the International Court of Justice in 2002. The sixteen-to-one ruling of the court under Judge Shigeru Oda favoured Malaysia’s claims to the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan.

The presence of undocumented Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia has emerged as another point of contention between the two countries. Conversely, the harsh treatment of Indonesian formal and informal sector labourers by Malaysian employers, combined with the inaction of the Malay government in protecting the exploited, has further aggravated this relationship. The labour movement of Indonesian workers to Malaysia accelerated in the aftermath of the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis as the country’s rapid modernisation and development during the 1980s and 1990s rendered it an attractive site for impoverished Indonesian workers. However, the influx of Indonesian workers coincided with an increase in crime rates in Malaysia, specifically in the 1990s. Indonesian migrants were convicted of various crimes, including petty theft, rape, robberies and murders. In 2001 alone, approximately 1,051 Indonesian workers were arrested for such offences. Additionally, Malaysian forces also discovered the smuggling of weapons in illegal migrant squatter camps throughout Peninsular and East Malaysia. Notably, an estimate showcases that up to 36 per cent of prison inmates throughout Malaysia are illegal Indonesian immigrants.

The rising workers, illegal and otherwise, seemingly altered the social fabric of the Malay way of life. The assimilation of Indonesian immigrants into the community and identity raised concerns amongst the Islam-following citizens as the former used shared ethnicity and language as a strategy to proselytise the Malay society. This was perceived as a substantial threat to the culture and identity of the nation, to the extent that a Malaysian Cabinet Minister described it as the “biggest threat facing Muslims in Malaysia today.” While both countries have undertaken several legislations to reduce the flow of illegal workers across the borders, the economic disparity and demand for cheap labour have rendered the efforts inadequate.

The relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia is historically intertwined. This interconnectedness has given birth to differential claims of ownership over certain cultures and traditions. The cultural disagreement started in 2007 when a Malaysian Ministry of Tourism ‘Malaysia Truly Asia’ campaign included the Indonesian Reog Ponorogo dance and the traditional Rasa Sayange song. This angered the Indonesian public, who accused Malaysia of appropriating and claiming their cultural heritage.

Another dispute arose in 2009 when a documentary on Malaysian cultural heritage titled ‘Enigmatic Malaysia’ showcased a clip of Pendet dance from Bali. Soon, protests erupted across Indonesia for misrepresenting and claiming unlawful ownership over their culture. Soon after, the Malaysian Minister of Culture and Tourism apologised to their Indonesian counterpart. However, the apology was criticised by certain members of the Indonesian government, who considered it to be insufficient in proportion to the actions committed.

However, the behaviour of the governments in dealing with matters of cultural heritage has shifted significantly over the years. In 2020, Indonesia and Malaysia jointly nominated Pantun, a traditional form of poetry, to UNESCO for its addition to the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of Humanity at the ICH Intergovernmental Committee sessions in France and Jamaica. This was the first time both governments had jointly proposed a cultural heritage. Now, Pantun has officially become Indonesia and Malaysia’s first shared cultural heritage added to the ICH list.

Over the years, the relationship between the two archipelagos has become more amicable. On January 27, 2025, Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto was honoured with the Darjah Kerabat Johor Yang Amat Dihormati Pangkat Pertama or The Most Esteemed Royal Family Order of Johor award from the Johor Kingdom during a state visit. The award was presented by Malaysia’s King, the 17th Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Sultan Ibrahim, at the country’s national palace.

The state visit reflected the renewed interests of both countries to ensure strong bilateral relations. Ever since his inauguration, Prabowo has visited Malaysia multiple times, indicating the country’s need to maintain amicable relations with its neighbour. During a recent media briefing, Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, called Prabowo a “close friend”, while the latter expressed that he views the archipelagos as “strong regional partners with the same interests as the ASEAN founder.”

Economic cooperation has become a cornerstone in strengthening the peaceful ties between the two nations. In 2022, the countries surpassed US$ 27 billion in bilateral trade, with palm oil, electronics and petroleum products topping the list. From April 2024 to April 2025, the exports of Indonesia to Malaysia increased by 6.55 per cent, while imports increased by 17.2 per cent. The status of the two countries as renowned palm oil producers was reflected in the 2025 year-on-year growth in Indonesia’s export to Malaysia, with the export of Palm oil growing by 846 per cent. Regardless of past disputes in the palm oil sector, both countries have undertaken efforts to ensure sustainable palm oil practices, including the establishment of Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil (MSPO) and Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO) certification programmes.

