Pakistan US relations

Background
US - Pakistan relations in the last six decades have been unstable and moved in a cyclical
pattern with recurrent ups and downs, with frequent alternating episodes of close
partnership and sharp friction—reflecting engagement and estrangement in global and
regional geopolitics. They have flourished in periods of international tensions, such as in
the fifties, again in eighties, (and now in the days beyond 9/11), and have…… deteriorated
in conditions of détente, as in the sixties and seventies and again in the nineties. The
United States and Pakistan relations, broadly speaking have been synchronized on the
same wavelength during the Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan presidencies. During the
Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bush, and Clinton administrations, however, policy differences
have been more pronounced and significant.

Pakistan came into existence just as the cold war had started between America& Soviet
Union (USSR). The world was split into two camps soviet and US. Infant Pakistan and
India had to pick their camps...

History:

1950: Liaqat Ali khan (1st PM) was invited by Soviets and Americans. He chose to visitUS,
thus starting PAK-US relations. India chose Soviets.
1954: Pakistan grew closer to US, joining in defense agreement SEATO (alliance against,
communism).
1955: an alliance, the Baghdad Pact, was formed between Britain, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and
Pakistan (its name changed to CENTO )
Late 50s and early 60s:US aid starts flowing to Pak. with the military govt of Gen Ayub
Khan, Pakistan grew even more close to US. First US base opened at Badaber near
Peshawar. U2 flights originating from Badaber gained lot of information about Soviet
activities across the border.

In May 1960, the USSR shot U2 reconnaissance plane of US down over Russian soil, it had
taken off from Badaber. The incidence brought lot of embarrassment both for Pak & US.
USSR also warned Pak.

1965: Indo-Pak war...Pak US relations suffer a setback 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. Pakistan’s old enemy
King Zahir of Afghanistan ensured safety of Pakistan’s Western borders, allowing Pakistan
to remove it troops from that border. Iran opened her airfields to Pakistan Air force. China
1
moved her troops close to Indian border but US stopped supplies forcing Pakistan to sue
for peace offered under Soviets. It was the firstbetrayalby US.

1971: Civil war in Pakistan. India invaded Pakistan. Massive blood shed supervised by
India. Pakistan asks her old time ally US for help. US tell Pakistan 7th Fleet is on its way.
Now after 25 years declassified documents revealed that US deliberately wanted to break
Pakistan to appease India. It was the second betrayal by US.

1970s: 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. US grew hostile to Pakistan. Bhutto openly
challenged US in his speeches....

1977: CIA organized "Tehrik-i-Nizam-i-Mustafa" spearheaded by Jamaat-i-Islami a hard

core Religious party. BTW no religious party has ever won any significant votes in any
elections. They have always come to power using back doors. The movement gains
momentum and army topples Bhutto, who is finally hanged in 1979. This is what happens
to those who oppose USA. US also pass Symington law thereby stopping aid to countries
pursuing nuclear technology (Pak suffers).

1979: Iranian revolution...US lose a staunch ally in the region (i.e. Iran). Same year soviets
invade Afghanistan. It’s a check mate for US as communism expands in Afghanistan.
1980s: Pak-US friendship starts again as US badly needs an ally in the region. Pakistan
becomes a front line state in war against communism........US takes lenient view of Pak
nuclear program & restores its aid. Pak receives 3.2 billion.

1989-92:Soviets are finally defeated triggering a massive reaction all over the world which
finally results in fall of communism....US is the sole super power...either u r with the US or
u r dead...
India quickly jumps ship and prostates before US.... Pakistan is ignored by US.... relations
suddenly become cold... Zia-ul-Haq is killed in a plane crash which many in Pakistan
believe was a work of CIA...

1990s: US closes its eyes on Pakistan again now that it is no longer needed. India becomes
the blue eyed baby. Nuclear sanctions again imposed on Pak. Pak aid stopped.
1998: India exploded nuclear device and threatens to attack Pakistan. World keeps mum.
Pakistan responds by its own nuke tests. India shuts up but US imposes sanctions on
Pakistan... Its third betrayal by US;

2
1999- 2000: Gen Pervaiz Musharraf topples Nawaz Sharif’ govt. West condemns Pak. Pak
feels isolated & in serious financial crisis.
2001: 9/11 again pushes US to seek its old ally. Pak, in its was against
terrorism. Pakistan as always agrees......now people in Pakistan see a 4th betrayal in the
making as US assures India that it will help India fight "terrorism" in Kashmir a veiled
threat that Pakistan will suffer same fate as Afghanistan... No one realizes that the terrorism
in Kashmir is by Indian army....Look at the statistics.... tens of thousands of Kashmir is
slaughtered by Indian occupation forces....yet when Kashmir is fight the Indian army they
are labeled terrorists...by that token George Washington was a terrorist, Charles DE Gaulle
was a terrorist, Nelson Mandela was even declared a terrorist by racist South Africa.
Pakistan is always there when US needed her...but US did not reciprocate.... we are a very
emotional nation.... we love our friends but nobody likes to be betrayed...

Post–September 11

 After the September 11 attacks in 2001 in the United States, Pakistan once again
became a key ally in the war on terror with the United States. In 2001, U.S. President
George W. Bush strongly encouraged Pakistan government to join the U.S. war on
terror. Prior to the September 11 attacks in 2001, Pakistan was key supporter of the
Taliban in Afghanistan, as part of their "strategic depth" objective vies-a-vies India

 After 9/11, Pakistan, led by General Pervez Musharraf, reversed course under
pressure from the United States and joined the "War on Terror" as a U.S. ally. Having
failed to convince the Taliban to hand over bin Laden and other members of Al
Qaeda, Pakistan provided the U.S. a number of military airports and bases for its
attack on Afghanistan, along with other logistical support. Since 2001, Pakistan has
arrested over six hundred Al-Qaeda members and handed them over to the United
States; senior U.S. officers have been lavish in their praise of Pakistani efforts in
public while expressing their concern that not enough was being done in private.
However, General Musharraf was strongly supported by the Bush administration – a
common theme throughout Pakistan's relations with the U.S. has been U.S. support
of military dictators to the detriment of democracy in Pakistan.

In return for their support, Pakistan had sanctions lifted and has received about $20 billion
in U.S. aid since 2001, primarily military. In 2004, President George W. Bush designated
Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally, making it eligible, among other things, to purchase
advanced American military technology.

2002-2003: Pak deploys 80000 troops in tribal area (FATA) to crush the militants. The
result has been a mix.

2005: US dis-satisfied over Pak performance in war on terror due to increased insurgency
along Pak- Afghan border. It starts drone attacks in Pak territory violating its sovereignty.

3
Drones lead to huge collateral damage & death of innocent civilians leading to more
resentment among the tribal people. Militancy spreads. US pressurize Pak to “Do more”.

2006- 2007: The former President Bush signed off an internal security memo authorizing
important operational changes to the US forces in Afghanistan. Not only could the drone
attacks be increased on the Pakistan side of the border, they could be conducted without
prior intimation to the Pakistanis And, if and when any of the ‘big guns’ (the top three) of
al Qaeda and the Taliban were located, the US forces were authorized to attack them
without being inhibited by the Pak-Afghan boundary. The first signs of a changing US
operational application emerged with the increasing frequency of drone attacks in the
FATA region and absence of any prior coordination of intelligence.

2008: When Obama took over in January 2008, one of his first orders of business was
a brief on the Afghan situation. He was briefed on President Bush’s authorization of
enhanced operations. Reportedly, he expressed surprise at why such facilitation was not
being fully exploited. He ordered an immediate increase in the frequency of drone attacks.
This has remained the principal plank of the US strategy to counter al Qaeda and Taliban
groups lodged in the mountainous recesses of the Pak-Afghan border. It has also
subsequently been proposed as the main underlying strategy for the counter-terrorism
(CTR) approach by Vice President Biden as an alternate to the currently ongoing counter-
insurgency (COIN) campaign in Afghanistan.

For Pakistan, since 2008, the drone attacks have acquired a different dimension: its
blowback and retaliatory suicide bomb blasts by militant organizations have risen in
proportion, causing widespread death and destruction in the major cities of Pakistan.
The CIA also believed at that time Osama Bin Laden to be hiding in Pakistan. U.S time to
time accused Pakistan of giving safe-haven to the Taliban& for not conducting the military
operation sincerely. In order to increase pressure US has started demanding pak to DO
MORE & has shown its displeasure over Pak performance almost constantly.

2009:- In October 2009, the U.S. Congress approved $7.5 billion of non-military aid (Kerry
Lugar bill) to Pakistan over the next five years. But the disbursement of aid was made
conditional to Pak performance. Various other humiliating terms were also included in the
bill.

2010: US demands Pak to launch an operation against Haqqani group (in North
Waziristan) responsible for dangerous attacks on American forces. Pak shows reluctance.
No of drone attacks cross over 85 (highest) in this year producing no result.

4
2011-2012: Important Events;

a. Jan- Feb, 2011, Raymond Davis case: He was an American contractor who
killed 2 citizens in Lahore & was arrested. Under tremendous public demand he was
tried according to our law. US wanted Pak to release him immediately. Pak
ultimately succumbed to American pressure & released him. US proving its might
over Pak.
b. Haqqani group: American pressure increases on Pak to ‘Do more” against the
militants. US continuously asking for operation against Haqqani network.
c. May 02, 2011, Abbottabad operation: The “unilateral and unauthorized”
Operation was carried out by US forces in Abbottabad, ultimately killing Osama Bin
Ladin, the most wanted fugitive of the century. The operation turned out to be a
watershed in the context of US-Pakistan relationship. Despite the fact that there is a
compulsion for Pakistan - as well as US, to keep the partnership in war on terror on
an even keel, the brash American action, regardless of Pakistani priorities and
sensitivities, has driven the mounting tension between the two nations ever close to
the limits of a breaking point. Pakistan’s credibility also torn apart.
d. July, 11: Congress discusses at cutting aid to Pak. $800 million aid blocked for Pak.
e. July- Aug, 11: Halfhearted efforts are under way by Americans to minimize the
damage to the relations as Pakistan army takes a tough stance & refuses to cooperate
with US.
f. July, 12: Ending a bitter stand-off, Pakistan agreed to reopen key NATO supply
routes into Afghanistan. The action was taken in lieu of the US Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton’s statement, commenting that she was sorry for the loss of life in the
botched air raid on Silala check post.
g. December, 12: The United States assures Pakistan of an early release of $600 million
in Coalition Support Fund (CSF) arrears, increasing OPIC support for projects in
Pakistan from $100 million to $1 billion, launching an $80 million Pakistan
Investment Fund for SMEs in January 2013. It also reaffirms a $200 million
commitment for the Diamer-Basha Dam.
Analysis on the whole situation:
 Historically, the US has dominated Pakistan’s external affairs and internal politics, of
course in collusion with its ‘obliged’ civilian and military leadership, thanks to a
political vacuum created by authoritarian regimes. As revealed by WikiLeaks, the
US continues to play a key role in our national affairs, be it the PPP-Musharraf deal,
restoration of judges, or the recurring patching up of the civil-military power
centers. No wonder the CIA-run drone operations go on unabatedly violating our
sovereignty, disregarding the parliamentary resolution against them.
True, in the recent Pasha-Panetta talks, Pakistan has sought to work out a narrow
framework within which to restrict the CIA’s drone and other operations in
Pakistan. But it is unlikely that the Obama administration would scale down the
drone attacks, which are billed as the ‘most lethal weapon’ against terrorism.
5
 But the US unilateral actions are bound to prove counter-productive for the war on
terror and political stability in Pakistan. If the Gallup polls are any indicator, there
has grown a groundswell of anti-US public opinion, which in the coming weeks and
months may prove too difficult for both the US and the civilian-military leadership
to ignore. Already, the Raymond Davis case has vividly exposed the combined
government-US power vis-à-vis public opinion.
More alarmingly, the general perception is gaining ground that Pakistan has
suffered $ 68 billion in economic losses and more than 35,000 civilian and military
causalities because of this ‘US war’. Moreover, the rising anti-US sentiment is
increasingly merged with the public discontent on the deteriorating socio-economic
and security environment in the country, providing an easy handle to the rightwing
politicians and the hardline Islamists to beat the US and the coalition government
with. The circumstances require that the US must dispel these impressions. It must
realize that the war is pushing the country to an economic abyss and needs massive
economic assistance, a new Marshall Plan.
Our leadership should also be realistic. Riddled with a leadership crisis and eternally
tied to the US economic lifeline, the country cannot possibly have an equal say in
prosecuting the war but it can protect its own interests within the mutually agreed
strategic framework.
The US has been enjoying undocumented & unclear rules since Musharraf regime. But now
Pak wants clear& specified engagements with US in the war on terror, which is good sign.
Pak is a sovereign state & US cannot keep defying our laws with impunity. The frequent
movements of US diplomats have caused serious problems in Pak as several unwarranted
incidents have occurred in past where these diplomats have to be given relaxation despite
their inappropriate conduct. Besides Raymond Davis issue US consulate cars with fake
number plates have been caught many times. There have been reports of resistance& failure
of US Diplomats in disclosing their identity to the security agencies in Pak.
The US sudden & unexpected raid on Osama’s hide out at Abbottabad was also an
encroaching attempt in Pak territory. The incidence caused immense embarrassment to
both the governments & military of Pak. US found another opportunity to humiliate our
military forces & blamed them for either protecting Osama or incompetent to find him out.
We disregarded our contribution& services in war on terror. It threatened Pak with aid cu
off & other consequences.
Similarly drone attacks have also been a bone of contention between the US & Pak as these
attacks are being carried out without respecting the sentiments of our people & openly
damaging our sovereignty. Last year 85 attacked were conducted while over 45 strikes have
been made this year so far. Pak is worried over not only at the increase in their number but
also due to huge civilian losses. Pak then also has to face the resentment of the people in
tribal areas. US have threatened to strike Baluchistan with drones as well & even to go for
unilateral actions in Pak.
On the night of November 25/26, US/NATO airplanes and helicopters made a predawn
attack on two Pakistani border check posts at Salala in Mohamand Agency and killed 24

6
soldiers, besides injuring 13. It is the most serious tragedy to date. The Abbottabad and
Salala attacks have turned the public outcry
Against blatant acts like the broad day light killing of two young men by
Raymond Davis, a lowly hired hand of American intelligence, into deep
Seated dismay and resentment against US policies. Pak-US relations
Have hit an all-time low. The NATO supplies have been blocked and
The Shamsi airbase has been got vacated. Pakistan boycotted the Bonn Conference on the
future of Afghanistan. Pakistan eventually succumbed to the US diplomatic-cum-economic
pressures. Apparently, the Defense Committee of the Cabinet’s decision to re-open the
NATO supply line is a ‘compromised’ reaction after US officials agreed, in a backdoor
dialogue after US Secretary of State apologized on July 3, 2012 for the Salala incident.

PAK-US Relations: Solutions

The prevailing opinion in Pakistan is that after Obama’s re-election one would witness
more of the same in Pakistan-US relations in the next few years. However, there is also the
possibility for the two countries to make a new beginning. The important question is
whether the two sides would have the wisdom and the courage to realize this possibility
for the improvement of Pakistan-US relations on a sustainable and mutually beneficial
basis.

Five main factors will determine the substance and direction of Pakistan-US relations in the
coming years. They are the issues of terrorism, Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation, US-
China relations and US-India relations.

In principle, the positions of the two countries on terrorism are similar. Both are opposed to
terrorism in any form or manifestation. Both Pakistan and the US have been the victims of
terrorism. In fact, Pakistan has suffered far more than the US at the hands of terrorism, in
terms of material destruction and loss of precious human lives.

In order to keep Pakistan bridled, the US coined ‘do more mantra’, kept leveling
unsubstantiated allegations, resorted to coercive diplomacy and subjected it to drone
strikes. It made Pakistan a convenient scapegoat to hide its failures. Pak-US relations, which
remained lukewarm because of bossy and mistrustful attitude of American officials and
their outright leaning toward India and Afghanistan, nosedived after the incidents of
Raymond Davis in January 2011, stealth attack in Abbottabad on 2 May, Admiral Mullen’s
diatribe in September describing Haqqani network as the ‘veritable arm’ of ISI, and brutal
Salala attack on 26 November. In utter frustration, Pakistan was forced to close Shamsi
airbase, block NATO supply routes for over seven months and cease military cooperation.
These steps meant to impress upon the US to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and to treat
Pakistan as an ally rather than a target further widened the trust gap and brought Pak-US
relations to a near-breaking point.

In the wake of security situation in Afghanistan spinning out of control of US-NATO-

forces despite the two US troops surges, depleting US economy and increasing home
pressure to end the unwinnable war, the US initiated a political prong to induce the Taliban
to negotiate for a political settlement. This initiative enhanced Pakistan’s importance and in
7
order to lure Pakistan to help in convincing the hard-line Taliban leaders, the process of
strategic dialogue was started in 2010 which provides a platform to both Pakistan and the
US to convey their expectations and demands. The main purpose behind the Pak-US
strategic dialogue was to understand and address the interests and concerns of each other.
The US interest was to find a way for a safe and honorable exit from Afghanistan with
Pakistan’s assistance. Pakistan on the other hand was mainly interested in US assistance to
improve its faltering economy, overcome its energy crisis and to address its military
imbalances.

