World Headlines

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado gave her Nobel Peace Prize medal to US President Donald Trump on Thursday during a White House meeting, as she tries to gain some influence over how the president shapes the South American country’s political future. A White House official confirmed that Trump intends to keep the medal. In a social media post on Thursday evening, Trump wrote: “Maria presented me with her Nobel Peace Prize for the work I have done. Such a wonderful gesture of mutual respect. Thank you Maria!” Machado, who described the meeting as “excellent,” said the gift was in recognition of what she called his commitment to the freedom of the Venezuelan people. Machado’s attempt to sway Trump came after he dismissed the idea of installing her as Venezuela’s leader to replace the deposed Nicolas Maduro. Trump openly campaigned for the prize before Machado was awarded it last month and complained bitterly when he was snubbed. Though Machado gave Trump the gold medal that honorees receive with the prize, the honour remains hers; the Norwegian Nobel Institute has said the prize cannot be transferred, shared or revoked. Asked on Wednesday if he wanted Machado to give him the prize, Trump told Reuters: “No, I didn’t say that. She won the Nobel Peace Prize.” The Republican president long expressed interest in winning the prize and has at times linked it to diplomatic achievements. The lunch meeting, which appeared to last slightly over an hour, marked the first time the two have met in person. Machado then met with more than a dozen senators, both Republican and Democratic, on Capitol Hill, where she has generally found more enthusiastic allies. While the visit was ongoing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump had been looking forward to meeting Machado, but that he stood by his “realistic” assessment that she did not currently have the support needed to lead the country in the short term. Machado, who fled Venezuela in a daring seaborne escape in December, is competing for Trump’s ear with members of Venezuela’s government and seeking to ensure she has a role in governing the nation going forward. After the US captured Maduro in a snatch-and-grab operation this month, various opposition figures, members of Venezuela’s diaspora and politicians throughout the US and Latin America have expressed hope that Venezuela will begin the process of democratisation. Hopes of a move to democracy Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, one of the senators who met with Machado, said the opposition leader had told senators that repression in Venezuela was no different now than under Maduro. Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez is a “smooth operator” who was growing more entrenched by the day thanks to Trump’s support, he said. “I hope elections happen, but I’m sceptical,” said Murphy, of Connecticut. Trump has said he is focused on securing US access to the country’s oil and economically rebuilding Venezuela. Trump has on several occasions praised Rodriguez, Maduro’s second-in-command, who became Venezuela’s leader upon his capture. In an interview with Reuters on Wednesday, Trump said, “She’s been very good to deal with.” Machado was banned from running in Venezuela’s 2024 presidential election by a top court stacked with Maduro allies. Outside observers widely believe Edmundo Gonzalez, an opposition figure backed by Machado, won by a substantial margin, but Maduro claimed victory and retained power. While the current government has freed dozens of political prisoners in recent days, outside groups and advocates have said the scale of the releases has been exaggerated by Caracas. In an annual address to lawmakers, Rodriguez called for diplomacy with the US and said that should she need to travel to Washington, she would do so “walking on her feet, not dragged there.” She also said she would propose reforms to her country’s oil industry aimed at increasing access for foreign investors.

