Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : When Donald Trump reassumed the presidency in January 2025, he came with a determination to reset the United States, to restore what he called its lost glory, and to end the long years of exploitation by allies and adversaries alike. His first and fiercest target was China. Even before his administration had taken shape, when his cabinet was being scrutinized in the Senate and the Congress, it was clear that nearly every appointee, from the national security leadership to the economic team, carried one unifying agenda: to confront China, to cut down its growing influence, and to reclaim for America the leadership of the international order. The early months carried the full weight of this antagonism. Tariffs were slapped on Chinese goods, hawkish statements were made about containing Beijing in the Pacific, and even talk of stopping the flow of Chinese students to American universities was floated. The tone was confrontational, the stance uncompromising, and the ambition was nothing less than to push China back not only from American shores but from Asia, Europe, and beyond.
Yet as the weeks unfolded, a sobering reality dawned on Washington. The United States no longer had the leverage it once commanded. The global order had shifted. China was not a fragile power dependent on American markets and technology; it was a formidable actor that had, over the past decade, consolidated its dominance in manufacturing, technology, and finance. By 2024, China accounted for nearly 31% of global manufacturing output, making it the indispensable workshop of the world. Its grip on rare earth elements was even more decisive, producing nearly 70% and processing about 85% of the world’s supply, the backbone of modern technologies from smartphones and electric vehicles to satellites and fighter jets. To think that tariffs alone could bend such a power was wishful, and it quickly became apparent that the United States was staring at a competitor far too entrenched to be bullied.
Trump’s early declarations that allies like Europe, Canada, and Mexico had been “plundering” the United States found quick results there. NATO states, under American pressure, agreed to hike defense spending from 2% to as high as 5% of GDP, and European negotiators conceded to humiliating trade deals that forced them to buy more American goods while swallowing a 15% tariff on their exports to the U.S. Canada, too, suffered greatly, as disputes over trade, security, and investment battered its economy and its political stability.
In those regions, Trump’s heavy-handed tactics worked because the dependency on the United States remained asymmetric. But with China, the playbook misfired. Beijing did not bend. It retaliated with equal tariffs, diverted exports to Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, and doubled down on its Belt and Road Initiative, which by 2025 had already drawn in more than 150 countries and over a trillion dollars in investment. Far from retreating, China used America’s confrontation to strengthen its global alternatives.
The attempt to ban Chinese students quickly collapsed as well. In 2024, more than 290,000 Chinese students were enrolled in American universities, contributing over $15 billion annually to tuition and living expenses. When proposals were made to cut them off, university presidents, governors, and state legislators raised the alarm that such a move would devastate higher education budgets and gut critical research programs. By the summer of 2025, Trump reversed course, openly admitting that these students were vital not only for finances but also for America’s scientific and technological advancement. What had been framed as a security threat was rebranded as a necessary lifeline for institutions already struggling with deficits.
On the military front, too, harsh reality intruded. American officials initially talked of quadrupling the U.S. presence in the South China Sea to contain Beijing. But the Pentagon’s own assessments made clear that China now had the largest navy in the world by ship count, and that sustaining such deployments would bleed the U.S. treasury without altering China’s resolve. With a defense budget already at $850 billion in 2024, America faced the prospect of draining itself in a contest it could not decisively win. It was not Beijing that appeared overstretched but Washington, and in the calculus of resources, the United States realized that escalation could only sap its strength.
Even the most powerful weapon in America’s arsenal, the dollar, proved less decisive than hoped. The dollar still made up about 58% of global foreign exchange reserves in 2024, but China and its BRICS partners had been steadily eroding this dominance. By early 2025, nearly a quarter of intra-BRICS trade was being conducted outside of the dollar, through local currency swaps and yuan settlements. At the same time, Beijing reduced its U.S. Treasury holdings to under $775 billion, its lowest in more than a decade, subtly weakening America’s ability to weaponize its debt dependence. The weaponization of finance, so effective against weaker adversaries, had limited effect on a China that had prepared its defenses.
