Association of Southeast Asian Nations

(ASEAN)
ESTABLISHMENT
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8 August 1967 in
Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the
Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand.
Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao PDR and
Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up what is today the ten
Member States of ASEAN.
ASEAN covers an area of 4.46 million km, 3% of the total land area of Earth, with a
population of approximately 600 million people, and 8.8% of the world population. In 2010,
its combined nominal GDP had grown to US$1.8 trillion. If ASEAN was a single entity, it
would rank as the ninth largest economy in the world.

AIMS AND PURPOSES

As set out in the ASEAN Declaration, the aims and purposes of ASEAN are:
1. To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the
region through joint endeavors in the spirit of equality and partnership in order to
strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asian
Nations;
2. To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of
law in the relationship among countries of the region and adherence to the principles of the
United Nations Charter;
3. To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of common interest in
the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and administrative fields;
4. To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research facilities in the
educational, professional, technical and administrative spheres;
5. To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilization of their agriculture and
industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the problems of international
commodity trade, the improvement of their transportation and communications facilities and
the raising of the living standards of their peoples;
6. To promote Southeast Asian studies; and
7. To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and regional
organizations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all avenues for even closer
cooperation among themselves.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
In their relations with one another, the ASEAN Member States have adopted the following

fundamental principles, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast

Asia (TAC) of 1976:
1. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and
national identity of all nations;
2. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference,
subversion or coercion;
3. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
4. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;
5. Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
6. Effective cooperation among themselves.

ASEAN COMMUNITY
The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th Anniversary of ASEAN,
agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of Southeast Asian nations, outward
looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity, bonded together in partnership in dynamic
development and in a community of caring societies.
At the 9th ASEAN Summit in 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN Community
shall be established.
At the 12th ASEAN Summit in January 2007, the Leaders affirmed their strong commitment
to accelerate the establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015 and signed the Cebu
Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015.
The ASEAN Community is comprised of three pillars, namely the ASEAN Political-Security
Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. Each pillar
has its own Blueprint, and, together with the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic
Framework and IAI Work Plan Phase II (2009-2015), they form the Roadmap for and ASEAN
Community 2009-2015.

ASEAN CHARTER
The ASEAN Charter serves as a firm foundation in achieving the ASEAN Community by
providing legal status and institutional framework for ASEAN. It also codifies ASEAN norms,
rules and values; sets clear targets for ASEAN; and presents accountability and compliance.
The ASEAN Charter entered into force on 15 December 2008. A gathering of the ASEAN
Foreign Ministers was held at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta to mark this very historic
occasion for ASEAN.
With the entry into force of the ASEAN Charter, ASEAN will henceforth operate under a new
legal framework and establish a number of new organs to boost its community-building
process.
In effect, the ASEAN Charter has become a legally binding agreement among the 10 ASEAN
Member States.

Enlargement of ASEAN:During the 1990s, the bloc experienced an increase in both membership and drive for

further integration. In 1990, Malaysia proposed the creation of an East Asia Economic
Caucus comprising the then members of ASEAN as well as the People's Republic of China,
Japan, and South Korea, with the intention of counterbalancing the growing influence of the
United States in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and in the Asian region as a
whole. This proposal failed, however, because of heavy opposition from the United States
and Japan. Despite this failure, member states continued to work for further integration and
ASEAN Plus Three was created in 1997.
In 1992, the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT) scheme was signed as a schedule
for phasing tariffs and as a goal to increase the regions competitive advantage as a
production base geared for the world market. This law would act as the framework for the
ASEAN Free Trade Area. After the East Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, a revival of the
Malaysian proposal was established in Chiang Mai, known as the Chiang Mai Initiative, which
calls for better integration between the economies of ASEAN as well as the ASEAN Plus
Three countries (China, Japan, and South Korea).
Aside from improving each member state's economies, the bloc also focused on peace and
stability in the region. On 15 December 1995, the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free
Zone Treaty was signed with the intention of turning Southeast Asia into a Nuclear-WeaponFree Zone. The treaty took effect on 28 March 1997 after all but one of the member states
have ratified it. It became fully effective on 21 June 2001, after the Philippines ratified it,
effectively banning all nuclear weapons in the region.
Early 2011, East Timor plans to submit a letter of application to the ASEAN Secretariat in
Indonesia to be the eleventh member of ASEAN at the summit in Jakarta. Indonesia has
shown a warm welcome to East Timor.

Baluchistan conflict
The Government of Pakistan over Baluchistan, the country's largest province.
Recently, separatists have also clashed with Islamic Republic of Iran over its
respective Baloch region, which borders Pakistan. Shortly after Pakistan's
creation in 1947, the Army of the Islamic Republic had to subdue insurgents
based in Kalat who rejected the King of Kalat decision to accede to Pakistan,
reminiscent of the Indian Army's operation in the Principality state of
Hyderabad. The movement gained momentum during the 1960s, and amid
consistent political disorder, the government ordered a military operation
into the region in 1973, assisted by Iran, and inflicted heavy casualties on
the separatists. The movement was largely quelled after the imposition of
martial law in 1977, after which Baluchistan witnessed significant
development. After insurgency groups again mushroomed in the 1990s and
2000s, the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the war in North-West Pakistan
exacerbate the conflict, most recently manifested in the killings of nonBaloch settlers in the province by separatists since 2006.

Background:1. First conflict 1948 (led by Prince Abdul Karim Khan)

In April 1948, Baloch nationalists claim that the central government sent the
Pakistan army, which allegedly forced Mir Ahmed Yar Khan to give up his
state, Kalat. Kalat was a landlocked British protectorate that comprised
roughly 22%23% of Baluchistan. Mir Ahmed Yar Khan signed an accession
agreement ending Kalat's de facto independence. His brother, Prince Abdul
Karim Khan, was a powerful governor of a section of Kalat, a position that he
was removed from after accession. He decided to initiate an insurgency
against Pakistan. On the night of May 16, 1948 Prince Abdul Karim Khan
initiated a separatist movement against the Pakistani government. He
conducted guerrilla warfare based in Afghanistan against the Pakistan army.
2. Second conflict 195859 (led by Nawab Nowroz Khan)
Nawab Nowroz Khan took up arms in resistance to the One Unit policy, which
decreased government representation for tribal leaders. He and his followers
started a guerrilla war against Pakistan. Nowroz Khan and his followers were
charged with treason and arrested and confined in Hyderabad jail. Five of his
family members (sons and nephews) were subsequently hanged under
charges of aiding murder of Pakistani troops and treason. Nawab Nowroz
Khan later died in captivity.
3. Third conflict 196369 (led by Nawab Khair Baksh Marri)
After the second conflict, the Federal government sent the Army to build new
military bases in the key conflict areas of Baluchistan in order to resist
further chaos. Nawab Khair Baksh marri appointed an unknow shero marri to
lead like-minded militants in guerrilla warfare by creating their own
insurgent bases spread out over 45,000 miles (72,000 km) of land, from the
Mengal tribal area in the south to the Marri and Bugti tribal areas in the
north. Their goal was to force Pakistan to share revenue generated from the
Sui gas fields with the tribal leaders. The insurgents bombed railway tracks
and ambushed convoys. The Army retaliated by destroying vast areas of the
Marri tribe's land. This insurgency ended in 1969 and the Baloch separatists
agreed to a ceasefire. Yahya Khan abolished the "One Unit" policy. This
eventually led to the recognition of Baluchistan as the fourth province of
West Pakistan (present-day Pakistan) in 1970, containing all the Baluchistani
princely states, the High Commissioners Province and Gwadar, an 800 km2
coastal area purchased by the Pakistani Government from Oman.

4. Fourth conflict 197377 (led by Nawab Khair Baksh Marri)

Citing treason, President Bhutto dismissed the provincial governments of
Baluchistan and NWFP and imposed martial law in those provinces. Dismissal
of the provincial governments led to armed insurgency. Khair Bakhsh Marri
formed the Baluchistan Peoples Liberation Front (BPLF), which led large
numbers of Marri and Mengal tribesmen into guerrilla warfare against the
central government. According to some authors, the Pakistani military lost
300 to 400 soldiers during the conflict with the Balochi separatists, while
between 7,300 and 9,000 Balochi militants and civilians were killed.
5. Fifth conflict 2004 to date (led by Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and
Mir Balach Marri)
In 2005, the Baluch political leaders Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and Mir Balach
Marri presented a 15-point agenda to the Pakistan government. Their stated
demands included greater control of the province's resources and a
Moratorium on the construction of military bases. On 15 December 2005,
Inspector-General of Frontier Corps Maj Gen Shujaat Zamir Dar and his
deputy Brig Salim Nawaz (the current IGFC) were wounded after shots were
fired at their helicopter in Baluchistan province. The provincial interior
secretary later said that "both of them were wounded in the leg but both are
in stable condition." The two men had been visiting Kohlu, about 220 km
(135 miles) south-east of Quetta, when their aircraft came under fire. The
helicopter landed safely.
In August 2006, Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, 79 years old, was killed in fighting
with the Pakistan Army in which at least 60 Pakistani soldiers and 7 officers
were killed. He was charged by Pakistan's government of a series of bomb
blasts, killings of the people he professed to protect and the rocket attack on
the President Pervez Musharraf.
In April 2009, Baloch National Movement president Ghulam Mohammed
Baloch and two other nationalist leaders (Lala Munir and Sher Muhammad),
were seized from a small legal office and were allegedly "handcuffed,
blindfolded and hustled into a waiting pickup truck which is in still use of
intelligence forces in front of their lawyer and neighboring shopkeepers."The
gunmen were allegedly speaking in Persian (a national language of
neighboring Afghanistan and Iran) Five days later on April 8 their bodies,
"riddled with bullets" were found in a commercial area.The BLA claims
Pakistani forces were behind the killings, though international experts have
deemed it odd that the Pakistani forces would be careless enough to allow
the bodies to be found so easily and 'light Baluchistan on fire' (Herald) if
they were truly responsible. The discovery of the bodies sparked rioting and
weeks of strikes, demonstrations and civil resistance" in cities and towns
around Baluchistan.

On August 12, 2009, Khan of Kalat Mir Suleiman Dawood declared himself
ruler of Baluchistan and formally made announcement of a Council for
Independent Baluchistan. The Council's claimed domain includes "Baloch of
Iran", as well as Pakistani Baluchistan, but does not include Afghani Baloch
regions,and the Council contains "all separatist leaders including Nawabzada
Bramdagh Bugti." He claims that "the UK had a moral responsibility to raise
the issue of Baluchistans illegal occupation at international level."

Alleged Foreign Support for Baluch rebels

Pakistan has repeatedly accused India, and occasionally the U.S., of
supporting the Baluch rebels in order to destabilize the country. India has
however categorically denied the allegations on its part, stating that no
concrete evidence has been provided. The facts are controversial, but
Pakistan still continues to insist. Iran has repeatedly accused America of
supporting Jundullah. After his capture, Jundullah leader Abdulmalek Rigi
confirmed these allegations. The US has however denied this. However,
neutral observers have repeatedly noted that the Baloch nationalist groups
are poorly-trained in military tactics and strategy, and are currently
outgunned by the Pakistani state. The groups are mainly armed with small
non-automatic weapons and AK-47s, which are widely available in Pakistan,
and they currently are not skilled at using Improvised Explosive Devices
(IEDs), which is seen as strong circumstantial evidence that they are not
supported by outside powers, contrary to the repeated statements of the
Pakistani state.
Baluchi rebels in Pakistan are said to receive major support from the Taliban
in Afghanistan. In the 1980s the CIA, the Iraqi Intelligence Service, Pakistani
Sunni extremist group Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and the Mujahedin e-Kalq all
supported a Baluchi tribal uprising against Iran. Pakistan has also accused
India of giving citizenship to senior Balouch SeparatistSelig S. Harrison of
the George Soros funded Center for International Policy has been calling for
dividing Pakistan and supporting an independent Baluch province as a means
to thwart growing relations between Islamabad and Beijing, as Pakistan has
given China a base at Gwadar. These views have been separately promoted
by Ralph Peters, an zionist strategic affairs analyst and former U.S. Army
officer, and an expert on the Middle East and the Islamic world.

Projects in Baluchistan
Saindak Copper Gold Project:
Saindak Copper-Gold Mine is located in Saindak town, district Chaghi

Baluchistan, Pakistan. The discovery of copper deposits at Saindak was

made in the 1970s in collaboration with a Chinese engineering firm. The
Saindak Copper-Gold Project was set up by Saindak Metals Ltd, a company
wholly owned by the government of Pakistan, by the end of 1995 at a cost of
Rs.13.5 billion.
Pakistan and China signed a formal contract worth $350 million for
development of Saindak Copper-Gold Project. The project was leased for 10
year to a Chinese company called Metallurgical Construction Corp (MCC),
which is due to expire in September 2012. Under the lease agreement, MCC
was to run the project on an annual rent of $500,000 plus a 50 per cent
share of copper sales to the Pakistani government.
The project was based on estimated ore reserves of 412 million tonnes
containing on average 0.5 gram of gold per ton and 1.5 grams of silver per
ton. According to official estimates, the project has the capacity to produce
15,800 ton of blister copper annually, containing 1.5 ton of gold and 2.8 ton
of silver.

Reko Diq Copper Gold Project:Reko Diq is a small town in Chagai District, Baluchistan, Pakistan, in a desert
area, 70 kilometres north-west of Naukundi, close to Pakistan's border with
Iran and Afghanistan. The area is located in Tethyan belt that stretches all
the way from Turkey and Armenia into Pakistan.
Reko Diq has proven gold and copper reserves worth US $125 billion. It is
estimated that area has 12.3 million tons of world class copper and 20.9
million ounces of gold. However, later it has been claimed by several
Pakistani scholars that the gold and copper reserves worth is far more than
estimated earlier, that is 1000 billion dollars.
The Reko Diq Mining Project is a US$ 3.3 billion capital investment project
that promises to build and operate a world class copper-gold open-pit mine
at Reko Diq. TCC (Tethyan Copper Company), which is actually CanadianChilian based company, is responsible for minning at Reko Diq.

Gawadar:Gawadar Port is a developing warm-water, deep-sea port situated at Gwadar

in Baluchistan province of Pakistan at the apex of the Arabian Sea and at the
entrance of the Persian Gulf, about 460 km west of Karachi and

approximately 75 km (47 mi) east of Pakistan's border with Iran. The port is
located on the eastern bay of a natural hammerhead-shaped peninsula
jutting out into the Arabian Sea from the coastline.

Background:On 8 September 1958, Pakistan purchased the Gwadar enclave from Oman
for $3 million. Gwadar officially became part of Pakistan on 8 December
1958. At the time, Gwadar was a small and underdeveloped fishing village
with a population of a few thousand.
The Pakistani government integrated Gwadar into Baluchistan province on 1
July 1977 as the district headquarters of the newly formed Gwadar District.
In the 1993, the Government of Pakistan formally conceived the plan to
develop Gwadar into a major port city with a deep-sea port and connect it
with Pakistan's highway and rail networks. On 22 March 2002, the
Government of Pakistan began construction of Gwadar Port, a modern deepsea port, the first phase of which was completed in December 2005. Gwadar
Port became operational in December 2009.
The city underwent major construction from 2002-07. In 2002, Pakistan's
National Highway Authority (NHA) began construction of the 653 km-long
Makran Coastal Highway linking Gwadar with Karachi via Pasni and Ormara
and onwards with the rest of the National Highways of Pakistan, which was
completed in 2004. In 2003, the Gwadar Development Authority was
established to oversee the planning and development of Gwadar. In 2004,
Pakistan's NHA began construction of the 820-km long M8 motorway linking
Gwadar with Ratodero in Sindh province via Turbat, Hoshab, Awaran and
Khuzdar and onwards with the rest of the Motorways of Pakistan. In 2006,
the Gwadar Development Authority conceived, developed and adopted a 50year Master Plan for Gwadar. In 2007, the Civil Aviation Authority of Pakistan
acquired 4,300 acres to construct a new greenfield airport, the New Gwadar
International Airport, on 6,000 acres, at an estimated cost of Rs. 7.5 billion.
China has funded 80% of the initial $248 million construction of the
city.However China has not announced being requested to operate the port
by Pakistan.

Importance of Gawadar Port for China:Gwadar Port is being constructed in two phases with heavy investment from

China. Technical and financial feasibility studies were commenced by the

Government of Pakistan in 1993 but construction did not commence until
2002. The Gwadar Port was built on a turnkey basis by China. It was
inaugurated in the spring of 2007 by then Pakistani President General Pervez
Musharraf. Upon completion of the first phase, the Port of Singapore
Authority was hired for the management of the Port. Gwadar Port is now
being expanded into a deep sea port and naval base with Chinese technical
and financial assistance. Gwadar Port became operational in 2008 with the
first ship to dock bringing 52.000 tonnes of wheat from Canada. Pakistan's
Minister of Ports and Shipping Sardar Nabil Ahmed Khan Gabol officially
inaugurated the Port on 21 December 2008.
China has acknowledged that Gwadars strategic value is no less than that of
the Karakoram Highway, which helped cement the China-Pakistan
relationship. Beijing is also interested in turning it into an energy-transport
hub by building an oil pipeline from Gwadar into China's Xinjiang region. The
planned pipeline will carry crude oil sourced from Arab and African states.
Such transport by pipeline will cut freight costs and also help insulate the
Chinese imports from interdiction by hostile naval forces in case of any
major war.
Commercially, it is hoped that the Gwadar Port would generate billions of
dollars in revenues and create at least two million jobs. In 2007, the
government of Pakistan handed over port operations to PSA Singapore for 25
years, and gave it the status of a Tax Free Port for the following 40 years.

Missing Persons In Baluchistan:The most pressing and hurtful issue right now, though, is that of the
missing people. Human rights groups and Baloch political parties claim as
many as 13,000 people are missing in the province, while the provincial
government acknowledges fewer than 1,000 people have been picked up.
Even if the true number lies somewhere in between, these statistics need to
be reconciled. After that, a promise needs to be given that no citizen of
Baluchistan need ever fear for his life just for exercising his right to political
dissent.

Target Killing in Baluchistan:According to Baluchistan police records, there were 256 incidents of

targeting in Baluchistan in 2009 that killed 200 people and injured 387. In
2010, 231 incidents were reported that killed 255 and injured 498. In the
first three months of 2011, at least 39 incidents have occurred, which killed
38 and injured 66. Baluchistan Constabulary Commandant Ghulam Shabbir
Shah, speaking in Karachi recently, said that target killings are set to break
all previous records in the province.

Various shades of targets

According to Shah, no target killings are reported in the provinces Pashtundominated areas, including Musakhel, Zhob, Loralai, Ziarat, Pishin, Harnai
and Sibi.
The claim was confirmed by Pakhtunkhwa Awami Milli Partys senior leader
Abdul Rahim Khan Mandokhel but, he said, Pakhtun Baloch have been
targeted in two or three cases. Some unsuccessful attempts have been
made to create a wedge between the Pakhtuns and Baloch, he said.
Most target killing and terrorism incidents are reported in the districts of
Quetta, Mastung, Bolan, Noshki, Kalat, Khuzdar, Kech, Gwadar, Lasbela and
Panjgur. Four types of target killings are reported in Baluchistan: Attacks on
people who have settled in the province, assassinations of policemen and
Frontier Corps (FC) personnel, sectarian killings and murders of political
workers.
1. Settlers
Settlers in Baluchistan are numbered at least 461,328 and mostly comprise
Punjabis, Seraikis and Urdu-speaking people. According to police statistics,
based on inquiry and FIRs, at least 180 settlers have been shot dead
between 2009 and March 2011.
Officials admit that investigations into most target killings of settlers remain
unsolved.
There is a joke in the province that if you want authorities to stop pursuing
a murder case, have it claimed by one of the many rebel groups operating in
Baluchistan, says National Party Vice-President Hasil Bizenjo.
One such case is that of University of Baluchistans Professor Nazima Talib
whose first death anniversary approaches on April 27.
These cases are difficult to crack because Baloch people sympathise with
rebel groups and, despite knowing who the murderers are, choose to remain

quiet, says Shah.

2. Security personnel
At least 120 policemen and 66 FC personnel have been killed between 2009
and March 2011.
Shah says that despite clear evidence that police have suffered more, there
is a severe lack of resources. It is very easy to blame civilian institutions for
failing to curb crime. But the truth is we dont have the resources to even
fight petty dacoits who have more sophisticated arms and equipment, he
said. On the other hand, FC and army units even get food rations for troops.
3. Sectarian
Sectarian killings have been mostly targeted against Hazara Shias, who
came to Baluchistan decades ago from Afghanistan and Iran. Police and
counter-terrorism officials say that anti-Shia militant groups such as Sipah-iSahaba Pakistan (SSP) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) are active in
Baluchistan.
But Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazls (JUI-F) Secretary-General Maulana Abdul
Ghafoor Haideri, who hails from Kalat, says he doesnt know if the SSP or
LeJ are involved. Experience shows that the state and intelligence agencies
are the ones behind groups that instigate sectarian violence and ethnic
strife, he said.
4. Political
Political party workers allege that they are being targeted not only by the
state but by rebels as well.
Bizenjo, whose party has lost three senior leaders, says the heavily-armed
rebels are against nationalists because they say that you talk about
federation when we are here up in the mountains waging a battle against the
state.
Baluchistan National Party-Mengals (BNP-M) Dr Jehanzaib Jamaldini says the
party lost one of their best leaders Habib Jalib last year in a target killing.
All evidence points to state elements being behind the murder, he said.
Hundreds of Baloch men, including political workers, have gone missing in
the province.

Bizenjo believes Baluchistans security situation is interconnected with Fata

and Afghanistan and violence is bound to continue unless things improve
there. Until it is decided that nowhere in the country will anyone be allowed
to hold a gun, the state will not be able to establish its writ and target
killings will continue, he said.
Haideri says the government should either accept failure and step down or
admit that it is involved in target killings in the province.
Analysis:It has long been an open secret that paramilitary forces and intelligence
agencies have been holding sway in Baluchistan. This was finally
acknowledged by the provinces advocate general, Salahuddin Mengal, in
front of the Supreme Court, when he revealed that the Frontier Constabulary
(FC) was picking up and even killing people. Although not a surprise, this
revelation is important because the Supreme Court is the only institution in
the country that has shown the courage to take on the army. The court must
now haul up senior officers of the FC to explain the role it is playing in
Baluchistan.
However, the Supreme Court alone cannot solve Baluchistans problems. The
utter lack of confidence the Baloch have in the army and the federal
government requires much greater action. Separatist sentiment is now
running deep in the province and the provincial government lacks legitimacy
because most political figures have boycotted mainstream politics. Bringing
them back into the fold should be an immediate priority. This would require
the army to recede and take a low profile, and an accounting of all those
who went missing in the province. Following that, a far greater share in the
spoils of Baluchistans economic development needs to be given to locals.
From the development of a deep-sea port in Gwadar to royalties in mining
projects, the Baloch feel they have been deliberately cheated out of profits
from their resources. Only after this is rectified, will the separatist parties
begin to tone down their rhetoric.

Clash of Civilizations
World Politics is entering in a new phase which will be end of history, the
return of traditional rivalries between nation states and the decline of
nation state from conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism. Fundamental

conflicts would not be ideological or economic but cultural conflicts. Nation

states would remain the most dominant and powerful actors. Clash of
civilization will dominate the global politics. With the peace of Westphalia
conflict of western world were among princes, emperors, absolute or
constitutional monarchs to expand their armies, bureaucracies, mercantilist
economic strength. In this process they created nation states beginning
with French revolution. The principle lines of conflict were between the
nations rather princes.

