ASSIGNMENT NO.

Question NO # 1

PREPARE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FOREIGN POLICY OF PAKISTAN IN THE

CHANGING DYNAMICS OF GLOBAL AND REGIONAL POLITICS

Introduction

Foreign policy, General objectives that guide the activities and relationships
of one state in its interactions with other states. The development of foreign
policy is influenced by domestic considerations, the policies or behaviour of other
states, or plans to advance specific geopolitical designs

In a political scientist's analysis, a foreign policy is "the actions of a state toward

the external environment and conditions under which (foreign) actions are
formulated. Foreign Policy is also a synthesis of the ends (national interests) and
means (power and capabilities) of nation states. The interaction between national
goals and the resources for attaining them is the perennial subject of statecraft.1
Pakistan is an independent and sovereign nation-state by occupying an
independent position in the South Asia. It emerged on the world scene on August
14, 1947 as a strong Muslim state to promote the aspirations of Indian Muslims,
independent of Hindu clutches. Pakistans foreign policy has always been in
consonance to western interests.

In both ways sometimes the west supported Pakistan, but most of the time
Pakistans foreign policy stood by the foreign interests. So the hypothesis for this
paper is, If there is a change in international political system, then a change in
Pakistans foreign policy is likely. Foreign policy behavior of developed countries is
stable and supportive of core values with little change under a control factor than
developing and underdeveloped world. Pakistan is either a developing country or
underdeveloped with a fact that it has a lack of representative government as
well as huge foreign debt. Under the framework of latest books on foreign policy
analysis the countries without a representative government and huge foreign
debt are less independent, particularly in case of less developed countries.
According to long cycle theory the change can affect it rather easily. Such a
foreign policy can easily be controlled from a super or regional power. The same
is the case in Pakistan where a regime is trying to win pseudo legitimacy of a
representative system without economic stability and foreign debt.

Global leadership is severely lacking, even though the world is no longer

unipolar and there are a number of emerging powers

Regions that lack integration and non-state actors continue to undermine

global security and stability

Environment challenges need to become a priority in international

relations, and must be approached with a new mindset

While the relation between India and China is competitive, the two
countries have several opportunities to collaborate on global issues

2014 is going to see some very significant changes in South Asia with
implications for national priorities, regional arrangements, and the
emerging global order. In the context of such transitions, Brookings India
hosted three prominent foreign policy experts, Ambassadors Husain
Haqqani, Kishore Mahbubani, and Shyam Saran, to discuss their
perspectives on the current global landscape, and how they see South Asia
and indeed India fitting into this setting.

On the whole, the panel agreed that there was much to be optimistic about the
current global order. Ambassador Mahbubani provided some statistics to support
this optimism: the number of people dying in interstate wars is the lowest that it
has ever been; the world is on the verge of achieving total elimination of
absolutely poverty by 2030; and there is a vast explosion of middle classes all over
the world in Asia for instance, the middle class will increase from 500 million
today to 1.75 billion in 2020. The make-up of the international order is also
manifestly different than it was a few years ago, in that there is no longer any one
country that dominates the world. Instead, many more capitals are shaping
international relations.

The scenario however is not completely positive, and as one panelist noted, there
are many unpredictable factors that undermine stability and security in the world,
and should thereby cause us to nuance our optimism. Some of the most poignant
challenges that were discussed include:

1. Absence of Leadership:

As a panelist noted, there is widespread pessimism about the quality of

leadership in the world. While American leadership appears to be weakening,
Europe too has abdicated any role in global security. Similarly, another panelist
questioned the ability of any of the emerging economic leaders to play a security
role in the event of an attack by a terrorist group or non-state actor. While the
world is indeed becoming multipolar, no one country can individually punch
enough weight to provide the level of security that the United States can.

Another panelist provided some insight about how this lack of global leadership
may stem from the implicit tussle between countries that have hitherto been
dominant and those who are now beginning to assert their power. While
emerging powers are accused of not being responsible leaders, the real problem
is that their idea of global responsibility is in conflict with the desires of the
established powers. Consequently, even when emerging powers try to take
responsibility, their actions are not necessarily welcomed by the established
powers. For instance, the U.S did not see Brazil and Turkeys intervention in the
Iran Nuclear Crisis favorably. As a consequence, the concept of global
responsibility must be redefined.

Panelists also discussed how around the world, leadership within countries was
similarly uninspiring, but as one of them pointed out, the rise of the middle class
will lead to governments and leaders needing to be more responsive to the
concerns of their people. He cited the example of China, explaining that even
China that lacks democracy has seen a greater democratization of society and
leaders need to be responsive to the wishes of the people. While the era of
heroic leadership is over, the world will see more responsive leadership.

2.Ungoverned Spaces in the World:

While war is unthinkable in Europe because of the regional integration, the

absence of stability in regions such as, South Asia, West East, and North-East
Asia that lack the same level of integration is a matter of concern. Similarly,
non-state actors, terrorist groups, and nations like North Korea lie outside the
ambit of governed spaces and pose significant threats to global security.

Panelists discussed the threat of such ungoverned spaces and unpredictable

actors in the context of South Asia, where regional cooperation is severely lacking,
with the region being bogged down by both internal and interstate politics, and
several unresolved issues holding the region back.

Looking ahead, developments in Pakistan and Afghanistan will shape the future of
the region. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan may lead to conflict
and restlessness in the region. Panelists expect Pakistan to attempt to play a more
strategic role in Afghanistan, and noted that the leadership in India must be
mindful of such challenges and prepared to respond accordingly.

Panelists were divided on how helpful enhancing people-to-people relations could

be in improving the dynamics of this region. One panelist held that repeated
meetings between leaders would dramatically alter the chemistry of India and
Pakistans relations. But another panelist disagreed, explaining how the
ideological tempers of South Asia cannot necessarily be understood, and adding
that as long as terrorism and Islamist fundamentalism is alive in region there
cannot be any conclusive dialogue or integration.

3.Environment:

While large parts of the world that were hitherto mired in poverty are
seeing rapid economic prosperity, a lot of this prosperity has happened at a high
environmental cost. From Europe, to South Asia, the Arctic, and Antarctica, this is
an age of ecological excess, and unless there is leadership that can ensure
ecological sustainability, the world might end up with greater conflict. One
panelist even believed the biggest crisis facing the South Asian region is the
ecological crisis, with the degradation of the environment in South Asian
countries, and the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas. He expects the impact of
this crisis to become the defining factor in the regions future.

The ecological challenge then circles back to the problem of leadership, as

multilateral forums are unable to tackle these crises due to a large number of
competing interests. So far, the attitude in climate change negotiations has been
to extract the most from the other side while providing the least. Unless this
mindset is changed, countries cant make much headway in ameliorating
environmental issues.

Relations between India and China:

The rise of China, and indeed its relations with India will be a defining factor
in international relations in the near future. While the panel was mindful that the
relationship between India and China is a competitive one and marred by border
disputes and relationships with Pakistan, they noted that there has been a fairly
effective management of what could have been a much more fractious
relationship. Additionally, a panelist also pointed out that India and China find
themselves on the same side of the fence on many global issues whether it is
adjusting global institutions to reflect the interests of emerging powers, or
fashioning new institutions in new domains such as cyber and space, which are
not governed by any existing global relations.

Eventually then, the discussion was embedded in optimism about the broad
changes in the international relations paradigm, but a cautious optimism that
took into account the various aberrations that stand in the way of global security
and stability. Ultimately, as was noted, geopolitical rivalries have existed for over
two thousand years and will continue, but what is at stake is how countries adjust
the relativities. And the relative weights of countries are changing very rapidly,
shaped by day-to-day events.
Foreign policy of Pakistan in the changing dynamics of global and regional
politics

National security is the major concern of every state and it is the

governments responsibility to ensure its internal and external security in
accordance with its national interests. Pakistan is also facing interlinked
challenges internal and external from hostile neighbors. The security patterns of
any state pawed the way for external interventions and make it a piece of cake for
external ravels, international actors and regional countries to secure their own
interests.