It is unfortunate, therefore, that there should be misunderstandings between the two

countries. These misunderstandings have arisen because of policy differences between the
two governments in fighting terrorism. It also shows that the two sides have not been able
to convey to each other convincingly their respective points of view on the subject. Obama’s
re-election offers new opportunities to the two sides to understand each other’s point of
view and better coordinate their respective anti-terrorism policies.

From the perspective of Pakistan, Pakistan has been seeking a civil nuclear deal like the one
US concluded with India and considers it imperative for restoring balance in the region. It
wants this agreement to overcome the energy crisis it is facing. Pakistan wants to have a
balanced relationship with the US and not a discriminatory one. It expects from the US to
restrain rather than encourage Indian meddlesome role in Pakistan using Afghan
soil. Pakistan was not given an improved US trade access for its textile exports. It is crucial
for Pakistan’s economy to restore its declining industrial sector through trade access which
is more effective than aid.

The US has been making tall promises but has failed to deliver. Pakistan didn’t receive
from the US the support it expected over its national security concerns. Rather, it squeezed
Pakistan by stopping the payment of committed aid installments and even withheld $1.2
billion which it had to pay against CSF for services rendered by Pak Army. Pakistan’s
request for a free trade agreement has not been ceded to. The Reconstruction Opportunity
Zones (ROZ) legislation that would give market access and trade concessions to Pakistan
and Enterprise Fund Projects and construction of two hydro electric dams in FATA are still
pending. As against total $ 18 billion Pakistan received from the US since 2002, it lost $70
billion in fighting the war on terror. Human losses have crossed the figure of 35000. 5000
fatalities suffered by Pakistan law enforcement agencies are far more than the casualties
suffered by 48 countries involved in war on terror. That is unfortunate for the simple reason
that post-Afghanistan withdrawal, Pakistan will need the US more than the US will need
Pakistan. After the Americans have pulled out, their interests in Central and South Asia
will be better served by maintaining close and friendly relations with Afghanistan and
India. The Americans are interested in obtaining access to the fabulous energy and mineral
riches of Central Asia. A Pentagon report estimated Afghanistan’s mineral wealth at over a
trillion dollars. The Central Asian states have known reserves of gas and oil as well.
America’s other geopolitical interest in the area is containing the rising China. That is better
served by a close association with India. This logic, therefore, essentially marginalizes
Pakistan in the eyes of the policymakers in Washington.

But Islamabad must find a way of staying on the right side of America. This is for good
economic reasons. For as long as the country is unable to generate a greater amount of
domestic resource for investment and for as long as it fails to exploit the riches available
8
from taking what should be its share in expanding international trade, Pakistan will remain
dependent on external flows of capital. Foreign savings are needed to close the domestic
investment-savings gap, as well as the gap between export earnings and expenditure on
imports. In the past, America has played very important roles in helping the country with
these two gaps. It has provided both direct assistance, as well as pressured institutions such
as the International Monetary Fund to come to Pakistan’s assistance. With the palpable
cooling of relations, help from America may not be as readily available as was the case
during several balance of payments crises in the past. It is recognized in Pakistan that the
country, as it moves towards another general election, will face a new balance of payments
crisis. There will be only two ways of solving it. Islamabad could severely tighten its belt
and thus slow down even more its tepid rate of growth. Or hope that a large flow of
external assistance would be forthcoming to tide over the coming difficulties. The former
approach would have serious political and social consequences. The latter approach would
need setting relations with America on a less rocky course.

Conclusion:

Without taking care of Pak national interests, the US has always imposed its own interests&
agenda on Pak. The partnership has never been stable. US is still treating Pak with
stick. Besides blocking the military aid of Pak, US is harping the same drum on Pak to “Do
more”. US have been treating Pak civilians & military with contempt. American demands
have no end& Pak has its own limitations & scarce resources. US must treat Pak on equal
footings; realize our sacrifices & huge financial losses. We have also rendered thousands of
lives in this regard &are ourselves in a mess. There is a need to cooperate with each other
on long term basis, understand each other’s sensitivities & show mutual trust & respect.
Terrorism is dual enemy ofboth & can’t be eliminated wit out the support of other
partner…………………

9
 History of the India-Pakistan Conflict
Introduction

The conflict between India and Pakistan originated as a clash between Indian and Muslim
nations during British colonial rule. As the British government retreated from South Asia
after WWII, it served notice on these two organizations to negotiate a constitutional
framework for postcolonial India before its departure in 1947. But the bitter tensions
created by the colonial legacy of divide and rule made it impossible for the parties to meet
this demand within the prescribed time. Consequently, the British government imposed its
own plan and departed. According to this plan, areas whose populations were
predominantly Muslim were to join Pakistan, while Hindu-majority areas were to be part
of India.

In the 565 princely states of South Asia, which were not governed directly by the British,
the decision to join either India or Pakistan was left to their rulers. Jammu and Kashmir had
a largely Muslim population but was ruled by a Hindu who decided to join India.

 1947: First Kashmir War

India intervened in Kashmir in 1947 on the pretext that as a regional great power, it had an
interest in maintaining order in this strategically sensitive region near China and the Soviet
Union. Pakistan had inherited a very small army that was almost completely reliant on
British officers. The British Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan’s Army initially refused to
send Pakistani troops to bolster the rebellions against Hari Singh, the ruler of Kashmir. As a
result, Pakistan’s political leadership felt the urgent need to acquire military readiness.

The competition for control over Jammu and Kashmir led to the first war between India
and Pakistan in 1947. The continuation of the conflict and tension between the two
countries led them to begin an arms race and helped consolidate the influence of their
national security institutions.

 1960: Indus Water Treaty

1960, India and Pakistan concluded The Indus Water Treaty, which enabled them to
peacefully share water from the Indus and its tributaries. As the Indus-basin irrigation
system was central to survival of the ecology that sustains life in the northern region of
South Asia, it was important for the two governments to arrive at an agreement.

The international community took an interest in the problem and made World Bank funds
and technical knowhow available. The two countries set up a joint body to carry out the
treaty and to handle disagreements. Even when India and Pakistan have been at war, they
have meticulously observed their obligations under this treaty.

10
Although the construction of huge dams and the displacement of people have had very
destructive consequences, the fact is that the two governments did devise and run a system
that maintained peace. This illustrates the ability of India and Pakistan to successfully
resolve a serious problem.

 1965: Second Kashmir War

When Pakistan failed to get the Security Council to take new diplomatic initiatives to
resolve the Kashmir dispute in 1964, it tried to compel India to make concessions by
fomenting an uprising in Indian-administered Kashmir. India retaliated by attacking
Kashmir and its army also crossed into Pakistan in the Punjab and Sindh. Pakistan
prevented India from capturing any important towns, but as it had a small army and
munitions, it would have faced difficulties if the war had continued.

As both the U.S. and the Soviet Union feared that China would enter the conflict on behalf
of Pakistan, the UN Security Council called for an end to hostilities and the war stopped
after seventeen days on September 22, 1965.

Pakistan’s government, led by President Ayub Khan accepted an offer for mediation made
by the Soviet Union. Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri and Khan met in
Uzbekistan and concluded the Tash-kent Declaration on January 10, 1966.

This declaration became very unpopular in both countries. As both sides tried to convince
people that they had achieved spectacular gains in the war, the accord was widely
perceived as a bad bargain

 1971: Another War

India attacked East Pakistan in December 1971 and the conflict spread to the Western
borders as Pakistan launched limited air strikes and made a determined military push in
Kashmir. The war ended on December 17, after the Pakistan army surrendered in East
Pakistan. Bangladesh then emerged as an independent state.

The conclusion of this conflict was also followed by a realistic appreciation of the new
situation by the political and military leadership of Pakistan. Bhutto, Pakistan’s new
civilian president, held negotiations with India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. They
concluded the Simla Agreement on July 2, 1972 and agreed to resolve their disputes
through bilateral negotiations. They also agreed not to unilaterally alter the existing "Line
of Control" dividing their armed forces in Kashmir.

 1984: Siachin conflict- Kashmir Again

In 1984, the Indian Army captured Siachin…. This placed the Indian army near Pakistan’s
access routes to China. Casualties claimed by the harsh climate were greater than those
caused by actual fighting.

11
  1989: Campaign in Kashmir
A massive public campaign for Azadi (independence) emerged in the Valley of Kashmir in
1989. This movement dramatically increased the tension between India and Pakistan and
brought them to the brink of full-scale war.

The Azadi campaign began peacefully and was led mostly by secular nationalists. It quickly
turned violent when India’s armed forces fired on peaceful public demonstrations. The
Indian government then cracked down on kashmiris.. They used "cordon and search"
operations The Indian army eventually crushed the resistance. Pakistan was initially
surprised by the Azadi campaign. Once it began, Pakistan’s military leadership tried to
guide it in a direction that would be in its own interest. Besides the military, politically-
powerful Islamist groups were also ready to offer support to Kashmiri youth that were
compelled to flee the Indian army. Weapons were easily available from the pipeline set up
for the Afghan jehad. As a result, Indian armed forces continue to face effective resistance
in Kashmir.

 1998: Nuclear Tests

When the BJP formed the government in India in 1998, it moved swiftly to satisfy the
demand of India’s national security establishment to test nuclear weapons. Pakistan
responded with its own nuclear tests. When the Indian and Pakistani leaders began
negotiations in 1999, Pakistan’s Prime Minister thanked his Indian counterpart for
conducting the nuclear tests, for it had provided Pakistan the pretext to come out of the
nuclear closet.

 1999:Kargill- Battle in Kashmir

In 1999, Vajpayee and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declared their intent to
discuss Kashmir. This did not stop the fighting in Kashmir. Later that year, it was
discovered that Pakistan’s army had captured strategic heights in Kashmir’s Kargil region.
India responded with massive force to evict Pakistan troops, and Pakistan was isolated
diplomatically and agreed to leave Kargil. Differences arising from the handling of this
episode led to the overthrow of Sharif by Pakistan’s army. General Pervez Musharraf
became the country’s new ruler.

In July 2000, the Hizb-ul-Muja-hideen (HM), the leading Kashmiri group resisting India’s
armed forces, unilaterally offered a truce. Vajpayee accepted the offer and agreed to
negotiate outside the framework of the Indian constitution. The truce broke down when
India rejected the HM’s insistence on including Pakistan in the negotiations.

 In July 2001, Vajpayee invited Musharraf for talks in India (Agra summit). Their
meetings ended without a commun-iqu‚, as Vajpayee couldn’t convince Home
Minister L.K.Advani to endorse the Pakistani demand for talks on Kashmir. During

12
 Musharraf’s visit to India he made a persuasive case for talks on Kashmir that was
appreciated by many Indian opinion makers.
 2001: Terrorist Attack on Indian parliament at Delhi

The U.S. response to the September 11 attacks confronted the political leaderships of
both Pakistan and India with unique challenges and opportunities. Pakistan had to quickly
choose whether it would become an adversary of the U.S. and risk the expected
consequences, or side with it, and confront its own Islamic-fundamentalist allies in Pakistan
and Afghanistan. It chose to side with the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

India wanted the U.S. to categorize all Islamist resistance to Indian armed forces in Kashmir
as terrorism, and it wanted endorsement for its efforts to crush them. The U.S. did declare
two such Islamist groups to be terrorist organizations, but the Indian expectation that all
Islamist resistance in Kashmir be categorized as "cross border terrorism" was not realized.

India watched with concern as Pakistan again emerged as a frontline state in the latest U.S.
assault on Afghanistan as Pakistan now had the chance to improve its economy and
rehabilitate itself in the Western world. Sanctions imposed on Pakistan and India after the
nuclear explosions of 1998, and Pakistan’s military coup of 1999, was rescinded.

On December 13, 2001, five people were killed in a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament
which India said was orchestrated by Pakistani agents. India deployed its armed forces
along the border and moved missiles to where they could be launched against Pakistan.
Pakistan responded in similar fashion.

 Nov 2008 -Mumbai Terrorist Attacks

When in November 2008, a group of terrorists, traced to Pakistan, attacked the important
Indian city, Mumbai. It seemed that a war could break out between these two nuclear
weapons upstarts. Thanks to the restraint exercised by their governments as well as hectic
diplomacy by the United States, the United Kingdom and other major players, a major
disaster was averted between pak & India. The abandonment of open conflict did not mean
that peace and normality had been restored; on the contrary its major casualty was the
peace process that both sides had been claiming for quite some time that it was about to
furnish a historic resolution of all outstanding disputes between the two rivals. There can
be no doubt that those who planned and carried out the attacks wanted fear and hatred
between India and Pakistan to deepen and even result in war. At the end of 2009, South
Asia is still held hostage to the India-Pakistan confrontation."

India alleged that the recent 2008 Mumbai attacks originated in Pakistan, and that the
attackers were in touch with Pakistani personals and other handlers in Pakistan. Various
sites in Mumbai were attacked. More than ten coordinated shooting and bombing attacks
across Mumbai, India's largest city, by terrorists allegedly from Pakistan. The attacks began
on Nov. 26, 2008 and lasted until Nov. 29, killing at least 173 people and wounding at least
308 others.
13
The Mumbai attacks had serious impact on the peace process between the countries as it
caused break in composite dialogue, envisaging all the outstanding issues including
Kashmir, started in 2004 and continued till 2008. Infact India hardened its tone after
Mumbai incidence, refused to hold bilateral talks & tried to imposed immense pressure on
Pak to come to the Indian terms. India wanted Pak to completely destroy all terrorist camps
on its soil, stop sponsoring terrorism & punish the Mumbai attackers.

Although a meeting between Manmohan Singh and Gilani was held at Sharm-el-Sheikh
(Egypt) in 2009 but Singh was in no mood to resume dialogue till Pak punished the
Mumbai terrorists & complied with other Indian demands. India repeated the same
allegations, time & again till 2010, alleging that Pakistan is still sponsoring terrorist groups
in the state of Kashmir, funding, training and arming them in their war on attrition against
India. India put conditions for dialogue that Pak should destroy all the 150 camps
established for the purpose of Terrorism. Pak strictly denied all the Indian allegations &
stated them as base-less & lacked any concrete evidence.

 2010-2012 The ice breaks, finally……

Almost after two years of break, India agreed to resume composite dialogue in Feb 2010
under intense international pressure. The foreign ministers, Shah Mahmood Qureshi & S.M
Krishna broke the ice in July 2010 in Islamabad. The meeting did not produce any positive
outcome. The attitude of Krishna remained inappropriate & stubborn during the meeting.
He was not interested to avail the opportunity to improve the tense environment between
both countries & to set the agenda for future talks. The negotiations finally failed wit out
chalking out any further plan.

Previous year did see many positive developments in the peace process between India and
Pakistan. Our prime minister, Gilani met Mr Manmohan Singh while attending the World
Cup Semi Final in India (Sports diplomacy). Our interior minister had also met with his
Indian counterpart in Bhutan. After a long interval of about three years, the first meeting
between Hina Khar & S.K Krishna, the foreign ministers of the two countries finally took
place in Delhi (July 2011). In September 2012, Pakistan and India agree to ease the existing
restrictive visa regime between them, launch a Karachi-Mumbai ferry service and start
daily flights connecting Islamabad and Delhi, as the foreign ministers of both countries
wrap up the latest round of peace talks by promising to continue their dialogue. In
November 2012, Federal Minister for Commerce Makhdoom Amin Fahim says Pakistan is
committed to the implantation of MFN status for India from January 1, 2013, and there will
be no delay.

No major breakthrough on contentious issues between the two countries has been reported.
However, they reaffirmed the commitment to resolve all outstanding issues through a
comprehensive and uninterruptible dialogue. It is hoped that no other bloody act of
terrorism mars this commitment.

14
It would be unfair, not to appreciate the positive mark made by our first lady foreign
minister with her confident appearance and gestures, despite being so young and not very
experienced. She promoted a liberal and moderate image of Pakistan.
Nevertheless, on her return to Pakistan Ms Hina Khar disappointed us by emphasizing, as
a point of achievement, that “neither Pakistan nor India deviated from their stated legal
and political positions”. This may be so. But other than boosting egos on both sides, this
does not in any manner serve the interests of the people of India and Pakistan or help in
resolving any of the issues between the two countries. Repetition of the rhetoric of the
“stated legal and political positions” has not helped in resolving the most contentious issue
of Kashmir, in over 63 years nor is it likely to do so in future.

The establishments of the two countries must accept that neither the Security Council nor
the General Assembly of the UN are willing to implement their own resolutions on
Kashmir nor are members of the OIC willing to offer more than lip service on this issue.
Despite suffering colossal losses in the four wars we have fought with India, we could not
force India to agree to the implementation of the UN resolutions.

