Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 127

MY Current Affairs Notes (Plz Check & Comment) AOA to all respcted members, iam here posting my CA notes

that i prepared last year to the best of my knowledge and they contain information and other data till march 2011, i wud request all the senior members to check my notes and give me useful suggestions to update these notes according to the recent happenings regarding each and every topic (which new headings should be added keeping recent developments in view and wat shd be subtracted out due to irrelevance)..Suggestions, guidance, constructive criticism are invited and most welcumed from my side...hope these notes will also help newcomers as my other notes such as PA and Islamiat have helped them....Iam grateful to all who have taken interest in my notes and guided me with their useful tips and suggestions.especial thanx to syeda sabahat, aariz and others who have been with me all the time....hope to continue this effort.

Afghan Crisis
Outline: Historical Background Incident Of 9/11 And End Of Taliban Rule: Operation Against Al-Qaeda Network. Surging Of Forces In Afghanistan Pakistans Commitment In War On Terror And American Response Preparing For Post US-Afghanistan Aftermath, Once India Would Seize The Opportunity In Afghanistan Americans Mistakes In Afghanistan And Repetition Of History-Critical Analysis The Road To Peace-Conclusion Historical Background: Afghanistan is an under-developed landlocked mountainous Muslim country of South West Asia. Since ages tribal system had been the basis of its society. The Afghan people are brave, peaceloving and devoted Muslims. They had been living peacefully under princes and kings. This state of affairs continued till 1973 when King Zahir Shah was deposed by Mohammad Daud and the country plunged into civil war and disharmony is continued to this day. After the fall of monarchy in 1973, Afghanistan fell victim of chaos and confusion. The Soviet Union exploited this situation and establishes its control over Kabul in 1979 which lasted till 1988. After the withdrawal of USSR, Afghanistan was ravaged by civil war which ended in 1996 when Taliban became the master of this land. Taliban rule was marked by Islamic fundamentalism which led to the establishment of Al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban attracted the attention of the world by their fundamentalism and strict policies towards women folk and the non-Muslims. In the meantime, US and Britain charges Afghanistan with the acts of supporting Terrorism and freedom fighters in Chechnya. In this connection, US launched a Cruise missile attack against the bases in Afghanistan in August 1998.

Incident Of 9/11 And End Of Taliban Rule: Afghanistan became the focus of the world after the terrorists attack on WTC and Pentagon in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. US blamed Taliban-sponsored al-Qaeda for these attacks. As a result, US-led UN forces attacked Afghanistan, and on 13th November, 2001 dislodged the Taliban rule. Later on, all the factions of Afghan people participated in the Bonn meeting and on 5th December 2001 signed an agreement to establish a 30-member Interim Government under Hamid Karzai which installed a democratic government through a Loya Jirga. Operation Against Al-Qaeda Network. After establishing an Interim Authority in Afghanistan, US-led multi-nation forces began operation against Al-Qaeda network and their supports. This operation has been continued since January 2002 in all parts of Afghanistan. Ruthless force is being used to kill or capture militants of Al-Qaeda and their supporters. As Taliban forces are also engaged in this operation, but so far the American forces have to failed to clear the land from Extremists. The Afghan people are the main sufferers because continuous state of war has not only ruined their country but also deprived them of food, shelter and peace. Surging Of Forces In Afghanistan US forces in Afghanistan have surpassed those in Iraq since 2003. US numbers in Afghanistan are scheduled to peak at about 98, 000 after the first detachment of 30,000 reinforcement. Obama has given his senior commander, Gen. Patraeus until July 2011 to turn the tide of insurgency and bolster forces. Pakistans Commitment In War On Terror And American Response Pakistan has lost more soldiers than the combined loss suffered by foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and more civilians than lost in 9/11 strikes which eminently reflect Pakistans commitment in the war on terror. Despite Pakistans such commitment and immense loss in the WOT; the US is continuously threatening Pakistan with following serious consequences: i) Chocking the country economically ii) Invasion on FATA iii) Drone strikes across the country iv) Seizure of nuclear storage sites by special operations v) Air blitz against these sites Instead of living in mortal fear the Americans should shed the paranoia that has gripped them and the arrogance that characters their conduct with the weaker states and show some grace, serenity of mind, understanding and respect to Pakistans concerns and constraints. Their uncalled for outburst against a partner would only serve to alienate the Pakistani people even more. Preparing For Post US-Afghanistan

As a consequence of the rapid deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan has also preparing option in case the US departs. Pakistani officials who speak of the US-led coalition as occupation forces in Afghanistan, are convince that history will repeat itself and that the US will sooner or later leave the region. Once the Americans are gone, NATO determination will fade and Afghanistan will be left to itself. The Taliban tactics so far has been to attack where NATO presence is weak, but they are now able to mass more and more fighters and launch large-scale raids. They will most likely take on NATO troops directly, thus increasing the number of causalities. Should Western troops leave the country or reduce their number to a symbolic presence, the position of Afghan government could well weaken. Pakistan would be faced with political vacuum that it believe would have to fill to prevent any other power from acquiring a predominate influence. Aftermath, Once India Would Seize The Opportunity In Afghanistan i) India will try to sandwich Pakistan between the threats from both Eastern and Western borders. ii) It will exploit every possible opportunity to spark the flames of sectarianism and ethnicity in Baluchistan and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa. iii) Pakistans economy will be strangulated by the Indian blockade. iv) The regional balance of power will be destabilised massively. v) Indians extended presence in Afghanistan will create problems for China as well. vi) The US will cash in the opportunity by selling military hardware to India in the name of upgrading overhauling the Indian Army to enable it to take on Chinese forces. Americans Mistakes In Afghanistan And Repetition Of History-Critical Analysis History is repeating itself in Afghanistan because America is repeating the mistake made by the Soviets. They are being made to pay for their folly of overestimating themselves, and understanding the skill and fortitude of the Afghan guerrillas. As a consequence, they have put in place a new strategy of withdrawal of International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) from Afghanistan from July 2011 onwards. The first mistake made by America was to defy history. But having chosen to do so they should have assigned the resources needed to accomplish the mission. Thus, their main effort should have been in Afghanistan not in Iraq. Their second mistake was to initiate the air-bombing campaign without securing the crossing sites on their sides of the Durand Line to prevent the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from escaping to tribal areas of Pakistan. Their third mistake was not to end the Taliban domination in the mountains where they have their safe havens. Yet instead of taking corrective action they persisted with the mismatch between the mission assigned and resources given. Consequently, they have suffered operational

setback and blamed Pakistan for them. The additional US forces sanctioned are still not enough to accomplish the mission. However, the least that can be done is to employ the available forces judiciously. One, for blocking at last those crossing sits which are used by the Haqqani group to make forays into Afghanistan from North Waziristan and two for ending the domination of the mountains by the Taliban. The Road To Peace-Conclusion Pakistan must learn from past and stay away from a future role in Afghanistan or the impeding civilian war in the next round will enter our land and there will be no stopping the national nosedive to extinction. Ultimately, the situation to the problem lies in sorting out the peoples difficulties connected with governance and security in the first place. The road to peace in Afghanistan lies in making a major governance overhaul that needs to be administrated by someone who is acceptable to all the people. In the existing situation that someone could be from the former King Zahir Shahs family-that person can craft an exit strategy through which Afghanistan could re-emerge as a peaceful country under democratic constitutional monarchy working under parliament. This formulation is likely to be acceptable to many ethnic nationalities in the country including the Taliban. Pakistan could do well to encourage such move.

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: Billa (Sunday, September 11, 2011), dms664 (Sunday, September 04, 2011), ijazshamir (Sunday, October 16, 2011), nadiamughal (Sunday, September 04, 2011), rarasham (Sunday, August 14, 2011), uroojz (Tuesday, November 29, 2011) #2 Thursday, August 11, 2011 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Karachi Posts: 943 Thanks: 423 Thanked 423 Times in 319 Posts

aariz Senior Member

@Roshan. I checked ur essay and now had a look on the above topic too. One thing I have noticed that the vocabulary and the expressions used in the both topics are not one handed. __________________ Try not to become a man of success but a man of value.

#3 Thursday, August 11, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by aariz @Roshan. I checked ur essay and now had a look on the above topic too. One thing I have noticed that the vocabulary and the expressions used in the both topics are not one handed. ya dear its bz i have mostly used bookish language for current affairs, and for essay i try to remain as simplest as possible by using general words..Regards

The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: aariz (Thursday, August 11, 2011) #4 Friday, August 12, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani AOA to all respcted members, iam here posting my CA notes that i prepared last year to the best of my knowledge and they contain information and other data till march 2011, i wud request all the senior members to check my notes and give me useful suggestions to update these notes according to the recent happenings regarding each and every topic (which new headings should be added keeping recent developments in view and wat shd be subtracted out due to irrelevance)..Suggestions, guidance, constructive criticism are invited and most

welcumed from my side...hope these notes will also help newcomers as my other notes such as PA and Islamiat have helped them....Iam grateful to all who have taken interest in my notes and guided me with their useful tips and suggestions.especial thanx to syeda sabahat, aariz and others who have been with me all the time....hope to continue this effort.

Afghan Crisis
Outline: Historical Background Incident Of 9/11 And End Of Taliban Rule: Operation Against Al-Qaeda Network. Surging Of Forces In Afghanistan Pakistans Commitment In War On Terror And American Response Preparing For Post US-Afghanistan Aftermath, Once India Would Seize The Opportunity In Afghanistan Americans Mistakes In Afghanistan And Repetition Of History-Critical Analysis The Road To Peace-Conclusion Historical Background: Afghanistan is an under-developed landlocked mountainous Muslim country of South West Asia. Since ages tribal system had been the basis of its society. The Afghan people are brave, peace-loving and devoted Muslims. They had been living peacefully under princes and kings. This state of affairs continued till 1973 when King Zahir Shah was deposed by Mohammad Daud and the country plunged into civil war and disharmony is continued to this day. After the fall of monarchy in 1973, Afghanistan fell victim of chaos and confusion. The Soviet Union exploited this situation and establishes its control over Kabul in 1979 which lasted till 1988. After the withdrawal of USSR, Afghanistan was ravaged by civil war which ended in 1996 when Taliban became the master of this land. Taliban rule was marked by Islamic fundamentalism which led to the establishment of Al-Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden. The Taliban attracted the attention of the world by their fundamentalism and strict policies towards women folk and the non-Muslims. In the meantime, US and Britain charges Afghanistan with the acts of supporting Terrorism and freedom fighters in Chechnya. In this connection, US launched a Cruise missile attack against the bases in Afghanistan in August 1998. Incident Of 9/11 And End Of Taliban Rule: Afghanistan became the focus of the world after the terrorists attack on WTC and Pentagon in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. US blamed Taliban-sponsored alQaeda for these attacks. As a result, US-led UN forces attacked Afghanistan, and on 13th November, 2001 dislodged the Taliban rule. Later on, all the factions of Afghan people

participated in the Bonn meeting and on 5th December 2001 signed an agreement to establish a 30-member Interim Government under Hamid Karzai which installed a democratic government through a Loya Jirga. Operation Against Al-Qaeda Network. After establishing an Interim Authority in Afghanistan, US-led multi-nation forces began operation against Al-Qaeda network and their supports. This operation has been continued since January 2002 in all parts of Afghanistan. Ruthless force is being used to kill or capture militants of Al-Qaeda and their supporters. As Taliban forces are also engaged in this operation, but so far the American forces have to failed to clear the land from Extremists. The Afghan people are the main sufferers because continuous state of war has not only ruined their country but also deprived them of food, shelter and peace. Surging Of Forces In Afghanistan US forces in Afghanistan have surpassed those in Iraq since 2003. US numbers in Afghanistan are scheduled to peak at about 98, 000 after the first detachment of 30,000 reinforcement. Obama has given his senior commander, Gen. Patraeus until July 2011 to turn the tide of insurgency and bolster forces. Pakistans Commitment In War On Terror And American Response Pakistan has lost more soldiers than the combined loss suffered by foreign forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and more civilians than lost in 9/11 strikes which eminently reflect Pakistans commitment in the war on terror. Despite Pakistans such commitment and immense loss in the WOT; the US is continuously threatening Pakistan with following serious consequences: i) Chocking the country economically ii) Invasion on FATA iii) Drone strikes across the country iv) Seizure of nuclear storage sites by special operations v) Air blitz against these sites Instead of living in mortal fear the Americans should shed the paranoia that has gripped them and the arrogance that characters their conduct with the weaker states and show some grace, serenity of mind, understanding and respect to Pakistans concerns and constraints. Their uncalled for outburst against a partner would only serve to alienate the Pakistani people even more. Preparing For Post US-Afghanistan As a consequence of the rapid deterioration of the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan has also preparing option in case the US departs. Pakistani officials who speak of the US-led coalition as occupation forces in Afghanistan, are convince that history will repeat itself and that the US will sooner or later leave the region. Once the Americans are gone, NATO

determination will fade and Afghanistan will be left to itself. The Taliban tactics so far has been to attack where NATO presence is weak, but they are now able to mass more and more fighters and launch large-scale raids. They will most likely take on NATO troops directly, thus increasing the number of causalities. Should Western troops leave the country or reduce their number to a symbolic presence, the position of Afghan government could well weaken. Pakistan would be faced with political vacuum that it believe would have to fill to prevent any other power from acquiring a predominate influence. Aftermath, Once India Would Seize The Opportunity In Afghanistan i) India will try to sandwich Pakistan between the threats from both Eastern and Western borders. ii) It will exploit every possible opportunity to spark the flames of sectarianism and ethnicity in Baluchistan and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa. iii) Pakistans economy will be strangulated by the Indian blockade. iv) The regional balance of power will be destabilised massively. v) Indians extended presence in Afghanistan will create problems for China as well. vi) The US will cash in the opportunity by selling military hardware to India in the name of upgrading overhauling the Indian Army to enable it to take on Chinese forces. Americans Mistakes In Afghanistan And Repetition Of History-Critical Analysis History is repeating itself in Afghanistan because America is repeating the mistake made by the Soviets. They are being made to pay for their folly of overestimating themselves, and understanding the skill and fortitude of the Afghan guerrillas. As a consequence, they have put in place a new strategy of withdrawal of International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) from Afghanistan from July 2011 onwards. The first mistake made by America was to defy history. But having chosen to do so they should have assigned the resources needed to accomplish the mission. Thus, their main effort should have been in Afghanistan not in Iraq. Their second mistake was to initiate the air-bombing campaign without securing the crossing sites on their sides of the Durand Line to prevent the Taliban and Al-Qaeda from escaping to tribal areas of Pakistan. Their third mistake was not to end the Taliban domination in the mountains where they have their safe havens. Yet instead of taking corrective action they persisted with the mismatch between the mission assigned and resources given. Consequently, they have suffered operational setback and blamed Pakistan for them. The additional US forces sanctioned are still not enough to accomplish the mission.

However, the least that can be done is to employ the available forces judiciously. One, for blocking at last those crossing sits which are used by the Haqqani group to make forays into Afghanistan from North Waziristan and two for ending the domination of the mountains by the Taliban. The Road To Peace-Conclusion Pakistan must learn from past and stay away from a future role in Afghanistan or the impeding civilian war in the next round will enter our land and there will be no stopping the national nosedive to extinction. Ultimately, the situation to the problem lies in sorting out the peoples difficulties connected with governance and security in the first place. The road to peace in Afghanistan lies in making a major governance overhaul that needs to be administrated by someone who is acceptable to all the people. In the existing situation that someone could be from the former King Zahir Shahs family-that person can craft an exit strategy through which Afghanistan could re-emerge as a peaceful country under democratic constitutional monarchy working under parliament. This formulation is likely to be acceptable to many ethnic nationalities in the country including the Taliban. Pakistan could do well to encourage such move. Roshan first keep this in your mind that currentaffair is the jugglar vein of css exams. your have defined what examiner already knows and what has already published by many newspapers. so what the difference? why he will give you good marks tell me? the most important part of the question is the road towrds peace and what you have written just a paragraph. you need to work really hard roshan pull your socks up ! do write bookish thing but just qoutes and some important facts. you need to tell the examiner that you understand the situation and these would be my sugessions to solve the problem. he want to check your skills anyltical one. because css is not just a job you have a big responsibility on your shoulders and you are accountible to your awam. i hope you understand what i mean to say. here are some links have a look at them it will enhance your vision. CSS Forums - View Single Post - some articles on the new great game.... CSS Forums - View Single Post - some articles on the new great game.... CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes

regards sabahat __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: azmatullah (Friday, August 12, 2011), hamsafer (Saturday, January 07, 2012), Roshan wadhwani (Friday, August 12, 2011) #5 Friday, August 12, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by SYEDA SABAHAT Roshan first keep this in your mind that currentaffair is the jugglar vein of css exams. your have defined what examiner already knows and what has already published by many newspapers. so what the difference? why he will give you good marks tell me? the most important part of the question is the road towrds peace and what you have written just a paragraph. you need to work really hard roshan pull your socks up ! do write bookish thing but just qoutes and some important facts. you need to tell the examiner that you understand the situation and these would be my sugessions to solve the problem. he want to check your skills anyltical one. because css is not just a job you have a big responsibility on your shoulders and you are accountible to your awam. i hope you understand what i mean to say.

here are some links have a look at them it will enhance your vision. CSS Forums - View Single Post - some articles on the new great game.... CSS Forums - View Single Post - some articles on the new great game.... CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes

regards sabahat Thanx dear Syeda Sabahat for every bit of ur precious suggestions..ya i understand wat u mean to say...i'll try my best to improve and make my notes more effective and it will always need ur blessed and generous guidance...Regards

The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: SYEDA SABAHAT (Saturday, August 13, 2011) #6 Sunday, August 14, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Pak-Afghan Relations
Outline: Historical Background Current Situation Geo-Strategic Significance Of Afghanistan i) Direct Importance ii) Indirect Importance

Interests Of Foreign Powers In The Affairs Of Afghanistan i) US Interests ii) Russian Interests: iii) Chinese Interests iv) Indian Interests v) Iranian Interests vi) Pakistanis Interests a) Political Interests b) Economic Interests c) Security Interests Significance Of Afghanistan In Pakistans Foreign Policy Pakistans Dilemmas Conclusion

Historical Background Pakistan and Afghanistan are two Muslim neighbouring countries having common border and common history. Since 1947, relations between the two countries have seen many ups and downs. In the beginning from 1947 to 1979, Afghanistan remained under the influence of Soviet Union and India. As such, Kabul adopted anti-Pakistan policy. The Pakhtoonistan stunt and frequent border skirmishes resulted because of this attitude. However, Pakistan showed restraint to give peace a chance. In 1954 and 1955, the relations between the two countries reached the lowest ebb, when Pakistani consulate in Kabul and Jalalabad were attacked by the Afghans. The relations between the two countries were strained, as result of these events. In 1963, relations were restored through the efforts of Shah Raza Shah Pehlvi of Iran. During 1965 Indo-Pak War, Afghanistan did not create any problem for Pakistan. In 1979, the scenario of this region underwent a drastic change when the Soviet sent 40 thousand troops to support pro-Russian Kabul government. Actually, it was a move to capture Afghanistan like the East European satellite states. The entire free world led by USA denounced Russian military intervention in Afghanistan.US supplied weapons to Afghan fighters so that they might wage guerrilla war against Russians. Millions of Afghan refugees took shelter in Pakistan. During the nine year war (1979-1988), the Afghan fighters inflicted heavy losses on the Soviet Union troops. As a result, Soviet forced withdrew from Afghanistan. After their withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1988, Afghanistan plunged into a bloody war form 1988 to 1996. During this eight year period, Najib government fell on 1992 and a provincial set up under Sibghat Ullah Mujaddid took control of Kabul. In May 1993, President Rabbani and premier Gulbaddin Hikmatyar came into power. In 1996, the situation changed again when Taliban under Mullah Umar took control of Kabul and extended their authority over 90 per cent area of the country. Taliban rule was marked by

fundamentalism through which they enforced strict rules and regulations. After the event of Nine Eleven, the USA asked Taliban to handover Osama Bin Laden, but they refused to do so. As a result, US led multi-national forces attacked Afghanistan in October 2001 and toppled the Taliban rule. Hamid Karzai succeeded as provincial head of the state and was later on elected by a Loya Jirga comprising of 1500 members. In June 2002, Pakistan lent all sorts of support to the Afghani government. In December 2002, six states including Pakistan signed the Kabul Declaration pledging that these States would not interfere in Afghani affairs. Current Situation Currently, US-led multi-national forces are operating in Afghanistan against Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Pakistan is non-NATO ally of US against terrorism. Thus, it is assisting Karzai regime as non-NATO ally of USA. Presently Pak-Afghan relations have become very delicate due to Karzais frequent allegations that Talibans are operating from inside Pakistan territory. However, Pakistan government has refused these charges that the 30 thousand troops have sealed the porous Durand Line and no foreigner is allowed to use Pakistani territory. Geo-Strategic Significance Of Afghanistan Direct Importance: i) Afghanistan is located at the juncture of three strategic regions of Central Asia, South Asia and West Asia. ii) Sparse population, rugged terrain and warrior tribes make Afghanistan a dumping ground of superpowers of the times. Indirect Importance i) Afghanistan is also called a region at the cross-roads of history. That is, in the 21st century, Afghanistan is still keen to practice the medieval age customs and traditions. ii) The potential land-bridge of oil and gas pipelines and trade route to and from Central and West Asia. iii) The landlocked nature of Central Asia offers Afghanistan significance of a transit route-to have access to sea ports of Indian and Arabian sea. Interests Of Foreign Powers In The Affairs Of Afghanistan i) US Interests: a) Energy resources of Central Asia b) Containing China and Iran c) Countering Russian influence in the region d) Checking the outflow of narcotics e) Checking the export of religious extremism

f) Closely monitoring the cooperative framework between China, Russia, Iran, CARs, India and Pakistan. g) Supporting broad-based, moderate and US-friendly government in Afghanistan. ii) Russian Interests: a) Reasserting itself in its backyard and avenge its defeat (i.e. the collapse of former USSR). b) Securing control over oil and gas resources of Central Asia. c) Countering US influence and regional designs d) Preventing spread of extremism to Chechnya iii) Chinese Interests a) Future energy requirement and possible supplies demand from Central and West Asia including Iran. b) Halting unrest in adjoining Chinese territories (owing to spill over effect) c) Neutralizing the influence of US/NATO forces in the region. iv) Indian Interests a) Creating friction between Pakistan and Afghanistan to keep the former under pressure. b) Instigating the covert low intensity conflict (LIC) against Pakistan to keep Pakistan busy with conflict coming from Western border. c) Exploring the trade opportunities with the countries of Central and West Asia. d) Watching its geo-strategic interests through empowerment of the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras against the Pashtuns. v) Iranian Interests a) Neutralizing the influence of US/NATO forces in the region. b) Securing its share in reconstruction of Afghanistan c) Safeguarding the minority Shia population residing in Afghanistan d) Reversing the tide of afghan refugees. vi) Pakistanis Interests a) Political Interests Ensuring peace and stability in Afghanistan Supporting Pak-friendly government in Afghanistan Neutralising Indian influence by setting the border issue Reversing the tide of afghan refugees. b) Economic Interests Securing its share in reconstruction of Afghanistan

Securing a transit trade access to Central Asia Securing an uninterrupted supply of oil and gas from the CARs and Iran c) Security Interests Precluding the Talbanisation in Afghanistan (and thereby Talbanisation in Pakistan) Preventing cross-border terrorism Prompting departure of US/NATO forces from Afghanistan. Significance Of Afghanistan In Pakistans Foreign Policy As a neighbour of Pakistan, Afghanistan occupies a cultural place in the issues affecting Pakistans foreign policy. Afghanistans significance increases with the ongoing turmoil on its land. The New Great Game being played in the region. Pakistan finds itself intricately linked with the entire issue, the effects of which may have far-reaching bearings on Pakistan. Secondly, owing to geographical contiguity and ethnic sharing with Afghanistan, Pakistan considers itself a natural player in the whole scheme of affairs related to or going on in Afghanistan. Thirdly, owing to hosting a major chunk of afghan refugees, Pakistan is a major stakeholder in whatever situation emerges in Afghanistan. Fourthly, ongoing WoT is affecting Pakistan both politically and economically thereby making Pakistan a major regional player in settling a terror situation both in Pakistan and across the Western border. Fifthly, Pakistan is keen to shun the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism being exported from Afghanistan to Pakistan, thereby making Pakistan conscious of preservation of its democratic value. Sixthly, Pakistan is keen to make it socially free from drugs and arms which is not possible unless there is peace and order in Afghanistan. Pakistans Dilemmas Geographically, Pakistan is sandwiched between India and Afghanistan. One is the worlds biggest democracy and the expanding economy and other is worlds crisis ridden (both politically and socially) country and a shattered economy. The second aspect of dilemma is that India is bent on having strong relations with Afghanistan and that to the detriment of Pakistan.