Internal challenges include bad governance, corrupt and fragile institutions, weak
and tumbling economy and many more. Defeating militancy and extremism are
the principle challenges to Pakistans National Security. The crucial neighborhood
is the prime concern of Pakistans National Security. Furthermore, the relations of
Pakistan with India, Afghanistan and Iran are making it difficult for Pakistan to
focus on domestic problems because these three fronts along with the war on
terror have posed continuing security dilemma that haunt the countrys progress.

Pakistan and Afghanistan:

The stability in Afghanistan is always questionable. Pakistan is sharing a long

border with Afghanistan whose insecurity poses intense severe threats to
Pakistan. Pakistan is always concerned about the overwhelming presence and
involvement of India in Afghanistan. Pakistan has continuously raised questions
about the increasing number of consulates which are constantly denied by Afghan
and Indian government.

The increasing presence of Islamic State in Afghanistan is another credible threat

to Pakistans National Security and territorial integrity. It has started recruitments
from Afghanistan and Pakistan and has also appointed their representatives in
Pakistan. Their presence is found in Karachi Safura Bus carnage and attack on a
DSP in Peshawar. If IS would succeeded in taking hold of Afghanistan or Taliban
decides to join IS or the both Taliban and IS would start working together then it
would bring a devastating effect for Pakistan and the whole region.
Pakistan and Iran:

Iran and Pakistan have seen good times in their relations, but strains in
their relationship become perceptible in 1974 when Iran denied the invitation of
Islamic conference in Lahore because Libyas Muammar Gaddafi was also invited.
Later on, Irans role in Afghanistan and its strengthening ties with India created
tensions between two countries and now both countries have severe allegations
towards each other. Iran is blamed for promoting sectarian violence in Pakistan
and supporting shiaas and providing them material support. Iran was also found
involved in fuelling terrorism in Pakistan by majority Sunni and minority shia riots
in 1980s and 1990s. Internal stability and integration is now looking as a
nightmare with out curbing the menace of sectarianism.

Baluch insurgency

It is another important bone of contention between the two states. Now

both states jumped into border skirmishes, killing frontier crops personnel and
holding citizens hostages and harassing them. Many times Pakistan has warned
Iran for entering its forces into Pakistan territory. To curtail the problems with
neighboring countries, Pakistan needs a soul-searching exercise to demolish the
devils in the internal system as well as highlight the deteriorating foreign forces in
International forums. The geo-strategic location cannot be changed but
promoting good governance and improving law and order situation can bring
considerable positive changes in internal stability, which ultimately can avoid the
external forces to influent our citizens through proxies.

CHALLENGES AND RESPONSES - WAR AGAINST TERRORISM AND PAKISTANS

FOREIGN POLICY

The major challenge for Pakistan after September 11 was the predicament
of war against terrorism. In the medium term after the military operation --- the
US agenda became more complicated bringing new challenges. Pakistan should
spin on its head, discard the Taliban, discard Islamic Jihad, discard Islamic
fundamentalists, and become an accomplice in American military intervention in
Afghanistan or else face the consequences. President Bush had made it clear that
those who failed to join hands with them against terrorism were then against
them.

Pakistan faced grave foreign policy predicaments in the aftermath of the Islamic
Jihadi bombings of the citadels of United States power in New York and
Washington on the morning of September 11, 2001. Within hours of these
despicable acts, Pakistans strategic delinquencies brought it face to face with a
most traumatic imposition by the United States ultimatum, namely: Pakistan
should spin on its head, discard the Taliban, discard Islamic Jihad, discard Islamic
fundamentalists and become an accomplice in the American military intervention
in Afghanistan or else face the consequences. Pakistans military ruler, General
Pervez Musharraf, buckled under the United States ultimatum and agreed
unconditionally to all American demands. The General even went to the extent of
invoking Islamic scriptures (an eye opener) as to how even no war pacts with an
enemy could be entered into as a temporizing measure by an Islamic State for the
sake of political or strategic expediency and could then be reneged later on to
defeat the enemy.

CONCLUSION

The reference logically seems to have been implied against the United
States, in that Pakistan could back out of its commitments to USA, post- 9/11.The
Taliban were discarded overnight and the United States was provided bases in
Pakistan for launching military operations against Pakistans erstwhile ally in
Afghanistan. To save his own skin, General Pervez Musharraf provided the scalps
of his fellow Islamic fundamentalist Generals by sacking his trusted colleagues and
those who brought him into power. As the United States embarked on a long-
term, comprehensive campaign to counter global terrorism, Pakistan once again
assumed the position of a frontline state, just as neighboring Afghanistan became
the target of a new U.S. hot war in Asia. U.S. indifference to the turmoil within
Afghanistan evolved into a policy of active intervention, and past differences with
Pakistan were overlooked in the effort to develop a military partnership in the
war on terrorism. These changes in U.S. policy in Southwest Asia could bear long-
term implications for American security. Pakistan had no choice but to join
America's war. Otherwise it would have been indicted along with the Taliban.

Question NO - 2

DISCUSS THE PAK-USA RELALIONSHIP AFTER 9/11 INCIDENT

PAK US RELATION

Introduction

Pakistan-USA relation hold greater importance. Since independence of

Pakistan, USA and Pakistan have been cooperating with each other not only in the
economic field but also politically, socially and diplomatically. USA has always
assisted Pakistan in all these fields and has been one of the key allies in providing
funds and support. There have been times of mistrust and suspicions as well but
while analyzing the overall scenario one can clearly asses that Pakistan
relationship with USA has been one of the significant features of Pakistans
foreign policy. This study assesses the importance of this relationship and the
hurdles which obstruct cooperation and progress in the Pakistan-USA
relationship. Furthermore the dynamics of their relationship after 9/11 with
prospects of good will and cooperation in future also form part of this study.

History of Pakistan USA relations

In order to proceed with US diplomacy after 9/11 there is need to go into

the depth of ups and downs of past sixty years in US-PK relations. After Pakistan
creation in 1947, its security and economic concern diverted Pakistan to US block.
To contain the Soviet expansionism in south Asia and to counter China influence
US needed a friend in this region in 1950s.To provide security to new born
country Pakistan get the membership of SEATO and CENTO in September 1954,
and September 1955 respectively. A mutual aid treaty was also signed between
the two countries in May 1954.Through these treaties Pakistan foreign policy got
its opening features at international level although these treaties imposed
domestic constraints on Pakistan. At that time Pakistan interest was in security
and US thought that Pakistan is beneficial to it because of its geostrategic
location. There was threat of expansion of communist in Middle East and
Southeast Asia.

US-Pakistan relations facing biggest crisis since 9/11, officials say Bitter disputes
over covert CIA activities and drone attacks inside Pakistan, lack of progress over
peace talks in Afghanistan, and rising Islamist-led opposition to the presence of
foreign forces in the region are fuelling the biggest crisis in US-Pakistan relations
since the 9/11 attacks, Pakistani politicians, army sources and intelligence officers
say.

Pakistan is seen by Washington and London as a vital ally in the "war on

terror", while the Pakistani government and army say they remain
committed partners 10 years after the Afghan conflict began.

But harsh US criticism of Islamabad's counter-terrorism campaigns in

Pakistan's western tribal areas, repeated in a White House report last week,
and "blowback" from the US military surge in Afghanistan are testing the
relationship to breaking point, officials warn.

"We will not accept the stigmatising of Pakistan," said Salman Bashir,
Pakistan's foreign secretary. "We need to re-examine the fundamentals of
our relationship with the United States to get greater clarity. There has
been a pause. Now we must start again."

Rehman Malik, Pakistan's interior minister, said the Americans should stop
blaming others for their difficulties in Afghanistan, where violence has
worsened in the past year and reconciliation efforts have made little
progress. "If the strategy is not right, all the stakeholders have to share
responsibility," Malik said.

Pakistan had suffered "unimaginably" since the "war on terror" began, he

added. "We are not just fighting for Pakistan, we are fighting for the whole
world. If this country is destabilised, the whole region is destabilised so
 please, stop the blame game. We are your partners. We are victims, not
part of the terrorists."

The rift comes at a dangerous moment for the US and its Nato allies as the
Afghan conflict enters the "endgame" and they begin the process of
handing over control of security to Afghan forces and start withdrawing
troops in July.