ANALYSIS
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many scholars predicted that the
future of world and where nations would advance. Huntingtons idea in the
clash of civilization is a representative case among the various views on
the new world and it caused lots of debates about the pros and cons of his
thought. In the clash of civilization, Huntington argues that conflicts of
contemporary world (after the end of Cold War) are not ideological nor
economical but cultural and phenomenon such as confrontations and
antagonisms among nations which are caused by clashes of different
civilizations would rise remarkably. However, Said criticized that the clash
of civilization is a creature of the imperative conception that the West
should hold the hegemony of new world order. This essay, therefore,
explores the theory of the clash of civilization and criticizes several points
which are mentioned in it.
A civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest
level of cultural identity people have short that which distinguishes human
from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such
as language, history,and religion. In short, while Huntington is
right to see religion as a factor in the coming era of world politics, the role
of religion will go well beyond serving as a touchstone for culture. Religion
is more than culture. It transcends civilizations. In the end, to listen to the
believers among us, it will transcend history itself.
Harvard Professor Samuel P. Huntington caused intellectual explosion by
publishing his article clash of civilizations in the American journal Foreign
Affairs in 1993. He asserts Civilizations are the largest aggregates that
command human loyalties and account for much of the bloodshed in the
recorded human history. Cold war marked a brief departure from it but now
old enemies could go to the past time, waging wars against each other.
The biggest threat to the west at present comes from China and Islam. He
argues that now the cold war had ended, future conflicts in the world
politics would be less between states and more between civilizations or
coalitions of culture.
He asserts his point of view,

In this emerging era of cultural conflict the United States must forge
alliances with similar cultures and spread its values wherever possible.
With alien civilizations the West must be accommodating if possible, but
confrontational if necessary. In the final analysis, however, all civilizations
will have to learn to tolerate each other.
There is now a danger of hot war of religion to succeed the cold war of
ideologies, the new trend between America and allies, on the one hand,
and Muslim countries such as Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, and
Somalia, on the other hand. Both American capitalism and Russian
Commission were born out of European culture.

Present Scenario of mistrust and bloodshed:

The 9/11 attack was termed as beginning of clash of civilizations, when
Tony Blair exclaimed as,
They have attacked on our civilization.
President Bush declared war against Afghanistan as Crusades. The question
arises whether the significance of September 11, 2001, the attacks on the
US, the devastation of Afghanistan, the Israeli onslaught on the
Palestinians homeland and Lebanon, the plans to divide Iraq and invade
Iran Somalia, and Sudan, all add up to an unfolding conflict between the
United States and its closet allies (Israel and UK) on the one hand, and
more and more Muslim countries, on the other hand.
The tumult caused by the publication of the caricature of the Holy Prophet
in the Norwegian Newspaper. The growing phenomenon of linking
fundamentalism to extremism and extremism to Islam and Islam to
terrorism sent a shocking wave to Enlightened Muslims.Clear discrimination
against members of the Muslim community in Switzerland.No French
citizenship for burka-clad womens husband.

Causes of Clash of Civilizations:

US hegemony:

American Gulliver of the globe.

Economic globalization under American influence.
Information globalization under American influence.
Comprehensive globalization under American influence.
One super power and security system for the globe.

 First among unequal: US is so far ahead of its nearest military rival,

Russia; its nearest economic rival, Japan/china its technological rival
Germany.

Why Civilizations will Clash?

The conflict of future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating
civilization.
(1).Differences among civilization are basic.
(2)World is becoming a small place.
(3)Process of Economic modernization and social change.
(4)Growth of civilization is enhanced by the dual role of the west.
(5)Cultural differences are less easily compromised and resolved than
political and economic ones.
(6)Economic nationalism is increasing Clash of civilization has two levels
(a)Micro Level
(b)Macro Level

Hidden Objectives under this Theory:

A clash of culture did occur when President Bush used to Taliban, the
Language of ultimatum over surrendering us Usama, just hand over Usama
Bin Laden and his thugs. There is nothing to talk about. It shows he was
trying to get the Taliban to say NO, so that Bush could embark on his long
awaited military action to capture Afghanistan.
The threat of weapons of mass destruction from North Korea is more real
than that of Iraq, but till now 600,000 Iraqis have been butchered with
their President hanged.
For Greater Israel Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are on the hit list as their
culture of Violence in the words of Bush. Put future threats to the security
of America.

Pluralistic Dimensions of Islamic Civilization:

Islam was not spread by sword, as misinterpreted by Pope, the living
evidence is Arab Land itself where millions of Christian and the Jews are
practicing their faith with complete liberty. Ruthless killing of innocent
citizens committed by Napolean, Chengiz khan and observed in the world
wars are much greater than by Saddam or any other Muslim Despot.
In the Muslim world, the women are awarded more dignity than in the
west, far less prostitution than in the west, no beauty competitions. Sons

in the Muslim world respect their mothers more than sons in the west.
There was ethnic cleansing which displaced thousands of Palestinians to
make room for the Jews. An ideology was formed in which someone from
the Ukraine who claims to have had a Jewish ancestor two thousand years
ago had more rights under Israels Law of Return than Palestinian who ran
away from Israeli borders in 1948.

The Role of Religion in Huntingtons paradigm

The role of religion is a problem in Huntingtons paradigm. As noted, in
sorting the world along civilization lines, he assigns religion a preeminent
place. More than any other factor, according to Huntington, religious
affiliation signifies "who we are" and "who we are not." It identifies kin and
marks prospective rivals. Yet implicit in Huntingtons argument is the notion
that religion in its own right is without standing. Religion illuminates
politics, but should play no independent role in politics. (It is a safe bet
that when Huntington calls for the revival of Western civilization he is not
advocating restoration of One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church
exercising authority over secular affairs.) For Huntington, religion
particularly religion in the Westis an anachronism, something that was
itself once alive and powerful but that now survives largely as artifact or
memento. Yet in thus consigning religion to role of cultural ID card,
Huntington misconstrues its significance, both politically and otherwise.

Suggestions to make this world Heaven:

Intellectual and collective effort
The present ongoing clash is not a physical phenomenon and does no
require use of force, which has proved a big failure, even after using HiTech weapons. Rather it demands intellectual and collective effort by all
responsible scholars, Heads of States, Soldiers and Politicians.

Inter faith dialogue

Inter faith dialogue to create harmony because Islam gives high esteem to
all other religions of book and their prophets.

True Muslim scholars

True Muslim scholars in collaboration with other Priests, can hold joint

Seminars to generate harmony and shed clouds of ignorance and

prejudice.

UN
The world body UN should fear the dreadful end of League of Nations, so it
needs vitality and firmness to implement its fair decisions, irrespective US
influence which has divided the world.

Media power
Media power can be used for bridging the gulf among biased nations and
cultures.

Education system
Education system is a basic tool in polishing individuals with qualities of
compassion and Humanism.
__________________
Success is never achieved by the size of our brain but it is always achieved by the quality
of our thoughts.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Taimoor Gondal For This Useful Post:
Mehwish Pervez (Friday, December 28, 2012), pisceankhan (Monday, October 20,
2014), prince93 (Wednesday, April 04, 2012), Rescuer 1122 (Friday, December 28,
2012), Rushna Qureshi (Saturday, October 06, 2012)
#4
Saturday, March 31, 2012

Taimoor Gondal
Diplomat

Join Date: Jul 2010

Location: Mandi Bahauddin
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 1,629
Thanked 2,095 Times in 1,063 Posts

Drone Attacks, FATA and Haqqani Network

Drone Attacks, FATA and Haqqani Network

Introduction
The use of Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, is a
new technology used in modern warfare. An unmanned aerial vehicle

(UAV), also known as a Unmanned aircraft System (UAS) or a remotely

piloted aircraft (RPA) or unmanned aircraft functions either by the remote
control of a navigator or pilot (called a Combat Systems Officer on UCAVs)
or autonomously, that is, as a self-directing entity. Their largest use is
within military applications.
In the current so-called War on Terror, the same has been frequently used
by the United States in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A lot has been said
against American drone attacks as a violation of sovereignty of Pakistan
but the issue is getting more intense by each passing day. When the US
drones attack Pakistans tribal areas, it is not just the ten, twenty or fifty
innocent civilians they kill but it creates the anti-US sentiments in masses
and a global feeling of disgust against US. Few stay mum and numb but
there is large number of victims who vent their hatred very violently
against US and its ally Pakistan. US is insensitive to the fact that civilian
killings in these drone attacks provides reason to the youngsters for joining
terrorist groups waging war against US and of course Pakistan, for being its
closest ally in war on terror.
The drone strikes have pushed militants deeper into Pakistan and gave
them an excuse to strike the heart of the country, further destabilizing it.
No doubt drone attacks did kill some militants but at what cost???
To further probe into this aspect, this presentation will look into functioning
of drones, negative and positive aspects in pertinent to our country vis-vis drawing some conclusions.

Definition
To distinguish UAVs from missiles, a UAV is defined as a "powered, aerial
vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to
provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely, can be
expendable or recoverable, and can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload".
Therefore, cruise missiles are not considered UAVs, because, like many
other guided missiles, the vehicle itself is a weapon that is not reused,
even though it is also unmanned and in some cases remotely guided.

US, Pakistan, Tribals & UNs Point of View on Drone

Attacks
1. US Point of View
a. Self defense
i. Preemptive Strategy. Bill was passed by congress in 2002 under Bush
administration to carry out attacks in preemption and self defense of its
citizen and state in pursuance to September 11 attacks on twin tower.

ii. International Protocol on Hot Pursuit

b. Symmetric decimation of Al-Qaeda leadership
c. Use of highly sophisticated technology
d. Escalation of attacks under President Obama
e. Opposition within US

2. Pakistans Point of view

a. Official
b. Response of opposition parties, civil society and media
c. Wiki leaks
d. Pakistan military official papers

3. United Nations Point of View

On 27 October 2010 UNHRC investigator Philip Alston called on the US to
demonstrate that it was not randomly killing people in violation of
international law through its use of drones on the Afghan border. Alston
criticized the US's refusal to respond to date to the UN's concerns. Said
Alston, "Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is
that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing
significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in
terms of the relevant international laws."
Alston, however, acknowledged that the drone attacks may be justified
under the right to self-defense. He called on the US to be more open about
the program. Alston's report was submitted to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights the following day
The US representative at UNHRC has argued that the UN investigator for
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions does not have jurisdiction
over US military actions

4. Opinion of FATA Locals

The New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow have conducted
the first comprehensive public opinion survey covering sensitive political
issues in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. The
unprecedented survey, from June 30 to July 20, 2010, consisted of face-toface interviews of 1,000 FATA residents age 18 or older across 120
villages/sampling points in all seven tribal Agencies of FATA, with a margin
of error of +/- 3 percent, and field work by the locally-based Community
Appraisal & Motivation Programme.
More than three-quarters of FATA residents oppose American drone strikes.
Indeed, only 16 percent think these strikes accurately target militants; 45

percent think they largely kill civilians and another 39 percent feel they kill
both civilians and militants.

Statistical Data of Drone Attacks in Pakistan

The US ramped up the number of strikes in July 2008, and has continued
to regularly hit at Taliban and Al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan. There have
been 264 strikes total since the program began in 2004. From 2000-2005
there were only one drone strike each year,3 in 2006, 5 in 2007, 35 in
2008, 53 in 2009, 117 in 2010 and 49 ,so far, in 2011.
Of the 264 strikes since 2004, 182 have hit targets in North Waziristan,
and 67 have hit targets in South Waziristan, Khyber agency=5, Kurram=4,
Bannu=3, Bajaur=3, Orakzai=1.
Since 2006, there have been 2,080 leaders and operatives from Taliban, Al
Qaeda, and allied extremist groups killed and138 civilians killed.
The majority of the attacks have taken place in the tribal areas
administered by four powerful Taliban groups: the Mehsuds, Mullah Nazir,
Hafiz Gul Bahadar, and the Haqqanis. In 2010, there was a dramatic shift in
strikes to tribal areas administered by Hafiz Gul Bahadar.
The Pakistani government considers Nazir, the Haqqanis, Bahadar, and
Hekmatyar to be 'good Taliban' as they do not carry out attacks against the
Pakistani state. All of these Taliban factions shelter al Qaeda and various
other terror groups.

Critical Analysis:Positive Fallouts

1. Technological Advancement
As revolution in military affairs, UAVs offer the possibility of cheaper, more
capable fighting aircrafts that could be used for multipurpose tasking
without a life risk to aircrews.

2. Tactical advantage
The drones program is effective in terms of getting terrorist operatives in
places where there's limited reach or no accessibility.

3. Accuracy and Precision

Due to built in sensors and laser guided munitions the predator strikes are
accurate and precise in causing devastating effects to the desired target.

4. With the help of precision strikes predator strikes have successfully killed
top militant commanders and Al-Qaida operatives like Nek Muhammad,
Baitullah Mahsud, Ilyas Kashmiri etc.
5. No life loss to crew as the predator is operated without a pilot
6. Surveillance capability and updation of information of intelligence value.

Negative Fallouts
1. Sovereignty and Integrity
Compromising sovereignty and integrity as no international law permits
aggression and use of force against another sovereign nation.

2. Breeding suicide bombers/terrorist

US has become insensitive to the fact that carrying of drone strikes is in
turn giving a reason to the youngsters of the affected areas to join militant
groups and continue undertaking terror activities and suicide bombings
against them and Pakistan being its ally. In KPK 49.9% people (1499) have
been killed due to suicide bombing, 27.7% (834) in Punjab, 17.5%(562) in
FATA, and 5%(150) in other provinces.

3. Indiscriminate killing with no differentiation between

friend and foe
Although International protocol regarding Hot Pursuit Operations permits
haunt of terrorist with no geographical boundaries limitations however in
carrying out such practice no international or domestic law permits killing
of innocent civilians or non combatants

4. Anti state sentiments particularly against LEAs

These drone attacks are creating a sense of resentment against the state
as the tolerance level of effected has crossed the threshold over inability of
the state to counter or curb the violation and killings of people in tribal
regions due to drones.

5. Questions legality/ Jurisdiction of court over extra

judicial killings
No court of law is taking any action over such killings

6. Deteriorating image of country and terming as a terrorist breeding

nation
7. Strained relations with US
8. Condemn by Religious parties
9. Anti US Sentiments
10. Poses high alert and retaliatory situation for LEAs operating in such
territories.

Legal Implications/ Conclusions

Firstly, the rumors that the government of Pakistan might have signed a
secret agreement with the US is irrelevant and misleading because under
the Vienna Convention on Treaties, no such treaty is valid. Moreover under
Art 102 of the UN Charter, such treaties have no legal standing.
Secondly, the drone attacks in Pakistani territory are a serious violation of
the International Law as they are like attacking a sovereign country.
No judicial Inquiry has been over extra judicial killings caused by such
attacks.The domestic laws of both countries i.e US and Pakistan do not
allow extra judicial killing in any manner whatsoever the reason may be.
The United Nations charter doesnot allow any aggression or use of force
against another state
The International Humanitarian Law clearly differentiate between a
Combatant and a non combatant or a civilian whereas these attacks are
carried out indiscriminately without having any regard for the rule of law
There might be different interpretation of the term Intervention but at
least four considerations are to be taken into account for determining its
validity on moral and legal grounds.
a. Proportionality.
b. Distinction of target.
c. The agent carrying out the strikes.
d. The process or manner in which targeting decisions are made.
US drone attacks fall short on all above mentioned accounts. Thats the
reason why NATO doesnt openly support them and declares them as
Amercian Operations. Different humanitarian organizations and the UN
secretary General has shown their concerns over the issue.
The term used by the US Unlawful Combatants is not mentioned
anywhere in the international Humanitarian Law (the Law of War). No
inquiry has been made as to what had been the actual targets of such
attacks. The rule of law prohibits extra judicial killings in each and every
circumstances and unlike International Humanitarian Law, the International
Human Rights Law remain intact in all kinds of situations (war or peace).

Therefore, on the above grounds, drone attacks inside Pakistan territory

can not be justified on any grounds whatsoever.

Recommendations
1. Operation within our territory is the responsibility of state therefore
drone technology be transferred to Pakistan for carrying out operation even
in the airspace by LEAs themselves instead of US.
2. Sharing of Information between ISI & CIA to minimize collateral damage
and avoid incidents of targeting own check posts/Border Outposts and a
previous incident of innocent killings during a jirga.
3. Sending strong Message by Pakistani representatives at all international
forums highlighting the issues.
4. Constitution of commissions to inquire extra judicial killings and
document the decree for presentation at UNHRC and all forums for its
pursuance.
5. US be asked to avoid delivery of toxic/chemical munitions through
hellfire missiles as it bears negative externalities by causing severe skin
diseases to the nearby populace.
6. Elimination of all acts which gives US a reason to carryout drones

Haqqani Network:The Haqqani Network is an independent insurgent group originating in

Afghanistan that is closely allied with the Taliban. Maulvi Jalaluddin Haqqani
along with his son Sirajuddin Haqqani lead the Haqqani network, which is
based in the AfghanistanPakistan border areas. According to US military
commanders it is "the most resilient enemy network" and one of the
biggest threats to NATO and United States forces in Afghanistan. Some
notable US officials have alleged that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI) service has been enabling the network. Rehman Malik, Pakistan's
Interior Minister, refuted the allegations and said that Pakistan had no
relations with the network and that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
had "trained and produced" the Haqqani network and other mujahideen
during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Malik's statements were contradicted
by the network's warnings against any US military incursions into North
Waziristan and by the Pakistan Army's public acknowledgement of contacts
with the Haqqanis.The Haqqanis hail from the Zadran qaum (tribe), who
are mostly based in Paktia and Khost provinces in the east of
Afghanistan.The group has been active mainly in the east of Afghanistan
in Paktia, Paktika, Khost, Ghazni Wardak and even Kabul provinces.

Critical Analysis:-

The New York Times reported in September 2008 that Pakistan regards the
Haqqani's as an important force for protecting its interests in Afghanistan
in the event of American withdrawal from there and therefore have been
unwilling to move against them. Pakistan presumably feels pressured that
India, Russia, and Iran are gaining a foothold in Afghanistan. Since it lacks
the financial clout of these other countries, Pakistan hopes that by being a
sanctuary for the Haqqani network, it can assert some influence over its
turbulent neighbour. In the words of a retired senior Pakistani official:
"[We] have no money.
All we have are the crazies. So the crazies it is." The New York Times and
Al Jazeera later reported in June 2010 that Pakistan's Army chief General
Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and chief of the ISI General Ahmad Shuja Pasha
were in talks with Afghan president Hamid Karzai to broker a powersharing agreement between the Haqqani network and the Afghan
government. Reacting to this report both President Barack Obama and CIA
director Leon Panetta responded with skepticism that such an effort could
succeed. The effort to mediate between the Haqqanis and the Afghan
government was launched by Pakistan after intense pressure by the US to
take military action against the group in North Waziristan. Hamid Karzai
later denied meeting anyone from the Haqqani network. Subsequently
Kayani also denied that he took part in these talks.
According to a July 2011 report published by West Point's Combating
Terrorism Center, the network acts as a key facilitator of negotiations
between the Pakistani government and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and as
the "primary conduit" of many Pakistani Taliban fighters into Afghanistan.
In September 2011, Sirajuddin Haqqani claimed during a telephonic
interview to Reuters that the Haqqani network no longer maintained
sanctuaries in northwest Pakistan and the robust presence that it once had
there and instead now felt more safer in Afghanistan: "Gone are the days
when we were hiding in the mountains along the Pakistan-Afghanistan
border. Now we consider ourselves more secure in Afghanistan besides the
Afghan people." According to Haqqani, there were "senior military and
police officials" who are aligned with the group and there are even
sympathetic and "sincere people in the Afghan government who are loyal
to the Taliban" who support the group's aim of liberating Afghanistan "from
the clutches of occupying forces." In response to questions from the BBC's
Pashto service, Siraj denied any links to the ISI and stated that Mullah
Omar is "our leader and we totally obey him."
The group's links to Pakistan have been a sour point in Pakistan United
States relations. In September 2011 the Obama administration warned
Pakistan that it must do more to cut ties with the Haqqani network and
help eliminate its leaders, adding that "the United States will act

unilaterally if Pakistan does not comply." In testimony before a US Senate

panel, Admiral Mike Mullen stated that the network "acts as a veritable arm
of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency." Pakistan in return
rejected the notion that it maintained ties with the Haqqani network or
used it in a policy of waging a proxy war in neighboring Afghanistan; the
Pakistani interior minister also warned that any incursion on Pakistani
territory by U.S. forces will not be tolerated. A Pakistani intelligence official
insisted that the American allegations are part of "pressure tactics" used by
the United States as a strategy "to shift the war theatre." An unnamed
Pakistani official was reported to have said after a meeting of the nation's
top military officials that We have already conveyed to the US that
Pakistan cannot go beyond what it has already done".

Energy Crisis In Pakistan:

Causes, Recommendations,IPPs Stance & Its Repercussions

Introduction
In 1987, the Government of Pakistan (GOP) with the assistance of the World Bank formulated its
long term strategy for development of the power sector in reliable power would spur economic
growth. With energy demand growing at 12 percent and supply at 7 percent per annum. Load
shedding was rampant with consequential output losses for industry and agriculture. It was
estimated that the annual gap of 2000 MW of electricity cost the country approximately $1
billion per year in lost GDP. Electricity was available to only 40 percent of the population and
per capita consumption of 404 kWh was only 4 percent of that in the United States and 24
percent of consumption in Malaysia.

IPPs
Pakistan had to catch up fast and the development of new capacity became the top priority, but
the Government of Pakistan (GOP) lacked the funds for infrastructure development.
Consequently, the private sector was invited to develop new generating capacity. It was
rationalised that the private sector would not only supplement public sector generation, it would
also mobilise additional equity and debt resources and improve the efficiency in the energy
sector.
The new energy policy was implemented in a period of high political volatility in the early
1990s. The first Benazir Bhutto government (elected in 1988) was dismissed by President
Ghulam Ishaq Khan in 1992. She was succeeded by Nawaz Sharif who initiated a number of free

market reforms and also signed Pakistans first IPP contract for the largest power sector project
with the Hub Power Company in
1992. Disagreements with the President led to the dismissal of this government also, and an
interim government was installed which held fresh elections in which the second Bhutto
government was elected in November 1993. During its tenure, the Bhutto government signed a
number of IPP contracts under the 1994 Power Policy and in June 1996, Pakistans first private
sector power plant, the Hub Power Company (Hubco) came into operation.

Current Situation
Currently the situation Installed capacity is as following .
a. Total installed capacity 20681 MW
b. WAPDA hydel 6,555 MW (31%)
c. WAPDA thermal power, 4829 MW
d. RPPs 365 MW
e. PAEC 665 MW
f. IPPs 7644 MW
Currently Production is 11500 MW and Demand is 15500 MWAdditional quantity is not being
produced due to lack fundsand circular debt problem.IPPs and Wapda owned plants also have
lost efficiency now only producing 50% of full capacity and even less.Production of additional
quantity will cause Govt to increase rates due to increase in thermal factor(variable costs of
electricity produced by thermal varies between Rs 12 to 19,while by Hydel variable cost is less
than Rs1).So the result is rampant load shedding, blow to agriculture and industry and high
Social cost.

Impacts of IPPs
Impacts of IPPs are both positive as well as negative, positive impacts include:
a. Enhanced the capacity of power sector
b. Supported the economic activity from 2000 to 2007
c. Provided a cushion time to built long term power projects
d. Provided vital support in short span of time
Negative impacts include:
a. Bulk tariff ceiling instead of competitive bidding resulted in high tariffs
b. Increase in Thermal component also contributed toward price hike ,i.e. 60%
c. Lack of transparency in contracts as discussed earlier
d. Since 2001 though it has supported eco activity but due to oil price hike and increase in
thermal factor it has caused following problems :
a) Higher power tariff causing inflation especially after 2005-2006
b) Costly export goods
e. Low performance by old plants has aggravated power shortage
f. IPPs are not environment friendly and cause lot of pollution

Reasons for Power Deficit / Load Shedding

1. Lack of Adequate Investment after induction of IPPs resultantly No Capacity
Additions during 2002-2008.
2. No Worthwhile Foreign Investment, while there was reduced interest by Private Sector as
well, despite solicitations
3. As a Policy, Public Sector not allowed to add new capacity, fully banking on Private Sector,
which showed limited interest
4. Quantum Jump in Power Demand due to:
Consumption led growth strategy of 2002-2008
Unplanned Rural Electrification during 2002-2007
5. 8.53% Load Growth, even during the current international financial melt down.
6. Extra high Load Growth in Urban Areas, which is more than 20% in Karachi, Hyderabad,
Sukkur, Rahim Yar Khan, Bahawalpur, Multan, D.G. Khan, Faisalabad, Lahore, Gujranwala,
Rawalpindi/Islamabad and Peshawar.
7. Air-conditioning load in Pakistan is more than 5000 MW, while the average shortage is
around 3000 MW.
8. No major Hydel Plant due to lack of political consensus.
9. Diversion of Gas by SNGPL & SSGC, resultant shift to Oil, jacking-up cost of production,
loss and availability of generation upto 1,500 MW
10. No tariff increase from FY 2003 to FY 2007, in spite of steep rise in Oil prices resultant
financial strangulation of Power Sector
11. Non availability of Funds for development of Transmission & Distribution Infrastructure
and rehab of GENCOs - resulting in system constraints
12. Non-Bill Payment and Kunda Culture in major parts of the country hardened over the last
one decade
13. Extreme lack of political and administrative support from Provincial Governments

Power Sector Issues

1. Poor Recoveries & Piling Receivables (up to Dec 2009)
HESCO 56% and receivables Rs.45 billion (Receivables from Govt. of Sindh Rs.20.8
billion)
PESCO 80% and receivables Rs.27 billion
KESC Rs.49 billion after adjustments
2. Accumulated Circular Debt
Tariff artificially frozen during 2003-07 in spite of heavy dependence of oil and surge in its
prices and increase of cost of service
Insufficient provision of tariff differential subsidy
Non-payment by KESC, FATA and Provincial Govts.
3. Measures to address the Circular Debt Issue by the present Govt.

