“The Pakistani people have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists,” the US State Department said, according to a statement reported by Reuters.

Washington “supports Pakistan’s right to defend itself against terrorist attacks” as an intermittent conflict between Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan continues, the State Department added.

The remarks come after Pakistan on Sunday night acted against terrorist infrastructure along the Afghan border, in response to a terrorist attack on a local headquarter of the Pakistan Rangers Sindh in Karachi’s Gulistan-i-Jauhar area.

In February, US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Allison Hooker had expressed similar support for Islamabad, saying Washington “continues to monitor the situation closely” and backs Pakistan’s right to defend itself against Taliban attacks.

The brief note by the US State Department comes amid the ninth review of the United Nations Global Counterterrorism Strategy (GCTS), a global framework adopted in 2006 and periodically reviewed to guide international cooperation against terrorism.

At the United Nations General Assembly, the US voted against the resolution and pushed for a recorded vote, breaking with the traditional consensus-based adoption of the strategy.

Despite US objections, the General Assembly adopted the ninth review of the GCTS by 140 votes, including Pakistan, in favour on July 1. It adopted the ninth review by a recorded vote after consensus could not be reached.

The US, Israel and Argentina voted against the resolution. Japan abstained but its delegate later stated that the abstention was the result of a technical error and his delegation intended to vote in favour.

Washington described the draft as “bloated, outdated, and lacking focus,” arguing that the 170-plus paragraph text diluted core counterterrorism priorities with excessive and non-operational language. It also said that the draft “ignores numerous US redlines and policy concerns”.

Israel said the draft was “outdated, long and repetitive, and does not embrace institutional modernisation”, while Argentina’s delegate said it voted against the text to draw attention to the importance of reviewing the strategy.

On the other hand, Pakistan, Egypt and Iran regretted that several proposals made by Islamic countries were not considered. Turkiye also regretted that the document did not include stronger condemnation of the repeated targeting of Muslims, including the desecration of mosques and the burning of the Holy Quran.

Pakistan says terrorism evolving threat

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, said terrorism transcended national boundaries and manifested itself in an “increasingly interconnected yet decentralised organisational manner globally”.

Speaking at the UN General Assembly plenary meeting on the GCTS, he said the strategy remained a “living document” that evolved with emerging threats.

He said Pakistan had consistently remained at the forefront of global counterterrorism efforts and played a key role in operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, while also suffering heavy human losses. He said more than 1,200 Pakistanis were killed in terrorist attacks in the past year alone.

He expressed disappointment that, despite its efforts, the ninth review process “failed” to address longstanding gaps in the strategy or incorporate concerns raised by the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), whose member states include some of the countries most affected by terrorism.

He said a terrorism-free future required a comprehensive multilateral approach that addressed emerging physical and virtual threats, unresolved long-standing conflicts, respect for human rights and rule of law, and recognition of the right to self-determination under international law.

He also rejected any attempt to equate the “legitimate struggle for self-determination” with terrorism and called for stronger condemnation of state actions against populations under foreign occupation.

He also called for coordinated global action against xenophobia, racism, and all forms of intolerance, and urged stronger responses to violent far-right, neo-fascist, supremacist and xenophobic groups targeting vulnerable communities and places of worship.

The envoy urged reforms in the UN counterterrorism architecture and sanctions regime, saying existing mechanisms must be more transparent, fair and insulated from political influence.

He also called for stricter regulation of social media platforms to counter online radicalisation, recruitment, extremist propaganda and misinformation.

Ambassador Iftikhar stressed the need to regulate digital financial systems, virtual assets and cryptocurrencies to prevent their misuse by terrorist networks. He said that intergovernmental bodies such as the Financial Action Task Force should remain impartial, transparent and free from political use by any state.

Pakistan noted that despite the flexibility shown by Pakistan and the OIC, the process failed to produce meaningful improvements even after three years of negotiations.

Ambassador Asim described the lack of agreement as a “wake-up call,” saying the impasse underscored the need for renewed global cooperation and coordinated action against terrorism.

Sherani Deputy Commissioner Wali Khan Kakar confirmed these details to Dawn, saying that rescue teams from the district administration and ambulances reached the site of the accident “immediately” after the incident.

This is a developing story that is being updated as the situation evolves. Initial reports in the media can sometimes be inaccurate. We will strive to ensure timeliness and accuracy by relying on credible sources, such as concerned, qualified authorities and our staff reporters.

The prime minister expressed these views during a meeting with Federal Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Gilgit-Baltistan Amir Muqam, who called on him at the PM House.

The premier was briefed that the intensity of the month-long deadly protests launched in AJK by the proscribed Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) had subsided, but demonstrations in Rawalakot and its fringes were still being staged.

The protesters were still staging a sit-in in Rawalakot. However, the situation in Muzaffarabad and its nearby areas was reported to be calm.