The Indonesia- Malaysia relationship is one rooted in centuries of shared history, community, geography and identity. While this relationship has witnessed its fair share of friction and competition, both nations have increasingly prioritised cooperation. They recognise each other’s importance in ensuring peace, stability, and security in the Southeast Asian region. In the ASEAN spirit of dialogue and non-confrontation, the nations have not only managed to address sensitive issues diplomatically but have also continued to ensure cooperation with each other on regional matters. While old tensions may not fully disappear, continued diplomatic measures, shared regional aspirations, economic interdependence, and a unique cultural identity shared between the two neighbours ensure the possibility of a prosperous and united future.

By: Chethana Enugula

The current Bangladesh-Myanmar tensions have become a matter of urgent regional concern, developing out of decades-long ethnic conflict, political unrest, and humanitarian disasters. Since 2023, these tensions have been simmering greatly as the internal conflict in Myanmar, most notably in Rakhine State, has gotten worse. In the case of Bangladesh, the stakes are high-border security risks, the increase in displaced populations, diplomatic challenges, and socio-political  pressure.

Coming together simultaneously, with both nations struggling to contain these complex challenges, the development is attracting global attention to the peace and stability in the region.

Historical Context of Bilateral Tensions

The origins of the present crisis lie deep in the region’s colonial and post-colonial history. Myanmar, Burma, has historically grappled with internal ethnicity, especially in the western Rakhine State that borders Bangladesh. Rohingya Muslims have been the minority group involved in this confrontation. The Rohingya are regarded as stateless under the Myanmar citizenship law of 1982; they have been the victims of systematic discrimination and regular military campaigns.

The latest and most intense of them took place in 2017, when a vicious campaign by the Myanmar military, Tatmadaw, displaced more than 700,000 Rohingya across the border into Bangladesh’s Cox’s Bazar. This exodus formed one of the largest refugee camps in the world and tested the humanitarian capacity of Bangladesh. The situation has not been resolved yet despite multiple attempts at repatriation and international mediation. Myanmar has rejected assurances to take back the Rohingya refugees, who are stateless and reliant on aid, and are still in limbo.

Myanmar Civil War and The Emergence of the Arakan Army

In February 2021, the internal politics of Myanmar experienced a big shakeup as the military couped the democratically elected government. The result has since then seen the country sink into a full-scale civil conflict. The ethnic armed organizations (EAOs) and the pro-democracy forces have stepped up the struggle against the junta.

One such group that has gathered momentum is the Arakan Army (AA), an ethnic Rakhine armed group. They were initially established to seek more autonomy rights for the Rakhine people, but it has taken advantage of the mayhem to increase their territorial gains. Towards the end of 2024, the AA had seized the majority of Rakhine State, including regions adjacent to the Bangladesh border, which replaced the Myanmar military forces in these regions. Bangladesh has been experiencing both opportunities and risks because of this power shift, which has brought a new non-state actor to its southeastern border.

Recent Development along the Bangladesh-Myanmar Border

The current escalation of the tension is due to the direct spillover of the Myanmar internal conflict onto Bangladeshi soil. Artillery shells, mortars, and stray bullets amid the confrontations between the Myanmar military and the Arakan Army have been entering Bangladesh territory since late 2023. There were several reported cases in the border regions, such as Bandarban and Teknaf, where civilians were wounded and houses were destroyed. Landmines along the border have also led to the injury of Bangladeshi nationals, triggering concern about the security of the civilians.

The second important event was the infiltration of the Myanmar Border Guard Police (BGP) into Bangladesh. Hundreds of BGP officers crossed the border into Bangladesh and were arrested by the Bangladesh forces in early 2024, when the AA began a large offensive in Maungdaw. Most of them were eventually repatriated; however, the incident highlighted the unstable situation in the conflict and the susceptibility of Bangladesh to any instability of its neighbor.