It was on rare earths and supply chains that the hardest lesson was learned. Any disruption from Beijing would paralyze entire sectors of the U.S. economy. Defense contractors building F-35s, tech companies producing semiconductors, automakers racing to transition to EVs—all were dependent on Chinese supply chains. Attempts to reshore production or find alternative suppliers in Africa and Australia were years away from maturity. In the meantime, tariffs and restrictions only drove up prices at home. Walmart, Target, and Home Depot reported that household goods were rising by 10–15%, squeezing American consumers and fueling inflationary pressures. What had been billed as a strategy to punish China threatened to punish the very voters Trump had pledged to protect.
Trump is not a leader who easily admits defeat, but he is a pragmatist when forced by circumstances. Gradually, the rhetoric softened. Where once he threatened to choke off Chinese students, now he welcomed them. Where once he promised to multiply naval deployments, now he quietly acknowledged that China was too big to intimidate. Where once he boasted that tariffs would bring Beijing to its knees, now he conceded in his own words that “both China and the United States hold powerful cards, but I do not want to use these cards anymore.” It was a rare admission of limits, but also a demonstration of flexibility, of learning fast and adjusting course in the face of hard realities.
The implications of this shift are global. For Europe and Canada, the price of submission to American tariffs has been humiliation and economic loss. For developing countries, especially those bound to China through investment and infrastructure like Pakistan, the easing of U.S.-China tensions offers relief, stability, and opportunities. Supply chains can stabilize, inflationary shocks can be tempered, and the specter of a bifurcated technological order can be postponed. The nervousness that gripped global markets in early 2025 may yet give way to a calmer, more predictable environment.
This is not submission by the United States, nor is it triumph for China alone. It is a recognition of a multipolar world, one where interdependence outweighs the fantasies of domination. It is also a testament to Trump’s instinct for survival, his ability to correct course, and his willingness to pivot when faced with the immovable weight of reality. The United States still holds cards—in its consumer market, its technology base, its dollar system, and its alliances. But China holds cards too—in its manufacturing dominance, its rare earths, its investments, and its financial innovation. The test now is not who can outplay the other, but who can recognize that destroying the table destroys the game for all.
The course correction we are witnessing may prove to be one of the most consequential strategic adjustments of Trump’s presidency. It suggests not weakness, but wisdom—the wisdom to see that America cannot remain a hegemon in a world where China has become the indispensable player. In showing flexibility, Trump has revealed that leadership is not only about force but about judgment. He has acknowledged that America’s power, though vast, must coexist with China’s, and that a stable balance is the only path to safeguard prosperity at home and stability abroad. To some, this may feel like compromise. To others, like survival. But history may remember it as something larger: the moment the United States accepted the reality of a multipolar world, and chose coexistence over collision.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : When I lived in Pakistan, homelessness was largely perceived as a problem confined to the developing world—a symptom of poverty, conflicts, and weak governance. The idea that a resource-rich country like the United States could face a similar crisis seemed unimaginable. Yet, after nearly a year of living here, I have come to realize that homelessness is neither a “third-world problem” nor a rare phenomenon. It is a deep-rooted crisis at the heart of the world’s wealthiest nation, silently transforming its social and urban landscape.
President Donald Trump, already grappling with significant domestic and international challenges—including wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, tensions between Pakistan and India, and his claims of having helped defuse multiple global conflicts—has placed homelessness among his top priorities. From Los Angeles to New York City, the evidence is striking: small tents line sidewalks, makeshift shelters occupy public spaces, and families live beneath bridges or in their cars. What might once have been viewed as isolated instances has become a widespread humanitarian emergency.
Trump views homelessness as central to his broader plan to restore America’s global image, improve the aesthetics of its cities, and ensure public safety. However, addressing the problem is not simply a matter of clearing streets. It requires an in-depth understanding of the underlying causes and a comprehensive strategy to rehabilitate individuals rather than merely displace them.