 DEBTCO established to assume loans of Power Companies (Rs.216 bln)

Issuance of TFCs (Rs.85 bln) to clear FATA arrears
Subsidy duly budgeted.
FATA dues duly budgeted
NEPRA Act amended.
Difference between cost of supply and tariff programmed to be bridged through:
Tariff increase in shape of Monthly Fuel Price Adjustment
Quarterly Tariff Determinations
4. ELECTRICITY GENERATION BY FUEL (excluding KESC)
a. From 2006-2007 = 18% by oil, 38% by Hydro, 41% by Gas, 3% by others.
b. From 2009-2010 = 37% by oil, 38% by Hydro, 22% by Gas, 3% by others.
c. World Average = 5.8% by oil, 16% by Hydro, 20.1% by Gas, 41% by coal, 14.8% by
nuclear, 3% by others.
5. CONSUMER MIX & CONSUMPTION PATTERN (excludes KESC) JUL 09-DEC 09
a. 7% commercial, 24% Industrial, 15% Agriculture, 48% Domestic, 6% others.
b. World Average Industrial Consumption is 42%
c. Customers PEPCO: 19.1 million and KESC: 2.0 million
6. Oil Handling Infrastructure
Present oil requirements is 30,000 ton per day, whereas on the average 24,000 ton oil had been
supplied
With new rentals and other thermal plants, this is going to increase further.
Additional infrastructure and arrangements are required to be made by Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Resources.
PSO to expedite acceptance of TPS Muzaffargarh Oil Farm (263,000 MTN) as mid-country
strategic reserves
7. Uncertainty of Oil Prices
Volatility in the oil prices directly affecting the viability and affordability of the sector.
8. Investment Required for Development of Indigenous Resources
Heavy Capital requirement for development of Indigenous resources of Hydro, Coal and
Renewable
9. Legal Issues
The Electricity Act nor supports the Sector legally to force recovery nor helps curb illegal
abstraction of energy.
Draft Energy Conservation Act of 2009 is devoid of any penalties for non compliance
Both Need change Drafts ready with PEPCO
10. Corporate Governance
Non Professional Management for over 10 years
Human Resource depletion forced by non professional management
Capacity Issues in every sub sector and activity
Lack of political support in non-performing DISCOs

 Capacity building of all stakeholders, specially NEPRA required

11. Security Issues
Security situation negatively affecting Foreign Investment in the Sector

Key Recommendations and Way Forward

1) Demand Supply Position
Demand will continue to grow by about 8%
Immediate capacity additions required
2) Supply Side and Demand Side Measures
Government guarantee and financial support is required to install matching capacity in Public
Sector otherwise load shedding will persist in view of lack of private sector appetite for
investment
3) Cost of Service & Affordability effect
For financial sustainability, full cost of service needs to be effected, which may increase the
tariff
The affordability issue needs to be addressed by targeted subsidies
4) Recoveries
Political and active Provincial Governmental support is required to help effect recovery of
outstanding dues, especially in HESCO, PESCO & QESCO
At source deduction be allowed to effect recovery of outstanding dues from Provincial Govts
and KESC
5) Efficiency Improvement and Theft Control
Political and active Provincial Governmental support is needed to control theft in HESCO,
PESCO & QESCO
Electricity Act & Conservation Act need to be amended to include penalty clauses on theft and
energy wastage
6) Allocation of additional gas
Immediate allocation of additional gas of 350 mmcfd be made to Power Sector.
If not done, the sustainability of Power Sector and affordability will be jeopardized
Availability of gas can save the day
7) Policies
Strategy to overcome the power crisis should be supported by the set of policy measures
Joint Session of Parliament be summoned to discuss energy crisis and how get out of it.

Geo Strategic Importance of Pakistan

Geo strategic means the importance of a country or region as by virtue of its

geographical location. Geo political is defined as, stressing the influence of

geographic factors on the state power, international conduct and advantages
it derives from its location.
Stephen Cohn describes this importance While history has been unkind to
Pakistan, its geography has been its greatest benefit. It has resource rich
area in the north-west, people rich in the north-east. Pakistan is a junction
of South Asia, West Asia and Central Asia, a way from resource efficient
countries to resource deficient countries.
The world is facing energy crisis and terrorism. Pakistan is a role for
transportation, and a front line state against terrorism.

Geographical Importance:
Bridge between South Asia and South West Asia, Iran and Afghanistan are energy abundant
while India and China are lacking of. China finds way to Indian ocean and Arabian Sea
through Korakaram. China with its fastest economic growth rate of 9%, is developing its
southern provinces because its own port is 4500 km away from Sinkian but Gawadar is
2500 km away.
Pakistan offers to CARs the shortest route of 2600 km as compared to Iran (4500 km) or
Turkey (5000 km) land locked Afghanistan now at the phase of Reconstruction, finds its
ways through Pakistan. Gawadar port with its deep waters attracts the trade ships of China,
CARs and South East Asian Countries. ASEAN.

Economic significance:
SAARC, ECO. Iran is struggling to export its surplus gas and oil to eastern countries: Qatar
Pakistan and Turkmenistan Pipeline projects highlights the position. Pakistan would get 400
million dollar annually if IPT gets success. Mountain Ranges: Himalayas, Hindu Kush in the
North are plentiful in providing water and natural resources.

Political importance:
US interests in the regions to contain the Growing China, nuclear Iran, terrorist Afghanistan,
and to benefit from the market of India. Security and Business are two main US interests in
the region while Pakistan is playing a front line role against terrorism. Today the political
scenario of the region is tinged with pre emption policy and US invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan. Irans nuclear program, Indias geopolitical muscles (new strategic deal with
US) to gain the hegemony and to counter the The Rise of China which has earned all the
qualities to change unipolar world into Bipolar world.

In all these issues, Pakistan is directly or indirectly involved, especially after Al-Qaeda
operations. The American think tanks have repeatedly accepted that war against terror
could never be worn without the help of Pakistan. Pakistan has rigorously fought, and
ongoing military operation in Wazirstan is also targeting the suspected Taliban in the
bordering area.

Main threats to Pakistan:

Terrorist in the border areas have tarnished image of Paskistan, fight with Pak-Army and
fear among the people.
Blame of Mumbai attacks on Pakistan.
Balochistan and Wazirstan conflicts are posing threats to any economic project like IPI gas
pipeline.
Negative role of India, US, Iran in this conflict ridden area.
Kashmir is flash point.
Decelerating nuclear race in the South Asia.
Instable governments in Pakistan have contributed in weakening the strong position.
Economic crisis is making Pakistan more dependent on US, like accepting of Kerry-Lugar
Bill
Pakistan army is engaged on western, eastern borders and against terroists.

lobal Warming
The warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a
long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We
are entering a period of consequences.
(Al Gore)
Global warming is when the earth heats up (the temperature rises). It happens when
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrous oxide, and methane) trap heat and
light from the sun in the earths atmosphere, which increases the temperature. This hurts
many people, animals, and plants. Many cannot take the change, so they die.

Explaination:Global warming refers to the rising average temperature of Earth's

atmosphere and oceans and its related effects. In the last 100 years, Earth's
average surface temperature increased by about 0.8 C (1.4 F) with about
two thirds of the increase occurring over just the last three decades.
Warming of theclimate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than
90% certain most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse

gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil

fuel. These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all
the major industrialized countries.
Climate model projections are summarized in the 2007 Fourth Assessment
Report (AR4) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
They indicate that during the 21st century the global surface temperature is
likely to rise a further 1.5 to 1.9 C (2.7 to 3.4 F) for their lowest emissions
scenarioand 3.4 to 6.1 C (6.1 to 11 F) for their highest. The ranges of
these estimates arise from the use of models with differing sensitivity to
greenhouse gas concentrations.
An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and will
change the amount and pattern of precipitation, and a probable expansion
ofsubtropical deserts. Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and
would be associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea
ice. Other likely effects of the warming include more frequent occurrence of
extreme weather events including heatwaves, droughts and heavy rainfall
events,species extinctions due to shifting temperature regimes, and changes
in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to
region around the globe, though the nature of these regional changes is
uncertain. In a 4 C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be
exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for
natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world. Hence, the
ecosystem services upon which human livelihoods depend would not be
preserved.
Proposed responses to global warming include mitigation to reduce
emissions, adaptation to the effects of global warming, and geoengineering
to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reflect incoming solar
radiation back to space. The main international mitigation effort is the Kyoto
Protocol, which seeks to stabilize greenhouse gas concentration to prevent a
"dangerous anthropogenic interference". As of May 2010, 192 states had
ratified the protocol. The only members of the UNFCCC that were asked to
sign the treaty but have not yet ratified it are the USA and Afghanistan.

Major contributors of the greenhouse gasses(Causes):

[B][B]1. Since the beginning of industrial revolution atmospheric concentrations of CO2
have increased nearly 30%, methane concentration more than double, NOx concentrations
have risen to about 15%. These gasses have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of

earths atmosphere.
2. The main reason of the increase in concentration of CO2 in last 150 years is the
combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities.
3. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production and minning also
contribute a significant share of emissions.
4. The level of CO2 enhanced from 210ppm to 360 ppm in last 150 years.
5. N2O is 6-8% contributor of the total; green house effect.
6. Increased use of aerosols and air coolants have raise the amount of chlorofluorocarbons,
which contributes 24% of the total green house effect.
7. Oxides of sulfur, which are obtained by burning fuel in the engines, are also a potential
hazard.
8. Due to high levels of CFCs the ozone layer which is a protective covering of the earth is
depleting and a hole has been observed in it on the arctic region. This depleted ozone also
increases the influx of solar light specially UV rays.

Some global indications and implications of rise in

temperature(Effects):
1. The snow covers in the northern hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic
Ocean have been decreased significantly.
2. Globally sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century.
3. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent.
4. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could raise
1-4.50C in the next 50 years and 2.2-100F in the next century with
significant regional climatic changes.
5. Evaporation will increase as climate will warm up, which will increase
average global precipitation.
6. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions and intense rainstorms
are likely to become more frequent.
7. Sea levels are likely to rise in most parts of the world.
8. Year 2008 was the hottest year on record.
9. Due to adverse climatic conditions wild life is becoming extinct.

Impact on Pakistan:
1. Pakistan produces less than 0.4% of the green house gasses which are
the major contributors of global warming.
2. Yet, it is the 12th country most at risk from the effects of global warming.

3. Karachi and twelve other mega-cities of Asia has been declared as

Atmospheric Brown Cloud (ABC) hotspots by the UN environment agency as
soot levels in these cities comprise ten per cent of the total mass of all manmade particles.
A three-kilometer-thick brown cloud of man-made pollution, which
stretches from the Arabian Peninsula to China to the western Pacific Ocean,
is making Asian cities darker, speeding up the melting of Himalayan glaciers
and impacting human health, says the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)
in a regional assessment report with focus on Asia. In addition to Karachi,
the UNEPs new publication points out Bangkok, Beijing, Cairo, Dhaka,
Kolkata, Lagos, Mumbai, New Delhi, Seoul, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Tehran
as being ABC hotspots.

Impact on global economy:

If you asked me to name the three scariest threats facing the
human race, I would give the same answer that most people would:
nuclear war, global warming and Windows.- Dave Barry
One widely publicized report on potential economic impact is the Stern
Review, written by Sir Nicholas Stern. It suggests that extreme weather
might reduce global gross domestic product by up to one percent, and that
in a worst-case scenario global per capita consumption could fall by the
equivalent of 20 percent.

Politics
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). The ultimate objective of the Convention is to
prevent "dangerous" human interference of the climate system. As is stated
in the Convention, this requires that GHG concentrations are stabilized in the
atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate
change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can
proceed in a sustainable fashion.
The Framework Convention was agreed in 1992, but since then, global
emissions have risen. During negotiations, the G77 (a lobbying group in the

United Nations representing 133

developing nations) pushed for a mandate requiring developed countries to
"[take] the lead" in reducing their emissions. This was justified on the basis
that: the developed world's emissions had contributed most to the stock of
GHGs in the atmosphere; per-capita emissions (i.e., emissions per head of
population) were still relatively low in developing countries; and the
emissions of developing countries would grow to meet their development
needs. This mandate was sustained in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework
Convention, which entered into legal effect in 2005.
In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, most developed countries accepted legally
binding commitments to limit their emissions. These first-round
commitments expire in 2012. US President George W. Bush rejected the
treaty on the basis that "it exempts 80% of the world, including major
population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would
cause serious harm to the US economy."
At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen,
several UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord. Parties associated
with the Accord (140 countries, as of November 2010) aim to limit the future
increase in global mean temperature to below 2 C. A preliminary
assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) suggests a possible "emissions gap" between the
voluntary pledges made in the Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to
have a "likely" (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 C
objective. The UNEP assessment takes the 2 C objective as being measured
against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To having a likely
chance of meeting the 2 C objective, assessed studies generally indicated
the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines
in emissions thereafter.
The 16th Conference of the Parties (COP16) was held at Cancn in 2010. It
produced an agreement, not a binding treaty, that the Parties should take
urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet a goal of limiting
global warming to 2 C above pre-industrial temperatures. It also recognized
the need to consider strengthening the goal to a global average rise of 1.5
C.

Pragmatic solutions to overcome this catastrophic change:

We are about half a century away from being ecologically and

economically bankrupt because of global warming stated Andrew
Simms while demanding Kyoto tax on U.S.
1. Mitigation of global warming is accomplished through reductions in the
rate of anthropogenic greenhouse gas release.
2. Many environmental groups encourage individual action against global
warming, as well as community and regional actions. Others have suggested
a quota on worldwide fossil fuel production, citing a direct link between fossil
fuel production and CO2 emissions.
3. There has also been business action on climate change, including efforts
to improve energy efficiency and limited moves towards use of alternative
fuels.
4. In January 2005 the European Union introduced its European Union
Emission Trading Scheme, through which companies in conjunction with
government agree to cap their emissions or to purchase credits from those
below their allowances.
5. Australia announced its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2008.
6. United States President Barack Obama has announced plans to introduce
an economy-wide cap and trade scheme.

Conclusion:
Political and public debate continues regarding climate change, and what
actions (if any) to take in response. The available options are mitigation to
reduce further emissions; adaptation to reduce the damage caused by
warming; and, more speculatively, geoengineering to reverse global
warming. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto
Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

National Unity
National Purpose (shared values and beliefs) envisages: (1) a prosperous
and peaceful country where all citizens have right to worship, life, property
and speech. (2) Equality of opportunity, with merit as the final standard for

all jobs/slots and not the disqualifier it is today. (3) Liberal/Tolerant Modern
State with an Islamic Ideology. (4) Welfare State with both the State and
private sector working in cooperation with each other with a strong
institutional framework encouraging individuals and businesses to support
less affluent classes. (5) Strengthening democratic traditions by creating a
real grassroots democracy.
National integration is a process of achieving national cohesion, stability,
prosperity, strength, and feelings of being united as a nation. Pakistan has
faced varying degrees of religious, ethnic, linguistic, and political problems
that are often in conflict with our national interest. To guard against all
external as well as internal challenges to the solidarity and security of
Pakistan, a well knitted and integrated nation is a must. Lack of confidence
and faith in the future of Pakistan speaks volume of our failings. All the
turmoil and unrest in the country cannot be entirely placed on the external
forces and our enemies. The brute and the savage force in an individual,
which is basically harnessed by positive aspects of education, tends to get
unleashed in different directions and causes serious disruptions within
society.
Hamza Amir in his book Pakistan-an overdeveloped state has revealed the
fact that after independence, the governing class was highly educated, on
the pattern of the British mind set, while on the contrary the masses were
miserable illiterate. This huge gap created management crisis. Uniform
development across the country over the past sixty years would have solidly
integrated the Pakistani nation but that did not happen due to absolute
incompetence, poor leadership and corruption at all levels. The price
Pakistan is paying for its neglect is in the shape of an internally disjointed
nation forced to suffer the present-day indignities in the shape of terrorism
and insurgency.

Factors responsible for current disintegrated nation

For too long, we have focused on our differences - in our politics and
backgrounds, in our race and beliefs - rather than cherishing the unity and
pride that binds us together. Numerous factors are responsible for the
current dismal state of affairs with regard to national unity in Pakistan. We
can categorize these factors on political, social, economic, religious
dimensions.

Feudal consider enlightenment as a challenge to their age old oppressive

hold over their surfs and have a greater stake in the status quo. Due to large
holding and weal is always politically active in decision making regarding the
common masses. Thus the power continues to flow from feudalistic order of
the society rather than a broad based popular public support. The Urban
leadership, mainly industrialists, is also following the footsteps of feudal
lords.
Sectarianism: with the introduction of religious status and exploration of
religion by various governments to legitimate their rule created held on this
Land of the Pure. Different sects manipulated by external actors, are engage
in alienating the simpleton Muslims from the true spirit of Islam and are
weakening the Muslim brotherhood, which is the real basis of Pakistan.
Pakistan has been divided between Enlightened and Conservative Muslims,
Particularly after 9/11 these opposing forces are putting all their energies to
falsify the other at the cost of national image and stability. Corruption is so
deeply rooted in our public and private life that it is threatening the very
fabric of our society. An individual finds no fair way to get his legitimate
rights and he feels frustrated against this set up of looking and cheating.
Caste/Tribal system: Centuries old cast and tribal system prevailing in all
provinces is very decisive in nature. It has fragmented the society and put
the people in the watertight compartments. The tribal chieftain, making full
use of their terrible ignorance and economic dependence, are pushing them
into the swamp of poverty and frustration. Bearded war Lords:
Lust for money and power with a robust desire to govern the country, some
of the religious leaders have turned Deeni Madresas into terrorists
organizations by attracting the poor youth to their free education program.
The few violent hands can dismantle the whole state structure, as is
frequently envisaged in suicide bombings.
Higher and costlier Educating is only providing the chosen elite control the
policy making process, thus excluding majority of deserving and passionate
youth converting them into frustrated souls.
Absence of quick and cheap justice has minimized the role of Law and order
agencies forced the victims to take vengeance by the dint of their own power
and introduced a culture of intolerance and violence.
The Colonial Masters integration of the society was detrimental to the vested

interested.
Since the independence, the ruling elite with the same colonial mind set
segregated the Pakistani society on ethnic, linguistic, sectarian issues and
kept them in the abeyance of poverty and illiteracy.
Inequitable Distribution of wealth fueled by the feudal, profit oriented
industrialists, biased policy makers aggravated the situation. The
concentration of wealth, contrary to the Islamic code, by 22 families in
1960s and 500 groups at present, has alienated the majority from assuming
positive role in nation building process.
Unsatisfied Federating Units:

Strong Center, first operated under the provisions of the British made 1935
Act alienated the small provinces, generated sentiments of separatism,
violence, distrust. Frequent failure of Counsel of Common Interest, National
Finance Commission, disputed water distribution and energy resources, the
right of royalty, inequitable job distribution, have endangered the security
and prosperity of the country. Attempts to keep unity under bayonet bring
short relief but unending unrest and brutalities. Insurgency in Wazirstan and
Balochistan, Foreign Elements, are alarming indicators to the national Army.
Controlled Media in Pakistan has been projecting flowery image of the state
while the demon of corruption, hatred, injustice, in violence, and deprivation
kept on infecting its foundations.

Effects of disunity:
The crisis of management has created an air of uncertainty, disloyalty,
frustration, and insurgency. The Pakistan Army is at war with its own people
in Balochistan and FATA. The fragmented Pakistan with internal weakness
and external threats is unable to refuse the Americans Orders, to get its
legitimate right of Kashmir, to secure its borders with Afghanistan.
Foreign investors, especially the overseas Pakistanis are examining the fear
factors in opening new ventures due to corrupt financial institutions and
violent groups. Consequently the vicious circle of poverty expands
aggravating the already inflamed situation. The secret agencies of enemy
countries find local terrorists to disrupt the system. Under the thick air of
jealousy, non construction of Big dams is pushing he country into dark ages.
A common citizen suffers worst type of corruption and thus is uninterested in

paying taxes. Social values, crime rate, and national patriotism, religious
satisfaction are fast disappearing with growing poverty. Disengage of citizen
in election process is a clear indication of general masses hatred against the
political, religious and military leadership. Individuals are becoming if
oriented, preferring their self interest to the national interest.

Pragmatic Steps:
Many steps can be taken at Government, Society, and Individual level to
fight the menace of disintegration and harness the much needed national
unity. To create physical asset by educating the masses, proper allocating
the land, credit, Zakat and Usher, ensuring cost effective provisions of basic
--------- Improved efficiency in the public and Corporate sectors to provide
rule of Law.
Independence of Judiciary will strengthen democracy, restore trust between
Center and Provinces, and facilitate quick dispensation of justice.
Depoliticizing of Public departments to avoid political pressures. Peace inside
and outside the borders will provide sufficient resource, skills and
opportunities to focus on the national prosperity. Media with its magical
power can unite the warring factions by minimizing the differences through
open debates. Stable democratic system to work for welfare state. Patriot
intellectuals writing to bring harmony. Accountability at all levels. Autonomy
to the Provinces. Awakening of Islamic ideology.
The political and military establishment must now understand that the
military potential of any country is multiplied manifolds when it is backed by
a nation that is well-integrated. An integrated nation can cover up for
military shortfalls but military strength cannot cover up for the shortfalls of a
nation that lacks integration and cohesion. The Soviet Unions break-up in
1991 is an example that amply illustrates this aspect. Pakistan must,
therefore, accord top priority to uniform development throughout the
country in order to have a nation that can back its enviable military potential
in a solid manner; if not, then all will be lost.
Following the example of the armed forces it is necessary that Pakistanis
learn to work with each other in all sectors of national life. Army units are
formed on the basis of amalgamating soldiers from different areas. For
example a battalion of the Frontier Force Regiment (FFR) does not consist of
Pakhtuns alone but has a component of soldiers from other parts of Pakistan
amalgamated with the Pakhtuns. Thus they become one solidly integrated

entity the Pakistan army. Pakhtun, Punjabi, Baloch, Sindhi and Kashmiri
fellow soldiers posted anywhere in the country then willingly die for each
other and for Pakistan; such is the level of integration. Sadly, one cannot say
the same about the rest of Pakistan.
In the light of the military experience it just might be a good idea if all
businesses, factories, corporate entities, service providers etc located in any
province are made to follow a regulated system that absorbs people of other
provinces so that a bonding interaction is brought about in the workplace.
Lastly, it is time to understand that Pakistan can no longer be ruled from
Islamabad by an ever-weakening, but imposingly dominant, centre. To
continue doing this will be a step in the wrong direction. There is now no
alternative to allowing complete, undiluted and effective autonomy to the
provinces

Some recent positive steps taken by the government

Through the historic 7th NFC Award, Provincial share of the divisible pool
would increase from the present 47.5 per cent to 56 per cent in the first year
of NFC (20102011) and 57.5 per cent in the remaining years of the award
under the vertical distribution of resources. He claimed that this share would
virtually be over 60 per cent. During Musharraf regime, provinces were
demanding for a 50% provincial share in the divisible pool. This is indeed a
positive step, provide that it is implemented in its letter and spirit.
Though Balochistan Package for the ever-neglected province, was a good
step in clearly right direction, but the lack of implementation on it, has
compelled the observers to term it as a futile exercise. Of the 61 major
steps envisaged in the package, only 15 have reached the stage of the full
implementation despite more than a dozen high-profile meetings, two of
them presided over by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
The 18th Amendment provided many steps for the provincial autonomy and
strengthening of democracy, which in turn will hopefully translate into
increased national unity. The constitutional reform package not only meets
the federating units demand for abolition of the Concurrent Legislative List it
also allows the units some say in respect of a few matters that have so far
been in the Federal List. The Amendment also envisages a most welcome

increase in the powers of the provincial assemblies.

