Peace is often viewed as a prerequisite for sustainable development. This idea holds true not only in the realm of economic growth but also in the broader context of social progress. To thrive, nations must establish conditions that enable stability, social welfare and equitable growth, all of which are impossible to achieve in the chaos of war or imperial conquest.

Throughout history, war has often been framed as a necessary evil or a tool for expansion. However, as some influential theorists have argued, war has long-term destabilising effects that ultimately hinder progress. If Pakistan seeks to build a prosperous future, it must look to models of peace, neutrality and internal development — like China, Austria and Finland.

Sustaining ourselves by merely offering mercenary services to the world’s dominant powers is not a path that will lead to lasting success or prosperity. Such an approach only limits our potential and ties our fate to the interests of others. What we need is a thorough analysis of our strengths, capabilities and resources.

By crafting a comprehensive and well-rounded policy that prioritises the development of our own people, we can lay the foundation for self-reliance and long-term growth. It is through empowering our citizens, investing in education, innovation and infrastructure, and aligning our national efforts towards building a strong, independent future that we can truly thrive. This is the course of action that will ensure sustainable progress and a prosperous future for our nation.

China provides a compelling example of how progress can be achieved without resorting to imperialism, war-mongering or hegemonic tendencies. One of the key points to note is that China has never invaded Japan or Korea. The last skirmish it had was with Vietnam was in 1979 — an isolated event that was not followed by significant military interventions in its neighbouring countries.

In fact, China has maintained a policy of non-aggression towards its neighbours, focusing its resources on economic modernisation and internal growth rather than military expansion.

This policy is a sine qua non for China’s rise as an economic powerhouse. By concentrating on technological innovation, infrastructure development and trade, China has positioned itself as a leading global economy while keeping its military engagements to a minimum.

Unlike the imperial histories of European powers and the United States, which were often built on territorial conquest and the domination of weaker states, China has largely embraced the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations. This approach not only preserves its stability but has also allowed it to avoid the costly entanglements that often accompany imperial ambitions.

In contrast to China’s peaceful development model, Western nations, particularly the United States, have been involved in numerous military interventions over the past century, often justifying these actions as efforts to spread democracy, protect national security or preserve global stability. However, these interventions have often had mixed or negative outcomes, resulting in vast destabilised regions, loss of life and the redirection of resources that could have been invested in development.

The theory of militarised foreign policy, which is commonly associated with the pursuit of global hegemony, has been a hallmark of Western powers, especially the US. As theorist Noam Chomsky argues, these interventions often have unintended consequences, destabilising entire regions while providing minimal benefits to the intervening countries. The long-term costs of war — both in terms of human lives and economic resources — are rarely considered in the initial calculations. This often leads to outcomes that undermine the very ideals that such interventions are meant to promote.

Unlike the imperial histories of European powers and the United States, which were often built on territorial conquest and the domination of weaker states, China has largely embraced the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations.

The pursuit of military dominance, as Chomsky points out, diverts attention from pressing domestic needs such as education, healthcare and infrastructure development. The more resources a nation spends on military endeavours, the less it can invest in its own people and economy. In this sense, war-mongering and the desire for imperial control are fundamentally at odds with the goals of social progress and economic prosperity.

For a country like Pakistan, where geopolitical situation is complex and sometimes fraught with tension, learning from China’s peaceful approach could offer a path towards greater stability and prosperity. By prioritising peace, diplomacy and regional cooperation, Pakistan can focus its efforts on building a more robust economy and fostering a society that values education, technology and innovation. A national narrative that emphasises peace and neutrality — similar to the models of Austria or Finland — could help Pakistan avoid the destructive cycles of conflict that often derail development.

In such a framework, Pakistan will not be turning a blind eye to the challenges it faces. Instead it will recognise that peace is not only desirable but essential for progress. Choosing neutrality, Pakistan will not retreat from global affairs. It will instead carve out a role for itself as a mediator and advocate for cooperation, like Switzerland has done in Europe.

Such an approach will allow Pakistan to avoid becoming embroiled in conflicts that serve no long-term purpose and focus instead on building strong domestic institutions and fostering regional partnerships.

The idea that peace fosters prosperity is supported by several influential theorists. Johan Galtung, for example, developed the concept of positive peace, which goes beyond the mere absence of conflict to include the presence of justice, equality and opportunities for all members of a society. In Galtung’s framework, peace enables the social structures necessary for economic and social growth.

Similarly, Immanuel Wallerstein’s World-Systems Theory critiques the imperialistic dynamics that have historically led to unequal development, arguing that the pursuit of hegemony often results in the exploitation and stagnation of peripheral nations. Instead, Wallerstein advocates for equitable economic relationships based on cooperation rather than domination.

Albert Hirschman, in his work on economic development, also argued that peace was integral to prosperity. He highlighted that war was a drain on resources and hindered a nation’s ability to invest in social programs, infrastructure and human capital. Peace, on the other hand, created an environment conducive to investment and development, allowing societies to flourish without the constant threat of military conflict.

Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela, too, championed peace as the foundation of true progress. Their emphasis on non-violence demonstrated that social change and economic growth are most effectively achieved through peaceful means, focusing on building relationships based on respect, understanding and mutual benefit rather than through coercion or military force.

Pursuit of peace, both within national borders and in foreign relations, is essential for long-term progress. China’s experience offers a compelling example of how a country can grow economically and socially by prioritising internal development and peaceful foreign policy and avoiding the pitfalls of imperialism and military aggression.

Western militarisation and the pursuit of hegemony have often led to instability, resource drain and social stagnation. For nations like Pakistan, aligning their national narrative with peace, neutrality and regional cooperation could offer a way forward that fosters both economic growth and social progress. By rejecting war-mongering and focusing on diplomacy, Pakistan could build a prosperous future that benefits its citizens and contributes to global stability.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.