Omar Musa secures 2026 Miles Franklin Award with Fierceland

By Absara Kashaf  The international political landscape is undergoing a noticeable transformation. For many years, the United States was widely regarded as the world’s most influential political, economic and military power. However, recent global opinion surveys indicate that public perceptions are changing. Countries around the world are increasingly evaluating global powers not only by their military strength but also by their economic cooperation, development assistance, investment and diplomatic engagement. The Latest Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Survey (july 2026) provides important evidence of this shift. Based on interviews with 42,151 adults across 36 countries, the survey reveals that China now enjoys a more favorable public image than the United States in a majority of the countries included in the study. The findings highlights China’s growing international influence, particularly among developing and middle-income nations. One of the survey’s most significant findings is that China is viewed more favorably than the United States in 30 of the 36 countries surveyed. This represents a remarkable change in global public opinion. While the United States continues to enjoy strong support in few countries, particularly among some of its long-standing allies, China has gained considerable public approval across Asia, Latin America, and parts of Europe. This shift suggests that many people now associate China with economic opportunity, infrastructure development, and long-term cooperation rather than viewing it solely as an emerging global competitor. China’s growing popularity is closely linked to its expanding economic partnerships around the world. Over the past two decades, China has invested billions in infrastructure projects, transportation networks, energy development, industrial zones, digital connectivity and trade agreements. Through initiatives such as Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China has financed highways, railways, ports, power plants, and industrial zones in numerous developing countries. These projects have contributes to economic growth, employment opportunities and improved connectivity in many regions. As a result, public opinion in several countries increasingly reflects appreciation for China’s contribution to national development. The survey further shows that 69 percent of respondents in 17 middle-income countries consider China to be somewhat or very reliable international partner. This finding is particularly important because middle-income countries often seek foreign investment, technology and infrastructure financing to support their development goals. Many respondents appear to believe that China provides practical economic cooperation without imposing extensive political conditions. Whether this perception fully reflects reality remains a subject of academic debate, but it undoubtedly contributes to China’s improving international image. Another major finding concerns confidence in Chinese President Xi Jinping. According to the survey, global confidence in Xi Jinping has improved compared to previous years. Across many countries,  larger number of respondents believe that President Xi will make responsible decisions regarding international affairs. Although confidence levels differ from one country to another, the overall trend indicates that China’s leadership is gaining broader international acceptance. Leadership perceptions often influence how countries are viewed internationally, making this finding particularly significant for understanding China’s growing diplomatic influence. Among all the countries surveyed, Pakistan recorded one of the strongest levels of support for China. According to the survey, 90 percent of Pakistanis expressed a favorable opinion of China, while 83 percent reported confidence in President Xi Jinping to do the right things regarding world affairs. These are among the highest approval ratings recorded anywhere in the survey. In contrast, only 15 percent of Pakistanis expressed a favorable opinion of the United States, while confidence in former U.S President Donald Trump stood at just 12 percent. These figures demonstrate the exceptionally positive image that China currently enjoys among the Pakistani public. Several factors help explain Pakistan’s strong support for China. The two countries have maintained close diplomatic and strategic relations for decades, often referring to their friendship as an “all-weather strategic partnership”. In recent years, this relationship has expanded significantly through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), one of the flagship projects under the Belt and Road Initiative. CPEC includes investments in roads, highways, ports, power generations, industrial zones, and communication infrastructure. Many Pakistanis associate these projects with improved economic opportunities, enhanced connectivity, and future development. Consequently, China’s image among Pakistani Public has become increasingly positive Beyond Pakistan, the survey also suggests that China is increasingly perceived as a contributor to global peace and stability. One notable example is South Africa, where the proportion of respondents who believe China contributes positively to global peace increased from 47 percent in 2023 to 64 percent in 2026. Similar improvements were observed in several other developing countries. China’s active participation in diplomatic negotiations, peacemaking missions, humanitarian assistance, and international development initiatives appears to have strengthened its reputation among many respondents. The survey also explores whether people believe China considers the interest of developing countries when making international policy decisions. Among respondents in the 17 middle-income countries, 57 percent stated that China takes the interests of countries like their own into account. This finding reflects an important aspect of China’s international strategy. Many developing countries view China as a partner that understands their development challenges and provides economic cooperation through investment, trade, infrastructure financing, and technology transfer. Whether this perception continues in the future will depend on China’s policies and long-tern outcomes of its international projects Despite China’s growing popularity, the survey also demonstrates the global opinion remains diverse. Several countries continue to express stronger support for the United States than for the China. These include Japan, India, Philippines, Israel, Poland, and South Korea. Historical alliances, security partnerships, regional geopolitical concerns, and territorial disputes continue to influence public opinions across countries. The findings also illustrated the growing importance if soft power illustrates the growing importance of soft power in international relations. Soft power refers to a country’s ability to influence others through attraction, cooperation, culture, diplomacy and economic engagement rather than military force. China’s engagement in infrastructure, trade, education techonolgy in many developing countries have strengthened its soft power in many developing countries. Public opinion surveys such as Pew’s demonstrate that these efforts are increasingly shaping how ordinary citizens perceive China’s global role. The finding offer important insights