US criticism of Pakistan centres on ongoing suspicions that its powerful spy

agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), continues to
support Taliban and other militant groups active in Afghanistan and
Kashmir, partly in a bid to retain influence over a post-withdrawal
government in Kabul. Last week members of a US congressional committee
accused Pakistan of playing a double game, while the White House
described its counter-terrorism efforts in tribal areas as disappointing.

Pakistani anger focuses in turn on three main areas:

unauthorised CIA activity inside the country, Pakistan's perception that the
US is keeping it "out of the loop" on Afghanistan, particularly in respect of
mooted peace talks with the Taliban, and what Islamabad sees as the US
failure to appreciate the full cost and impact of the "war on terror" on
Pakistan's economy and social cohesion.

"The main problem we face is the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan.

This is the main problem for the whole region," an intelligence official said.
"The 'war on terror' fuels extremism in Pakistan's society."

Unmanned drone missile attacks launched by the CIA at targets inside the
tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have inflamed anti-US feeling in
Pakistan, making it increasingly difficult to justify the continuing "war on
terror" alliance, a senior security official said.

"In the long term, it [the drone attacks] is completely counter-productive

because it alienates the population and restricts our ability to shape our
security environment," the official said.
 Pakistan's army had conducted several campaigns to suppress Taliban
groups and al-Qaida operatives and sympathisers in Pakistan since 2001,
including in South Waziristan and Bajaur as well as in Swat, north of
Islamabad, the official said. But the army was resisting US pressure to
launch another offensive in north Waziristan. "What do they [the US] want
us to do? Declare war on our whole country?" the official asked.

"The Americans need to devise a strategy but better still, share the [drone]
technology with us," interior minister Rehman Malik said. "There is big anti-
American feeling. We would like to urge that the drone attacks be
stopped."

Tensions over CIA activities peaked earlier this year when Pakistan arrested
CIA contractor Raymond Davis after a shooting incident. Davis was publicly
named, held in detention for 47 days and interrogated, before eventually
being released after payment of $2.3m in compensation. The affair
followed the withdrawal last December of the CIA station chief in Pakistan
after his name was published in local media an unprecedented security
breach.

Whether by coincidence or design, a drone attack last month, launched the

day after Davis was released, killed dozens of people in north Waziristan
and sparked widespread outrage. The Pakistani army chief, General Ashfak
Kayani, called the attack a "violation of human rights" and said the dead
were tribal leaders, not terrorists. The prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani,
called the attack "irrational".

Pakistan has since moved to expel hundreds of US personnel, many of

whom are believed to work for the CIA or US special operations, by not
renewing their visas.

In a tacit acknowledgement of how serious the rift has become, the US

invited General Ahmed Shuja Pasha, head of the ISI, for talks in Washington
this week. Pasha is understood to have met Leon Panetta, the CIA director,
 and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff. There
have been no further drone attacks since the Waziristan strike.

Post 9/11 War on Terror Strains US-Pakistan Relations

When the masterminds behind the terror attacks on the United States in 2001
were discovered hiding in Afghanistan, the U.S. sent thousands of troops to hunt
them down - and asked Pakistan to help. But Pakistan has its own interests in the
region and that has meant for a troublesome alliance.

Abbottabad raid

Few things have exemplified or strained the tenuous relationship between the
U.S. and Pakistan more than what happened earlier this year in Abbottabad - the
U.S. commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden.It raised questions in the U.S.
about Pakistans friendship, and angered many Pakistanis, upset by America's
unilateral action.

But Cameron Munter, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, told VOA the two nations
must remain united against a common enemy."The problem we have here is that
we are dealing with ruthless people who are bringing something to Pakistan that
Pakistan didn't want, just like America didn't want an attack on 9/11," explained
Munter. "Pakistan doesn't want these kinds of terrorists. They're bringing them
here and trying to drive us apart. Trying to make this sound as if it is somehow a
fight that we shouldn't be in together."

Afghanistan

When the United States launched its military campaign in Afghanistan, it inserted
itself into a far larger, far messier regional struggle.Tensions between India and
Pakistan dominate the sub-continent. They have fought four wars and countless
skirmishes since their creation more than 60 years ago. Both possess nuclear
weapons. Pakistans western border with Afghanistan is porous, nearly impossible
to control. Ethnic Pastuns live on both sides of a disputed line arbitrarily drawn by
a 19th century British statesman.
Maleeha Lodhi, the former Pakistani ambassador to the U.S., says Washington
didnt fully understand the ramifications of sending troops to Afghanistan."Well, I
think the blowback of 10 years of war in Afghanistan has been devastating for
Pakistan," Lodhi said. "It led not just to the prolongation of a war that destabilized
the region, but it also led to the defeat of Americas own objectives. Because
America was unable to distinguish and therefore separate al-Qaida from the
Taliban. Pakistan believes that this war and the way it was fought was pushed into
Pakistans border region."
Insurgents

Taliban, al-Qaida and other insurgents fled into Pakistan when the U.S. led
coalition arrived in 2001.And after Pakistan sided with the U.S, many of the
fighters in those tribal regions decided Pakistans military and government were
legitimate targets.
That led Pakistans military to pursue some insurgents, but not others -- notably
the Haqqani network, allied to both the Taliban and al-Qaida.The U.S. responded
with drone attacks on insurgents inside Pakistan, sparking a wave of anti-
Americanism. Many Pakistanis feel the U.S. is violating their nation's sovereignty.
Will relationship last?

But Ambassador Munter says for the last 10 years the two nations have stood
together and suffered together. And, he says, with that shared experience they
should hold together.

"Both countries have shown resilience. I think it is a good sign for our
relationship," noted the ambassador. "Both countries have suffered and we honor
the sacricies that people have made. But huge challenges remain and we're going
to have to stay together in order to face them."

Parties on both sides of the relationship question that, though. Whether its in the
American Congress where theres talk of cutting aid or in Pakistan where theres
anger and talk of breaking with America for now the two remain allies.
Question NO 3

EXPLAIN PAK-AFGHANISTAN RELATIONSHIP AFTER THE DOWNFALL OF TALIBAN

RULE IN AFGHANISTAN

Introduction

Pakistan and Afghanistan share an immense border stretching 1510 miles

(2430 km) along the southern and eastern edges of Afghanistan. The Afghan
provinces of Badakhshan, Nuristan, Konar, Nangarhar, Paktiya, Khost, Paktika,
Zabul, Kandahar, Helmand, and Nimruz are all adjacent to the Pakistani
border. Ethnic Pashtuns populate the area along the border. The frontier passes
through varying terrain, with sandy deserts in the south and rugged mountains in
the east. Major border crossings between the two countries are in Torkham,
between Peshawar and Jalalabad and in Spinboldak between Kandahar and
Quetta.

The border between the two countries was determined in 1893 in an agreement
between the Afghan Emir Abdur Rahman Khan and the British Government of
India. Since the creation of Pakistan in 1947, however, subsequent Afghan
governments have not accepted the so-called Durand Line as the boundary
between the two countries. While Kabul considers the dispute unresolved, the
Durand Line has functioned as a de-facto border.

History of Pak Afghan relation

AfghanistanPakistan relations refers to the bilateral relations

between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Both neighboring states are Islamic Republic,
part of the SAARC and designated by the United States as major non-NATO allies.
Relations between the two countries have been subject to various complexities
over the past few decades, by issues related to the Durand Line, the 1978
present war (i.e. Mujahedeen, Afghan refugee, Taliban insurgancy and boder
skirmishes), including water and the growing relation of India and Afghanistan .
 On the whole, relations between the countries have been mostly poor.
Afghanistan was against Pakistan's admission to the UN in 1948 due to
the Durand Line issue. Diplomatic relations were first cut off in 1961.
Pakistan's ISI has been blamed for funding warlords and the Taliban, and for
basing terrorist camps within its territory to target Afghanistan. There is a
large anti-Pakistan sentiments in Afghanistan as a result.

However Pakistan and Afghanistan have been described by former Afghan

President Hamid Karzai as "inseparable brothers", which is due to the historical,
religious, and ethnolinguistic connections between the Pashtun people and other
ethnic groups of both countries, as well as trade and other ties.