The New Development with the Arakan Army

The Arakan Army has turned into a de facto authority over Rakhine. Realizing this fact, Bangladesh has started low-key, unofficial talks with the group. There have been reports that backchannel communication has taken place to maintain stability along the borders and the avoidance of additional shelling, and also the release of captured Bangladeshi soldiers.

The involvement of the AA has become a matter of official record in Bangladesh, where a National Security Advisor, Dr. Khalilur Rahman, and other officials, such as the Foreign Affairs Adviser, Md. Towhid Hossain has openly admitted that they must continue reaching out to the AA. According to them, the non-state actor is a necessity to the national interests of Bangladesh, judging by the fact that the central Myanmar government no longer has control of the entire border; therefore, border security and Rohingya repatriation are necessary.

Nevertheless, such involvement is not risk-free. The AA is alleged to violate human rights, especially of Rohingya civilians. In mid-2024, Human rights groups documented that AA forces killed hundreds of Rohingya in Buthidaung, by drone and artillery attacks. Such activities put Bangladesh in a difficult situation – any association with the AA has to be balanced with the ethical and diplomatic repercussions of involving itself with an entity that is allegedly involved in war crimes.

Humanitarian Impact and Refugee Crisis

Humanitarian impacts of such tensions are enormous. There are more than one million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh living in overcrowded refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar. As fresh violence has erupted in Rakhine, a greater number of Rohingya have tried to cross the border. Bangladesh, in its turn, has adopted a sterner position- its troops have repelled newcomers, arguing that they lack the capacity and are afraid of increasing lawlessness in the camps.

The situation in the camps has been getting worse, and now violence, drug trafficking, and the activities of armed Rohingya groups, including the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) and Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO), are on the rise. In January 2025, Bangladesh security services detained ARSA chief Ataullah Abu Ammar Jununi, dealt a major setback to militant circuits within the camps. However, the existence of these groups remains a major threat to the security of the camps and the stability of the region.

Diplomatic and Regional Responses

On the diplomatic front, Bangladesh has protested several times to the Myanmar government regarding cross-border shelling and failure to control refugees. There has been little substantive dialogue, though. Myanmar, preoccupied with its internal conflicts, is in a state of diplomatic isolation and has been incapable of, or perhaps unwilling to, address the concerns of Bangladesh.

India and China have taken a reserved stance in the region. India, which faces insurgency issues in the Northeast and has infrastructure stakes in the Kaladan projects, is closely monitoring the situation. China is an old partner of the Myanmar military and has profound interests in Rakhine, especially in the Kyaukphyu port. The territorial gains by the AA are now threatening these investments. Such has been the stake of both powers, though they have been reluctant to intervene or even mediate directly in the bilateral tensions between Bangladesh and Myanmar.

The United States and international bodies like the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have shown concern, especially on the humanitarian consequences. There has been some reported coordination of the intelligence services of Bangladesh and the U.S., and this hints at an increasing level of strategic interest in maintaining regional stability.

Security Measures and Border Management

Bangladesh has strongly enhanced its border security on the ground. Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) has undertaken augmented patrolling and monitoring, especially in the vulnerable sectors. The Army has been carrying out army readiness drills, too, and the Navy has increased patrols of the Naf River, where the maritime clashes and the detention of Bangladeshi fishermen by AA forces have taken place.

Demining of civilian places is also being undertaken, with early warning signs being given to communities living along the borders. Nevertheless, the risk of violence, both unintentional and deliberate, is great. The absence of a proper ceasefire/ceasing or an agreement with the AA makes it difficult to establish peace along the border in a long-term perspective.

The Balancing Act of Bangladesh: Security, Sovereignty and Human Rights

Bangladesh is currently in a harsh balancing game. On the one side, it has to assert its territorial integrity and save its nationals against the consequences of the civil war in Myanmar. On the one hand, there is pressure to comply with international human rights standards, especially regarding the protection of refugees.

Bangladesh is trying to stabilize the situation pragmatically by coming into contact with the AA on an informal basis. There is, however, also the risk of legitimizing a non-state actor that is accused of serious abuses. In addition, the move to reject new refugees has led to criticism by humanitarian organizations claiming that it is leaving the vulnerable groups to die in war-torn regions.

Bangladesh should also take care that its internal stability is not jeopardized. Militant networks present in Rohingya camps, the increase in crime, and political opposition using the refugee issue on the domestic political agenda all present possible challenges to the national unity and security of Dhaka.