Similarly, the so-called jihad and the jihadist organizations have, in the name of the
liberation of Kashmiris, have caused phenomenal damage to the name, image, politics,
economy and people of Pakistan rather than causing any substantial loss or damage to
India. In the meantime, many more important issues particularly the issue of water,
without which the people of the two countries cannot survive, remains unresolved mainly
due to the failure to resolve the Kashmir issue. A conducive atmosphere is imperative
for resolving other more important issues, which are causing incalculable hardship, losses
and problems to the people of both Pakistan and India.
We have to move forward and agree upon alternate solutions to resolve the Kashmir issue.
In the SAARC Conference at Islamabad in January 2004, the leaders of the two countries
had shown some flexibility on this issue. Mr Asif Ali Zardari, soon after his election as the
president, in his address to the Times of India via satellite, expressed, in November 2008,
very positive sentiments and objectives for future relations between India and Pakistan as
well as for the entire SAARC region. Unfortunately, just a few days later, the terrible
Mumbai attacks of 2008, prevented any such positive developments from materializing.
It is an undeniable reality that neither India nor Pakistan can physically force the other to
surrender the part of Kashmir under their respective control. On the other hand, there are
clear indications that India and Pakistan are also not inclined to accept the third option –
the independent state of Kashmir. In view of these incontrovertible realities both states
shall have to show flexibility in their respective positions on Kashmir. One solution could
be to accept, at least in de-facto terms, the Line of Control, with some adjustments
necessary for the convenience of the people of two countries, such as an international
border.
It would be in the best interest of the people of India, Pakistan and Jammu & Kashmir, that
both India and Pakistan accept the Line of Control as the international border for all

15
practical purposes, at least for the time being.
Acceptance of this proposal must coincide with a treaty between the two countries saying
(a) that both the countries would desist from, and prevent aggressive actions, policies or
propaganda against each other and militancy or terrorism in any form or manifestation, be
it at the hands of the armed forces or non-state elements such as religious fanatics or
terrorists; (b) the borders between the two countries and between parts of Kashmir
occupied by both sides should be opened to the people at large with free access, free trade,
and cultural exchanges.

If peace is established and borders are opened for all practical purposes the division of
Kashmir will cease to be a barrier between the people of Kashmir as well as between India
and Pakistan, without either side surrendering an iota of sovereignty. We have suffered
enough due to self- destructive policies. Poverty and terrorism have become our worst
common enemies. We must eliminate them with mutual cooperation between our two
countries. The peace process needs to be propelled forward with common trust &
positive intentions. Dialogue is the only way to normalize the relations.

INDO-Pak Relations: Overall Outlook, Current Situation & Solutions.

Relations between Pakistan and India are anything but simple. Characterized by periodic
ups and downs and intermittent breakdown, sometimes verging on all-out war, former
Indian politician Inder Gurjal accurately described the relationship as a ‘tormented’ one.
Indeed, the heated issues of Kashmir, terrorism and nuclear arms remain as challenging as
ever. Despite this, though, the silver lining in the troubled relationship is that disruption in
dialogue is never permanent; the governments of both countries invariably return to
negotiation. Looking forward, there are a number of opportunities that Pakistan and India
may capitalize on in order to build a deeper relationship in the longer term.

The normalization of relations holds great benefit for both countries, especially when one
considers their shared economic interests. In addition, with the drawdown of United States
forces from Afghanistan in 2014, the two nuclear-armed rivals will need to find a consensus
in order to stabilize Afghanistan and the region more generally, especially amid growing
concerns over the potential “Italianization” of Pakistan. Therefore, although future relations
are uncertain, these issues and the roles that both states can play in promoting regional
stability will see Pakistan-India relations remain of critical importance in the coming
decade.

Despite the wish of both countries to normalize relations, two main challenges continue to
obstruct it. The first is reaching a resolution on Kashmir, a prospect that appears
increasingly difficult given the political roadblocks that currently exist. The second is the
issue of terrorism and Pakistan’s inability to curtail militant activities and prosecute
terrorists. If Pakistan-India relations are to improve, these two challenges must be
overcome.

16
Although Pakistani and Indian leaders have acknowledged a mutually agreeable basis for
settlement, the issue of Kashmir remains unresolved and continues to hamper relations.
The contested area has divided the two states for some 60 years and, as such, is a highly
sensitive issue. Any resolution therefore faces political roadblocks and widespread public
discontent. This is especially the case since the Mumbai attacks, as nationalism has
increased and the popular images of one another have hardened. To be sure, as ‘the public
sentiment in India is hostile, and Pakistani political parties have disowned the progress
made in the Composite Dialogues, contending that frameworks agreed upon were
authorized by a military dictator seen to lack the mandate for such unilateral decisions.

If recent official statements are anything to go by, any solution to the Kashmir issue appears
out of reach. As recently as 1 October 2012, the two states were engaged in a war of words
over the issue at the United Nations General Assembly. Both countries continue to espouse
the same rhetoric that has dogged negotiations for decades. Pakistan continues to support
the Kashmiri cause, while India maintains that ‘the people of Jammu and Kashmir have
peacefully chosen their destiny in accordance with democratic practices and they continue
to do so. The issue of Kashmir may not be as salient as other recent concerns such as
terrorism, especially given that the ongoing stalemate has lasted almost 60 years.
Nevertheless, it remains a significant hurdle and has the potential, along with related
violence and its ability to spark nationalistic movements, to once again derail relations, as it
has in the past.

The other issue related to it or can be seen as an individual basis is a problem of water
resources between the two countries. The water issue is gaining increasing prominence in
bilateral relations between Pakistan and India. Recent disputes over the Baglihar and
Kishanganga dams have placed great strain on the long-standing water sharing
arrangement based on the Indus Water Treaty. As water stress becomes an increasingly
glaring reality, the whole world will be watching how our nuclear armed countries choose
to address this challenge.

The existing Indo-Pak water sharing paradigm may no longer be able to address the
emergent tensions. Despite numerous rounds of bilateral talks, India and Pakistan are back
in the Permanent Court of Arbitration over Indian dam building aspirations in Kashmir.
More innovative approaches have called for an integrated approach towards water
management instead of trying to merely divide waters of the Indus basin. Such an
approach would not only be more sensitive to the ecological and environmental challenges
taking place in the region, but potentially help nudge our neighboring countries towards
broader cooperation as well.

Positive confidence building steps would include greater information sharing concerning
river flows. Launching joint Indo-Pak dam ventures such as the Tala Hydroelectric Project,
recently initiated between India and Bhutan, would be a further step in the direction of
increased cooperation.
A second point of divergence in the Pakistan-India relationship is terrorism. So far,
Pakistan has proven unable to curtail militant activities and prosecute those responsible for
terrorist attacks. This is a serious concern for India, especially after the 2001 and 2008
17
terrorist attacks by Pakistani based militant organizations, which India believes the ISI was
behind. Of particular concern is the future of Hafiz Saeed, the alleged “mastermind”
behind the Mumbai terrorist attack that killed 166 people. His future and accountability
continues to dominate the agenda between the two states.
India has vowed that it will only move forward on normalizing relations once Pakistan
demonstrates a commitment to countering terrorism. Many believe that Pakistan lacks the
requisite will and capacity, however, and is therefore unable to satisfy India’s demands. On
26 September 2012, Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari told leaders at the 67th United
Nations General Assembly that ‘no country and no people have suffered more in the epic
struggle against terrorism, than Pakistan.’ Certainly, Pakistan has suffered immensely at
the hands of terrorist attacks.
One avenue with the potential to change Pakistan-India relations is economic co-operation.
In recent times, efforts to unite Kashmir ‘through cross-Line of Control bus service, partial
liberalization of visa regimes and the creation of intra-Kashmir business entities, such as the
Federation of Jammu and Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry, have symbolized
an attempt to approach the problem of Kashmir, emblematic of larger bilateral challenges,
through less conventional means.

Beyond Kashmir, trade ties between the two states have great potential. In 2008, trade
between the two accounted for a mere $2 billion, or roughly one per cent of each country’s
overall trade. Since then, trade has been improving steadily and there are promising signs
heading into the future. Pakistan, in particular, has much to gain if it can penetrate the
buoyant Indian market. In order for this to happen, however, it will need to reciprocate
India’s granting Pakistan most favored nation (MFN) status in 1996. In November 2011,
Pakistan’s Cabinet gave an in-principle approval for ‘trade normalization’ with India and
said that MFN status would be granted gradually. As India expert and FDI Senior Visiting
Fellow Dr Sandy Gordon notes, ‘Pakistan has promised to grant MFN status to India by
December [2012] ... by moving from a system in which only items stipulated on a “positive
list” could be traded, to one in which a small “negative” list covers excluded items, for
example, those relating to defense.
India, meanwhile, will need to reduce its current non-tariff barriers, which have proved
major impediments to improving economic ties. Should these events materialize, the trade
potential between the two states could be as much as $20 billion annually, roughly a tenfold
increase on current figures. Indeed, both sides have shown some impetus for change. On 28
April 2011, Pakistan and India issued an ambitious joint statement that vowed to improve
trade ties. In addition, both countries have agreed to try and increase bilateral trade from
the current $2.7 billion per year to $6 billion by 2013-14. More recently, in October 2012, the
two sides struck a visa deal which, while not bringing great trade benefits, is a positive step
forward in the relationship.
Given this, there is reason for optimism. These high hopes were captured by Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh when he declared: ‘if there is co-operation between Pakistan
and India and not conflict, vast opportunities will open up for trade, and travel and
development will create prosperity in both countries. At the same time, increased economic
co-operation should act as a deterrent to future conflict and may well flow on into other,
more troublesome, areas of the Pakistan-India relationship.

Another opportunity to build better relations lies in finding a security agreement

18
concerning Afghanistan as the US withdraws the bulk of its troops in 2014. Analysts in
Washington assert that the relationship between the two could well turn out to be the most
important factor in Afghanistan’s future. US Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, has gone
on the record as saying that co-operation between Pakistan and India was required for a
stable Afghanistan.
Despite this, Pakistan and India are divided as to how to approach the security situation in
Afghanistan. India would like to see ongoing peace in Afghanistan, especially given any
instability could spill over into its borders. New Delhi has therefore poured billions of
dollars of aid, as one of Afghanistan’s largest regional donors, in order to achieve this aim.
Similarly, in October 2011, India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement,
the first Afghanistan signed with any country, in which India would train Afghan forces.
This is important; although the Afghan National Security Force has reached its goal of
recruiting 350,000 troops, it will mean little if it does not receive the ongoing training that is
needed to ensure the Taliban cannot take control of the country again.
Conversely, Pakistan is wary of any partnership between India and Afghanistan, especially
as the current Afghan government appears more sympathetic towards India than Pakistan.
Pakistan has tolerated, so far at least, the insecurity in Afghanistan and its own northern
tribal areas because the groups that operate in those places counter India’s regional clout
and influence. But the spill over of insurgent groups into Pakistan may force Islamabad into
co-operating with India in order to halt such activities within its borders.
The future of Pakistan-India relations is far from certain. There are both major problems
and opportunities that could tilt the relationship either way. The protracted issues of
Kashmir and terrorism will remain a thorn in the side of both states and will continue to
hamper the normalization of relations into the future. That said, there are also
opportunities which both states can capitalize on in order to improve their economic and
security ties and possibly normalize the relationship moving forward. Economic ties
continue to gain momentum with piecemeal initiatives and reforms, and there is much
hope on both sides that trade will continue to grow. Afghanistan appears less certain, but
both states would do well to fashion a security agreement that promotes peace and security
in the region while taking into account the various national interests of all the states
involved. If that can be achieved, then the problem of militant insurgency, especially in
Pakistan’s north, which continues to concern India, would become less significant. That,
too, would certainly contribute to better relations between Pakistan and India in the future.

19
 Pak China Relations
1. Introduction / History:
The year 2011 has been designated the “Year of China Pakistan Friendship”. Both the
countries have been holding a series of activities; form the beginning of this year, in the
fields of politics, economy, economic trade, military, culture, sports and education to
commemorate the strength of our bilateral relations and to show the resolve to take it to
new heights. Pakistan has a long and symbiotic relationship with China. The long
standing ties between the two countries have been mutually supportive. Pakistan is one
of the first groups of countries that have recognized China. On May 21, 1951, the two
countries officially established their diplomatic relations. Since then, China and Pakistan
have witnessed smooth development of friendly and neighborly relation as well as
mutually beneficial cooperation.

1. Cold relations in the early Years (1940s & 50s)……………….. of the

establishment of Sine Pakistani diplomatic relations, Pakistan maintained cold
relations with China, as it was an ally of the West (Pak joined US camp). Due to little
general. During the Bandung Conference in 1955, Premier Zhou Enlai held two
friendly talks with Pakistani Prime Minister M. Ali, and both sides shared the view
that exchange and cooperation in various areas should be strengthened between the
two countries. The talks played an important role in promoting understanding and
developing friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries. After the
Bandung Conference, there was a gradual increase of high level exchanges of visits
between the two countries, In October 1956, at the invitation of the Chinese
Government; Pakistani Prime Minister Suharwardi paid an official visit to China. In
December the same year, Premier Zhou Enlai visited Pakistan. They successful
exchange of visits between the Pakistani Prime Minister and Chinese Premier within
one year greatly promoted the development of friendly relations and cooperation
between the two countries and strengthened the friendship between the two
peoples.

2. Second Phase in the early 1960s……………. the leadership of the two

countries steered Pakistan China relations towards closer understanding and
solidarity. 1961, Pakistan voted for restoration of China’s seat in the United Nations.
In 1963, china and Pakistan signed a boundary agreement. This was a significant
milestone, as it underlined and displayed the emerging trust between the two
neighbors. The agreement was signed in February 1963 in Beijing by Pakistan’s
Foreign Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. This also showed Pakistan’s independence in
its foreign policy and its growing faith in Sino Pakistan friendship.

3. Third Phase of relations (1970s to date)……………….. Between two nations

began which was characterized by mutual confidence, deep trust, and growing
20
 cooperation. This period can be called a period of consolidation and expansion and it
has continued up to this point. In the succeeding decades, china and Pakistan have
not only deepened their ties but also stood by each other in difficult times. China
helped us during the 1965 and 1971 wars. We advocated China’s entry into the
United Nations we also facilitated friendship between the US and China in 1971 by
arranging a secret visit of US foreign secretary to Beijing. Both US & China thanked
Pak for paving way to their bilateral relations. In return, China coordinated our
policies during the turbulent period of the Afghan resistance against the Soviet
Union in the 1980s; and is now fully cooperating in the fight against terrorism since
2001.

4. Areas of Cooperation:
a) As we come to the recent history of Pakistan China relations, we express
satisfaction from the fact that the two sides have fashioned a very effective,
practical, and flexible architecture for engagement and cooperation in
strategic, defense, economic, commercial, and cultural fields. This architecture
is responsive to the changing times.

b) Where are these relations today? Pakistan China joint Statement, issued
in Islamabad on December 19, 2010 on the conclusion of Premier Wen Jiabao’s
historic visit of Pakistan, highlighted the following points: (1) It is important
to deepen the China Pakistan all weather strategic Partnership; (2) China
Pakistan relation have gone beyond bilateral dimensions and acquired
broader regional and international ramifications; (3) Friendship and
cooperation between Pakistan and China serve the fundamental interests of
the two countries, and contribute to peace, stability and development in the
region and beyond; and (4) The two sides will enhance their strategic
coordination, advance pragmatic cooperation, and work together to meet the
challenges. Pursuing friendship with China has become the bedrock of
Pakistan’s foreign policy, which enjoys a consensus across the political
spectrum. Pakistan deeply appreciates the support and assistance China has
given for our economic and social development. Pak also fully support
China’s principled stand on Taiwan, Tibet, Xingjian, and other human rights
issues. The Chinese government and people reciprocate these sentiments and
consider Pakistan to be their most reliable friend and partner. Developing
relations with Pakistan is high on China’s diplomatic agenda. China supports
Pakistan’s efforts in safeguarding its sovereignty, independence and
territorial integrity. The fuel for this relationship comes from the hearts and
minds of the people. The prudent, farsighted policies of both the governments
buttress it through multiple frameworks.

c) The 2005 Pakistan China Treaty for Friendship and Cooperation

and Good Neighborly Relations is a key instrument, which enables us to
21
 strengthen our strategic, economic and cultural relations. High level visits
play a crucial role in this regard. In December 2010. Pakistan and China
decided to establish and annual meeting mechanism between leaders, set up
foreign minister’s dialogue mechanism and reinforce contact and dialogue
between the foreign ministries. President Asif Zardari has visited China nine
times since assuming office. Former Prime Minister visited China five times
since early 2008. Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf visited Tianjin in 2012.
Chinese premier Wen Jiabao also visited Pakistan in Dec 2011 & signed a big
deal of $ 36 billion projects with Pakistan. A joint Economic Commission (JEC)
helps both to simulate growth of economic and traded ties. Both use a face
year development program on trade economic cooperation for his purpose.
The list five year plan, which will be completed this year, had focused on port
development, educational exchanges, the establishment of Pakistan China
Joint investment Company (JIC), automobiles, Chemicals, fertilizers,
telecommunications, and energy projects. The second five year program has
been launched in 2012. Under this plan, the two sides have identified 36
projects covering educations, healthcare, water conservancy, agriculture,
transport, energy, ICT, and industry. Chin’s leading brands, such as China
Mobile and Hailer, are doing good business in Pakistan and their operations
are poised to expand as we set up exclusive economic zones for China. China
is now Pakistan’s largest trading partner; and Pakistan is China’s second
largest trading partner in South Asia, though the gap between the first and
second trading partner is big. Last year, both countries established a Joint
Energy Working Group, which now coordinates implementation of all energy
projects, including hydro, thermal, coal-fired, alternate and civil nuclear
energy. A Pak Rupee-Renminbi Currency Swap Agreement for $1.6 billion
has been signed. The ICBC has opened branches in Islamabad and
Karachi. Pakistanis are exploring with the CBRC the possibility of opening a
subsidiary of a major Pakistani bank in China. Strong private Chinese
enterprises are entering into Pakistani market. They will invest in the energy
sector and infrastructure development. Chinese state and non-state
enterprises have years of cumulative experience of doing business in
Pakistan’s defence and civilian sectors. For them, ease of doing business in
Pakistan is higher than for any other country. Pakistani enterprises, though on
a modest scale, have made entry into the Chinese market. Netsol - a software
developer based in Lahore - is one such example.

d) Energy: The two sides are now working on the creation of an energy
cooperation mechanism that would create an interface between the relevant
departments and entitles dealing with conventional (hydro, thermal, and coal
fired) alternate (wind, solar), and nuclear energy. Following the massive flood
in Pakistan (2010), China gave Pakistan generous, timely and unconditional
assistance. China’s assistance to Pakistan to Pakistan was the highs level
22
 disaster relief assistance give to a foreign country. The Chinese companies
have also participated in the post flood reconstruction, especially in the
agricultural and infrastructure projects.

e) Pakistan and China have signed Free Trade Agreements (FTAS) on goods,
investment and services. A free Trade Commission (FTC) meets regularly. It
has started consultations for the second phase negotiations of China Pakistan
FTA to enhance trade liberalization and prompted economic and trade
growth of the two countries. It will also look into the issues of dispatch of
official purchase missions form China to Pakistan, visa facilitation measures
and development of an Electronic Data interchange (EDI) system.

f) The Armed Forces have very close cooperation with each other. Last year,
chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff committee of Pakistan held the eight rounds of
Defence and Security with the PLA chief of general staff. Both have unanimity
of views to pursue peace and security in the region and to defeat terrorism,
extremism, and separatism. Their active collaboration in this regard has
produced results. The defence cooperation covers high level military
exchanges, structured defence and security talks, joint exercises training of
personnel in each other ‘s institutions, joint defence production, and defense
trade. Joint production of the JF-17 fighter aircraft, F22-P frigate, and Al-
Khalid tanks are good examples of cooperation between their defence
industries. This year Pakistan and china signed a document for bilateral
military cooperation. The visit of Chinese delegation this year commences 9th
round of Pakistan-China Defence and Security talks.