ISSUE OF DURAND LINE

The Durand Line border has been used in the last decade as the main
supply route for NATO-led FORCES in Afghanistan as well as by tALIBAN
insurgent and other militant groups who stage attacks inside Afghanistan. In
2008, Karzai became frustrated with this and suggested that his nation may order
the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) to cross the Durand Line in order to
defeat militants hiding in western Pakistan. Leaders in Pakistan warned against
the suggestion stating that Pakistan would not "tolerate any violations of its
borders." Pkaistan PM Yousef Raza Gillani, explained that the Durand Line border
was too long to police. The American government decided to rely on Drond
Attacks instead, which began to negatively affect the Us Pak relatons.US Armed
Forces checking the border check point at Torkham, between Nangarhar
Province of Afghanistan and Pakhtunkhwa in Pakistan.

Relations have become more strained after the Afghan government began
openly accusing Pakistan of using its ISI spy network in aiding the Taliban and
other militants. Pakistan usually denies these allegations but has said in the past
that it does not have full control of the actions of the ISI. There have been a
number of reports about the Pak-Afghan sirkmishes, which usually occur when
army soldiers are in hot pursuits chasing insurgents who cross the border back
and forth. This leads to tensions between the two states, especially after hearing
reports of civilian casualties
THE RISE OF TALIBAN

The Taliban is a predominantly Pashtun, Islamic fundamentalist group

that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when a U.S.-led invasion toppled
the regime for providing refuge to Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The Taliban
regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where its central leadership, headed
by Mullah Mohammed Omar, leads an insurgency against the Western-backed
government in Kabul. Both the United States and Afghanistan have pursued a
negotiated settlement with the Taliban, but talks have little momentum as
international forces prepare to conclude combat operations in December 2014
and withdraw by the end of 2016.

The Taliban was formed in the early 1990s by an Afghan faction of

mujahedeen, Islamic fighters who had resisted the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan (197989) with the covert backing of the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency and its Pakistani counterpart, the Inter Service Intelligence directorate
(ISI). They were joined by younger Pashtun tribesmen who studied in Pakistani
madrassas, or seminaries; Taliban is Pashto for "students." Pashtuns comprise
a plurality in Afghanistan and are the predominant ethnic group in much of
the countrys south and east.

The Taliban is a predominantly Pashtun, Islamic fundamentalist

group that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001, when a U.S. -led
invasion toppled the regime for providing refuge to Al-Qaida and Osama
bin Laden. The Taliban regrouped across the border in Pakistan, where its
central leadership, headed by Mullah Mohammed Omar, leads an
insurgency against the Western-backed government in Kabul. Both the
United States and Afghanistan have pursued a negotiated settlement with
the Taliban, but talks have little momentum as international forces
prepare to conclude combat operations in December 2014 and withdraw
by the end of 2016.
 The Taliban was formed in the early 1990s by an Afghan faction of
mujahideen, Islamic fighters who had resisted the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan (197989) with the covert backing of the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency and its Pakistani counterpart, the directorate (ISI).
They were joined by younger Pashtun tribesmen who studied in Pakistani
madrassas, or seminaries; taliban is Pashto for "students." Pashtuns
comprise a plurality in Afghanistan and are the predominant ethnic group
in much of the countrys south and east.

The movement attracted popular support in the initial post -Soviet

era by promising to impose stability and rule of law after four years of
conflict (19921996) among rival mujahideen groups. Talibs enter
Kandahar in November 1994 to pacify the crime-ridden southern city, and
by September 1996 seized the capital, Kabul, from President Burhanuddin
Rabbani, an ethnic Tajik whom they viewed as anti-Pashtun and corrupt.
The Taliban regime controlled some 90 percent of the country before its
2001 overthrow, analysts say.

The Taliban imposed its brand of justice as it consolidated territorial

control. Taliban jurisprudence was drawn from the Pashtuns pre -Islamic
tribal code and interpretations of sharia colored by the austere Wahhabi
doctrines of the madrassas Saudi benefactors. The regime neglected
social services and other basic state functions even as its Ministry for the
Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice enforced prohibitions on
behavior the Taliban deemed un-Islamic, requiring women to wear the
head-to-toe burqa, or chadri; banning music and television; and jailing
men whose beards it deemed too short.

Leadership and Support

Mullah Omar, a cleric and veteran of the anti-Soviet resistance, led

Taliban ruled Afghan from 1996 to 2001 as amir al-muminin, or
"commander of the faithful." He granted al-Qaeda sanctuary on the
condition that it not antagonize the United States, but bin Laden reneged
on their agreement in 1998 when he orchestrated bombings of U.S.
embassies in East Africa.

Ethnic minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras in northern Afghanistan

opposed to Taliban rule formed the Northern Allies, which assisted U.S.-
led forces in routing the Taliban after 9/11. Though the regime was
dismantled during the occupation, Mullah Omar and many of his top aides
escaped to the frontier territories of Pakistan, where they reconstituted
the Talibans central leadership. Dubbed the "Quetta Shura" for the
capital of Balochistan province, where they are believed to have taken
refuge, they maintain a degree of operational authority over Afghan
Taliban fighters, but appear "unwilling or unable to monopolize anti -state
violence," a UN Security Council monitoring team found in September
2013.

Public Opinion of the Taliban

Afghan support for the Taliban and allied groups stems in part
from grievances directed at public institutions. While the Asia Foundation
survey found the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police garner
high public confidence, many civilians see government institutions such as
the militia-like Afghan Local Police as predatory. Likewise, international
forces support for warlords and strongmen, an expedient in securing
territory, likely also alienated many rural Afghans from Kabul, analysts
say.

A Resilient Insurgency

As the Obama administration wound down the war in Iraq, it

recommitted the United States to counterinsurgency operations against
the Taliban and allied groups in Afghanistan, authorizing a surge that
brought peak troop levels to about one hundred thousand in June 2011
and redoubled civillian affords.

But as the Pentagon withdrew the surge troops in 2012, further drew
down its military footprint in 2013, and handed lead security authority
over to Afghan forces in June of that year, the Tal iban-led insurgency
escalated.

In some outlying districts, Afghan forces and local insurgents have

reached informal cease-fires that effectively cede a degree of authority to
the Taliban. The UN reported in 2014 that the Taliban maintained outright
control of four districts, out of 373 nationwide, but the insurgencys reach
extends much further: Afghan security forces judged in late 2013 that
some 40 percent of districts had a "raised" or "high" threat level.

An Elusive Endgame in Afghanistan

Afghan forces have taken over nearly all combat operations, but
some military analysts question whether they can keep the insurgency at
bay as coalition forces draw down. Though NATOs combat mission expires
at the end of 2014, a consultative loya jirga, a traditional grand assembly
of tribal elders and community leaders, a longer-term role for the U.S.
military and its partners in helping secure the country.

Pakistan is seen as the key player in bringing the Taliban to the negotiation
table. However, the Taliban claims their militancy in Afghanistan is completely
independent of Pakistan. In this context, there are three major concerns
associated with materializing peace talk efforts between Afghanistan and the
Taliban. First, it remains unclear whether Pakistan will cooperate in the Afghan
peace process and urge the Taliban to stop fighting. Second, and of most interest,
is whether the Taliban will listen to Pakistan. Third, Afghanistans role in a lasting
and enforceable settlement has yet to be determined.

The Taliban are not likely to listen to Pakistan regarding the peace process for
many reasons threats to internal and political stability, ideological motivations,
and trust issues with both the Afghan and Pakistani governments. The Taliban
cannot appear to bow to Pakistans interests and disarming while there is a
continued foreign military presence in the country would be no less than political
suicide for the group. In a discussion with the author in early Dec. 2014, Wakil
Ahmad Matawakil, the former Taliban foreign minister, argued that if the
Talibans supreme leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, agreed to peace in the
current situation, he would lose all credibility.

Several factors have coalesced to make the border hard to guard: A) Geography,
as the area is too large to police properly; B) Some Pakistani authorities on the
official border crossings, and along the line, have long aided or closed their eyes
to problematic cross-border traffic; C) Since the Jihad against the Soviet Union in
Afghanistan, many have mastered the art of crossing the border without
detection by authorities on at least the Afghan side; D) At many areas along the
Durrand Line, people from the same qaums (referred to as tribes in popular
literature) live on both sides of the line and move back and forth without much
regard for the boundary.