Conclusion The war waged by the US in 2001, in the name of War on Terror (WoT) is still ravaging in devastated Afghanistan and yet no conclusive end is discernible. Since November 2008, there have taken place developments. First, the US President Barack

Obama, after getting elected, is intending a withdrawal from Afghanistan in a manner that could be offering the US maximum face-saving and could yield monopoly to the US in the region. Secondly, with the tacit approval of the US, the Afghan President Hamid Karzai is holding talks with Taliban to join the government and offer the US a safe exit-strategy. Thirdly, the US has formally acknowledged that Pakistan play a significant role in mitigating a near-disaster situation in Afghanistan. That is how, Pakistans political significance vis--vis, other regional players including India is automatically enhanced.

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: maha4799 (Monday, August 15, 2011), makwarrior (Sunday, August 21, 2011), Sikander007 (Monday, September 19, 2011), SYEDA SABAHAT (Sunday, August 14, 2011), unique psychologist (Saturday, August 20, 2011) #7 Saturday, August 20, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Pak-US Relations
Outline: Introduction Defence Alliance SEATO And CENTO Indo-Pak Wars Of 1965 And 1971 Pak-US Relations During Afghanistan Crisis Relations After 9/11 US Reaction To Pakistans Nuclear Tests War On Terrorism And Pakistans Role Critical Analysis Conclusion Introduction: Ever since, Pakistan emerged on the map of the world, it has always been in search of alliance for its security, survival and sustainability. The history of Pak-US relations had a history of

roller coaster rider. During the ties between the two nations, there have been more ebbs than flaws. Due to trust deficit on the both sides, relations between the two nations have been tumultuous. Being a Muslim State and anti-Communist which had its roots from Khilafat Movement and capitalist bloc. The United States policy is based on self-interest towards the world in general and Pakistan in particular. There is no permanent friend for the US as saying goes There is no permanent friend and permanent enemy in international politics, only interests are permanent. The US is major player of this game among the nations of the world. Defence Alliance SEATO And CENTO: In 1950s, Pakistans inability to match India in military and economic spheres and for search of security led it to enter into pacts like Baghdad Pact or Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO). Although these pacts actually were to contain Soviet Union baked communism but this fact cannot be altogether denied that these pacts really strengthened the relationship between the two nations. At that time relationships with the US were so close and friendly that it was called the United States allied ally in Asia. Indo-Pak Wars Of 1965 And 1971: The suspension of US military aid during 1965 Indo-Pak war generated the feeling in Pakistan that the US was not a reliable ally. We can take an example of Kashmir form the early periods of Pak-US relation n analyse the sincerity of the US towards Pakistan. Then, the wars of 1965 and 1971 give clear indication of the US dualism towards Pakistan. Although, the US suspended, military aid to both countries involved in conflict, the suspension affected Pakistan much more, and India still received military aid from Soviet. Gradually, relations improved and arms sales were renewed in 1975. But again in April 1979, the US cut off economic aid, except that of food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, due to concerns about Pakistans nuclear programme. Pak-US Relations During Afghanistan Crisis: The US policy took a U-turn after Soviets intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan fought a proxy war as a part of US policy to contain Soviet backed communism. When Soviet invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the convergence of interests between the two nations again brought them close to each other. With the US assistance largest covert operation of history, Pakistan trained, armed and supplied anti-Soviet mujahedeen to Afghanistan, eventually defeating Soviets, who withdrew in 1988. After the disintegration of former Soviet Union and victory of Western bloc, Pakistan did not remain that much dear to the US and bright colours of their close relations got dim after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was the period when Pakistan remained under immense pressure due to its ongoing nuclear programme to match with India, to which

Pakistan was determined and committed to its completion because it considered it as a weapon for its survival. Relations After 9/11: To maintain its hegemony, the US needed allies since the phenomenon of regionalism has emerged. After tragic incident of 9/11, the US started the so-called war on terrorism and Pakistan became its frontline and major non-NATO ally. When the US geo-strategic interests are so dictated, relations with Pakistan warmed up, followed by military aid and economic assistance. One factor of mistrust has remained pinching though Pakistan armed forces through its operations in the Tribal areas which are the sanctuaries of Taliban and al-Qaida, still Pakistan and its premier intelligence agency ISI is accused of covertly supporting Taliban and providing them assistance to launch their operations against the US-led allied forces. Because of the US dualism policy, anti-American sentiments are found in both the common people and even at government level. Before 9/11, Pakistan was under four US sanctions: First, President Bush (senior), under Section 620.E of Foreign Assistance Act or the Pressler Amendment, it is normally known as the suspended economic assistance and military sales to Pakistan in October, 1990. Second, after the nuclear explosion by Pakistan, another set of military and economic sanctions was imposed on Pakistan under Arms Export Control Act. Third, under the democracy law, sanctions were applied on Pakistan, when General Musharraf assume power in Pakistan on 12 October, 1999. Fourth, in November 2000, the US applied two years sanctions on Pakistans Ministry of Defence and Pakistans Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Organization, for receiving nuclear technology and equipment from China. Pakistan is perhaps the most important US ally in the war on terror. Not only has Pakistan lost more personals than any other ally, critical fuels for vehicles and aircraft used in the war effort in Afghanistan moves through Pakistan without difficulty. Without this logistical support, bot operation Enduring Freedom and NATO operations in Afghanistan would prove very difficult to sustain without interruption. Pakistan is strategically very important for the US to sustain in Afghanistan. There-quarters of supplies for US troops in Afghanistan either move through or over Pakistan. US Reaction To Pakistans Nuclear Tests: Pakistans nuclear programme reached to its logical conclusion on 28th and 30th May 1998 when it conducted six nuclear tests to become the Seventh nuclear power of the world. The

nuclear capability gave Pakistan nuclear deterrent against India which it needed badly after 1974 when India had exploded its first nuclear device. The people of Pakistan in particular and the Muslim nations in general expressed their jubilation over Pakistans nuclear achievement. But the US, Japan, Canada, Netherlands and Australia expressed their indignation and at once announced the imposition of sanctions on military and economic assistance. War On Terrorism And Pakistans Role: In the wake of war on terror, Pakistan has emerged to the US. Since, then it has played a critical role in helping g reduce the operational capabilities of Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements in and around its borders with Afghanistan. Pakistan has handed over more terrorists and suspects to US than any other coalition partner, though many questions have been raised regarding its interests. Thus it feels that its concerns regarding India have been undermined by the USA. Thus combination of several factors has created a situation in which many Pakistani are sceptical about the need of combating militants and supporting the American cause. Although the ruling political elite seem to be comfortable to what the US has to offer, media and parliamentary debate reflect an opinion more reflective of the general population i.e. the US is making unreasonable demands of the Pakistans governing and military structures. Critical Analysis: Trust is the main factor for sustainable relations between the States. This factor is unfortunately missing in case of the Pak-US relations and both are suffering from the disease of trust deficit. From the very beginning till the present time, Washington has been using Pakistan as a tactical level instrument and never trusted Pakistan as its strategic ally. Throughout the history of their relations, the US has never tried to build up long term and equal bilateral relations with Pakistan. It always saw Pakistan as a tissue paper to use and deposed at the time of need. Due to this policy of the US, irreparable anti-American sentiments exist among Pakistanis. There are three main reasons behind negative feelings about America. One involves American policies towards Pakistan such as its failure to Pakistans aid during 1971 War, using Pakistan for its own interest, and opposing Pakistans peaceful nuclear programme. Second reason deals with American global policy, including support of Israel, opposition to Irans present government and the use of force against small third World nations. Third reason deals with American involvement in Pakistan, for example support to military regimes and now violence of Pakistans integrity and accusing Pakistan for playing dual game with US despite the sacrifices given by its soldiers and civilians during the War on Terror. Conclusion:

First of all, they should remove trust deficit and ensure full cooperation to exterminate this common enemy from the region which can hurt both US and Pakistans interests in this region of South Asia. Then the US should also review its policies towards the weaker Muslim States and should play a serious role in solving the issue of Kashmir. There is need by the US to remove the mutual trust-deficit with Pakistan and build a relationship rooted in the ground realities and driven by the mutual benefit. The US should not extend its war on terrorism to the territory of Pakistan and let the Pakistani armed forces to do their job, as they are well trained to perform their duties. According to recent reports, India by using its secret agency RAW, is exploiting these circumstances to destabilize Pakistan, its crystal clear that a destabilized Pakistan is not in the interest of US as it will hamper efforts to wipe out terrorism. On the other hand, the US is extending its hands towards India by signing the nuclear deal with Delhi. This discriminatory attitude of US should be changed if it really wants to ensure Pakistans unrestricted and full cooperation in this ongoing war on terror. If the US really wants to minimize anti-US sentiments in Pakistan, it must help Islamabad in energy sector as a priority. The US really has to revise its policy towards South Asia region abandoning its discriminatory attitude towards Pakistan as compared to India. It must consider Islamabad request for a civil nuclear deal similar to the one gifted to Delhi US must respect Pakistans sensitivities.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: Azch (Saturday, August 20, 2011), mastspidy (Wednesday, November 02, 2011), The Manager (Monday, September 12, 2011) #8 Saturday, August 20, 2011 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Crumbling Prison of Cruel Custmos Posts: 1,144 Thanks: 1,028 Thanked 1,482 Times in 739 Posts

Call for Change Senior Member

Roshan i chkd ur Afghan crisis outline. There are many other things u can add like The ethnic problem in Afg. Afg is divided into Pakhtun, Hazarz, tajiks etc. Then u can add the importance of Afg for major power i mean why they want to get hold of this land. You can also talk abt the dual strategy of U.S in Afg. U can talk abt the puppit regime of Karazai.

And the sulution of ths problem is nt that easy as it seem to b. Iran, India , Pakistan and U. S are the major stakeholders and they all hav diversed benefit in this land and these benefit are contrary to each other. The lack of sincerity among stakeholders is another issue. Read Fareed zakaria, noam chomsky and bernard cohen on ths issue . Overall it was a gd effort but keep in mind to put as much as data as u can. Your selection of words is also v imp. __________________ I Don't follow the Mob, I find my own path and that's why I am Call for Change :)

The Following User Says Thank You to Call for Change For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Sunday, August 21, 2011) #9 Sunday, August 21, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Indo-Pak Relations:
Outline: Background Brief History Of Dialogues Peace Process In Pause After Mumbai Attacks Resumption Of Composite Dialogue-Present Condition Benefits Of Peace For India And Pakistan Critical Analysis Conclusion

Background: Since 1947, India and Pakistan have witnessed half a century long period of mistrust, hostility and confrontation. They have fought three wars during this period. At the time of independence they inherited many problems like Kashmir issue, Rann of Kutch dispute, Canal water dispute, division of assets, refugee problem and the problem of accession of states. Out of theses, Kashmir has been on the top of the list of irritants.

Brief History Of Dialogues: The two countries have a history of unfruitful peace processes. In the 50s, as a follow-up to the UN Security resolution, the UN special representative Sir Owen Dixon tried to negotiate a settlement on his partial plebiscite and partition plan. Then in early sixties Bhutto and Sarwan talks were held without any significant headway. After the 1965 war and in the post 1971, internal problems kept Pakistan focused domestically. In 1972, Simla Agreement was concluded. Under Simla Agreement the two countries agreed to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. In the 1990s, Kashmir resistance added a new dimension to the struggle there and brought renewed international focus on this issue especially in the context of human rights issue. From 1990 to 1994, seven rounds of foreign secretary level talks were held without any major breakthrough. In March 1997, talks were again resumed at foreign secretary level. In all four rounds were held in which foreign secretaries reached an agreement on 23 July 1997, lying down an eight-item agenda. This was the first time in their 50 year history that the two countries had agreed formally on pursuing an integrated and composite dialogue on all issues including outstanding issue of Jammu & Kashmir. The period between 1997 and 1999 saw a significant development in the India-Pakistan peace process in the form of several summit level meetings between the two countries on the sideline of the UN annual sessions and other regional and international conferences. These high-level talks led to Lahore Summit in February 1999 in which Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and PM Vajpayee signed Lahore Resolution as a genuine breakthrough in the history of the two countries. The two countries agreed to intensify their efforts to resolve all issues including J&K. this indeed was a high watermark in India-Pakistan bilateral relations. But the peace process was soon interrupted when the two countries faced the Kargil issue. A ceasefire at LoC in November 2003 with several mutual confidence building measures, including Pakistans assurance of not letting its territory to be used by any terrorist activity of cross-border infiltration as well as a constant pressure from influential outside powers led to the resumption of the stalled India-Pakistan dialogue in January 2004 on the basis of what is called Islamabad Joint Statement of January 6, 2004. President Musharraf made unprecedented but unreciprocated gestures of flexibility. He proposed a four-point out-of-box solution of the Kashmir issue which involved dividing Kashmir in ethnic regions, their demilitarization, self-rule and a joint mechanism. But none of his gestures elicited, at least publicly any matching response from India. Peace Process In Pause After Mumbai Attacks. Unfortunately, the peace process was stalled again, when after the November 26, 2008 terrorist attack, India suspended the Composite Dialogue process.

On November 26, 2008 when some militants attacked multiple targets in Mumbai, in which some 182 people were killed, including nine terrorists and 22 foreign nationals and some further 327 received injuries. Relations between India and Pakistan had already been strained following a suicide attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008, in which over 40 people were killed. The attacks in Mumbai served as a nail in the coffin as all fingers pointed to Pakistan. Resumption Of Composite Dialogue-Present Condition: With the US efforts, at a meeting between the PMs of the two countries on the sideline of the non-aligned summit in Sharm-el-Sheikh in July 2009, an agreement was reached for the resumption of dialogue. However, the thaw came finally when India in February 4, 2010 offered to resume talks at foreign secretary level with Pakistan. Welcoming the move, Pakistan accepted the offer and a delegation went to Delhi on February 24, 2010 with the hope of recreating an atmosphere of friendship. The delegation had gone to New Delhi with a roadmap of guidelines leading to a potential resumption of Composite Dialogue, including an invitation for External Affair Minister S.M Krishna to visit Pakistan. During the meeting India handed over three dossiers to Pakistan and demanded that thirty-three individuals, including two serving Pakistani army officers and Indian fugitive allegedly involved in terror attacks, be handed over to India. However, the talks failed to melt the ice due to lack of trust between the two countries. The pressure from USA as well as SAARC members played a vital role in bringing both the countries to some sort of an agreement in Bhutan. The two countries agreed to resume Foreign Minister as well as Foreign Secretary level talks as soon as possible. Taking the spirit of Bhutan forward, Nirupama Rao visited Islamabad in June 24, 2010 and met her counterpart Salman Bashir to set an agenda for Foreign Ministers in July 2010. Resultantly, Indian Foreign Minister S.M Krishna visited Islamabad in July, but talks could not bore fruit for paving the way for further composite dialogue due to Indian usual intransigence over the issue of terrorism. Benefits Of Peace For India And Pakistan: There are many broad benefits from peace accruing to both countries and this serves as a motivation towards normalisation. With initiating peace process India and Pakistan could earn enough foreign exchange. On trade, our market size will expand to $ 1.2 billion equal to China. Opening vistas of trading opportunities within the region, the foreign direct investment which presently stagnates at 3 billion dollars could increase manifold. China attracts 40 billion dollars. Access to alternate energy, natural gas from Iran and Central Asia will be available to this region, bringing down the energy cost by at least fifty per cent. Tourism can flourish as the region has vast treasures of tourist attractions. Reductions in defence expenditure could take place. This will lead to availability of fund for social sector and poverty reduction and lastly sports will be enhanced. Through mutual sports India and Pakistan can regain glory at least in

cricket and hockey. Critical Analysis: Now both the countries must come to grip with the fact that progress through incessant discussion may, at first be slow but at least it will erase the high-levels of mutual suspicion. The benefit could be long-lasting as far as the well-being of the people, who share common history and culture, is concerned. The core issues as far as Pakistan is concerned are Kashmir and Water. For India the core issue is terrorism. Kashmir has been hanging for the last 63 years, despite the three wars fought between the two countries. Water issue is dragging from years now and terrorism is recent one. All these issues can be hammered out only in the Composite Dialogue which India is avoiding so far. It is Pakistan that is paying heavy price due to terrorism. India should realize that Islamabad is doing all within its approach. Pakistan Army has been successful in dismantling Talibans dens and has weakened the terrorist significantly. India must understand that terror war is also being fought by the US and Nato troops in Afghanistan and terrorists have power to strike anywhere in the world. Indian leader should realize that tough talks cannot help improve situation. Sincere parleys can break the impasse. Friendly relations between the two countries can help improve economic conditions and trade will flourish along with people-to-people contact. All intricate issues can be resolved if trust is built between the two countries. There is dire need to improve business relations between the two countries. Pakistan and India pick up the cue from the fostering China-US relations despite Taiwan issue. Conclusion: Present time is ideal for resolution of all disputes and ushering an era of peace, harmony and prosperity. People of our country want it. the influential business communities are looking forward to it in both countries. Media also seems to favour it. Pakistan and India have lost half a century in mutual squabbles. Both have tried pressure tactics. Both have fought wars, tested nuclear weapons and have remained engaged in hot confrontation throughout. Both have applied coercive diplomacy but it has not worked. Nothing side has blinked. It is time to give dialogue and negotiation chance once again. Negotiating from a position of strength is an oldage maxim but no doubt in the case of Pakistan and India that has also been used and founded to be unsuccessful. Sincerity in living peacefully side by side and solving all issues through negotiation seems to be the only answer people of our countries want peace and are fed up of confrontation. The no-war pact offer and the non-aggression pact issue can be reopened.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: maha4799 (Sunday, August 21, 2011), makwarrior (Sunday, August 21, 2011) #10

Tuesday, August 23, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Pak-US Relations
Outline: Introduction Defence Alliance SEATO And CENTO Indo-Pak Wars Of 1965 And 1971 Pak-US Relations During Afghanistan Crisis Relations After 9/11 US Reaction To Pakistans Nuclear Tests War On Terrorism And Pakistans Role Critical Analysis Conclusion Introduction: Ever since, Pakistan emerged on the map of the world, it has always been in search of alliance for its security, survival and sustainability. The history of Pak-US relations had a history of roller coaster rider. During the ties between the two nations, there have been more ebbs than flaws. Due to trust deficit on the both sides, relations between the two nations have been tumultuous. Being a Muslim State and anti-Communist which had its roots from Khilafat Movement and capitalist bloc. The United States policy is based on self-interest towards the world in general and Pakistan in particular. There is no permanent friend for the US as saying goes There is no permanent friend and permanent enemy in international politics, only interests are permanent. The US is major player of this game among the nations of the world.

Defence Alliance SEATO And CENTO: In 1950s, Pakistans inability to match India in military and economic spheres and for search of security led it to enter into pacts like Baghdad Pact or Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) and South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO). Although these pacts actually were to contain Soviet Union baked communism but this fact cannot be altogether denied that these pacts really strengthened the relationship between the two nations. At that time relationships with the US were so close and friendly that it was called the United States allied ally in Asia. Indo-Pak Wars Of 1965 And 1971: The suspension of US military aid during 1965 Indo-Pak war generated the feeling in Pakistan that the US was not a reliable ally. We can take an example of Kashmir form the early periods of Pak-US relation n analyse the sincerity of the US towards Pakistan. Then, the wars of 1965 and 1971 give clear indication of the US dualism towards Pakistan. Although, the US suspended, military aid to both countries involved in conflict, the suspension affected Pakistan much more, and India still received military aid from Soviet. Gradually, relations improved and arms sales were renewed in 1975. But again in April 1979, the US cut off economic aid, except that of food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the US Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, due to concerns about Pakistans nuclear programme. Pak-US Relations During Afghanistan Crisis: The US policy took a U-turn after Soviets intervention in Afghanistan and Pakistan fought a proxy war as a part of US policy to contain Soviet backed communism. When Soviet invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the convergence of interests between the two nations again brought them close to each other. With the US assistance largest covert operation of history, Pakistan trained, armed and supplied anti-Soviet mujahedeen to Afghanistan, eventually defeating Soviets, who withdrew in 1988. After the disintegration of former Soviet Union and victory of Western bloc, Pakistan did not remain that much dear to the US and bright colours of their close relations got dim after Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was the period when Pakistan remained under immense pressure due to its ongoing nuclear programme to match with India, to which Pakistan was determined and committed to its completion because it considered it as a weapon for its survival. Relations After 9/11: To maintain its hegemony, the US needed allies since the phenomenon of regionalism has emerged. After tragic incident of 9/11, the US started the so-called war on terrorism and Pakistan became its frontline and major non-NATO ally. When the US geo-strategic interests are so dictated, relations with Pakistan warmed up, followed by military aid and economic assistance.

One factor of mistrust has remained pinching though Pakistan armed forces through its operations in the Tribal areas which are the sanctuaries of Taliban and al-Qaida, still Pakistan and its premier intelligence agency ISI is accused of covertly supporting Taliban and providing them assistance to launch their operations against the US-led allied forces. Because of the US dualism policy, anti-American sentiments are found in both the common people and even at government level. Before 9/11, Pakistan was under four US sanctions: First, President Bush (senior), under Section 620.E of Foreign Assistance Act or the Pressler Amendment, it is normally known as the suspended economic assistance and military sales to Pakistan in October, 1990. Second, after the nuclear explosion by Pakistan, another set of military and economic sanctions was imposed on Pakistan under Arms Export Control Act. Third, under the democracy law, sanctions were applied on Pakistan, when General Musharraf assume power in Pakistan on 12 October, 1999. Fourth, in November 2000, the US applied two years sanctions on Pakistans Ministry of Defence and Pakistans Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Organization, for receiving nuclear technology and equipment from China. Pakistan is perhaps the most important US ally in the war on terror. Not only has Pakistan lost more personals than any other ally, critical fuels for vehicles and aircraft used in the war effort in Afghanistan moves through Pakistan without difficulty. Without this logistical support, bot operation Enduring Freedom and NATO operations in Afghanistan would prove very difficult to sustain without interruption. Pakistan is strategically very important for the US to sustain in Afghanistan. There-quarters of supplies for US troops in Afghanistan either move through or over Pakistan. US Reaction To Pakistans Nuclear Tests: Pakistans nuclear programme reached to its logical conclusion on 28th and 30th May 1998 when it conducted six nuclear tests to become the Seventh nuclear power of the world. The nuclear capability gave Pakistan nuclear deterrent against India which it needed badly after 1974 when India had exploded its first nuclear device. The people of Pakistan in particular and the Muslim nations in general expressed their jubilation over Pakistans nuclear achievement. But the US, Japan, Canada, Netherlands and Australia expressed their indignation and at once announced the imposition of sanctions on military and economic assistance. War On Terrorism And Pakistans Role:

In the wake of war on terror, Pakistan has emerged to the US. Since, then it has played a critical role in helping g reduce the operational capabilities of Al-Qaeda and Taliban elements in and around its borders with Afghanistan. Pakistan has handed over more terrorists and suspects to US than any other coalition partner, though many questions have been raised regarding its interests. Thus it feels that its concerns regarding India have been undermined by the USA. Thus combination of several factors has created a situation in which many Pakistani are sceptical about the need of combating militants and supporting the American cause. Although the ruling political elite seem to be comfortable to what the US has to offer, media and parliamentary debate reflect an opinion more reflective of the general population i.e. the US is making unreasonable demands of the Pakistans governing and military structures. Critical Analysis: Trust is the main factor for sustainable relations between the States. This factor is unfortunately missing in case of the Pak-US relations and both are suffering from the disease of trust deficit. From the very beginning till the present time, Washington has been using Pakistan as a tactical level instrument and never trusted Pakistan as its strategic ally. Throughout the history of their relations, the US has never tried to build up long term and equal bilateral relations with Pakistan. It always saw Pakistan as a tissue paper to use and deposed at the time of need. Due to this policy of the US, irreparable anti-American sentiments exist among Pakistanis. There are three main reasons behind negative feelings about America. One involves American policies towards Pakistan such as its failure to Pakistans aid during 1971 War, using Pakistan for its own interest, and opposing Pakistans peaceful nuclear programme. Second reason deals with American global policy, including support of Israel, opposition to Irans present government and the use of force against small third World nations. Third reason deals with American involvement in Pakistan, for example support to military regimes and now violence of Pakistans integrity and accusing Pakistan for playing dual game with US despite the sacrifices given by its soldiers and civilians during the War on Terror. Conclusion: First of all, they should remove trust deficit and ensure full cooperation to exterminate this common enemy from the region which can hurt both US and Pakistans interests in this region of South Asia. Then the US should also review its policies towards the weaker Muslim States and should play a serious role in solving the issue of Kashmir. There is need by the US to remove the mutual trust-deficit with Pakistan and build a relationship rooted in the ground realities and driven by the mutual benefit.