This year special efforts are also under way to promote understanding and friendship
between our people by enhancing exchanges in culture, education, media, sports, tourism,
and public health. Both sides are especially encouraging visits by researchers and scholars
so that they could give in depth and perspective to the narrative of the Pakistan china
friendship. Within this context, their emphasis is on exchanges between the younger
generations of Pakistan and China, so that they can inherit this narrative and propagate it.
They have set a good tradition of visits by youth delegations comprising 100 members from
both sides. Both believe that these exchanges will lay the foundation for understanding and
cooperation among the young men and women of China.

III. Final Analysis;

China is arising power in fact it has risen fast and overtaken all economic powers but one.
The leadership of China is modest in its approach and declares that the country would
continue its march towards comprehensive development by boosting per capita income, by
redistributing wealth and resources among all citizens, by bridging the gaps between the
rural and the urban areas as well as the eastern and western parts of the country, and by

23
generating domestic demand. All these measures will have a salutary impact on Pakistan,
the Asia Pacific region, and the international economy.

China is developing its western region, especially Xinjiang, with immense speed. Khorgos
and Kashgar will be Shanghai and Shenzhen of tomorrow. Pakistan has a natural affinity
with this region. Already every year hundreds of Pakistani traders participate in the
Kashghar trade fair and the Urumqi China-Eurasia Expo. If Pakistan is integrated into this
region, the economies of Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and of the southern parts
of Pakistan would take off simultaneously. China is big. It is getting bigger by the day. To
accelerate Pakistan-China economic partnership, Pakistan has to think big, with its feet still
on the ground. Pakistan needs to develop competencies and adopt efficient implementation
strategies. As we do that, China - our brother and partner - may step forward to help
Pakistan develop these competencies. Only then we will have a fuller interface between the
two economies.

Pakistan supports China’s of a harmonious world a world that works for win-win
partnerships instead of win-lose paradigms. Pakistan hopes that Afghanistan would move
towards stability and national reconciliation. Pakistani government hopes to eliminate the
networks of terrorism and create conditions for economic and social development of our
people. Towards east, Pakistan aspire our outstanding issues, to pave the way for a
cooperative environment, and to make South Asia a safe and secure region.

Important developments in Post 9/11 era:

2011. A joint ventured Chinese Pakistani tank, Al Khalid comes into full production.

2002. Ground breaking ceremony for Pakistan’s Gwadar deep sea port. China provides $
198 million for $248 million joint project.

2007. Sijo become Pakistan’s biggest arms supplier with no conditions attached, a true
“strategic partnership”.

2007. Sino Pakistani joint ventured fighter aircraft JF 17 Thunder is fomoly rolled out.

2008. Pakistan stats mass production of the aircraft.

2008. China and Pakistan sign an FTA free trade agreement). It is the first such agreement
signed by the two countries,. As a direct China has opened new industries in Pakistan and
Pakistan has been given free trade zones in China.

2008. China vows to help Pakistan in civil nuclear technology by building and helping in
the Khusab Nuclear Programme providing technology to Pakistan for better maintenance
of civil nuclear plants.

2008. Pakistan and China to build first ever train route though the Karakoram Highway,
ultimately linking China’s rail route net to Gwadar Port.

24
2008. The F-22P frigate comes into service with the Pakistani Navy. The first frigate was
inducted in Pakistani Navy in July 2009 and last one is expected to be in 2013.

2009. Pakistani intelligence agencies helped the Chinese government of catching several
suspected Uyghur terrorists seeking haven in Pakistan and planning to launch illegal
operations.

2009. Trade between both crosses $7 ban (2008-9) from meager $700 man.

2009. Growing military ties between China and Pakistan are a serious concern to India.

2010. Pakistan and China have a joint military drill for anti terrorism China donates $260
million (USD) to flood hit Pakistan and further sends 4 military rescue helicopters to
Pakistan to assist in rescue operations, it was first time China has ever sent such rescue
operations overseas.

Pak China Air Cargo Service launched (2012).

China begins military drill with Pakistan (Nov 2012).

China, Pakistan sign joint communiqué to cement partnership (Dec 2012).

100 member youth delegation from china at the Prime Minister house.

China has given the list of terrorist group of Xinjiang.

Pakistan, China agreement on solar power project.

Pakistan Afghanistan relations

Afghanistan–Pakistan relations have never been easy & they have always been estranged.
Afghanistan and Pakistan are usually described as inseparablestates due to their historical,
religious, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic ties, as well as their multiple trade and economic
ties. Both neighbouring states are Islamic republics and part of the OIC &South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation. However, the relationship between the two has been
affected by the Durand Line, the issues of Pashtunistan and Balochistan, the 1980s Soviet
war, the rise of the Taliban in 1990s, the 2001-present war in Afghanistan, and
Afghanistan's relations with India .

1. The issue of Durand Line

The Afghan government does not recognize the Durand Line as the official border between
the two states, claiming that the Durand Line Agreement has been void in the past due to
violations by Pakistan as well as other reasons. Pakistan, on the other side, issued a
warning to Afghanistan that it would not "tolerate any violations of its borders".

Relations have continued to be strained, as several top Afghan officials stated that they are
weary of Pakistan's negative influence in the country. The Afghan government usually

25
accuses Pakistan of using its intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), in
aiding the Taliban militants (since 1994). Pakistan has denied the allegations but has said it
does not have full control of the actions of the ISI. Relations became even more strained as
the United States supports an Afghan invasion of troublesome tribal regions.

2. Other contemporary issues

Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Pakistani government played a
vital role in supporting the Mujahideen and assisting Afghan refugees. Pakistan absorbed
an estimated 3.5 million refugees and provided shelter, education, and places to work.
After the Soviet withdrawal in February 1989, Pakistan, with cooperation from the world
community, continued to provide extensive support for displaced Afghans. In 1999, the
United States provided approximately $70 million in humanitarian assistance to
Afghanistan and Afghan refugees in Pakistan, mainly through multilateral organizations
and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

Pakistani strategists view Afghanistan as providing "strategic depth" in the event of a war
with neighboring India. In the event that the Indian Army crosses into Pakistan, the
Pakistan Army would temporary locate supplies in Afghanistan and prepare for a counter-
offensive. Furthermore, many Pakistanis see in Afghanistan and Afghans a common bond
based on religion, history, culture, language and ethnic ties. At various times, Pakistan
backed the mujahideen against the Soviets, mujahideen against each other and the Taliban
against the Iranian-backed Northern Alliance.

3. The overthrow of the Taliban regime in November 2001

The overthrow of the Taliban regime in November 2001 has seen somewhat strained
relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The present Karzai administration in Kabul
feels that the remnants of the former Taliban government are being supported by factions
within Pakistan for the same above reasons. However, Pakistan has said the government
cannot control all elements of its intelligence agency, the ISI, which several countries accuse
of contributing to instability in Afghanistan. In 2006 Afghan PresidentHamid Karzai
warned that "Iran and Pakistan and others are not fooling anyone" when it come to
interfering in his country.

"If they don’t stop, the consequences will be … that the region will suffer with us equally. In the past
we have suffered alone; this time everybody will suffer with us.… Any effort to divide Afghanistan
ethnically or weaken it will create the same thing in the neighboring countries. All the countries in
the neighborhood have the same ethnic groups that we have, so they should know that it is a different
ball game this time.(Hamid Karzai)

4. Pakistan, Afghanistan ties in post-bin Laden era (May 2011)

Osama bin Laden's death (Abbottabad operation, May 2011) is likely to put more stress on
Pak Afghan relations, Karzai was very vocal & harsh on Osama’s presence in Abbottabad

26
He blamed again that Pak has always been protecting the militants & Osama’ was also
hidden in Pak with Army’s collaboration.

5. Latest developments
February 2012: Pakistan should have a key role in Afghanistan : J Kerry

March 2012: Hina Rabbani Khar said: She hopes for a relationship with Afghanistan based
on trust and called for leaving behind the past associated with interference in that country
and support for Taliban. Further added, if we are looking for any strategic depth it can not
be achieved militarily or can come through a proxy war. The only way to do is through
building trust with the Afghan state.

June 2012: Karzai calls on Pakistan to help end Afghan war during the latest round of talks
on future of Afghanistan.

Jul 2012: Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to extend APTTA to Tajikistan which will be the
first step for the establishment of North-South Trade Corridor. The proposed agreement
will provide facilities to Tajikistan to use Pakistan’s Gawadar and Karachi ports for its
imports and exports while Pakistan will trade with Tajikistan under terms similar to transit
agreement with Afghanistan.

November 2012: After D8 Summit in November 2012, Foreign Secretary Jalil Abbas said
that D8 countries agreed that peace & stability in Afghanistan is important for development
in the region.

November 2012: Four people were killed in the Narai Area of South Waziristan when
mortar shells were fired by Afghan National Army.

6. Final Analysis:
The relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have always been at odds with each other,
the level of mistrust between the two countries is troubling. A continuous dialogue at the
political and civilian level is the only antidote to prevent further erosion of the relationship
between the two countries.

The main reason behind the uneasy relationship between the two countries is mainly
because Karzai govt. is concerned that Pakistan is supporting militants in the region. Karzai
also lamented on Pakistan when Osama was killed by Americans in May 2011 alleging that
Pakistan had been protecting him & was playing double game. While on the other side,
Pakistan is also concerned that Indian economic and political involvement in Afghanistan
could lead to unfriendly governments on both its eastern and western borders or in simple
words Pakistan fears its encirclement by India.

Unfortunately the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a proxy war that takes its roots from
the deficiencies in political, national and establishment fields plus the uneasy relations with

27
neighbor countries.

Both the countries possess great possibilities and reserves that can be used for peace,
stability and progress in the region, the very first step in this connection should be giving
confidence and trust to the concerned groups with the support and backing of international
community and both sides government that peace and stability can prove more beneficial
for boosting economic relations and development instead of negative political
competitions.

First of all bringing political trust between the two countries is necessary for which the
following steps must be taken.

 Afghanistan should ensure Pakistan that in the presence of other countries especially
India their assistance and aid won’t prove counterproductive to the national interest
and security of Pakistan.

 Both countries should prioritize transit and economic affairs than political
competitions because economic relations can rapidly fill the cold gap in political
relations.

 Both countries should conduct their relation on state to state level that is the best
legitimate way of relationship. Trust and confidence can be build with avoiding and
cutting off any kind of tacit relationship with parties, personalities, warlords or
militants

 A broad based regional approach can prove useful that should comprehend and
recognize that concomitant resolution of the border areas is the basic and
fundamental step.

Afghanistan and Pakistan must discuss all issues on bilateral level, without any third-party
mediation. Such a policy may push the United States, India and Iran out of the equation
and pave the way for durable friendship between the two countries.

Afghanistan's problem stems from persistent foreign interventions. Karzai needs to hold
direct talks with the Taliban and must satisfy their demands, including the demand for
ouster of foreign forces from Afghan soil. The Taliban and other Islamist forces must
reciprocate Karzai's positive overtures. The realignment of these opposite camps will
bolster Karzai's confidence to deal with foreign forces from a position of strength.

Pakistan has legitimate interests in Afghanistan and, as such, Karzai should heed
Islamabad's calls for the protection of Pakistani interests. Reciprocally, instead of exploiting
Karzai's weaknesses, Pakistan must support him to play a positive role in the development
of reconciliation between the Taliban and Kabul. If anything is missing from Pak-Afghan
relations, it is the strategic dimension. No agreement like SPA(2011) has been signed with
Pakistan. This point indicates that regime in Kabul may be considering Pakistan a brother
28
country but not a friendly country. That is Hamid Karzai considers Pakistan a country
hostile to the regime in Kabul. This kind of mistrust has not only disqualified Pakistan from
participating in any meaningful dialogue taking place between the Kabul regime and the
Taliban but also the one happening between the USA and Taliban.

Unity among Afghans is a recipe for peace in their country. Intervention by foreign
elements will always ignite fires, instead of helping to end internecine wars in that country.
A durable peace between Islamabad and Kabul can only be ensured through direct bilateral
talks by pushing out India, the United States and Iran from the equation. In this hour of
crisis, Pakistan should dispel the impression that it is a troublemaker in Afghanistan.
Pakistan should throw the past behind it and look at the present with a new strategy.
Pakistan should also be aware of the fact that any miscalculated meddling in the affair in
Afghanistan may destabilize Pakistan.

29
 PAK – IRAN RELATIONS

1. Introduction

2. Historical background:

i. 1947-1979

ii. 1979-9/11

iii. Post 9/11

3. Prospects of failure:

i. Issues of Convergence.

ii. Issues of Divergence

4. Conclusion

30
 1. INTRODUCTION

(Iran)

Capital: Tehran

Official Language: Persian

Government: Islamic Republic

Supreme Leader: Ayatollah Au Khamenei

President: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Currency: Iranian Rial

Neighbours: North – West: Armenia, Azerbaijan

North — East: Turkmenistan

East: Afghanistan, Pakistan

West: Turkey, Iraq

South: Persian Gulf

Gulf of Oman

Highest Point: Mount Damavand (18,386 ft.)

Deserts: Dasht-e-Kavir (Largest)

Dasht-e-Lut

Provinces: Iran has 30 provinces

Largest City: Tehran

31
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Historically Pakistan and Iran share fluctuating relations guided by convergence and
divergence of interests. From 1949 to 1979 Pakistan and Iran shared cordial relations owing
mainly to friendship i.e. western block especially American. Year 1979 brought drastic
changes in global political scenario. Islamic revolution of Iran made it an eye sore for
western governments and Russian invasion of Afghanistan brought, the then isolated
Pakistan back into folds of capitalist camp. Due to conflicting interests in Afghanistan, both
countries started having strained frosty relations. Now again after 9/11 the geostrategic
realities have changed so that both countries are witnessing a thaw in their decades old
frosty relations.

I) 1947 TO 1979 (ERA OF FRIENDSHIP)

a) Iran was 1st Country to recognize Pakistan.

Iran was the first country to accord official recognition to Pakistan’s independence. Its
diplomatic mission began to function in Karachi the same year. Pakistan appointed its first
ambassador to Iran in 1948.

b)Treaty of friendship.
Treaty of friendship was signed on February 19, 1950 providing for good neighborly
relations and for the most favored nation treatment between the two countries.

c) Help in wars of 1965 and 1971.

Iran extended critical moral and material support during 1965 war. Pakistani wars Planes
were allowed to land and refill on Iranian soil. Similarly Iran fully supported Pakistan in
1971 war.

d) Shah of Iran helped in curbing insurgency in Baluchistan

Shah of Iran actively helped in curbing a powerful separatist insurgency in Baluchistan in
70s by sending helicopters to assist Pakistani military in combat operations.

e) Settlement of Border disputes:

A joint Iran-Pak boundary commission was appointed in 1956. According to an
understanding reached by the commission, Pakistan and Iran signed an agreement on
February 6, 1958, through Iran-Pak delineation was settled through this agreement; a cause
of possible friction was removed.

f) Iran acted as mediator between Pakistan and Afghanistan:

Iran also made efforts to bring reconciliation between Afghanistan and Pakistan after the
former broke its diplomatic relations with Pakistan at the behest of Soviet Union after

32
Pakistan Joined CENTO. The Shah of Iran’s good offices produced positive results in May
1963, when direct negotiations between Pakistan and Afghanistan started in Tehran.

ii) 1979 TILL 9/11 (DECADE OF FROSTY RELATIONS)

From 1979 to 1989 Pakistan Iran relations remained relatively stable despite Pakistan’s close
cooperation with USA and Iran being a bitter enemy of American. The reason was shared
objective of driving Russian out of Afghanistan.