Globally, homelessness reflects the deep inequalities that persist despite immense progress in science, technology, and wealth creation. According to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), between 1.6 billion and 3 billion people lack adequate housing, while over 330 million face absolute homelessness—living entirely without shelter. More than 1.1 billion live in slums or informal settlements, a figure that has grown by 130 million since 2015. This is not a challenge unique to poor nations; it spans continents and economies, from conflict-torn regions to affluent capitals.
In places like Syria, Yemen, and Sudan, homelessness has surged due to war, displacement, and collapsing infrastructure. Nigeria, for example, is home to 24.4 million homeless people—about 13% of its population—driven by poverty, rapid urbanization, and a lack of affordable housing. In Syria, 6.56 million people have been rendered homeless after years of conflict, making it one of the largest displacement crises in modern history. While such figures are expected in fragile states, the growing presence of homelessness in wealthy economies like the U.S., the U.K., and Germany underscores a deeper global failure.
In the United States, homelessness has reached record levels. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported 771,480 Americans experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024—the highest figure ever recorded. This equals 23 people per 10,000 residents living in shelters, vehicles, or unsheltered conditions. States like California and New York remain epicenters of the crisis: California reports 187,084 homeless individuals (48 per 10,000), while New York faces an even higher rate, with 158,019 people homeless (81 per 10,000). In Hawaii, the crisis is worsening, with homelessness nearly doubling between 2019 and 2024, rising from 44 to 80 people per 10,000 residents.
The drivers behind this emergency are complex and interconnected. A severe shortage of affordable housing remains at its core, compounded by rising rents, inflation, and stagnating wages. For many middle- and lower-income families, securing stable housing has become impossible. Mental health challenges and lack of access to treatment exacerbate the issue, as do natural disasters and public health crises that displace thousands of families. In some cases, even full-time employment fails to guarantee a roof over one’s head, revealing how deeply structural this crisis has become.
Europe faces its own escalating challenges, demonstrating that homelessness is not limited by geography or wealth. Across the European Union and United Kingdom, over one million people sleep without adequate shelter every night. In France, there are 333,000 homeless people—about 30.7 per 10,000 residents. Germany reports 263,000 homeless individuals (25.8 per 10,000), while the UK faces around 400,000 homeless, including over 309,000 in England alone. As in the U.S., the crisis is fueled by soaring housing costs, insufficient welfare systems, migration pressures, and underfunded public housing initiatives. According to the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), the lack of affordable housing combined with inadequate social support structures has left governments unprepared to meet growing demands.
Yet some nations have proven that homelessness is neither inevitable nor unsolvable. Japan offers an exceptional example of effective intervention. As of 2024, the country recorded just 2,820 homeless individuals nationwide, translating to two per 100,000 people—one of the lowest rates in the developed world. Japan’s success lies in comprehensive, long-term strategies that integrate permanent housing solutions, job placement programs, mental health care, and social reintegration services. Its model demonstrates that with structured governance and well-funded social policies, the cycle of homelessness can be broken.
Against this global backdrop, President Trump’s administration has unveiled an ambitious strategy to address homelessness in America. His plan prioritizes clearing unsafe encampments, expanding affordable housing projects, and partnering with private developers to accelerate construction. Additionally, his administration emphasizes rehabilitation, including mental health support, job training, and pathways to employment, alongside tighter immigration controls, arguing that undocumented migration adds pressure on limited public resources.
However, experts caution that enforcement alone cannot resolve the crisis. Removing tents and shelters from city streets may improve appearances temporarily but fails to address the structural causes of homelessness. Long-term solutions require a multi-pronged approach: investing in affordable housing, strengthening mental health infrastructure, reforming wage and rent policies, and equipping individuals with the tools to achieve stability. Without these measures, efforts risk displacing vulnerable populations rather than rehabilitating them.
The issue is no longer confined to impoverished regions or war-torn societies; homelessness has emerged as a global challenge that transcends borders, economies, and ideologies. For the United States, Trump’s war on homelessness represents both a political commitment and a moral responsibility. Success will depend on whether the country can transition from short-term optics to comprehensive policies that prioritize dignity, opportunity, and inclusivity.