“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters” — Antonio Gramsci THE more things change, the more they stay the same. China may have emerged as a power of global import, but America is still the world’s sheriff, and the Trump ad­­ministration wants everyone to know that. The dust had barely settled on the audacious kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro that the Yankee propaganda machinery started fanning the flames of war on Iran. Imperialism abroad has been accompanied by Trump’s unleashing of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) goons on American streets with orders to literally shoot ‘suspects’ at sight. The combination of bravado and terror portends more darkness ahead. But what is the end game? There isn’t one. At a base level, Washington still just wants the oil, the lifeblood of the global capitalist order over which it has presided since the end of World War II. This order is creaking at the seams, but a better world system is not visible yet. Venezuela sits atop the biggest reserves of black gold in the world. Iran is number three on the list. US imperialism wants it all. Then there is the other bedrock of the military-industrial complex — making war. In the face of China’s inexorable economic rise and partial erosion of dollar hegemony, US power is not what it was. But Washington possesses 10 times the means of destruction of any other single country. It still bombs and invades other countries at will, kidnaps heads of state in broad daylight. The combination of bravado and terror portends more darkness. Will military might and oil stave off America’s terminal economic decline? The answer depends on who monopolises the new global commodity on the block — critical minerals. Or maybe you prefer the term ‘rare earth’. Whatever your fancy, control over the rock equates to monopolies of renewable energy, electric vehicles, everyday smart technology, high-grade weapons systems and so much more. And this is where China calls out the Empire’s bluff. Beijing’s announcement of unprecedented export controls on rare earth elements a few months ago confirmed its willingness to play hard ball after Trump’s dramatic tariff announcements earlier in 2025. Oil, gas, plastic and coal still matter, but critical minerals are starting to matter more. Capitalism is greening itself and the Empire is being forced to play catch up. What does the tortured withering away of the old order mean for us in this country? Mostly business as usual, at least for now. The current hybrid plus regime is ingratiating itself with as many external patrons as possible to generate those coveted geostrategic rents. You want military personnel to serve in Gaza? Happy to consider it. A port in Pasni to rival the Chinese in Gwadar? Why not? Access to copper, gold and other mineral exploration projects in already conflict-ravaged Baloch­istan and KP? Ayub Khan spun it by claiming: friends, not masters. All of this while Chinese solar panels flood Pakistani markets at breakneck speed, Chinese electric SUVs become the new status symbol of our hedonistic chattering classes, and all manner of defence deals are signed with Gulf kingdoms and whatnot. No one seems to be concerned with the geopolitical wars that will surely intensify. Which brings us to crypto. Earlier this week, the CEO of the shady Trump-owned crypto company World Liberty Finance was in town to ink a deal with the go­­vernment. The big guns were all present to oversee the ‘historic’ agreem­ent. What exactly does it mean to ‘ex­­­-plore innovation in digital finance’? No one really knows, just as no one is privy to what the newly created Pakistan Virtual Asset Regulatory Autho­rity is actually doing, on whose watch and to what end. The crypto game is arguably even more opaque than any other money-making enterprise in the country, and that is saying a lot. More than $600 million was lost to crypto transactions in 2025. The one thing that can be said for certain is that World Liberty Finance has brought in a lot of cash for the Trump family, especially since he became president, and that there is more on the horizon for a select few in both Pakistan and the US in the wake of this deal. And herein lies the rub. For all the geopolitical change taking place around the world, the logic of the system at large remains the accumulation of power and profit. As bloody games around oil, minerals and crypto intensify, brutalised masses in Pakistan and beyond are in line for even more of the brunt of a rapid race to the bottom. The writer teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2026

SOUTH Asia remained largely bipolar during the Cold War era due to India’s inward-looking approach and Pakistan’s proactive alignment with the West. However, the balance of power steadily shifted in India’s favour in the first quarter of the 21st century. Islamabad’s internal security and economic fragility, a pro-India regime in Dhaka, Delhi’s rising economic profile, Beijing’s hesitation to proactively engage in South Asia’s security and strategic affairs and Washington’s decision to embolden India as a bulwark against China led to the emergence of a belligerent India in the region. Change is the only constant in international affairs. This also applies to South Asia, where the region is witnessing profound geopolitical shifts. Today, Pakistan wants to reclaim its political space in South Asia. Beijing is eager to expand its footprint in the region, while Dhaka is showing defiance against Delhi’s assertive policies and domestic interference. Islamabad considers it a conducive environment for promoting the idea of a ‘multipolar’ South Asia. Islamabad believes that a resurgent Pakistan, assertive Bangladesh and proactive China can