Peace, progress and sustainability | Political Economy

Maintaining yourself by simply offering the services of the world to the dominant powers of the world is not a way that will lead to lasting success or prosperity. Such a point of view only limits our abilities and connects our fate to the interests of others. What we need is a complete analysis of our powers, abilities and resources.

By developing a comprehensive and well -driven policy that prefers the development of our own people, we can lay the foundation for self -reliance and long -term growth. This is by empowering our citizens, investing in education, innovation and infrastructure and aligning our national efforts towards a strong, free future, which we can really promote the Prov. This is a method of process that will ensure sustainable development and a prosperous future for our nation.

China offers a compulsory example of how imperialism, war change or hedimonic trends can be achieved without developing. One of the important points to note is that China has never invaded Japan or Korea. The last confrontation was with Vietnam in 1979 – an isolated incident after which it did not have significant military intervention in its neighbors.

In fact, China has maintained a policy of non -aggression on its neighbors, and focused its resources on economic modern and internal development rather than military expansion.

This policy is a sign for China’s rise as an economic powerhouse. By focusing on technological innovation, infrastructure development and trade, China has placed itself as a leading global economy, keeping its military engagements minimal.

Unlike European powers and the royal dates of the United States, which was often built on regional victory and domination of weak states, China has largely accepted the principle of non -interference in the internal affairs of other nations. This approach not only preserves its stability, but also allows to avoid the expensive confusion that is often accompanied by royal ambitions.

Unlike China’s peaceful development model, Western countries, especially the United States, have been involved in numerous military intervention over the past century, which often justifies these measures as efforts to spread democracy, protect national security or protect global stability. However, these interferences often have mixed or negative consequences, resulting in a widespread unstable region, losing life and redirection of resources that could be implemented in development.

The theory of militant foreign policy, which is generally associated with the pursuit of global domination, has been a special symbol of Western powers, especially the United States. As the theory is the reasoning of Nam Chomsky, the interferences often have the consequences, providing the minimal benefits to the interference countries, destabilizing the entire regions. In the early calculations, the long-term costs of war are considered to be in terms of both human life and economic resources. This often yields results that disrupt the ideas that are done to promote such interference.

Unlike European powers and the royal dates of the United States, which was often built on regional victory and domination of weak states, China has largely accepted the principle of non -interference in the internal affairs of other nations.

The pursuit of military dominance, as Chomsky, has stated that suppressing domestic needs such as education, health care and development of infrastructure is diminished. The more resources a nation spends on military efforts, the less it can invest in its people and the economy. In this regard, the desire for war and imperial control is primarily contradictory to the goals of social development and economic prosperity.

For a country like Pakistan, where the geographical political situation is complicated and sometimes full of stress, learning from a peaceful point of view of China can lead to more stability and prosperity. By giving priority to peace, diplomacy and regional cooperation, Pakistan can focus on making its efforts a strong economy and promoting a society that values ​​education, technology and innovation. A national statement that emphasizes peace and neutrality – like the model of Austria or Finland – can help Pakistan avoid the destructive cycles of conflict that often remove development.

In such a framework, Pakistan will not close the eyes to the challenges it faces. Instead, it will recognize that peace is not only desired but also for development. The choice of neutrality, Pakistan will not back down from global affairs. Instead, it will play a role for itself as a mediator, and a lawyer for cooperation, as Switzerland has done in Europe.

From such a point of view, Pakistan will be allowed to avoid conflicts that do not fulfill the long -term purpose and instead focus on building strong domestic institutions and promoting regional partnerships.

The idea that peace promotes prosperity has been endorsed by many influential theories. For example, Johann Galting developed a concept of positive peace, which is beyond mere absence of disputes to include justice, equality and opportunities for all members of the society. In the galling framework, the peace enables the social structure that is essential for economic and social growth.

Similarly, the global system of Emmanuel Wallistine criticizes the ideology of imperialist dynamics that have historically led to unequal development, and argue that the pursuit of domination often results in exploitation and stagnation of the peripheral nations. Instead, Wallistine supports a co -operation -based economic relationship rather than dominance.

In his work on economic development, Albert Harshman also argued that peace is essential for prosperity. He highlighted that war is a drain on resources and that it hindered the nation’s ability to invest in social programs, infrastructure and human capital. On the other hand, peace created a conducive environment for investment and development, which allowed societies to flourish without the permanent threat of military conflict.

Martin Luther King Junior and Nelson Mandela also fought against peace as the basis of real progress. On non -violence, they have proved that social change and economic growth are the most effectively achieved through peace means, and focus on building respect, understanding and mutual benefit rather than repression or military force.

For long -term progress, peace is essential in national borders and foreign relations, peace is essential. China’s experience cites a compulsive example of how a country can develop economically and socially by giving priority to internal development and peaceful foreign policy and avoiding the loss of imperialism and military aggression.

Western militancy and pursuit of domination has often led to instability, resources and social stagnation. For nations like Pakistan, connecting their national rhetoric with peace, neutrality and regional cooperation can be offered a way that promotes both economic growth and social development. By rejecting the war and focusing on diplomacy, Pakistan can create a prosperous future that benefits its citizens and helps global stability.

The author is a professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beacon House National University in Lahore.