The US should not extend its war on terrorism to the territory of Pakistan and let the Pakistani armed forces to do their job, as they are well trained to perform their duties. According to recent reports, India by using its secret agency RAW, is exploiting these circumstances to destabilize Pakistan, its crystal clear that a destabilized Pakistan is not in the interest of US as it will hamper efforts to wipe out terrorism. On the other hand, the US is extending its hands towards India by signing the nuclear deal with Delhi. This discriminatory attitude of US should be changed if it really wants to ensure Pakistans unrestricted and full cooperation in this ongoing war on terror. If the US really wants to minimize anti-US sentiments in Pakistan, it must help Islamabad in energy sector as a priority. The US really has to revise its policy towards South Asia region abandoning its discriminatory attitude towards Pakistan as compared to India. It must consider Islamabad request for a civil nuclear deal similar to the one gifted to Delhi US must respect Pakistans sensitivities. roshan i think you need to add more in this like the recent meetings and their outcomes. try to prepare pak-us-india relation in a triangle form,it will save your time. do add recommendation to improve the relation after us withdrawl from afgh. and many more points.

Indo-Pak Relations:
Outline: Background Brief History Of Dialogues Peace Process In Pause After Mumbai Attacks Resumption Of Composite Dialogue-Present Condition Benefits Of Peace For India And Pakistan Critical Analysis Conclusion

Background:

Since 1947, India and Pakistan have witnessed half a century long period of mistrust, hostility and confrontation. They have fought three wars during this period. At the time of independence they inherited many problems like Kashmir issue, Rann of Kutch dispute, Canal water dispute, division of assets, refugee problem and the problem of accession of states. Out of theses, Kashmir has been on the top of the list of irritants. Brief History Of Dialogues: The two countries have a history of unfruitful peace processes. In the 50s, as a follow-up to the UN Security resolution, the UN special representative Sir Owen Dixon tried to negotiate a settlement on his partial plebiscite and partition plan. Then in early sixties Bhutto and Sarwan talks were held without any significant headway. After the 1965 war and in the post 1971, internal problems kept Pakistan focused domestically. In 1972, Simla Agreement was concluded. Under Simla Agreement the two countries agreed to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. In the 1990s, Kashmir resistance added a new dimension to the struggle there and brought renewed international focus on this issue especially in the context of human rights issue. From 1990 to 1994, seven rounds of foreign secretary level talks were held without any major breakthrough. In March 1997, talks were again resumed at foreign secretary level. In all four rounds were held in which foreign secretaries reached an agreement on 23 July 1997, lying down an eight-item agenda. This was the first time in their 50 year history that the two countries had agreed formally on pursuing an integrated and composite dialogue on all issues including outstanding issue of Jammu & Kashmir. The period between 1997 and 1999 saw a significant development in the India-Pakistan peace process in the form of several summit level meetings between the two countries on the sideline of the UN annual sessions and other regional and international conferences. These high-level talks led to Lahore Summit in February 1999 in which Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and PM Vajpayee signed Lahore Resolution as a genuine breakthrough in the history of the two countries. The two countries agreed to intensify their efforts to resolve all issues including J&K. this indeed was a high watermark in India-Pakistan bilateral relations. But the peace process was soon interrupted when the two countries faced the Kargil issue. A ceasefire at LoC in November 2003 with several mutual confidence building measures, including Pakistans assurance of not letting its territory to be used by any terrorist activity of cross-border infiltration as well as a constant pressure from influential outside powers led to the resumption of the stalled India-Pakistan dialogue in January 2004 on the basis of what is called Islamabad Joint Statement of January 6, 2004. President Musharraf made unprecedented but unreciprocated gestures of flexibility. He proposed a four-point out-of-box solution of the Kashmir issue which involved dividing Kashmir in ethnic regions, their demilitarization, self-rule and a joint mechanism. But none of

his gestures elicited, at least publicly any matching response from India. Peace Process In Pause After Mumbai Attacks. Unfortunately, the peace process was stalled again, when after the November 26, 2008 terrorist attack, India suspended the Composite Dialogue process. On November 26, 2008 when some militants attacked multiple targets in Mumbai, in which some 182 people were killed, including nine terrorists and 22 foreign nationals and some further 327 received injuries. Relations between India and Pakistan had already been strained following a suicide attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008, in which over 40 people were killed. The attacks in Mumbai served as a nail in the coffin as all fingers pointed to Pakistan. Resumption Of Composite Dialogue-Present Condition: With the US efforts, at a meeting between the PMs of the two countries on the sideline of the non-aligned summit in Sharm-el-Sheikh in July 2009, an agreement was reached for the resumption of dialogue. However, the thaw came finally when India in February 4, 2010 offered to resume talks at foreign secretary level with Pakistan. Welcoming the move, Pakistan accepted the offer and a delegation went to Delhi on February 24, 2010 with the hope of recreating an atmosphere of friendship. The delegation had gone to New Delhi with a roadmap of guidelines leading to a potential resumption of Composite Dialogue, including an invitation for External Affair Minister S.M Krishna to visit Pakistan. During the meeting India handed over three dossiers to Pakistan and demanded that thirty-three individuals, including two serving Pakistani army officers and Indian fugitive allegedly involved in terror attacks, be handed over to India. However, the talks failed to melt the ice due to lack of trust between the two countries. The pressure from USA as well as SAARC members played a vital role in bringing both the countries to some sort of an agreement in Bhutan. The two countries agreed to resume Foreign Minister as well as Foreign Secretary level talks as soon as possible. Taking the spirit of Bhutan forward, Nirupama Rao visited Islamabad in June 24, 2010 and met her counterpart Salman Bashir to set an agenda for Foreign Ministers in July 2010. Resultantly, Indian Foreign Minister S.M Krishna visited Islamabad in July, but talks could not bore fruit for paving the way for further composite dialogue due to Indian usual intransigence over the issue of terrorism. Benefits Of Peace For India And Pakistan: There are many broad benefits from peace accruing to both countries and this serves as a motivation towards normalisation. With initiating peace process India and Pakistan could earn enough foreign exchange. On trade, our market size will expand to $ 1.2 billion equal to

China. Opening vistas of trading opportunities within the region, the foreign direct investment which presently stagnates at 3 billion dollars could increase manifold. China attracts 40 billion dollars. Access to alternate energy, natural gas from Iran and Central Asia will be available to this region, bringing down the energy cost by at least fifty per cent. Tourism can flourish as the region has vast treasures of tourist attractions. Reductions in defence expenditure could take place. This will lead to availability of fund for social sector and poverty reduction and lastly sports will be enhanced. Through mutual sports India and Pakistan can regain glory at least in cricket and hockey. Critical Analysis: Now both the countries must come to grip with the fact that progress through incessant discussion may, at first be slow but at least it will erase the high-levels of mutual suspicion. The benefit could be long-lasting as far as the well-being of the people, who share common history and culture, is concerned. The core issues as far as Pakistan is concerned are Kashmir and Water. For India the core issue is terrorism. Kashmir has been hanging for the last 63 years, despite the three wars fought between the two countries. Water issue is dragging from years now and terrorism is recent one. All these issues can be hammered out only in the Composite Dialogue which India is avoiding so far. It is Pakistan that is paying heavy price due to terrorism. India should realize that Islamabad is doing all within its approach. Pakistan Army has been successful in dismantling Talibans dens and has weakened the terrorist significantly. India must understand that terror war is also being fought by the US and Nato troops in Afghanistan and terrorists have power to strike anywhere in the world. Indian leader should realize that tough talks cannot help improve situation. Sincere parleys can break the impasse. Friendly relations between the two countries can help improve economic conditions and trade will flourish along with people-to-people contact. All intricate issues can be resolved if trust is built between the two countries. There is dire need to improve business relations between the two countries. Pakistan and India pick up the cue from the fostering China-US relations despite Taiwan issue. Conclusion: Present time is ideal for resolution of all disputes and ushering an era of peace, harmony and prosperity. People of our country want it. the influential business communities are looking forward to it in both countries. Media also seems to favour it. Pakistan and India have lost half a century in mutual squabbles. Both have tried pressure tactics. Both have fought wars, tested nuclear weapons and have remained engaged in hot confrontation throughout. Both have applied coercive diplomacy but it has not worked. Nothing side has blinked. It is time to give dialogue and negotiation chance once again. Negotiating from a position of strength is an old-age maxim but no doubt in the case of Pakistan and India that has also been used and founded to be unsuccessful. Sincerity in living peacefully side by side and solving all issues through negotiation seems to be the only answer people of our countries want peace and are

fed up of confrontation. The no-war pact offer and the non-aggression pact issue can be reopened. this one is quite convincing,but as you know i have to figure out mistakes, roshan try to write more on peace process,water issue,how to deal with kashmir issue now and now conentrate on trade realtion too. one more thing 5 relations are very important pak-us pak-india pak-afghanistan(future relation) pak-china pak-iran.(recent advancments) roshan try to divide your conclusion into paragraphs.it looks nice. regards sabahat __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: faheem aurakzai (Tuesday, August 23, 2011), rarasham (Tuesday, August 23, 2011), sajidnuml (Tuesday, December 20, 2011) #12 Tuesday, August 23, 2011 Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Islamabad Posts: 191 Thanks: 385 Thanked 206 Times in 117 Posts

faheem aurakzai Banned

hmmmmm more emphasis on current events... coz its current affairs..not IR.. i think the question which you have written deem fit to IR.... In current affairs paper try to emphasize on your personal opinions...write more and more suggestions...include quotations preferably chopped down from Daily DAwn....Overall.very

nice attempt...keep it up...

The Following User Says Thank You to faheem aurakzai For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Tuesday, August 23, 2011) #13 Tuesday, August 23, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by SYEDA SABAHAT roshan i think you need to add more in this like the recent meetings and their outcomes. try to prepare pak-us-india relation in a triangle form,it will save your time. do add recommendation to improve the relation after us withdrawl from afgh. and many more points. Thnx Dear Syeda, nice to see ur repl after quite few days how r u now?

Dear these notes contain the happenings till feb 2011, because i prepared them for 2011 and now posting them here to update them..after posting all the topics that i had prepared i'll surely start posting updated material to the topics...requesting u and others to post related but updated material here so as to notes can be furnished and can help all the aspirants...Regards Quote: Originally Posted by SYEDA SABAHAT this one is quite convincing,but as you know i have to figure out mistakes, roshan try to write more on peace process,water issue,how to deal with kashmir issue now and now conentrate on trade realtion too. one more thing 5 relations are very important pak-us pak-india pak-afghanistan(future relation)

pak-china pak-iran.(recent advancments) roshan try to divide your conclusion into paragraphs.it looks nice. regards sabahat Thnx again dear for ur suggestions, i'll add more detail related to indo-pak relations pointed out by u....ya i'll surely post notes on above topics..keep guiding and helping me

The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: SYEDA SABAHAT (Wednesday, August 24, 2011) #14 Tuesday, August 23, 2011 Join Date: May 2011 Location: jhang Posts: 96 Thanks: 24 Thanked 28 Times in 25 Posts

unique psychologist Member

salam roshan sir i need ur notes how can i get it plz if it is possible send it to me because in jhang there is no acadmy __________________ "be on the low profile"

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to unique psychologist For This Useful Post: faheem aurakzai (Tuesday, August 23, 2011), Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, August 24, 2011) #15 Wednesday, August 24, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani Thnx Dear Syeda, nice to see ur repl after quite few days

how r u now?

Dear these notes contain the happenings till feb 2011, because i prepared them for 2011 and now posting them here to update them..after posting all the topics that i had prepared i'll surely start posting updated material to the topics...requesting u and others to post related but updated material here so as to notes can be furnished and can help all the aspirants...Regards

Thnx again dear for ur suggestions, i'll add more detail related to indo-pak relations pointed out by u....ya i'll surely post notes on above topics..keep guiding and helping me shukar ha ALLAH PAK ka now i am fine. roshan i was looking for the links for your notes and luckily i found some of them,these are very useful just have a look at them you will have an idea how to make good c.affair notes.

what is happining b/w US and Pakistan?

CSS Forums - View Single Post - What is happening between the US and Pakistan?

Why we need America?

CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes

Why its important to talk to talibans?

CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes

Pakistan -India Trade relation

CSS Forums - View Single Post - Pak-india relations

CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes

Water diplomacy in southasia

CSS Forums - View Single Post - My Current Affair Notes

i hope these links would solve your questions and i will try to find out some more and yeah uptodate. regards sabahat __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: A4ambitious (1 Week Ago), Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, August 24, 2011) #16 Wednesday, August 24, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by unique psychologist salam roshan sir i need ur notes how can i get it plz if it is possible send it to me because in jhang there is no acadmy AOA! dear i hav notes in hard copy and iam converting them and posting them here, so keep following this link for further notes. here u'll get ample guidance for making good notes and u'll be able to make your own notes keeping the sketch taken from here......thanx for following notes...Keep it up dear...Regards

#17 Saturday, August 27, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Kashmir Issue:
Outline: Background: Indias Reluctance To Abide By UN Resolutions: a) Plebiscite Administrator b) Sir Owen Dixons Report c) Frank Grahams Report d) Geneva Talks e) Bogra-Nehru Talks f) Nehrus Statement In Lok Sabha g) Gunner Jarring Proposals 1965 War Of India-Pakistan Over Kashmir Nuclear Test-Kargil Clashes And Kashmir Issue Agra Summit 2001 Kashmir Issue After 9/11 Effects Of Mumbai Attacks on Kashmir Kashmir-Possible Solution Critical Analysis Conclusion

Background: The valley of Jammu and Kashmir which covers an area of 84,471 square miles has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Geographically, politically and economically Kashmir is closer to Pakistan than India. The Kashmir dispute originated on 26th October, 1947, when Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, against all his commitments and wishes of the majority of people signed Instrument of Accession in favour of India. Consequently, Indian troops entered the valley and full scale war started. The Pakistani troops and the frontier tribesmen aided by Kashmir people fought bravely and succeeded in liberating a sizeable portion (Azad Kashmir) from India. Sensing defeat, India approached United Nations for a ceasefire. As a result, the security Council passed a resolution on 17 January, 1948 and asked both the countries to observe cease-fire. However, the fighting continued and the UN appointed United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and propose solution to the problem. The Commission passed a resolution on 13th August 1948, I which it asked both countries to observe ceasefire and directed Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the valley. The commission adopted another resolution on 5th January 1948, in which it spelled in clear language that the future of the valley would be decided through plebiscite. In the meantime, India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire which came into effect on January 1st, 1949. Indias Reluctance To Abide By UN Resolutions: Ever since the partition of the sub-continent on 14th August, 1947, India has been flouting the provisions of the instrument of Accession and resolutions of the UNO regarding the Kashmir issue. a) Plebiscite Administrator: The UN Secretary-General appointed Admiral Fleet Chester Nimitz (USA) as the plebiscite Administrator in the Kashmir on March, 1949. Pakistan accepted the arbitration of C.W Nimitz but India failed to do so. Thus, this move failed to bring any result. b) Sir Owen Dixons Report: In March, 1950, the UN Security Council disbanded UNCIP and designated Sir Owen Dixon, an Australian judge, to arrange the demilitarization in the valley. Sir Owen visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report in September, 1950, but Indias negative attitude proved a hindrance in the way of a solution. c) Frank Grahams Report: In March, 1951, the UN Security Council appointed Frank Graham (USA) as the UN representative of Kashmir. He visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report on 19th

October, 1951, in which he recommended the demilitarization of Kashmir. Again, in May 1952, he visited India and Pakistan but as before Indian intransigence o accept any mediation prevented the peaceful solution. d) Geneva Talks: In February 1953, India and Pakistan held discussion in Geneva to resolve Kashmir issue. However, India refused to accept all proposals aimed at holding plebiscite in the valley. e) Bogra-Nehru Talks: In 1953, Pakistan Premier Mohammad Ail Bogra and Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru discussed the Kashmir issue in their meetings held in London, Karachi and Delhi. They could not achieve any result due to Nehrus delaying tactics in order to buy time. f) Nehrus Statement In Lok Sabha: In 1956, Nehru in an address in Lok Sabha sounded a changed Indian policy on Kashmir by declaring that the question of plebiscite on Kashmir was out of date because of American military assistance of Pakistan, economic development of Kashmir, creation of the Constituent Assembly in the valley and Pakistans membership of CENTO and SEATO. g) Gunner Jarring Proposals: In February, 1957, UN Security Council appointed Gunner Jarring President of the Council to submit a report on Kashmir. He visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report on 29th April, 1957. Pakistan accepted his proposals but India rejected them with its traditional obduracy. 1965 War Of India-Pakistan Over Kashmir: India flouting all canons of International Law attacked Pakistan on 6th September 1965. Thus full scale war started between India and Pakistan. Within days war spread from Kashmir front in the North to Rann of Kutch in the South and East Pakistan in the East. The valiant forces of Pakistan fought bravely and frustrated enemy designs at Sialkot, Lahore, Fazilka and Rajasthan. The war continued for 17 days till a UN sponsored ceasefire took effect on 23rd September, 1965. Later on, in January 1966 India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent Declaration in which the two countries declared to withdraw their troops from the valley in pre 15 August, 1965 position and resumed their normal diplomatic relations. Nuclear Test-Kargil Clashes And Kashmir Issue: In 1998, the two arch-rivals in South Asia conducted their own nuclear tests, since then, the international community especially the great powers are really concerned about the security of the region. The resolution of the Kashmir issue is earnestly felt, as it can trigger nuclear debacle in the region. The Kargil clashes further intensified the apprehension and need to resolve the

issue. The military stand-off between India and Pakistan in the wake of terrorist attacks on Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, further increased the fear of nuclear war in the region. Since then, the role of international community in resolving the Kashmir issue has come to the face. Agra Summit 2001: In July, 2001, Agra Summit between PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf started with great hopes and expectations. Pervez Musharraf visited India on the call of Vajpayee with confidence to resolve all the impeding issues to improve relations between the two archrivals of South Asia. Unfortunately, the summit ended abruptly without bringing any fruitful development for the peace I the region. Kashmir Issue After 9/11: The events of 9/11 brought overwhelming consequences for both the global and the regional politics. Its impacts on Kashmir are not ignorable. The whole international community agreed on a one-point agenda to combat terrorism in its all forms and manifestations, everywhere in the world. The world is no more ready to tolerate any type of insurgency in the name of selfdetermination and freedom. Terrorists and freedom fighters are no more distinguishable to the world. In such circumstances Kashmir freedom fighters cannot maintain the status of their domestic insurgency against India as a legitimate freedom struggle. Most the Kashmir Jihadi groups are outlawed and declared as terrorists groups creating restlessness in Kashmir. Effects Of Mumbai Attacks on Kashmir: The attacks which took place in Mumbai on November 26, 2008 carry severe implications for the Kashmir issue. After the attacks, the peace process between India and Pakistan suffered a setback. Although no direct link is established between the terrorists operating in Kashmir with those who carried out Mumbai attack, a case has been made by India that eventually all jihadi groups are bound by a commo Islamist Philosophy. Kashmir-Possible Solution: Following steps are suggested to evolve an effective policy on Kashmir to achieve the desired solutions. i) Efforts to bring about a united Islamic stand. ii) Holding international conference on Kashmir in the major capitals of the world where proKashmiri international personalities be invited to address. iii) Supporting overseas Pakistanis and students in foreign universities of stage demonstrations and influence the elected members of houses of government. iv) Evolve a think tank for formulating coherent guidelines on Kashmir. v) Start a national Fund on Kashmir. vi) Most important of all, we should take advantage of the revival of Kashmir issue at the United Nations through a united move by the Muslim Ummah and Organisation of Islamic Conference. vii) Approaching International Court of Justice by Pakistan, for the issue of a cease and desist

order to the Indian forces in Kashmir who are ruthlessly persecuting, the Kashmir Muslims and are violating the human rights. Critical Analysis: For resolving Kashmir issue it is the time that international community must differentiate between the terrorism and freedom movement. The process of peace for normalisation of relations between the two neighbouring countries through negotiations and talks for resolving all outstanding issues, irritants and problems and lingering issues have gained boost recently. Musharraf repeatedly asserted that Pakistan is against war. we are for peace; we are for deescalating; we are for reduction of tension. However, the reduction of tensions between the two neighbouring countries could have been achieved only if the confidence building measures agreed upon earlier would have been followed. In this regard, there is a positive response from Pakistan but unfortunately a negligible one from India. If even now Kashmir conflict is left unresolved through the international efforts, then to borrow Iqbals symbolism, the time has come when the desperate sparrow will pounce upon the mighty falcon and overpower it. Conclusion: Solution of the problem requires a change in the position adopted by all the three parties involving-India, Pakistan and Kashmiris themselves. Certain developments at regional and global levels augur well for the peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. Pakistan must exploit the situation with a pragmatic policy on Kashmir. Plebiscite as the basic solution is not possible as evidenced in the past years. Pakistan must pressurise India and bring United States to a mechanism to solve the Kashmir issue. It is therefore essential that first step is to keep alive sustained dialogue between the leaders of the two countries. Step two is acceptance of Kashmir as issue that must be resolved. Step three would be to look at all possible solutions and agreed on which ones could be mutually discarded as unworkable. The fourth step would be to go on to further discussion in involving the people of Kashmir from both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) with a view to arriving at some reasonable solution acceptance to all parties concerned.

#18 Saturday, August 27, 2011

SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member

Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Kashmir Issue:
Outline: Background: Indias Reluctance To Abide By UN Resolutions: important points after these straight come to a) Plebiscite Administrator b) Sir Owen Dixons Report c) Frank Grahams Report d) Geneva Talks e) Bogra-Nehru Talks f) Nehrus Statement In Lok Sabha g) Gunner Jarring Proposals 1965 War Of India-Pakistan Over Kashmir Nuclear Test-Kargil Clashes And Kashmir Issue Agra Summit 2001 Kashmir Issue After 9/11(this one) Effects Of Mumbai Attacks on Kashmir Kashmir-Possible Solution Critical Analysis Conclusion Background: The valley of Jammu and Kashmir which covers an area of 84,471 square miles has been a bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Geographically, politically and economically Kashmir is closer to Pakistan than India. The Kashmir dispute originated on 26th October, 1947, when Hari Singh, the Maharaja of Kashmir, against all his commitments and wishes of the majority of people signed Instrument of Accession in favour of India.