In his recent trip to Balochistan in October, 2011, Prime Minister ensured the
Baloch people that implementation on the Aghaz-e-Haqooq package is
underway, and every obstacle in the path will be removed.
In a nutshell, sincerity of approach will emerge as the main factor. We need
to strengthen our political system and institutions, develop a dynamic and
sustainable growth, eradicate corruption, provide timely justice, enhance
employment, undertake steps for population control, seek consensus based
political solutions, and resolve ethnic, sectarian and religious fault lines. With
time running out, the failure to resolve the crises mean that there will be no
escape from the eventual dark reality of disintegration. Verily will never Allah
change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.

Natural Disasters in Pakistan

One year ago, Pakistan suffered the worst flooding in its history, a slowmoving disaster that left some 2,000 dead and another 11 million homeless.
Nearly one million are still without permanent shelter, and meanwhile, the
flooding has returned. Though it's not on the same scale as last year's flood,
this summer's damage is still significant. High water from monsoon rains has
killed more than 200 people since early August 2011, damaging or
destroying some 670,000 homes and affecting more than 5 million people,
according to the government and the United Nations. The disaster has once
again overwhelmed the capacity of the government to assist, and the UN has
asked for $357 million in international aid.

2010 Floods in Pakistan:The 2010 Pakistan floods began in late July 2010, resulting from heavy
monsoon rains in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Sindh, Punjab andBalochistan
regions of Pakistan and affected the Indus River basin. Approximately onefifth of Pakistan's total land area was underwater, approximately 796,095
square kilometres (307,374 sq mi). According to Pakistani government data

the floods directly affected about 20 million people, mostly by destruction of

property, livelihood and infrastructure, with a death toll of close to 2,000.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had initially asked for US$460 million
(420 million) for emergency relief, noting that the flood was the worst
disaster he had ever seen. Only 20% of the relief funds requested had been
received as of 15 August 2010. The U.N. had been concerned that aid was
not arriving fast enough, and the World Health Organization reported that
ten million people were forced to drink unsafe water. ThePakistani economy
was harmed by extensive damage to infrastructure and crops. Damage to
structures was estimated to exceed US$4 billion (2.5 billion), and wheat
crop damages were estimated to be over US$500 million (425 million).
Total economic impact may have been as much as US$43 billion (35
billion).

Causes:
The floods were driven by unprecedented monsoon rain. The rainfall
anomaly map published by NASA showed unusually intense monsoon rains
attributed to La Nia. On 21 June, the Pakistan Meteorological Department
cautioned that urban and flash flooding could occur from July to September
in the north parts of the country. The same department recorded aboveaverage rainfall in the months of July and August 2010 and monitored the
flood wave progression. Discharge levels were comparable to those of the
floods of 1988, 1995, and 1997. The monsoon rainfall of 2010, over whole
country, was excess of 87 per cent and was highest since 1994 and ranked
second highest during last 50 years of period.
In response to previous Indus River floods in 1973 and 1976, Pakistan
created the Federal Flood Commission (FFC) in 1977. The FFC operates
under Pakistan's Ministry of Water and Power. It is charged with executing
flood control projects and protecting lives and property of Pakistanis from
the impact of floods. Since its inception the FFC has received Rs 87.8 billion
(about 900 million USD). FFC documents show that numerous projects were
initiated, funded and completed, but reports indicate that little work has
actually been done due to ineffective leadership and corruption

Effects:1. Food

Floods submerged 17 million acres (69,000 km2) of Pakistan's most fertile

crop land, killed 200,000 livestock and washed away massive amounts of
grain. A major concern was that farmers would be unable to meet the fall
deadline for planting new seeds in 2010, which implied a loss of food
production in 2011, and potential long term food shortages. The agricultural
damage reached more than 2.9 billion dollars, and included over 700,000
acres (2,800 km2) of lost cotton crops, 200,000 acres (810 km2) of sugar
cane and 200,000 acres (810 km2) of rice, in addition to the loss of over
500,000 tonnes of stocked wheat, 300,000 acres (1,200 km2) of animal
fodder and the stored grain losses.
Agricultural crops such as cotton, rice, and sugarcane and to some extent
mangoes were badly affected in Punjab, according to a Harvest TradingsPakistan spokesman. He called for the international community to fully
participate in the rehabilitation process, as well as for the revival of
agricultural crops in order to get better GDP growth in the future.
In affected Multan Division in South Punjab, some people were seen to be
engaging in price-gouging in this disaster, raising prices up to Rs 130/kg.
Some called for Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited to write off all agricultural loans
in the affected areas in Punjab, Sindh and Khyber Pukhtunkhwa especially
for small farmers.
On 24 September the World Food Programme announced that about 70% of
Pakistan's population, mostly in rural areas, did not have adequate access to
proper nutrition.
Already resurgent in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and KhyberPakhtunkhwa province, agricultural devastation brought on by the floods left
Pakistan more susceptible to an increase in poppycultivation, given the
crop's resiliency and relatively few inputs.
2. Infrastructure
Floods damaged an estimated 2,433 miles (3,916 km) of highway and 3,508
miles (5,646 km) of railway and repairs are expected to cost at least 158
million USD and 131 million USD, respectively.Public building damage is
estimated at 1 billion USD. Aid donors estimate that 5,000 schools were
destroyed.
The power infrastructure of Pakistan also took a severe blow from the floods,
which damaged 10,000 transmission lines and transformers, feeders and

power houses in different flood-hit areas. Flood water inundated Jinnah

Hydro power and 150 power houses in Gilgit. The damage caused a power
shortfall of 3.135 gigawatts.
3. Taliban insurgency
It was reported that the flood would divert Pakistani military forces from
fighting the Pakistani Taliban insurgents (TTP) in the northwest to help in the
relief effort, giving Taliban fighters a reprieve to regroup. Helping flood
victims gave the US an opportunity to improve its image.
Pakistani Taliban also engaged in relief efforts, making inroads where the
government was absent or seen as corrupt. As the flood dislodged many
property markers, it was feared that governmental delay and corruption
would give the Taliban the opportunity to settle these disputes swiftly. In
August a Taliban spokesperson asked the Pakistani government to reject
Western help from "Christians and Jews" and claimed that the Taliban could
raise $20 million to replace that aid.
According to a US official, the TTP issued a threat saying that it would launch
attacks against foreigners participating in flood relief operations. In
response, the United Nations said it was reviewing security arrangements for
its workers. The World Health Organization stated that work in the Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province was already suffering because of security concerns.
An self-proclaimed Taliban spokesperson based in Orakzai told The Express
Tribune: We have not issued any such threat; and we dont have any plans
to attack relief workers." Nevertheless three American Christians were
reported killed by the Taliban on 25 August in the Swat Valley.
4. Political effects
The floods' aftermath was thought likely contribute to public perception of
inefficiency and to political unrest. These political effects of the floods were
compared with that of the 1970 Bhola cyclone. The skepticism within the
country extended to outside donors. Less than 20% of the pledged aid was
scheduled to go through the government, according to Prime Minister Yousuf
Raza Gilani, with the remainder flowing through non-governmental
organizations. The government's response was complicated by insurgencies
(in Balochistan and Waziristan), growing urban sectarian discord, increasing
suicide bombings against core institutions and relations with India.

5. Economic effects
On 7 September 2010, the International Labour Organization reported that
the floods had cost more than 5.3 million jobs, stating that "productive and
labor intensive job creation programmes are urgently needed to lift millions
of people out of poverty that has been aggravated by flood damage".
Forecasts estimated that the GDP growth rate of 4% prior to the floods
would turn to -2% to -5% followed by several additional years of belowtrend growth. As a result, Pakistan was unlikely to meet the International
Monetary Fund's target budget deficit cap of 5.1% of GDP, and the existing
$55 billion of external debt was set to grow. Crop losses were expected to
impact textile manufacturing, Pakistan's largest export sector. The loss of
over 10 million head of livestock along with the loss of other crops would
reduce agricultural production by more than 15%. Toyota and Unilever
Pakistan said that the floods would sap growth, necessitating production cuts
as people coped with the destruction. Parvez Ghias, the chief executive of
Pakistan's largest automotor manufacturer Toyota, described the economy's
state as "fragile". Nationwide car sales were predicted to fall as much as
25%, forcing automakers to reduce production in October2010 from the
prior level of 200 cars per day. Milk supplies fell by 15%, which caused the
retail price of milk to increase by Pk Rs 4 (5 US cents) per liter.

2011 Floods in Sindh

The heavy monsoon rains and the resulting floods have affected more than
5.4 million people in Sindh and Balochistan Provinces of Pakistan. In Sindh
23 districts have been affected to some degree. It is expected that the
population will continue to be uprooted from their homes to seek refuge in
the short term as more areas are affected. In Balochistan, five districts are
affected.

DAMAGES

At least 5.4 million have been affected

1.8 million people have been displaced (51% female)
21 out of 23 districts in Sindh have been affected
67% of food stock has been destroyed.

 In 16 districts, 72.6% crops damaged or destroyed while 36.2% livestock

is lost or sold.

Causes
In the month of July Pakistan received below normal monsoon rains;
however in August and September the country received above normal
monsoon rains. A strong weather pattern entered the areas of Sindh from
the Indian states of Rajasthan and Gujarat in August and gained strength
with the passage of time and caused heavy downpours. The four weeks of
continuous rain have created an unprecedented flood situation in Sindh.
The District Badin in Sindh province received record breaking rainfall of
615.3 millimeters (24.22 in) during the monsoon spell breaking earlier
recorded 121 millimeters (4.8 in) in Badin in 1936. The area of Mithi also
received record rainfall of 1,290 millimeters (51 in) during the spell, where
maximum rainfall was recorded 114 millimeters (4.5 in) in Mithi in 2004. The
heavy cloudburst during last 4872 hours displaced many people besides
destroying crops in the area. The Met Office had informed all district
coordination officers, Provincial Disaster Management Authority, chief
secretaries and chief ministers about the heavy monsoon rain-spell two days
earlier to take precautionary measures.
Qamar uz Zaman Chaudhry, Director General Pakistan Meteorological
Department said: "the rains in Sindh are the highest ever recorded monsoon
rains during the four weeks period of August and September, 2011. Before
the start of these rains in the second week of August, Sindh was under
severe drought conditions and it had not received any rainfall for the last 12
months. The last severe rainfall flooding in Sindh occurred in July 2003," he
said and added, "but this time the devastating rains of Mithi, Mirpurkhas,
Diplo, Parker, Nawabshah, Badin, Chhor, Padidan, and Hyderabad etc during
the four weeks period have created unprecedented flood situation in Sindh."
According to Dr. Qamar, the total volume of water fallen over Sindh during
the four weeks is estimated to be above 37 million acre feet, which is
unimaginable. The August monsoon rainfall, over province of Sindh (271 %
above normal) is the heaviest recorded during the period 19612011.

UN efforts for floods in Pakistan

The United Nations called for US$357 million to help the Government of

Pakistan provide life-saving assistance to more than 5 million people left

destitute by devastating monsoon rains and floods in Pakistan. The United
Nations Rapid Response Plan for 2011 aims to provide food, water,
sanitation, health, and emergency shelter to the worst hit families for six
months.
To date, the UN and its humanitarian partners have distributed more than
20,000 shelter kits and sets of household goods, as well as 530,000 plastic
sheets. More than 650,000 people have received medicines and medical
care, and 500,000 people will receive food aid by the end of September. The
UN also aims to provide 400,000 people with access to safe drinking water
over the coming days. Nonetheless, the level of need remains huge.

Analysis:1. Role of Government Institutions

When the flood reached the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the
government announced the evacuation of houses. This was initially refused
by many people, because hardly anybody believed in an upcoming disaster.
The refusal of people to leave their homes is also linked to local cultures and
traditions. Daily life takes place in the privacy of a familys home. Therefore,
the destruction of houses deprives families of housing place and, at the
same time, of a retreat, particularly for female family members.
After the flood struck the province with its full strength, the provincial
government was paralysed. It was a critical situation, as the government
had hardly any resources to provide aid to the people. It was the assistance
of the military (and its equipment, such as helicopters and boats) that
enabled the government to first rescue people and then provide food and
non-food items. By now, the provincial government has started different
relief activities in almost every constituency. Camps were established and
food was distributed. Besides the provisions of tents, government school
buildings were transferred into temporary shelters. Nevertheless, the help
given was not sufficient, since the province was, prior to the flood, already in
a state of war. Many people, particularly children and women, are mentally
disturbed and most vulnerable in this crisis. Despite all efforts by the
provincial government and other actors, such as NGOs, civil society or host
families, more resources and aid is urgently needed. In regard to the
upcoming winter season, however, the temporary tents are not sufficient any

more. There is a need of warm shelters, beds and blankets. The main need,
which cannot only be provided by the provincial government, is, however,
the beginning of a rehabilitation process.
So far, the provincial government has not received any financial support
from the federal government or international donors. The chief minister of
the province has already initiated a meeting with international donor
agencies to convince them of the necessity to help and support the people of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Regarding the ongoing war on terror in the region, it is
even more important to support this crisis-ridden province.
In general, Pakistan is in need of international support. Many regional
organisations, which help affected families, are charity based or depended
on external funding. Also the financial support of the Pakistan government
does not meet the needs of the people so far. The government has issued so
called Watan Cards with a balance of 20.000 Rupees (approx. 180 EUR) to
affected families. This amount is, however, not sufficient for the
reconstruction of houses. Thus, main problems are the rehabilitation and
reconstruction of houses and livelihoods, as well as the resettlement of
homeless people. If such processes are not initiated in the upcoming
months, a crisis after the crisis will emerge and aggravate the security
situation in the region. In this regard, Pakistan needs assistance by the
international donor community, also because the government lacks
functioning institutions to handle such issues.

2. The Flood as a Catalyst for Existing Crises

Pakistan is facing a multi-fold crisis: a food, fuel, fiscal, democracy, terrorism
and climate crisis. They are all interlinked and somehow extent the effect of
each other. The flood now multiplies the effect of these already existing
crises in the country. Prior to the flood, there was yet a food crisis in the
country. According to a report by the World Food Programme and
Sustainable Development Policy Institute released in June 2010, about 48
percent of Pakistans population is affected by food insecurity. After the flood
and its disastrous impacts, this crisis was aggravated and the number of
people rose to 60 percent.
Pakistan has been facing a deteriorating fuel crisis for many years, which
leads to energy shortage and blackouts. This crisis was in turn aggravated
by a lack of energy and lack of budgetary discipline. The flood threatened
some of the power plants, and the supply of natural gas and oil had to be

reduced because of standing water.

Furthermore, the fiscal crisis led to the reduction of funds for the Public
Sector Development Programme (education, health, agriculture, sanitation,
infrastructure etc.) in order to meet the needs for flood relief and
reconstruction. This drastic move, in turn, leaves half of the population,
which was not directly affected by the flood, economically vulnerable.
The democracy crisis became particularly visible in regards to the district
government system. During the flood crisis, the tenure of local governments
expired, but the election commission has not announced elections to fill
vacant government position of the districts. Thus, the lack of local
governments has a negative effect on the coordination of relief items and
reconstructions activities.
Furthermore, the security (terrorism) crisis is interlinked with the food crisis.
Those districts in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Mohmand Agency, North and South
Waziristan, Lower and Upper Dir, Shangla), Baluchistan (Dera Bugti), Punjab
(DG Kahn, Rajanpur and Muzaffargarh) and Sindh (Dadu, Jacobabad,
Shikarpur, Sukkur), which are facing a chronic food crisis, are also classified
as most insecure and dangerous districts regarding militancy or tribal
violence. At the same time, some of the districts are also the worst flood
affected areas which in turn aggravate the already existing crises.
Finally, the flood also has a serious ecological impact. The Indus River is a
habitat for rare and endangered species such as the Blind Dolphin. In the
course of the flood, barrages were opened and many dolphins could slip into
canals, where they died. Also mangroves in lower Sindh and forests in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were destroyed by the flood.

3. Civil-Military Relations
Currently, military and civil government institutions are struggling on issues
of distribution of relief aid. The question of dividing the government
resources is central. Different stakeholders battle for the greatest share of
resources which in turn undermines the efficiency of the state and its ability
to address problems.
Pakistans image on the outside, but also inside the country, is rather
negative. Both media and the establishment created an extremely negative
image of the governments crisis management and portrayed the military as
saviour of the people. However, in the case of Punjab, it was initially the
local government, not the military, that came to the peoples assistance.

Despite many problems, the government is not as incompetent as it is

always portrayed.
Nevertheless, the military is the only entity, which is prepared and equipped
for such an immense crisis. Regarding government expenditure on the
military (approx. 35-40% of government expenditures), it would be logical
for the government to use the military for emergency aid. Moreover, there
are just no alternative institutions, which could cater in case of floods,
earthquakes or other national emergencies. In case of civil-military relations,
it should be considered along the cost for deploying the military or the cost
of not having alternative institutions in such situations. However, Pakistan
and the international community need to esteem the value of the civilian
structure of the state which is, despite all inefficiency, committed to the
creation of a peaceful Pakistan. Thus, the key is to enable Pakistan to help
itself by building and strengthening its civil institutions.

Expectations, Needs and Challenges

Short term expectations:
1. Physical availability of food items therefore convincing policy makers to
open trade with India through Wagah Border (near Lahore)
2. Humanitarian relief items such as (warm) shelters, beds and blankets
3. Rehabilitation and reconstruction of houses and livelihoods
4. Ban of livestock export, since a huge number of people have lost their
animals
5. Assistance in the coordination of aid
Midterm expectations:
1. Land tenure arrangements, including redistribution and re-demarcation of
land. This bears problems of corruption and anger, since land tenure or land
ownership is not computerized.
2. Distribution of seed and fertilizers
3. Soil analysis for proper use of agricultural land
Long term expectations:
1. An overall agricultural policy including land reform (because 80% of land

is in the hands of only 20% of people), crop cultivation, size of land, access
to water etc.
2. Resettlement programmes for people who live near the rivers
3. Anti-corruption programmes
4. Programmes for the social sector such as education and health facilities
5. Support in regard to the war on terror and its impact on the society
6. Adjustment of aid policy of the international donor community, because it
is virtually an extension of the policy of the war on terror (For example,
Germany has concentrated its help only on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa although
other provinces are equally affected by the flood and problems of militancy)
7. Exchange of international donors, civil society and the government to
address and reassess the needs of the people in order to implement aid
programmes properly
8. Discontinuation of the sale of military equipment by supplier states
(fighter jets from USA and China, Negotiations on buying Submarines from
Germany and France). It is the responsibility of supplier states, which are at
the same time donors of aid, to prevent Pakistan to spend millions of dollars
for military equipment.
9. Exchange of regional experiences (India, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka)
towards the establishment of institutional and social structures and how to
meet natural disasters
10. Transparency in regard to the implementation of studies such as the
post-disaster survey Damage and Needs Assessment of the World Bank
and Asian Development Bank (e.g. objections in terms of validity of data)

Dengue Fever In Pakistan

Already cursed by floods and suicide bombings, Pakistan now faces a new
menace from an unprecedented outbreak of the deadly tropical disease
dengue fever.
According to Punjabs Health Department, the number of dengue-affected
people is 19,614; of them, 17,000 belong to Lahore. So far, 317 people have
died. This fever has spread rapidly among both rich and poor in Pakistans
cultural capital Lahore.
Dengue affects between 50 and 100 million people in the tropics and
subtropics each year, resulting in fever, muscle and joint ache.
But it can also be fatal, developing into haemorrhagic fever and shock
syndrome, which is characterised by bleeding and a loss of blood pressure.

Caused by four strains of virus spread by the mosquito Aedes aegypti, there
is no vaccine which is why prevention methods focus on mosquito control.
Pakistani authorities in Lahore have blamed the crisis on prolonged monsoon
rains and unusually high seasonal temperatures.
But furious locals say the outbreak is yet another example of government
inefficiency, citing a failure to take preventive measures to kill off the
mosquitos and lengthy power cuts.
In northwestern province Khyber Paktunkhwa, at least 130 people have been
diagnosed and six have died. Southern province Sindh has seen 400
suspected cases and six deaths.
Banners emblazoned with giant sketches of mosquitos and public warning
messages such as Eliminate dengue, Have peace are hung across avenues
and crossings in Lahore, a city of eight million.
At Lahore General Hospital, where most cases have been reported, the
corridors were packed with patients and relatives making it difficult to
breathe.Outside, medics set up large tents to accommodate family members
and patients waiting for treatment, offering some shelter in the sweltering
heat.Doctor Zafar Ikram said the hospital was working beyond capacity to
deal with the influx of patients.
I think more people are coming because there is greater awareness about
dengue due to the media spotlight and people are scared, so anyone with a
normal fever comes to hospital for the (dengue) test, Ikram told AFP.
At the Mayo hospital, hundreds of people queued up in front of registration
counters, giving blood samples and collecting reports.
Teams from the World Health Organisation and Sri Lanka are now helping
with the efforts. Schools and colleges initially shut have since reopened.

Government response
Government of Pakistan and Punjab, Pakistan are working on the preventive
measures to reduce the spread of the epidemic. The Government of Punjab
has opened a hotline called Punjab Health Line Project For Dengue which can
be reached at

0800-99000 FREE. This is to facilitate the circulation on

the signs and symptoms of dengue, reach for help for suspected cases and
ultimately help identify areas where the epidemic may have reached.
Spraying teams have been organized for the purpose of fumigating, spraying
and fogging areas where the Aedes mosquitoes have known to infect people

with the virus. Directions are in place for spraying especially in educational
institutes. The government threatened to take action against any private
school that did not observe to take these measures. Mobile teams operate
around the clock to treat affectees on the spot in rural areas. A Special
Tribunal for dengue directly reports to the provincial government. Chairman
Dengue Emergency Response Committee Khwaja Saad Rafique has also
advised private schools to spray twice a week. In early September 2011, the
Government of Punjab ordered the schools, colleges and universities in
thePakistan to close down for 10 days for intensive spraying. Article 144 has
been implemented in Lahore for the prevention of dengue. After an appeal
by the Punjab, Pakistan, private hospitals have agreed to provide free
treatment to dengue patients.

Sino-Pak Relations
People's Republic of ChinaPakistan relations began in 1950 when Pakistan
was among the first countries to break relations with the Republic of China
on Taiwan and recognize the PRC. Following the 1962 Sino-Indian War, both
countries has placed considerable importance on the maintenance of a
extremely close and supportive relationship. Since then, the two countries
have regularly exchanged high-level visits resulting in a variety of
agreements. The PRC has provided economic, military and technical
assistance to Pakistan and each considers the other a close strategic ally.
Bilateral relations have evolved from an initial Chinese policy of neutrality to
a partnership that links a smaller but militarily powerful Pakistan, partially
dependent on China for its economic and military strength, with China
attempting to balance competing interests in the region. Diplomatic relations
were established in 1950, military assistance began in 1966, a strategic
alliance was formed in 1972 and economic co-operation began in 1979.
China has become Pakistans largest supplier of arms and its third-largest
trading partner. Recently, both nations have decided to cooperate in
improving Pakistan's civilian nuclear program.
Favorable relations with China is a pillar of Pakistan's foreign policy. China
supported Pakistan's opposition to the Soviet Union's intervention in
Afghanistan and is perceived by Pakistan as a regional counterweight to
India and the United States. China and Pakistan also share close military
relations, with China supplying a range of modern armaments to the
Pakistani defense forces. China supports Pakistan's stance on Kashmir while
Pakistan supports China on the issues of Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan. Lately,

military cooperation has deepened with joint projects producing armaments

ranging from fighter jets to guided missile frigates.
Chinese cooperation with Pakistan has reached economic high points, with
substantial Chinese investment in Pakistani infrastructural expansion
including the Pakistani deep water port at Gwadar. Both countries have an
ongoing free trade agreement. Pakistan has served as China's main bridge
between Muslim countries. Pakistan also played an important role in bridging
the communication gap between China and the West by facilitating the 1972
Nixon visit to China.

