Pakistan funding for Indian students?

Development is the process of creating lasting improvements in the lives of people by addressing their genuine social, economic, and public needs and not merely constructing new infrastructure, completing projects, impressive photographs, or utilising the allocated public funds. In a true sense, the real measure of development is whether the real problem has been solved, and whether the interventions have created sustainable public value and an evident change in social or economic conditions of the society. A project should begin with a clearly defined problem and public need. Its vision, goals, activities, and measurable indicators should follow the problem. In professional project management practices, all these elements are recorded in the planning and design phase. In Pakistan, we have mastered the art of reporting these elements without achieving any meaningful results. Imagine a public park surrounded by a steel fence. Children and families using the park are visible from the road. If funds are available and privacy is the genuine concern, the executing agency can add steel sheets, plant trees, or use temporary screens. Each solution is inexpensive and retains the existing structure. However, if the focus is primarily on expenditure, the agency may remove the functioning fence and replace it with a new brick wall. This may have a longer life, but is not necessarily the most economical or appropriate solution. Considering Pakistan’s fragile economic outlook, many major development projects are financed through foreign loans. Such funds are eventually repaid, often with interest. Money spent on an unnecessary intervention is no longer available for genuine public need. This is a recurring weakness in Pakistan, where success is measured by the money spent, not by the effectiveness of the solution. This recalls Peter Drucker’s observation. “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” The continued existence of infrastructure built during the Mughal and British periods is in contrast with contemporary projects, which deteriorate within years. This might be a romantic comparison, influenced by the fact that we see only the structures that survived, but durability and long-term public value are not central to our project culture. The same mindset is evident in urban beautification schemes. Imagine a local government installs a 15-foot-high statue. The project is indeed beautiful and will produce attractive photographs for official reports, but if the same statue is mounted on thoughtfully designed columns, the shaded seating can be utilised by daily wage workers who gather at bus stops, on footpaths, and in other public spaces because no designated facility is available. This is not an encroachment issue, but a planning failure. Planners and designers should use one intervention to achieve multiple objectives. Imagine a decades-old roundabout, with a working fountain surrounded by grass. During hot afternoons, labourers and children visit the site to cool themselves in the fountain’s spray. Officials might consider this behaviour undesirable and wish to block access. They can barricade it through small trees or shrubs, but the typical response will be to uproot the entire structure, construct a new fountain, and replace the grass with artificial green carpet. The public behaviour may reflect the unavailability of affordable recreational areas or public bathing facilities. Yet, the official solution destroys a functioning public asset, removes a natural green area, and spends substantial funds without addressing the underlying need. Needs assessment appears in project reports, but they are rarely conducted with sufficient depth. Imagine a posh housing society, where tubewells were eventually replaced by private borewells. Residents have spent a considerable amount to arrange their own water supply. Now, if any government agency has received funds for water distribution, they should spend it in areas where the people are still digging borewells or have no access to clean drinking water. However, again the typical response will be to spend millions in this posh area, where households have already arranged their own water supply. The fall of the water table is the real problem, which in this case will persist after spending millions. Pakistan has an extensive planning structure, which includes the federal and provincial bodies, planning departments in government organizations, consultants, and project management units. In 2025-26 alone, the National Economic Council approved the national development portfolio of 4.224 trillion. Such substantial expenditure should produce visible and lasting improvement in people live. The problem, therefore, is not insufficient funding, but how projects are identified, designed, approved, and evaluated. The same problem is visible in education, health, and administrative projects. Consider a basic health unit or education facility with a leaking roof. The available funds should be directed to fix the roof. However, funds are allocated to boundary wall, new signage, and in some cases, for an entirely new building. Similarly, for decade, government departments are trying to digitise their operations. For a quick solution, these departments procure specialised softwares, which has high licensing costs, and inadequate training mechanisms. After years of implementation, enforcement, and expenditure, the same departments revert to paper files or to a new software. The first step should be, to