effectively limit Indian influence and reclaim its strategic space in the region. In the South Asian context, multipolarity does not imply the emergence of several equal great powers, but rather the dilution of India’s structural dominance through the rise of alternative and consequential regional pillars. Multipolarity, as envisaged by Islamabad, signifies a regional order in which China, Bangladesh and Pakistan emerge as equally important strategic, economic and political poles alongside India, rather than remaining peripheral or subordinate actors. South Asian states have already welcomed Chinese economic activities under the Belt & Road Initiative. Now, Islamabad envisages a proactive approach by Beijing in establishing sub-regional forums sans India, and deeper technological and security cooperation with smaller South Asian states. Similarly, Islamabad is trying to embolden Dhaka as an assertive power within the South Asian region. Islamabad has calculated that a politically independent, economically stable and militarily assertive Dhaka will challenge India’s assertive policies. A stronger Bangladesh with advanced air and naval power will challenge Delhi’s uncontested influence in the Bay of Bengal. Hence, an emboldened Dhaka will indirectly complement Islamabad’s strategic overtures in South Asia. This is why Islamabad is strengthening Dhaka’s defence through deepening cooperation in the naval, air and military domain. A multipolar South Asia will limit Delhi’s ability to unilaterally shape the norms of regional forums. Multipolarity in South Asian affairs will introduce several strategic and political opportunities for the regional states. First, the significance of smaller South Asian states such as the Maldives, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan will increase in a multipolar South Asia as the competing powers will likely try to persuade them to join their respective blocs. Similarly, a multipolar South Asia will also increase strategic and political options for smaller South Asian states. Historically, the smaller South Asian states did not enjoy abundant strategic options; rather, they had to rely only on India. In a multipolar South Asia, smaller states will have the diplomatic flexibility to adopt an issue-based cooperation strategy on trade, energy, climate, security, etc, rather than entering into rigid bloc politics. Second, a multipolar South Asia will limit Delhi’s ability to unilaterally shape the norms of regional forums. For instance, Delhi’s unilateral decision to boycott Saarc in 2016 paralysed the only regional forum in South Asia. However, a multipolar South Asia will create space for alternative sub-regional frameworks. Third, attempts for the establishment of a multipolar South Asia will enhance Pakistan’s regional and global political profile as a facilitator of multi-vector regional alignment rather than simply being a bilateral rival of India. However, there are significant risks involved in promoting the idea of a multipolar South Asia. First, Islamabad’s attempts towards the establishment of a multipolar South Asia will lead to another episode of intense geopolitical competition within the region. This intensified geopolitical competition will adversely affect efforts for regional connectivity. In this intense competitive environment, South Asian states will prioritise sub-regional forums over regional frameworks as consensus-building in a regional forum is perhaps near impossible. One practical manifestation is the growing emphasis on mini-lateral frameworks that operate outside India-centric regional institutions. The establishment of the Bangladesh-China-Pakistan strategic forum reflects this evolving trend. Second, Delhi will resist a multipolar South Asia through economic resources, diplomatic campaigns and establishing strategic partnerships with its neighbouring countries to reassert its primacy in the region. These strategies will add pressure on the foreign policy of smaller South Asian states. Third, the uncertain domestic political environment of Bangladesh with its inconsistent foreign policy approaches, and long-standing Pakistan-Bangladesh issues such as Dhaka’s demands for an apology for the 1971 events and repayment of assets in undivided Pakistan, may hinder efforts towards a strengthened and effective multipolar South Asia in the long term. Since the beginning, Islamabad has been concerned about the South Asian region becoming hostage to a single dominating power. While smaller South Asian states, too, had inherent insecurities on account of India, they tried to address them through engagement with New Delhi — on the latter’s terms. Islamabad, on the contrary, tried to challenge Indian dominance with a two-pronged strategy. Externally, it formed an alliance with the West to militarily enable itself against India, while within the region, it made efforts to establish a regional organisation (Saarc) in 1985 with the help of smaller South Asian states to defy the single country’s dominance. Islamabad considers it another ‘1985 moment’, when it successfully aligned with smaller South Asian states and persuaded New Delhi to operate as one stakeholder among many, rather than as the region’s sole arbiter. The critical question is whether Islamabad’s push for a multipolar South Asia will replicate its 1985 success or reinforce regional polarisation. The writer is an analyst of South Asian affairs. The views expressed are his own. X: @itskhurramabbas Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2026