Important events:1950 - Pakistan becomes the third non-communist country, and first Muslim
one, to recognize the People's Republic of China.
1951 - Beijing and Karachi establish diplomatic relations.
1963 - Pakistan cedes the Trans-Karakoram Tract to China, ending border
disputes.
1970 - Pakistan helps the U.S. arrange the 1972 Nixon visit to China.
1978 - The Karakoram Highway linking the mountainous Northern Pakistan
with Western China officially opens.
1980 - China and the U.S. provide support through Pakistan to the Afghan
guerrillas fighting Soviet occupational forces.
1986 - China and Pakistan reach a comprehensive nuclear co-operation
agreement.
1996 - Chinese President Jiang Zemin pays a state visit to Pakistan.
1999 - A 300-megawatt nuclear power plant, built with Chinese help in
Punjab province, is completed.
2001 - A joint-ventured Chinese-Pakistani tank, the MBT-2000 (Al-Khalid)
MBT is completed.
2002 - The building of the Gwadar deep sea port begins, with China as the
primary investor.
2003 - Pakistan and China signed a $110 million contract for the
construction of a housing project on Multan Road in Lahore.
2007 - The Sino-Pakistani joint-ventured multirole fighter aircraft - the JF17 Thunder (FC-1 Fierce Dragon) is formally rolled out.
2008 - Pakistan welcomes the Chinese Olympic Torch in an Islamabad
sports stadium, under heavy guard amidst security concerns.
2008 - China and Pakistan sign an free trade agreement.
2008 - Pakistan and China to build a railway through the Karakoram
Highway, in order to link China's rail network to Gwadar Port.
2008 - The F-22P frigate, comes into service with the Pakistani Navy.
2009 - The ISI arrest several suspected Uyghur terrorists seeking refuge in
Pakistan.
2010 - Pakistan and China conduct a joint anti-terrorism drill.

2010 - China donates $260 million in dollars to flood hit Pakistan and sends
4 military rescue helicopters to assist in rescue operations.
2010 - Wen Jiabao visits Pakistan. More than 30 billion dollars worth of
deals were signed.
2011 - Pakistan is expected to buy air to air SD 10 missiles from China for
its 250 JF 17 thunder fighter fleet

Background:While admitting the expansionist tendencies of Communist China in South

East Asia-hence Pakistan's membership in SEATO - Pakistan had shown little
concern over China as a threat to Pakistan itself. Pakistan was not only the
first country to recognise China but it always supported China's claim to the
Chinese seat in United Nations. Trading between the two countries began in
1950 and each year Pakistan turned to increase its export of cotton and jute
to China. Apprehension over Great Britain's possible entry into the European
common market had caused Pakistani salesmen to search for new market
everywhere, particularly in Asia. In 1963, Pakistan and china signed a new
trade agreement.
India attacked China but was beaten back. Chineese troops entered deep
into indian territory in the fall of 1962 and Indian troops retreated. The
brightening of Pakistan - China relations actually began when China and
India started quarelling over defined Himalayas borders. In 1961, Pakistan
approached China requesting negotiations over the borders of Azad Kashmir
and China. Before long, Pakistan took other steps to strengthen its relations
with China. In June, 1963, the head of Pakistan international Airlines visited
China to work out details of air service from Karachi and Dhaka to cities of
China.
At the same time, Chineese trade officials began arriving in Pakistan for new
talks. In february 1964, Chineese Premier Late Chou Enlai visited Pakistan
and declared that Communist China supported Pakistan's demand for a
plebicite in Kashmir.
In the serious business of international relations, the old Machiavellian
principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" Frequently guides a nation's
policy for communist China, friendship with Pakistan was not only valuable
but it fits the principle. In Chineese, Pakistan found a best and most reliable
friend. China always helped Pakistan economically and military when there
was no hope for external help. China also assisted Pakistan setting up a
number of factories in Pakistan including Larkana Sugar Mills, Taxila Heavy
Industries Complex. The relations between the two countries improved
gradually.

Pakistans Nuclear Program and Chinese Role:-

China helped Pakistan in developing its Nuclear program. though Pakistans

program is Uranium baseddifferent that that of China. Pakistan already has
a nuclear deal. China already has setup two nuclear power plants Chasnupp
1 (300 MW) and Chasnupp 2 (300 MW). The Chashma Nuclear Power Plant is
located at Chashma, Punjab, Pakistan. It consists of Chashma Nuclear Power
Plant I (CHASNUPP-1) and Chashma Nuclear Power Plant II (CHASNUPP-2).
CHASNUPP-3 (600MW under construction) and CHASNUPP-4 (2000 MW
planned to be completed before 2030) are in the planning stages. China
does not make any 1000 MW plants, so the Chasnupp 4 and Chasnupp 5 etc
will be much larger plants beginning in 2010. A series of these will be
constructed within the next five years. However this will not be done under
floodlights and hoopla. Pakistans Nuclear deal with the China is like the
American Nuclear deal with Israel. The Chinese help to the Pakistanis is like
the assistance the US provided to Britain and then to France to help their
Nuclear programs. Pakistan is not the proliferator of Nuclear weapons, it
takes the brunt of the blame for nonsensical and vindictive blame game.

Military Relations:The People's Republic of China enjoys strong defense ties with Pakistan. This
relationship between two adjoining Asian countries is important in the
world's geo-strategic alliances. The strong defense ties are primarily to
counter regional Indian and American influence, and was also to repel Soviet
influence in the area. In recent years this relationship has strengthened
through ongoing defence projects and agreements between Pakistan and
China.
Since 1962, China has been a steady source of military equipment to the
Pakistani Army, helping establish munition factories, providing technological
assistance and modernizing existing facilities. The countries are involved in
the joint venture of several projects to enhance military and weaponry
systems, which include collaborating in the development of JF-17 Thunder
fighter aircraft, K-8 Karakorum advance training aircraft, space technology,
AWACS systems, Al-Khalid tanks and the Babur cruise missile. The armies
have a schedule for organising joint military exercises.
China is the largest investor in the Gwadar Deep Sea Port, which is
strategically located at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz. It is viewed warily
by both America and India as a possible launchpad for Chinese naval
operations in the Indian Ocean. However the Gwadar Port is currently
delayed due to a multilateral diplomatic standoff between the project leaders
and the Singapore government.
China has offered Pakistan military aid in order to fight against terrorism in
Pakistan. Pakistan has purchased military equipment from China in order to
bolster their efforts against Islamic militants.
In the past, China has played a major role in the development of Pakistan's

nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls

in Western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and
uranium enriching equipment from elsewhere. China has supplied Pakistan
with equipment to advance their nuclear weapons program, such as the
Chinese help in building the Khushab reactor, which plays a key role in
Pakistan's production of plutonium. A subsidiary of the China National
Nuclear Corporation contributed in Pakistan's efforts to expand its uranium
enrichment capabilities by providing 5,000 custom made ring magnets,
which are a key component of the bearings that facilitate the high-speed
rotation of centrifuges. China has also provided technical and material
support in the completion of the Chashma Nuclear Power Complex and
plutonium reprocessing facility, which was built in the mid 1990s. China may
also have supplied nuclear technology to the Pakistanis, enabling Pakistan to
become a nuclear state with an estimated 100 warheads as of 2011.

Issues: East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) (also known as the Turkistan
Islamic Movement (TIM) is a Waziri based mujihadeen organization that is
said to be allied with the Taliban, which has received funding from rogue
elements in the ISI. As these militants are labeled as terrorists from the
Chinese province of Xinjiang, Pakistan's inability to prevent this is a potential
source of conflict.
The U.S. War On Terror has the Chinese wary of U.S. influence in the region,
and as Pakistan is a US ally and major recipient of US military and economic
aid, China is obligated to step up its support in order to maintain its
influence in the region. As political alliances shift, Pakistan may have allies in
the United States and China that may begin to see each other as rivals.
Similarly, the warming of Sino-Indian relations puts Pakistan's traditional
alliance with China against India at risk. While the level of cooperation
between Pakistan and China is far closer than that of India, it poses a future
problem for Pakistan-China relations.

2011 Hotan Attack:The 2011 Hotan Attack was a series of coordinated bomb and knife attacks
that occurred in Hotan, Xinjiang, People's Republic of China on July 18,
2011. While many had always suspected Pakistani involvement in terrorism
in Xinjiang, the 2011 Hotan attack marked the first incident of
acknowledgement of this by authorities in China.

Analysis of Pak-US vs Pak-China relations:Decision makers in Pakistan are often torn between opting for strategic

relations with the US or China: ties with either of the two should be mutually
exclusive. However, as Pakistanis wonder whether Pakistan is a US ally or
target, China with its quiet unobtrusive help continues to win the hearts and
minds of the people of Pakistan. The question here is, why is it that the US
continues to pump money, train Pakistani security forces and provide
technical support, yet it continues to draw flak? It is worth examining the
reason for this dichotomy.
The Pak-US military relations have been like a rollercoaster ride. Historically,
no US ally has faced as many sanctions from it as Pakistan. A brief history of
the Pak-US military relations indicates that they commenced in 1954/55,
with the signing of the SEATO/CENTO pact, after which Pakistan started
receiving weapons and training from America. In July 1957, Pakistan
permitted the US to establish a secret intelligence facility in the country and
for the U-2 spy plane to operate from Badaber, near Peshawar. But when the
plane was shot down by the Soviet army and its pilot captured alive on May
1, 1960, it embarrassed the US and brought Soviet ire on Pakistan. Since
the Pakistani government was kept in the dark regarding the clandestine US
operations, it asked the US to wind up its activities in Pakistan.
During the Indo-China war in 1962, the US supply of defence equipment to
India, despite Pakistans objections, soured the Pak-US relations. On the
contrary, the US did not come to Pakistans aid either in the 1965 or the
1971 Indo-Pak wars, despite a pact for mutual defence, forcing Pakistan to
denounce its SEATO and CENTO membership. In addition, the Pak-US
relations underwent a severe blow with Pakistans nuclear tests on May 28,
1998, and the ensuing sanctions. The ouster of then premier Nawaz Sharif in
1999 in a military coup led by General Musharraf gave the US government
another reason to invoke fresh sanctions under Section 508 of the Foreign
Appropriations Act, which included restrictions on foreign military financing
and economic assistance.
Now let us examine Pak-China relations briefly. The relationship between the
two countries began in 1950s when Pakistan was among the first countries,
and the only Muslim nation, to recognise the Peoples Republic of China and
tried to build good relations with the newly independent country. Pakistan
also helped China become a member of the United Nations and has been
instrumental in helping it to maintain relations with the Muslim world. It has
also played a leading role in bridging the communication gap between China
and the West, through Henry Kissingers secret visit in 1971, which became
the forerunner of President Nixons historic Beijing tour, establishing to the
world that China was a lawful entity.
Today, China has come a long way from those turbulent times. It is a factor

of stability in the region; is the worlds most populous and industrious

nation; the worlds third largest economy and trading nation; has become a
global innovator in science and technology; and is building a world class
university system. It has an increasingly modern military and commands
diplomatic respect. In this period of global economic meltdown, China not
only has a stable economy, but it also holds roughly $1.5 trillion in US
assets, which is at least 65 percent of Chinas total foreign assets, and it is
the second biggest foreign holder of US debt after Japan.
Pakistan and Chinas joint ventures to produce JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft,
K-8 Trainer aircraft, Al-Khalid Tank and F-22 Naval Frigates have given a new
dimension to the cooperation between the two countries in the field of
defence. Heavy Rebuild Factory (HRF) at Taxila, Pakistan Aeronautical
Complex at Kamra was also established with Chinese assistance. The
Karakoram Highway, the strategic port of Gawadar and the Chashma nuclear
reactors are a manifestation of Chinas sustained interest in Pakistan.
The problem with the Pak-US relationship is mainly because of trust deficit.
The US announces a strategic partnership amid much fanfare, and admits
its past mistakes in dealing with Pakistan; however, at the first hint of
trouble, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatens Pakistan of severe
consequences. The drone attacks continue and despite Pakistans serious
commitment and sacrifices in the war against terrorism, Washington expects
it to do more. Strategic partnerships are undoubtedly based on sterner
foundations.
Compared with the US, look at Pakistans partnership with China where
billions of dollars worth of projects are launched without fanfare and without
insensitively reminding Pakistanis everyday about the aid or asking for
audit reports. The treatment meted out to Pakistanis, or even Pakistaniorigin US citizens, at the US airports leaves a lot to be desired. The Chinese
want to help Pakistan in building its infrastructure; have been there at every
moment of trial and tribulation; and have never put restrictions on aid, nor
levied sanctions on Pakistan. It is, thus, obvious that Pakistan considers
China a more reliable and trustworthy ally.

Pakistan India Relations

Introduction:Soon after their independence, India and Pakistan established diplomatic
relations but the violent partition and numerous territorial disputes would
overshadow their relationship. Since their independence, the two countries

have fought three major wars, one undeclared war and have been involved
in numerous armed skirmishes and military standoffs. The Kashmir dispute
is the main center-point of all of these conflicts with the exception of the
Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, which resulted in the secession of East Pakistan
(now Bangladesh).
There have been numerous attempts to improve the relationshipnotably,
the Shimla summit, the Agra summit and the Lahore summit. Since the early
1980s, relations between the two nations soured particularly after the
Siachen conflict, the intensification of Kashmir insurgency in 1989, Indian
and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 and the 1999 Kargil war. Certain
confidence-building measuressuch as the 2003 ceasefire agreement and
the DelhiLahore Bus servicewere successful in deescalating tensions.
However, these efforts have been impeded by periodic terrorist attacks. The
2001 Indian Parliament attack almost brought the two nations on the brink
of a nuclear war. The 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, plotted by an
Indian Army officer which killed 68 civilians (most of whom were Pakistani),
was also a crucial point in relations. Additionally, the 2008 Mumbai attacks
carried out by Pakistani militants resulted in a severe blow to the ongoing
India-Pakistan peace talks.

Background: Born out from the furnace of animosity, India and Pakistan, the twin brothers
have a history of unique relations. There is much in common between
Republic of India and Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The diplomatic relations
developed soon after independence but these relations did not ensure good
friendship. The blaming process started soon after the inception of Pakistan
when during the worlds biggest mass migration both states were unable to
provide security to minorities. At that time there were 682 princely states
and their future was to be decided according to their own will. Junagadh and
Kashmir are two of these states which are still a bone of contention between
India and Pakistan. Junagadh was composed of 88% Hindu Majority with a
Muslim ruler named Nawab Mahabat Khan. The ruler voted for Pakistan but
India did not accept it on the plea of heavy Hindu majority. The other reason
projected by India was that the state of Junagadh was encircled by Indian
state and giving it to Pakistan would contradict the two nation theory. The
stand of Pakistan was on the basis of the Muslim ruler and the maritime link
of Pakistan with junagadh coastal line.
One the other hand, the ruler of Kashmir, Hari Singh, wanted to join India
but the majority of Muslim population was in the favour of Pakistan.
Maharaja Hair Singh made a stand still agreement with the Government of
Pakistan. However, the rumoures spread in Pakistan that Mahraja Hari Singh
was going to accede with India. The forces of Pakistan invaded in Kashmir in
1947 and Hari Singh asked India for help. Indian Armed forces violating the

provision of their constitution entered into the jurisdiction of Kashmir. In

1947, Pakistan acquired Azad Kashmir and India captured state of Jammu
and Kashmir. Both of these parts are being held by the same countries which
occupied these states forcefully.

1965 and 1971 Wars:The Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 was a culmination of skirmishes that took
place between April 1965 and September 1965 between Pakistanand India.
This conflict became known as the Second Kashmir War fought by India and
Pakistan over the disputed region of Kashmir, the firsthaving been fought in
1947. The war began following Pakistan's Operation Gibraltar, which was
designed to infiltrate forces into Jammu and Kashmir to precipitate an
insurgency against rule by India. The five-week war caused thousands of
casualties on both sides. It ended in aUnited Nations (UN) mandated
ceasefire and the subsequent issuance of the Tashkent Declaration.
1971 was a black year in the history of Pakistan as she lost its eastern wing
as India intervened to favour Bengali people and seized the Qasim part. 90,
000 Pakistani soliders surrendered in Bangladesh. In July 1972 P.M India
Gandhi and PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met in Indian Hill station of Simla and
signed an agreement to return 90, 000 Pak personnel, and that India would
get its captured territory in the west. They also agreed that from then on,
they would settle their disputes through peaceful bilateral negotiations.
Eventually, the trade relation restarted in 1976 but the Afghan crisis of 1979
again disrupted the peaceful process started in 1976.
Pakistan supported Taliban and India favoured Soviet Union. India was also
worried about US military aid to Pakistan, Pakistans purchase of arms from
us and the advancement in her nuclear programme. The change in
leadership brought a new era of relation between the two rivals. In Dec 1988
Benazir Bhutto Shaheed and Rajiv Gandhi resumed talks on different issues
melding cultured exchange, civil aviation and not to attack each other
nuclear facilities. At that time BB said.
Burry the Hatchet; we have had enough of it. Lets start a new chapter.
India has a new generation leadership. Rajiv & I belong to a new generation.
We have some kinship. He father was assassinated and so was my father. He
lost his brother and so have I we both can start from clean state.
In 1997, high level talks were resumed after 3 years. Prime Minister of India
and Pakistan met twice and foreign secretaries conducted 3 rounds of talks
in which they identified 8 outstanding issues to focuss. These 8 issues were
Kashmir issue
Water crisis
Sir creek issue
Rann of kutch
MFN status

 Siachen issue
State sponsored issue
Nuclear Deterrence
In September 1997 the talks broke down on structural issue where as in May
1998 the situation became harder because of nuclear experiment conducted
by Pakistan. The environment further became deplorable when Indian Air
lines Flight IC 814 was hijacked in 24 Dec 1999. The plan landed in Lahore
for refuelling but the final destination was Kandhar, Afghanistan. Rivalry
increased when attack was conducted on Indian parliament on Dec 2001.
India blamed Jash-e-Mohammad for that act. The Samjhota express carnage
of 18th February 2007 added fuel to fire. The series of blaming each other
started again where as Pakistan tried to project cordial relations.

Mumbai Attacks:In Nov, 2008, a series of ten co-ordinated attacks were committed by
terrorist which began across Mumbai which is the Indian financial capital and
the largest city. The attack was started on 26 November 2008 and ended on
29 November 2008. In these attacks 173 people were killed including 35
foreigner where as 38 were wounded. India blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba and
gave evidences that weapon, candy wrappers, telephone sets and branded
milk Packets used by the terrorists belonged to Pakistan. But it was also
found that the terrorist were drunk as the Lashkar-e-Taiba elements did not
drink, and were speaking Hyderabadi language. Additionally, Hermant
Kurkure was the first man to be murdered in that attack. He was the man
who was on the hit list of Indian Dons because he arrested General Parohit,
who was the master mind of Samjhota Carnage. Another reason was that
Obama Discussed to solve Kashmir issue to bring stability in the South Asian
region. This attack was done to divert his attention. The lok sbha election
could not be ignored as the current government needed the Pakistan card to
flame the sentiments of Indian masses.
In spite of this deteriorated situation Pakistan did not give up to create
friendly atmosphere. Currently, the government of India is not that much
brutal. Recently Indian minister of state for external affairs said they were
not worried about Pakistan purchasing of armaments but if these weapons
will be used against India, they were ready to fight. In addition, Pakistan
nukes were unsafe.
Bit recently the statement of Indian Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor
regarding his armys capacity to fight on two fronts, upset a lots of people in
Pakistan. This also shows that there is a conflict of interest between Indian
army and Indian Government.
India and Pakistan must work jointly to coeate a peaceful atmosphere.
Sharing a long border with common geographic importance can increase to
their worth if the joint venture is adopted.

Recent Development:Pakistan has, in principle, decided to grant Most-Favoured Nation (MFN)

status to India. This is an important step in improving trade ties between the
two countries. India has already granted MFN status to Pakistan and recently
also dropped its objection to Pakistans request for market access to the
European Union at the World Trade Organisation forum. Both steps will help
create the environment for Pakistan and India to begin to explore new
avenues for bilateral trade while overcoming the thorny issues that dominate
mainstream discourse. It is time for Pakistan and India to focus on identified
doables including moving to a negative list approach in tariff lines. During
the most recent commerce secretary, commerce minister and foreign
minister level talks, an effort has been made to create institutional
mechanisms and prepare a road map to make the peace process irreversible
and structured and create an enabling environment for bilateral trade. Other
proposals such as the trade of electricity and petroleum products between
the two countries are also under discussion and one hopes that the
feasibility, scope and modalities of such trading will be seriously considered.
With the granting of MFN status, India and Pakistan entering into a mutually
agreed preferential trade arrangement to promote trade by extending tariff
concessions on products of export interest to both countries has become a
real possibility. Up until now, Indias contention was that Pakistan should first
honour its existing international commitments like granting MFN status to
India as per the Agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area before exploring
new trading regimes. Now that we may be about to cross this bridge, we can
look ahead to greater cooperation on trade, which can certainly help lay the
groundwork for movement on the more tricky issues.

Pakistan Iran Relations

Apart from being a neighbour, Iran is the only country with which Pakistan
has had age-old relations, based on cultural, ethnic, and spiritual links.
Pakistan shares over 900 kilometres common border with Iran. Traditionally
Pakistani frontiers with Iran have always been peaceful, safe, and secure.

Since 1947: Since Iran had its security concerns from the expansionist designs of former
Soviet Union and an uneasy relationship with Arab world, therefore,
emergence of a none-Arab Muslim country on its neighbourhood provided

her reprieve and reinforced its security. Whereas, Pakistan, otherwise

agonized of Indian aggression and hostile Afghanistan, took Iran as its
strategic partner that was amply demonstrated by Iran during 1965 and
1971, Indo-Pak wars. It also militarily assisted Pakistan in the initial days of
its independence. Both became partners of Western backed defence pacts
during the initial days of the cold war.
First Pakistani Premier Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan visited Iran in 1949 and Iranian
Shah reciprocated that in 1950, as the first foreign head of a state. It is
worth mentioning that, Pakistani National Anthem was played first time in
the honour of Shah Iran in 1950. In a way there established a relationship of
interdependence between both brotherly Islamic countries right from the
inception of Pakistan. Thereafter both countries maintained their bilateral
relationship in an atmosphere of Islamic brotherhood and as good
neighbours, with mutual acceptability. Along with Turkey, Pakistan and Iran
established Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD), an intergovernmental organization for socio-economic development in the member
countries in 1964. The organization was renamed as Economic Cooperation
Organization (ECO) in 1985 and its membership increased to ten in early
1990s by including Central Asian States and Afghanistan. In either of its
form, the organization further reinforced the bi-lateral and multi-lateral
relationship between Iran, Pakistan, and other regional Muslim countries.
Following the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, Pakistan was the first
country, which recognized Revolutionary Iranian Government. Pakistan sent
a high-level delegation under Foreign Minister to assure Iran that, it intends
further cementing its traditional relations with the later. It welcomed the
Islamic Revolutionary Government in Iran. President General Ziaul Haq was
among the first few heads of states, who visited Iran as a good will gesture
in 1980 and again in 1981.
During Iran-Iraq war, Pakistan made hectic efforts to negotiate a deal
between two Islamic countries to end the war. Indeed, Pakistani suggestions
later became the basis for ending the war in 1988. Moreover, Pakistan
provided morale and diplomatic support to Iran even during the critical
stages of the war that annoyed Iraq and Arab world with it. Pakistan also
persuaded Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries to normalize their relations
with Iran that at times was viewed with suspicion by these countries.
Moreover, it convinced United States not to become hostile to Iran on the
issue of its hostages. US indeed wanted to launch a physical attack on Iran
to end the crises of its hostages in Iran. Unfortunately, both countries
developed minor divergences over the interim setup in Afghanistan upon
withdrawal of Soviet Union and later on the issue of the support to Taliban by
Pakistan and Northern Alliance by Iran and India. Considering these

differences, Iran did not support Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, once the
later was presenting a resolution in United Nations on Human Rights
violations in Kashmir in 1996. It was a serious setback to Pakistani efforts
and India which had already developed its relations with Iran, got an
opportunity to fish in trouble waters, for its own strategic interests.
Thereafter, Indian spying agency RAW, made inroads into Balochistan and
other parts of Pakistan for causing internal destabilization, which is
continuing unabated even today.
On its part, Pakistan however, continued maintaining its brotherly relations
with Iran. Pakistan always has persuaded Iran on a number of occasions for
the reconciliation to shun the differences. Pakistan also tried to convince Iran
that the enemies of both have spread these misperceptions, may be for the
time being portraying as their friend. It whole-heartedly supported Iranian
viewpoint on the issue of its controversial nuclear programme. Through a
progressive reconciliation and diplomatic efforts, both countries come closer
to each other in last few years. Regretfully, on October 18, 2009, a suicide
attack allegedly of Jundallah militant group killed over forty people including
senior commanders of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in Sistano-Balochistan.
The people and the Government of Pakistan strongly slammed the attack
and shared the grief and sorrow of the Iranian people over the massive loss
of innocent lives. Regretfully, immediately after the terrorist attack, a
number of Iranian leaders and high-level officials including supreme leader
pointed fingers at Pakistan. Pakistan Government however strongly negated
its involvement in the attack and assured Iran for an all out support to trace
and punish all those responsible for the attack if found on Pakistani soil. The
incident however deteriorated the steadily improving relationship between
two brotherly Muslim countries. Nevertheless, an unanalyzed allegation from
senior Iranian leadership has provided a serious setback to the sincerity of
Government and the people of Pakistan. Indeed, after the Mujahedeens
interim Government and later Talibans taken over of Afghanistan, India was
practically evicted from that soil. Thereafter, it needed some space for the
promotion of militancy in Pakistan. This was only possible by creating a rift
in the bilateral relationship of Iran and Pakistan, who over the years, have
been considering Afghanistan as their strategic rear, of course not on
physical terms. Yet, the concept perhaps misled both in 1990s, once they
were endeavouring to secure their respective interests.
Now once that phase is over, there is a need to learn from the past for a
positive move forward through consensus building. Under the changed global
environment, there is a need that both countries to forget past annoyances
and forge a new long-term common vision reflecting their common security

and economic interests. The fleeting rip in the Pak-Iran relations has no
sound basis, thus can be revamped through enhanced interactions at all
level including by the masses from both sides. Indeed, the renaissance of
cultural and religious affinities between Iran and Pakistan would go a long
way. For this purpose, both need to ban the fissiparous forces persuading
both or any of them. Mutual trust deficit, prevailing over the years has to be
restored on priority. Both need to realize the looming threats around them
and in the regional and global context. Presence of the extra regional forces
in their neighbourhood, otherwise friendly to none, provides them yet
another cause for the convergence.