• Zia ul Haq’s government in Pakistan was the first to recognize the Islamic revolution
in Iran.

• ECO was formed in 1985 to enhance economic cooperation between the two
countries.

1974 to 9/11
The decades of 1990s saw deterioration in Pak Iran relations owing to following factors:

a) The Afghanistan Factor.

After the Russian forces were driven out of Afghanistan, a downward trend in Pak-Iran ties
was set in motion primarily due to varying interests in Afghanistan and conflicting attitude
towards Taliban. While Pakistan choose to side with Taliban motivated by its desire to
achieve “Strategic Depth” in Afghanistan.

Tehran viewed Taliban as backed by USA and Saudi Arabia for Politico religious
containment attempt against it.

The differences reached their lowest ebb in 1998 when Taliban captured Afghan city of
Mazar-e-Sharif. Taliban killed scores of Iranian diplomats and massacred thousands of
Hazara Shiites. Believing that Pakistan had considerable influence over Taliban, Iran
blamed Pakistan.

Iran, like Pakistan, also adopted a proactive role in Afghanistan and intensified its support
to Shia groups and Northern Alliance.

Therefore the more countries involved in Afghan crisis, the more they headed towards
strained relations with each other.

b) Sectarian tensions in Pakistan

Sectarian conflict has been another factor responsible for strained relations. Though a
domestic problem for Pakistan, the issue figured prominently in Pak-Iran relations because
it had led to some Iranian diplomats and other Iranian citizens being killed in Pakistan.

In 1990, Sadiq Gingi the Iranian Consul General, was killed in Lahore.

33
In 1997, 5 cadet of Iranian Air Force were killed in Rawalpindi. The problem was
aggravated as Pakistan’s judicial process failed to take conclusive against those responsible
for murder.

c) Iran — India Relations

As Iran Pakistan relations deteriorated rapidly, Iran considerably improved its relations
with India. Pakistan’s all out support to Taliban made Iran and India natural allies.
Pakistan policy makers viewed this growing cooperation in context of India’s endeavor to
encircle Pakistan, especially in view of opening of an Indian consulate in Bandar Abbas.
The Chabahar Port in Iran along with a very strategic railway link offers India direct access
to Afghanistan and the energy-rich Central Asia.

d) Gawadar Factor
Iran and Pakistan also have differences and competitive attitude towards Central Asian
Republics. Tehran views Gawadar port as a competitor to its port of Bandar Abbas which it
is building with cooperation of India.

e) Pakistan Saudi Relations

Pakistan and Saudi relations were another factor which soured Pak-Iran relations. It was
with active Saudi support that General Zia brought out his programme of “Islamization” of
Pakistan.

His Zakat and Ushar ordinance was also very controversial and raised apprehensions of
Shia population of Pakistan, which he is trying to impose his own brand of Wahabi Islam in
Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia which always had brotherly relations with Pakistan is viewed by Tehran as an
adversary because it fully backed Iraq during Iran-Iraq war.

iii) POST 9/11: (THAWING OF RELATIONS)

9/11 changed the global political and strategic scenario several factors emerged which led
to throwing of Pak-Iran relations.

a) End of Taliban Regime in Afghanistan

End of Taliban regime in Afghanistan was the biggest factor that led to a thaw in bilateral
frosty relations. Pakistan sided with International coalition against Taliban which led to end
of a major irritant in Pak-Iran relations.

Shortly after Taliban’s ouster, the Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi paid a two day
visit to Islamabad, during which he announced that both countries have come closer on
Afghan issue.

34
b) Pakistan’s drive against extremist group
Another factor which facilitated the improvement in relations was Pak. Governments drive
against extremist groups, which were believed to have been behind most of attacks against
Iranian nationals and other Pakistani’s belonging to Shia sects. Particularly since February
2001, following the execution of man responsible for Sadiq Gingi’s assassination the Iranian
government views favourably Pakistan’s efforts aimed at curbing extremism in the country.

c) State Visit by President Khatami in 2002 (1st. by an Iranian President

in 10 years)
President Khatami paid state visit to Pakistan in 2002 accompanied by a team of ministers
and advisors. The four page joint communiqué was issued on conclusion of visit which
reflected similarly of views of Kashmir, Palestine and other key strategic issues.

In post 9/11 period Iran-Pakistan cooperation has increased many folds, as juaged by many
talks held over a range of issues they include the following:

 Joint ministerial commission on defense cooperation.

 Pakistan Iran Joint trade commission

 Pak-Iran joint commission on communications

 Special security committee on security and border issues

 Mechanism of consultation between the two foreign ministries on Bilateral relations and
on regional and international developments

 Mahmud Ahmedinijad visits to Pakistan in February and November 2012.

 D8 Summit in November 2012 in Islamabad.

3. PROSPECTS FOR PAK – IRAN RELATIONS

a) ISSUES OF CONVERGENCE

i) Afghanistan
The post Taliban political and security situation in Afghanistan requires a higher degree of
cooperation between Iran, and Pakistan as both share borders with Afghanistan. Both the
countries share similar interests in Afghanistan viz, cessation of hostilities, preservation of
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan and Return of Million of
refugees to their home land.

35
ii) Defence Cooperation
According to Pak-Iran defence agreement of 1989, Iran has been involved with Pakistan in
joint production of Al-Khalid Tanks. Other areas for joint defence cooperation are under
discussion such as helicopters, unmanned vehicles and APCS.

Cooperation in defence production field will be efficient and cost effective in the long run.
Both Pakistan and Iran should realize that they will continue to have problems in acquiring
weapon systems and spares from western countries, at least in fore seeable future. Also
Pakistan’s small arm industry provides ample opportunities for exporting light weapons
for use of Iran’s military and paramilitary troops.

iii) Arab / Persian Gulf.

Arab/Persian gulf is an area whose current geo-strategic and geo-economics significance
cannot be exaggerated recent developments in the region has added to its significance.
Pakistan has excelled relations with Gulf-Arab states, while Iran despite recent warning of
relations, still has to deal with certain contentious issues in relation with the latter. Pakistan
can help Iran in its efforts to improve relations with Gulf Arab states.

iv) Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO).

Pakistan and Iran can use ECO forum to further to enhance bilateral economic cooperation.
Iran, Pakistan and Turkey should initiate a fast track process for bringing about a regional
preferential trade agreement among the three countries under the umbrella of ECO. The
inclusion of CAR’s has made it a more viable organization.

v) Iran — Pakistan — India gas pipe line.

The IP, a $1.2 billion project, has been lingering since 1995 when a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) was signed between Iran and Pakistan. The Iran-Pakistan Working
Group was formed in 2003 to move the project forward. Islamabad told Tehran that in case
India was unwilling to join in, the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline would be pursued as an
independent project. But in 2005, a memorandum of understanding was signed to include
India. In 2007, India and Pakistan provisionally agreed to pay Iran $4.93 per million British
thermal units, but India subsequently withdrew from the deal, ostensibly over concerns
about the price and security but in fact due to opposition from the US. Under the accord
signed in June 2010, Iran was to provide about 21.5 million cubic meters of gas a day to
Pakistan for 25 years. The deal is extendable by five years and volumes can rise to 30
million cubic meters a day. The project is now in doldrums. Iran is desperately looking for
partners as its economy is in serious crisis. Mahmood Ahmedinijad has vowed to complete
a multi billion dollar gas pipeline to Pakistan on time, downplaying financial woes and US
pressure on Islamabad to scrap the project and wished to complete the project by 2014. But
it is up to the ability of Pakistan that how it will react to the situation as US and other
western forces are against this project.

36
vi) The oil factor.
Pakistan is the most energy dependent country in the South Asia. It has to import 80% of its
oil requirements while Iran is second largest producer of oil after Saudi Arabia. By
improving bilateral relations Pakistan can win preferential treatment from Iran regarding
import of oil.

vii) West vs. Islam factor

After 9/11, the events have so happened that it seems that instead of war against terrorism,
west is wagging a war against Islam. Iran has already been included in “the axis of evil”.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been boomed and destroyed and it seems that next target is
Iran.

Pakistan although is Non NATO Ally of America, but analysts argue that Pak-US relations
lack depth and after Iran, Pakistan would be the next target.

Under these conditions it is feasible for both Pakistan and Iran to sort out differences and
form a common front along with other Islamic countries against the nefarious designs of
the west.

b) ISSUES OF DIVERGENCE

i) Iran’s Nuclear Scandal

Iran gave full diplomatic support to Pakistan when it went nuclear in 1998 and denounced
Indian blast and said that Pakistan was forced to follow suit. In response Iran also expected
Pakistan to give full diplomatic support to Iran for its civilian nuclear program. Pakistan’s
lukewarm response in this regard has disappointed Iran.

But Iran must realize that Pakistan cannot openly support Iran over its nuclear program.
Already Pakistan is under internal wrath over its role in nuclear black market.

In truth, Pakistan has a very limited role to play, as Pakistan has neither the clout, nor the
credibility to play any effective mediatory role. On one hand there is a super power which
has an agenda of its own and on the other hand there is a clerical leadership of Iran which
is equally inflexible and rigid.

The best Pakistan can do is to condemn any attack on Iran and not to allow its soil to be
used against any attack on Iran

ii) The US factor

Iran’s apprehensions regarding US military presence and its future plans in South West,
Central and South Asian region enhances Iran’s skepticism with regard to ‘Pakistan’s
cooperation with USA as of post 9/11 period while Pakistan is a partner in US led coalition
against terrorism, Iran was placed on US list of ‘rogue states’ in 2003.
37
iii) Increased fundamentalism (new wave of Talibinization of Pakistan)
The wave of Talibinization taking place in Waziristan and NWFP is an issue of concern for
Iran because it can pose threat the Shiite population of Pakistan. Pakistan constitutes one of
largest Shiite pollution in the world as a minority ethnic group.

iv) India factor

Pakistan remains apprehensive of India’s increased presence in Iran and expansion of
Iranian Indian defense ties. For example the strategic implications of Indian consulate set
up at Bandar Abbas. Pakistan complains that consulate through monitoring devices will be
able to follow movement of ships through out Persian Gulf, especially through the Strait of
Hormuz.

4. CONCLUSION
After a decade of frosty relations, Iran and Pakistan have embarked upon a steady course of
mutually beneficial relationship. What has facilitated this course is that despite numerous
problems in their bilateral relations, neither country faces a security threat from the other.
However both should realize that converting this bilateral relation into a sustainable
friendship is a conscious process and they have to work on it. They should realize that
unilaterally pursued policies of one country if impact negatively on commercial, security
and political situation of the other, political cooperation between them can degenerate into
confrontation.

For keeping friendly relations with Iran, Pakistan should also take policy initiatives to
discuss Afghanistan situation with Iran to converge their perceptions and policies on future
of Afghanistan particularly after 2014.

In this regard Pakistan and Iran should adopt similar policy options and Pakistan should
endeavor, that as happened in the past, India should not be able to hijack Iran's policy on
Afghanistan. In this regard a viable option for both Pakistan and Iran is to jointly work for
ethnic harmony in Afghanistan to chalk- out a consensus constitution containing
guarantees that all ethnic groups will get their rights based on their population and all will
get equal chance to attain power and rule Afghanistan through free and fair elections based
on constitutional provisions.

In any case Pakistan has to walk very pragmatically since it cannot lose friendship of Saudi
Arabia and GCC countries for Iran and vice versa. At the same time Pakistan cannot afford
hostile relationship with the US being the sole superpower, and therefore it should always
be ready to play a mediatory role between both sides as and when desired by them.

A sustained political resolve is a must to actualize various commitments during recent high
level visits. There must be a continuous interaction between the two states at highest level,
as it is necessary to explore new avenues and improve existing areas of cooperation

38
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
Headquarters Kathmandu, Nepal

8 Members
Membership
9 Observers

Establishment December 8, 1985

Area

5,130,746 km2 (7th1)

- Total
1,980,992 sq mi

Population

- 2009 estimate 1,600,000,000 (1st1)

GDP (PPP) 2009 estimate

US$ 4,382,700
- Total
million (3rd1)

US$ 2,779

- Per capita

1. Introduction

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is an organization of

South Asian nations, founded in December 1985 and dedicated to economic, technological,
social, and cultural development emphasizing collective self-reliance. Its seven founding
members are Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.
Afghanistan joined the organization in 2005. The 11 stated areas of cooperation are
agriculture; education, culture, and sports; health, population, and child welfare; the
environment and meteorology; rural development; tourism; transport; science and
technology; communications.

2) History
The concept of SAARC was first adopted by Bangladesh during 1977, under the
administration of President ZiaurRahman. In the late 1970s, SAARC nations agreed upon
the creation of a trade bloc consisting of South Asian countries. The idea of regional

39
cooperation in South Asia was again mooted in May 1980. The foreign secretaries of the
seven countries met for the first time in Colombo in April 1981. The Committee of the
Whole, which met in Colombo in August 1985, identified five broad areas for regional
cooperation. New areas of cooperation were added in the following years.

3. Objectives

 to promote the welfare of the people of South Asia and to improve their quality of
life;

 to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the

region and to provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and to realize
their full potential;

 to promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia;

 to contribute to mutual trust, understanding and appreciation of one another's

problems;

 to promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, and
other fields;

4) Expansion
Afghanistan was added to the regional grouping in 2005, With the addition of Afghanistan,
the total number of member states were raised to eight .In 2006, SAARC also agreed in
principle to grant observer status to the US, South Korea and the European Union. In 2008,
Iran requested observer status, allowed shortly by the entrance of Mauritius.

5) WHAT'S WRONG WITH SAARC

28 years have passed since SAARC was established in Dhaka, Bangladesh. But
unfortunately nothing much has been achieved during that period. We remain a poor
region in the world and we are categorised by the west as developing countries, meaning,
of course, that we are undeveloped

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation was established with good intentions.
However, the kind of cooperation expected, could not be achieved from this entity due to
various reasons.

i. Identity problem

SAARChas been labeled as a failure. Unlike the countries that belong to other such
associations, like the European Economic Community, for example, SAARC countries do
not belong to one civilization. So we do not have the feeling of belonging to one region, and
in our respective countries very often we do not have a common bondage of belonging to
one particular country. Perhaps we are still in the process of nation building. For example
in Sri Lanka the Tamils (20%) have been trying to deny the country and the Sinhala (80%)
40
& trying to maintain their separate identity. Similarly, the ethnic communities are refusing
to share a common culture in Pakistan, India etc, so making regional integration extremely
difficult.

ii. Political issues/ bilateral conflicts

Saarc has not been able to realize its ambitious objectives during the last 25 years. It could
not implement its charter due to the political climate prevailing in the region. The member
countries have laid more stress on "core issues”/ political issues like the Kashmir dispute
and the water issues etc over the economic issues. They failed to follow EU which gave
preference to the economic issues over the political ones . Therefore when two countries are
unable to resolve their dispute, it is unfair to expect them to give up the bilateral issues
while attending a summit. Next, the severe inner weakness in SAARC’s policy is its Article-
10 (General Provision), which prohibits discussion of ‘bilateral’ and contentious issues. And
this weakness has not allowed SAARC to really take off in real sense of the term. This
clause was set primarily with a view to avoiding its direct involvement in any bilateral
conflicts in this forum. While India thought that SAARC has develoedp into an anti-Indian
forum, the other countries, on the other hand, suspected that India would use SAARC as a
bloc under its leadership.