Consequently, Indian troops entered the valley and full scale war started. The Pakistani troops and the frontier tribesmen aided by Kashmir people fought bravely and succeeded in liberating a sizeable portion (Azad Kashmir) from India. Sensing defeat, India approached United Nations for a ceasefire. As a result, the security Council passed a resolution on 17 January, 1948 and asked both the countries to observe cease-fire. However, the fighting continued and the UN appointed United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate and propose solution to the problem. The Commission passed a resolution on 13th August 1948, I which it asked both countries to observe ceasefire and directed Pakistan to withdraw its troops from the valley. The commission adopted another resolution on 5th January 1948, in which it spelled in clear language that the future of the valley would be decided through plebiscite. In the meantime, India and Pakistan signed a ceasefire which came into effect on January 1st, 1949. Indias Reluctance To Abide By UN Resolutions: Ever since the partition of the sub-continent on 14th August, 1947, India has been flouting the provisions of the instrument of Accession and resolutions of the UNO regarding the Kashmir issue. a) Plebiscite Administrator: The UN Secretary-General appointed Admiral Fleet Chester Nimitz (USA) as the plebiscite Administrator in the Kashmir on March, 1949. Pakistan accepted the arbitration of C.W Nimitz but India failed to do so. Thus, this move failed to bring any result. b) Sir Owen Dixons Report: In March, 1950, the UN Security Council disbanded UNCIP and designated Sir Owen Dixon, an Australian judge, to arrange the demilitarization in the valley. Sir Owen visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report in September, 1950, but Indias negative attitude proved a hindrance in the way of a solution. c) Frank Grahams Report: In March, 1951, the UN Security Council appointed Frank Graham (USA) as the UN representative of Kashmir. He visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report on 19th October, 1951, in which he recommended the demilitarization of Kashmir. Again, in May 1952, he visited India and Pakistan but as before Indian intransigence o accept any mediation prevented the peaceful solution. d) Geneva Talks: In February 1953, India and Pakistan held discussion in Geneva to resolve Kashmir issue. However, India refused to accept all proposals aimed at holding plebiscite in the valley.

e) Bogra-Nehru Talks: In 1953, Pakistan Premier Mohammad Ail Bogra and Indian Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru discussed the Kashmir issue in their meetings held in London, Karachi and Delhi. They could not achieve any result due to Nehrus delaying tactics in order to buy time. f) Nehrus Statement In Lok Sabha: In 1956, Nehru in an address in Lok Sabha sounded a changed Indian policy on Kashmir by declaring that the question of plebiscite on Kashmir was out of date because of American military assistance of Pakistan, economic development of Kashmir, creation of the Constituent Assembly in the valley and Pakistans membership of CENTO and SEATO. g) Gunner Jarring Proposals: In February, 1957, UN Security Council appointed Gunner Jarring President of the Council to submit a report on Kashmir. He visited India and Pakistan and submitted his report on 29th April, 1957. Pakistan accepted his proposals but India rejected them with its traditional obduracy. 1965 War Of India-Pakistan Over Kashmir: India flouting all canons of International Law attacked Pakistan on 6th September 1965. Thus full scale war started between India and Pakistan. Within days war spread from Kashmir front in the North to Rann of Kutch in the South and East Pakistan in the East. The valiant forces of Pakistan fought bravely and frustrated enemy designs at Sialkot, Lahore, Fazilka and Rajasthan. The war continued for 17 days till a UN sponsored ceasefire took effect on 23rd September, 1965. Later on, in January 1966 India and Pakistan signed the Tashkent Declaration in which the two countries declared to withdraw their troops from the valley in pre 15 August, 1965 position and resumed their normal diplomatic relations. Nuclear Test-Kargil Clashes And Kashmir Issue: In 1998, the two arch-rivals in South Asia conducted their own nuclear tests, since then, the international community especially the great powers are really concerned about the security of the region. The resolution of the Kashmir issue is earnestly felt, as it can trigger nuclear debacle in the region. The Kargil clashes further intensified the apprehension and need to resolve the issue. The military stand-off between India and Pakistan in the wake of terrorist attacks on Indian Parliament on December 13, 2001, further increased the fear of nuclear war in the region. Since then, the role of international community in resolving the Kashmir issue has come to the face. Agra Summit 2001: In July, 2001, Agra Summit between PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez

Musharraf started with great hopes and expectations. Pervez Musharraf visited India on the call of Vajpayee with confidence to resolve all the impeding issues to improve relations between the two arch-rivals of South Asia. Unfortunately, the summit ended abruptly without bringing any fruitful development for the peace I the region. Kashmir Issue After 9/11: The events of 9/11 brought overwhelming consequences for both the global and the regional politics. Its impacts on Kashmir are not ignorable. The whole international community agreed on a one-point agenda to combat terrorism in its all forms and manifestations, everywhere in the world. The world is no more ready to tolerate any type of insurgency in the name of selfdetermination and freedom. Terrorists and freedom fighters are no more distinguishable to the world. In such circumstances Kashmir freedom fighters cannot maintain the status of their domestic insurgency against India as a legitimate freedom struggle. Most the Kashmir Jihadi groups are outlawed and declared as terrorists groups creating restlessness in Kashmir. Effects Of Mumbai Attacks on Kashmir: The attacks which took place in Mumbai on November 26, 2008 carry severe implications for the Kashmir issue. After the attacks, the peace process between India and Pakistan suffered a setback. Although no direct link is established between the terrorists operating in Kashmir with those who carried out Mumbai attack, a case has been made by India that eventually all jihadi groups are bound by a commo Islamist Philosophy. Kashmir-Possible Solution: Following steps are suggested to evolve an effective policy on Kashmir to achieve the desired solutions. i) Efforts to bring about a united Islamic stand. ii) Holding international conference on Kashmir in the major capitals of the world where proKashmiri international personalities be invited to address. iii) Supporting overseas Pakistanis and students in foreign universities of stage demonstrations and influence the elected members of houses of government. iv) Evolve a think tank for formulating coherent guidelines on Kashmir. good one. v) Start a national Fund on Kashmir. vi) Most important of all, we should take advantage of the revival of Kashmir issue at the United Nations through a united move by the Muslim Ummah and Organisation of Islamic Conference. vii) Approaching International Court of Justice by Pakistan, for the issue of a cease and desist order to the Indian forces in Kashmir who are ruthlessly persecuting, the Kashmir Muslims and are violating the human rights. * intra kashmir dialogue should also be included, without any preconditions from any political party.

Critical Analysis: For resolving Kashmir issue it is the time that international community must differentiate between the terrorism and freedom movement. The process of peace for normalisation of relations between the two neighbouring countries through negotiations and talks for resolving all outstanding issues, irritants and problems and lingering issues have gained boost recently. Musharraf repeatedly asserted that Pakistan is against war. we are for peace; we are for deescalating; we are for reduction of tension. However, the reduction of tensions between the two neighbouring countries could have been achieved only if the confidence building measures agreed upon earlier would have been followed. In this regard, there is a positive response from Pakistan but unfortunately a negligible one from India. If even now Kashmir conflict is left unresolved through the international efforts, then to borrow Iqbals symbolism, the time has come when the desperate sparrow will pounce upon the mighty falcon and overpower it. Conclusion: Solution of the problem requires a change in the position adopted by all the three parties involving-India, Pakistan and Kashmiris themselves. Certain developments at regional and global levels augur well for the peaceful solution to the Kashmir problem. Pakistan must exploit the situation with a pragmatic policy on Kashmir. Plebiscite as the basic solution is not possible as evidenced in the past years. Pakistan must pressurise India and bring United States to a mechanism to solve the Kashmir issue. It is therefore essential that first step is to keep alive sustained dialogue between the leaders of the two countries. Step two is acceptance of Kashmir as issue that must be resolved. Step three would be to look at all possible solutions and agreed on which ones could be mutually discarded as unworkable. The fourth step would be to go on to further discussion in involving the people of Kashmir from both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) with a view to arriving at some reasonable solution acceptance to all parties concerned. try to seperate the qoutes from main lines,and high light it. overall good attempt. __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi.

Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following User Says Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Saturday, August 27, 2011) #19 Sunday, August 28, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

US-India Relations And Pakistan:


Outline: Introduction Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan President Obamas Visit To India Pakistans Concerns Indo-Pak Tensions Kashmir Issue Conclusion Introduction: The US and India have always considered themselves a major strategic and political powers. Both feel that the world must acknowledge this status. They have defined and described the international peace and priorities within their own norms and terms and have developed their relations with the other states within these parameters. Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan: The US is sing different means, methods, techniques, ways, tools and linkages to advance its policy goals in South Asia and its strategic agreement with India signed in June 2005 and July 2005 (Unclear deals) are the most recent and the best examples of Indo-US strategic partnership after 9/11 events.

The indo-US nuclear deal has much implication for the deterrence stability between the nuclear belligerents in South Asia as the nuclear facilities provided through this agreement will spare many Indian nuclear faculties which it has been using for civilian purposes and India will be able to manufacture abundant nuclear warheads out of them. On the other hand, Pakistan found a straight forward negative response for civilian nuclear deal despite the havoc created by the power shortage in the already thriving industrial sector. Then US and Israel backed Indian missile defence system will be another dent to Pakistans stability. President Obamas Visit To India: President Obamas three-day visit to India was predicated on two major objectives-US economic recession and war in Afghanistan. During his visit, Obama signed 20 business deals worth US 10 billion dollars with India. He also sent message to Pakistan during his visit that terrorists safe places in its territory are unacceptable. To appease India, he also asked Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he supported Indian desire to become the permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Pakistans Concerns: After Obamas support to India on the UN seat issue, Pakistans Foreign Office reacted immediately and requested Obama not to back New Delhi because of its role in suppression of Kashmiris and its hegemonic designs in the smaller countries of the region. India has egregious track record of stranded relations with almost all its neighbouring countries, not to say about Pakistan. It has disputes with Bangladesh over water, with Srilanka for tis backing of Tamils and Nepal for its interference in Kathmandus internal affairs. Obamas support for Indias UN bid has compounded Pakistans concerns over its rival designs in Afghanistan. Pakistan is already anxious at its nuclear-armed rivals growing role in Afghanistan and fears India is trying to gain a foothold along its Western borders. Indo-Pak Tensions: President Obama during his visit also offered to play a role in reducing Indo-Pak tensions. The efforts of the sole superpower in reducing tensions between the two nuclear states can help maintain peace in the region. But the problem is that US is willing to mediate provided both India and Pakistan request. But India is not ready to accept any third party mediation and insist all the issues including Kashmir will be resolved bilateral negotiations as per Tashkent and Simla Agreement. Kashmir Issue: Washington has been unsympathetic to appeals of help from the people of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Obama said, We will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan,

even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. US could play role in resolving the dispute if both the sides asked to do so but it could not impose any solution on the both sides. Obama kept quiet about human rights violations by the Indian occupation forces, contrary to what human rights organizations have been saying against brutal killings in the valley. Conclusion: There are many in Pakistan who view with alarm the growth in India-US ties that have now been reinforced by Obama visit. But, it is a mistake to regard the matter as a zero-sum game. If US ties with India grow, it does not necessarily mean loss for Pakistan, or vice versa. PakistanUS relations are based on their own rationale. In fact, at time when the primary US security concern is the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, US considers Pakistan as a pivotal ally without whose support the war cannot be won. Obama has already confirmed that he will be visiting Pakistan soon.

#20 Sunday, September 04, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Israel-Palestine issue:
Outline: Background: Arab-Israel Peace Accords: i) The Sinai Agreement: ii) Camp David Accord: iii) Oslo Accord iv) Wye River Peace Accord Israels Intransigence: Apathetic Role Of Arabs: Current Situation: Limitations To Direct Negotiations: Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace:

Conclusion: Background: It is a historical fact that the Jewish came into existence in 1948 with the blessings of the US, Great Britain and France. Later on, it succeeded in defeating the Arabs in the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 with the active military and financial support of USA and her allies. America needed a vassal state in the heart of the Middle East to keep the oil-rich Arab States under control. From the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the disintegration of USSR in 1991, the Middle East has been the hot spot in the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West. Since 1948 Israel has played at the hands of America and in turn has received billions of dollars worth military and economic assistance. Arab-Israel Peace Accords: After the 1973 Arab-Israel War, Israel has signed the following peace accords with the Arab States. i) The Sinai Agreement: Egypt and Israel signed two Sinai agreements in January 1974 and September 1975. ii) Camp David Accord: Egypt and Israel signed the famous Camp David Accord in September, 1978. According to this agreement, Israel withdrew from Gaza Strip and Sinai peninsula. This pact ended confrontation between two traditional rivals. iii) Oslo Accord: PLO chief Yasser Arafat signed Oslo agreement in 1955 on interim autonomy of the Palestinians. iv) Wye River Peace Accord: PLO signed the historic Wye River Peace Accord with Israel in October, 1998. Under this agreement Israel agreed to transfer 27 per cent territory of West Bank, Gaza strip and Jericho peninsula to the Palestinian Authority. It also provided safe passage to the Palestinian from Gaza to West Bank and allowed the opening of an airport at Gaza. Israels Intransigence: So far Israel has in one way or other safeguarded American interests in the region. Without US support it would not have been possible for Tel Aviv to survive in the face of bitter Arab opposition. Due to this factor Israel has been able to back out from its commitments on several occasions. For example, the 1993accord required Israel pull out from all of its West Bank settlement and the occupied West Bank areas. But Israel did not fulfil its commitments mainly due to American backing. Furthermore, Israel has surpassed all limits of brutality by using military force against the unarmed Palestinians. In addition Israel has accelerated its settlement expansion drive. Apathetic Role Of Arabs:

After the reverses suffered in the Arab-Israel wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973, the Arab leaders were convinced that it was not possible to wipe out the Israel through war. Thus President of Egypt Anwar Sadat signed Camp David Accord with Israel in September, 1978. Under this agreement Egypt got Gaza Strip and Sanai Desert back and felt satisfied. Consequently, the withdrawal of Egypt, the strongest nation from the theatre betrayed the Palestinian cause and made the issue more complicated. Similarly, Jordan under Shah Hussain signed peace accord with Israel and pulled itself out of boiling pot of the Middle East. This accord further weakened the position Palestine Liberation Organisation. While after signing peace accords with Egypt and Jordan Israel attained a strong position. The Arab States viz Egypt, Jordan, Syria, UAE and Saudi Arabia have adopted an apathetic role towards Palestine. They have confined their role to passing resolutions only. The GCC and Arab League have no practical role to play for the establishment of a free Palestinian States. Current Situation: The US announced the resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington on September 2, 2010. However, the talks stalled within four weeks when Israel refused to extend a self-imposed 10 month building freeze that expired on September 26, 2010. Washington has since offered Israel a package of jet fighters and diplomatic guarantees in exchange for concession on settlements. Limitations To Direct Negotiations: As the rounds of talks move forward there are three basic limitations to direct negotiations. First, the Palestinians are concerned that the talks without deadline would simply allow Israel more time to build more settlements, which would further undermine any agreement. The second problem is that a bilateral peace deal is no longer attractive to either side. Israel would find it difficult to find stomach the painful concessions necessary to win peace deal with only some Palestinians-Hamas, who run Gaza, are not involved-while the Palestinians need cover from wider Arab World to sell tough choices to their own people. Finally, and worst of all, a two-state solution will no longer work. Despite serious efforts to build a Palestinian State this option effectively disappeared as Israel settlers spread throughout the West Bank. Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace: Given this trio of deficiencies, the bilateral approach alone should be abandoned. Instead, a comprehensive accord between Israel and all Arab countries should be pursued. This could build on the terms laid out in Arab Peace Initiative; adopted during an Arab League in meeting in Beirut in 2002. This offered Israel both normalised relations with Arab countries and security guarantees, in exchange for agreements over borders and the refugee problem. A further strength of the plan was that it offered regional cover for both sides. Conclusion:

The conditions for bilateral settlement do not currently exist. Renewed talks between Israel and Palestinians are unlikely to change this, no matter how much the Obama administration hope they might delaying difficult decisions in hope of better opportunities tomorrow will only make it harder to end conflict. But a regional approach is both possible and desirable as a way forward. And the time is to act now.

Irans Nuclear Program


Outline: Historical Background: Turning Point: Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran: Energy Demand: Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis: Conclusion:

Historical Background: Irans nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s when, with strong US support, Iran began its efforts to develop nuclear technology. By 1975 the UD had entered into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran for the sale of equipments and then in 1976, the US offered Iran reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. A nuclearized Iran, at that time, was in the US favour to contain Soviet backed communism and Arab nationalism. Turning Point: After the 1979 revolution, during which Shah was overthrown, the relations between Iran and the US changed dramatically, marking a turning point in the once robust international cooperation and the US involvement in Irans development of nuclear technology. The issue became highly politicised precisely because the Islamic Republic openly declared its intentions to continue with a reinvigorated nuclear program using indigenously manufactured fuel and sustain an ambitious agenda for developing nuclear power rector and fuel cycle technologies. Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran: In November 2006, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to put an end to uranium enrichment, increasing pressure on the Iranian government to prove that it was not trying to make its nuclear weapons.

Currently Iran has again become the focus of US attention because it is trying to build its nuclear and missile capability IAEA has repeatedly expressed its fear that Iran is enriching Uranium in order to make nuclear weapons. The Obama administrations is perturbed by Irans growing nuclear power as well as its longrange development. In April, 2010, US increased pressure to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. Consequently, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanction on Iran on 9th June, 2010 for nuclear program that West Suspect is aimed at the development of atomic weapons. Energy Demand: Iran sees nuclear power as a means of modernizing and diversifying its energy supply, since its large oil reserves will be depleted over the next seven to none decades. Its oil reserves are estimated at 137 billion barrel or the 11.6 % of the worlds total reserves; and it has 29,000 billion cubic meters of natural gas or the 15.4% of the Worlds total reserves. However, given a doubling of Irans population to 70 million since 1979, energy demand at home has risen exponentially. Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis: Since Iran is signatory to NPT, it legally allows Iran to build any nuclear facility. It also allow member-states to withdraw from agreement, subject to 90 days notice to IAEA, if they believe that abiding by the terms of NPT threaten their national security. The crisis between Iran and the US on Irans nuclear program exposed a flaw in the Bush administrations understanding of why Tehran to be a nuclear power. The Bush administration was willing to negotiate the North Korea that had to quit the NPT and went on for a civilian nuclear deal with India but was not ready to show flexibly in case of Iran. Conclusion: President Obama should take political risk of engaging in direct talks with Iran. At the first stage, the process should start with persuasion of political factions inside the United States and encouraging them to change their perception regarding aims and ambitions of Irans nuclear program. A key step would be differentiating between the themes of nuclear energy and the issue of weaponization. Moreover, connecting Irans nuclear program to issues of deterrence must be stopped. These are the important steps towards confidence-building and to alleviate the perceptions of an Iranian nuclear threat mong the American public and in Congress.

The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: maha4799 (Sunday, September 04, 2011) #22 Sunday, September 04, 2011

eshal Member

Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: pakistan Posts: 76 Thanks: 55 Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts

good effort ... best of luck how are you preparing C.A... means from where dawn or something else too..

The Following User Says Thank You to eshal For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Sunday, September 04, 2011) #23 Sunday, September 04, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by eshal good effort ... best of luck how are you preparing C.A... means from where dawn or something else too.. I refer Dawn, Tribune, Jahangir's World Magzine, and Imtiaz Shahid's Contemporary Affairs....Regards

#24 Sunday, September 04, 2011

Call for Change Senior Member

Join Date: May 2009 Location: Crumbling Prison of Cruel Custmos Posts: 1,144 Thanks: 1,028 Thanked 1,482 Times in 739 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Irans Nuclear Program


Outline: Historical Background: Turning Point: Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran: Energy Demand: Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis: Conclusion:

Historical Background: Irans nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s when, with strong US support, Iran began its efforts to develop nuclear technology. By 1975 the UD had entered into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran for the sale of equipments and then in 1976, the US offered Iran reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. A nuclearized Iran, at that time, was in the US favour to contain Soviet backed communism and Arab nationalism. Turning Point: After the 1979 revolution, during which Shah was overthrown, the relations between Iran and the US changed dramatically, marking a turning point in the once robust international cooperation and the US involvement in Irans development of nuclear technology. The issue became highly politicised precisely because the Islamic Republic openly declared its intentions to continue with a reinvigorated nuclear program using indigenously manufactured fuel and sustain an ambitious agenda for developing nuclear power rector and fuel cycle technologies. Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran:

In November 2006, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to put an end to uranium enrichment, increasing pressure on the Iranian government to prove that it was not trying to make its nuclear weapons. Currently Iran has again become the focus of US attention because it is trying to build its nuclear and missile capability IAEA has repeatedly expressed its fear that Iran is enriching Uranium in order to make nuclear weapons. The Obama administrations is perturbed by Irans growing nuclear power as well as its longrange development. In April, 2010, US increased pressure to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. Consequently, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanction on Iran on 9th June, 2010 for nuclear program that West Suspect is aimed at the development of atomic weapons. Energy Demand: Iran sees nuclear power as a means of modernizing and diversifying its energy supply, since its large oil reserves will be depleted over the next seven to none decades. Its oil reserves are estimated at 137 billion barrel or the 11.6 % of the worlds total reserves; and it has 29,000 billion cubic meters of natural gas or the 15.4% of the Worlds total reserves. However, given a doubling of Irans population to 70 million since 1979, energy demand at home has risen exponentially. Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis: Since Iran is signatory to NPT, it legally allows Iran to build any nuclear facility. It also allow member-states to withdraw from agreement, subject to 90 days notice to IAEA, if they believe that abiding by the terms of NPT threaten their national security. The crisis between Iran and the US on Irans nuclear program exposed a flaw in the Bush administrations understanding of why Tehran to be a nuclear power. The Bush administration was willing to negotiate the North Korea that had to quit the NPT and went on for a civilian nuclear deal with India but was not ready to show flexibly in case of Iran. Conclusion: President Obama should take political risk of engaging in direct talks with Iran. At the first stage, the process should start with persuasion of political factions inside the United States and encouraging them to change their perception regarding aims and ambitions of Irans nuclear program. A key step would be differentiating between the themes of nuclear energy and the issue of weaponization. Moreover, connecting Irans nuclear program to issues of deterrence must be stopped. These are the important steps towards confidence-building and to alleviate the perceptions of an Iranian nuclear threat mong the American public and in Congress.

nice attempt. i would like to suggest few points. 1- Role of Pakistan . Dr.Abdul Qadeer khan was the key players in starting the Nuclear program of Iran, IAEA found the samples of the nuclear warhead which actually belongs to Pakistan . 2- Suntex 3- Threat to Israel 4- killing of Iranian Nuclear Scientists 5- Aftermaths if Iran became a nuclear Power __________________ I Don't follow the Mob, I find my own path and that's why I am Call for Change :)

The Following User Says Thank You to Call for Change For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, September 07, 2011) #25 Monday, September 05, 2011 Join Date: May 2009 Location: Crumbling Prison of Cruel Custmos Posts: 1,144 Thanks: 1,028 Thanked 1,482 Times in 739 Posts

Call for Change Senior Member

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

US-India Relations And Pakistan:


Outline: Introduction Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan President Obamas Visit To India Pakistans Concerns Indo-Pak Tensions Kashmir Issue Conclusion Introduction:

The US and India have always considered themselves a major strategic and political powers. Both feel that the world must acknowledge this status. They have defined and described the international peace and priorities within their own norms and terms and have developed their relations with the other states within these parameters. Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan: The US is sing different means, methods, techniques, ways, tools and linkages to advance its policy goals in South Asia and its strategic agreement with India signed in June 2005 and July 2005 (Unclear deals) are the most recent and the best examples of Indo-US strategic partnership after 9/11 events. The indo-US nuclear deal has much implication for the deterrence stability between the nuclear belligerents in South Asia as the nuclear facilities provided through this agreement will spare many Indian nuclear faculties which it has been using for civilian purposes and India will be able to manufacture abundant nuclear warheads out of them. On the other hand, Pakistan found a straight forward negative response for civilian nuclear deal despite the havoc created by the power shortage in the already thriving industrial sector. Then US and Israel backed Indian missile defence system will be another dent to Pakistans stability. President Obamas Visit To India: President Obamas three-day visit to India was predicated on two major objectives-US economic recession and war in Afghanistan. During his visit, Obama signed 20 business deals worth US 10 billion dollars with India. He also sent message to Pakistan during his visit that terrorists safe places in its territory are unacceptable. To appease India, he also asked Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he supported Indian desire to become the permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Pakistans Concerns: After Obamas support to India on the UN seat issue, Pakistans Foreign Office reacted immediately and requested Obama not to back New Delhi because of its role in suppression of Kashmiris and its hegemonic designs in the smaller countries of the region. India has egregious track record of stranded relations with almost all its neighbouring countries, not to say about Pakistan. It has disputes with Bangladesh over water, with Srilanka for tis backing of Tamils and Nepal for its interference in Kathmandus internal affairs. Obamas support for Indias UN bid has compounded Pakistans concerns over its rival designs in Afghanistan. Pakistan is already anxious at its nuclear-armed rivals growing role in Afghanistan and fears India is trying to gain a foothold along its Western borders.