America possesses the resources, innovation, and leadership to combat this crisis effectively. What is needed is a national consensus that homelessness is not a reflection of personal failure but a consequence of systemic gaps. By embracing compassion and collaboration, the U.S. can ensure a future where every citizen has access to safe, secure, and dignified housing—a future where the wealthiest nation on Earth leads not just by economic power but by its ability to care for its most vulnerable.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : In early 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled one of the most controversial and shocking proposals in modern Middle Eastern history: a plan to forcibly relocate nearly two million Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank to neighboring Arab countries and turn Gaza into what he called the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Standing alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump described this plan as an “opportunity” for Palestinians to live elsewhere while Israel would retain full control of Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. Netanyahu strongly endorsed the vision, calling it “free choice” for Palestinians, but global human rights organizations and numerous governments immediately recognized it for what it truly was—a blueprint for mass displacement and the erasure of Palestinian identity. Arab nations, including Jordan and Egypt, rejected the plan outright, calling it “unrealistic, immoral, and illegal,” while international observers compared it to historical examples of ethnic cleansing and warned that implementing such a policy would constitute a grave violation of international law.
The proposal became a political fault line that deepened existing divisions while simultaneously fueling the already volatile situation on the ground. When Palestinians refused to leave their ancestral homes, Israel intensified its military operations in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. As the offensive escalated, the human toll became catastrophic. Verified figures from multiple independent sources, including the United Nations and major news agencies, confirm that more than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed so far, with tens of thousands more wounded or permanently disabled. Among them are thousands of children whose lives were cut short and countless families torn apart. Hospitals, schools, and residential neighborhoods have been reduced to rubble, leaving survivors without shelter, medical care, or hope for stability. Gaza, already one of the most densely populated areas in the world, now faces near-total devastation. The destruction of its infrastructure has created a humanitarian catastrophe, with shortages of food, clean water, and electricity, alongside widespread starvation and disease. Despite growing international pressure, Israel continues its operations largely with impunity, confident of Washington’s unwavering political and financial backing.
What makes this moment profoundly alarming is not just the scale of destruction but the alignment of global powers enabling it. Netanyahu’s government views this offensive as a historical opportunity to annex and expand illegal settlements across Gaza and the West Bank, effectively erasing the possibility of a future Palestinian state. Israel’s finance minister Bezalel Smotrich has openly stated that the approval of settlement construction in the sensitive E1 corridor, east of Jerusalem, will “bury forever the idea of Palestinian statehood.” This controversial settlement project, covering nearly 12 square kilometers, would split the West Bank into disconnected northern and southern zones, making territorial continuity impossible. Despite this blatant defiance of international law, Israel secured silent complicity from the U.S. administration, which has refused to intervene and continues to provide military aid and diplomatic cover.
But while Trump’s administration appears satisfied that elements of its relocation vision are unfolding, the global backlash has been unprecedented. In a rare show of unity, twenty-one countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, Spain, and Sweden, issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s settlement plans and declaring them a “flagrant violation of international law.” These nations further demanded that Israel halt construction immediately and allow unrestricted humanitarian access into Gaza. Australia, in particular, emerged as a surprising leader among Western countries. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government not only condemned Israel’s actions but also announced conditional recognition of a Palestinian state, joining a growing coalition of nations willing to defy U.S. and Israeli pressure. In an even bolder move, Canberra canceled the visa of far-right Israeli lawmaker Simcha Rothman, citing inflammatory remarks, which triggered retaliatory action from Israel, including revoking the residency visas of Australian diplomats assigned to the Palestinian Authority. Despite Netanyahu’s personal attacks labeling Albanese “weak” and accusing him of “betraying Israel,” the Australian government stood firm, underscoring its commitment to humanitarian principles over political expediency.