Bilateral problems and defense expenditure, chronic in the region, has often led to
postponement of SAARC summits which is a big setback. Frequent border skirmishes
between India and Bangladesh, the ongoing debate between Bhutan and Nepal over the
refugee issue, the irritants in relations between India and Nepal over the open border,
disputes between India and Sri Lanka over the Tamil ethnic issue and other sporadic events
have constrained the growth of regional cooperation in the region. However, it is the
unremitting hostility between India and Pakistan, which has greatly undermined the
growth of SAARC. (iv) Most importantly, almost every South Asian country is perpetually
plagued by internal conflicts and crises based on narrow considerations of caste, religion,
language, community and

iii. Uncertain relations between India and Pakistan

The legacy of mistrust between India and Pakistan is the prime impediment to peace and
cooperation in South Asia. For instance, by imposing the decision of postponement of the
11th Summit, scheduled to be held in 1999, at the insistence of India, without regard to the
feelings of other members, was a gross violation of democratic values of consensus. The
argument advanced by India that as ‘democracy’ was toppled in Pakistan, and the Chief
Executive, Mr. Musharraf, happened to be a serving General, the situation was not
conducive to holding of the Summit, was illogical on several counts. In the first place, it is a
semantic issue, whether the ousted government was really ‘democratic’. In the very first
session of the SAARC, Pakistan’s participation was through President General Zia-ul-Haq,
who was a military ruler, and so was the host — General H. M. Ershad from Bangladesh.
Anyway, it goes to the credit of Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who in the
10th SAARC Summit underscored the need for discussing political issues, bilateral/multi-
41
lateral, as they pose attitudinal impediments towards building a climate of cooperation in
the region. She insisted that SAARC must sit together even without either one – India or
Pakistan – if such a case arises. She opined that without getting contentious issues out of
way, or substantially diluting their impact, a whole-hearted commitment to the lofty goals
would remain a wishful proposition.

iv. Fear of Indian domination

India by virtue of its natural endowments and wider economic base and capability occupies
a predominant role in South Asia. It is important to note that India accounts for at least
three-fifths of SAARC’s area, population, GDP (on a purchasing-power parity basis),
foreign exchange and gold reserves, and armed forces. The enormous resource and power
differentials naturally translate into an acute sense of insecurity in the neighborhood.
India’s small neighbours realised that India wants to convert its natural preponderance into
political preponderance because of such a perception of Indian domination. These small
neighbors seek to balance the "big brother" by developing close ties with other giants (USA,
China, Japan etc.) external to the region; and this perception hinders regional cooperation

(iii) Bilateral problems and defence expenditure, chronic in the region, has often led to
postponement of SAARC summits which is a big setback. Frequent border skirmishes
between India and Bangladesh, the ongoing debate between Bhutan and Nepal over the
refugee issue, the irritants in relations between India and Nepal over the open border,
disputes between India and Sri Lanka over the Tamil ethnic issue and other sporadic events
have constrained the growth of regional cooperation in the region. However, it is the
unremitting hostility between India and Pakistan, which has greatly undermined the
growth of SAARC. (iv) Most importantly, almost every South Asian country is perpetually
plagued by internal conflicts and crises based on narrow considerations of caste, religion,
language, community and so on.

v. Economic Impediments:-

(i) Differential development levels and glaring economic inequalities in the region in areas
of trade, manufacture and services make it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out a viable
economic system out of the unequal. (ii) Intra-regional trade among the SAARC countries
as a percentage of global trade has been only 4 per cent. Restrictive trade policies of the
SAARC countries, dominance of foreign capital, competitive behavior of economies,
communication gap and lack of monetary cooperation etc. are the primary reasons for such
a low volume of trade among the SAARC countries. (iii) In the absence of coordinated
approach, the SAARC countries compete for the same foreign markets, offering the same
products. For example; Bangladesh, India and Nepal compete for export of jute goods to
UK, E.E.C. and US markets. Likewise India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh vie with each other
for export of tea to EEC, UK, Japan and Australian markets. Every nation, except Nepal,
Maldives and Bhutan, compete for apparel, sea food etc.(iv) The SAARC countries differed
widely at North-South dialogues and GATT negotiations, South-South negotiations, GATT
and NAM (Non-aligned movement) because of diverse economic and geopolitical interest.
42
Western European co-operation is reinforced, internally by alliances among powerful
industrial, agricultural, humanitarian and labor interest across borders. But the SAARC is
not in such an environment in practice. (v) WB / IMF design development strategy for the
loan / aid recipients of this region most of the time which contradicts the policy of
individual country.

vi) Major Problem is Maintenance of Peace:

Peace remains a crucial issue, in most of the eight countries and especially in the Pak-
Afghan part of the region. The Indo-Pak deadlock over Kashmir remains a hurdle in
improving relations between the two countries in particular and in the region, in general.

On the other hand, recent violence in Myanmar and the exodus of Rohingya Muslims
towards Bangladesh and India had shown that heads of the states, over the years, have
failed to find a workable solution to the problem.

While Sri Lanka has put its 26-year civil war, between the government and the Tamil
fighters, there remain shrouds of instability in the island nation.

Afghanistan, which became a part of SAARC in 2007, is still reeling from decades of conflict
and has a long way to go before it achieves stability.

Meanwhile, visa exemption – in a bid to promote people-to-people contact – is only

applicable in certain countries and is limited to dignitaries and other high-ranking officials,
as opposed to the common man

6. Is there a way out?

There are two alternatives. First, like-minded SAARC countries could form a sub-group
and move along. But cooperation within any sub-group that includes India will be limited
by the very factors that limited cooperation within SAARC, whereas any sub-group that
does not include India will suffer from a lack of contiguity and capacity constraints.

Second, one or more members can take initiatives to reduce the trust deficit and to
rejuvenate SAARC. India is the only SAARC country that can viably afford unilateral
measures. This is true not only because of its large economy, but also because of the
multiple levels on which it operates. If, for example, Bangladesh unilaterally reduces tariffs
on imports its domestic industries will suffer in the short run. However, if India took such a
step, its industries would not be affected. If such a step helped to reduce regional tensions,
India would get an additional bonus from being able to concentrate on its global agenda,
which in turn would reduce the cost of its unilateral measures. Such additional payoffs are
not available to other SAARC countries, even if they could afford unilateralism.

In short, India can, and therefore should, bear the cost of rejuvenating SAARC. Otherwise
India will remain tethered to South Asia by regional conflicts.

43
7. Conclusion

To retain its credibility and relevance Saarc should be effectively used as a medium to
discuss issues of peace, security and development with international organizations and
agencies to promote interests of the member countries. The leaders need unitedly work to
realize the aspirations of the founding fathers t as set out in the first Summit. The
fundamental weakness that Saarc suffers from is trust deficit among the member’s states.
The political differences had deep negative impact on the political will to realize the
economic cooperation and integration. Besides political differences and conflict, economic
factors have also played an unhelpful role. The member states have still not reached the
take-off stage to be able to pursue the programme of economic integration and
collaboration.
The establishment of Saarc Development Fund, Food Bank, The Arbitration Council, and
the Regional Standards Organizations are the right moves. Saarc should also seek free and
preferential trading arrangements with other regional bodies notably EU and the Asean.
It should also remain fully focused on Saarc social charter to spread out its reach to the
common man. The people of South Asia desire to have a peaceful, prosperous and secure
future. The security can be obtained through sincere and sustained efforts to narrow the
political differences. Saarc is the appropriate tool not only to build trust but also to solve
disputes and create conducive climate for realisation of Saarc charter

The Agreement on South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)

is an agreement reached in 2004 at the 12th SAARC summit in Islamabad, Pakistan. It

created a free trade area of 1.6 billion people in Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives,
Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. The seven foreign ministers of the region signed a
framework agreement on SAFTA to reduce customs duties of all traded goods to zero by
the year 2016.

The SAFTA agreement came into force on January 1, 2006 and is operational following the
ratification of the agreement by the seven governments. SAFTA requires the developing
countries in South Asia (India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) to bring their duties down to 20
percent in the first phase of the two year period ending in 2007. In the final five year phase
ending 2012, the 20 percent duty will be reduced to zero in a series of annual cuts. The least
developed nations in South Asia (Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Maldives) have an
additional three years to reduce tariffs to zero. India and Pakistan have signed but not
ratified the treaty.

The Agreement on SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) was signed on 11

April 1993 and entered into force on 7 December 1995, with the desire of the Member States
of SAARC (India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Maldives) to
promote and sustain mutual trade and economic cooperation within the SAARC region
through the exchange of concessions.

44
The establishment of an Inter-Governmental Group (IGG) to formulate an agreement to
establish a SAPTA by 1997 was approved in the Sixth Summit of SAARC held in Colombo in
December 1991.

The basic principles underlying SAPTA are:

1. overall reciprocity and mutuality of advantages so as to benefit equitably all Contracting

States, taking into account their respective level of economic and industrial
development, the pattern of their external trade, and trade and tariff policies and
systems;

2. negotiation of tariff reform step by step, improved and extended in successive stages
through periodic reviews;

3. recognition of the special needs of the Least Developed Contracting States and
agreement on concrete preferential measures in their favour;

4. Inclusion of all products, manufactures and commodities in their raw, semi-

processed and processed forms.

So far, four rounds of trade negotiations have been concluded under SAPTA covering over
5000 commodities.

45
 European Union
1. Introduction an
EU is an international organization of European countries formed after World War II
seeking economic & political cooperation & integration. One of its major objectives was to
establish single market by reducing trade barriers and melting of the borders among the
countries.

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states]The
process of integration started in 1952 & ultimately Economic union was established by the
Treaty of Maastricht in 1993. With over 500 million citizens, the EU combined generated an
estimated 28% share (US$ 16.5 trillion in 2009).

The EU has developed a single market through a standardized system of laws which apply
in all member states, and ensures the capital including the abolition of passport controls by
the Schengen Agreement between 22 EU states. It enacts legislation in justice and home
affairs, and maintains common policies on trade. Agriculture, fisheries and regional
development. Sixteen member states have adopted a common currency, the euro,
constituting the Euro zone.

Having a legal personality, the EU is able to conclude treaties with countries. It has devised
the Common Foreign and Security Policy, thus developing a limited role in European
defense and foreign policy. Permanent diplomatic missions of the EU are established
around the world and representation at the United Nations, WTO, G8 and G-20 is
maintained.

The EU operates through a hybrid system of supranationalism and inters governmentalism.

In certain areas, decisions are taken by independent supranational institutions, while in
others; they are made through negotiation between member states. Important institutions
of the EU include the European Commission, the Council of the European Union, the
European Council, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Central
Bank. The European Parliament is elected every five years by EU citizens.

1. History & Expansion:

i. European Coal and steel Community (ECSC) by France and Germany.

ii. -Treaty of Rome- European Economic community (EEC) i.e. Common

market. Maastricht Treaty. European Union (EU) fully established by 12
members. It adopted new reforms like:

a) Common foreign policy,

b) Policy of single currency

46
 c) Common policy – EU.
1999 – Single currency (euro)

After World War II, moves towards European integration were seen by many as an escape
from the extreme forms of nationalism which had devastated the continent [. The very first
attempt to unite Europeans was the creation of European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC) in 1952 which, while having the modest aim of centralized control of the previously
national coal and steel industries of its member states, was declared to be "a first step in the
federation of Europe".. The founding members of the Community were France and West
Germany.

In 1957, these six countries signed the Treaties of Rome, which extended the earlier
cooperation within the European Coal and Steel Community and created the European
Economic Community, (EEC) establishing a customs union and the European Atomic
Energy Community (Euratom) for cooperation in developing nuclear energy. In 1967 the
Merger of above institutions created a single set of institutions for the three communities,
known as the European Communities (EC), although commonly just as the European
Community.

In 1973, the Communities enlarged to include Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom.
In 1985, the Schengen Agreement led the way toward the creation of open borders without
passport controls between most member states and some non-member states. In 1986, the
European flag began to be used by the Community and the Single European Act was
signed.

In 1990s, after the fall of Soviet Union, the former East Germany became part of the
Community as part of a newly united Germany. With enlargement towards Eastern and
Central Europe were allowed to join.

The European Union was formally established when the Maastricht Treaty came into force
on 1 November 1993. In 2002, euro notes and coins replaced national currencies in 12 of the
member states. Since then, the Eurozone has increased to encompass sixteen countries.

On 1 December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty entered into force after a protracted and
controversial birth. This reformed many aspects of the EU but in particular created a
permanent President of the European Council,.

The Union's membership has grown from the original six founding states—Belgium,
France, (then-West) Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—to the present day
27 by successive enlargements as countries acceded to the treaties and by doing so,.

The EU's member states cover an area of 4,422,773 square kilometers.

47
 2. Achievements:

i. Foreign relations.
Steps for a more wide ranging coordination in foreign relations began in 1970.Common
Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) by the Maastricht Treaty. The aims of the CFSP are to
promote both the EU's own interests and those of the international community as a whole,
including the furtherance of international co-operation, respect for human rights,
democracy, and the rule of law. The CFSP requires unanimity among the member states on
the appropriate policy to follow on any particular issue.

Besides the emerging international policy of the European Union, the international
influence of the EU is also felt through enlargement this influence on the internal affairs of
other countries is generally referred to as "soft power", as opposed to military "hard
power".

In the UN, as an observer and working together, the EU has gained influence in areas such
as aid due to its large contributions in that field. In the G8, the EU has rights of membership
besides chairing/hosting summit meetings and is represented at meetings by the presidents
of the Commission and the Council. In the World Trade Organization (WTO), where all 27
member states are represented

The European Union does not have one unified military. The predecessors of the European
Union were not devised as a strong military alliance because NATO was largely seen as
appropriate and sufficient for defense purposes. Twenty-one EU members are members of
NATO] while the remaining member states follow policies of neutrality.

EU forces have been deployed on peacekeeping missions from Africa to the former
Yugoslavia and the Middle East. In an EU consisting of 27 members, substantial security
and defense cooperation is increasingly relying on great power cooperation.

ii. Humanitarian aid

Collectively, the EU is the largest contributor of foreign aid in the world.

The EU provides humanitarian aid to developing countries. Counting the EU's own
contributions and those of its member states together, the EU is the largest aid donor in

Over the years the EU has established a strong relationship with the UN. Co-operation
takes place on a broad range of areas: development, addressing climate change, peace
building in conflict ridden countries, humanitarian assistance in crises, fighting corruption
and crime, global health concerns such as AIDS/HIV, labor issues and culture. The EU and
its Member States also play a crucial role as the major contributor to the UN system. Co-
operation is based not only in the form of the policy dialogue, but also goes further by
generating financial support of the UN programs and projects.

48
 iii. Economy

The EU and the next seven largest economies in the

world by nominal GDP. (IMF, 2009)

Since its origin, the EU has established a single economic market across the territory of all
its members. Currently, a single currency is in use between the 16 members of the eurozone
If considered as a single economy, the EU generated an estimated nominal gross domestic
product (GDP) of US$16.45 in 2009, amounting to over 21% of the world's total economic
output which makes it the largest economy in the world and the second largest trade bloc .
It is also the largest exporter, and largest importer of goods and services, and the biggest
trading partner to several large countries such as China and India.

161 of the top 500 largest corporations measured by revenue (Fortune Global 500 in 2010)
have their headquarters in the EU.

There is a great deal of variance for annual per capita income within individual EU states,
this range from US$7,000 to US$69,000.

iv. Single market (Free/ common market)

The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 established the EU single market. It ensures
the free movement of goods, capital, people and services.

Two of the original core objectives of the European Economic Community were the
development of a common market, subsequently renamed the single market, and a customs
union between its member states. The single market involves the free circulation of goods,
capital, people and services within the EU, and the customs union involves the application
of a common external tariff on all goods entering the market. Once goods have been
admitted into the market they cannot be subjected to customs duties, discriminatory taxes
or import quotas, as they travel. The free movement of capital is unique insofar as it is
granted equally to non-member states.

The free movement of person’s means citizens can move freely between member states to
live, work, study or retire in another country. This required the lowering of administrative
formalities and recognition of professional qualifications of other states.

The free movement of services and of establishment allows self-employed persons to move
between member states in order to provide services on a temporary or permanent basis

v. Monetary union (Common currency)

The creation of a European single currency became an official objective of the EU. Member
states were legally bound to start the monetary union no later than 1 January 1999.

16 EU countries have introduced the euro as their sole currency.

49
It is also intended as a political symbol of integration and stimulus for more. Since its
launch the euro has become the second reserve currency in the world with a quarter of
foreign exchanges reserves being in euro.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is one of the oldest policies of the European
Community, and was one of its core aims. The policy has the objectives of increasing
agricultural production, providing certainty in food supplies, ensuring a high quality of life
for farmers, stabilizing markets, and ensuring reasonable prices for consumers.

vi. Environment.
The EU is the most ambitious player and self-proclaimed leader in international climate
policy. At the 2007 United Nations Climate Change Conference, dealing with the successor
to the Kyoto Protocol, the EU has proposed at 50% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050.

vii. Nobel Peace Prize,2012

It was awarded to EU for maintaining peace and harmony amongst all countries in such
unfavorable conditions.

3. Challenges:

a) Identity crisis.

b) 27 countries- Mega Europe, consensus becomes difficult.

c) Economic recession & debt crises in various countries.

d) Economic imbalance between Western & Eastern Europe. Problem of

immigration & cheap labor threatening remaining Europeans.

e) Conflict over international issues & US interference.

f) Rivalry between France & UK.

g) Turkey’s membership

h) Economic crisis of Greece.

5. Conclusion

EU has changed the destiny of post-war Europe from a devastated place to the richest &
most prosperous region in the world. Today it has become a genuine global entity that
reaches out to its southern and eastern neighbors, meets its responsibilities in the world and
leads the way on the environment and human rights. Because of its chain of successes EU
has become a role model for all the other regional organizations of the world.

50
 The Association of Southeast Asian Nations- ASEAN
1. Introduction.
ASEAN is a geo-political and economic organization of 10 countries located in Southeast
Asia, which was formed in 1967 by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and
Thailand.[5] Since then, membership has expanded to include Brunei, Burma (Myanmar),
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.

2. Objectives:

i. Acceleration of economic growth.

ii. Social progress.

iii. Cultural development among its members,

iv. Peace and stability of the region, and.

v. To provide opportunities for member countries to discuss differences

peacefully.