strengthen the capacity of all relevant staff in problem identification and root cause analysis. Every project initiation document should clearly identify the problem, public need, examine alternatives, and link the proposed intervention to public value. These elements should always be in quantifiable terms. Moreover, the project indicators should measure the extent to which the problem is solved and the post-completion evaluation should validate the visualized public benefits. Institutions move energetically, spend heavily, and report extensively, but bypass the original problem. Pakistan does not simply need more projects; it needs projects to solve problems; it needs interventions that respond to genuine needs, preserve what already works, and provide sustainable public value. The true measure should not be the amount spent but the resolution of the problem. Unless problem-solving becomes central to planning and evaluation, fund utilisation will continue to be mistaken for development and detour away from progress we seek. Writers  Dr. Sikandar Bilal Khattak  Academician with Research Interest in Sustainable Systems Can be

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the CPC Central Committee with General Secretary Xi Jinping at its core has put forward a series of new ideas, new thinking and new strategies centered on the major issue of the era—what kind of long-term governing Marxist party to build and how to build it—giving rise to Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building. As an important component of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building carries significant practical relevance and far-reaching guiding significance for strengthening the Party and the nation. It explicitly sets forth the “14 commitments”, namely: adhering leadership by the CPC as the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics; upholding the centralized, unified leadership of the Party Central Committee; exercising full and rigorous Party self-governance; staying true to the Party’s original aspiration and founding mission; taking strengthening the Party politically as the overarching principle; building cohesion and inner strength with the Party’s latest theory; forging strong Party spirit; improving the organizational system to ensure vertical coherence and effective implementation; cultivating high-caliber officials capable of shouldering the mission of national rejuvenation; making sustained and effective efforts to improve conduct; governing the whole Party with strict discipline; taking integrated steps to ensure that officials do not have the audacity, opportunity or desire to conduct corruption; governing the Party through systems and regulations, and ensuring that the political responsibility for Party self-governance is fulfilled. The “14 commitments” represent a concentrated summary of General Secretary Xi Jinping’s landmark, guiding new ideas and strategies on party building in the new era. They serve as the fundamental guideline for the CPC in strengthening party building, as well as a Chinese approach for political parties around the world to enhance self-improvement and state governance. China and Pakistan are ironclad friends and all-weather strategic cooperative partners. We are ready to deepen exchanges and mutual learning with Pakistan on party building and governance, work together to improve people’s well-being and promote prosperity and development, and accelerate the building of an even closer China-Pakistan community with a shared future in the new era. We must put people first and ensure that China-Pakistan cooperation delivers greater benefits to the two peoples. The CPC has always upheld building the Party for the public good and exercising state power for the people. Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building explicitly stresses “remaining true to the original aspiration and founding mission”, namely to seek happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation. Back in 2012, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that our Party is dedicated to serving the people wholeheartedly; the people’s desire for a better life is the goal we strive to work for. Guided by this profound devotion to the people, in the well-known poverty elimination campaign in China, General Secretary Xi Jinping set a shining example through personal commitment. He conducted more than 50 field research visits on poverty alleviation, covering all 14 contiguous poor regions across China. Based on thorough investigations, he put forward and applied the concept of targeted poverty alleviation, setting a brilliant example of integrating the power of truth with moral integrity. Under his leadership, China won the poverty alleviation campaign, built a moderately prosperous society in all respects, and embarked on a new journey of advancing national rejuvenation and building a great modern socialist country through Chinese modernization. Practice since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) has fully demonstrated that the historic achievements and transformative changes in the cause of the Party and the country are fundamentally attributable to the steady guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping as the core of the CPC Central Committee and of the Party as a whole, and to the scientific guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Under the strong leadership of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the Party Central Committee, over 3 million first