Looking Ahead: Possible Scenarios and Strategic Options

In the future, Bangladesh-Myanmar relations will heavily rely on the course of the internal conflict in Myanmar. In case the junta keeps losing its territory, the AA or some other ethnic armed organizations could become the leading forces in western Myanmar. In this instance, possibly amid international supervision, the goal is to stabilize the border and aim at Rohingya repatriation.

At the humanitarian level, the international community urgently needs to help give more aid to refugee camps in Bangladesh. More to the point, alternative repatriation or resettlement frameworks, including possible third countries or UN-controlled safe areas, are to be designed.

Bangladesh also needs to invest in long-term security relations with its neighbors and strategic partners. Sharing of intelligence, combined surveillance, and application of diplomatic pressure in unison on the stakeholders of Myanmar can assist in averting a full-scale crisis in the region. The present conflict is not merely a bilateral issue- It is a regional and international problem that needs to be solved with multilateral and international problem that needs to be solved with multilateral approaches.

Conclusion

The Bangladesh-Myanmar tensions demonstrate a highly sophisticated and developing crisis on the verge of war, and displacement, diplomacy, and defending its borders, but also on how to fulfil its humanitarian obligations without jeopardizing the security of the nation. The danger of failing to do so is becoming increasingly obvious as the Arakan Army gains more territory and the civil conflict in Myanmar shows no signs of stopping.

Bangladesh has been practical and strong in wading through these troubled waters. But the way ahead will be full of delicate diplomacy, prolonged humanitarian assistance, and renewed determination towards peace in the region. The stakes are high not only in the case of Bangladesh and Myanmar but also for the larger stability in South and Southeast Asia.

By: Ahana Sarkar

The connection between Pakistan and the United States changed much over the decades; it had times of close partnership and periods of strained ties. This bond started during the Cold War. At that time, Pakistan stood with the U.S. against the spread of communism. Membership in the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO), in addition to the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in the 1950s, showed Pakistan’s part as a strategic ally. Over time, their connection grew. It came to include large economic help packages, military help, along with working together on counter-terrorism – this was especially true after September 11, 2001. These events showed how important their partnership was on regional plus global stages.

This close tie had its difficulties. The United States often saw Pakistan as its strategic goal. However, tried to balance its country’s interests, which included ties with India in addition to China. This situation caused questions about the type of their relationship.

The early years of Pakistan-USA relations were shaped by the Cold War. In the 1950s, Pakistan became a U.S. ally to counter Soviet influence in South Asia. Pakistan joined the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in September 1954 and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) in 1955. These alliances put Pakistan in the Western camp and gave it military and economic aid in return for its cooperation. For Pakistan, it was not only to strengthen its defence but also to counter its regional rival, India.

The partnership grew during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan and access to key routes made it a must-have for the U.S. Under General Zia’s regime, Pakistan played a key role in supporting Afghan mujahideen fighters who were funded and armed by the Americans. This period cemented Pakistan’s image as a frontline state against Soviet expansion. But while the U.S. benefited from Pakistan’s geography, this partnership left Pakistan to deal with the long-term consequences – the proliferation of militant groups and the influx of Afghan refugees.

After September 11, 2001, the dynamics of Pakistan-U.S. relations changed overnight. Pakistan became a key player in the U.S.-led War on Terror, and its cooperation was seen as essential to uprooting terrorist networks in the region. The partnership was a mix of collaboration and strain as Pakistan got military and economic aid in return for its efforts against extremist groups. Despite common goals, tensions arose over allegations of Pakistan’s double-dealing; supporting counter-terrorism on one hand and allegedly maintaining ties with certain militant groups for strategic purposes.

These historical facts show a relationship built on strategic necessity and mutual benefit but one that has also been marked by mistrust and unintended consequences. Each phase of this partnership highlights the complex geopolitics that have defined Pakistan-U.S. relations over the years. Pakistan and the U.S. have had multiple areas of collaboration, often defined by shared interests and geopolitics. While transactional at times, these have also created opportunities for both countries. One of the most prominent has been military and strategic cooperation.