ASEAN spans over an area of 4.46 million km2 with a population of approximately 580
million people, 8.7% of the world population. In 2009, its combined GDP had grown to
more than USD $1.5 trillion. If ASEAN was a single country, it would rank as the 9th
largest economy in the world)

3. History, Expansion & Progress

ASEAN was preceded by an organization called the Association of Southeast Asia,
commonly called ASA, an alliance consisting of the Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand that
was formed in 1961. The bloc itself, however, was established in 1967, -commonly known as
the Bangkok Declaration.

i. Peace& Stability
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-
Weapon-Free Zone. The treaty took effect on 28 March 1997 after all but one of the member
states have ratified it. It became fully effective in 2001, after the Philippines ratified it,
effectively banning all nuclear weapons in the region.

Through the Bali Concord II in 2003, ASEAN has subscribed to the notion of democratic
peace, which means all member countries believe democratic processes will promote
regional peace and stability. Also, the non-democratic members all agreed that it was
something all member states should aspire to.

51
The leaders of each country, particularly Mahathir Mohammad of Malaysia, also felt the
need to further integrate the region. Beginning in 1997, the bloc began creating
organizations within its framework with the intention of achieving this goal. ASEAN Plus
Three was the first of these and was created to improve existing ties with the People's
Republic of China, Japan, and South Korea. This was followed by the even larger East Asia
Summit, which included these countries as well as India, Australia, and New Zealand. This
new grouping acted as a prerequisite for the planned East Asia Community, which was
supposedly patterned after the now-defunct European Community.

ii. Environment
At the turn of the 21st century, issues shifted to involve a more environmental perspective.
The organization started to discuss environmental agreements. These included the signing
of the ASEAN Agreement on Trans boundary Haze Pollution in 2002 as an attempt to
control haze pollution in Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, this was unsuccessful due to the
outbreaks of the 2005 Malaysian haze and the 2006 Southeast Asian haze. Other
environmental treaties introduced by the organization include the Cebu Declaration on East
Asian Energy Security, the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) in 2005,
and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, both of which are
responses to the potential effects of climate change. Climate change is of current interest.

iii. Further developments

In 2006, ASEAN was given observer status at the United Nations General Assembly. As a
response, the organization awarded the status of "dialogue partner" to the United Nations.
In 2007, ASEAN stated that it aims to complete all its free trade agreements with China,
Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand by 2013, in line with the
establishment of the ASEAN Economic Community by 2015. In November 2007 the ASEAN
members signed the ASEAN Charter, a constitution governing relations among the ASEAN
members and establishing ASEAN itself as an international legal entity. During the same
year, the Cebu Declaration on East Asian Energy Security was signed in Cebu on 15
January 2007, by ASEAN and the other members of the EAS (Australia, People's Republic
of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea), which promotes energy security by
finding energy alternatives to conventional fuels.

 The ASEAN Plus Three

is a meeting between ASEAN, China, Japan, and South Korea, and is primarily held during
each ASEAN Summit.On February 27, 2009 a Free Trade Agreement with the ASEAN
regional block of 10 countries and New Zealand and its close partner Australia was signed,
it is estimated that this FTA would boost aggregate GDP across the 12 countries by more
than US$48 billion over the period 2000-2020.

 The unique feature of Asean- “The ASEAN way”

52
In the 1960s, the push for decolonization promoted the sovereignty of Indonesia and
Malaysia among others. Since nation building is often messy and vulnerable to foreign
intervention, the governing elite wanted to be free to implement independent policies with
the knowledge that neighbors would refrain from interfering in their domestic affairs.
Territorially small members such as Singapore and Brunei were consciously fearful of force
and coercive measures from much bigger neighbors like Indonesia and Malaysia. "Through
political dialogue and confidence building, no tension has escalated into armed
confrontation among ASEAN member countries since its establishment more than three
decades ago".

The ASEAN way can be traced back to the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation
in South East Asian. "Fundamental principles adopted from this included:

 mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and
national identity of all nations;

 the right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference,
subversion or coercion;

 non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;

 settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;

 renunciation of the threat or use of force; and

 Effective cooperation among themselves".

On the surface, the process of consultations and consensus is supposed to be a democratic

approach to decision making, but the ASEAN process has been managed through close
interpersonal contacts among the top leaders

All of these features, namely non-interference, informality, minimal institutionalization,

consultation and consensus, non-use of force and non-confrontation have constituted what
is called the ASEAN Way.

Apart from consultations and consensus, ASEAN’s agenda-setting and decision-making

processes can be usefully understood in terms of the so-called Track I and Track II. Track I
refers to the practice of diplomacy among government channels. The participants stand as
representatives of their respective states and reflect the official positions of their
governments during negotiations and discussions. All official decisions are made in Track I.
Therefore, "Track I refers to intergovernmental processes". Track II differs slightly from
Track I, involving civil society groups and other individuals with various links who work
alongside governments. This track enables governments to discuss controversial issues and
test new ideas without making official statements or binding commitments, and, if
necessary, backtrack on positions.

53
Although Track II dialogues are sometimes cited as examples of the involvement of civil
society in regional decision-making process by governments and other second track actors,
NGOs have rarely got access to this track; meanwhile participants from the academic
community are a dozen think-tanks. However, these think-tanks are, in most cases, very
much linked to their respective governments, and dependent on government funding for
their academic and policy-relevant activities, and many working in Track II have previous
bureaucratic experience. Their recommendations, especially in economic integration, are
often closer to ASEAN’s decisions than the rest of civil society’s positions.

The track that acts as a forum for civil society in Southeast Asia is called Track III. Track III
participants are generally civil society groups who represent a particular idea or brand.
Track III networks claim to represent communities and people who are largely
marginalized from political power centers and unable to achieve positive change without
outside assistance. This track tries to influence government policies indirectly by lobbying,
generating pressure through the media. Third-track actors also organize and/or attend
meetings as well as conferences to get access to Track I officials.

While Track II meetings and interactions with Track I actors have increased and intensified,
rarely has the rest of civil society had the opportunity to interface with Track II. Those with
Track I have been even rarer.

 Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement or RCEP.

The RCEP is Asean’s initiative to leverage on the strengths of the region, and drive regional
economic growth, counter-balancing the lethargy in the EU (European Union) and the
United States. RCEP is envisaged as an open economic integration agreement,initially
involving Asean’s FTA (free trade agreement) partners, namely, Australia, China, India,
Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, and later, expanding to include other dialogue
partner.Asean has to continue playing a key role in regional economic assimilation, so that
we commonly shape our individual economic destinies.

Asean and its six dialogue partners have decided on the guiding principles and objectives
for negotiating the RCEP. The negotiations are expected to cover trade in goods; trade in
services; investments; economic and technical cooperation; intellectual property rights;
competition policy; dispute settlement; and, new and emerging issues.

In short, RCEP brings together the leading economies in Asia. It is one of the most
ambitious regional economic integration initiatives. Upon realisation, it could see an
alliance of a region populated by more than three billion people, with a combined GDP
(gross domestic product) of more than US$17 trillion, and over 40 per centof world trade.

 Asean Political Security Community

Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia,2012 has been signed to govern
inter-state relations which will contribute to peace, security and stability in the
region.
54
 4. Conclusion:
ASEAN is successfully following on the path shown by European Union. It has proved to
be another worthy organization which has shown confidence, mutual trust among the
members. It has also transformed the region from poverty to a energetic community. It has
extensively engaged in enhancing the cooperative environment with the nations outside the
region. Its own way of dealing with the conflicts eg, consultation, dialogue, building
consensus & non-interference are commendable.

55
 The United Nations
1. Preliminary Note:

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating
cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social
progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945
after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to
provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out
its missions.

2. Composition:
There are currently 193 member states, including every internationally recognised
sovereign state in the world but the Vatican City. From its offices around the world, the UN
and its specialized agencies decide on substantive and administrative issues in regular
meetings held throughout the year.

3. Historical Background:
The League of Nations failed to prevent World War II (1939–1945). Because of the
widespread recognition that humankind could not afford a Third World War, the United
Nations was established to replace the flawed League of Nations in 1945 in order to
maintain international peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic,
social and humanitarian problems. The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization
was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first
coined the term 'United Nations' as a term to describe the Allied countries. The term was
first officially used on 1 January 1942, when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter,
pledging to continue the war effort. On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International
Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-
governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations. The
UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the
five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet
Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a majority of the other 46
signatories

4. Objectives of UN:
(Peacemaking and security)

The UN, after approval by the Security Council, sends peacekeepers to regions where
armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements and
to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain its
own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states of the UN.
The forces, also called the "Blue Helmets
56
The founders of the UN had envisaged that the organization would act to prevent conflicts
between nations and make future wars impossible, however the outbreak of the Cold War
made peacekeeping agreements extremely difficult because of the division of the world into
hostile camps. Following the end of the Cold War, there were renewed calls for the UN to
become the agency for achieving world peace, as there are several dozen ongoing conflicts
that continue to rage around the globe.

5. Structural Composition:
UN has five organs General Assembly, Security Council, International Court of Justice,
Secretariat and Economic and social Council. Trusteeship Council is timely suspended.
Most important organ is Security Council as it deals with the task of promoting
International peace and security. So our main focus of discussion will be analyzing the
efficiency of Security Council.

6. Security Council
The Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among countries.
While other organs of the United Nations can only make 'recommendations' to member
governments, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member
governments have agreed to carry out, under the terms of Charter Article 25. The decisions
of the Council are known as United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states, consisting of 5 permanent members–

China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States–and 10 non-permanent
members, currently (2011) Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany,
India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa. The five permanent members hold veto
power over substantive but not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent member to
block adoption but not to block the debate of a resolution unacceptable to it. The ten
temporary seats are held for two-year terms with member states voted in by the General
Assembly on a regional basis. The presidency of the Security Council is rotated
alphabetically each month.

7. Performance of Security Council:

The UN has also drawn criticism for perceived failures. In many cases, member states have
shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions, an issue that stems
from the UN's intergovernmental nature—seen by some as simply an association of 192
member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization.
Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as
having failed to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide, failed to provide humanitarian aid
and intervene in the Second Congo War, failed to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre
and protect a refugee haven by authorizing peacekeepers to use force, failure to deliver
food to starving people in Somalia, failure to implement provisions of Security Council

57
resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and continuing failure to prevent
genocide or provide assistance in Darfur.

The main purpose for the United Nations (U.N.) is to resolve issues between countries
through diplomacy before countries resort to military force and before conflicts escalate.
Unfortunately, the U.N. has consistently failed this goal and will continue being useless for
these several reasons.

First, the United Nations is primarily a forum for debate. As a result, the U.N. is an
international organization where countries send representatives to argue for or against
issues. These representatives are typically just spokesmen for their country's agendas and
are relatively powerless in their own country.

Furthermore, countries governed by non-peaceful dictators and regimes typically use these
debates to delay and obfuscate issues in their favor.

Over the fifty years that the United Nations has existed, these debates alone have not
resolved a single issue. Direct military actions, back room negotiations, and threats, that
were not sponsored by the United Nations, have had the only real positive affects for
change.

For instance, Iraq was under U.N. backed economic trade sanctions for over a decade. As a
result, the Iraqi people suffered greatly while Saddam Hussein continued playing games
with the United Nations by only periodically allowing inspections for weapons of mass
destruction, inconsistent disarmament of known weapons, and illegally finding ways
around the oil for food agreements that the U.N. imposed. As a result, economic sanctions
were an abyssal failure... Yet again, the United Nations is considering this same “solution”
that has never worked to be used against North Korea because of its nuclear weapons
program and testing. And Iran is keeping a close eye on what the world does to North
Korea, since Iran has similar nuclear ambitions for their non-peaceful agenda too.

Second, the United Nations is unable to take direct and independent actions without
support from its members. In other words, the U.N. is completely powerless and pacifistic.
In a world filled with war-mongering dictators and suppressing regimes who know the
U.N. lacks any real power; regimes are almost completely free to do whatever they want.
For example, North Korea has tested nuclear weapons and threatens to do so again, with
the United Nations only considering sanctions.

Third, the United Nations has five nations that can veto any resolution that the majority of
the U.N. members agreed upon. The countries with this veto power are China, France,
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
These countries have this power because they were the founding countries of the United
Nations that wrote the rules for the U.N. after World War 2. Unfortunately, this non-
democracy fails for several reasons. First, only a true democracy among nations is unbiased
58
and fair. Thus, the complete structure of the U.N. needs a major overhaul. This too is not
likely to happen, since the countries with vetoing power are unlikely to unanimously agree
to give up this right for fairness sake.
Additionally, since a lot of the countries in the United Nations are not for peace, these
nations have very questionable voting practices. The only possible solution is to deny
voting rights for non-peace loving nations. This includes any non-free and non-democratic
country who would be biased towards dictators and regimes. As the U.N. is capable of only
allowing free countries the right to vote. This is contradictory to the purpose of the United
Nations, since nations would only debate in the forum of the United Nations if they can
vote in the Security Council of the U.N

The fourth and final reason why the United Nations is useless is terrorism. The U.N. does
not formally recognize any country as a terrorist state. Furthermore, terrorists are not
interested in the politics of debating in a public forum, such as the United Nations, to
discuss and work out their issues. Therefore, the U.N. does not get involved in politics with
terrorist groups. As a result, the United Nations is completely blind to terrorist groups, has
no plans of address terrorism, and has no intentions of changing. The fact that the United
Nations, as the largest international organization that promotes peace, is completely unable
to address terrorism is further proof that the U.N. is ineffective.

8. Reform/ Need for reforms.

In 2005, then-Secretary General Kofi Annan published his report In Larger Freedom, a
proposal for reform of the UN.

Since its founding, there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations, although
little consensus on how to do so. Some want the UN to play a greater or more effective role
in world affairs, while others want its role reduced to humanitarian work. There have also
been numerous calls for the UN Security Council's membership to be increased, for
different ways of electing the UN's Secretary-General, and for a United Nations
Parliamentary Assembly.

The UN has also been accused of bureaucratic inefficiency and waste. During the 1990s, the
United States withheld dues citing inefficiency, and only started repayment on the
condition that a major reforms initiative was introduced

An official reform programme was begun by Kofi Annan in 1997. Reforms mentioned
include changing the permanent membership of the Security Council (which currently
reflects the power relations of 1945), making the bureaucracy more transparent, accountable
and efficient, making the UN more democratic, and imposing an international tariff on
arms manufacturers worldwide.

In September 2005, the UN convened a World Summit that brought together the heads of
most member states, calling the summit "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take bold
decisions in the areas of development, security, human rights and reform of the United

59
Nations." Kofi Annan had proposed that the summit agree on a global "grand bargain" to
reform the UN, renewing the organization's focus on peace, security, human rights and
development, and to make it better equipped at facing 21st century issues. The World
Summit Outcome Document delineated the conclusions of the meeting, including:

The creation of a Peace building Commission, to help countries emerging from conflict;

A Human and

A democracy fund;

A clear and unambiguous condemnation of terrorism "in all its forms and manifestations";

Agreements to spend billions more on achieving the Millennium Development Goals and,

the agreement that individual states, with the assistance of the international community,
have the "responsibility to protect" populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing
and crimes against humanity- with the understanding that the international community is
prepared to act "collectively" in a “timely and decisive manner” to protect vulnerable
civilians should a state "manifestly fail" in fulfilling its responsibility.

In the meantime, the General Assembly launched a number of new loosely related reform
initiatives in April 2007, covering international environmental governance, ‘Delivering as
One’ at the country level to enhance the consolidation of UN programme activities and a
unified gender organization. Whereas little was achieved on the first two issues, the
General Assembly approved in September 2010 the establishment of ‘UN Women’ as the
new UN organization for gender equality and the empowerment of women. UN Women
was established by unifying the resources and mandates of four small entities for greater
impact and its first head is Ms. Michelle Bache let, former President of Chile.

9. Conclusion
Some have questioned whether or not the UN might be relevant in the 21st century. While
the UN’s first and second Charter mandates require the UN: “To maintain international
peace and security.... (and if necessary to enforce the peace by) taking preventive or
enforcement action,” due to its restrictive administrative structure, the permanent members
of the Security Council themselves have sometimes prevented the UN from fully carrying
out its first two mandates. Without the unanimous approval, support (or minimally
abstention) of all 5 of the permanent members of the UN's Security Council, the UN's
charter only enables it to "observe", report on, and make recommendations regarding
international conflicts. Such unanimity on the Security Council regarding the authorization
of armed UN enforcement actions has not always been reached in time to prevent the
outbreak of international wars. Even with all of these restraints and limitations in place on
the UN’s abilities to respond to situations of conflict, still various studies have found the UN
to have had many notable successes in the 65 years of its existence. In the nutshell, the

60
United Nations has proven itself as a failure for its entire history and will count inure being
useless.

61
 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
SCO is an intergovernmental mutual-security organization which was founded in 2001 in
Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan,
and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of
the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members
renamed the organization.

 In 2001, the annual summit returned to Shanghai, China. There the five member
nations first admitted Uzbekistan in the Shanghai Five mechanism (thus
transforming it into the Shanghai Six). Then all six heads of state signed on June 15,
2001, the Declaration of Shanghai Cooperation Organization, praising the role played
thus far by the Shanghai Five mechanism and aiming to transform it to a higher level
of cooperation. In July 2001, Russia and the PRC, the organization’s two leading
nations, signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation

1. The SCO Charter

 strengthening mutual trust and good-neighborliness and friendship among member

states;

 developing effective cooperation in political affairs, economy, 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.