Demographics

At least two major ethnic groupsthe Pashtuns and the Baluchslive on

both sides of the Durand Line. Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in
Afghanistan, comprising 42 percent of the population or 13.8 million
people.2 (Credible and up to date numbers about the demographics in
Afghanistan are hard to find. The last national census was conducted in the
1970s.) On the Pakistan side, Pashtuns make up 15.4 percent of the population,
roughly 26.6 million people.3 In Afghanistan, the Pashtun live mainly in a belt
extending across the south of the country from Pakistan in the east to Iran in the
west, but they are also present in other areas as well. Afghan cities with
significant Pashtun populations include Kabul, Kandahar, and Jalalabad. While in
Pakistan, the Pashtuns live in the North West Frontier Province, the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas, and sizeable communities of Pashtuns are also present
in Baluchistan and Karachi. Pashtuns on both sides of the border share the same
origin and other commonalities, including a language. But they have experienced
widely different political conditions and divergent national trajectories for at least
over a century.

Baluchs are another ethnic group that lives in both Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and even parts of Iran. The group constitutes 3.6 percent of the
Pakistani population or roughly 6.2 million people.4 In neighboring Afghanistan,
Baluchs account for two percent of the population, or about 0.7 million
people5 and live mainly in the southwest of the country, along its borders
with iran and Pakistan.

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) also began funding the Afghan resistance
in 1979. Accepted doctrine was that America would not overtly reveal its hand in
a proxy war with the Soviets, and therefore the CIA worked through its ally
Pakistan. Zia insisted that Islamabad would decide who in Afghanistan received
American aid, and the arbiters of this policy ultimately became Pakistans spy
agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), and the Pakistani
Islamist party Jamaat-e-Islami, which supported Zias dictatorship. As the war
progressed and as US and the Saudi Arabia led Arab funding for the mujahideen
skyrocketed, the Pakistani government and the ISI gained enormous influence in
Afghan affairs.

Political Interest

The driving force behind much of Islamabads foreign and defense policy is
its concern with neighboring India. Throughout its history, Pakistan has feared
either direct war with India or encirclement by its allies, and this has had a
tremendous impact on its relations with neighboring Afghanistan. In order to
prevent encirclement by India, Pakistan requires a friendly government in
Kabul. This objective also serves Pakistans planning for a future war with India: in
the event of an Indian invasion, the Pakistani Army would need to fall back to
positions in and along the border with Afghanistan, and a friendly government in
Kabul would provide this much-needed strategic depth.

In terms of its Afghan policy, this has meant that Islamabad has generally
supported Pashtun Islamist parties, like Hezb-e Islami and the Taliban, as a
counterweight to Indian-backed Tajik groups like the former Northern Alliance.

Pakistan reacted harshly to Indias reopening of its consulates in Herat,

Kandahar, Mezar-e Sharif, and Jalalabad in 2002, claiming that they would provide
cover for Indian espionage against Pakistan.

Ethnic Nationalism and Separatism

 The 1893 Durand Line effectively divided the Pashtun population in
half. Numerous Afghan-Pashtun leaders over the years have argued that
Afghanistan is the original home of the Pashtun, and therefore the Pashtun
regions of Pakistan should be part of Afghanistan. Others have tried to incite
nationalist sentiments in Pakistan by calling for the creation of an independent
Pashtunistan. Such rhetoric and policies tied to it has contributed to Pakistans
fears that its neighbors to the east and westAfghanistan and Indiaare bent at
breaking it down to several parts. It has also led Pakistan to calculate that any
stable and strong government in Kabul will involve itself with causes that threaten
Pakistans territorial integrity.

To dilute the force of Pashtun nationalism and other centrifugal tendencies,

several governments

The Taliban
Islamabad has strongly supported the Quetta Shura Taliban from its
inception in the early 1990s until the attacks of September 11, 2001. Reports
indicate that elements within the Pakistani security apparatus continue to
consider the Taliban as a strategic asset for Pakistans regional policies. After
2001, Pakistan changed its official policy towards its ally and nominally joined the
US-led War on Terror. In practice, Pakistans sincere participation in that effort
has come under severe questioning by Afghanistan, the U.S. and allies. Current
Afghan President Hamid Karzai contends that Pakistanparticularly under the
Musharraf regimehas used its military and the ISI to destabilize Afghanistan and
support the insurgency. The relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan
improved when Musharraf stepped down in 2008, but the new Pakistani
President Asif Ali Zardari (Benazir Bhuttos widower) admits that there are rogue
elements within the ISI and the Pakistani military that may be supporting the
Taliban on both sides of the border.

Coalition Supply Routes

 In 2008, 90 percent of military supplies bound for ISAF forces in Afghanistan
arrived at the Pakistani port of Karachi, where they are unloaded and transported
by truck to Afghanistan.17 Two routes are used: The first route passes through
Baluchistan province and the city of Quetta, before traveling through the Khojak
Pass and the border towns of Chaman (Pakistan) and Spin Boldak (Afghanistan),
en route to Kandahar. The second route, through which 75 percent coalition
supplies travel, goes from Karachi to Peshawar in the NWFP.18 From Peshawar,
supply convoys then pass through the Khyber Agency in the FATA onto the Afghan
border town of Torkham, before reaching Jalalabad and Kabul. Recently, these
supplies are mostly non-combat materials, such as food, water, fuel and
construction supplies, are delivered by ground, while military weapons and other
sensitive equipment are flown in by cargo plane.19

Narcotics

Afghanistan is responsible for more than 90 percent of the worlds

illicit opium production, and 33 percent of that product is smuggled across the
Pakistan-Afghanistan border.20 Pakistani cities of Quetta and Karachi and the
ports associated with them have significant importance in the drug trade out of
Afghanistan. But Pakistan is not just a transit point for drug smugglers; it also has
a significant drug problem itself, with around 700,000 opiate abusers (including
almost 500,000 heroin abusers) in the country, making up 0.7 percent of the
population ages fifteen to 64almost twice the world average.21

Economic Interests/Trade

Afghanistan has long had a dependent economic relationship with

neighboring Pakistan, and Islamabad has done much to foster this
dependency. The Afghan Transit Trade Agreement (ATTA), which allows
Afghanistan to import goods duty free through the Pakistani port of Karachi on
the Arabian Sea is key to their trade. It is recently being renegotiated and the
United States is facilitating the process of updating the agreement. Pakistan is the
largest exporter to Afghanistan, with around US$ 1.7 billion in exports annually,
which accounts for 36.8 percent of Afghan imports and 8.4 percent of Pakistans
exports.23 Pakistan also represents a major export market for Afghan products,
with roughly about US$ 71 million exported to Pakistan every yearequal to 21.8
percent of all Afghan exports.24 However, much of Afghanistans exports are raw
materials, which are processed or used in manufacturing in Pakistan. The finished
goods are frequently resold to Afghans at a higher price.

EMERGENCE OF TALIBAN AND ITS IMPACT ON PAK-AFGHAN RELATIONS

Taliban is the plural of Talib the term commonly used in Pushto for religious
student, studying in a religious school/Madrasa. . Education in religious
seminaries in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Taliban did not first out of the blue as
some commentators thought. They had always been an integral part of Afghan
society, living in madrassa attached with masques, knocking from door to door to
collect food for their meals, and entirely dependent on the generosity of the
faithful of their education and upkeeps.

Question NO 4

ESTIMATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND SAUDIA ARABIA, IRAN

AND TURKEY

PAK - IRAN RELATION

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND IRAN

Iran-Pakistan relations have gone through many ups and downs. Iran was
the first country to recognize Pakistan after it became independent in 1947. Both
countries share a border of 900 kilometers. The historical and cultural linkages
between people of Iran and Pakistan go way back before 1947, when Pakistan
was part of Indian sub-continent. Iranian scholars and preachers had left
profound impact on the people of the Indian subcontinent to the extent that
Persian became the official language used in courts and government offices, until
late 19th century when British replaced it with English. However, this paper will
focus Iran-Pakistan relationship after 1947, and divides the relationship into two
eras, 'the Shah's era' and 'the Khomeini era'.