secretaries of CPC village committees and village-based officials, together with nearly 2 million township officials and millions of village officials, fought in unison to eliminate absolute poverty. This fully demonstrates the CPC’s capacity to mobilize resources to accomplish major undertakings, and embodies two core principles highlighted in Xi Jinping Thought on Party Building, which is “adhering to the leadership by the CPC as the defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics” and “upholding the centralized, unified leadership of the Party Central Committee. It is precisely because the CPC always puts people first and regards delivering people’s wellbeing as its paramount achievement that it enjoys enduring popular support and stands as the most reliable backbone for the Chinese people. Beyond seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, the CPC also strives for progress for humanity and the common good for the world. As General Secretary Xi Jinping noted, we Chinese not only aspire for good living for ourselves, but also hope people in other parts of the world lead a decent life. This is fully reflected in the development of China Pakistan relations in the new era. General Secretary Xi Jinping has always been concerned about and supported Pakistan’s national development and the improvement of people’s livelihoods. He and Pakistani leaders established the all-weather strategic cooperative partnership between the two countries and reached important consensus on building an even closer China-Pakistan community with a shared future in the new era. General Secretary Xi Jinping has stressed that China’s friendly policy toward Pakistan is always oriented toward all Pakistani people, the planning and layout of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) should take into account all regions of Pakistan, so that the fruits of development can benefit all the Pakistani people. To date, CPEC has brought in over 25.9 billion US dollars in direct investment, created more than 260,000 jobs, added over 8,000 MW of power generation capacity, built 510 kilometers of highways and 886 kilometers of core national power

If someone were to say today that neither Iran nor the United States actually wants war, the immediate question would be: “Then why is this conflict happening?” The answer depends on whom you ask. Each side presents its own narrative, blaming the other for provoking the crisis and insisting that it is merely responding to aggression. From the Iranian perspective, the United States is portrayed as a global bully with a long history of military interventions. Iranian supporters argue that Washington has once again resorted to force, launching a sudden attack on February 28 that allegedly eliminated Iran’s top political and military leadership. They contend that the reported killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with members of his family, is an act that cannot simply be forgotten or forgiven. In their view, they now possess the moral right to seek revenge. If their highest leader was targeted, they argue, then retaliatory action against U.S. President Donald Trump, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and those associated with them is justified. For many in this camp, revenge has become a national rallying cry. The American position is fundamentally different. Washington argues that Iran’s religious establishment under the doctrine of Wilayat al-Faqih has destabilized the Middle East for more than four decades. According to this view, Tehran has built, funded, and armed militant proxy groups not only around Israel but also across neighboring Gulf and Arab states. U.S. officials point to Syria, where former President Bashar al-Assad—despite belonging to a minority sect—was accused of carrying out decades of repression and mass violence against the Sunni majority, allegedly with Iran’s political and military backing. Similar accusations are made regarding Iraq, where Iranian influence is said to have fueled years of instability. In Lebanon, critics argue that Hezbollah, widely regarded as Iran’s most powerful proxy, has effectively established a state within a state, operating beyond the authority of the Lebanese government. They claim the group has not only maintained continuous hostility toward Israel but has also contributed to Lebanon’s internal political and economic paralysis. According to this narrative, tensions have escalated to the point where Lebanon’s elected government has explored understandings with Israel aimed at confronting these armed groups. American officials further argue that Iran’s regional influence has created deep anxiety among Israel as well as neighboring Gulf Arab governments, who fear that Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or its affiliated groups could threaten their security at any time. They also maintain that the military action taken on February 28 was rooted in the events of October 7, when Hamas—described by Washington as an Iranian-backed organization—launched an unprecedented attack inside Israel that killed approximately 1,200 civilians and resulted in around 250 hostages, including women and children. Despite these deep divisions, the United States and Iran, with the mediation of Pakistan and Qatar, reportedly signed a Memorandum of Understanding aimed at reducing tensions. One of its key provisions allegedly guaranteed that the Strait of Hormuz would remain open, allowing international shipping to pass freely without Iran imposing fees, restrictions, or