By Syed Tahir Rashdi  The writer is a Shahdadpur-based contributing columnist, book reviewer, and climate change activist. He holds a BS degree in Pakistan Studies from University of Sindh Pakistan’s debate over new provinces has returned with familiar demands: South Punjab, Bahawalpur, Hazara, Karachi and, periodically, proposals for a more extensive reorganisation of the federation. There are credible arguments behind some of these demands. Population growth, administrative distance, uneven development and the persistence of regional identities have altered the circumstances in which Pakistan’s present provincial arrangement was conceived. Yet the debate tends to proceed from an assumption that deserves greater scrutiny: that creating smaller provinces will, in itself, improve governance. It may. But it may also not. The distinction is important because Pakistan’s principal difficulty has never been simply the size of its administrative units. It has been the weakness, discontinuity and politicisation of the institutions through which those units are governed. This does not make the case for new provinces illegitimate. It does, however, suggest that provincial restructuring should be considered as one component of administrative reform rather than as a substitute for it. Pakistan’s provincial boundaries have never been immutable. The One Unit scheme of 1955 consolidated the western wing into a single province, partly to establish parity between the two wings of the country. It was abolished in 1970, restoring the provinces. The episode remains relevant because it demonstrated the limits of administrative engineering. A territorial arrangement can be imposed constitutionally, but its durability ultimately depends upon political legitimacy. The present debate is considerably more complex. The demand for a South Punjab province contains at least three distinct strands: the historical claim associated with Bahawalpur, the linguistic and cultural politics of Saraiki identity, and the administrative argument that the southern districts have remained distant from the provincial centre in Lahore. There is also the persistent claim of regional economic neglect. These strands should not be conflated. Similarly, the Hazara demand has a strong identity component, while the Karachi question is inseparable from the city’s unusual demographic, economic and political history and the longstanding contest over authority between urban local institutions and the provincial government. The differences matter because different problems require different institutional responses. The Constitution does not make the creation of a new province a matter of political declaration. Article 239 provides a demanding procedure for constitutional amendment, including the approval of the concerned provincial assembly where provincial boundaries are affected. That requirement is not an accidental obstacle. It reflects the logic of federalism: a federation cannot permit the territorial boundaries of one constituent unit to be altered without giving that unit a decisive constitutional voice. The experience of the parliamentary commission on new provinces in 2012 illustrated the complexity of the exercise. Questions of boundaries, resources, representation, administrative structures and constitutional amendments quickly became inseparable from the political question of who would gain or lose influence. That is why the debate deserves to be insulated, as far as possible, from electoral expediency. There is, however, a more fundamental issue that receives considerably less attention. Article 140-A of the Constitution requires provincial governments to establish local government systems and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to elected local representatives. This provision goes to the heart of the governance question. A citizen’s encounter with government is rarely with the federal government or even with a provincial assembly. It is with the school, hospital, police station, municipal authority, land office, sanitation service or local administration. Yet local governments in Pakistan have rarely acquired the institutional continuity, fiscal autonomy and political authority envisaged by the Constitution. The result is an unusual form of devolution. The 18th Amendment substantially strengthened the provinces by transferring functions and resources from the federation, but the transfer of authority has often stopped at the provincial level. Islamabad became less dominant. The provinces became stronger. The citizen did not necessarily become more powerful. This is perhaps the most important issue in the new-provinces debate. If a region is suffering because decisions are too distant from its population, the first question should be whether existing institutions can be decentralised before an entirely new tier of government is created. Comparative experience does not provide a universal answer, but it does offer useful cautions. Indonesia’s post-Suharto decentralisation transferred extensive responsibilities to subnational governments. The reform was necessary after decades of centralised rule, but decentralisation itself did not guarantee effective or accountable government. Subsequent reforms had to focus on institutional capacity, fiscal management and local accountability. Nigeria provides another caution. The creation of additional states was partly intended to improve political representation and accommodate regional interests. Yet the country continues to face substantial governance and institutional-capacity problems across its states. The lesson from both cases is not that administrative restructuring is futile. It is that territorial fragmentation and institutional development are different processes. South Africa offers a somewhat different model. Its Constitution explicitly recognises local government as a sphere of government and assigns municipalities constitutional responsibilities relating to democratic participation and service delivery. The significance lies less in the number of provinces than in the distribution of authority among the different levels of government. Switzerland’s federal tradition similarly rests on substantial cantonal and communal autonomy. Its relevance to Pakistan is not institutional imitation but a principle: government functions should be located at the level at which they can be performed most effectively, while higher levels retain responsibilities that require wider coordination. There is therefore no universally correct number of provinces. The appropriate administrative scale depends upon geography, population, fiscal capacity, the nature of the public service and, above all, institutional competence. Pakistan’s governance difficulties are familiar enough to require little elaboration: weak rule of law, politicisation of public institutions, patronage, corruption, uneven accountability, administrative discontinuity and the recurrent weakening of local government. None of these problems disappears when a provincial boundary is moved. A new province may shorten the administrative distance between a region and its provincial capital. It does not automatically make the police independent,