Security concerns played an important role in defining the

relationship between two countries in early years. Iran's major security concerns
lie in West Asia especially in Persian Gulf region, whereas Pakistan's security
concerns revolve around its eastern neighbor India and Afghanistan. Security
concerns play a decisive role in formation of regional alliances and formations.
Pakistan's initial strategy was to maintain friendly relations with its neighbors but
with India's aggression in Kashmir and Afghanistan rejection to accept Pakistan
since it didn't accepted Durrand line. In these circumstances Pakistan couldn't
afford a hostile Iran as it wanted to garner more support especially, among
Muslim countries in order to voice its concerns against India in the United Nations
(UN).

IRANPAKISTAN GAS PIPELINE

Discussions between the governments of Iran and Pakistan started in 1994

for the gas pipelines and energy security. A preliminary agreement was signed in
1995 by Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Iranian President Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani, in which, this agreement foresaw construction of a pipeline
from SouthNorth Pars gas field to Karachi in Pakistan. Later, Iran made a
proposal to extend the pipeline from Pakistan into India. In February 1999, a
preliminary agreement between Iran and India was signed.

Hard Power and the Nuclear Issue

Hard power is dened as the ability to force an entity to do something,

typically through economic coercion or military force. This stands in contrast to
soft power, the ability to persuade or attract agreement in order to achieve
objectives.4 UN Resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747 (2007) all emphasized the
importance of political and diplomatic efforts to nd a negotiated solution
guaranteeing that Irans nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful
purposes.5 This wording was dropped in Resolution 1803 (March 2008), but there
was a continued emphasis on diplomatic efforts in the document. However,
underpinning the resolutions has been the hard-power threat of sanctions, which
were increased in Resolution 1803 to include a number of individuals and
companies thought to be linked in some way to the Iranian nuclear program. It
should be emphasised that these efforts remain predicated on a notion of hard
power so long as the emphasis, practically and rhetorically, is on coercion.
Particularly in the context of threatening language used by the Bush
administration, it is difcult for diplomacy to be seen consistently as such, but it is
certainly diplomacy predicated on hard power, or what Anthony Newkirk refers to
as strategies of tension.6 In October 2007, the Bush administration imposed the
strongest economic sanctions against Iran since the 1979 revolution. The 2007
designation of the Revolutionary Guards Corp as a terrorist organization allows
the government under U.S. law to freeze assets and obstruct funding of any
foreign business that supports it.7 With partial success, the U.S. government has
attempted to prevent European energy companies and banks from doing business
with Iran.8 Even diplomacy, then, is predicated on coercion. In fact, the Bush
administrations logic concerning Iran was that only hard power is appropriate.
This was, indeed, self-evident because of its characterization of Iran as an
irrational actor.9

Regional Issues and Trade Relations

At least since the late 1960s, Iran has been bolstered both economically
and in terms of international leverage by its relations with China. This relationship
has burgeoned recently, and Iran has been able to depend on both Chinas ever-
growing need for Iranian hydrocarbons and the diplomatic support provided by
Chinas place on the UN Security Council.17 In 2007, China represented about 14.5
percent of foreign direct investment (FDI) into Iran, while Japan was a close
second at 13.3 percent.18 These gures explain the Iranian governments sense
that it need not be intimidated by sanctions. They also explain the U.S. frustration
and attempts to assert sanctions by proxy. The strain on Irans economy caused
by the Falling price of oil is sure to cause some to trumpet a new opportunity to
make economic coercion more telling. The dynamics will certainly change, but this
will not make understanding regional trade relations any less important.
PakistanSaudi Arabia relations

The Saudi-Pakistani relationship is a vast and dynamic web of cooperative

linkages, age-old bonds of friendship and undertakings, dating from well before
the establishment of diplomatic relations and growing continuously year-on-year.
Today, the Kingdom and Pakistan maintain close and robust political, military,
economic, security and cultural relations, rarely found in the history of global
camaraderie.

In fact, Saudi Arabias long-standing and comprehensive relationship with

Pakistan operates at many levels and in many areas, including trade, governance
and values, health, education and culture besides politics and security. The two
countries also work together extensively at the international level, within the
framework of several bilateral, regional and global organizations including the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).

Moreover, the Kingdom is the biggest exporter of oil and petroleum products to
Pakistan, while Saudi Arabia has been a key market for Pakistani goods and
services. No doubt, the two sides sought to develop extensive commercial,
cultural, religious, political and strategic relations since the establishment of
Pakistan in 1947. Pakistan affirms its relationship with Saudi Arabia as their most
important and bilateral partnership in the current foreign policy of Pakistan,
while working and seeking to further strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia, the
country that hosts the two holy mosques in Makkah and Madinah.

The bilateral relationship has grown further since Pakistan joined the Islamic
Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT). The IMAFT, created by Saudi Arabia
in December 2015 to combat Daesh and other terror groups, has 39 members,
including Turkey and Malaysia with a command center in Riyadh.

All these new developments are the result of the frequent political consultations
between the leaders and the high-ranking officials of the two countries, and more
so between King Salman and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. The leaders
of Saudi Arabia command great respect in Pakistan.
According to a survey, Pakistanis hold the most favorable perception of the
Kingdom in the world, with 95 percent of the respondents viewing Saudi Arabia
favorably. With one of the largest armies in the world and as the only declared
nuclear power in the Muslim world, Pakistan has maintained a unique position
and works closely with the Kingdom and other member states of the six-nation
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) as well as the world at large.

A report released by the Pakistani Embassy said that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
are the leading members of the OIC. Saudi Arabia has been one of the strongest
supporters of Pakistan through the years, said the report. Saudi Arabia has
provided extensive religious and educational aid to Pakistan, being a major
contributor to the construction of mosques and madrassas (religious schools)
across that South Asian country, including the King Faisal Mosque in Islamabad,
named after late King Faisal of Saudi Arabia.

Over the years, the role and the bond between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have
been increasingly becoming strong and complementary. The relations between
the two countries also reflect widely developing economic ties. Trade between
them has grown in recent years. In addition, the number of Pakistani workers in
the Kingdom has increased and now stands at about 2.6 million, who remit more
than $5.6 billion a year to their families in Pakistan.

In the manpower sector, Saudi Arabia remains a major destination among

Pakistanis, who came to the Kingdom for employment in great numbers during
the last five decades. Besides manpower, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can also work
closely within the framework of Saudi Vision 2030. The two countries have
unexploited proven mineral resources. Thus, investment in geophysics and other
mining-related disciplines will pay huge dividends in the long run.

The Saudi interest in mining industry is there to stay and Pakistan has the human
resource to provide for such a demand. The Vision 2030 offers Pakistan an
opportunity to upscale its manpower export to more skilled and managerial
levels, inevitably boosting its foreign remittances. The close ties between Riyadh
and Islamabad will provide more opportunities for cooperation within the Vision
2030.
Vision 2030 has a mandate to forge closer partnerships with foreign countries. No
doubt, Pakistan has enjoyed warm relations with Saudi Arabia since the birth of
the country. The relations are rooted in the centuries-old religious, cultural and
commercial links between the two peoples. Moreover, the relationship is also
based on shared Islamic ideals.

To this end, it is important to mention that Pakistan is the only state founded on
Islamic identity, while Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and the Prophet
Muhammed (PBUH) and home to the two holiest mosques of Islam. Quran and
Sunnah play a significant role in the constitutional framework of both countries.
In fact, the first treaty of friendship was signed by the two countries as early as
1951, laying the basis for expanding cooperation.

Over the years, the two countries succeeded in developing a unique synergy for
mutual development and prosperity. Saudi Arabia has the largest number of
Pakistani passport-holders. No other country has such a massive diaspora, which
is composed of top-notch Pakistani professionals. Pakistani engineers and
construction experts have played a crucial role in building infrastructure in Saudi
Arabia. Similarly, Pakistani doctors, entrepreneurs, academics and financial
experts have played a premier role in developing the institutional infrastructure
of the Kingdom.

Referring to the progressively growing relations between Pakistan and Saudi

Arabia, Shah Faisal Kakar, a senior diplomat at the Pakistan Embassy, said: The
Kingdom and Pakistan enjoy warm and friendly relations, and the two countries
have developed strong ties in different fields.