Equally significant has been the role of European countries, many of which have quietly broken away from Washington’s long-standing alignment with Israeli policy. The joint condemnation of settlement expansion, combined with growing calls for an arms embargo, represents a notable shift in Western diplomacy. These nations have prioritized international law and human rights over geopolitical convenience, risking trade disruptions, diplomatic backlash, and influence from powerful pro-Israel lobbies. Their recognition of Palestinian statehood and coordination of humanitarian aid pipelines mark a decisive moment in global politics: a willingness to prioritize justice over fear.
However, what remains most heartbreaking is the near-total silence from many Muslim-majority countries. While Jordan and Egypt firmly rejected Trump’s relocation plan and proposed alternative reconstruction frameworks, the broader Muslim world has offered little beyond statements of sympathy. Despite representing nearly two billion people and controlling immense financial, political, and energy resources, these governments have largely avoided taking tangible steps such as imposing economic sanctions, severing trade, withdrawing ambassadors, or leveraging international forums to isolate Israel diplomatically. For Palestinians under siege, this silence has become a source of profound disillusionment. They have watched as Christian-majority nations like Australia, Ireland, Spain, and Norway have risked their alliances and economic interests to condemn Israel’s actions, while many Muslim capitals have remained passive spectators to the destruction of Gaza.
The hypocrisy deepens when viewed against the backdrop of global public opinion. Massive protests have erupted across Europe, North America, and Latin America, with millions marching to demand an end to Israeli attacks and calling for justice for Palestinians. Social media movements amplifying calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions have gained unprecedented traction, putting increasing pressure on Western governments. Yet, Muslim leaders—despite being historically viewed as guardians of Palestinian rights—have avoided leveraging their collective influence on the global stage, citing domestic instability, economic vulnerability, or geopolitical alliances. This silence has left Palestinians feeling politically abandoned, not only by their adversaries but by their own supposed allies.
The figures paint an undeniable picture. Over two million people in Gaza remain trapped in what experts describe as the world’s largest open-air prison. More than 60,000 are dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, and over 80% of Gaza’s population displaced. Entire families have been wiped out. The Israeli E1 settlement plan threatens to divide the West Bank permanently, effectively eliminating the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. The combined impact of military aggression, illegal land annexations, forced displacement proposals, and blockade-induced starvation amounts to what international rights groups describe as collective punishment on an unprecedented scale.
And yet, amidst this tragedy, glimmers of hope remain. Australia’s bold defiance and the growing list of nations recognizing Palestine represent cracks in the seemingly unshakable wall of impunity Israel has enjoyed for decades. The collective action of 21 countries in challenging illegal settlements shows that alliances are shifting, even if slowly. These countries have demonstrated that moral courage can coexist with diplomacy and that choosing humanity over expediency carries weight on the international stage.
Still, history will not only remember the oppressors and the victims but also those who stood silent when their voices were most needed. While Netanyahu pursues his vision of territorial expansion and Trump celebrates the partial implementation of his relocation plan, the burden of conscience now rests on the global community. The lesson is painfully simple: neutrality in the face of oppression always favors the oppressor. The failure of powerful Muslim states to mobilize meaningful resistance has left an indelible scar on the collective identity of the Muslim world and a haunting question for generations to come: when Gaza cried for help, why was the silence louder than the bombs?
The Gaza crisis has transcended borders, religions, and political ideologies. It is no longer about negotiations between two adversaries; it is about humanity’s willingness to defend the right to exist, the right to dignity, and the right to justice. Every government, every institution, and every individual faces a choice between complicity and courage. History will record the nations that risked alliances, economic interests, and political capital to uphold international law, and it will equally remember those that turned away. As images of starving children, destroyed neighborhoods, and grieving families continue to emerge, the call to conscience grows louder.
The time to act is now. The responsibility does not rest solely on the shoulders of Palestinians or their immediate neighbors—it belongs to the entire world. The struggle in Gaza is not a local issue; it is a global moral reckoning. A future built on dispossession and death cannot bring security or peace to anyone, not Israelis, not Palestinians, not the wider world. Justice must rise above power, and humanity must triumph over indifference, or else the Gaza tragedy will be remembered not only for its suffering but for the silence that allowed it to happen.