NUCLEAR:
Pakistan has publicly defended Irans right to nuclear technology. Some
American analysts also suspect Pakistani scientists employed by the
Pakistani military of helping Iran acquire nuclear technology, although
Pakistan officially denies any involvement. Henry Sokolski, former deputy for
nonproliferation policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, explained in
2003 that the notion that Pakistan wasnt involved is getting less and less
tenable. Since then, inspectors have found in Irans possession documents
from Pakistani scientist Dr. A.Q. Khan detailing how to shape uranium for
nuclear warheads, while in 2004 then-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf
officially pardoned Dr. Khan for his sale of nuclear technology. According to a
report by the Congressional Research Service published in 2005, Dr. Khan
could not have functioned without some level of cooperation by Pakistani
military personnel, who maintained tight security around the key nuclear
facilities, and possibly civilian officials as well. On March 15, 2010, Pakistan
rejected a US media report asserting that Khan provided nuclear related
information and material, including drawings, centrifuge components, and a
list of suppliers, to Iran. Abdul Basit, a spokesman for the Pakistani Foreign
Office, described the claims, published by the Washington Post, as "yet
another repackaging of fiction, which surface occasionally for purposes that
are self-evident."
Over the past several years, Pakistan has increasingly called for peaceful
reconciliation on the international nuclear standoff, despite increasing
concern from the UN and Washington.

ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP:
The two countries initiated significant cooperation in the energy sector in
1991, when Iran began negotiating an oil deal with Pakistan and Qatar. This
initial collaboration, however, was limited and did not progress meaningfully.
Iran again attempted negotiating with Qatar regarding the construction of
gas pipelines to Pakistan in 1995, however was unsuccessful. Cooperation

regarding energy has nonetheless increased since the 1990s and helped
provide the foundation for a more thorough bilateral trade network between
Iran and Pakistan in recent years. By 2005, Pakistan was actively seeking
Iranian investment in bilateral trade and energy cooperation.Pakistan and
Iran have deepened their economic partnership to such an extent that, in a
joint statement issued in May 2010, the two countries expressed satisfaction
with an increase in bilateral trade, which surpassed $1.2 billion in the
previous financial year. In 2009, Pakistan increased its non-oil exports to
Iran by 80 percent, reaching $279 million. Similarly, Iranian non-oil exports
to Pakistan increased by 11 percent, totaling $278 million for the year.
Despite this growth, Karachi Chambeer of Commerce and Industry President
Abdul Majid Haji Mohammad said the lack of a banking system remains a
major obstacle to Iran-Pakistan trade.
Since 2005, Islamabad has increasingly turned to Tehran to supply Pakistans
growing energy needs. In August 2008, Iran agreed to finance a robust
energy project that would allow Pakistan to import 1,000 megawatts of
electricity to overcome its power shortage. The project, a $60 million
endeavor, consists of running a 100-kilometer electric line to help augment
the 40 megawatts of electricity Pakistan already receives daily from Iran. In
April 2010, Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan Mashallah Shakeri spoke before
the Rawalpindi Chamber of Commerce and Industry, stressing Irans
commitment to economic relations with Pakistan. According to the envoy,
Iran intends to supply the 1,000 megawatts to Pakistan at a discounted rate.
Iran and Pakistan have long discussed the construction of a 2,600-kilometer,
$7.5 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline (IPI) that would pump gas from
Irans South Pars field to Pakistan and India. Tentative talks on the pipeline
began in 1994, however tense political relations between India and Pakistan
frustrated realization of the project. International concern over Irans nuclear
program further delayed agreement and in November 2007 Iran and
Pakistan accused India of hesitating because of pressure from the United
States. In February 2010, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki
accused the US of interfering with the planned pipeline by attempting to
sway New Delhi away from the IPI. Indeed, Washington has repeatedly
urged India not to follow through with the deal while Iran faces sanctions for
its nuclear enrichment program. Both Russia and China have taken
significant interest in the pipeline, with Russias Gazprom offering to help
supply oil and China holding talks with Iran and Pakistan in 2008 to replace
India in case New Delhi chose to reject the partnership.
In May 2009, Iran and Pakistan signed a purchase agreement stipulating
that Iran will initially transfer 30 million cubic meters of gas to Pakistan per
day, with the volume eventually increasing to 60 million. The deal, to which
India was not a party, ensures gas supplies to Pakistan for a period of 25
years. On June 13, 2010, the two sides formally concluded the $7.5 billion
agreement over the objections of US Special Representative for Pakistan and

Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke, who cautioned that although the US

understands that Pakistan faces [a] major energy crisis... new sanctions on
Iran can impact Pakistan.According to a previous Pakistani Petroleum
Ministry statement in May 2010, the capital cost for the Pakistan section is
estimated at 1.65 billion dollars[and] the first gas flow is targeted by end
2014 with Iran completing the project ahead of schedule.
During a July 30, 2009 interview with the Iranian Islamic Republic News
Agency, Dr. Ashfaq Hassan Khan, a former economic advisor in Pakistan,
insisted that while economic ties between Iran and Pakistan should expand
at all levels, cooperation in the energy sector is vital for Pakistan. Khan
further expressed his view that the planned Iran-Pakistan pipeline would
likely greatly benefit both countries.
Iran-Pakistan cooperation on transportation issues expanded greatly in
August 2009, when the two inaugurated an international freight rail line from
Islamabad to Istanbul via Tehran. The line is a pilot project of the
Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), a Central Asian trade bloc.
Although Iran and Turkey already enjoy extensive rail cooperation,
transportation ties with Pakistan are weaker. According to Director of
Pakistan Railways Shafiqullah Khan, Islamabad and Tehran are seeking
outside credit to resolve differences in rail gauge in order to regularize rail
service between the two. Officials expect to begin regular freight service
along the 6,500 km line in August 2010.
In February 2010, Punjab Chief Minister Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif called
for the creation of an economic free-trade zone among Pakistan, Iran,
Turkey and other Islamic countries. During a celebration of the 31st
Revolution Day of Iran, Sharif noted that deep, friendly relations exist
between Pakistan and Iran and it is the need of the hour that socio-economic
cooperation should be promoted.
Iranian and Pakistani officials, in February 2010, signed the first
memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the two countries on cross
border trade. The MoU was penned during the two countries first joint
committee meeting on border trade in Irans southeastern Sistan and
Balouchestan province. Iraj Hassanpour, the head of Sistan and
Balouchestan's trade organization, stated that [b]ased on [the] MoU, [the]
two countries are bound to hold public and specialized fairs at their common
borders and in [the] capital of Sistan & Balouchestan province, Zahedan, and
Quetta in Pakistan." Both sides also decided to establish large storehouses to
facilitate the storage of trade commodities at their border customs.
Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, a Pakistani advisor to the prime
minister on information technology, has called for increased collaboration
between Iran and Pakistan in telecommunications. During a June 2010
conversation with Irans ambassador to Pakistan, Mashallah Shakeri, Khosa
expressed his belief that increased bilateral activity in the sector has the
potential to increase regional economic development and security.

DIPLOMATIC/MILITARY RELATIONSHIP:
Iran has developed deep economic and political ties with Pakistan, an ally of
the United States and a nuclear neighbor. In 2007, the Prime Minister of
Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz, said that Pakistan shares extensive ties with Iran
based upon faith, belief, joint history and culture. Expansion of cooperation
in the fields of trade and investment can further strengthen the bilateral
ties. Iran and Pakistan cooperate in a number of trade groups and agreed in
June 2008 on a list of 300 tradable items in an effort to stimulate economic
relations. Iran is active in the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO)a
trade and investment group that includes all of the central Asian countries,
founded by Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. Additionally, both Iran and Pakistan
also hold observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
an Asian regional economic and security group. China and Russia are
reportedly considering inviting Iran and Pakistan to full membership in the
SCO so as to participate in resolving the conflict in Afghanistan. "In the
current global context, the top priority is finding a solution to the Afghan
issue," Secretary-General Muratbek Sansyzbayevich Imanaliev said during a
news conference in Beijing in February 2010.
Pakistan has helped encourage trilateral trade with Iran and Turkey in
commercial goods and development of infrastructure beyond the programs
administered by regional organizations such as the ECO.
Iran has involved itself in the political and military instability in Pakistans
Afghan and Iran border regions. In June 2009, the Iranian Embassy in
Pakistan donated $250,000 as humanitarian aid for Pakistans unstable Swat
province. In a statement, the embassy said that "Iran denounces terrorist
acts in Pakistan's northern areas and announces its readiness to renew
support for peace and stability in Pakistan." In July 2009, Iranian
Ambassador to Pakistan Mashaallah Shakeri called on the Pakistani
government to secure the release of Heshmatollah Attarzadeh Niyaki, an
Iranian diplomat kidnapped by gunman in Peshawar in 2008. While speaking
before the Iranian parliament in July 2009, Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki stated that he believed that the current situations [in
western Pakistan] are improvingcriminal acts [have been] reduced and
controlled in [the] last year. Mottaki further indicated that Iran had received
a good degree of cooperation from the Pakistani government in
implementing new security measures on the border.
Speaking in July 2009, Former Interior Minister and Chairman of the
Pakistan Peoples Party Sherpao Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao praised an Iraqi
security forces raid on a People's Mujahedin of Iran camp located north of
Baghdad. Iranian authorities reacted warmly to news of the raid, which
targeted a militant Iranian exile group hostile to the Islamic Republic.
Sherpao explained his support for the raid by stating that no country should

permit its territory to be used for hostile acts against another sovereign
state. He further added that "Iran is our brotherly country and we always
want Iran to prosper."
In August 2009, Iran took part in a meeting of the Friends of Democratic
Pakistan. During the summit, which was held in Turkey and largely focused
on the security situation in Pakistan, Foreign Minister Mottaki discussed the
importance of bilateral ties with his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood
Qureshi. The two also spoke about the need to combat terrorism and
establish stability in Pakistan, with Mottaki adding that he considers
Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan relations to be an appropriate model for regional
conflict resolution.
The two countries brotherly relations were threatened in October 2009
following attacks against the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRG) in Sistan-Baluchistan province. President Ahmadinejad publically
accused certain officials in Pakistan of involvement in the attacks.Tehran
further demanded the extradition of Abdolmalek Rigi, the chief of suspected
terrorist group Jundallah. Pakistani officials denied any involvement in the
attacks, rejecting Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjars
accusation that Jundallah received financial aid from Pakistan. Pakistan
subsequently released 11 Iranian security officers accused of illegally
crossing the border. Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari met with Najjar in
Islamabad a week after the attacks. Zardari stated that the attackers were
the enemies of both countries and vowed to cooperate with Iran in their
capture. At the beginning of November 2009, however, the IRGC accused
Pakistan of releasing the leader of Jundallah immediately before the October
18 bombing in Sistan-Baluchistan, thereby implicating the Pakistani
government in the attacks. According to the deputy head of the IRGC,
Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the Jundallah leader, Abdolmakel Rigi,
was arrested on September 26 in Pakistans Baluchistan province. But he
was released after an hour with the intervention of the Pakistani intelligence
service. In March 2010, upon receiving assurances from Islamabad that
authorities would take measures to improve security in the area, Iran
reopened its border with Pakistan. Iran had closed the border to trade four
months prior in response to the October IRGC attack.
Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran Hassan Qashqavi said in January 2010 that
the Pakistani government should take serious measures to stem terrorist
activities across the border of the two countries. According to the minister,
"the Pakistani government is expected to live up to its promises and take
more serious measures to stem the terrorist and evil activities. The same
month, an Iranian Foreign Ministry official claimed there is a hidden agenda
behind the recent destabilizing measures on Iran's eastern borders with
Pakistan and Afghanistan.
On January 16, 2010, officials from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran met to
discuss regional security and terrorism, agreeing on a joint framework for

cooperation in tackling political volatility in the area. The three agreed that
regional stability and security could only be advanced through sincere
adherence to the principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi stated that "it is important
to consult amongst ourselves so that we are on the same page and we have
closer positions on different issues that confront our neighborhood." A joint
declaration from the meeting called for Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran to
coordinate efforts to combat extremism as well as drug and weapons
smuggling. The ministers also raised Iranian concerns regarding the
expanded presence of US forces in Afghanistan. A day after the meeting, the
Iranian ambassador to Pakistan, Mashallah Shakeri, announced that the third
Iran-Afghanistan-Pakistan summit will be held in Tehran in the near future.
In January 2010, Iranian First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi
insisted that Iran considers durable security and stability in Pakistan to be of
paramount importance to Iranian interests.Referencing recent efforts by
Tehran to establish sustainable security in Pakistan, Rahimi stated that "Iran
believes that comprehensive expansion of ties with Pakistan plays a major
role in materializing the interests of the two countries and the region." He
called for the fortification of the Iran and Pakistans common borders and
added that "terrorist groups should not be allowed to disturb security of the
two countries' border regions."
During the first Meeting of the Heads of Interpol of the Economic
Cooperation Organization, held on June 29, 2010, Interior Minister Nijjar
urged the associations members to collaborate more closely on security
issues. The minister proposed the creation of a regional police headquarters
and encouraged more rapid sharing of information on criminal investigations.
Ambassador Shakeri has said that Iran is determined to continue its
involvement in Pakistani development despite ever-increasing security
challenges. In a February 2010 message commemorating the 31st
anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the ambassador
noted that "Pakistan, in its capacity as a Muslim neighbor, has a special
status in the macro-strategy of the foreign policy of Iran, with durable
security, stability and all-round development of Pakistan being Iran's desire."
During a six-day visit to Iran in February 2010, Pakistani National Assembly
Speaker Fahmida Mirza met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.
Mirza and Larijani issued a joint statement calling for the expansion of ties
between Pakistan and Iran in the political, economic, and cultural spheres.
Iran and Pakistan also agreed to increase their parliamentary cooperation on
global issues at international bodies. In addition, the two countries
underlined the need to adopt a comprehensive political approach in the
campaigns against terrorism, drug trafficking, and organized crime.
During an April 2010 appearance before the Rawalpindi Chamber of
Commerce and Industry, Iranian Ambassador Shakeri reaffirmed his

countrys commitment to aiding Pakistan deal with its internal turmoil,

saying that "Iran is fully aware of the problems currently facing Pakistan and
our prime goal is to bring Pakistan out of the prevailing crisis.
According to a May 2010 joint statement following a meeting between
Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran Seyed Ameer Mansoor Borghei'e and
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Iran and Pakistan support
efforts by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to achieve national reconciliation in
his country. The two countries further agreed to continue cooperate to help
and achieve sustainable peace in Afghanistan.

Areas of disagreements and competition/divergences:

The two countries did have, until the recent past, areas of disagreements
and competition also which, over all, could be put as under:
i. Pakistan's support to the Taliban in Afghanistan before 9/ 11. ii. US
involvement in Afghanistan and in the region.
iii. Pakistan US strategic collaboration in Afghanistan since 9/11. iv.
Pakistan's close relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Sheikhdoms.
v. Divergence of policies on the Persian Gulf.
vi. Pakistan's claim as the "Fortress ofIslam".
vii. Iran's support to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. viii.lran's growing
relations with India and Russia.
ix. Sectarian problem in Pakistan.
x. Quest for CARs.

Analysis of Relations:
Overall, the genesis of cooperation between the two countries revolved
around the following focal points:
i. Common faith, geography, culture and traditions.
ii. Similar economic and political outlook.
iii. Identical strategic thinking, and defence cooperation particularly during
the cold war, and after the Islamic Revolution.
iv. Like mindedness on most of the matters relating to the Muslim world.
v. Common bilateral, regional, and international approach.
vi. Homogeneity of stands on regional and international problems.
vii. Convergence of interests on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, (NNP), matters.
viii. Extension of political, diplomatic and moral support to the Kashmir
liberation struggle.
ix. Harmonious position on the establishment of the New International
Economic Order, (NIEO).
x. Desirability of the existence of multi-polarity in the regional and world
politics.

Pakistan-US Relations
Pakistan United States relations refers to bilateral relationship between
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States of America. Pakistan
came into existence just as the cold war was starting. The world was split
into two camps soviet and US. Infant Pakistan and India had to pick their
camps. The United States established diplomatic relations with Pakistan on
October 20, 1947. The relationship since then was based primarily on U.S.
economic and military assistance to Pakistan. Pakistan is a Major non-NATO
ally of the United States. The history of PakistanAmerican relations has
been defined as one of "Roller Coaster"
1950s Era:When Pakistan was formed in 1947, she needed both economic (due to
initial problems) and military (Indian threat) assistance for its survival. In
the early 1950s the US had delineated a program known as Marshal Plan
which aimed at the recovery of Europe and extending assistance to various
Asian countries. After Partition, Liaqat Ali khan (1st PM) was invited by
Soviets and Americans. He chooses sanity over inhumanity and visited US,
thus strengthening PAK-US relations. India established relations with
Soviets.
On 19th May, 1954, Pakistan signed the Mutual Defense Assistance
Agreement with the U.S; also Pakistan joined SEATO in 1954 to contain the
expansion of communism in South East Asia. This membership of SEATO
committed Pakistan fully to the Western block. In 1955 and alliance, the
Baghdad Pact, was formed between Britain, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan
(its name changed to CENTO). Between 1954-65 Pakistan received military
assistance of 1.5 billion dollars and around 3 billion dollars of loan.
1960s Era:The U.S extended unlimited military support to India during Sino-Indian
border clash in 1962. Pakistan protested against it but U.S paid no heed to
the protest of Pakistan although India was not the ally of U.S but was
Pakistan. When India attacked Pakistan in 1965, it frequently used American
weapons against Pakistan. Pak US relations suffer a set back when US places
arms embargo on both nations, knowing well that Pakistan was totally
dependent on US arms and India did not use any US arms. Soviets speeded
up arms supplies to India.
Pakistan gained air superiority by using US supplied F-86 Sabers and F-104
Star fighters. Pakistans old enemy King Zahir ensured safety of Pakistans

Western borders, allowing Pakistan to remove it troops from that border.

Iran opened her airfields to Pakistan Air force. China moved her troops close
to Indian border but US stopped supplies forcing Pakistan to sue for peace
offered under Soviets. During the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, the U.S.
chooses not to provide Pakistan with military support as pledged in the 1959
Agreement of Cooperation. This generated a widespread feeling in Pakistan
that the United States was no longer a reliable ally.
1970s Era:President Richard Nixon used Pakistan's relationship with China to start
secret contacts with China which resulted with Henry Kissingers secret visit
to China in July 1971 while visiting Pakistan. during the wars of 1971 US
gave no military assistance to Pakistan being a member of SEATO and
CENTO. President Nixon told Pakistan 7th Fleet is on its way. Now after 25
years declassified documents revealed that US delibratly wanted to break
Pakistan to appease India. It was the time when Pakistan realized that US
can support India against China but cannot support Pakistan against India
thus Pakistan withdrew from SEATO in 1972 and CENTO in 1979.
Pakistan-US relations became strained once again in 1976-77. When
pakistan desired to acquire nuclear technology. America vigorously opposed
Pakistans attempt to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful and domestic
purposes. In 1977 Carter administration in Sept.1977 cut off the military and
economic assistance to Pakistan. Also, Carter visited India and Iran but not
Pakistan.
Pakistan feeling betrayed by the US decided to move away from US block.
venturing first into NAM(non aligned movement) then in OIC and finally
started making friends with soviets. Soviets started setting up steel mills in
Pakistan and supplied some military aid (Mi-8 etc). Pakistan moved on the
road to socialism under Bhutto. US believed that pakistan was slipping to the
other side, given the fact that Bhutto was a big Landlord it was a total
misconception. US grew hostile to Pakistan. Bhutto openly challenged US in
his speeches....
1980s Era:In 1979 when soviet forces entered in Afghanistan the tables were once
again turned. That alarming situation reminded US that Pakistan is its
frontline ally for securing peace in the world, so once again military and
financial assistance was provided to Pakistan. Henceforth Pakistan resumed
its role asAmericas forefront partner in South Asia and was also exempted
from the Symington and Glenn Amendments for a period of 6 years ending
1987. Therefore Afghan war with the help of Pakistan led towards the end of
cold war. But the end of the Cold War did not leave Pakistan in a state of

peace and stability. Indeed Pakistan is still paying a huge price of its US
assistance.
1990s Era:After10 years of partnership in Afghan Jihad, US attitude towards Pakistan
started changing dramatically and in October 1990 US President George
Bush refused to certify that Pakistan is a non-nuclear state and does not
possess nuclear weapons nor it is engaged in their manufacture. As a result
Pressler amendment was imposed on Pakistan as a punishment for its loyalty
during Afghan crisis, supply of forty F-16 aircraft to Pakistan was withheld
and amount of $ 1.2 billion was suspended even though Pakistan had paid
for this. Instead of strengthening relations and crafting new ways of
cooperation Pak-US relations went all time low especially from 1990-1993.
Afterwards some efforts were made to normalize the relations, Defense
secretary William Perry paid a visit to Pakistan in January 1995. Moreover
because of this visit the Pak-US defense consultative group was revived
which had not met since 1990. The Clinton administration also took interest
to put back relations to normal course and to revise Pressler amendment.
Therefore Brown amendment came according to which embargoed military
equipment worth about $368 million was released. For Pakistan the symbolic
significance of Brown amendment was more important than the material
benefit as after 1990 it was the first concrete step towards the normalization
of relations between Pakistan and US.
The irony about US non-proliferation policy in South Asia was that India was
also involved in the nuclear proliferation activities but all the sanctions,
embargos and penalties were just for Pakistan. In May 1998 as a result of
nuclear tests conducted by Pakistan a second set of sanctions were imposed
by invoking the Pressler, Glenn and Symington amendment which prohibits
military and economic assistance to any country that delivers or receives
nuclear assistance. When in October 1999 President Musharraf came more
Democracy Sanctions were enacted on Pakistan.

9/11 And The U-Turn In US-Pakistan Relations:

It was the incident of 9/11 that changed the face of US-Pakistan relations
completely and once again brought the two states close to form an alliance
but this time against Taliban. Pakistan's leadership without learning from
their past mistakes joined hands with US and became a critical ally and is
still bearing the brunt of its unremitting support to U.S.
Since 2001 till today Pakistan is fully supporting US in its war against
terrorism. . Yet it has failed to achieve the status that should be given as a
recompense for its sacrifices. Even after 10 years of agony, US does not
show any regard to Pakistans significant role in curbing the militancy.