From joint military operations to intelligence sharing, the U.S. and Pakistan have worked together on security. During the War on Terror, Pakistan gave the U.S. access to its air bases and supply routes to support its military operations in Afghanistan. They have also done joint exercises and training programs to strengthen counter-terrorism capabilities. While this has given strategic benefits, it has not been without its challenges, as different priorities and mutual suspicions have sometimes strained the relationship.

Economic aid and development are another key area of Pakistan-U.S.A. cooperation. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has played a big role in funding projects to improve Pakistan’s infrastructure, education and health systems. Over the years, USAID programs have supported building schools, enhancing teacher training and providing scholarships to under-served communities. In health, efforts to combat polio and improve maternal and child health have been notable. Large infrastructure projects like dams and roads have also been undertaken with U.S. assistance to contribute to Pakistan’s economic development. But the effectiveness of aid has often been questioned, as it is often tied to broader political objectives.

Cultural and academic exchanges have fostered people-to-people connections and enriched the relationship between the two countries. Programs like the Fulbright scholarship have allowed Pakistani students to study in the U.S., creating opportunities for cultural exchange and mutual understanding. Similarly, U.S.-funded initiatives like English language training and leadership programs have empowered Pakistani youth. The vibrant Pakistani diaspora in the U.S. has further strengthened this bond, contributing to American society while maintaining close ties to their heritage. Cultural programs and partnerships in the arts have also bridged gaps, showcasing the shared values and diverse traditions of both countries. These areas of cooperation show the multiple dimensions of Pakistan-U.S.A. relations. While driven by strategic goals, these have also contributed to development and understanding. Despite the complexities that underlie this relationship, these collaborative initiatives can help build a more stable and constructive relationship.

Despite decades of working together, Pakistan-U.S. relations are full of problems and tensions that often overshadow their commonalities. These issues stem from deep-seated mistrust, divergent national interests and economic dependency.

One of the biggest issues is the trust deficit between the two countries. Over the years, allegations of Pakistan’s support to militant groups like the Taliban and the Haqqani network have strained its relations with the U.S. Pakistan has consistently denied these charges, but its use of certain factions to maintain influence in Afghanistan has fed into Washington’s suspicions. High-profile incidents like the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad on May 2, 2011, have further deepened this mistrust. For Pakistan, the U.S.’s transactional approach to the relationship, prioritising short-term goals over long-term partnership, has often made it feel undervalued or used.

Divergent priorities also pose a big challenge. While the U.S. has focused on counter-terrorism and stability in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s regional priorities are centred around its rivalry with India. This was evident during the U.S. war in Afghanistan, where Pakistan was accused of playing a “double game” by supporting the U.S. while harbouring insurgents to counter Indian influence in the region. Similarly, the U.S.’s growing strategic partnership with India, especially in defence and trade, has heightened Pakistan’s anxieties. These conflicting interests make it hard to build a relationship based on trust and shared objectives.

Economic dependencies have also complicated the partnership. Aid has been tied to specific security objectives and has often been seen to serve U.S. interests more than Pakistan’s long-term development. Critics argue that this approach undermines Pakistan’s sovereignty and makes it dependent on external assistance rather than sustainable economic growth. Pakistan has failed to leverage this aid effectively, with some funds being diverted to non-developmental purposes or not reaching the intended beneficiaries.

These challenges highlight the complexity of Pakistan-U.S. relations, which are a mix of cooperation and competition. We need not only to talk but also to move beyond transactional interactions to a more equal and strategic partnership. Until these underlying issues are resolved, the relationship will be shaped as much by its challenges as by its achievements.

The relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. has always been a delicate balance of give and take. Both countries get a lot out of the partnership, even if the reasons for cooperation are often practical. For the U.S., Pakistan is a gateway to South Asia, the Middle East and Central Asia. It’s a key partner in counter-terrorism and a regional stabiliser. For Pakistan, U.S. military aid, economic support, and diplomatic backing have strengthened its defence and its standing on the global stage.