Shehbaz reviews AJK law and order situation in meeting with Amir Muqam

Federal Minister for Public Affairs Rana Mubashir Iqbal, Minister of State for Power Abdul Rehman Kanju and Special Assistant to the Prime Minister Talha Barki also attended the meeting.

During the meeting, they also discussed the overall political situation in the country.

The prime minister directed the authorities concerned to expedite the public service agenda and ensure that resolving public issues remained the government’s top priority.

Meanwhile, former National Assembly deputy speaker and PML-N Khyber Pakhtunkhwa General Secretary Murtaza Javed Abbasi also called on the prime minister.

According to a PM Office statement, they exchanged views on the country’s overall political situation.

Federal Minister Iqbal, Minister of State Kanju and Special Assistant Barki also attended the meeting.

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2026

The rankings are, at best, a rough measure of quality. But they do reveal a lot. If we do not have a university in the top 350, it does say quite a bit about the priority accorded to education in Pakistan. And, knowing our budget allocations for education in general as well as higher education, and our other spending priorities, it is not a surprise. If our government spends less than one per cent of GDP on education, including expenditure on school education, is it any surprise that we do not have any universities in the top 350?

Lest you feel that resources are not important, do keep in mind that among the top 100 universities, apart from developed and high-income countries (the US, UK, Europe, Canada, Singapore, Hong Kong, China etc.), Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Argentina are the only three countries with one university each in the rankings.

The countries with universities in the top 200 rankings include: Qatar (1), India (3), Chile (2), Brazil (1), Mexico (2), the UAE (1), Kazakhstan (1), South Africa (1), Indonesia (1), Malaysia (4), Saudi Arabia (3) and Argentina (1). As you can see, these are all countries whose per capita income is much higher than Pakistan’s and whose spending on education as a percentage of GDP is also much more.

The ‘World Universities Rankings’ may be a rough measure of quality. But they do reveal a lot.

Another indication that resources matter comes from university budgets and endowments. MIT, ranked the top in QS rankings, has an endowment of $27.4 billion and an operational budget of $6bn a year. Imperial College has a budget of $1.7bn, Stanford University $8.7bn, and the University of Oxford $3.6bn. Private American universities are based on the endowment model and top universities have endowments going into billions of dollars: MIT $27.4bn (as mentioned above), Stanford $40.8bn and Harvard $55.7bn. The top European, Chinese and Singaporean universities are given large transfers from the government every year. Pakistani universities do not get much money from the government and none, private or public, have any endowments to speak of.

IIT Delhi, ranked at 118, the top Indian university in the rankings. It has an estimated operational budget of $100-150 million. QAU, the top ranked Pakistani university, has a budget estimated around $15m. Cornell University spends some $1 billion per year on research. Top Chinese universities spend multiples of that. IIT salaries for faculty, for comparable levels, are around $25,000 per year to $6,500 for QAU!

So, it would have been a surprise if a Pakistani university was in the top 100 or 200. But, more importantly, had even one Pakistani university been so ranked, it would not have said much for the state of higher education in the country as a whole. Countries that have strong higher education sectors, traditionally developed ones or newly emerging ones like China, all have numerous universities in the top tier. Multiple universities at the top indicates the priority for higher education as well as the depth and breadth of quality available in the country.

By design or by default — though I think it is more by design — the variables in the QS rankings do give a certain advantage to older, larger, richer and more established universities. Each ranking has a slightly different way of arriving at variables of importance. QS rankings are based on five areas: research and discovery (relative weight 50pc), employability and outcome (20pc), learning experience (10pc), global engagement (15pc) and sustainability (5pc). This means research weighs in quite heavily. Within research, academic reputation accounts for 30pc and faculty citations 20pc. Academic reputation, of course, gives a certain advantage to older, richer and more established universities and universities in developed or high-income countries. Similarly, in the employability category, employer reputation accounts for 15pc of the total 20pc weight, with 5pc for employment outcomes. Again, these tilt more towards established universities and those from richer countries. Finally, the 15pc metric for global engagement, based on the international faculty ratio, international collaborations and international student ratio, also favour traditional universities and destination countries.

The effect of the above can be seen in the rankings of some of the top Chinese universities. The top Chinese universities, ranking as high as 13 and 14 in the world, do exceptionally well on research and teaching variables, but are fairly average or do poorly on the international faculty and international student ratios. But this is hardly a reflection on the universities, given how the Chinese economy and political system have been evolving. The same would hold true for universities attempting to follow the development trajectory. Can one think of a university in Pakistan today with a lot of students from a diverse range of countries?

Though it is a shame that we do not have top-ranked universities in the country, it would actually be a surprise if we did have one or a few. That would be such an anomaly. We do not spend the type of money that quality higher education institutions, private or public, need. We do not have money for research or faculty salaries. So, how do we get top-ranked universities? More importantly, should we even try for one to reach the top 100 or 200 when the entire higher education sector is plagued with serious challenges? Or should we focus on broader measures that align incentives with better performance across the sector and then support top-tier public and private universities to scale newer heights?

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives and an associate professor of economics at Lums.

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2026