Indo-Pak Tensions: President Obama during his visit also offered to play a role in reducing Indo-Pak tensions. The efforts of the sole superpower in reducing tensions between the two nuclear states can help maintain peace in the region. But the problem is that US is willing to mediate provided both India and Pakistan request. But India is not ready to accept any third party mediation and insist all the issues including Kashmir will be resolved bilateral negotiations as per Tashkent and Simla Agreement. Kashmir Issue: Washington has been unsympathetic to appeals of help from the people of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Obama said, We will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. US could play role in resolving the dispute if both the sides asked to do so but it could not impose any solution on the both sides. Obama kept quiet about human rights violations by the Indian occupation forces, contrary to what human rights organizations have been saying against brutal killings in the valley. Conclusion: There are many in Pakistan who view with alarm the growth in India-US ties that have now been reinforced by Obama visit. But, it is a mistake to regard the matter as a zero-sum game. If US ties with India grow, it does not necessarily mean loss for Pakistan, or vice versa. Pakistan-US relations are based on their own rationale. In fact, at time when the primary US security concern is the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, US considers Pakistan as a pivotal ally without whose support the war cannot be won. Obama has already confirmed that he will be visiting Pakistan soon. Nice attempt but again many things are missing. US India relations revolve around the tussle between Liberalism and Socialism, U.S needs a strategic partner in Asia to challenge the hegemony of China. And you can't ignore Afghan perspective; how india can help U.S to withdraw its troops peacefully and how India can help U.S to stabilize Afghanistan and combat terrorism . Economy is another important perspective . India is the second largest market of Asia plus it provides cheap labour as well. U.S can use Indian tool any time to threat Pakistan and compel it to fight U.S proxy War (If Pakistan refuses to fight the war for U.S) __________________ I Don't follow the Mob, I find my own path and that's why I am Call for Change :)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Call for Change For This Useful Post: aariz (Monday, September 05, 2011), maha4799 (Monday, September 05, 2011), Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, September 07, 2011)

#26 Monday, September 05, 2011 Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Larkana Posts: 48 Thanks: 23 Thanked 33 Times in 24 Posts

Jugni Member

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Irans Nuclear Program


Outline: Historical Background: Turning Point: Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran: Energy Demand: Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis: Conclusion:

Historical Background: Irans nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s when, with strong US support, Iran began its efforts to develop nuclear technology. By 1975 the UD had entered into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran for the sale of equipments and then in 1976, the US offered Iran reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. A nuclearized Iran, at that time, was in the US favour to contain Soviet backed communism and Arab nationalism. Turning Point: After the 1979 revolution, during which Shah was overthrown, the relations between Iran and the US changed dramatically, marking a turning point in the once robust international cooperation and the US involvement in Irans development of nuclear technology. The issue became highly politicised precisely because the Islamic Republic openly declared its intentions to continue with a reinvigorated nuclear program using indigenously manufactured fuel and sustain an ambitious agenda for developing nuclear power rector

and fuel cycle technologies. Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran: In November 2006, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to put an end to uranium enrichment, increasing pressure on the Iranian government to prove that it was not trying to make its nuclear weapons. Currently Iran has again become the focus of US attention because it is trying to build its nuclear and missile capability IAEA has repeatedly expressed its fear that Iran is enriching Uranium in order to make nuclear weapons. The Obama administrations is perturbed by Irans growing nuclear power as well as its long-range development. In April, 2010, US increased pressure to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. Consequently, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanction on Iran on 9th June, 2010 for nuclear program that West Suspect is aimed at the development of atomic weapons. Energy Demand: Iran sees nuclear power as a means of modernizing and diversifying its energy supply, since its large oil reserves will be depleted over the next seven to none decades. Its oil reserves are estimated at 137 billion barrel or the 11.6 % of the worlds total reserves; and it has 29,000 billion cubic meters of natural gas or the 15.4% of the Worlds total reserves. However, given a doubling of Irans population to 70 million since 1979, energy demand at home has risen exponentially. Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis: Since Iran is signatory to NPT, it legally allows Iran to build any nuclear facility. It also allow member-states to withdraw from agreement, subject to 90 days notice to IAEA, if they believe that abiding by the terms of NPT threaten their national security. The crisis between Iran and the US on Irans nuclear program exposed a flaw in the Bush administrations understanding of why Tehran to be a nuclear power. The Bush administration was willing to negotiate the North Korea that had to quit the NPT and went on for a civilian nuclear deal with India but was not ready to show flexibly in case of Iran. Conclusion: President Obama should take political risk of engaging in direct talks with Iran. At the first stage, the process should start with persuasion of political factions inside the United States and encouraging them to change their perception regarding aims and ambitions of Irans nuclear program. A key step would be differentiating between the themes of nuclear energy and the issue of weaponization. Moreover, connecting Irans nuclear program to issues of deterrence must be stopped. These are the important steps towards confidence-building and

to alleviate the perceptions of an Iranian nuclear threat mong the American public and in Congress. Nice attempt but only one thing is missing.In my opinion it is better to gave full form of anything then one should use abbreviations. For instance "Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)and International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) Regards __________________ Asma Morio

The Following User Says Thank You to Jugni For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, September 07, 2011) #27 Tuesday, September 06, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

US-India Relations And Pakistan:


Outline: Introduction Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan President Obamas Visit To India Pakistans Concerns Indo-Pak Tensions Kashmir Issue Conclusion Introduction:

The US and India have always considered themselves a major strategic and political powers. Both feel that the world must acknowledge this status. They have defined and described the international peace and priorities within their own norms and terms and have developed their relations with the other states within these parameters. Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan: The US is sing different means, methods, techniques, ways, tools and linkages to advance its policy goals in South Asia and its strategic agreement with India signed in June 2005 and July 2005 (Unclear deals) are the most recent and the best examples of Indo-US strategic partnership after 9/11 events. The indo-US nuclear deal has much implication for the deterrence stability between the nuclear belligerents in South Asia as the nuclear facilities provided through this agreement will spare many Indian nuclear faculties which it has been using for civilian purposes and India will be able to manufacture abundant nuclear warheads out of them. On the other hand, Pakistan found a straight forward negative response for civilian nuclear deal despite the havoc created by the power shortage in the already thriving industrial sector. Then US and Israel backed Indian missile defence system will be another dent to Pakistans stability. President Obamas Visit To India: President Obamas three-day visit to India was predicated on two major objectives-US economic recession and war in Afghanistan. During his visit, Obama signed 20 business deals worth US 10 billion dollars with India. He also sent message to Pakistan during his visit that terrorists safe places in its territory are unacceptable. To appease India, he also asked Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he supported Indian desire to become the permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Pakistans Concerns: After Obamas support to India on the UN seat issue, Pakistans Foreign Office reacted immediately and requested Obama not to back New Delhi because of its role in suppression of Kashmiris and its hegemonic designs in the smaller countries of the region. India has egregious track record of stranded relations with almost all its neighbouring countries, not to say about Pakistan. It has disputes with Bangladesh over water, with Srilanka for tis backing of Tamils and Nepal for its interference in Kathmandus internal affairs. Obamas support for Indias UN bid has compounded Pakistans concerns over its rival designs in Afghanistan. Pakistan is already anxious at its nuclear-armed rivals growing role in Afghanistan and fears India is trying to gain a foothold along its Western borders. Indo-Pak Tensions:

President Obama during his visit also offered to play a role in reducing Indo-Pak tensions. The efforts of the sole superpower in reducing tensions between the two nuclear states can help maintain peace in the region. But the problem is that US is willing to mediate provided both India and Pakistan request. But India is not ready to accept any third party mediation and insist all the issues including Kashmir will be resolved bilateral negotiations as per Tashkent and Simla Agreement. Kashmir Issue: Washington has been unsympathetic to appeals of help from the people of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Obama said, We will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. US could play role in resolving the dispute if both the sides asked to do so but it could not impose any solution on the both sides. Obama kept quiet about human rights violations by the Indian occupation forces, contrary to what human rights organizations have been saying against brutal killings in the valley. Conclusion: There are many in Pakistan who view with alarm the growth in India-US ties that have now been reinforced by Obama visit. But, it is a mistake to regard the matter as a zero-sum game. If US ties with India grow, it does not necessarily mean loss for Pakistan, or vice versa. Pakistan-US relations are based on their own rationale. In fact, at time when the primary US security concern is the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, US considers Pakistan as a pivotal ally without whose support the war cannot be won. Obama has already confirmed that he will be visiting Pakistan soon. Outline: Introduction Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan President Obamas Visit To India Pakistans Concerns Indo-Pak Tensions Kashmir Issue Conclusion roshan introduction to sahi ha per apne apni 2nd heading ma he gist of the question explain ker dya ha. my teacher used to told me that current affairs means cu.affairs. you need to update yourself with the recent developments. indopak tension ko aj kal ke senerio ma explain karo bcoz situation has changed alot now

b/w india and pakistan and explain that if pakistan will be able to resolve its issue with its neighbour then what would be the implecation on us. i think this trio relation kashmir issue do have importance but more than afghanistan. roshan you need to add more recent and solid points in your outline. some points have already mentioned by shooting star. regrds sabahat __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following User Says Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, September 07, 2011) #28 Tuesday, September 06, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Israel-Palestine issue:
Outline: Background: Arab-Israel Peace Accords: i) The Sinai Agreement: ii) Camp David Accord: iii) Oslo Accord iv) Wye River Peace Accord

Israels Intransigence: Apathetic Role Of Arabs: Current Situation: Limitations To Direct Negotiations: Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace: Conclusion: Background: It is a historical fact that the Jewish came into existence in 1948 with the blessings of the US, Great Britain and France. Later on, it succeeded in defeating the Arabs in the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 with the active military and financial support of USA and her allies. America needed a vassal state in the heart of the Middle East to keep the oil-rich Arab States under control. From the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the disintegration of USSR in 1991, the Middle East has been the hot spot in the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West. Since 1948 Israel has played at the hands of America and in turn has received billions of dollars worth military and economic assistance. Arab-Israel Peace Accords: After the 1973 Arab-Israel War, Israel has signed the following peace accords with the Arab States. i) The Sinai Agreement: Egypt and Israel signed two Sinai agreements in January 1974 and September 1975. ii) Camp David Accord: Egypt and Israel signed the famous Camp David Accord in September, 1978. According to this agreement, Israel withdrew from Gaza Strip and Sinai peninsula. This pact ended confrontation between two traditional rivals. iii) Oslo Accord: PLO chief Yasser Arafat signed Oslo agreement in 1955 on interim autonomy of the Palestinians. iv) Wye River Peace Accord: PLO signed the historic Wye River Peace Accord with Israel in October, 1998. Under this agreement Israel agreed to transfer 27 per cent territory of West Bank, Gaza strip and Jericho peninsula to the Palestinian Authority. It also provided safe passage to the Palestinian from Gaza to West Bank and allowed the opening of an airport at Gaza. Israels Intransigence: So far Israel has in one way or other safeguarded American interests in the region. Without US support it would not have been possible for Tel Aviv to survive in the face of bitter Arab opposition. Due to this factor Israel has been able to back out from its commitments on several occasions. For example, the 1993accord required Israel pull out from all of its West

Bank settlement and the occupied West Bank areas. But Israel did not fulfil its commitments mainly due to American backing. Furthermore, Israel has surpassed all limits of brutality by using military force against the unarmed Palestinians. In addition Israel has accelerated its settlement expansion drive. Apathetic Role Of Arabs: After the reverses suffered in the Arab-Israel wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973, the Arab leaders were convinced that it was not possible to wipe out the Israel through war. Thus President of Egypt Anwar Sadat signed Camp David Accord with Israel in September, 1978. Under this agreement Egypt got Gaza Strip and Sanai Desert back and felt satisfied. Consequently, the withdrawal of Egypt, the strongest nation from the theatre betrayed the Palestinian cause and made the issue more complicated. Similarly, Jordan under Shah Hussain signed peace accord with Israel and pulled itself out of boiling pot of the Middle East. This accord further weakened the position Palestine Liberation Organisation. While after signing peace accords with Egypt and Jordan Israel attained a strong position. The Arab States viz Egypt, Jordan, Syria, UAE and Saudi Arabia have adopted an apathetic role towards Palestine. They have confined their role to passing resolutions only. The GCC and Arab League have no practical role to play for the establishment of a free Palestinian States. Current Situation: The US announced the resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington on September 2, 2010. However, the talks stalled within four weeks when Israel refused to extend a self-imposed 10 month building freeze that expired on September 26, 2010. Washington has since offered Israel a package of jet fighters and diplomatic guarantees in exchange for concession on settlements. Limitations To Direct Negotiations: As the rounds of talks move forward there are three basic limitations to direct negotiations. First, the Palestinians are concerned that the talks without deadline would simply allow Israel more time to build more settlements, which would further undermine any agreement. The second problem is that a bilateral peace deal is no longer attractive to either side. Israel would find it difficult to find stomach the painful concessions necessary to win peace deal with only some Palestinians-Hamas, who run Gaza, are not involved-while the Palestinians need cover from wider Arab World to sell tough choices to their own people. Finally, and worst of all, a two-state solution will no longer work. Despite serious efforts to build a Palestinian State this option effectively disappeared as Israel settlers spread throughout the West Bank. Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace:

Given this trio of deficiencies, the bilateral approach alone should be abandoned. Instead, a comprehensive accord between Israel and all Arab countries should be pursued. This could build on the terms laid out in Arab Peace Initiative; adopted during an Arab League in meeting in Beirut in 2002. This offered Israel both normalised relations with Arab countries and security guarantees, in exchange for agreements over borders and the refugee problem. A further strength of the plan was that it offered regional cover for both sides. Conclusion: The conditions for bilateral settlement do not currently exist. Renewed talks between Israel and Palestinians are unlikely to change this, no matter how much the Obama administration hope they might delaying difficult decisions in hope of better opportunities tomorrow will only make it harder to end conflict. But a regional approach is both possible and desirable as a way forward. And the time is to act now.

Background: Arab-Israel Peace Accords: i) The Sinai Agreement: ii) Camp David Accord: iii) Oslo Accord iv) Wye River Peace Accord Israels Intransigence: Apathetic Role Of Arabs: do write about their meeting on 8th oct.2010 and their heplessness to had a firm stance against israel actions. Current Situation: you have not written the patch of hamas and other party and its implication on peace process. Limitations To Direct Negotiations: Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace: Conclusion: in conclusion write the famous lines of MUSTAFA BARGHOUTI(member of palestinian legislative council) "The only way to save the two state solution is for the palistinians to declare the establishment of an independent palestinian state on the territories occupied by israel in 1967,including East Jerusalem,and to demand that world community recognise it and its borders-as it did in the case of Kosovo.

taht would also mean supporting the right of palestinians to struggle non-violently to end the occupation of their state. any future negosiations,therefore,would not be about the right of the palistinians to have their own sovereign independent state, but rather about how to apply and implement that right.

IF the world community turns its back on such declaration on independence by using the insulting argument that every step should first be verified with the israeli govt.,then the message will be clear Peace based on two states is no longer an option"

regards sabahat __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: A4ambitious (1 Week Ago), dms664 (Tuesday, September 06, 2011), Roshan wadhwani (Wednesday, September 07, 2011) #29 Wednesday, September 07, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Call for Change nice attempt. i would like to suggest few points. 1- Role of Pakistan . Dr.Abdul Qadeer khan was the key players in starting the Nuclear program of Iran, IAEA found the samples of the nuclear warhead which actually belongs to Pakistan . 2- Suntex

3- Threat to Israel 4- killing of Iranian Nuclear Scientists 5- Aftermaths if Iran became a nuclear Power Thanx a lot dear Call For Change for highlighting more points, i wud request u to post some detail on the above topics here if possible or useful links if u have any, so dat i cud update my notes and enrich them...Regards

#30 Wednesday, September 07, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by SYEDA SABAHAT Outline: Introduction Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan President Obamas Visit To India Pakistans Concerns Indo-Pak Tensions Kashmir Issue Conclusion roshan introduction to sahi ha per apne apni 2nd heading ma he gist of the question explain ker dya ha. my teacher used to told me that current affairs means cu.affairs. you need to update yourself with the recent developments. indopak tension ko aj kal ke senerio ma explain karo bcoz situation has changed alot now b/w india and pakistan and explain that if pakistan will be able to resolve its issue with its neighbour then what would be the implecation on us. i think this trio relation kashmir issue do have importance but more than afghanistan.

roshan you need to add more recent and solid points in your outline. some points have already mentioned by shooting star. regrds sabahat Thanks alot dear Syeda Sabaht... Dear Syeda I had mentioned in my first post that these notes are till march 2011, and i'll update them after posting all the topics here and getting guidance from u seniors...iam in touch with the recent developments through newspapers and will update all the notes after knowing weak points and drawbacks of my notes highlighted by u seniors...i also request u to kindly share recent information related to these topics so as i cud enrich them...Keep guiding...Regards

1- Role of Pakistan . Dr.Abdul Qadeer khan was the key players in starting the Nuclear program of Iran, IAEA found the samples of the nuclear warhead which actually belongs to Pakistan . Read a book by Gordon Corera, Shopping for Bombs: Nuclear Proliferation, Global Insecurity, and the Rise and Fall of A. Q. Khan's Nuclear Network. it will tell you the whole story. Read these two reports to know how much western powers are willing to stop this nuclear program. http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/site...l%20062210.pdf Stuxnet (sorry i spelled it wrongly ) Institute for Science and International Security ISIS Reports Iran Did Stuxnet Take Out 1,000 Centrifuges at the Natanz Enrichment Plant? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/wo...pagewanted=all Stuxnet - The New York Times Mossad's Miracle Weapon: Stuxnet Virus Opens New Era of Cyber War - SPIEGEL ONLINE News - International

killing of Iranian Nuclear Scientists Sabotaging Iran's Nuclear Program: Mossad Behind Tehran Assassinations, Says Source SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

here are few documents about the UN sanctions on Iran , this shows how UN is working as tool to pursue anti-Iranian agenda of US and Israel Resolutions on Iran

I read a cover story about this series of killing in international page of The Nation tomorrow i will find it and will give u the link. it would be of great help. Iranian nuclear plant is a great threat for israel . mossad and CIA are woring together to sabotage Iranian nuclear program. If Iran would be a nuclear power it will counter the Isareali hegemony in the region which Israel cannot afford. __________________ I Don't follow the Mob, I find my own path and that's why I am Call for Change :) Last edited by Shooting Star; Monday, May 28, 2012 at 02:36 AM. Reason: added CIA in he place of ISI.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Call for Change For This Useful Post: candidguy (Thursday, September 08, 2011), Roshan wadhwani (Saturday, September 10, 2011), SADIA SHAFIQ (Sunday, October 16, 2011), SYEDA SABAHAT (Saturday, September 10, 2011) #32 Saturday, September 10, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Pak-Sino Relations:
Outline: Background-Recognition Of Peoples Republic Of China: First Meeting Of The Prime Ministers: Chinas Membership Of UNO: Sino-India Border Conflict And Pakistan:

1965 And 1971 Indo-Pak Wars: Pak-Sino Relations During 1970s: Pakistans Support To China In National Issue. Chinas Support On Afghan Issue: Chinas Support On Pakistans Nuclear Tests: Chinas Support During Kargil War: US-Led Anti-Terrorism War And Paki-Sino Relations: Reliance On Strong Military-To-Military Relations: Growing Economic Relations: Pakistans Entry Into SCO: Mutual Strategic Concerns About India: Growing US Regional Role: Conclusion Background-Recognition Of Peoples Republic Of China: Pakistan was the first Islamic country and third non-communist state to accord recognition to the peoples republic of china in January 1950. Currently Pakistan and China are enjoying warm and friendly relations which have gone from strength to strength since their inception in 1950s. First Meeting Of The Prime Ministers: The premiers of both the nations laid the foundation of these relations during Bandung Conference. Chinese premier Chou En Lai and his Pakistani counterpart Mohammad Ail Bogra were the architects of this historic relationship which was destined to prove unprecedented in the annals of international relations. Chinas Membership Of UNO: The actual consolidation between relations started in the early 1960s, when Pakistan changed its stance and supported Chinas seating in the UNO in 1961. Sino-India Border Conflict And Pakistan: In 1962, during China-India border conflict Pakistan had to face pressure from its western allies UK and US. However, Pakistan brushed aside the pressure and supported China wholeheartedly. As a result, the two countries amicably negotiated and signed an agreement on the demarcation of their common border in March 1963. 1965 And 1971 Indo-Pak Wars: During 1965 Indo-Pak war, China played a commendable role in its support to Pakistan in achieving ceasefire by issuing stern warning to India. Following the war, China also in an attempt to compensate for war losses, supported Pakistan with military equipment including

tanks and aircraft. During 1960s, Pakistan-China relations evolved on firm footings of mutual trust and confidence. During 1971 Indo-Pak war Chinese leaders in a message to Pakistans President Yahya Khan assured full support against India and Soviet Union. China also openly declared India as an aggressor. China also extended armed aid to Pakistan at this stage. Thus, the relations further strengthened. Pak-Sino Relations During 1970s: In the decade of 1970, Pak reciprocated by supporting China internationally. It supported China in its border confrontation with Soviet Union, Pakistan was instrumental in Dr.Kisisngers visit to china in July 1971 and President Nixons visit to Beijing in Feb 1972. Further, the Indian nuclear explosion in 1974 introduced a new dimension in strategic balance in the region and gave a fresh impetus to expanding Pak-China defence cooperation. Between 1971 and 1878, China assisted Pakistan in building two defence related mega-projects, first, the Heavy Rebuild Factory for T-59 tanks and the second, and F-6 Aircraft Rebuild Factory. Pakistans Support To China In National Issue. Throughout the 1980s, Pak-Sino relations continued to develop in a comprehensive relationship. Pakistan always supported chian in all issues important to Chinese national interests such as sovereignty over Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet and issue relating human rights and democracy. Chinas Support On Afghan Issue: The next milestone in Pakistan-China relations was the period between 1979 and 1988, when Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan and defied world demand to pull out its troops from Afghanistan. Millions of Afghan refugees fled from their homeland and sought refuge in the refugee camps on the Pakistans soil. However, [Pakistan faced the situation bravely. It not only provided to afghan refugees but also provided all assistance for the training of Afghan Mujahedeen. In this hour of need, China extended moral support to Pakistan. Chinas Support On Pakistans Nuclear Tests: Following the withdrawal of Soviet Troops from Afghanistan in 1999-89, the strategic dynamics in the region changed once again. Throughout the 1970s, Pakistan remained under the USA sanctions and chian was the primary source for military hardware procurements. After the Indian nuclear tests, the strategic balance in South Asia was changed; China expressed its understanding of Pakistans compulsion to go nuclear. It supported Pakistan to establish strategic balance in South Asia by conducting its own nuclear tests. Chinas Support During Kargil War:

In 1999, during the Kargil war between the two nuclear states, India and Pakistan, China adhered to a strict neutral position. China was concerned over the possibility of escalation of the conflict, and asked both countries to defuse tensions. During the Indo-Pak military standoff in 2000-2001, China continued with its position of neutrality and played an important role in defusing tensions between India and Pakistan through telephone diplomacy. US-Led Anti-Terrorism War And Paki-Sino Relations: President Musharrafs visit to Peoples Republic of China on December 20, 2001 as an event of special importance between the two countries as it conveyed a strong signal to the world over that Pak-China relations could not be affected by Pakistans joining US-led anti-terrorism coalition and its improved relations with the West. Pakistans side was likely to renew its commitment that China would continue to enjoy the highest priority in the countrys foreign policy. Presidents visit gave a new boost to mutual beneficial relations and help strengthened traditional bonds of friendship and cooperation between the two countries. China understood and supported Pakistans decision made in the light of its national interests and that time situation. Pakistans emergence as a key partner to US led anti-terrorism war did not affect Pak-China relations because at the political level both countries have unanimity of views on issues like the war on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Iranian nuclear program. Reliance On Strong Military-To-Military Relations: Military relations have long been the most important and vibrant component in China-Pakistan relations. Bilateral military Cooperation is usually strong and ranges from naval cooperation to combined military and anti-terror exercises. After the event of 9/11, anti-terrorism related cooperation between the two countries has consistently expanding. On August 6, 2004, China and Pakistan conducted their first joint military exercises named Friendship 2004 in Xinjiang. In April 2005, during Premier Wen Jiabaos visit to Islamabad the two sides signed a treaty of friendship, cooperation and good neighbouring relations as well as combating terrorism and extremism. In order to enhance military-to-military cooperation, both the countries conducted a joint maritime search-and-rescue exercise in Shanghai. This was the first time for the navy of (PLA) to conduct joint exercise with a foreign navy. Similarly, in November 2005, during their visit to Pakistan, Chinese naval ships conducted second joint maritime search-and rescue exercise with Pakistan navy. This was again the first time for the navy of PLA to conducting a joint exercise in waters abroad. Defence production-related cooperation has also expanded. Growing Economic Relations: Todays China is an economic juggernaut. It has worlds fastest growing economy for more than 20 years and continues to grow at a blistering pace of 9% a year. Nearly 70% of Pakistan

exports to China are cotton yarn and cotton fabric. China contributed $198m for the construction of Gwadar ports $250m phase. The first phase, which was built by the Chinese construction firm, was completed ahead of premier Wen Jiabaos visit to Pakistan in April 2005. China has also agreed in principles for funding for the second phase of the port, which will have nine more berths, an approach channel cable for large oil-tankers vessels, strong terminal and related infrastructure facilities. Many projects have been completed with Chinese assistance and these include, Karakoram highway, First phase of the Gwadar port, Chashma-I nuclear power station and machine tool factory. The projects now underway with Chinese assistance include, the second phase of the Gwadar port, Chashma-II nuclear power plant, Saindak Cooper mines development, Gomal Zam Dam, and several oil and gas exploration schemes. Besides China is investing in a number of other projects like $ 2.6bn Kohala project and $8bn Bunji Dam project. The bilateral trade between Pak and Chian rise from $ibn in 2002 to $6.8bn in 2009. Chinese Premier desires this trade should be brought to the level of $10bn. The size of Chinese business in Pakistan is growing. The potential for growth of Pak-China economic relations is enormous, provided that the process remains on track and certain enabling conditions for future growth are successfully created. Pakistans Entry Into SCO: The overall geo-strategic environment for regional cooperation is gradually becoming more favourable. China supported Pakistans membership to Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Pakistans entry into the SCO as an observer and Chinas entry into the South Asian Association for regional Cooperation as an observer, would allow Pak-Chian bilateral economic relations to grow from a regional perspective. Also, there is a convergence of economic interests at the strategic level, especially in the areas of energy, security and communication networks. Economic cooperation has taken centre stage, while defence and security related cooperation has assumed a new dimension. People-to-people contacts are increasing at all levels in the civil societies. All these indicators point the fact that Pak-China relations will remain on the track of constant growth in all areas of mutual benefit. Mutual Strategic Concerns About India: India remains a central force of Chinas and Pakistans geographical concern, dating back to a time when the Soviet Union was Indias principle patron. Both China and Pakistan have similar geographical and historical concerns with respect to India. These include: i) Shared borders with India, in Pakistans northeast and in Chinas southeast. ii) A history of hostility and confrontation with India. iii) A mutual interest in manoeuvring to balance or contain Indias power and influence in the region. Both China and Pakistan also have compelling reasons for cooperating with other to avoid

being a sole focus of Indias strategic attention. China and Pakistan appear to view their political, military and economic cooperation as a tool with which they can counter Indias power by trying to bind Indias activities within a South Asia context and to limit Indias connections with resource-rich Central Asia. Sino-Pak security cooperation also helps to tie down Indian troops in Kashmir, whee India, China and Pakistan all have territorial claims. Growing US Regional Role And Its Implications: Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the growing US role in Central and South Asia also has troubled Chinese leaders and raised many new issues in Chinas relationship with Pakistan. This is a two-edge concern. On the one hand, they noted, the United States and China, share a common interests in working for Pakistans stability and political and economic viability, and so China is comfortable with US actions which help support Pakistans economy and bolster the stability of its regime. On the other hand, China tends to view the US war efforts in Afghanistan and its growing involvement with Pakistan as a catalyst for regional unrest, making China uncomfortable with the US role. A failure of US could lead at best to further instability in Pakistan, or at worst to the installation of a fundamental religious government in Islamabad. Conclusion: A Futuristic Strategy In view of the regional situation and the impact of developments at the global level, a proper strategy for security in the region should focus on the following facts. There should be no doubt that the region has been in the throes of instability because of mutual conflicts between the states of the region as well as because of the proxy wars of global powers. This region is one of the most backward areas in the world, in terms of development of human resources. It is, therefore, necessary to give attention to economic and social development. In the present day world, which has shrunk to a global village, stability is impossible to achieve without preventing and eliminating the danger of aggression from any country. Adoption of a common strategy for meeting the challenge of hegemonic designs, whether at regional or global level, is becoming inevitable. China and Pakistan have exhibited exemplary cooperation in this regard. Maintaining these good relations and keeping the level of cooperation high, efforts should be made to include other countries of the region in any such scheme of mutual cooperation and working together. It is pertinent to note here that relations between Pakistan and Russia have improved during the last few years, while the relationship between China and Russia has become stronger. The need is to come up with a common vision and a scheme for joint actions, taking along the Central Asian states. Instability in Afghanistan gives rise to instability in the whole region, besides being an obstacle in the way of full use of resources in the region for economic development. No doubt, this is a formidable challenge and interests of different countries even conflict with each other, at times, the common destiny requires that Afghanistans neighbors should increase mutual consultations and contacts and find out some common strategy. It should not be forgotten that

instability in Afghanistan is exploited by the outsiders for their own intervention and presence in the region. A review of the defense capabilities and technological development of the countries in the region establishes that Indias efforts about acquiring latest, sophisticated military equipment along with developing its own nuclear and missile programs have Pakistan as their first target, and China as the second. However, defense strategies of both the countries and their close relations have prevented it from committing any aggression. It is necessary to keep a check on Indias growing war capabilities. Besides the hegemonic designs of India, the prolonged Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan poses a grave threat to regional security. Because of deep public emotions on both sides, the two countries cannot resolve the issue by themselves. All bilateral efforts have invariably failed to produce any tangible results, let alone a lasting solution of the contentious issue. It is, therefore, inevitable for the international community and the neighbors to play their role and try to enforce a judicious solution to it for the sake of peace in the region. Being a major country in the region as well as being a neighbor of both Pakistan and India, China can play a role in diffusing tension between Pakistan and India. It can play a better role than any outside power. Obviously, no outside country can be as sincere in, or in as much need of, peace in the region as those situated here. Along with the Kashmir issue, the question of Palestine and other problems are symbols of injustices committed in the past, yet they are victims of indifference of the international community and institutions. Continued insensitivity of the international community has turned political movements in these areas into armed struggles, which, in return, has led to an unending chain of violence and counterviolence. Doubts and suspicions over the US-led war against terrorism carry weight: that it is more about serving self-interests rather than elimination of terrorism, that this war has in fact increased the dangers to world peace. Lest these suspicions come true and the situation get further aggravated, the need is to make international institutions stronger and more effective. Along with recognizing movements for right of self-determination and distinguish between freedom struggle and terrorism, these institutions should be able to resist the US unilateralism and the US approach of bypassing international law and norms. Otherwise, wide-spread anger and frustration would feed those who can go to any extent of use of force for achieving their ends. While terrorism is being condemned everywhere, proper attention has not been paid to its causes. Terrorist activities in which a human beings sacrifice their lives indicate to the height of frustration. This frustration is there among the Muslim masses because their genuine freedom struggles are being suppressed by repressive regimes, on the one hand, while, on the other, their leaderships do not represent their sentiments, nor do international institutions and powers exhibit any judicious approach or inclination in solving their problems.

#33 Saturday, September 10, 2011

rabia butt Senior Member

Join Date: May 2011 Location: LAHORE Posts: 126 Thanks: 153 Thanked 59 Times in 45 Posts

@ ROSHAN: sir ! can you please tell me what are the sources of your material?from where do you extract mostly?and also,when are you intended to appear in CE? __________________ *you can tell more about a person by what he says about others than you can by what others say about him*-leo aikman!

#34 Sunday, September 11, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by rabia butt @ ROSHAN: sir ! can you please tell me what are the sources of your material?from where do you extract mostly?and also,when are you intended to appear in CE? Dear i referred dawn, jahangir's world times, contemporary affairs by imtiaz shahid. unfortunately last year when i prepared these notes i didnt hav access to net, but now i am getting great help from net too, refer tribune, www.pakarticleshub.com, the news, and google is of great help. I took my first attempt this year waiting for result and also continuing preparation, wat abt u dear?

#35 Sunday, September 11, 2011

Roshan wadhwani Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Pakistan And The Central Asian States:


Introduction: Pakistans relations with the Central Asian Republics have made good progress during the past few years. The Central Asian States (CAS), i.e., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are located on historical Silk Route. The region has adjoining borders with South Asia, West Asia, China and Russia and is of great geo-strategic and politicoeconomic importance. Its potential is attracting the attention of extra regional powers. Pakistan-Central Asian relations are based on geographical proximity, common history, religion, culture, traditions, values and destiny. Pakistan and these states can work together in matters of security, stability and development of the region. They can collaborate in numerous areas such as scientific and technical fields, banking, insurance, information technology, pharmaceutical industry, tourism and media. The economies of CAS and Pakistan are complementary to each other. There is cooperation in several spheres notably, war against terrorism, combating religious extremism and drug trafficking. ECO, Pakistan And Central Asian States: Pakistan and Central Asian States are also the members of Economic Cooperation Organization; it provides a good opportunity for the Heads of States and Government to meet. Bilateral meetings on the sidelines offer a closer focus on bilateral relations. Common Security Policy: There is a desire in Pakistan that the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) of the CAS, which is basically an economic grouping, should try to play to assume a political role and in due course of time also aspire to the possibility of geopolitical and geo-economic role.

ECO may help in adopting a common security policy on similar grounds as pursued by EU in the European States combating religious extremism and Terrorism. Trade And Economic Cooperation: Pakistan should concentrate on the economic and trade ties with CAS. An important agreement has been concluded with Germany for a rail-road from Hamburg to /Shanghai, through Eastern Europe, Moscow, Tashkent, Kabul, Lahore, Delhi and Shanghai. This would open the rich mineral deposits of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan for exploration and export by Pakistan and through the Arabian sea again, with a new railway road from the Khyber Pass to the Russian land. Investing In Untapped Natural Resources Of CAS: The Caspian Sea in Central Asia contains the worlds largest untapped oil and gas resources. All countries in the region are getting close to CAS and they geared up their trade. Pakistans loans of $ 10 to 30 million to each of the CAS and its commitment to cooperate in the building of $ 500 m hydel power station in Tajikistan are some of the many indicators of its keen wish to assist them on their economic development. Direct Air Link: The expansion of PIAs air network to Tashkent in Uzbekistan and Alma Ata in Kazakhstan is a major step forward in cementing ties with these two states. Cooperation In Admission To OIC: Pakistan cooperated with CAS in their admission to the organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Communication Network And Media Exchange: Radio Pakistan is working on projects to strengthen its service for the Central Asian region so that the people there can be informed and educated about Pakistan in their own native languages. An expansion of Pakistan Televisions Transmission facilities in Peshawar can enable it to beam its TV programmes to the entire Central Asian region, covering all of Afghanistan as well. Establishment Of Joint Economic Commission: Pakistan developed institutionalized arrangement to promote cooperation in the economic and commercial fields.

For this purpose Joint Economic Commissions (JECs) have been established with all the Central Asian States. Technical Assistance Programme: Under Technical Assistance Programme initiated in 1992-93, Pakistan provided training facilities, which are fully funded. The programme includes courses ranging from English language, banking and accountancy to diplomacy. These have contributed to better understanding and closer cooperation. Pakistan wishes to keep up the momentum. Suggestions: Following measures and implementations will improve the ties between Pakistan and CAS. i) Pakistan An Attraction Of Shortest Land Route: Pakistan would enjoy the role of middleman between the SAARC, ECO and EEC and the attraction of the shortest land route to the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf and the Black Sea would clearly irk Russia. ii) Encourage Mutual Trade: The government of Pakistan, despite its economic difficulties, should provide more credit facilities to the Central Asian States to encourage mutual trade and the setting up of stable banking channels. iii) Better Port Facilities For Handling The Transit Trade: Despite their ethnic bonds with Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan, the CA States can benefit more from Pakistans port facilities, trade and commerce with the countries in entire Southern Hemisphere. The port of Abadan and Bader Abbas in Iran and Karachi port in Pakistan can handle this transit trade by expanding their facilities rapidly. The Tajik capital of Dushanbe is about 3000 km from Bander Abbas in Islam and about 2200 km from Karachi. While the Black Sea port of Odessa for access to the Mediterranean is about 4200 km away. iv) Speedy Implementation Of Projects. Bilaterally and through the ECO, many schemes and projects are rapidly emerging, whose speedy implementation would be to their mutual advantage.

v) Expertise in Banking System To Be Shared: A strong modern banking system capable of operating internationally is a dire need of all Central Asian States and Pakistan has the expertise and the infrastructure to assist them in this direction. vi) Joint Shipping Company To Be Established: The landlocked Central Asian States can even set up a joint shipment company with Pakistan under the aegis of the ECO to handle a large port of their transit trade. vii) Gwadar Port An Asset For Pakistan And The CAS: If Pakistan speeds up the development of the Gwadar port on the Baluchistan coast into a largesize modern port, it can be an asset for this province as well as for the CAS. viii) Trade Via The Land Route: Kazakhstans ruling leaders, who are energetically improving their relations with Beijing, have shown interest in building rail and road links with Urumchi, capital of the Chinese province of Xinjiang, and thus using the Karakoram Highway between Pakistan and China for trade via the land route. ix) Cheap Air Cargo Service: A cheap and regular air cargo service between Pakistan and the CAS is the need of the hour. x) Dynamic Railway Network: The Pakistan railway network should be linked via Iran with Turkmenistan. xi) Pakistan TO Invite Senior Editors Of Newspaper Of CAS: Pakistan should invite senior editors of newspapers of the CAS to Pakistan and provide them with ample opportunities to know facts about Pakistans economic development and industrialisation. xii) Business Encouragement Backed By The Government Of Pakistan In CAS: With Government encouragements, Pakistani entrepreneurs can set up industrial units in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and other CAS. xiii) Cooperation Between The Universities: There is immense scope for cooperation between the Universities of Pakistan and those in the CAS. Pakistan can learn a great deal from the CAS which have made nearly 95% of their population literate.

xiv) Regional Security Is TO Be Improved: Pakistans relations with the Central Asian Republics have made good progress during the past few years. With improved regional security after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1500 kmslong gas pipeline. The leaders of the three countries have signed a framework agreement (The Trans Afghanistan Pipeline). The Trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas (from Dualtabad gas field) via Afghanistan to Pakistan, from where it could reach world markets. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Asian Development Bank is the leading coordinating financial and technical partner. Conclusion: The stabilization and steady expansion of these relations may take time and would require deft, patient and wise handling on the part of the States concerned. A time may come, perhaps sooner than expected, when Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and the six West and Central Asian States; having a population of nearly 300m and an area larger than that of the SAARC region, may form a Common Market. In the meantime, Central Asia and Pakistan must keep on vigorously pursuing the peace option in Afghanistan. Mutual Pak-Afghan trade is expected to reach Rs. One billion in this year. In the final analysis, it is the Afghan corridor that is still blocking Pakistans physical access to the CARs, and vice versa, only its unblocking will materialize the connectivity with South and Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, the war-torn Afghanistan remains a major stumbling block. Yet it holds the ultimate key for Pakistan to gain access to the CARs. Therefore, all efforts need to be focused to try opening this passage to gain access to the ex-Soviet Republics. While regional and international circumstances have no doubt conspired against Pakistan, the latter should have no stone unturned in combating international terrorism, building a sound infrastructure along Pak-Afghan border and cleansing its own fraction tribal belt of foreign militants. At the same time, there is a dire need in setting its political house in order by co-opting major political parties and regaining the trust and goodwill of Afghans through trade assistance and policy of non-interference.

#36 Sunday, September 11, 2011

Roshan wadhwani Senior Member

Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation (SAARC):


Formation: The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in December 8, 1985 at Dhaka by Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Srilanka. The objective were to promote the welfare and improve the quality of life of the people of South Asia by accelerating economic growth in the region and building up mutual trust among the member states. Objectives: The objectives of the Association as defined in the Charter are: i) To promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and to improve their quality of life. ii) To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential. iii) To promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia. iv) To contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one anothers problems. v) Too promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields, vi) To strengthen cooperation with other developing countries. Principles: i) The principle of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states and mutual benefits.

ii) The cooperation is to complement bilateral and multilateral relations. iii) Such cooperation should be consistent with bilateral and multilateral responsibilities of the member states. iv) Decisions at all levels are to be unanimously taken. v) Bilateral and contentious issues would be executed from its deliberations. Membership: i) Pakistan ii) Bangladesh iii) India iv) Srilanka v) Nepal vi) Bhutan vii) Maldives vii) Afghanistan in April 2007, at the Associations 14th Summit, Afghanistan became its eighth member. Observers: i) Australia ii) China iii) EU iv) Iran v) Japan vi) Mauritius vii) Myanmar (Burma) viii) United States ix) South Korea Fields/Areas Of Cooperation: The areas of cooperation among SAARC members as decided at the time of its establishment were: i) Agriculture and Forestry ii) Health And Population Planning iii) Meteorology iv) Rural Development v) Telecommunication vi) Transport vii) Science and Technology

viii) Drug Trafficking And Abuse ix) Postal Service x) Women Development And xi) Sports, Arts And Culture Structure: The SAARC has four tier structure including: i) SAARC Summit Conference ii) Council of Minister iii) Standing Committee iv) Technical Committees and Secretariat SAARC Summit Conference: The highest decision-making authority rests with the SAARC Summit Conference convened generally once in a year or two years, comprising Heads of State or Governments of SAARC countries. Council Of Ministers: The Council Of Ministers of SAARC countries formulates policies of the organisation. The council appoints Secretary General of SAARC on the basis of rotation in alphabetical order for a period of two years, upon nomination by a member state. It meets twice a year. Standing Committee: The Standing Committee of SAARC is composed of Foreign Secretaries of member states: It approves projects and programmes. The financing of such programmes and project is also determined by the Standing Committee. Secretariat: The SAARC Secretariat was established in Kathmandu on 16 January 1987 and was inaugurated by late King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah of Nepal. It is headed by a Secretary General appointed by the Council of Ministers from member countries in alphabetical order for a three-year term. He is assisted by the Professional and the General Services Staff and also an appropriate number of functional units called divisions assigned to Directors on deputation from member States. The Secretariat coordinates and monitors implementation of activities, prepares for and services meetings and serves as a channel of communication between the Association and its member states as well as other regional organisations. Achievements: Twenty-five years have passed since the establishment of SAARC in 1985.

When we analyse its achievements disappointment prevails over us. The SAARC has not many achievements at its credit. However, it must be kept in mind that the Association consists of countries having diversity in culture, religion, economic development, foreign policy etc. It is itself an appreciable thing that these countries have come on one platform for their economic development. No doubt, SAARC performance is not good as was expected, yet it has some achievement at its credit. They are; i) It has developed feelings of understanding among countries. ii) It signed SAARC Regional Convention of Suppression of Terrorism in 1998. iii) It established SAARC Food Security Reserve which is operational since 1988. iv) The SAARC has also signed South Asia Professional Trade Agreement (SAPTA) in seventh summit in 1993 and SAFTA Agreement, signed during the 12th Summit in January 2004. v) SAARC Agricultural Information Centre (SAIC) has been set up at Dhaka to promote cooperation in the field of agricultural. vi) A Centre for Human Resource Development (CHRD) has also been established. vii) The member countries have devised modalities for confronting many important issues such a poverty, terrorism, drug-trafficking etc. viii) Institutional arrangements such as South Asian Development Bank, South Asian Development Fund etc. have been initiated. Causes Behind Slow Progress: A birds eye view of the SAARCs achievements tells us that the performance of the Association is not satisfactory. Generally speaking, following are the reasons for the slow progress of SAARC. i) Indian aptitude is the foremost factor for the slow progress of SAARC. ii) There are flaws in the charter itself. According to one principle, bilateral issues are excluded from the activities of the Association.

iii) Almost all the member countries are internally unstable and faced with internal political tension. iv) Many of many of the important sectors of economy which affect directly the lives of the people of the region have not been included in the Associations activity. The areas include: reduction in the defence expenditure, power generation, improvement and proper use of regional water resources, the use of SAARC for getting financial assistance from donor agencies. v) All the SAARC countries formulate their foreign policies according to their own national interests and objectives. This hinders to achieve any common ground and policy to make Association successful. vi) The extra regional alignment of the member countries is also a hindrance in the progress of the Association. Their alignment often works at cross purpose to the objectives aimed by SAARC. vii) Theres not the same level of economic development among countries. The imbalance of economic development creates tendency of domination, doubts and suspicions which create hurdles to achieve success. Pakistans Role In Strengthening SAARC: Pakistan has been an active and enthusiastic member of the SAARC. The twelfth SAARC Summit in Islamabad has highlighted Pakistans contribution in making SAARC a highly useful forum of South Asia. Pakistans tension ridden relations with India has never deterred it form playing an active role in the Association. Pakistan played a pivotal role in the formal launching of the SAARC at the first summit at Dhaka in 1985. After the formation of SAARC, Pakistan has lived up to its commitments by taking part in all the activities of the SAARC. The broad objectives of the SAARC were to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia, accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region. In all of SAARCs endeavours in the relevant fields, Pakistan has shown keen interest and played an active role. Pakistan has always played a leading role in both initiating and welcoming visits and exchanges with personalities from various fields of life in the member countries of the SAARC. It has always favoured the inclusion of mutual disputes and bilateral issues between member countries. Pakistan has argued that successful regional groupings like European Union and ASEAN use the mechanism of consultation for discussion that promote conciliation and strengthen peace. During the first Summit Pakistan gave a suggestion that womens participation should be increased in the SAARC related activities. The suggestion was welcomed and accepted as the SAARC leaders agreed that meaningful progress could not be achieved without the active

participation and enhancement of the status of women. In the fifth SAARC Summit meeting Pakistan vetoed Afghanistans application for membership of SAARC because at that time it was under the Soviet influence. In addition Pakistan condemned Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The sixth summit Conference of SAARC was held in Colombo on 21st December 1991. During this meeting Pakistan proposed to make Asia a nuclear free zone. Similarly in the subsequent SAARC Summits too Pakistan made positive proposals for the promotion of political, economic and cultural cooperation among the states. Political Issues: SAARC has intentionally laid more stress on core issues mentioned above rather than more decisive political issues like the Kashmir dispute and the Srilanka civil war. However, political dialogue is often conducted on the margins of SAARC meetings. SAARC has also refrained itself from interfering in the internal matters of the member states. During the 12th and 13th SAARC summits, extreme emphasis was laid upon greater cooperation between the SAARC members to fight against terrorism.

Political Economy Of South Asia: South Asia accounts for nearly 23% of the total world population. However, its share in the global GDP is less than 3%. The region is home to the worlds 400 million poor, which means nearly 30% of the regions population lives below the poverty line. All SAARC countries have a rather low raking on the Human Development Index (HDI), which according to the Human Development Report 2007-08 is: Srilanka (99), the Maldives (100), India (128), Bhutan (133), Pakistan (136), Bangladesh (140), and Nepal (142). The HDI ranking is based on achievements in terms of life expectancy, education and real income. The low HDI ranking reflects poorly on these vital indicators in the region. South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA): In order to achieve objectives of SAARC and increase regional integration, the member countries created South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) in 2004 at the twelfth SAARC Summit. This agreement which came into force on January 1, 2006 provides that members will reduce their tariffs to 0.5 per cent by December 31, 2005. The success of SAFTA, however, largely depends on normalization of Pakistan-India relations. In case the relations between the two countries do not normalize, SAFTA, a fate will not be different from that of its predecessor, South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA).

Reasons Of Low Trade: the major reason for meagre intra-SAARC trade is low volume of trade between Pakistan and India, the largest economies and trading nations in the region. Though formal Pak-India trade (the two countries have informal trade of more than $ 3bn a year) has increased from $ 236 million in 2001-2002 to $ 1.95 bn in 2007-08, it still constitutes less than 1 per cent of the global trade of the two countries! Pakistan has not even granted MFN status, a basic requirement under WTO, to India and continues to conduct its imports from India on the basis of positive list. On its part, India maintains high tariffs and non-tariff barriers on products of export interest to Pakistan. SAARC And ASEAN: The poor trade performance of SAARC stands in marked contrast with that of the neighbouring regional alliance-Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The ASEAN countries accounts for merely 8.4% of the total world population. However, their share in total world trade is nearly 7%. ASEANs contribution to Asias total trade is 23 per cent. Intra-ASEAN trade accounts for nearly 30 per cent of the global trade of the 10-mmeber countries. ASEAN countries have remained embroiled in territorial disputes but that has not hampered their trade relations.

#37 Sunday, September 11, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Pakistan And The Central Asian States:

Introduction: Pakistans relations with the Central Asian Republics have made good progress during the past few years. The Central Asian States (CAS), i.e., Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are located on historical Silk Route. The region has adjoining borders with South Asia, West Asia, China and Russia and is of great geo-strategic and politico-economic importance. Its potential is attracting the attention of extra regional powers. Pakistan-Central Asian relations are based on geographical proximity, common history, religion, culture, traditions, values and destiny. Pakistan and these states can work together in matters of security, stability and development of the region. They can collaborate in numerous areas such as scientific and technical fields, banking, insurance, information technology, pharmaceutical industry, tourism and media. The economies of CAS and Pakistan are complementary to each other. There is cooperation in several spheres notably, war against terrorism, combating religious extremism and drug trafficking. ECO, Pakistan And Central Asian States: Pakistan and Central Asian States are also the members of Economic Cooperation Organization; it provides a good opportunity for the Heads of States and Government to meet. Bilateral meetings on the sidelines offer a closer focus on bilateral relations. Common Security Policy: There is a desire in Pakistan that the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) of the CAS, which is basically an economic grouping, should try to play to assume a political role and in due course of time also aspire to the possibility of geopolitical and geo-economic role. ECO may help in adopting a common security policy on similar grounds as pursued by EU in the European States combating religious extremism and Terrorism. Trade And Economic Cooperation: Pakistan should concentrate on the economic and trade ties with CAS. An important agreement has been concluded with Germany for a rail-road from Hamburg to /Shanghai, through Eastern Europe, Moscow, Tashkent, Kabul, Lahore, Delhi and Shanghai. This would open the rich mineral deposits of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan for exploration and export by Pakistan and through the Arabian sea again, with a new railway road from the Khyber Pass to the Russian land.