A number of monuments in Pakistan bear testimony to the depth of bilateral

relations.

The International Islamic University (IIU) in Islamabad was established with a

grant of $10 million from Saudi Arabia. The third-largest city in Pakistan was
renamed Faisalabad after the late King Faisal. In keeping with the high degree of
mutual trust and brotherhood, there has been a regular exchange of high-level
visits between the two countries.
On the commercial front, the two countries have forged closer ties. Bilateral trade
has been on the rise for the past few years. The balance of trade is in favor of
Saudi Arabia as Pakistan imports most of its oil from the Kingdom. A centerpiece
of bilateral economic and commercial relations is the Joint Ministerial
Commission (JMC) between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Several agreements provide a firm footing for bilateral relations. The two
countries have in place an agreement for political consultations and air service
agreement, an extradition agreement, a cultural accord, an agreement on security
cooperation, an agreement on scientific and technological cooperation, and an
agreement on avoidance of double taxation.

PakistanTurkey relations

The sentiments of brotherhood that Pakistanis have for people of Turkey have
their roots in history. This history of Pak-Turkish relations is a story of concern and
cooperation .They have been friends and supported each other in time of war as
well as peace. The story of their friendship is spread almost over a country.

The institutions of Khilafat have occupied a very important place in the history of
Islamic peoples. After the sack of Baghdad in 1258 AD the Khilafat passed into the
hands of Fatimid rulers of Egypt and finally into those of the Ottoman Sultans in
the first half of the sixteen century. The Mughal rulers of India did not recognize
the Ottoman sultans as their spiritual head. Instead, they got the Khutbah read in
their own name. After the disintegration of Mughal Empire, however, there
occurred a change, and the name of the Ottoman caliph was extensively used in
sermon from the pulpit at Friday prayers in India. This had little political
significance but it showed that sizeable sections of the Muslims community in
South Asia regarded the Caliph as the symbol of Islamic unity and a source of
spiritual inspiration (Ali, 2001).

The year 1947 is to be known as very crucial period in the history of the world, on
one hand the old order started crumbling with the partition of Europe in two
separate spheres. On other side when Sub Continent was divided in two
independent states of Pakistan and India on ideological grounds. The most
desired dream of the Indian Muslims transformed into reality and they were now
in possession of their separate homeland Pakistan ; the land of pure people which
was the bearer of the ancient civilization and culture; it appeared on the world
map. After partition Pakistan thought of its establishing diplomatic relations with
foreign countries, one of them was the foremost lands to which its thoughts
turned was Turkey. The Muslims of the Subcontinent learnt great lessons and
inspiration during their fight for independence from the their Turkish brethren.
The crucial years of Khilafat Movement from 1919 to 1922 played a very pivotal
role in the Pakistan Movement as this Khilafat Movement was the first great
movement run by the Indian Muslims on a large scale. They not only stood in
support of their Turkish brethren but proved themselves as a remarkable aspect
in the land mark history of Turkish Emperor.

Emergence of CENTO

In July 1958 in Iraq a new government took the charge and new government
made the new policy about his country. The New government of Iraq's leader who
was come through a revolution immediately denounced the Baghdad pact and
Iraq ceased to be a member. The July 1958 meeting of Baghdad pact council
which was held in London agreed that another defense organization should take
the place of the defunct Baghdad pact. The new organization came to be known
as Central Treaty Organization or CENTO in 1959 (Sattar, 2007).

The President of Turkey, Ceral Bayar visited Pakistan's Capital Karachi on 22

September 1958 and talked about diplomatic relations with the President
Iskander Mirza. At that time Turkish President suggested for the formation of a
confederation between Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Iran. Shah of Iran
welcomed the idea of a confederation on 28th of September 1958 and stated that
'It's a good idea and we are ready to form it', but this good idea of Turkish
President could not be concretized because Afghanistan adopted the policy of
neutrality on the topic of Confederation. Therefore this visit of theTurkish
President was officially declared as a courtesy visit. Pakistani president Iskander
Mirza also opposed the idea of formation of confederation in the National
Assembly of Pakistan (Ali, 2001).
President Ayub Khan visited Ankara (Turkey) in November 1959. During his talks
with Turkish President, Ayub Khan discussed the events with the head of the State
about the essential importance of the CENTO for the security and strength not
only for the partners but also for regions far beyond the frontiers of three
countries. That need was keenly felt for concerting more effective military
measures. With Iraq out of the picture, there was an increase in the alliance's
unity and Iran, Turkey and Pakistan felt Brotherly regrets over Afghanistan's
unwillingness to join the alliance (The Dawn 9 November 1959).

Turkey's stance over Kashmir Issue

In the early sixties, the Turkish leaders and their public opinion showed keen
appreciations of Pakistan's point of view in regard to the Kashmir dispute. For
instance in February 1962, the Yeni Istanbul, a widely circulating daily of Turkey,
in article of that newspaper, supported Pakistan's right stand' on Kashmir issue
and stated that Kashmir possessed the same powerful weapon of nationalism
which Mr. Nehru had used while occupying Goa. It added that if the world
considered the occupation of Goa normal and supported India in this case, on the
plea of nationalism, the Indian Premier should have accepted Pakistan's right over
Kashmir and acted with greater understanding,

Turkish stance over India-Pakistan Wars

The outbreak of Indo-Pak war on 6 September 1965 constituted a major test of

the friendship of Pakistan's regional allies. The Turkish Premier, Mr. Urugplu said
that the Turkish government hoped that efforts by UN Secretary General U Thant
to achieve a ceasefire would prove successful. He also said that India had
aggravated the crises by taking the conflict beyond Kashmir into Pakistan and by
bombing Pakistani Towns. He further observed: 'The dangerous crisis which has
been developing recently between the two countries is a direct result of the
failure in finding a just solution to the Kashmir Problems.' On 10 September 1965,
Turkey and Iran in a joint statement called for an immediate ceasefire, the
withdrawal of Indian forces from Pakistani territory. The communiqu??
concluded: 'the Governments of turkey and Iran reaffirmed the solidarity which
links Turkey-Iran and Pakistan, and declared that they are ready to support
Pakistan as a brother country and an ally.

Almaty Outline plan, 1997

This plan was an elaboration of the Quetta Plan which suggested the interlink of
road & Railway networks of Central Asian Republics (CAR's) with the linked roads
& railways of Iran, Turkey and Pakistan. It further looked for the construction of
lost links of roads and railway tracks. Another important goal of this plan was to
unlock international road transportation among member states(Bhatti, 1995).

ECOTA 2003

That ECO Trade Agreement was chalked out to institute free trade zone in the
region by 2015. It was determined to reduce the tariffs of the goods traded from
80 % to 15 %. That accord at that time was not endorsed by Iran due to her
differences with Turkey over tariff issues (ECO at a Glance)

ECO TDB 2007

The purpose of ECO Trade & Development Bank was to channelize resources for
embarking, enhancing and supplying financial facilities to enlarge intra-regional
trade and to offer experts counseling to member countries in solving their fiscal
issues. Operations of Bank started in 2008. In Tehran and Karachi representative
offices of the Bank are functional with best performance (ECO at a Glance)

ECO Freight Train Service 2009

A very significant venture was inaugurated between Pakistan, Iran and Turkey in
2009. According to that Train's route was planned from Islamabad, Tehran and
Istanbul. It's further target was to connect Pakistan with Europe via Turkey. At
that time it was expected that the railway routes can link ECO member states with
Europe for this purpose some missing links had to be up graded . Quetta-Taftan
track & Kerman-Zahidan track were very important of these tracks. (ECO at a
Glance).

The ECO-IRU Silk Road Truck Caravan, 2010

That Caravan Silk Road started its journey from Islamabad in April 2010 and
completed it on October 2010 in Istanbul after covering a long distanced journey
of 11,000 km. The caravan travelled through seven countries of ECO including
unstable region of Afghanistan.The purpose of this journey was to gather
information in order to facilitate road transport in the area (IRU-ECO Truck
Carvan).