obstacles. However, according to the American account, tensions flared again when missiles were reportedly fired at Saudi and Qatari vessels passing through waters near Oman. Critics questioned the justification for such an action, arguing that instead of acknowledging responsibility or seeking de-escalation, elements within Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps insisted that the Strait of Hormuz should remain closed to commercial shipping. They further allege that the IRGC instructed Yemen’s Houthi movement to block the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in order to disrupt Saudi oil exports to Europe. If the Strait of Hormuz has already strained Asian energy markets, they argue, closing Bab el-Mandeb could create similar disruptions for Europe. Such developments would pose serious economic and strategic challenges for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Adding to these concerns, Yemen’s Houthis—who are widely viewed by Western governments as being aligned with Iran—have reportedly threatened to strike Saudi oil infrastructure. It is within this context that Pakistan has chosen to clarify its position. Beyond the longstanding religious, diplomatic, and strategic relationship between Islamabad and Riyadh, Pakistan has repeatedly maintained that any attack on Saudi Arabia would be regarded as a direct threat to Pakistan itself. Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s leadership reportedly conveyed a clear message to Tehran: “An attack on Saudi Arabia will be treated as an attack on Pakistan. That is our red line.” In line with this policy, Pakistan has reportedly deployed fighter aircraft and thousands of military personnel to Saudi Arabia, with forces positioned near the Yemeni border. Alongside air and ground deployments, Pakistani naval units are also said to be prepared to cooperate with Saudi and U.S. forces in securing maritime routes and responding to Houthi activities if required. Given these escalating tensions, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is urged by its critics to recognize the gravity of the situation and avoid actions that could bring Pakistan and Iran into direct confrontation. They argue that disrupting both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb would not only inflict severe damage on the global economy but would also deepen international opposition toward Iran—an outcome they believe Tehran can ill afford. According to this perspective, divisions are already becoming visible within Iran itself. Some observers argue that the country’s elected political leadership is increasingly uneasy with policies that risk further isolation and conflict. They see growing differences between Iran’s political and military establishments, even though these tensions remain largely behind the scenes. The funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader reportedly drew millions of mourners, reflecting widespread public sympathy. Yet critics argue that this did not necessarily indicate universal support for perpetual confrontation or calls for vengeance. Reports also suggested that hardline supporters directed slogans accusing President Masoud Pezeshkian of betrayal, while Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi allegedly faced verbal hostility and even physical attacks during the proceedings. Those who criticize Iran’s hardline factions argue that such behavior deserves condemnation rather than praise. In their view, the greatest burden of continued escalation will ultimately

In the winter of 1979, a neighbour’s house caught fire. The Soviet Union had marched into Afghanistan, and the flames of war were licking at the walls of Kabul. From across the ocean, a distant power arrived at Pakistan’s door. It did not come with soldiers. It came with money, guns, and a promise: *”Let us fight this fire together. Use your roof. Use your roads. We will stand with you. We will not let the fire reach your house.”* Pakistan opened its door. What else could it do? The Soviet army sat on its western border. The world was divided into two camps, and neutrality was a luxury no frontline state could afford. For ten years, Pakistan became the staging ground for a war that was not its own. It hosted three million refugees. Its cities swelled. Its tribal areas became training grounds for fighters armed and funded by outside money. Weapons arrived by the shipload through Karachi. Pakistani officers coordinated strategy. Every bullet fired at a Soviet convoy in the Hindu Kush passed through Pakistani hands. The distant power paid the bills. It sent the Stinger missiles. It called the resistance fighters “freedom fighters” and Pakistan a “frontline state.” But the war was never truly about Pakistan’s safety. It was about bleeding the Soviet Union in a distant mountainside, using Pakistani soil as the operating theatre and Afghan bodies as the currency. Then, in 1989, the Soviet Union withdrew. The fire in the neighbour’s house went out. And the distant power that had promised eternal friendship turned its attention elsewhere. The billions dried up. The diplomatic interest evaporated. Afghanistan, the battlefield, was left to warlords who turned the weapons on each other. Pakistan was left with three million refugees who would not go home, a Kalashnikov culture that would not disappear, and a border that would never again be quiet. The weapons that had been given to fight the Soviets did not rust. They remained. They moved into streets, into disputes, into