But the partnership is often seen as transactional, not sentimental. Each country prioritises its own interests and aligns with the other only when it serves its goals. For instance, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and later the War on Terror, the U.S. relied heavily on Pakistan’s cooperation, while Pakistan used these moments to get financial and military aid in U.S. dollars. But this pragmatic approach has sometimes left both sides feeling shortchanged as their broader expectations of loyalty and commitment are not met. The impact of this relationship goes beyond bilateral ties and affects regional politics in big ways. In South Asia, Pakistan’s alignment with the U.S. has fuelled its rivalry with India, especially as the U.S. has moved closer to India in recent years. This dynamic complicates regional peace efforts.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Pakistan’s strategic importance and its ties with countries like Saudi Arabia make it a valuable partner for the U.S. in managing conflicts and maintaining stability. Looking ahead, the future of Pakistan-U.S.A. relations is uncertain. Will their partnership deepen into a more stable and genuine alliance, or will it remain transactional and short-term? Much depends on the evolving global order, U.S. foreign policy priorities and Pakistan’s ability to redefine its role in the world. For now, their relationship seems to straddle the line between strategic alliance and transactional convenience, a balancing act that reflects the complexity of modern geopolitics.

Pakistan and the U.S. have been on a long and winding road, driven by history, strategic interests and global trends. From the Cold War alliances of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) to the cooperation during the Soviet-Afghan war and the War on Terror, their relationship has developed out of necessity and convenience. While areas like military cooperation, economic aid and cultural exchanges have brought them closer, mistrust, divergent priorities and economic dependence have often tested the relationship.

In my view, the closeness between Pakistan and the U.S. is a combination of pragmatism and strategy, not a deep and lasting alliance. The partnership has given benefits to both, but its transactional nature and lack of shared long-term goals are limiting its potential to become more cohesive. This is the reality of international relations where interests trump sentiment.

As the world is becoming more multipolar, the alliances like Pakistan-U.S. are under growing pressure. The rise of new global powers, regional realignments and internal political shifts in both countries make it harder to sustain a purely interest-driven partnership. But by having open dialogue and finding common ground on issues like economic development, counter-terrorism and regional stability, the two can move towards a more constructive relationship.

In the end the Pakistan-U.S. relationship is a reminder of the complexities of international partnerships. It may never become a perfect alliance but it can become a practical and respectful engagement, one that acknowledges differences and works towards shared goals in a changing world.

By: Namya Sethi

The Middle East is one of the most important places in the world for culture and history. It is the birthplace of three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It is also where ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia and Egypt lived. Across the past thousand years, the area has had a big effect on art, science, philosophy, and ideas all across the world. But today, most people know it for war, instability, and pain. There is a lot of news about the war in Syria, the fighting in Iraq, the problems in Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian issue and the recent US strikes on Iran apart from the ongoing Israel-Hamas War and the Israel-Iran Conflict.

This makes it hard to understand how strong the people are in terms of art, literature, music, and culture. This focus on violence often ignores the daily lives, hopes, and successes of millions of people who continue to have a positive impact on world culture. To bring sustainable peace to the Middle East, we need more than simply political talks or short-term ceasefires. These steps are important, but they aren’t enough by themselves. For real peace, we need to fully commit to dealing with the core problems. Some of these are education, humanitarian aid, human rights, economic growth, respect for other cultures, and working together with other countries. To halt the bloodshed and sustain the peace, we need to build on these things.

Humanitarian Help in Palestine

The humanitarian crisis in Palestine, especially in Gaza, is one of the worst in the world right now. The area has been ruined by years of fighting, many military activities, and blockades. Gaza is one of the most populous locations on Earth, but its infrastructure is in bad shape, and there isn’t enough clean water or food. Bombings have made things considerably worse by damaging homes, schools, hospitals, and water systems. The kids have the most trouble.

The United Nations (UN) believes that bombings have caused 3,000 to 4,000 youngsters in Gaza to lose limbs. This is the most common place in the world for kids to have their limbs cut off. More than 70,000 children under five are at risk of death and stunted growth because of malnutrition. This is a question of respect and human rights. Rich countries and humanitarian groups need to give the world regular, equitable support. Medical supplies, prosthetics, mental health services, clean water, food aid, and shelter are all needed right away. Not doing anything makes trauma worse, makes people more frustrated, and makes peace less possible.