Investing In Untapped Natural Resources Of CAS: The Caspian Sea in Central Asia contains the worlds largest untapped oil and gas resources. All countries in the region are getting close to CAS and they geared up their trade. Pakistans loans of $ 10 to 30 million to each of the CAS and its commitment to cooperate in the building of $ 500 m hydel power station in Tajikistan are some of the many indicators of its keen wish to assist them on their economic development. Direct Air Link: The expansion of PIAs air network to Tashkent in Uzbekistan and Alma Ata in Kazakhstan is a major step forward in cementing ties with these two states. Cooperation In Admission To OIC: Pakistan cooperated with CAS in their admission to the organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). Communication Network And Media Exchange: Radio Pakistan is working on projects to strengthen its service for the Central Asian region so that the people there can be informed and educated about Pakistan in their own native languages. An expansion of Pakistan Televisions Transmission facilities in Peshawar can enable it to beam its TV programmes to the entire Central Asian region, covering all of Afghanistan as well. Establishment Of Joint Economic Commission: Pakistan developed institutionalized arrangement to promote cooperation in the economic and commercial fields. For this purpose Joint Economic Commissions (JECs) have been established with all the Central Asian States. Technical Assistance Programme: Under Technical Assistance Programme initiated in 1992-93, Pakistan provided training facilities, which are fully funded.

The programme includes courses ranging from English language, banking and accountancy to diplomacy. These have contributed to better understanding and closer cooperation. Pakistan wishes to keep up the momentum. Suggestions: Following measures and implementations will improve the ties between Pakistan and CAS. i) Pakistan An Attraction Of Shortest Land Route: Pakistan would enjoy the role of middleman between the SAARC, ECO and EEC and the attraction of the shortest land route to the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf and the Black Sea would clearly irk Russia. ii) Encourage Mutual Trade: The government of Pakistan, despite its economic difficulties, should provide more credit facilities to the Central Asian States to encourage mutual trade and the setting up of stable banking channels. iii) Better Port Facilities For Handling The Transit Trade: Despite their ethnic bonds with Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan, the CA States can benefit more from Pakistans port facilities, trade and commerce with the countries in entire Southern Hemisphere. The port of Abadan and Bader Abbas in Iran and Karachi port in Pakistan can handle this transit trade by expanding their facilities rapidly. The Tajik capital of Dushanbe is about 3000 km from Bander Abbas in Islam and about 2200 km from Karachi. While the Black Sea port of Odessa for access to the Mediterranean is about 4200 km away. iv) Speedy Implementation Of Projects. Bilaterally and through the ECO, many schemes and projects are rapidly emerging, whose speedy implementation would be to their mutual advantage. v) Expertise in Banking System To Be Shared: A strong modern banking system capable of operating internationally is a dire need of all Central Asian States and Pakistan has the expertise and the infrastructure to assist them in this direction. vi) Joint Shipping Company To Be Established:

The landlocked Central Asian States can even set up a joint shipment company with Pakistan under the aegis of the ECO to handle a large port of their transit trade. vii) Gwadar Port An Asset For Pakistan And The CAS: If Pakistan speeds up the development of the Gwadar port on the Baluchistan coast into a large-size modern port, it can be an asset for this province as well as for the CAS. viii) Trade Via The Land Route: Kazakhstans ruling leaders, who are energetically improving their relations with Beijing, have shown interest in building rail and road links with Urumchi, capital of the Chinese province of Xinjiang, and thus using the Karakoram Highway between Pakistan and China for trade via the land route. ix) Cheap Air Cargo Service: A cheap and regular air cargo service between Pakistan and the CAS is the need of the hour. x) Dynamic Railway Network: The Pakistan railway network should be linked via Iran with Turkmenistan. xi) Pakistan TO Invite Senior Editors Of Newspaper Of CAS: Pakistan should invite senior editors of newspapers of the CAS to Pakistan and provide them with ample opportunities to know facts about Pakistans economic development and industrialisation. xii) Business Encouragement Backed By The Government Of Pakistan In CAS: With Government encouragements, Pakistani entrepreneurs can set up industrial units in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and other CAS. xiii) Cooperation Between The Universities: There is immense scope for cooperation between the Universities of Pakistan and those in the CAS. Pakistan can learn a great deal from the CAS which have made nearly 95% of their population literate. xiv) Regional Security Is TO Be Improved: Pakistans relations with the Central Asian Republics have made good progress during the past few years. With improved regional security after the fall of the Taliban, Afghanistan,

Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1500 kms-long gas pipeline. The leaders of the three countries have signed a framework agreement (The Trans Afghanistan Pipeline). The Trans-Afghanistan pipeline would export Turkmen gas (from Dualtabad gas field) via Afghanistan to Pakistan, from where it could reach world markets. Proponents of the project see it as a modern continuation of the Silk Road. The Asian Development Bank is the leading coordinating financial and technical partner. Conclusion: The stabilization and steady expansion of these relations may take time and would require deft, patient and wise handling on the part of the States concerned. A time may come, perhaps sooner than expected, when Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and the six West and Central Asian States; having a population of nearly 300m and an area larger than that of the SAARC region, may form a Common Market. In the meantime, Central Asia and Pakistan must keep on vigorously pursuing the peace option in Afghanistan. Mutual Pak-Afghan trade is expected to reach Rs. One billion in this year. In the final analysis, it is the Afghan corridor that is still blocking Pakistans physical access to the CARs, and vice versa, only its unblocking will materialize the connectivity with South and Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, the war-torn Afghanistan remains a major stumbling block. Yet it holds the ultimate key for Pakistan to gain access to the CARs. Therefore, all efforts need to be focused to try opening this passage to gain access to the ex-Soviet Republics. While regional and international circumstances have no doubt conspired against Pakistan, the latter should have no stone unturned in combating international terrorism, building a sound infrastructure along Pak-Afghan border and cleansing its own fraction tribal belt of foreign militants. At the same time, there is a dire need in setting its political house in order by coopting major political parties and regaining the trust and goodwill of Afghans through trade assistance and policy of non-interference. i must say roshan now you are improving and its visible from your notes. i am really happy for all new commers like you on this forum who are improving day by day. keep it up. roshan hope to meet you on interview day inshallah. __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: A4ambitious (1 Week Ago), Roshan wadhwani (Monday, September 12, 2011) #38 Sunday, September 11, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

South Asian Association For Regional Cooperation (SAARC):


Formation: The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in December 8, 1985 at Dhaka by Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Srilanka. The objective were to promote the welfare and improve the quality of life of the people of South Asia by accelerating economic growth in the region and building up mutual trust among the member states. Objectives: The objectives of the Association as defined in the Charter are: i) To promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and to improve their quality of life. ii) To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize their full potential. iii) To promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia.

iv) To contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one anothers problems. v) Too promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural, technical and scientific fields, vi) To strengthen cooperation with other developing countries. Principles: i) The principle of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states and mutual benefits. ii) The cooperation is to complement bilateral and multilateral relations. iii) Such cooperation should be consistent with bilateral and multilateral responsibilities of the member states. iv) Decisions at all levels are to be unanimously taken. v) Bilateral and contentious issues would be executed from its deliberations. Membership: i) Pakistan ii) Bangladesh iii) India iv) Srilanka v) Nepal vi) Bhutan vii) Maldives vii) Afghanistan in April 2007, at the Associations 14th Summit, Afghanistan became its eighth member. Observers: i) Australia ii) China iii) EU iv) Iran v) Japan vi) Mauritius vii) Myanmar (Burma) viii) United States ix) South Korea

Fields/Areas Of Cooperation: The areas of cooperation among SAARC members as decided at the time of its establishment were: i) Agriculture and Forestry ii) Health And Population Planning iii) Meteorology iv) Rural Development v) Telecommunication vi) Transport vii) Science and Technology viii) Drug Trafficking And Abuse ix) Postal Service x) Women Development And xi) Sports, Arts And Culture Structure: The SAARC has four tier structure including: i) SAARC Summit Conference ii) Council of Minister iii) Standing Committee iv) Technical Committees and Secretariat SAARC Summit Conference: The highest decision-making authority rests with the SAARC Summit Conference convened generally once in a year or two years, comprising Heads of State or Governments of SAARC countries. Council Of Ministers: The Council Of Ministers of SAARC countries formulates policies of the organisation. The council appoints Secretary General of SAARC on the basis of rotation in alphabetical order for a period of two years, upon nomination by a member state. It meets twice a year. Standing Committee: The Standing Committee of SAARC is composed of Foreign Secretaries of member states: It approves projects and programmes. The financing of such programmes and project is also determined by the Standing Committee.

Secretariat: The SAARC Secretariat was established in Kathmandu on 16 January 1987 and was inaugurated by late King Birendra Bir Bikram Shah of Nepal. It is headed by a Secretary General appointed by the Council of Ministers from member countries in alphabetical order for a three-year term. He is assisted by the Professional and the General Services Staff and also an appropriate number of functional units called divisions assigned to Directors on deputation from member States. The Secretariat coordinates and monitors implementation of activities, prepares for and services meetings and serves as a channel of communication between the Association and its member states as well as other regional organisations. Achievements: Twenty-five years have passed since the establishment of SAARC in 1985. When we analyse its achievements disappointment prevails over us. The SAARC has not many achievements at its credit. However, it must be kept in mind that the Association consists of countries having diversity in culture, religion, economic development, foreign policy etc. It is itself an appreciable thing that these countries have come on one platform for their economic development. No doubt, SAARC performance is not good as was expected, yet it has some achievement at its credit. They are; i) It has developed feelings of understanding among countries. ii) It signed SAARC Regional Convention of Suppression of Terrorism in 1998. iii) It established SAARC Food Security Reserve which is operational since 1988. iv) The SAARC has also signed South Asia Professional Trade Agreement (SAPTA) in seventh summit in 1993 and SAFTA Agreement, signed during the 12th Summit in January 2004. v) SAARC Agricultural Information Centre (SAIC) has been set up at Dhaka to promote cooperation in the field of agricultural. vi) A Centre for Human Resource Development (CHRD) has also been established.

vii) The member countries have devised modalities for confronting many important issues such a poverty, terrorism, drug-trafficking etc. viii) Institutional arrangements such as South Asian Development Bank, South Asian Development Fund etc. have been initiated. Causes Behind Slow Progress: A birds eye view of the SAARCs achievements tells us that the performance of the Association is not satisfactory. Generally speaking, following are the reasons for the slow progress of SAARC. i) Indian aptitude is the foremost factor for the slow progress of SAARC. ii) There are flaws in the charter itself. According to one principle, bilateral issues are excluded from the activities of the Association. iii) Almost all the member countries are internally unstable and faced with internal political tension. iv) Many of many of the important sectors of economy which affect directly the lives of the people of the region have not been included in the Associations activity. The areas include: reduction in the defence expenditure, power generation, improvement and proper use of regional water resources, the use of SAARC for getting financial assistance from donor agencies. v) All the SAARC countries formulate their foreign policies according to their own national interests and objectives. This hinders to achieve any common ground and policy to make Association successful. vi) The extra regional alignment of the member countries is also a hindrance in the progress of the Association. Their alignment often works at cross purpose to the objectives aimed by SAARC. vii) Theres not the same level of economic development among countries. The imbalance of economic development creates tendency of domination, doubts and suspicions which create hurdles to achieve success. Pakistans Role In Strengthening SAARC: Pakistan has been an active and enthusiastic member of the SAARC. The twelfth SAARC Summit in Islamabad has highlighted Pakistans contribution in making SAARC a highly useful forum of South Asia. Pakistans tension ridden relations with India has never deterred it form playing an active role in the Association.

Pakistan played a pivotal role in the formal launching of the SAARC at the first summit at Dhaka in 1985. After the formation of SAARC, Pakistan has lived up to its commitments by taking part in all the activities of the SAARC. The broad objectives of the SAARC were to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia, accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region. In all of SAARCs endeavours in the relevant fields, Pakistan has shown keen interest and played an active role. Pakistan has always played a leading role in both initiating and welcoming visits and exchanges with personalities from various fields of life in the member countries of the SAARC. It has always favoured the inclusion of mutual disputes and bilateral issues between member countries. Pakistan has argued that successful regional groupings like European Union and ASEAN use the mechanism of consultation for discussion that promote conciliation and strengthen peace. During the first Summit Pakistan gave a suggestion that womens participation should be increased in the SAARC related activities. The suggestion was welcomed and accepted as the SAARC leaders agreed that meaningful progress could not be achieved without the active participation and enhancement of the status of women. In the fifth SAARC Summit meeting Pakistan vetoed Afghanistans application for membership of SAARC because at that time it was under the Soviet influence. In addition Pakistan condemned Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. The sixth summit Conference of SAARC was held in Colombo on 21st December 1991. During this meeting Pakistan proposed to make Asia a nuclear free zone. Similarly in the subsequent SAARC Summits too Pakistan made positive proposals for the promotion of political, economic and cultural cooperation among the states. Political Issues: SAARC has intentionally laid more stress on core issues mentioned above rather than more decisive political issues like the Kashmir dispute and the Srilanka civil war. However, political dialogue is often conducted on the margins of SAARC meetings. SAARC has also refrained itself from interfering in the internal matters of the member states. During the 12th and 13th SAARC summits, extreme emphasis was laid upon greater cooperation between the SAARC members to fight against terrorism.

Political Economy Of South Asia: South Asia accounts for nearly 23% of the total world population. However, its share in the

global GDP is less than 3%. The region is home to the worlds 400 million poor, which means nearly 30% of the regions population lives below the poverty line. All SAARC countries have a rather low raking on the Human Development Index (HDI), which according to the Human Development Report 2007-08 is: Srilanka (99), the Maldives (100), India (128), Bhutan (133), Pakistan (136), Bangladesh (140), and Nepal (142). The HDI ranking is based on achievements in terms of life expectancy, education and real income. The low HDI ranking reflects poorly on these vital indicators in the region. South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA): In order to achieve objectives of SAARC and increase regional integration, the member countries created South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) in 2004 at the twelfth SAARC Summit. This agreement which came into force on January 1, 2006 provides that members will reduce their tariffs to 0.5 per cent by December 31, 2005. The success of SAFTA, however, largely depends on normalization of Pakistan-India relations. In case the relations between the two countries do not normalize, SAFTA, a fate will not be different from that of its predecessor, South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA). Reasons Of Low Trade: the major reason for meagre intra-SAARC trade is low volume of trade between Pakistan and India, the largest economies and trading nations in the region. Though formal Pak-India trade (the two countries have informal trade of more than $ 3bn a year) has increased from $ 236 million in 2001-2002 to $ 1.95 bn in 2007-08, it still constitutes less than 1 per cent of the global trade of the two countries! Pakistan has not even granted MFN status, a basic requirement under WTO, to India and continues to conduct its imports from India on the basis of positive list. On its part, India maintains high tariffs and non-tariff barriers on products of export interest to Pakistan. SAARC And ASEAN: The poor trade performance of SAARC stands in marked contrast with that of the neighbouring regional alliance-Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN). The ASEAN countries accounts for merely 8.4% of the total world population. However, their share in total world trade is nearly 7%. ASEANs contribution to Asias total trade is 23 per cent. Intra-ASEAN trade accounts for nearly 30 per cent of the global trade of the 10-mmeber countries. ASEAN countries have remained embroiled in territorial disputes but that has not hampered their trade relations. now that`s what i call current affairs notes roshan, yopu can see the difference yourself b/w

your previous notes and these notes. good attempt regarding SAARC organisation. now add few points about how can southasian states strengthen saarc? do write about present developments under conferences heading. here is some info about SAARC summits No. Location Date 1st Dhaka 7-8 December 1985 2nd Bangalore 16-17 November 1986 3rd Kathmandu 2-4 November 1987 4th Islamabad 29-31 December 1988 5th Mal 21-23 November 1990 6th Colombo 21-Dec-91 7th Dhaka 10-11 April 1993 8th New Delhi 2-4 May 1995 9th Mal 12-14 May 1997 10th Colombo 29-31 July 1998 11th Kathmandu 4-6 January 2002 12th Islamabad 2-6 January 2004 13th Dhaka 12-13 November 2005 14th New Delhi 3-4 April 2007 15th Colombo 1-3 August 2008 16th Thimphu 28-29 April 2010 17th Mal November 2011 (Planned) andand give conclusion under that heading. now the topic in the last is a full fledge question and it has already come in ce 2011 difference b/w SAARC AND ASEAN. try to elaborate it more. the rest is good.keep it up. regards sabahat.

Organization Of Islamic Cooperation

(OIC)
Outline: Establishment Aims And Objectives Structure Members Pakistans Role Role of OIC For Muslim States Causes Of Its Failure a. Lack Of Unity: b. Lack Of Resources: c. Lack Of Modern Technology: d. Role Of American And Jewish Lobby OIC and Modern Challenges: a. Globalisation: b. Security: c. Economic Integration Of The Ummah: d. Human Development: e. Global Media And Islamphobia: Suggestions Conclusion Introduction: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is the association of Muslim countries. It was established in September 1969 in Rabat (Morocco) after the burning of Masjid-Aqsa in Jerusalem. The inaugural was attended by 24 heads of Muslim countries. In this meeting, the OIC condemned the desecration of Al-Aqsa mosque by the Jews. Currently the membership of this body had increased to 57. The OIC is the symbol of Islamic unity and integrity of the Muslim world. This organisation provides the Islamic world a unique forum to solve the problems faced by Muslim world and to increase cooperation not only amongst the Muslim countries but also between other countries and Islamic states. Aims And Objectives: i) To promote cooperation among Muslim nations. ii) To protect rights of Muslims around the world. iii) To promote the spirit of brotherhood between the Muslims. iv) To eliminate all racial distinctions. v) To promote economic, scientific, social and commercial links between Islamic nations.

vi) To assist Palestinians for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Structure Of OIC: The OIC comprises of following organs and affiliated bodies. a) Islamic Summit Conference b) Islamic Foreign Ministers Conference c) Secretariat d) Special Committees e) Other Agencies Pakistans Role In The OIC: With its deep commitment to the promotion of Islamic solidarity Pakistan has played a significant role in the establishment of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in 1969, and became an active member of the Conference. Pakistan has the honour to host the second Islamic Summit Conference in Lahore in 1974. The Conference acknowledged with thanks the efforts of Pakistan for promoting unity amongst the Muslim world. The first extraordinary conference of Foreign Ministers was held in Islamabad, Pakistan, in Jan 1980. Pakistan has also endeavoured to contribute to the strengthening of various organs and agencies of the OIC, such as the Islamic Solidarity Fund. In October, 1980 the President of Pakistan was accorded the unique honour of addressing the UN General Assembly, on behalf of the entire Islamic World. The speech made by General Zia in the 25th Annual Session of the General Assembly, as a representative of the Islamic World, was not only hailed by the majority of the Muslim countries but was also regarded as the Islams universal message of peace. As Chairman of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, President General Zia-ul-Haq undertook a goodwill mission to Tehran and Baghdad, in September, 1980, in an effort to bring to an end the unfortunate war between the two Islamic countries. Pakistan attended the 15th Islamic conference of Foreign Ministers at Sanaa in December, 1984. It was at this Conference that Mr. Sharifuddin Pirzada was unanimously elected Secretary General of the OIC. Role of OIC For Muslim States And Causes Of Its Failure: The OIC aims at consolidating solidarity of Muslim world and the promotion of political, economic, cultural and scientific cooperation among the member states. So far as the manifests of the OIC is concerned it offer many prospects for the solidarity of the Muslim world and the resolution of issues faced by its members but practically the record of this organisation is not very encouraging. This body has failed miserably to resolve the problem faced by the Muslim world. For example, OIC has not played its proper role to resolve the Kashmir issue between Pakistan

and India, the Palestine issue between Israel and the Arabs, the Chechnya issue between Russia and the Chechens, and the Shattul Arab dispute between Iran and Iraq. Recently OIC failed completely to prevent American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The limitations of this organization were also exposed during 1980 to 1988 when Iran and Iraq were fighting an aimless war. Later on, in 1991, OIC failed to convince Saddam Hussain to evacuate Kuwait before the US-led coalition forces expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait and UN imposed economic sanctions on Baghdad. The period from 1991 to 2002 marks another phase of utter failure of organization of Islamic Cooperation because during this period this body failed to resolve problems strained relations between Iraq and its Arab neighbours, particularly Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Consequently, United States was forced to invent the hoax of Weapons of Mass Destruction in order to invade and capture Iraq in 2003. The petty differences between the Muslim States have not only weakened the Muslim nations individually but also have made OIC an effective body. This organization holds summit meetings regularly where resolutions are passed but no practical result is achieved towards resolving the problems of the member states. Causes Of Failure: The ground realities which inhibit the capacity of OIC as an effective body to protect legitimate interests of Muslim world are the following. i) Lack of unity among the member states ii) Lack of resources iii) Lack of modern technology iv) Role of American and Jewish lobby. Lack Of Unity: Unfortunately, the Muslim states lack unity and cooperation which is the call of the hour. Most of the Muslim countries are engaged in local rivalries and politics. For example, Iraq has some claims over Kuwait oilfields, Iran has to settle issue of Shtt-el-Arab with Iraq and some African Muslim countries are involved in local disputes. Even Pakistan and Afghanistan has still to complete the demarcation of their boundary. This disunity among the Muslim states has weakened the apparatus of OIC and hinders an effective collective action. Lack Of Resources: Most of the Muslim countries are very poor and belong to the under developed third world. These nations have limited resources of income and are overpopulated with millions of illiterate unemployed people to feed. Majority of the people of poor nations of Asia and Africa are living under poverty line. Many land locked Muslim nations like Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other depend on others for their trade and commerce.