Pakistan has told the UN Security Council that it hopes for an early normalisation of the situation in Iran, warning that the UN Charter and international law prohibit external interference in the internal affairs of states. “The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against other states’ territorial integrity or political independence, or interference in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states,” Ambassador Asim Ahmad, Pakistan’s permanent representative to the UN, told an emergency meeting of the 15-member Council on Thursday evening. The United States convened the Security Council meeting to discuss the situation in Iran, with the country’s Ambassador Mike Waltz criticising the actions taken against Iranian protesters and assuring them of President Donald Trump’s support. In his remarks, the Pakistani envoy said, “We have been carefully observing developments in Iran and the region in recent days,” pointing out that new threats to regional peace and stability remain a serious cause of concern. Ambassador Asim Ahmad described Iran as a “brotherly country”, saying that the people of the two nations share deep-rooted historical, friendly, cultural and religious bonds. A stable and peaceful Iran is in the interests of Pakistan, the region and beyond, he said, adding that his country has full confidence in the wisdom of the Iranian people and leadership, rooted in the country’s culture, history and resilience. Ambassador Asim Ahmad highlighted that the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter are inviolable and sacrosanct, noting that the Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. Any external interference in the internal affairs of states, he added, is inconsistent with international law and the principles of the UN Charter. “We strongly believe that all disputes must be resolved through peaceful means and in accordance with international law,” the Pakistani envoy affirmed, warning that continued hostilities, use of force and unilateral actions would only deepen crises and cause unnecessary suffering. “We sincerely hope that the situation in Iran will soon return to calm and normalcy, free from any internal turmoil or external pressure, and that all relevant parties will return to the negotiating table to find a lasting solution to their differences, based on mutual respect and understanding,” Ambassador Asim Ahmad said in conclusion. Opening the debate, UN Assistant Secretary-General Martha Pobee, briefing the Security Council members, called for restraint by all parties to prevent further escalation. Ms Pobee described the situation in Iran as fluid and deeply concerning, noting that protests continue, albeit reportedly at a smaller scale than last week. She voiced alarm, however, over public statements suggesting possible military strikes on the country. “This external dimension adds volatility to an already combustible situation. All efforts must be undertaken to prevent any further deterioration,” she said. Moreover, UN Secretary-General António Guterres remains convinced that all concerns regarding Iran, including those related to the nuclear issue and ongoing protests, are best addressed through diplomacy and dialogue. He also urged maximum restraint at this sensitive moment and called on all actors to refrain from any actions that could lead to further loss of life or ignite a wider regional escalation. The protests erupted on 28 December after shopkeepers in the Iranian capital, Tehran, took to the streets to rail against the collapse of the national currency, soaring inflation and worsening living conditions. Ambassador Waltz, the US envoy, accused the Iranian government of actions against its own citizens that have repercussions for international peace and security. “President Donald J. Trump and the United States of America stand by the brave people of Iran,” he said. “Regardless of its excuses, the regime is solely responsible for the economic misery of the Iranian people and will be held accountable.” Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia hit back, saying the world has been watching as the United States continues to escalate tensions and fuel hysteria around Iran. He said that the current Security Council meeting, requested by the United States, is nothing more than yet another attempt to justify blatant aggression and interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. “And if, as Washington puts it, Iran’s authorities do not come to their senses, then Washington will solve the Iranian problem in its favourite way: through strikes aimed at overthrowing an undesirable regime in order to lend credibility to and justify its actions,” the Russian envoy said. China’s Ambassador, Sun Lei, said the United States has openly issued threats of the use of force against Iran. Stressing that China has always advocated adherence to UN Charter principles and international law, he said sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs are the most fundamental norms of international affairs. “The use of force can never solve problems,” the Chinese envoy said, noting that military adventurism would push the region towards an abyss. “No action that defies international law can be tolerated,” he added. Ambassador Gholamhossein Darzi, Deputy Permanent Representative of Iran, said he was speaking on behalf of a nation in mourning. “It is deeply regrettable that the representative of the United States, which requested this meeting, has today resorted to lies, distortions of facts and deliberate disinformation to conceal his country’s direct involvement in steering unrest in Iran towards violence,” he said. He added that the United States requested the meeting in order to conceal its direct complicity in the crimes its mercenaries have committed against Iran. “The United States is attempting to portray itself as a friend of the Iranian people, while simultaneously laying the groundwork for political destabilisation and military intervention under a so-called humanitarian narrative,” he said. He described these claims as particularly cynical in light of what he called the United States’ long and well-documented record of unlawful military interventions, regime-change operations and systematic violations of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