Instead it has kept on accusing Pakistan from time to time and demands to
do more. These kinds of US accusation harms Pakistans image in
international community and are disliked at Pakistans end. Osama raid has
further tensed the already cold relations between the two partners and has
brought the future of US-Pakistan relations under intense consideration.
Today the people of Pakistan have given even more sacrifices then the
NATO/US troops in Afghanistan. Pakistani public already fed up by the mess
created by Afghan war wants US to end this menace. Amidst national,
economic, social, religious crisis, unstable political regime, escalating drone
attacks, loss of civilian lives and news of Osamas downfall has created
trouble, which is spreading like a wild fire. The demand of Go America Go is
being chanted all across Pakistan. This shows a growing wedge between the
two strategic partners. A Pakistani private channels survey explored that
77% Pakistanis see US as their enemy. A new survey conducted by
Washingtons Pew Research Centre also shows that only 11 per cent of
Pakistanis view the US and President Obama favorably.
The US- Pak relations have not proved much fruitful for Pakistan, and the
nation feels betrayed by the US administrations. US wants Pakistan to
become its vessal state, where all policies are made only to serve the
interests of US. The government should devise such policies that ensure to
safeguard our own land and people not the US interests. Therefore, it is now
time for politico-military leadership of Pakistan to sit and review their policies
before this unconditional assistance to US costs the lives of the entire nation.
Albeit despite growing hatred towards American policies and its presence in
the region the war against terrorism has now become Pakistans own war
and therefore needs genuine concern of our government.

Present relations
Present U.S.-Pakistan relations are a case study on the difficulties of
diplomacy and policy making in a multi-polar world. The geopolitical
significance of Pakistan in world affairs attracts attention from both India and
China, making unilateral action impossible from the U.S. All the while,
Pakistan remains a key factor for U.S. success in Afghanistan. The two
countries have attempted to build a strategic partnership since 2009, but
there remains a significant trust deficit which continues to hinder successful
cooperation in combating common threats. Despite recent setbacks, both
Pakistan and the U.S. continue to seek a productive relationship to defeat
terrorist organizations.
As on 8 February 2011, U.S. administration is reported to suspend high level
contacts with Pakistan and may also suspend economical aid.All this
happened when Raymond Davis, an alleged private security contractor, was
on an American diplomatic mission in Pakistan shot dead two Pakistani locals
last month in what he said was in self-defense after they attempted to rob

him. Pakistan acted tough on him despite U.S. demands that he be freed
because he enjoys diplomatic immunity.
U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson addressed senior
bureaucrats at the National Management College and emphasized that the
United States will assist Pakistans new democratic government in the areas
of development, stability, and security. The United States Agency for
International Development (USAID) and the United Nations World Food
Program, in Pakistan, officially announced the signing of an agreement
valued at $8.4 million to help ease Pakistan's crisis.
The CIA had long suspected Osama Bin Laden of hiding in Pakistan. India
and U.S. have time to time accused Pakistan of giving safe-haven to the
Taliban. However, Pakistan has denied these accusations repeatedly.
On 14 September 2009, former President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf,
admitted that U.S. Foreign Aid to Pakistan was diverted by the country from
its original purpose to fighting the Taliban, to prepare for war against
neighboring India.The United States government has responded by stating
that they will take these allegations seriously. However Pervez Musharraf
also said '"Wherever there is a threat to Pakistan, we will use it [equipment
provided by the U.S.] there. If the threat comes from al-Qaeda or Taliban, it
will be used there. If the threat comes from India, we will most surely use it
there".
In late 2009, Hillary Clinton made a speech in Pakistan about the war
against the militants where she said "we commend the Pakistani military for
their courageous fight, and we commit to stand shoulder to shoulder with
the Pakistani people in your fight for peace and security."
On December 1, 2009, President Barack Obama in a speech on a policy
about Pakistan said "In the past, we too often defined our relationship with
Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over.... The Pakistani people must know
America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistans security and prosperity
long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people
can be unleashed."
In the aftermath of the thwarted bombing attempt on a Northwest Airlines
flight, the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued a
new set of screening guidelines that includes pat-downs for passengers from
countries of interest, which includes Pakistan. In a sign of widening fissures
between the two allies, Pakistan on January 21 declined a request by the
United States to launch new offensives on militants in 2010. Pakistan say it
"can't launch any new offensives against militants for six months to a year
because it wants to 'stabilize' previous gains made. However the U.S. praises
Pakistan's military effort against the militants. Furthermore Pakistan
president, in meeting with the U.S. delegation, had said Pakistan "had
suffered a... loss of over 35 billion dollars during the last eight years as a
result of the fight against militancy." But the President also said for "greater
Pak-U.S. cooperation".

In October 2009, the U.S. Congress approved $7.5 billion of non-military aid
to Pakistan over the next five years. In February 2010, U.S. President Barack
Obama sought to increase funds to Pakistan to "promote economic and
political stability in strategically important regions where the United States
has special security interests". Obama also sought $3.1 billion aid for
Pakistan to defeat Al Qaeda for 2010.
In February 2010, Anne W. Patterson (U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan) said
that the United States is committed to partnership with Pakistan and further
said Making this commitment to Pakistan while the U.S. is still recovering
from the effects of the global recession reflects the strength of our vision.
Yet we have made this commitment, because we see the success of
Pakistan, its economy, its civil society and its democratic institutions as
important for ourselves, for this region and for the world.
Between 20022010, Pakistan received approximately 18 billion in military
and economic aid from the United States. In February 2010, the Obama
administration requested an additional 3 billion in aid, for a total of 20.7
billion.
In mid February, after the capture of Taliban No.2 leader Abdul Ghani
Baradar in Pakistan the White House 'hails capture of Taliban leader'.
Furthemore White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that this is a "big
success for our mutual efforts(Pakistan and United States)in the region" and
He praised Pakistan for the capture, saying it is a sign of increased
cooperation with the U.S. in the terror fight. Furthermore Capt. John Kirby,
spokesman for Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has
said 'We also strongly support Pakistani efforts to secure the border
region,Kirby added, noting that Pakistan has lost soldiers in that
effort.'Mullen, (President Barack Obama's senior military adviser)has made
strengthening "U.S. military relationship with Pakistan a top priority". The
U.S. and Pakistan have a robust working relationship that serves the mutual
interests of our people,' Kirby said. "We continue to build a long-term
partnership that strengthens our common security and prosperity."
In March, Richard Holbrooke U.S. special envoy to Pakistan had said U.S.Pakistani relations have seen 'significant improvement' under Obama.
Furthermore he also said "No government on earth has received more highlevel attention" than Pakistan.
In December 2009, President Obama stated "In the past, we too often
defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly, those days are over. Moving
forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a
foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust." This was
believed to be an indirect apology to Pakistan for being treated differently
and more harshly compared to both India and Israel during the Cold War
period.
The Raymond Davis affair substantially deteriorated Pakistan-U.S. relations
in early 2011.

Death of Osama bin Laden

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the U.S. State Department stated
that "cooperation with Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the
compound in which he was hiding". President Obama also said during his
announcement of the raid that "U.S. counterterrorism cooperation with
Pakistan helped lead us to bin Laden and the compound where he was
hiding."
According to a Pakistani intelligence official, raw phone-tap data had been
transferred to the United States without being analyzed by Pakistan. While
the U.S. "was concentrating on this" information since September 2010,
information regarding bin Laden and the compound's inhabitants had
"slipped from" Pakistan's "radar" over the months. Bin Laden left "an
invisible footprint" and he had not been contacting other militant networks.
It was noted that much focus had been placed on a courier entering and
leaving the compound. The transfer of intelligence to the U.S. was a regular
occurrence according to the official, who also stated regarding the raid that
"I think they came in undetected and went out the same day", and Pakistan
did not believe that U.S. personnel were present in the area before the
special operation occurred.
According to the Pakistani high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Wajid
Shamsul Hasan, Pakistan had prior knowledge that an operation would
happen. Pakistan was "in the know of certain things" and "what happened
happened with our consent. Americans got to know himwhere he was first
and that's why they struck it and struck it precisely." Husain Haqqani,
Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., had said that Pakistan would have pursued
bin Laden had the intelligence of his location existed with them and Pakistan
was "very glad that our American partners did. They had superior
intelligence, superior technology, and we are grateful to them."
Another Pakistani official stated that Pakistan "assisted only in terms of
authorization of the helicopter flights in our airspace" and the operation was
conducted by the United States. He also said that in any event, we did not
want anything to do with such an operation in case something went wrong.
Numerous allegations were made that the government of Pakistan was
involved in shielding bin Laden. Aspects of the incident that have fueled the
allegations include the proximity of bin Laden's heavily fortified compound to
the Pakistan Military Academy, that the United States did not notify the
Pakistani authorities before the operation, and the alleged double standards
of Pakistan regarding the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
Pakistani-born British MP Khalid Mahmood stated that he was "flabbergasted
and shocked" after he learned that bin Laden was living in a city with
thousands of Pakistani troops, reviving questions about alleged links
between al-Qaeda and elements in Pakistan's security forces] U.S. Senator

Lindsey Graham questioned, "How could [bin Laden] be in such a compound

without being noticed?", raising suspicions that Pakistan was either
uncommitted in the fight against Islamist militants or was actively sheltering
them while pledging to fight them. A Pakistani intelligence official said that
they had passed on raw phone tap data to U.S. that led to the operation but
had failed to analyze this data themselves.
U.S. government files leaked by Wikileaks disclosed that American diplomats
were told that Pakistani security services were tipping off bin Laden every
time U.S. forces approached. Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) also
helped smuggle al-Qaeda militants into Afghanistan to fight NATO troops.
According to the leaked files, in December 2009, the Government of
Tajikistan had told U.S. officials that many in Pakistan were aware of bin
Laden's whereabouts.
U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate Homeland Security
Committee, said "This is going to be a time of real pressure on Pakistan to
basically prove to us that they didnt know that bin Laden was there". John
O. Brennan, the chief counter terrorism advisor to Obama, stated that it was
inconceivable that bin Laden did not have support from within Pakistan. He
further stated "People have been referring to this as hiding in plain sight. We
are looking right how he was able to hide out there for so long." U.S.
Senator Dianne Feinstein stated that "it's hard for me to understand how the
Pakistanis ... would not know what was going on inside the compound." and
said that top Pakistan officials may be "walking both sides of the street."
Gulf News reported that the compound where bin Laden was killed had
previously been used as a safe house by ISI but was no longer being used
for this purpose.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental
international organization founded in Shanghaion 15 June 2001 by six
countries,China,Russia,Kazakhstan,Kyrgystan,Tajiki stanand Uzbekistan.Its
member states cover an area of over 30 million km2, or about three fifths
ofEurasia, with a population of 1.455 billion, about a quarter of the world's
total.Its working languages are Chinese and Russian.

Origin of the SCO

SCO's predecessor, the Shanghai Five mechanism, originated and grew from
the endeavor byChina,Russia,Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan andTajikistanto
strengthen confidence-building and disarmament in the border regions.In
1996 and 1997, their heads of state met inShanghaiandMoscowrespectively
and signedtheTreaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regionsand

theTreaty on Reduction of Military Forces in Border Regions.Thereafter, this

annual meeting became a regular practice and had beenheld alternately in
the five member states.The topics of the meeting gradually extended from
building up trust in the border regions to mutually beneficial cooperation in
the political, security, diplomatic, economic, trade and other areas among
the five states.The President of Uzbekistan was invited to the 2000Dushanbe
Summit as a guest of the host state.As the first meeting of the five heads of
state took place inShanghai, the cooperation mechanism was later known as
the "Shanghai Five".
On the fifth anniversary of the Shanghai Five in June 2001, the heads of
state of its members and the President of Uzbekistan met inShanghai, the
birthplace of the mechanism.First they signed a joint declaration
admittingUzbekistanas member of the Shanghai Five mechanism and then
jointly issued theDeclaration on the Establishment of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization.The document announced that for the purpose of
upgrading the level of cooperation to more effectively seize opportunities
and deal with new challenges and threats, the six states had decided to
establish a Shanghai Cooperation Organization on the basis of the Shanghai
Five mechanism.
In June 2002, the heads of SCO member states met inSt. Petersburgand
signed theSCO Charter, which clearly expounded the SCO purposes and
principles, organizational structure, form of operation, cooperation
orientation and external relations, marking the actual establishment of this
new organization in the sense of international law.

Purposes and Principles of SCO

According to theSCO Charterand theDeclaration on the Establishment of the
SCO, the main purposes of SCO are: strengthening mutual trust and goodneighborliness and friendship among member states;developing their
effective cooperation in political affairs, the economy and trade, science and
technology, culture, education, energy, transportation, environmental
protection and other fields; working together to maintain regional peace,
security and stability; and promoting the creation of a new international
political and economic order featuring democracy, justice and rationality.
The SCO abides by the following basic principles: adherence to the purposes
and principles of theCharter of the United Nations; respect for each other's
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in each
other's internal affairs, mutual non-use or threat of use of force; equality
among all member states; settlement of all questions through consultations;
non-alignment and no directing against any other country or organization;
opening to the outside world and willingness to carry out all forms of
dialogues, exchanges and cooperation with other countries and relevant
international or regional organizations.

The SCO stands for and acts on a new security concept anchored on mutual
trust, disarmament and cooperative security; a new state-to-state
relationship with partnership instead of alignment at its core, and a new
model of regional cooperation featuring concerted efforts of countries of all
sizes and mutually beneficial cooperation.In the course of development,
aShanghaispirit gradually took shape, a spirit characterized by mutual trust,
mutual benefit, equality, cooperation, respect for diversified civilizations and
common development.

Current observers:India currently has observer status in the SCO. Russia has encouraged India
to join the organisation as a full-time member, because they see it as a
crucial future strategic partner. Factors working against India joining the SCO
is its long rivalry with Pakistan and its close ties to China which has also
troubled ties with India resulting in the Sino-Indian War of 1962.
Additional factors working in favour of India joining the SCO are its major
military presence in Central Asia, its close military ties with several Central
Asian countries (especially Tajikistan and Russia) and also its deep interest
in the region's energy resources. In 2010, India showed a keen interest in
joining the group, We are interested in SCO membership. It is a very
important organisation concerning the region, sources within the Indian
government said. China has also shown its interest for a greater role of India
in Asia club.
Iran currently has observer status in the organisation, and applied for full
membership on March 24, 2008. However, because of ongoing sanctions
levied by the United Nations, it is blocked from admission as a new member.
The SCO stated that any country under U.N. sanctions cannot be admitted.
Mongolia became the first country to receive observer status at the 2004
Tashkent Summit. Pakistan, India and Iran received observer status at the
2005 SCO summit in Astana, Kazakhstan on July 5, 2005.
Pakistan currently has observer status in the SCO. Former Pakistani
President Pervez Musharraf argued in favour of Pakistan's qualification to join
the organisation as a full member during a joint summit with China in 2006.
Factors working against Pakistan's joining the SCO as a member include its
persistent military rivalry with fellow SCO-observer India and strained
relation with Russia because of the latter's strong relations with India. China
has said that it would convey Pakistans desire to all SCO member states. In
turn, Musharraf was formally invited to the sixth summit of the SCO to take
place in Shanghai in June. The Prime Minister of Pakistan Yousaf Raza Gillani
once again argued in favour of Pakistan's qualification to join the

organisation as a full member.

SCO And Pakistan:For too long Pakistan has been woefully subservient to Western interests. By
joining hands with its eastern counterparts through the SCO, Pakistan has
the potential to reinvent itself as a sovereign state beholden to no foreign
power, deriving inspiration from China's model of progress through its
process of reinvention and self-reliance.
As Pakistan continues to demonstrate increasing capitulation to US interests,
it would be beneficial to explore possibilities in enhancing the nation's
already robust alliance with China. Pakistan has much to learn from China's
example in improving living standards for its citizens. Rejecting the primacy
of any single system, the Chinese have elegantly crafted their own form of
economics by seamlessly blending free markets with Communism, insisting
on modernisation squarely on its own terms. China's great leader, Deng
Xiaoping has been credited with the grand achievement of lifting the largest
number of people out of poverty in the shortest time ever in human history.
Its dramatic economic transformation has been underlined by pragmatism
and resolute political will as demonstrated by its succession of exemplary
leadership. Never in history has a large economy grown as fast and for such
a sustained period as China's since 1979. From 1978 to 2005 China's GDP
increased from US$147.3 billion to US$2.235 trillion, representing an
average annual growth rate of 9.6 percent.
With its increasing economic clout, China presents a wealth of possibilities
for Pakistan and the world. Pakistan and China are hugely different yet at
the same time acutely similar: both possess a population made up of diverse
ethnic groups and languages; while our cities experience boom, both our
rural areas remain underdeveloped.
The emergence of the SCO may play an invaluable role in helping countries
like Pakistan protect and preserve their highly coveted resources, preventing
Pakistan and other countries from becoming pawns in the escalating energy
war. Through the SCO Pakistan has a chance to enhance its comprehensive
strategic partnership with China to promote national and regional stability.
At the very least, the SCO represents an acknowledgement of the need for
the East to organise itself into a cohesive political and economic force. As the
world's economy sinks deeper into recession, the chance for the region to
unite itself through the SCO platform presents bright prospects amidst the
looming spectres of terrorism and economic collapse.

Conclusion:To pen the discussion off, It can be said that the SCO may have the ability to
oppose the West's mendacious grab for the region's prized energy reserves.

Therefore it rejected the United States' application for an observer status on

the premise that the superpower shares no common borders with either
China or Russia. In 2005, the SCO demonstrated its geopolitical clout when
it called for a timetable for US forces to withdraw from the Central Asian
bases that the Pentagon had used for operations in Afghanistan.
The organisation is likely to emerge as a formidable counterweight to NATO
and can play a powerful role in helping countries protect their highly coveted
resources for the benefit of the local population. The world's centre of
gravity is shifting to countries that reject the West's universal claims. We are
living in a period where the dominance of the world's solo superpower is
coming under threat; a period of unquestioned superiority is drawing to a
close. The rise of China challenges Washington's long cherished assumption
of international primacy: China's global assertiveness was recently
demonstrated when Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China
boldly proposed for the replacement of the dollar as the main global reserve
currency. China presently holds US$2 trillion worth of foreign exchange
reserves and it is by far the world's largest holder of US government debt.

Water dispute
The main reason for the dispute over Kashmir is water. Kashmir is the origin
point for many rivers and tributaries of the Indus River basin. They include
the Jhelum and Chenab rivers, which primarily flow into Pakistan while other
branchesthe Ravi, Beas, and the Sutlejirrigate northern India. The
Boundary Award of 1947 meant that the headwaters of Pakistani irrigation
systems were in Indian territory. Pakistan has been apprehensive that in a
dire need, India (under whose portion of Kashmir lies the origins and
passage of these rivers) would withhold the flow and thus choke the agrarian
economy of Pakistan. The Indus Waters Treaty signed in 1960 resolved most
of these disputes over water, calling for mutual cooperation in this regard.
But the treaty faced issues raised by Pakistan over the construction of dams
on the Indian side which limit water flow to the Pakistani side.

Background:The waters of the Indus basin begin in the Himalayan mountains in the state
of Jammu and Kashmir. They flow from the hills through the arid states of
Punjab and Sindh, converging in Pakistan and emptying into the Arabian Sea
south of Karachi. Where once there was only a narrow strip of irrigated land
along these rivers, developments over the last century have created a large
network of canals and storage facilities that provide water for more than 26
million acres (110,000 km2) - the largest irrigated area of any one river
system in the world.

The partition of British India created a conflict over the plentiful waters of
the Indus basin. The newly formed states were at odds over how to share
and manage what was essentially a cohesive and unitary network of
irrigation. Furthermore, the geography of partition was such that the source
rivers of the Indus basin were in India. Pakistan felt its livelihood threatened
by the prospect of Indian control over the tributaries that fed water into the
Pakistani portion of the basin. Where India certainly had its own ambitions
for the profitable development of the basin, Pakistan felt acutely threatened
by a conflict over the main source of water for its cultivable land.
Soon after the partition of India the problem over water sharing from river
Sutlej started between the two sides of Punjab divided by the Line of Control
(LoC). As the boundary between India and Pakistan was not demarcated till
July 1947, it was impractical to deal with the allocation of waters. To remedy
the legal vacuum created by the partition, the chief engineers of East Punjab
(Indian side of Punjab) and West Punjab (Pakistani side of Punjab) signed a
standstill agreement on December 20, 1947, providing, interalia that until
the end of current rabi crops on March 31, 1948, the status quo would be
maintained with regard to water allocation in the Indus Basin irrigation
system .On April 1, India discontinued the delivery of water from the
Ferozepur headworks to Dipalpur Canal and to the main branches of the
Upper Bari Doab Canal. This act was publicly criticised in Pakistan and some
policy and non-policy makers even advocated for going to war to restore the
water supply from the river Sutlej to West Punjab.

Indus Basin Water Treaty (1960):The Indus System of Rivers comprises three Western Rivers the Indus, the
Jhelum and Chenab and three Eastern Rivers - the Sutlej, the Beas and the
Ravi; and with minor exceptions, the treaty gives India exclusive use of all of
the waters of the Eastern Rivers and their tributaries before the point where
the rivers enter Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan has exclusive use of the
Western Rivers. Pakistan also received one-time financial compensation for
the loss of water from the Eastern rivers. The countries agree to exchange
data and co-operate in matters related to the treaty. For this purpose, treaty
creates the Permanent Indus Commission, with a commissioner appointed by
each country.
The complicated origins of the Indus river system plays a key role in the
water debates, as the rivers originate in and pass through a number of
countries. According to the Indus Water Treaty, the following three rivers are
for use by Pakistan:
1. The Indus River: originates in Chinese-controlled Tibet and flows through
Jammu & Kashmir.
2. The Chenab: originates in Indias Himachal Pradesh state, travels through

Jammu & Kashmir.

3. The Jhelum: rises in Jammu & Kashmir and flows into Pakistan, finally
joining Chenab.
The Treaty affords India use of the following three rivers:
1. The Sutlej: originates in Tibet, flows through Himachal Pradesh and
Punjab before joining the Chenab.
2. The Beas and the Ravi: originate in Himachal Pradesh state and flow into
Pakistan, emptying into the Chenab.
Taking into account the flow of the rivers, the importance of the Chenab and
the Indus becomes clear. The Chenab combines the waters of four rivers, the
Jhelum, the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi, to form a single water system
which then joins the Indus in Pakistan. The Indus River is considered to be
the lifeline of Pakistani economy and livestock.

Baglihar Dam:Baglihar Dam, also known as Baglihar Hydroelectric Power Project, is a runof-the-river power project on the Chenab River in the southern Doda district
of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. This project was conceived in
1992, approved in 1996 and construction began in 1999. The project is
estimated to cost USD $1 billion. The first phase of the Baglihar Dam was
completed in 2004. With the second phase completed, on 10 October 2008,
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India dedicated the 450-MW Baglihar
hydro electric power project to the nation.

Kishanganga Dam:In the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir, the construction work on the
controversial 330 MW Kishen Ganga power project will start soon, after
being defunct for eighteen years. Recently, the project was awarded to
Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) with a timeline of seven years. The
330 MW Kishanganga hydro-electric power project involves damming of
Kishanganga or Neelam River and the proposed 103 metre reservoir will
submerge some parts of the Gurez valley of India. The water of Kishen
Ganga River will be diverted through a 27 kilometre tunnel dug through the
mountains toBandipore where it will join the Wular Lake and then Jhelum
River.
Similarly, Pakistan has decided to construct a 969 MW hydro power project
across the Jhelum; the country has placed the project in the hands of a
Chinese consortium. Pakistan claims that the Indian dam project will violate
the Indus Waters Treaty and has threatened to begin formal arbitration
proceedings against India over the matter.

Pakistani writers warn that the dam will deprive Pakistan of 321,000 acres
feet of water during the agricultural season, greatly affecting wheat
production in the Punjab province and leading to crop failures. There are
some warnings that the dam will adversely affect 13 million acres of irrigated
land around the Chenab and Ravi rivers, forcing Pakistani farmers to change
crops, and in the face of starvation, deepening Pakistans dependence on
food imports and burdening the country's national exchequer.

Wullar Barrage/Tulbul navigation project:Wular Lake (also spelt Wullar), India's largest fresh water lake is located in
Bandipore district in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. It is is also one
of the largest freshwater lakes in Asia. The lake basin was formed as a result
of tectonic activity and is fed by the Jhelum River. The lake's size varies from
12 to 100 square miles (30 to 260 square kilometers), depending on the
season
The Tulbul Project is a "navigation lock-cum-control structure" at the mouth
of Wular Lake. According to the original Indian plan, the barrage was
expected to be of 439 feet (134 m) long and 40 feet (12 m) wide, and would
have a maximum storage capacity of 300,000 acre feet (370,000,000 m3) of
water. One aim was to regulate the release of water from the natural storage
in the lake to maintain a minimum draught of 4.5 feet (1.4 m) in the river up
to Baramulla during the lean winter months. The project was conceived in
the early 1980s and work began in 1984.
There has been an ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over the
Tulbul Project since 1987, when Pakistan objected that the it violated the
1960 Indus Water Treaty. India stopped work on the project that year, but
has since pressed to restart construction. The Jhelum River through the
Kashmir valley below Wular Lake provides an important means of transport
for goods and people. To sustain navigation throughout the year a minimum
depth of water is needed. India contends that this makes development of the
Tulbul Project permissible under the treaty, while Pakistan maintains that the
project is a violation of the treaty. India says suspension of work is harming
the interests of people of Jammu and Kashmir and also depriving the people
of Pakistan of irrigation and power benefits that may accrue from regulated
water releases.