Because of the war, it has been challenging for students in Gaza to go to school. More than half of the people who live in the region are under 18, and a lot of kids and teens can’t go to school because the schools have been destroyed, damaged, or shuttered. Because of the constant fighting, it’s challenging for students to learn and acquire an education. Students have a tougher time doing well in school when there are too many people in the classroom, they are traumatized, and there aren’t enough resources. Education is highly vital for peace and safety. It gives young people the knowledge, skills, and ability to think critically that they need to make the world a better place. It offers people hope beyond merely getting by and gives the next generation the power to picture and create a better future.

The most important things to do are to rebuild schools, give teachers supplies, instruct them, and make sure everyone is secure. Cycles of violence and poverty will persist without education. Education also helps sustain the peace by teaching people about their rights, how to be involved in democracy, and how to not be a zealot. Girls, refugees, and other groups who are often left out can obtain the same treatment and be part of society through inclusive schools. Also, education encourages dialogue and understanding between different groups of people, which helps break down prejudices and build empathy. Education may change places of conflict into places of hope and strength. It can also help develop leaders who care about justice and getting along with others.

Protecting Creative Voices

The kidnapping of Palestinian director Hamdan Ballal on March 24, 2025 highlights how perilous it is for famous artists to reside in war zones. Ballal was an artist and a cultural ambassador whose work challenged victim tropes and celebrated Palestinian dignity. His kidnapping and reported abuse drew attention to efforts to stop people from expressing themselves culturally all over the world.

Artists play a big role in making peace. They help people understand each other better, make conflicts more human, and fight against oppression. Making them quiet makes the space between them wider. We need cultural freedom and safety from violence to keep the dialog going and people understanding each other.

Governments and international organizations should protect cultural rights and support festivals, exhibitions, and projects that bring people from diverse cultures together. This goes against stereotypes and promotes acceptance. To promote peace, the arts must be free and cultural heritage must be maintained. The region’s enormous diversity may bring people together if innovative voices are protected.

Syria’s Long-Term Growth

The long civil war in Syria has decimated its civilization and infrastructure. Homs and Aleppo are two cities that are in ruins. Many of them are still refugees or people who have been forced to leave their homes and can’t go to school, obtain medical care, or find work.

Most of the time, humanitarian aid has been focused on short-term help, which is vital but not adequate. Syria needs long-term, sustainable growth, which means fixing up homes, infrastructure, and healthcare, as well as creating jobs. Everyone should benefit from economic growth, especially those who are most at risk.

Donors, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and international financial institutions should work together to make communities stronger. They need employment training, business initiatives, and social services to keep young people from going back to violence or being forced to leave their homes. Good administration and political inclusion are crucial to bring back trust and sustain the peace. If systemic problems aren’t fixed, peace can’t last.

Justice and Accountability in Iraq

Iraq still has big difficulties with human rights, like killing people without trial, making people disappear, and violently breaking up protests. These actions violate international law and may constitute crimes against humanity. Putting down protests’ harms democracy and people’s faith in the government.

The UN Human Rights Council needs to investigate into violations and punish the people who did them. Laws need to alter to protect the media, activists, and civil society. Without justice, complaints get worse, which makes everything less stable. Two factors that make peace possible are following the law and respecting human rights.

Transitional justice measures like truth commissions and reparations can help individuals heal.

Promoting autonomous media and civic society helps individuals be honest and talk to one another. For Iraqis to enjoy peace, they need to believe in their government again.

Economic Cooperation as a Path to Peace

Countries that trade, invest, and share infrastructure grow increasingly dependent on each other, which makes it less likely that they will fight. The United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Qatar’s developing economic ties have helped ease tensions and get people talking.

Trade deals, infrastructure projects, and other things that bring economies closer together are all ways to do this.

Everyone benefits from having the same rules. Putting money into energy, transportation, and technology produces jobs and links economies to stability. People are less likely to support extremism and more likely to embrace peace when they see real changes in their lives, such more jobs, better services, and a higher standard of living.

Economic cooperation must promote fair growth, reducing inequality that leads to conflict. Policies that include everyone, help small businesses, and get people ready for jobs make sure that people on the edges get the advantages. A Middle East that is rich and well-connected will be less likely to be violent.