• Report claims Hibatullah Akhundzada ‘spooked’ by possibility of schism between his hardline base in the south, more pragmatic ministers in the capital• Zabihullah Mujahid ‘confirms’ existence of audio recording, but terms BBC claim ‘unfounded’ A STARK message from the Taliban supreme leader, warning of internal threats to the Islamic Emirate, has seemingly laid bare the long-speculated divide bet­ween Kandahar and Kabul, BBC News reported. An audio recording of a speech — delivered by Hibat­ullah Akhundzada at a seminary in Kandahar aro­und a year ago — contains what some are interpreting as confirmation of differences among top Taliban leaders. In the leaked clip, obtained by the BBC, Akhundzada can be heard saying that internal disagreements could eventually bring them all down. According to the investigation by BBC Afghan, two distinct groups have eme­rged within the Afghan Tali­ban, each presenting competing visions for how Afgh­anistan should be governed. One is entirely loyal to the Akhundzada-led Kandahar faction, who is driving the country towards his vision of a strict Islamic Emirate — isolated from the modern world, where religious figures loyal to him control every aspect of society. The second faction is made up of powerful Taliban members largely based in the capital Kabul, advocating for an Afghanistan which — while still following a strict interpretation of Islam — engages with the outside world, builds the country’s economy, and even allows girls and women access to an education they are currently denied beyond primary school. The question was always whether the Kabul group — made up of Taliban cabinet ministers, powerful militants and influential religious scholars commanding the support of thousands of Taliban loyalists — would ever challenge Akhundzada in any meaningful way, as his speech suggested. Then came a decision which would see the delicate tug of war between the most powerful men in the country escalate into a clash of wills. In late September, Akhun­dzada ordered the internet and phones to be shut off, severing Afghanistan from the rest of the world. But just three days later the internet was back, with no explanation of why. What had happened behind the scenes was seismic, insiders said. It was thought that the Kabul group had acted against Akhundzada’s order and switched the internet back on. According to one expert, this was nothing short of rebellion for a group that doesn’t brook dissent amongst its echelons. Consolidation in Kandahar Although Akhundzada was the lone power centre by the time the Taliban recaptured Kabul in 2021, his earlier lack of battlefield experience meant that his deputies — Sirajuddin Haqqani and Mullah Omar’s son Yaqoob — shepherded him through the period when the group was still consolidating its power. But once they came into power, the two powerful men were designated as mere ministers, and even a figure like Mullah Baradar — the co-founder of the Taliban movement — found himself handed the title of deputy PM. Akhundzada — having shunned the capital in favour of remaining in Kandahar, a base of power for the Taliban — began surrounding himself with trusted ideologues and hardliners, the BBC noted. The supreme leader, who had started out as a judge in the Taliban’s Sharia courts of the 1990s, quickly began announcing edicts without consultation with Kabul, and with little regard for public promises made before they took power, on issues like allowing girls access to education. Getting a meeting with him has also become increasingly difficult, as Akhundzada is said to be extremely reclusive. Photographing or filming him is forbidden and only two photos of him are known to exist. Reports suggest Akhundzada issues direct orders all the way down to local police units — bypassing ministers in Kabul. An observer argued that the “real authority has been transferred to Kandahar” but Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid denied this impression. “All the ministers have their power in their ministerial framework, undertaking daily works and making decisions — all the powers are delegated to them and they carry out their duties,” he told the BBC. In a subsequent tweet, he termed the BBC report “unfounded”. He did, however, implicitly confirm the existence of the audio recording cited as the basis for the report, only taking issue with its interpretation. “Statements by the leadership emphasising the importance of unity and cohesion, or minor matters in which opinions may differ, should never be interpreted as disagreement… there is no fear of discord,” Mujahid wrote on his X account. Kabul left fretting On the other side, the Kabul group — unofficially led by Mullah Baradar — wants to see an Afghanistan which moves towards the model of a Gulf state. They are concerned about the concentration of power in Kandahar, the nature and enforcement of virtue laws, how the Taliban should engage with the international community and women’s education and employment. But rather than being ‘moderate’, this faction is seen as being more pragmatic. Mullah Yaqoob is becoming increasingly popular with young Taliban members and some ordinary Afghans, while Sirajuddin Haqqani has managed to rebrand himself to near-mythical status among supporters. But despite all this, analysts and insiders repeatedly told the BBC that openly moving against supreme leader Akhundzada was unlikely. Published in Dawn, January 16th, 2026