2. Objectives& Activities

 strengthen mutual trust and goodneighborlyrelations among member states

 ; promote their effectivecooperation in political affairs, economy and trade, scientific-

technical,cultural, and educational spheres as well as in the energy,
transportation,tourism, and environment protection fields;

 jointly safeguard andpreserve regional peace, security and stability; and

 strive towards thecreation of a democratic, just, reasonable new international

political andeconomic order.T

 The SCO as an institution and as a concept represents the world’s greatest potential
and in ways is its major paradox as its capacities and their realization to date are so
far apart. Its six full members account for 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and its
population is a third of the world’s. With observer states included, its affiliates
62
 account for half of the human race.At its fifth and watershed summit in the capital of
Kazakhstan, Astana, in June 2005, when representatives of India, Iran, Mongolia and
Pakistan attended an SCO summit for the first time, the president of the country
hosting the summit, NursultanNazarbayev, greeted the guests in words that had
never before been used in any context: “The leaders of the states sitting at this
negotiation table are representatives of half of humanity.”

 By 2007 the SCO had initiated over twenty large-scale projects related to
transportation, energy and telecommunications and held regular meetings of
security, military, defense, foreign affairs, economic, cultural, banking and other
officials from its member states. No multinational organization with such far-
ranging and comprehensive mutual interests and activities has ever existed on this
scale before. The SCO has now established relations with the United Nations, where
it is an observer in the General Assembly, the European Union, ASEAN (Association
of Southeast Asian Nations), the Commonwealth of Independent States and the
Organization of Islamic Conference.Striving for further enhancement of
comprehensive cooperation;Desiring to jointly contribute to the strengthening of
peace and ensuring of security and stability in the region in the environment of
developing political multi-polarity and economic and information globalization;

 Being convinced that the establishment of SCO will facilitate more efficient common
use of opening possibilities and counteracting new challenges and
threats;Considering that interaction within SCO will promote the realization of a
huge potential of goodneighborliness, unity and cooperation between States and
their peoples;Proceeding from the spirit of mutual trust, mutual advantage, equality,
mutual consultations, respect for cultural variety and aspiration to joint
development that was clearly established . A number of Western, andespecially
American scholars, view the SCO as a challenge to Americaninterests. It has been
described as an enigma, a security organization, aregional forum, an anti-terrorism
coalition, and as a Russian and Chineseled alliance created to counter U.S.
hegemony. Some have described it asthe beginning of a new Warsaw Pact-type
organization (or a “NATO ofthe East”). What is even more worrisome for this group
of analysts is thedominant role of Russia and especially China in the SCOActivities

3. Cooperation on security

 The SCO is primarily centered on its member nations' Central Asian security-related
concerns, often describing the main threats it confronts as
being terrorism, separatism and extremism. However evidence is growing that its
activities in the area of social development of its member states is increasing fast. In
2004 SCO summit, held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, the Regional Antiterrorism
Structure (RATS) was established. In 2006, the SCO announced plans to fight cross-
border drug crimes under the counter-terrorism rubric. SCO has claimed that it has
no plans to become a military bloc; In 2007, the SCO signed an agreement with
63
 the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), in the Tajik capital Dushanbe, to
broaden cooperation on issues such as security, crime, and drug trafficking

4. Military activities.

 Over the past few years, the organization's activities have expanded to include
increased military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and counterterrorism. There
have been a number of SCO joint military exercises. The first of these was held in
2003, with the first phase taking place in Kazakhstan and the second in China. Since
then China and Russia have teamed up for large-scale war games in 2005 (Peace
Mission 2005), 2007 and 2009, under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization. At the joint military exercises in 2007 (known as "Peace Mission 2007")
which took place in Russia more than 4,000 Chinese soldiers participated. Air forces
and precision-guided weapons were also likely to be used

 The SCO has served as a platform for larger military announcements by members.
During the 2007 war games in Russia, with leaders of SCO member states in
attendance including Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir
Putin used the occasion to take advantage of a "captive" audience: Russian strategic
bombers, he said, would resume regular long-range patrols for the first time since
the Cold War. "Starting today, such tours of duty will be conducted regularly and on
the strategic scale," Putin said. "Our pilots have been grounded for too long. They
are happy to start a new life."

5. Economic cooperation.
All SCO members but China are also members of the Eurasian Economic Community. A
Framework Agreement to enhance economic cooperation was signed by the SCO member
states in2003. At the same meeting the China's Premier, Wen Jiabao, proposed a long-term
objective to establish a free trade area in the SCO, while other more immediate measures
would be taken to improve the flow of goods in the region.] A follow up plan with 100
specific actions was signed one year late.]

In 2005, the Moscow Summit, the Organization announced that it will prioritize joint
energy projects; such will include the oil and gas sector, the exploration of new
hydrocarbon reserves, and joint use of water resources. The creation of an Inter-bank SCO
Council was also agreed upon at that summit in order to fund future joint projectsIn 2006,
at The SCO: Results and Perspectives, an international conference held in Almaty, the
representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Russia is developing plans
for an SCO "Energy Club"]. The need for this "club" was reiterated by Moscow at an SCO
summit. In 2007summit it was stated that "Against the backdrop of a slowdown in the
growth of world economy pursuing a responsible currency and financial policy, control
over the capital flowing, ensuring food and energy security have been gaining special
significance”.

64
In 2009, at the Yekaterinburg Summit, China announced plans to provide a US$10 billion
loan to SCO member states to shore up the struggling economies of its members amid the
global financial crisis. The summit was held together with the first BRIC summit, and the
China-Russia joint statement said that they want a bigger quota in the IMF.The address by
Russia’s Putin also included these comments: “We now clearly see the defectiveness of the
monopoly in world finance and the policy of economic selfishness. To solve the current
problem Russia will to take part in changing the global financial structure so that it will be
able to guarantee stability and prosperity in the world and to ensure progress.”“The world
is seeing the emergence of a qualitatively different geo-political situation, with the
emergence of new centers of economic growth and political influence.“We will witness and
take part in the transformation of the global and regional security and development
architectures adapted to new realities of the 21st century, when stability and prosperity are
becoming inseparable notions.”

6. Cultural cooperation
Cultural cooperation also occurs in the SCO framework. Culture ministers of the SCO met
for the first time in Beijing inl 2002, signing a joint statement for continued cooperation. The
third meeting of the Culture Ministers took place in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, in 2006.An SCO
Arts Festival and Exhibition was held for the first time during the Astana Summit in 2005.
Kazakhstan has also suggested an SCO folk dance festival to take place in 2008, inAstana

7. Geopolitical developments
There have been many discussions and commentaries about the geopolitical nature of the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization.Iranian writer,HamidGolpira, had this to say on the
topic: “According to [Zbigniew] Brzezinski’s theory, control of the Eurasian landmass is the
key to global domination and control of Central Asia is the key to control of the Eurasian
landmass....Russia and China have been paying attention to Brzezinski’s theory, since they
formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001, ostensibly to curb extremism in the
region and enhance border security, but most probably with the real objective of
counterbalancing the activities of the United States and NATO in Central Asia.”

At a 2005 summit in Kazakhstan the SCO issued a Declaration of Heads of Member States
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which addressed their "concerns" and contained
an elaboration of the organization’s principles. It included: “The heads of the member states
point out that, against the backdrop of a contradictory process of globalization, multilateral
cooperation, which is based on the principles of equal right and mutual respect, non-
intervention in internal affairs of sovereign states, non-confrontational way of thinking and
consecutive movement towards democratization of international relations, contributes to
overall peace and security, and call upon the international community, irrespective of its
differences in ideology and social structure, to form a new concept of security based on
mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and interaction. The Russian Foreign Minister
reiterated that the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is working to establish a

65
rational and just world order” and that “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization provides
us with a unique opportunity to take part in the process of forming a fundamentally new
model of geopolitical integration.”A Chinese daily expressed the matter in these terms:
“The Declaration points out that the SCO member countries have the ability and
responsibility to safeguard the security of the Central Asian region, and calls on Western
countries to leave Central Asia. That is the most noticeable signal given by the Summit to
the world.”The above mentioned declaration] also recognized that no single, standardized
model of political, economic, social, cultural and ethical development and practices could
be forced on the 88% of humanity that lives outside the Euro-Atlantic world, not a
parliamentary system devised in the British Isles, centuries ago nor a consumerist culture
and pseudo-civilization, designed on Madison Avenue and in Hollywood.Validating that
same school of thought, a study published by China’s Academy of Military Science
criticizes Washington’s “overbearing strategy of encirclement and suffocation.”That may
not be Washington’s intent. But from Beijing’s vantage point, the United States is arrayed
along China’s periphery, with a long-term presence in Japan and South Korea, strong ties
with Thailand and the Philippines, a blossoming partnership with India and a growing role
in Central Asia.Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao has concluded that the United States is
maneuvering “to preserve its status as the world’s sole superpower and will not allow any
country the chance to pose a challenge to it.” Russia is not a fan or supporter of NATO or of
any of its former Soviet states joining it, as seen in this explicit statement made in 2006 by
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine, Viktor Chernomyrdin, “when a neighboring country
becomes a member of the North-Atlantic Military bloc, then I’m sorry—then this strategic
partnership [with Russia] should be viewed from a different angle and [it should be
reviewed] whether this strategic partnership relationship should continue to exist at all”.An
article in The Washington Post in early 2008 reported that President Vladimir Putin stated
that Russia could aim nuclear missiles at Ukraine if Russia’s neighbor and former fraternal
republic in the Soviet Union joins the NATO alliance and hosts elements of a U.S. missile
defense system. "It is horrible to say and even horrible to think that, in response to the
deployment of such facilities in Ukrainian territory, which cannot theoretically be ruled out,
Russia could target its missile systems at Ukraine.

Latest SCO summit, June 2012-Beijing (China)

 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) concluded its Beijing summit with
member states agreeing to further cooperation in a variety of fields.

 The summit is pivotal for the future development of the SCO, as it is being held at
a time when the organization is entering its next decade of existence, said
President Hu Jintao when delivering a keynote speech at the summit.

 The SCO has achieved remarkable accomplishments in its first 10 years. In that
time, member states of the SCO have adhered to the "Shanghai Spirit" and signed

66
 the Treaty on Long-term Good-neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation.

 They have promoted the ideal of lasting peace and friendship, which has been
widely accepted and supported by people of all member states. The organization's
international prestige and influence has also grown significantly.

 The Chinese president said the international and regional situation has been
complex and volatile, thus bringing many uncertainties to the regional situation.
Only when SCO member states enhance cooperation and remain united can they
effectively cope with emerging challenges, safeguard regional peace and achieve
common development.

 The president made a four-point proposal for the future development of the
organization. He called on the member states to make joint efforts to build the
SCO into a harmonious community, a fortress of regional security and stability
and a driving force to boost regional economic development, as well as an
effective platform for increasing international exchanges and influence.

 He said China is ready to work with all member states to comprehensively carry
out the agreements reached at the summit, push forward cooperation within the
SCO and jointly contribute to the future development of the organization.

 Russian President Vladimir Putin said the SCO should enhance security
cooperation, deepen economic cooperation, encourage people-to-people
exchanges and open itself up to outside parties and international organization.

 SCO Secretary-General Muratbek Imanaliev and officials from the Regional Anti-
Terrorism Structure of the SCO (RATS), the United Nations, Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS), Euroasian Economic Community and Collective
Security Treaty Organization also attended the summit.

 At the meeting, all participants exchanged views on the Afghanistan conflict and
the Iranian nuclear issue. The SCO decided to grant Afghanistan observer status
and accept Turkey as a dialogue partner.

 The member states of the SCO adopted 10 agreements, including the Declaration
on Building a Region with Lasting Peace and Common Prosperity, the Strategic
Plan for the Medium-Term Development of the SCO, and the SCO Regulations on
Political and Diplomatic Measures and Mechanism of Response to Events
Jeopardizing Regional Peace, Security and Stability.

The 2013 SCO summit will be held in Kyrgyzstan.

9. Conclusion:

 The organization seems to have emerged as a powerful anti-U.S. block in Central

Asia. It has been able to reduce frictions between its two largest members, Russia
and China & also overcome the various political disputes among most of its
67
 members. The common interests have been promoted with genuine cooperation &
trust. Also tremendous economic activities have been launched by the organization.
It also has the potential to convert the region from the backwardness to the
developed & secure area. It can be labeled as “the European union of the east”.

68
 D-8
1. Introduction:
The Developing 8 (D-8 or developing Eight) are a group of developing countries with large
Muslim populations that have formed an economic development alliance. It consists of
Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey. It is an
intergovernmental organization, based on friendship, solidarity and pursuit of sustainable
economic growth, endowed with abundant human and natural resources, aspires to
become a dynamic economic grouping promoting sustainable development of its member-
states, as well be a major actor in the global economic governance and system, and
international economic cooperation.

2. Historical Background:
The D-8 was founded by Necmettin Erbakan, former Turkish Prime Minister. The group
was established after an announcement in Istanbul, Turkey on June 15, 1997. Membership is
open to countries other than current member-states, though no expansion is currently
planned.

3. Organizational Structure:
i. Summit:
It is convened every two years has the highest level of authority, and is
composed of the leaders of each member state.
ii. Council:
The council is the principal dictions making body for consideration of issues
relating to the D-8, and is composed of foreign affairs ministers sent form each
member state.
iii. Commission:
The commission has executive authority and is composed of Commissioners
appointed by each member state’s government. Commission is responsible for
promoting compliance of D-8 directives in their respective nation. Finally, an
executive director is appointed by D-8 members to facilitate communication and
to act in a supervisory capacity during each summit or lower-level assembly.
4. Objectives:
As stated by the D-8 facts and figures publication: “The objectives of D-8 are as follows:

 To improve developing countries positions in the world economy.

 Diversify and create new opportunities in trade relations.
 Enhance participation in decision making at the international level.
 Provide better standards of living.

The main areas of cooperation include finance, banking, rural development, science and
technology, humanitarian development, agriculture, energy, environment and health.

69
 5. Achievements:
Representatives of each of the eight developing countries except Bangladesh signed a
Preferential Trade Agreement of May 14, 2006 at the fifth D-8 Summit at Bali, Indonesia; the
agreement is designed to gradually reduce tariffs on specific goods between member states,
with a supervisory committee overseeing the process. The purpose of the agreement is to
reduce barriers to free between member states, as well as promote inter state cooperation.

The combined population of the eight countries is about 60 percent of the Muslim people or
close to 13 percent of the world’s population.

In 2006 trade between the D-8 member states stood as 35 billion US Dollars in 2010.
Transactions between the 8 developing countries account for 3.3 percent of world trade.
The figure is projected to reach 10-15 percent in the next few years.

6. Recent Islamabad Summit, November, 2012:

In the recent D-8 summit the leader adopted the following three documents:

 Historic 35-point Islamabad Declaration.

 Long overdue charter of the organization.
 D-8 Global Vision.

The entire three documents were, however, based on pledges and commitment, so no
significant decisions could be announced from the forum. The leaders in the declaration
stressed the importance of collaborative efforts on capacity building, transfer of technology,
exploration of new energy resources, as well as research development and production of
nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

7. Global Vision (2012-2030) Document:

The documents said that the D-8 members are committed to promote fruitful collaboration
and close cooperation between and among the member states in the widest possible fields:

 It said that the D-8 members would work towards broadening the support for the
organization at the national level within the member states, and strengthens its
weight and voice at regional and international level, including through active
engagements in and promotion of South-South and South-North cooperation.
 They are committed to promote and enhance collaborative partnership and
engagements between public and private escorts at the national level within and
among member states, it said
 The document said that the D-8 countries would work to pursue good governance,
rule of law, sound economic policies, and political stability.
 They are committed to strive towards developing an apocopate model for
integration among the member states with a view to promote the Organization’s
competitive edge at the international level said the Global Vision ( 2010-2030).
70
  It said the D-8 will collaborate with others on the basis such values as paces,
dialogue, cooperation, justice, equality, moderation, rule of law, harmony peaceful
coexistence, and inclusion.
 D-8 strategy towards achieving its long term ideals and objectives is based on an
objective analysis of the tremendous potentials of the entire community, shared
commonalties, and particular characteristic and challenges of the member states, and
on thr resolve to overcome challenges steadfast cooperation and collective effort, it
said.
8. Analysis:
President Zardari emphasized need for setting up trade and development banks;
facilitation contacts between chambers of commerce and investment houses,
simplification of visa and customs procedures and barter trade. Urged the members of
the D-8 to endorse once again the core values of D-8 that include peace, dialogue and
cooperation, justice, equality and moderation, democracy, rule of law and harmony, and
peaceful co-existence and inclusion.

9. Conclusion:
The members of the D-8 to endorse once again the core values of D-8 that include peace,
dialogue and cooperation, justice, equality and moderation, democracy, rule of law and
harmony, and peaceful coexistence and inclusion. The key objectives of the D-8 Charter
include promotion and enhancement of joints effort towards achieving socio-economic
development through effective utilization of potentials of the D-8 countries, alleviate
poverty and improve quality of life, strengthen economic, social, technical and scientific
ties and promote private sector activity in the D-8 countries.

71