Recent Developments:In February 2010 both countries started the dialogue process again and the
foreign secretaries of the two countries met in New Delhi but the dialogue
ended on a bitter note. Pakistan was adamant to discuss the water issue
while India was stuck on discussing terrorism. At the SAARC Summit in
Thimphu, the prime ministers of both countries promised to continue

dialogue and as a result the foreign ministers of both countries are

scheduled to meet in Pakistan. As the two countries are going to engage in
dialogue on umpteen issues then they should also include the issue of water
because it is going to be another future source of tension between these two
countries. If needed, a few amendments to the treaty can be made but to
revive or scrap the whole treaty will be a blunder. As mature nation-states
both of them have to understand that the need is to resolve the contending
issues and establish peace between them rather than add more problems in
the already existing long list of disputes.
On 24th September,2011, The International Court of Arbitration (ICA) has
ordered India to halt construction of controversial Kishan Ganga Dam.The
IAC has issued this stay order on a plea of Pakistan, describing that India
cannot do any construction work at place Ganga on River Neelum.The court
has said in its order that Pakistan and India will have to form joint teams to
monitor implementation of its verdict and no construction work is allowed
over Kishan Ganga Dam.Earlier, India rejected an oath of a legal
construction and prior to that on August 25, Pakistan appeared before the
ICA to obtain this stay order against illegal construction of Kishan Ganga
Dam.It is worth remembering here that after Indian refusal to halt its illegal
construction of controversial Kishan Ganga Dam, meant to take control over
Pakistans water supply, Pakistan decided to go to the International Court of
Arbitration (ICA) to get justice.

Internal Issues of Water:Amidst this shortage of water, Pakistan is also confronted with a number of
internal factors that amount to further strain. One columnist warned that
with Pakistan's population set to jump to 250 million in just a few years'
time, a shortage of water, along with that of oil, sugar, and wheat, will
become a major problem. Pakistan is also estimated to be losing 13 million
cusecs [approximately 368,119 cubic meters/second] of water every year
from its rivers into the sea, as it does not have enough reservoirs or dams to
store water. Further tensions arise from allegations of inequitable distribution
of water between various Pakistani provinces. The Indus River System
Authority (IRSA), which allocates water to provinces, averted a major
political controversy between provinces in June 2009 by declaring that there
would be no cuts in their water supply.

Consequences of Water Shortage:The discussion of water easily ignites popular passion because Pakistan is
increasingly confronted by an impending water crisis. In early 2009, it was
estimated that Pakistan is on the brink of a water disaster, as the availability
of water in Pakistan has been declining over the past few decades, from

5,000 cubic meters per capita 60 years ago to 1,200 cubic meters per capita
in 2009. By 2020, the availability of water is estimated to fall to about 800
cubic meters per capita. M. Yusuf Sarwar, a member of the Indus Basin
Water Council, has warned that the lessening flow of water in rivers and
shortage of water generally could cause Pakistan to be declared a disasteraffected nation by 2013. Dr. Muhammad Yar Khawar, a scientist at the
University of Sindh, released research last year based on sample surveys
that warns that less than 20 percent of below-surface water in the Sindh
province, previously thought to be a viable water source, is acceptable for
drinking.

Analysis:Concern is growing in Pakistan that India is pursuing policies in an attempt

to strangulate Pakistan by exercising control over the water flow of
Pakistan's rivers. The concern is most related to Pakistans agricultural
sector, which would be greatly affected by the building of dams and by the
external control of the waters of several rivers that flow into Pakistan. The
issue has a layered complexity, as three of the rivers flow into Pakistan
through the Indian portion of Jammu & Kashmir, the territory over which the
two countries have waged multiple wars.Pakistani columnists, religious
leaders, and policymakers are increasingly articulating their concern over the
water dispute in terms of a traditional rivalry against India and in terms of
anti-Israel sentiment that has been fostered by the country's establishment
over the years.
IBWC(Indus Basin Water Comission) Chairman Zahoorul Hassan Dahir
claimed that "India, working in conjunction with the Jewish lobby" is using
most of the river waters, causing a shortage of food, water and electricity in
Pakistan.
In April 2008, IBWC Chairman Hafiz Zahoorul Hassan Dahir stated that India
plans to construct 10 more dams on rivers streaming into Pakistan in
addition to the ongoing construction of 52 new dams. "We believe that if
India succeeded in constructing the proposed dams," Dahir disclosed,
"Pakistan would join the list of the countries facing a severe water crisis. If
we are to save Pakistan, we have to protect our waters and review our
policies in Kashmir." One month later, Dahir accused India of using 80
percent of the water of the Chenab and Jhelum rivers and 60 percent of the
water of the Indus.
Although bitter feelings and heated public debates are likely to persist in the
years ahead, the people and leadership of Pakistan generally accept that
there is nothing that Pakistan can do, especially in light of the judgment
delivered in February 2007 by the World Bank-appointed neutral expert
Professor Raymond Lafitte. In an editorial, the Pakistani daily The
Newsobserved: "The only way to avoid problems arising is for the 1960

accord to be respected. India has, on more than one occasion, attempted to

violate its spirit if not its letter, by seeking loopholes and technical flaws that
can be used to its advantage. But in all this, there is also another message.
The interests of the two countries are so closely linked, that they can be
protected only by establishing closer ties. A failure to do so will bring only
more episodes of discord, over river water, over dams, over toxic dumping in
drains and over illegal border crossings...."

Arab Uprising, A Glimmer Of Hope For A New

Beginning In Middle East
Introduction
The Arab uprising is a revolutionary wave of demonstrations and protests
occurring in the Arab world. Since 18 December 2010 there have been
revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and civil war in Libya resulting in the fall of
its regime, civil uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen, major protests in
Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Morocco, and Oman, and minor protests in Kuwait,
Lebanon, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Western Sahara.
The series of protests and demonstrations across the Middle East and North
Africa has become known as the "Arab Spring and sometimes as the "Arab
Spring and Winter "Arab Awakening" or "Arab Uprisings" even though not all
participants in protests identify as Arab. It was sparked by the first protests
that occurred in Tunisia on 18 December 2010 following Mohamed Bouazizi's
self-immolation in protest of municipal corruption and ill treatment by a local
lady municipal officer. With the success of the protests in Tunisia, a wave of
unrest struck Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, and Yemen, and then spread to other
countries. The largest, most organized demonstrations have often occurred
on a "day of rage", usually Friday after noon prayers. The protests have also
triggered similar unrest outside the region.
As of September, 2011, demonstrations have resulted in the overthrow of
two heads of state: Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled to Saudi
Arabia on 14 January following the Tunisian revolution protests, and in
Egypt, PresidentHosni Mubarak resigned on 11 February 2011, after 18 days
of massive protests, ending his 30-year presidency. During this period of
regional unrest, several leaders announced their intentions to step down at
the end of their current terms. Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir
announced that he would not seek re-election in 2015, as did Iraqi Prime
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose term ends in 2014, although there have been
increasingly violent demonstrations demanding his immediate resignation.
Protests in Jordan have also caused the resignation of the government

resulting in former Prime Minister and Ambassador to IsraelMarouf al-Bakhit

being appointed prime minister by King Abdullah and tasked with forming a
new government. Another leader, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen,
announced on 23 April that he would step down within 30 days in exchange
for immunity, a deal the Yemeni opposition informally accepted on 26 April,
Saleh then reneged on the deal, prolonging the Yemeni uprising. Libyan
leader Muammar al-Gaddafi has refused to step down, causing a civil war
between pro-Gadaffi loyalists and anti-Gadaffi rebels continued. Rebels have
captured most of the Libyan cities including capital Tripoli with the active
military assistance of NATO especially by UK and France.

Modus operandi
The protests have shared techniques of civil resistance in sustained
campaigns involving strikes, demonstrations, marches and rallies, as well as
the use of social media to organize, communicate, and raise awareness in
the face of state attempts at repression and internet censorship.

Background
Numerous factors have led to the protests, including issues such as
dictatorship or absolute monarchy, human rights violations, government
corruption (demonstrated by Wiki leaks diplomatic cables), economic
decline, unemployment, extreme poverty, and a number of demographic
structural factors, such as a large percentage of educated but dissatisfied
youth within the population. The catalysts for the revolts in all Northern
African and Persian Gulf countries have been the concentration of wealth in
the hands of autocrats in power for decades, insufficient transparency of its
redistribution, corruption, and especially the refusal of the youth to accept
the status quo. Increasing food prices have also been a significant factor, as
they involve threats to food security worldwide and prices that approach
levels of the 20072008 world food price crises. Amnesty International
singled out Wikileaks release of US diplomatic cables as a catalyst for the
revolts. These events will continue to be magnified and accelerated by the
growing role of social media. Indeed, the Arab Media Influence Report
recently released by the Dubai-based News Group notes a number of
significant trends:
There are 65 million Internet users in the Arab world and the number is
expected to grow to 80 million by 2012. In percentage terms, 30.8 percent
of the population is online, while the global average is 28.7 percent. In
August 2010, Arabic became the fastest growing language on Face book.
There are 17 million Face book users in the region, larger than the number
of newspaper subscribers.

While by no means the only factor, social media will surely play a critical role
as the dynamic change launched by the Tunisian fruit seller continues to play
out across the region.
In recent decades rising living standards and literacy rates, as well as the
increased availability of higher education, have resulted in an improved
human development index in the affected countries. The tension between
rising aspirations and a lack of government reform may have been a
contributing factor in all of the protests.Many of the internet-savvy youth of
these countries have studied in the West, where autocrats and absolute
monarchies are considered anachronisms. A university professor of Oman,
Al-Najma Zidjaly referred to this upheaval as youthquake.
Tunisia and Egypt, the first to witness major uprisings, differ from other
North African and Middle Eastern nations such as Algeria and Libya in that
they lack significant oil revenue, and were thus unable to make concessions
to calm the masses.

Impacts Of Arab Uprising

Political impact
Arab uprising will have deep rooted impact in Middle East and North Africa
both politically and economically. As we know that in most of the countries of
Middle East monarch and autocrats have the rule. The uprisings mark a
watershed event, with the Arab world irrevocably changed. Essentially, the
social contract governing the relationship between Arab ruling regimes and
their populations is in tatters. The contracts fundamental precept demanded
popular acquiescence to regime control the suppression of their aspirations
and muzzling of their voice in exchange for government guarantees of
decent living conditions the provision of jobs, housing, affordable food
prices, education and health care. Over the past decade, if not longer, the
social contracts foundations began to crack. Deteriorating socioeconomic
conditions and a yearning for freedom across the Arab world underscored
the core flaws of this arrangement. The uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia as
well as popular protests across the region are the most dramatic evidence of
this new Arab awakening.
No one not even the protest organizers themselves predicted that the
demonstrations would lead to the downfall of such deeply-entrenched
regimes. Western governments often believed Arab regime arguments that
their governments represented stability and a bulwark against either chaos
or Islamist extremism. Meanwhile, many Western analysts perhaps
overestimated the strength of autocratic regimes and failed to give enough
credence to the popular side of the Arab social contract. Riddled by
pervasive corruption and unable to provide even the most basic popular
needs, regimes in Tunis and Cairo were ultimately brought down by their

inability to fulfill their end of the bargain. Going forward, it is essential to

understand that the Arab grassroots have been empowered. They are now a
key factor in the regions power equations and can no longer be ignored.
Power no longer emanates solely from the top, but also resides at the
popular level.

The Us-Saudi Axis

The ongoing uprisings in the Arab world today, as is clear to all observers, do
not distinguish between republics and monarchies. Indeed, in addition to the
republics, demonstrations have been ongoing in Morocco, Jordan, Oman, and
Saudi Arabia (and more modestly in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates),
despite the brutal suppression of the major Bahraini uprising by a combined
mercenary force dispatched by the member states of the Gulf Cooperation
Council led by Saudi Arabia.
The situation in Arab countries today is characterized as much by the
counter-revolution sponsored by the Saudi regime and the United States as
it is by the uprisings of the Arab peoples against US-sponsored dictatorial
regimes.
While the US-Saudi axis was caught unprepared for the Tunisian and
Egyptian uprisings, they quickly made contingency plans to counter the
uprisings elsewhere, especially in Bahrain and Oman, but also in Jordan and
Yemen, as well as take control of the uprisings in Libya (at first) and later in
Syria. Attempts to take control of the Yemeni uprising have had mixed
results so far.
Part of the US-Saudi strategy has been to strengthen religious sectarianism,
especially hostility to shiism, in the hope of stemming the tide of the
uprisings. The situation today is one of a struggle between the formidable
US-Saudi axis, which is the main anti-democratic force in the region, and the
pro-democracy uprisings.
The US-Saudi strategy is two-fold: massive repression of those Arab
uprisings that can be defeated, and co-optation of those that could not be.
How successful the second part will be depends on how co-optable the prodemocracy forces prove to be.

Economic impact
Political turmoil in the Middle East has powerful economic and financial
implications, particularly as it increases the risk of stagflation, a lethal
combination of slowing growth and sharply rising inflation. Indeed, should
stagflation emerge, there is a serious risk of a double-dip recession for a
global economy that has barely emerged from its worst crisis in decades.
Severe unrest in the Middle East has historically been a source of oil-price
spikes, which in turn have triggered three of the last five global recessions.

The Yom Kippur War in 1973 caused a sharp increase in oil prices, leading to
the global stagflation of 1974-1975. The Iranian revolution in 1979 led to a
similar stagflationary increase in oil prices, which culminated in the recession
of 1980-1981. And Iraqs invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 led to a spike in
oil prices at a time when a US banking crisis was already tipping America
into recession.
We dont know yet whether political contagion in the Middle East will spread
to other countries. The turmoil may yet be contained and recede, sending oil
prices back to lower levels. But there is a serious chance that the uprisings
will spread, destabilizing Bahrain, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Yemen, and
eventually even Saudi Arabia.
Even before the recent Middle East political shocks, oil prices had risen
above $80-$90 a barrel, an increase driven not only by energy-thirsty
emerging-market economies, but also by non-fundamental factors: a wall of
liquidity chasing assets and commodities in emerging markets, owing to
near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing in advanced economies;
momentum and herding behavior; and limited and inelastic oil supplies. If
the threat of supply disruptions spreads beyond Libya, even the mere risk of
lower output may sharply increase the fear premium via precautionary
stockpiling of oil by investors and final users.
The latest increases in oil prices and the related increases in other
commodity prices, especially food imply several unfortunate consequences
(even leaving aside the risk of severe civil unrest).
First, inflationary pressure will grow in already overheating emerging market
economies, where oil and food prices represent up to two-thirds of the
consumption basket. Given weak demand in slow-growing advanced
economies, rising commodity prices may lead only to a small first-round
effect on headline inflation there, with little second-round impact on core
inflation. But advanced countries will not emerge unscathed.
Indeed, the second risk posed by higher oil prices a terms-of-trade and
disposable income shock to all energy and commodity importers will hit
advanced economies especially hard, as they have barely emerged from
recession and are still experiencing an anemic recovery.
The third risk is that rising oil prices reduce investor confidence and increase
risk aversion, leading to stock-market corrections that have negative wealth
effects on consumption and capital spending. Business and consumer
confidence are also likely to take a hit, further undermining demand.
If oil prices rise much further towards the peaks of 2008, the advanced
economies will slow sharply; many might even slip back into recession. Even
if prices remain at current levels for most of the year, global growth will slow
and inflation will rise.

Role of US, France and UK

US have a deep rooted political and economic interest in Middle East and
North Africa. He has a strong military presence in Arabian Peninsula and
Indian Ocean to protect its energy interests. Since World War II, but more
diligently since the mid 1950s, the United States has followed two
simultaneous strategies to exercise its control over the Arab peoples across
Arab countries. The first, and the one most relevant to Arabs, was based on
the early US recognition and realization (like Britain, France, and Italy before
it) that Arabs, like all other peoples worldwide, wanted democracy and
freedom and would struggle for them in every possible way.
For the United States, this necessitated the establishment of security and
repressive apparatuses in Arab countries, which the US would train, fund,
and direct in order to suppress these democratic desires and efforts in
support of dictatorial regimes whose purpose has always been and continues
to be the defense of US security and business interests in the region.
These interests consist principally in securing and maintaining US control of
the oil resources of the region, ensuring profits for American business, and
strengthening the Israeli settler-colony.Much of this was of course propelled
by the beginning of the Cold War and the US strategy to suppress all forms
of real and imagined communist-leaning forces around the world, which
included any and all democratic demands for change in the region.
This strategy, which was formalised in the Eisenhower Doctrine issued in
1957, continues through the present. The Eisenhower Doctrine, issued on 5
January 1957, as a speech by the US president, declared the Soviet Union,
not Israel or Western-supported regional dictatorships, as the enemy of the
people of the Middle East. US will continue playing its role in Middle East for
its economic and political interests in one way or other.
The French and the British have continued to play important neo-colonial
roles in the region, economically, militarily, and in the realm of security
"cooperation". They have strengthened their position by increasing their
security and diplomatic "assistance" to their allies among Arab dictators.
Now they have find an opportunity to reestablish their base in Middle East
like US to secure pursue their economic, military and political interests in
form of supporting the Rebels against the Qadafi in Libya.

Conclusion
On a systemic level, the Arab uprising will create a new political and
economic reality in the Middle East and transform the regional balance of
power. While Western influence in the region will inevitably decline as a
result, the Arab revolutions also have an undeniable potential to enhance
regional cooperation, reduce the appeal of terrorism and help break the
current deadlock in the peace process. The great Arab hope is that Tunisia
and Egypt will write a new Revolutionary and Democratic Manifesto for the
Arab peoples.

Recommendations
Media has emerged as a powerful tool in awareness of general public and
accountability of governments in their governance.
Center of power lies with the people.
Government needs to solve the issues at the gross root level.
Corruption and accumulation of wealth in few hands can lead to revolution.
Public satisfaction and democratic system of government are integral
components to success.

Analysis:The killing of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi after being captured alive by the
freedom fighters is a clear violation of international humanitarian law. While
the National Transitional Council is set to formally announce Libyas
liberation, NATO has specified that it will end its armed campaign in Libya by
October 31.
NATOs air strikes on Libya have been carried out on the basis of the UN
Security Council Resolution 1973. This is a binding Chapter VII resolution,
which under Paragraph 4 authorizes member states to take all necessary
measures.to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. Therefore,
NATO utilized this resolution, as the legal basis for carrying out systematic
air strikes on Libya for seven months. Many states, including Russia and
China, have been extremely critical of the use of force in Libya, and view it
as a mechanism to bring about regime change and not to protect the
civilians - a norm, which as of yet has not reached the status of customary
international law, but is actively promoted by the UN Secretary Generals
office.
Thus, presently humanitarian intervention cannot be used as a legal basis to
violate the territorial sovereignty of a State and is prohibited under Article
2(4) of the UN Charter. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Security
Councils permanent members, like Russia and China, who are themselves
confronting secessionist movements, have recently vetoed a draft Security
Council resolution on Syria; on the basis of upholding the right to noninterference and in the interest of peace and security in the Middle East.
Russia, China and many other emerging powers, feel that if the draft
resolution had been approved, then NATO could have misused it to conduct
armed operations inside Syria, as it did in Libya, on the pretext of protecting
the civilians.
The Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitally Churkin, has recently stated:
The international community is alarmed by statements that compliance with
[the] Security Council resolutions in Libya in the NATO interpretation is a
model for future actions of NATO in implementing [the] responsibility to

protect.
From a human rights perspective, especially in the light of genocide and
crimes against humanity recently committed in Rwanda, Bosnia and Sudan,
the right of humanitarian intervention seems at first to be the right course of
action. However, in practice, such a right is often exercised unilaterally or by
a small group of States, acting with ulterior motives, with little regard for the
interest of civilian populations, who they claim to be protecting. Many states
contradictorily hold the right applicable in certain circumstances and not in
other similar situations. Such behaviour is destabilising and retards
international peace and security.
Recently, the principle of State sovereignty has confronted numerous
challenges. Religion, globalisation, human security and international trade
have all tested the norm and have facilitated its evolution in different ways.
At times, this transformation has been positive, while, in other
circumstances, a contrary determination can be made. However, if
humanitarian intervention is to be an acceptable norm of international law,
numerous safeguards have to be incorporated in international law before this
right can be exercisable. This would most certainly require changes in the
UN Charter and the international law governing the use of force.
Furthermore, the necessary mechanisms must be put in place to more
effectively determine facts, in order to establish State responsibility. This
would, in turn, require a State to contract away other forms of sovereignty
that even States, which actively advocate for the right of humanitarian
intervention will find difficult to agree to.
If the right of humanitarian intervention was exercisable immediately at the
discretion of any State, then humanitarian imperialism would, most
probably, be the result. Then, the US conducting drones strikes and armed
operations deep inside Pakistan to extirpate alleged terrorists and militants
on the premise that Pakistan has failed in its responsibility to protect its
citizens would become easily justifiable under international law.
Pak-U.S Relations
While history has been unkind to Pakistan, its geography has been its great benefit.
(Stephen P Cohen)
Geography
West-Iran, Afghanistan and Wakhan link to CARs
South-Arabian sea
North-China
East-India
Energy richer, most conflicted and most populous region
Trade route, sea route, energy corridor, Geostrategic location
History
A diplomatic blunder to engage in alignment policy in 1953
Serious of engagements and estrangements
MEDO in 1954
SEATO in 1954 withdrawal in 1972
CENTO/Baghdad Pact in 1955 withdrawal in 1979

 Military sanctions in 1965 (suspension of military aid)

Symington amendment in 1979(suspension of military and economic aid)
Pressler amendment in 1985
Browns Amendment in 1996
Glenn Amendment in 1998 ( going nuclear )
Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill in 2009
In 1959, 1981 and 2001 aid without sanctions
Afghanistan issue
Shares Pak-US mutual responsibility
Both agreed to cope
US success to mould world sympathies
Military and economic aid to Pakistan
Confrontation started over Haqqani network and Tehrik-e- Taliban Pakistan (TTP)
Drone attacks, Raymond Davis case, Abbottabad operation and Silala check post attack
Pakistan could not mould world favours to its plight besides being partner in war against
terrorists
U.S strategy to tackle the issue
Anti-Taliban government
Indian engagement
Pressure on Pakistan t o do more
Less share to Pakistan in Afghanistan development
Terrorist activities inside Pakistan through TTP (Swat, Bajoure,chitral as safe havens of TTP
in kunr, kandhar, Nooristan)
Military and economic aid to Pakistan conditional with full cooperation
Only those Taliban acceptable who are ready to accept US hegemony
Pak Strategy to tackle the issue
Taliban remain in government
To collect more military and economic gains
Indian evacuation from Afghanistan
U.S to leave the region completely
Good and bad Taliban definition of extremists
Neighboring States Strategy
Russia and China dont want U.S stay in the region
Iran and Turkey dont want Taliban government
India is also against Taliban regime
India wishes to receive maximum benefits from development perspectives
Recommendations
Pakistan
Clear, transparent and comprehensive strategic policies
-No hidden agreements
- Policy discussion in parliament
-Minimize intelligence agencies and military role regarding policy making
Ban on domestic religious extremist groups activities
Cordial relations with Afghanistan government
Pakistan should clearly define its links with Haqqani Group
Pakistan should focus its benefits from stable and peaceful Afghanistan
Pakistan should function as a professional trader not soldier
Mobilize regional stakeholders
U.S
Acknowledge Pakistans efforts to curb terrorism globally
U.S should clearly define whether it has its stake in Afghanistan or Taliban
Ban of drone attacks

 Must help its afghan partners to rework their relationships with Pakistan
Must clearly define its agenda of exit till 2014
Must engage Pakistan in peace talks with Taliban
Must engage Pakistan in army training and development programmes
Must end Indian consulates and Moulvi Fazal ullahs TTP s activities in Afghanistans
Eastern provinces
Provided civil government with more administrative powers
Engage regional security forces in peace activities