corners of the country where the state had never fully reached. The guest who had brought the fire extinguisher had started a blaze that spread to the host’s own house — and then moved to a new neighbourhood. The distant power won its strategic objective at the cost of Afghan and Pakistani soil, then walked away. Its own cities were never bombed. Its own children never became refugees. Its economy never staggered under the weight of someone else’s war. Pakistan, which had signed no formal treaty of alliance but had acted as an ally in every meaningful sense, was left holding the pieces. This is what happens when alliances are forged in the middle of a fire. The stronger partner does not need your victory. He needs your usefulness. He needs you to hold the front, to absorb the blow, to stand in a place where he does not wish to stand. And when the war ends, he will shake your hand and go home — while you remain amid the embers, wondering why the fire you helped extinguish has reignited in your own courtyard. History records a curious pattern. The alliances that have endured — the ones that outlasted their founders and shaped the world for generations — were almost never built while the house was burning. NATO was forged in 1949, not because the bombs were falling on Paris, but because the memory of war was still fresh and the desire to prevent it was shared. The parties had time to read the text, to negotiate the terms, to build institutions that could survive a change of government on either side. An alliance born in the middle of a fire is a different creature entirely. It is an emergency measure. And emergency measures have a way of becoming permanent arrangements that no one planned and no one fully controls. When you sign while the heat is at your back and the smoke is in your eyes, you do not have time to ask who owns the hose, who pays for the water, and who walks away when the flames are out. The Afghan episode is not ancient history. It is in our own lifetime. It is written in the smoke that still rises from our western border. And it is written in the simple fact that the weapons once aimed at a northern invader eventually turned inward, because no one had written a clause for what happens after the guest leaves. Pakistan has every right to defend itself. Pakistan has every right to seek friends in a dangerous world. But history offers a quiet observation for those who are listening: **the strongest alliances are built in peacetime, not borrowed in panic.** The fire is real. The neighbour’s house is burning. Yet the hand that offers protection in the middle of a war is holding a different ledger than the hand that offers partnership in the middle of calm. That is not a warning against friendship. It is simply what the record shows.

The preceding part of this series ended with a limit that productive finance cannot cross. Illness, unemployment, education, disability, orphanhood and temporary distress cannot always be converted into profitable investments. Human vulnerability itself cannot become another financial product. That is where a riba-free order must move beyond banking. A society may successfully redesign murabaha, musharakah, salam or ijarah and still remain unjust if a family facing cancer treatment must borrow at any cost, a student must enter adult life under debt, or a widow depends upon a local patron for survival. Prohibition of riba becomes socially meaningful only when basic human need is protected from financial extraction. Pakistan does not have to invent the institutional vocabulary from zero. It already has Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal, established under the Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal Act, 1991. Its official mandate includes assistance to the destitute, widows, orphans, persons with disabilities and other needy citizens, with support extending to medical treatment, education and rehabilitation. Its official position is that assistance is available to the poorest without differentiation of religion, creed, sect or region. This is an important foundation. It is not yet the structure required for a just financial order. Bait-ul-Mal should cease to be understood primarily as an agency dispensing discretionary relief to the “poorest of the poor”. Its larger purpose should be to guarantee a legally defined social floor. Food in destitution, essential healthcare, basic education, protection of children without support, disability assistance and temporary subsistence during involuntary unemployment should become matters of entitlement under transparent criteria, not favours obtained through political access. This distinction is fundamental. Charity depends upon the generosity of the giver. Entitlement rests upon the responsibility of society. It is one of the most emphasised Quranic directive on this idea. The directions given in the holy Quran need not be accepted in totality. This principle is accepted in all the classical juristic traditions. The practical discussion on this is important. In the transitional phase, all the scholarly works envisage gradual movement rather than an overnight abolition of existing economic arrangements. Individuals progressively devote more of their resources to collective purposes while organised society assumes responsibility for the basic necessities of life.   