The Nation Editorials 18th September 2026

Necessary Austerity

With the conflict around the Strait of Hormuz intensifying, it was perhaps inevitable that Pakistan would have to return to fuel-conservation and austerity measures. Shipping through Hormuz has fallen sharply amid renewed regional hostilities, while disruptions elsewhere in the Gulf and Red Sea continue to place pressure on energy supplies and prices.

The government has responded by ordering markets to close at 9pm, cutting fuel allocations for official vehicles by 50 per cent, restricting foreign travel and official functions, and reducing certain non-salary expenditures. Similar conservation measures were used earlier this year before being largely withdrawn in June.

JI announces Islamabad march on September 20
Implementing them early is preferable to waiting until pressures become more severe. Their success, however, will depend upon consistent enforcement. Market timings cannot remain optional, while restrictions imposed on citizens must be matched by visible restraint within government itself. A period of disrupted energy supplies inevitably requires some collective belt-tightening.

At the same time, the economic consequences of the present crisis should be described accurately. Pakistan has longstanding economic vulnerabilities, but the current energy shock is also being driven by a regional war that has disrupted major international supply routes and pushed global oil and LNG markets higher.

Security forces kill seven terrorists in Balochistan operations
Political criticism of the government’s economic management is legitimate, but it should distinguish between domestic policy failures and costs generated by an external conflict. Likewise, the government cannot use the war to excuse every economic difficulty.

For now, conservation is a practical response to extraordinary circumstances. The priority should be fair enforcement, restraint in public expenditure and ensuring that temporary emergency measures remain proportionate to the crisis they are intended to address.

Diplomatic Balance

Pakistan’s abstention at the United Nations Security Council vote on extending the mandate of the Iran sanctions panel reflects the difficult diplomatic balance Islamabad must maintain amid widening regional tensions.

The US-sponsored resolution received 11 votes in favour, while China and Russia voted against it. Pakistan was among two countries that abstained. With Beijing and Moscow already prepared to block the resolution, Islamabad had little reason to attach itself fully to either side of an increasingly polarised dispute.

Pakistan’s position cannot be viewed simply through the prism of choosing one camp over another. Islamabad maintains important relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, while its strategic partnership with China remains central to its foreign policy. It has also repeatedly called for dialogue rather than further escalation over Iran’s nuclear programme.

JI announces Islamabad march on September 20
In such circumstances, abstention was a prudent position. Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad reiterated Pakistan’s preference for diplomacy, dialogue and a negotiated settlement, while also supporting the independent technical role of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

This approach fits Pakistan’s broader effort to maintain working relations across competing international alignments. For a country whose economic, security and diplomatic interests intersect with those of several rival powers, rigid bloc politics carries obvious risks.

Pakistan’s foreign policy therefore has good reason to remain broad-based and Pakistan-first: cooperating where interests converge, avoiding unnecessary entanglements and preserving diplomatic space with all major partners.

Security forces kill seven terrorists in Balochistan operations
At a moment when the Middle East remains dangerously unstable, Islamabad must continue resisting pressure to choose sides where doing so serves no national interest. Maintaining channels with all parties is not ambiguity; it is strategic space, and Pakistan should continue protecting it.

Training for AI

As artificial intelligence moves deeper into government, the question is no longer whether public institutions will use it, but whether those using it understand what it can and cannot reliably do. Punjab Assembly’s decision to examine AI and digital governance is therefore timely.

AI offers obvious administrative advantages. Overworked public officials can use it to organise information, prepare summaries and accelerate routine paperwork. Automated systems can sift through data faster than human teams, while AI-assisted traffic enforcement and welfare programmes can potentially make public services more efficient.

JI announces Islamabad march on September 20
But efficiency without understanding carries its own dangers. A public official facing deadlines may rely on an AI-generated report without properly checking its contents. An AI-assisted challan system could incorrectly identify an offence, leaving a citizen to challenge a fine generated through a process they do not understand. Government documents may also begin citing or reproducing AI-generated material that originated elsewhere in the bureaucracy, creating feedback loops in which an error is repeated until it acquires the appearance of fact.

These are not arguments against using AI. They are arguments for understanding it.

Security forces kill seven terrorists in Balochistan operations
The Punjab Assembly committee is right to examine questions of human oversight, data accuracy, transparency and citizens’ ability to appeal automated decisions. However, regulation must be accompanied by institutional capacity. Officials using these systems need practical training in verification, privacy, data handling, hallucinations, bias and the limits of automated decision-making.

Just as civil servants are trained to handle government procedures and official records, familiarity with AI will increasingly have to become part of administrative competence.

The greatest danger is not that government will use artificial intelligence, but that it will use it casually. Technology should assist public officials, not replace their judgement or accountability.