People from all over the world come to the Middle East to see its world heritage sites, such as Egypt’s pyramids, Iran’s mosques, Jordan’s Petra, and extremely old cities. But violence has damaged tourism, costing the area billions of dollars and millions of jobs. Bringing in foreign money, creating jobs, and making public safety and infrastructure better are all ways that tourism can assist bring about peace and progress. Tourism does more than only benefit the economy; it also helps people from different cultures get to know each other better by exhibiting them the area’s rich, nuanced history and lively cultures that go beyond the stories of conflict.

To get more people to visit, governments should spend money on protecting cultural sites, making travel safer, and making it easier to get to locations. To protect cultural sites from being destroyed or stolen and to promote cultural exchange programs that build respect for each other’s cultures, countries need to work together. Tourism is a kind of “soft diplomacy” that helps people get along, changes their minds, and promotes peaceful communication. Supporting sustainable tourism also gives residents in the area a reason to maintain their cultural heritage and work toward social harmony.

Going to school in another country and studying abroad

Young people in the Middle East want to make the world a better place, but they can’t always study abroad because of things like visa restrictions, lack of money, and wars between countries. This makes it tougher for people to talk about their ideas, abilities, and points of view.

Young people can benefit from more scholarships, exchange programs, and links across colleges.

movement. When students return home, they bring back knowledge, problem-solving abilities, and connections that help the economy and society flourish. People from different cultures can learn about and accept each other through educational exchanges. Investing in international academic cooperation is a way to help future leaders and peacemakers in the region.

Changing How People See the Middle East

Most people throughout the world see the Middle East as a place of conflict, which hides its valuable contributions and the worth of its people. This place has been a center for medicine, arithmetic, astronomy, poetry, and philosophy. It has produced significant artists, scholars, and innovators who have profoundly influenced human culture.

Schools, the media, and people all throughout the world need to tell good, complicated stories. Cultural exchanges, film festivals, art shows, and academic conferences all highlight how strong, creative, and different people can be. People can understand each other better and Islamophobia goes down when they break down their own ideas.

Changing how people throughout the world see things helps them work together and stand up for each other. This is crucial for peace and respecting the rights and hopes of people in the Middle East.

Sustainable peace relies on regional ownership and leadership. Foreign interventions, sometimes driven by divergent interests, have intensified crises rather than alleviating them. Middle Eastern countries should be in charge of fair and open mediation efforts that include everyone.

Women, youth, and individuals from marginalized communities ought to participate in peace negotiations. Iran, Turkey, Israel, and Arab countries need to work together to fix problems that hurt their safety, economy, and society. Inclusive dialogue based on mutual regard helps reduce violence and distrust.

Setting up regional institutions to help people talk to each other, hash out their differences, and work together is really significant. When the region is in charge of peace, solutions last longer and more people agree with them.

What Global Institutions Do?

The United Nations and UNESCO are two groups from around the world that work to safeguard peace in the Middle East. But they need to do more than just talk bad about things or make promises. They need to work with local communities, artists, teachers, peace activists, and grassroots groups for a long time and in person. People should learn, cultures should stay alive, and issues should be solved on special missions. These groups have particular tools, information, and worldwide platforms that help them accomplish their duties well. They need to be consistent, kind, and focused on getting things done at work. They shouldn’t become engaged in politics and instead make sure that people who need help get it.

Global groups also watch for violations of human rights, fight for justice, and make sure that people are held accountable. They might help people trust one other and start conversations that are crucial for peace by being there without bias.

Conclusion

To have peace in the Middle East, we need to look at the whole picture, which involves helping people, education, culture, justice, economic growth, and working together at all levels. Short-term ceasefires or diplomatic talks won’t stop the violence unless they get to the heart of the problem and build strong foundations for living together and appreciating each other. To safeguard human dignity, it is highly crucial to uphold human rights, cultural freedom, and the right to an education for all. Working for peace and stability is a good idea since it will help the economy flourish and create jobs that will last.

To make sure that all communities’ needs are satisfied with solutions that are fair, open, and long-lasting, we need to promote regional leadership, international cooperation, and accountability. People all across the world will be more sympathetic and helpful if they talk about the region’s diversity, innovation, and strength instead of its problems. The road to peace is long and arduous, but the Middle East’s rich history, strong people, and great hopes give us a lot of optimism. If individuals from all over the world, including locals, regionals, and global players, work together, stay committed, and show real respect, the Middle East can finally become a peaceful, fair, and successful place.