The transition, in any pragmatic scheme, is institutional rather than merely charitable. That insight deserves attention. An Islamic polity cannot measure success by the number of ration bags distributed after deprivation has occurred. Its test is whether institutions progressively remove the conditions that force citizens into dependence upon creditors, property owners, political patrons or charitable intermediaries. Bait-ul-Mal should therefore form the first pillar of social finance: the guarantee against destitution. The second should be waqf. Waqf historically converted wealth into enduring social capital. Whatever the juristic differences concerning its precise legal character, its institutional genius lies in removing an asset from ordinary private consumption and dedicating its benefit to a continuing purpose. Land, buildings and income-producing properties can support hospitals, schools, hostels, water systems, vocational institutions, research centres, shelters and community infrastructure across generations. Pakistan already possesses statutory waqf institutions. Punjab’s Auqaf Department, for example, operates under the Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1979, for the administration and regulation of waqf properties. Income arising from properties under its control is credited to the Auqaf Fund under the statutory framework. The potential is much larger than administration of shrines and mosques. Pakistan should develop professionally governed public waqf institutions—waqf lillah—at national, provincial and local levels. Public land lawfully dedicated for community benefit, voluntarily endowed private property and other permissible assets could constitute permanent pools of social capital. Their corpus should remain protected while their income finances clearly defined public purposes. This cannot become another avenue for bureaucratic or political capture. Every waqf property should be digitally registered. Its title, purpose, valuation, income, expenditure and beneficiaries should be publicly accessible. Independent audit, professional management and strict conflict-of-interest rules are indispensable. No minister, shrine manager, political family or local notable should be able to convert property dedicated for public benefit into an instrument of patronage. The third pillar is zakat. It should remain distinct from both the ordinary budget and waqf. Its compulsory redistributive character and specified purposes give it an institutional identity of its own. Combining every form of social finance into one government account would destroy these distinctions. The fourth pillar is qard hasan. Not every person requiring temporary liquidity is destitute. A worker may face a medical emergency. A small farmer may need funds after a flood. A graduate may require equipment to begin earning. A household may need a short bridge between unemployment and a new job. Such circumstances do not necessarily call for a grant. They require finance without extraction. Revolving qard hasan funds administered through Bait-ul-Mal, public waqf institutions and local cooperatives could provide precisely that bridge. Principal would return when the recipient regains capacity, allowing the same pool to assist another household. The institution earns no commercial return from distress; society recycles solidarity. This connects directly with the cooperative model discussed in Part IV. The ultimate objective cannot be to create permanent classes of beneficiaries. Social protection should lead towards economic agency. A citizen receiving emergency assistance today should, wherever possible, become tomorrow’s producer, saver and member of a cooperative financial institution. Bait-ul-Mal prevents collapse. Waqf creates enduring social assets. Qard hasan provides a bridge back to economic activity. Cooperatives enable citizens to pool savings, own institutions and finance one another. These mechanisms should operate together rather than as isolated schemes. The structure can be visualised as a ladder. At its base is an enforceable social floor below which no citizen is allowed to fall. Above it are education, healthcare and skills supported partly through public waqf. Temporary setbacks are met through qard hasan. Productive citizens then move towards cooperative and commercial risk-sharing finance of the kind discussed in Part IV. The direction is from dependency to capability, not from one form of dependency to another. Governance will determine whether this succeeds. Pakistan has repeatedly created institutions in the name of disadvantaged citizens and then allowed

Recently, the Pew Research Center released results from a study on global perceptions of China and President Xi. The results also compared China and President Xi with the USA and President Donald Trump. The study was conducted in 36 countries and included 42,151 respondents. The results are quite interesting and show that the overwhelming majority of people strongly favor China and President Xi. For example, respondents from 30 of the 36 countries ranked China and President Xi more positively. Moreover, 67% of respondents from 17 middle-income countries viewed China as a reliable partner. This suggests that China fulfills its commitments and never betrays its partners. And 57% believed that China takes care of the interests of other countries. These findings are in line with China’s philosophy of international relations, win-win cooperation and shared prosperity.   The results also indicated that, among the surveyed countries, all Muslim countries have a positive perception of China. Except for Nigeria (equal confidence in Xi and Trump), all Muslim countries showed confidence in President Xi and his leadership.   