Lack Of Modern Technology: Unfortunately, majority of the Muslim states lack modern knowledge and technology. Only Pakistan, Turkey and Malaysia are to some extent exempt from this category. Thus the Muslim world is entirely dependent on Western countries for their goods like machinery, equipment, medicines, textiles and military weapons. Hus OIC is basically a body of under developed countries and thus cannot force other countries. Role Of American And Jewish Lobby: The American and Jewish lobbies are always engaged in anti-Muslim activates. They ensure that the Muslim world remains divided. Thus OIC becomes an effective body. OIC and Modern Challenges: i) Globalisation: The Muslim World stands at a historic crossroads and faces tremendous challenges with immense repercussion for its future. With regard to the challenges posed by the process of globalisation, the necessity for unity within the Ummah has increased tremendously. ii) Security: The major and current problems faced by Ummah are, the Palestinian issue, terrorism, the media and Islamization, dialogue among civilization, the political and human rights of Muslim minorities in non-OIC Muslim countries. Concrete efforts are required for the peaceful resolution of conflicts and OIC can play an important role. iii) Global Media And Islamphobia: The state of Islamphobia in the west is alarming and in fact is a form of racism and discrimination. Being a powerful tool in the globalised world, the media can project a positive image of Islam and can promote the interests of the Ummah. iv) Human Development: Being a unique Muslim international organisation, the OIC has the potential to play a major role in creating a brighter and prosperous future for the Ummah. v) Economic Integration Of The Ummah: At present, the figure of intra-Ummatic trade is not more than 14 per cent. This proportionate must be enhanced by the creation of a Free Trade Area leading to the Islamic Common Market in the long-run. Suggestions:

There is no need to hugely reshuffle OICs organisational structure except to force on the following important points. Reforming the Charter and renaming the OIC to the Muslim Union (MU). Several members do not pay a financial contribution to OIC but have high expectations from it. this attitude must change as in such an environment the OIC cannot work efficiently. Advancement in the fields of science and technology. Establishment of a sound central financial system for Muslim World, for which it require the establishment of: a) A Muslim Monetary Fund (MMF) b) A Human Development Fund (HDF) c) A new currency with the name of Islamic Dinar. Establishment of an Islamic Common Market (ICM) for the promotion of mutual trade. Establishment of a strong Muslim New Agency (MNA) at par with CNN and BBC. Establishment of two new security institutions: a) Muslim Security Council (MSC) and, b) Muslim Defence Force (MDF). Conclusion: The challenges and problems faced by the OIC could be weighed against a wide range of opportunities. The member countries possess resources as well as expertise which if properly harnessed can transform the quality of life of their people. The Muslim world has a vast human and material resources and a potential for coordinating effort to economically strengthen their countries vis--vis industrialised countries. If such an accomplishment could be made within the Muslim countries, the OIC would acquire a leverage that would have a profound effect on international politics. Given the rich heritage of shared religion, culture and commonality of aims and aspirations, OIC could potentially emerge as a major vehicle for economic progress and a potential force. Despite existing diversity there are great opportunities to maximize development through cooperation. In this regard model for European Economic Community can be helpful to revitalize the OIC for achieving the economic goals. There are a number of similarities between both the organisations. These similarities range from geographical contiguity among the member states to the diversity in economic resources. Fruitful cooperation on the platform of OIC can take place only if Ummah identity is given priority by Muslims. This change, however, will not be easy to achieve. For worthwhile cooperation it is necessary to understand the challenges and problems of the existing situation. Once this is properly understood, it will be easier to determine a realistic goal.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: A4ambitious (1 Week Ago), The Lojic (Saturday, November 26, 2011) #46 Friday, September 23, 2011 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

United Nations: The United Nations is an international organisation which was established on 24th October 1945 in order to foster international cooperation in the resolution of economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems. The number of founder members in 1945 was 41 which has risen to 192. In the preamble to the charter of UN the signatories pledged to practise tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods that armed forces shall not be used. According to the article 1 of the charter the UN works to maintain international peace and security to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace. Peace Making Record Of UN: Since its inception in 1945, the UN has met partial success in maintaining peace in the world. During major conflicts involving opposing ideologies the performance of UN was influenced by the attitude and cooperation of the USA and Russia (previously up to 1991). In addition to this handicaps this forum faces the limitation that according to the charter all the disputes are not referred to UN for immediate treatment. According to an Article, 2:3 all members are to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. Only if parties have exhausted all the means referred to in Article 33 should the matter be brought before UN. However, despite all these hurdles the UN offers numerous opportunities for peaceful settlement through its machinery. In addition, the Secretary General has proved to be an effective arbiter of conflicting claims and in delicate matters which could be kept alive on his

initiative. On the whole, so far, almost all the Secretary Generals have played important role in the maintenance of peace in the world. For example, Hammarskjold and U.Thant were instrumental in resolving the complicated issues of Middle East (1956), Lebanon, Congo, Cyprus and Vietnam. Later on, Kurt Waldheim and Perez de Cuellar used shuttle diplomacy successfully and contributed towards the solution of the Middle East crisis and the Afghanistan issue. The Geneva Agreement (1988) was concluded under the auspices of UN. Achievements Of UN: So far the achievements of UN regarding the maintenance of international peace have been as under: a) Indonesia: In 1947, the UN arranged a truce between Netherlands and Indonesia. A year later in 1948 when Holland violet the truce, the Security Council asked the parties to stop fighting and proposed an independent state of Indonesia. Consequently Indonesia was granted independence in 1949. b) Greece: In 1946, Greece charged USSR for organizing guerrilla activities on her soil. The UN Security Council set up a commission which reported that Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria were responsible for helping the communists in Greece. Consequently, UN established a Peace Observation Commission in 1951, with authority to continue observation work in the region. c) Kashmir: In January 1948, India complained to the Security Council that Pakistan has committed aggression in Kashmir. The council immediately arranged a UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and appointed many administrators to arrange for a plebiscite in the valley. However, India went back on her commitment. Since, then SC has passed several resolutions asking India to comply with the earlier resolutions. d) Korea: In June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea and occupied substantial territory. As a result the UN forces led by US helped the S.Korea to recover its territory up to 38th parallel. e) Suez Crisis: In July 1956, Britain and France felt grieved when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal because they owned shares in it. as a reprisal Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the Suez Canal. UN efforts together with pressure of USSR helped Egypt to recover control of the

canal. f) Congo: In 1960, Belgian intervention and cessation of Katanga threatened independence of Congo. The UN force defeated Moise Tshombes cessionists and restored the solidarity of Congo. g) Arab Israeli Wars: The UN has played a very constructive role in the Arab-Israel wars of 1967 and 1973. The UN Emergency Force (UNEF) played an important part in maintaining peace in the region till 1967 when Egypt asked for its withdrawal. During the Arab-Israel wars UN passed resolutions calling for ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Arab territories. h) Afghanistan: Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in December 1979. The UN condemned this aggression and in the subsequent years passed resolutions with overwhelming majority calling for withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. In the meantime, UN arranged for Geneva talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan which resulted in the Geneva Agreement in April 1988. Consequently the Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan by February 1989. Sidelining Of UN: International political scenario took a dramatic turn after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991. The US emerged as the only super-power of the world and took over the role of sole policeman of the world community. USA took full advantage of the situation and promoted its interests in all continents. In Middle East, it supports the Jewish state of Israel to maintain her hold on the Arab territories occupied in 1967 war. The UN was not allowed to force Israel to accept UN Resolution no: 242, which called for withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab-territories. The US brokered land for peace accords between Palestinians and Jews have fallen short of the requirements of the problem. Still millions of Palestinians are languishing in refugees camps, the status of AlQuds stands unresolved, majority of West Bank is under Jewish control and more and more illegal Jewish settlements are being established on Palestinian soil. In late 2001, US vetoed an Arab request to Security Council to send peacekeepers to Middle East. Thus UN is not being allowed to play its peacekeeping role in a free manner. In 1990, the Gulf war gave a new dimension to the UN politics when US formed a multi-nation UN force to defeat Iraq. Similarly, this idea was put into practice again in October 2001 when a US-led multi-nation force launched war against Afghanistan to destroy terrorist camps there. Henceforth began the era in which USA gave its own agenda to the world body which aimed at shaping the political, economic and military features of the globe. US president George Bush put forward his famous Bush Doctrine on 20th September, 2002, which authorised USA to launch pre-emptive strikes against hostile regimes which posed or could pose threat to

America. In this connection, the regimes could be changed to protect democracy and freedom in the world. The first great practical demonstration of the Bush Doctrine was witnessed in March 2003 when US-led forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam regime. USA achieved this target without the help of France, Germany and Russia. Thus ended the 58 year peace and security role of UN in 2003 when USA invaded Iraq without its permission. Currently US administration is working under active instructions of Jewish lobby to fulfil the agenda of Tel Aviv in the world. Israels policy of aggression and oppression against the Palestinians is a strong reminder of the end of UN authority in peace and security role. In the recent years, the UN has become a tool in the hands of US. The majority of the members of Security Council are economically and politically so dependent on US that they have no other choice but to support the policies of Washington. There is no doubt that the technology advancement has reduced the world to a global village but under the pretext of New World Order US and its allies are busy in flouting all cannons of justice and fair play. They are using UN agencies of IMF and World Bank to catch important countries through debt trap so that they may not oppose their policies at the UN platform. All these factors have given USA a free hand and limited the manoeuvrability of the World Body. Consequently, many international issues such as Kashmir, Chechnya, Taiwan and Palestine are wailing solution since decades. Big powers have found common cause in using UN for their own political interests.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: Dinshawji (Monday, November 28, 2011), mommy (Friday, December 02, 2011), naina khan (Sunday, November 27, 2011), uroojz (Wednesday, December 21, 2011) #47 Thursday, October 13, 2011 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 835 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

United Nations: The United Nations is an international organisation which was established on 24th October 1945 in order to foster international cooperation in the resolution of economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems. The number of founder members in 1945 was 41 which has risen to 192. In the preamble to the charter of UN the signatories pledged to practise tolerance and to live together in peace with one another as good neighbours and to ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods that armed forces shall not be used. According to the article 1 of the charter the UN works to maintain international peace and security to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace. Peace Making Record Of UN: Since its inception in 1945, the UN has met partial success in maintaining peace in the world. During major conflicts involving opposing ideologies the performance of UN was influenced by the attitude and cooperation of the USA and Russia (previously up to 1991). In addition to this handicaps this forum faces the limitation that according to the charter all the disputes are not referred to UN for immediate treatment. According to an Article, 2:3 all members are to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered. Only if parties have exhausted all the means referred to in Article 33 should the matter be brought before UN. However, despite all these hurdles the UN offers numerous opportunities for peaceful settlement through its machinery. In addition, the Secretary General has proved to be an effective arbiter of conflicting claims and in delicate matters which could be kept alive on his initiative. On the whole, so far, almost all the Secretary Generals have played important role in the maintenance of peace in the world. For example, Hammarskjold and U.Thant were instrumental in resolving the complicated issues of Middle East (1956), Lebanon, Congo, Cyprus and Vietnam. Later on, Kurt Waldheim and Perez de Cuellar used shuttle diplomacy successfully and contributed towards the solution of the Middle East crisis and the Afghanistan issue. The Geneva Agreement (1988) was concluded under the auspices of UN. Achievements Of UN: So far the achievements of UN regarding the maintenance of international peace have been as under: a) Indonesia:

In 1947, the UN arranged a truce between Netherlands and Indonesia. A year later in 1948 when Holland violet the truce, the Security Council asked the parties to stop fighting and proposed an independent state of Indonesia. Consequently Indonesia was granted independence in 1949. b) Greece: In 1946, Greece charged USSR for organizing guerrilla activities on her soil. The UN Security Council set up a commission which reported that Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria were responsible for helping the communists in Greece. Consequently, UN established a Peace Observation Commission in 1951, with authority to continue observation work in the region. c) Kashmir: In January 1948, India complained to the Security Council that Pakistan has committed aggression in Kashmir. The council immediately arranged a UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) and appointed many administrators to arrange for a plebiscite in the valley. However, India went back on her commitment. Since, then SC has passed several resolutions asking India to comply with the earlier resolutions. d) Korea: In June 1950, North Korea attacked South Korea and occupied substantial territory. As a result the UN forces led by US helped the S.Korea to recover its territory up to 38th parallel. e) Suez Crisis: In July 1956, Britain and France felt grieved when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal because they owned shares in it. as a reprisal Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the Suez Canal. UN efforts together with pressure of USSR helped Egypt to recover control of the canal. f) Congo: In 1960, Belgian intervention and cessation of Katanga threatened independence of Congo. The UN force defeated Moise Tshombes cessionists and restored the solidarity of Congo. g) Arab Israeli Wars: The UN has played a very constructive role in the Arab-Israel wars of 1967 and 1973. The UN Emergency Force (UNEF) played an important part in maintaining peace in the region till 1967 when Egypt asked for its withdrawal. During the Arab-Israel wars UN passed resolutions calling for ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied Arab territories.

h) Afghanistan: Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan in December 1979. The UN condemned this aggression and in the subsequent years passed resolutions with overwhelming majority calling for withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. In the meantime, UN arranged for Geneva talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan which resulted in the Geneva Agreement in April 1988. Consequently the Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan by February 1989. Sidelining Of UN: International political scenario took a dramatic turn after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991. The US emerged as the only super-power of the world and took over the role of sole policeman of the world community. USA took full advantage of the situation and promoted its interests in all continents. In Middle East, it supports the Jewish state of Israel to maintain her hold on the Arab territories occupied in 1967 war. The UN was not allowed to force Israel to accept UN Resolution no: 242, which called for withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab-territories. The US brokered land for peace accords between Palestinians and Jews have fallen short of the requirements of the problem. Still millions of Palestinians are languishing in refugees camps, the status of Al-Quds stands unresolved, majority of West Bank is under Jewish control and more and more illegal Jewish settlements are being established on Palestinian soil. In late 2001, US vetoed an Arab request to Security Council to send peacekeepers to Middle East. Thus UN is not being allowed to play its peacekeeping role in a free manner. In 1990, the Gulf war gave a new dimension to the UN politics when US formed a multination UN force to defeat Iraq. Similarly, this idea was put into practice again in October 2001 when a US-led multi-nation force launched war against Afghanistan to destroy terrorist camps there. Henceforth began the era in which USA gave its own agenda to the world body which aimed at shaping the political, economic and military features of the globe. US president George Bush put forward his famous Bush Doctrine on 20th September, 2002, which authorised USA to launch pre-emptive strikes against hostile regimes which posed or could pose threat to America. In this connection, the regimes could be changed to protect democracy and freedom in the world. The first great practical demonstration of the Bush Doctrine was witnessed in March 2003 when US-led forces invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam regime. USA achieved this target without the help of France, Germany and Russia. Thus ended the 58 year peace and security role of UN in 2003 when USA invaded Iraq without its permission. Currently US administration is working under active instructions of Jewish lobby to fulfil the agenda of Tel Aviv in the world. Israels policy of aggression and oppression against the Palestinians is a strong reminder of the end of UN authority in peace and security role.

In the recent years, the UN has become a tool in the hands of US. The majority of the members of Security Council are economically and politically so dependent on US that they have no other choice but to support the policies of Washington. There is no doubt that the technology advancement has reduced the world to a global village but under the pretext of New World Order US and its allies are busy in flouting all cannons of justice and fair play. They are using UN agencies of IMF and World Bank to catch important countries through debt trap so that they may not oppose their policies at the UN platform. All these factors have given USA a free hand and limited the manoeuvrability of the World Body. Consequently, many international issues such as Kashmir, Chechnya, Taiwan and Palestine are wailing solution since decades. Big powers have found common cause in using UN for their own political interests. roshan ye sab to understood things han,wo apse wo ceheezen poochen ge jo expected han e.g in 2011 they asked about india seat in un. so you need to write on topic like what sugesstions you can give to improve the functioning/powers of UN. and many more. i hope you get my point. __________________ GEO to aise k sab tumhara ha,MARO to aisa jaise tmhara kuch bhi nhi. Maza deti han zindagi ki thokerin unko,jinhen NAAM-E-KHUDA le kar sanbhal janey ki adat ho.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SYEDA SABAHAT For This Useful Post: Roshan wadhwani (Sunday, October 16, 2011), The Manager (Friday, November 25, 2011), zarmina siraj (Sunday, December 04, 2011) #48 Saturday, January 07, 2012 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Updated CA Notes In Bullet Form After posting my last year's ca notes, now iam going to post updated ca notes that i hav

prepared from all the articles that i have been collecting and reading from different newspapers since March 2011 till today. i have made into bullet form notes keeping in view current scenario from every angle.i have trimmed and amended all the articles and made some changes of my own.Hope these will help all the members, corrections will be highly appreciated. Do remember me in ur prayers First of all i'll post PAK-US-AFGHAN issue keeping all the angles, including us withdrawal its implications, indian factor, options for pak etc etc

Afghanistan, US policies and our options


America is going to face the worst ever defeat of its history. If completes, it would be the second biggest after the Vietnam War, which shall be regarded as the superpowers another unparalleled. Such a big humiliation the American are about to face in Afghanistan at the hands of the Taliban. Washington would run out of options of an honourable exit, if it fails to find out an amicable way out in order to avoid the great embarrassment. The Crusade that the US launched against the Taliban-al-Qaeda after 9/11, the much desired victory has not fallen into its lap in accordance with its plan. The Taliban proved to be a hard nut to crack for the American policymakers. Now the defeat at the Taliban hands seems to be the writing on the wall. Instead the US realized the realities on ground and formulated strategy to find out a negotiated way out, it is constantly committing blunders, which are not only poised to create problems for Washington, but also to have lasting impacts upon the regional countries, especially Pakistan and Iran. The rulers in Pakistan and the national security institutions need to keep a watchful eye on the situation unfolding out of the various steps taken by the US in Afghanistan, and take preventive measures to block negative impacts reaching Pakistan. The negative impacts can result into gearing up of the acts of terrorism and violence across the country.

America is committing the blunder of holding backdoor negotiations with the Taliban, without involving Pakistan. Washington plans to pull out allied countries troops from Afghanistan by year 2013 and keep 10,000-15,000 Special Forces or Marines present there with their bases in Kabul and Kandahar. Washington plans to wage a covert war against the terrorists using the drone strikes and surgical operations. Most of the operations, it is feared, will be conducted within the Pakistani territory. After the recent attack on the NATO headquarters as well as the US embassy in Kabul, Leon Panetta, the US defence secretary, held in his press talk the Haqqani Network (HN) responsible and that Pakistan has failed to dismantle the network. He threatened of a unilateral surgical operation against the HN inside Pakistan territory. If the US continues to using drone strikes or conducts direct incursions into Pakistan territory, then the anti-Americanism will rise in the hearts and minds of the people of Pakistan. The Pakistan government and national security institutions will be left with no option but to respond to the assault on its sovereignty and violations of its territorial integrity. This would not only spoil the Pakistan-US relationship, but also ravage the achievements made so far in the WOT. Consequently the world at large would suffer a lot in terms of benefiting the outcome of WOT, putting further the world peace at stake. Pentagon must be aware that the situation on ground is not conducive for surgical operations, as in Afghanistan and other neighbouring countries, particularly Pakistan and Iran; the hatred for Americans is at its height. China and Russia would also not like the US to linger on the Afghanistan imbroglio for a longer period of time. The sooner the Americans leave Afghanistan, the better it would be for peace in the region. If America militarily quits Afghanistan, then there is a possibility that a broad-based government is installed in Kabul. If the exit is delayed, then it is obvious that the Taliban would make their comeback possible. They have hardened in their experience of fighting the Americans; they know the Americans

have betrayed them many a time after using them against the Soviet Union; they left the Taliban in lurch and turned their guns on them terming the Taliban their enemy. Now the Taliban do not trust anybody, they trust only themselves. If the Taliban gain control of Afghanistan, then the covert war would be difficult for American Special Forces or Marines to continue. This would result in an unprecedented defeat for the Americans, which would cause them the neurosis to differentiate between the friend and foe. If the Americans want a safe and sound honourable exit from Afghanistan, the region in particular and the world in general becomes safer place, then they must quit Afghanistan immediately. They should follow the policy of consultation, taking all political powers and neighbouring countries into confidence, and pave way for a broad-based government in Afghanistan. Washington, instead of keeping the negotiations with the Taliban secret, needs to realize the vitality of Islamabads role in bringing peace and normalcy to Afghanistan. The US must not forget that Pakistan is directly affected to whatever happens in Afghanistan, as Pakistan is the party to the dispute. It should not make the mistake of direct unilateral attacks on Pakistan; it has to trust the Pakistan armed forces and their capability to fight. Our armed forces have proved by defeating the inimical forces in the asymmetrical guerrilla war. Such a victory is not even in the credit of the superpower of America. Washington needs to facilitate the armed forces of Pakistan in moving ahead to defeat terrorism keeping in view its own ground realities. Be it the terrorists belonging to Haqqani Network or any other group, Washington should not pressure Islamabad and instead realize the realities on ground. Nor should it stop the military and economic aid to Pakistan on the pretext of apprehensions or coercive conditions. The countrys armed forces and its people have rendered countless sacrifices in this war. If the Americans fail to comply, then Afghanistan will not only prove to be another Vietnam for them, but also the hydra-headed monster of terrorism will once again come out to shatter the world peace.

Such a situation is posing grave threat and multiple challenges to Pakistan. It is hoped that Washington would follow the advice, otherwise if the surgical operations intensify, and under-the-cover violations of Pakistans sovereignty are made; it would be construed that the strategic assets of the country would be targeted. The possible takeover of the Taliban in Afghanistan and its impacts on Pakistan would not be ignorable. The closure of US aid may cause economic repercussions in Pakistan, for which Islamabad should get ready. The US incursions within Pakistan territory will have to be stopped, the strategic assets will have to preserved, Indo-Israel-US intelligence agencies activities will have to be countered, the presence and number of American officials working on various joint missions will have to be reduced to a minimum level; and the headway in the in the war against terrorism will have to be made to an extent where a live and let live environment could be created. Now the situation in Afghanistan should not be allowed to affect Pakistan so to stop further destruction. Now the situation should not be seen with an eye of friendship with America, rather it should be seen in the context of greater national interests.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: A4ambitious (1 Week Ago), SYEDA SABAHAT (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) #49 Saturday, January 07, 2012 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Ten Reasons to End the Occupation of Afghanistan

1. US and NATO occupation creates civilian casualties, angering Afghans. 2. Military occupation has hampered humanitarian aid and reconstruction efforts. 3. Afghan women continue to face violence and oppression under the occupation. 4. US policy has empowered warlords, drug lords and the Taliban. 5. The occupation contributes to violence and destabilization for ordinary Afghans, including refugees. 6. NATO allies and military leaders are questioning the occupation. 7. US troop casualties in Afghanistan are on the rise. 8. Afghans are calling for a negotiated end to the war. 9. Military escalation will only increase the violence, and potentially lead to a wider War involving nuclear-armed Pakistan. 10. Military occupation of Afghanistan does not curb terrorism.

Recommendations for a Changed US Policy


1. Set a swift timetable for the withdrawal of US and NATO military forces, to be substituted by UN forces for short-term security. 2. Immediately cease air strikes on targets in Afghanistan and Pakistan. 3. Support negotiations between all parties involved in the conflict, including Afghan Women leaders. 4. Reform humanitarian aid and reconstruction funding efforts to prioritize Afghan organizations over foreign contractors. Ensure that funded projects address the needs and requests of Afghans and are not simply pet projects of foreign donors. 5. Invest in long-term aid that increases self-reliance such as sustainable agriculture efforts. 6. Immediately discontinue the use of Provincial Reconstruction Teams, which are Costly, inefficient, and have militarized the aid process. 7. Standardize, increase, and publicly document compensation to Afghan families And communities affected by US military actions. 8. Sign the treaty to ban cluster bombs, pay for cluster bomb and landmine clean up In Afghanistan, and pledge never to use these weapons again.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: naina khan (Saturday, January 07, 2012), SYEDA SABAHAT (Tuesday, January 17, 2012) #50 Sunday, January 08, 2012

Jugni Member

Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Larkana Posts: 48 Thanks: 23 Thanked 33 Times in 24 Posts

Quote: Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Pak-US Relations
[B]Outline: Introduction Defence Alliance SEATO And CENTO Indo-Pak Wars Of 1965 And 1971 Pak-US Relations During Afghanistan Crisis Relations After 9/11 US Reaction To Pakistans Nuclear Tests War On Terrorism And Pakistans Role Critical Analysis Conclusion. I think that the overall outline is fine but needs some more refinement. I suggest you make it in this way: 1- Introduction 2-Historical Perspective: Defence Alliance SEATO and CENTO PK-Indo war of 1965 and 1971 PK-US relation during Afghanistan crisis 3- Factors affecting Pak-US relation: Pakistan's nuclear arsenal Pakistan's strategic position in the region US war on terror China factor 4-Recent developments: Drone attacks Abbottabad operation Post-Abbotabad relations

5-Critical analysis 6-Conclusion

AF-Pak policy
What is AF-Pak policy; how to manage its implication on Pakistan? AF-Pak policy is a new American war scheme of an old war is Afghanistan. It is three-pronged strategy: military surge in Afghanistan; more participation of Afghan civilian parts and involving Pakistan. The AF-Pak policy has serious implications on Pakistan. The increase in drone attacks, 'do more syndrome' and American intelligence involvement in Pakistan speak volumes. Pakistan has to bring all its diplomatic and political forces united to protect its national and strategic interests. The paper will define the angles of AF-Pak policy and some suggestions for managing interests of Pakistan. AFPAK Policy Three dimensions a) Military surge in Afghanistan. 1) 30000 more troops (totalling 137,000) 2) Starting withdrawal from July 2011 b) Making civilian parts less dysfunctional 1) Fight against corruption. 2) Good and bad' Taliban. c) To work with Pakistani government. 1) Aid (Military and non-military). 2) Long-term cooperation promise. Suggestion for Pakistan 1) Challenge drone attacks. 2) Question American quick withdrawal. 3) Durand Line infiltration check. 4) Working close with Afghan administration.

#52 Sunday, January 08, 2012 Roshan wadhwani Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: karachi Posts: 1,249 Thanks: 441 Thanked 829 Times in 423 Posts

Afghan pull-out: Pakistan needs to revise its role


So what must we do?
Pakistan must be on the right side of history. That means that we must consider and respect the needs and wishes of the Afghan people. The Taliban may not be popular, but neither is Hamid Karzai. Our negotiations with non-state actors and individuals are unsustainable in the long-run, and risks inflaming public opinion against us. Efforts should be made to resolve differences and grievances with non-Pashtun groups. Importantly, what is often overlooked is the dispute over the Durand Line. Afghanistan still disputes the Durand Line as a working international boundary. Resolution of this issue once and for all, rather than brushing it under the diplomatic table would help calm the Pakistani establishments fears of an unfriendly Afghan government stirring up trouble along the border. As for negotiations, its obvious that in the most conflict ridden parts of Afghanistan, the east and the south east, local communities are between a rock and a hard place. Both ISAF and the Taliban are unpopular. Communities want to see an end to violence.

Pakistan should do what it can to facilitate this process, but do so without taking sides overtly or covertly. If not then we will return to the early 1990s. The West will pump money from a distance into a dysfunctional government in Kabul. Ethnic and regional factions will divide the country up, and Pakistan will be accused of interfering and pushing its agenda in another country. After all, treating the Afghans in the same way, we accuse the US of treating us, is not going to win us many Afghan friends.

The Following User Says Thank You to Roshan wadhwani For This Useful Post: A4ambitious (1 Week Ago) #53 Tuesday, January 17, 2012 SYEDA SABAHAT Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Mere Jan Pakistan Posts: 836 Thanks: 1,327 Thanked 1,108 Times in 502 Posts

roshan just have a look at this about recent developments in pak-us relations