It is worth noting that in both categories, Pakistanis ranked China and President Xi highest. According to the results, 90% of Pakistanis held a favorable view of China, and 83% expressed confidence in President Xi’s leadership.   Now, the question is, despite all propaganda and malicious campaigns, why is the positive perception of China and President Xi very high?  The answer is that China believes in common development and development together and for everyone. It also resonates with President Xi’s vision that no one should be left behind on the road of development. Therefore, since its rise as a major economic and global power, China is contributing to global development, especially in the Global South. Simultaneously, China has been working to strengthen the voices of the Global South in global affairs and protect them against the hegemonic aspirations of some powerful countries. Moreover, China is striving to bring sustainable peace and security, and to ensure that everyone’s security and security concerns are treated equally. In the pursuit of these objectives, President Xi has launched numerous initiatives, including global, regional, and country-specific ones.   On the global front, President Xi launched five major initiatives: the Belt and Road Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, the Global Civilization Initiative, and the Global Governance Initiative. These initiatives have all the ingredients to help the world solve contemporary challenges and chart a path to peaceful, sustainable development and prosperity through cooperative coexistence.   First, China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by adhering to the Chinese philosophy of shared growth through discussion and collaboration. Latest data show that China has invested almost US$ 1.4 trillion to help countries bridge the development gap. Second, the Global Development Initiative (GDI) was introduced in accordance with the vision of shared prosperity. Under GDI, China has invested more than US$ 23 billion. Third, the Global Security Initiative (GSI), which has been built on four pillars: common, comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable security, was presented. Fourth, the Global Civilization Initiative emphasized harmony in diversity and the rejection of the clash of civilizations. Fifth, the Global Governance Initiative recognizes that all countries, regardless of size, strength, or wealth, are equal participants, decision-makers, and beneficiaries in global governance. The five key principles of GCI, proposed by President Xi, include respecting sovereign equality, adhering to the international rule of law, practicing multilateralism, advocating a people-centered approach, and prioritizing concrete actions.   The China International Import Expo (CIIE) is another initiative with global relevance and a vision of sharing prosperity. It is a unique idea, as there is no precedent in history for organizing an import expo. President Xi himself proposed, planned, deployed, and promoted the idea of the China International Import Expo to fulfill his promise of high-level opening up and creating opportunities for the world. CIIE has emerged as a new avenue to introduce new products, share ideas, and promote innovation. It plays a prominent role in promoting new products by helping companies find buyers for their products and vice versa. China’s technology and innovation penetration and diffusion policies encourage companies and investors to join the event. Therefore, it attracts innovators and leading companies from around the world to attend the event and showcase their products and ideas.   In the list of global initiatives, we can also include the construction of ecological civilization as a seventh initiative, as it is highly relevant to the global audience. The construction of ecological civilization is rooted in the philosophy of harmony between the planet and humans and among humans. It is urgently needed in the context of climate change and environmental degradation.   At the regional level, China has also launched numerous initiatives, including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Boao Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), among others. AIIB was launched to bridge the investment gap in Asia. AIIB aims to build a prosperous future under the slogan “Building Infrastructure for Tomorrow” by adopting principles of sustainability, innovation, and prosperity for the benefit of its people in Asia. Since its launch, President Xi has ensured that the AIIB develops into a modern, innovative, inclusive, goal-oriented, and rule-based institution that can help bridge the investment gap. Thus, he discourages geopolitics, mainstream economic rationales, and sustainability principles.   The Boao Forum (BF) is another regional initiative for Asia. BF is a non-governmental, nonprofit organization hosted and promoted by China. It provides a platform for dialogue among leaders of national governments, industry and business, and academia from countries in Asia and other continents on important issues facing Asia and the world. An analysis of past forums shows that it has focused on multiple areas and helped bring people closer together. It has created opportunities for cooperation and collaboration. Building on the Boao Forum’s past successes and strengths, China is working to explore how to build a community with a shared future for humanity in Asia by deepening interaction and cooperation.   Second, despite propaganda against