Question NO 5

CRITICALLY ELUCIDATE PAKISTAN-INDIA RELATIONS IN THE LIGHT OF KASMIR

ISSUE

INDIAPAKISTAN RELATIONS

BACKGROUND

The heavenly beauty of Kashmir valley thats cradled in the mighty Himalayas and
fed with Indus and Satluj in their absolute purity; sharply contrasts with forlorn
hope of freedom glimmering in the eyes of Kashmiris for years. The beauteous
land of Kashmir is surrounded by two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, and two
other independent states of China-the emerging Superpower- and Afghanistan.
The leading tourist attraction has now been labeled as the most dangerous place
on earth.

History of Oppression in Jammu and Kashmir:

Historically, Jammu and Kashmir stayed independent until late 18th Century when
Britishers occupied the subcontinent-the territory of India, Pakistan and
Bangladesh region at present. Under a Treaty of Amritsar, the British sold Jammu
and Kashmir region over to Ghulab Singh for 7.5 million rupees. In 1857, after the
demise of Ghulab Singh, Ranbir Singh employed the rules of tyranny and
oppression to control the people of Kashmir till 1885. Afterwards, Partab Singh
and Hari Singh succeeded him in a row to continue their ways of brutality and
repression. Unfortunately, till date, the fertile lands of Kashmir bleed not green
but red.

Years before the partition of Sub-continent, Muslim-majority state of Kashmir had

been long struggling and fiercely fighting for their rights to self-determination and
independence. In 1931, the mass revolt of people against the Hindu ruler was
brutally dealt with by the Maharaja.

In 1932, a political party of Kashmiris was formed by Sheikh Abdullah, named as,
an All Jammu & Kashmir Muslim Conference. The outcomes were positive when
the state ruler allowed Kashmiris access to the Legislative Assembly. Still, the
unrest remained an eternity against the Maharaja Hari Singh.

Muslims of Kashmir wanted to join Pakistan but their tyrannical Hindu Maharaja
remained reluctant due to Indian pressure. The acts of repression of Maharaja
towards Muslims, and his ordering of Muslims to surrender their arms aggravated
the situation by the eruption of a communal rebellion in July 1947. Consequently,
the inhuman acts of ethnic cleansing initiated in the province of Jammu before
partition. Thousands of Muslims were massacred by Sikhs and Hindus who had
connivance of Army and Police of Maharaja. Kashmiris revolted for years against
the injustice and dishonesty shown by Hindu rulers but to no avail.

Indo-Pak Partition in 1947:

On 25th July 1947, Lord Mountbatten emphasized on the independence of states

to decide upon their future dominion where the rules were technically at liberty
to link with either of the dominion (India or Pakistan). The 362 princely states of
sub-continent were given the opportunity to freely accede to either state of
Pakistan or India, or choose sovereignty. However, they were allowed to accede
to a contiguous territory and prioritize communal interests of their state based on
the majority population.
On 15th August, 1947, only 10 princely states out of 362 decided to join Pakistan.
However, a dispute over three princely states emerged, namely Junagarh,
Hyderabad and Jammu and Kashmir.

Junagarh had Muslim ruler and Hindu-majority population, yet, independently it

showed accession to Pakistan. India critiqued Pakistan for accepting a Hindu-
majority state into it and deployed troops in Junagarh to pressurize its people. To
date, the issue remains pending and unresolved before the Security Council.

Hyderabad, with Hindu-majority population and a Muslim ruler, got a Standstill

Agreement signed with India to stay independent. But, India continued to
pressurize Hyderabad diversely and finally annexed it militarily on 13th
September 1948. Based on their Hindu-majority population, India laid its claims
on Hyderabad and Junagarh.

However, contrarily, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was not put to pre-
defined rules of contiguous lands and communal interests. Despite a Muslim-
majority population and revolts for the independence of Kashmiris, India laid its
claims on the territory through oppression and military intervention.

With a Muslim-majority land, Kashmiris demanded from the Hindu Maharaja the
freedom of right to accede to Pakistan. Consequently, Janak Singh, the prime
minister of Jammu and Kashmir, put forth a Standstill Agreement to both India
and Pakistan. Pakistan signed the proposition, but India delayed the decisions in
contrast to those concerned with Hyderabad.

The Muslim population of Kashmir rebelled against Maharaja for deferring their
decision to independence and for his oppressive acts. He fled to Srinagar, on 26th
October 1947, and appealed Indian forces to assist him. Indian troops infiltrated
the state under the pretext of the threat to the life of the ruler by people.

Moreover, under Indian pressure, Maharaja Hari Singh showed agreement for
joining India after signing an Instrument of Accession on 26th October, 1947-as
claims India. An expert in International Law, Dr. Ijaz Hussain refers to article 49 of
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that states, A treaty is invalid if its
conclusion is procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of
the Charter of the United Nations.

The first Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, in his letter of acceptance
of accession, clearly promised the Maharaja that the state of Kashmir is being
accepted in the Indian Union till an impartial and free plebiscite is held there.
However, India obstructed the way to hold a fair plebiscite in Kashmir since
partition.

Lord Mountbatten, the first Governor General of India, asserted the conduction of
impartial plebiscite after the restoration of peace and order in Kashmir and
accepted the Instrument of Accession temporarily. Mountbatten addressed the
Kashmir Maharaja that, it is my Governments wish that as soon as law and
order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the
question of States accession should be settled by the reference to the people.

Indian Prime Ministers, afterward, kept on making shallow promises of

attempting to create peace in Kashmir before conducting a referendum in Indian
occupied territory of Jammu and Kasmir. In 1948, when Kashmir issue was
debated before United Nations, India reiterated the same commitment of
accession of people of Kashmir according to their wishes.

On the other hand, Prime Minister of India, Jawahar Lal Nehru once expressed,
Kashmir, because of her geographical position, with her frontiers marching with
three countries, namely, the Soviet Union, China and Afghanistan, is intimately
connected with the security and international contacts of India.

Indians were of the opinion, since partition, that Pakistan cannot stabilize itself
for long and its independence will not be prolonged, with India securing a
strategic edge over Pakistan. Due to the strategic importance of Kashmir valley,
India occupied two-third of Jammu and Kashmir, while, Pakistan maintains
dominion over one-third of the land, with a line of control (LoC)-recognized by the
UN- separating them.
Through Indian occupation of Gurdaspur and Batala, the Muslim-majority tehsils,
via Radcliffe award; India got an easy access to Kashmir valley. In Two Nations and
Kashmir, Lord Birdwood observed, It was Radcliffes Award to India of the
Gurdaspur and Batala tehsils, with Muslim majorities, which rendered possible
the maintenance of an Indian force at Jammu, based on Pathankot as railhead,
and which enabled India to consolidate her defences southwards all the way from
Uri to Pakistan border. Unfortunately, the conspiracy was brought to light after
the demise of British Rule, which left the unending Kashmir dispute between two
rival nuclear powers.

The letter of Indian representative to UN on 1st January 1948 portrayed an

inverted picture of Kashmir issue. India incepted a novel strategy of presenting
Pakistan as threatening the life and property of people of Kashmir and that it was
imperative for India to decide the fate of Jammu and Kashmir. To the Security
Council, India pretended to appeal to Pakistan to halt military and civil
intervention in the state of Jammu and Kashmir and to desist from supporting
Kashmiri freedom fighters. An in-depth research of Alastair Lamb reveals that
Pukhtun tribesmen crossed Kashmir border after the invitation by internal
elements through Domel in October 1947. It was not a forced entrance into
Kashmir region but one granted by anonymous officials.

India failed to convince United Nations of the aggressions of Pakistan as UN

terms vividly demanded the self-determination of people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Security Council via Resolution 39 laid the foundations of a commission on
20th January 1948 named as United Nations Commission on India and Pakistan
(UNICEP). UNICEP was founded on the grounds to explore and investigate the
facts based on the Article 34 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Instantaneously, India changed its designs entirely from employing illegal and
unconstitutional means of incorporating Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Union
to adopting friendly relations with Kashmiris. In 1950, India granted an
autonomous status to Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of Indian
Constitution. In accordance with the said Article, the state is autonomous except
the three rights of regulations of defense, communications and external affairs-to
be controlled by Indian Parliament solely. The Kashmir state enjoyed complete
authority on its laws and regulations and other administrative functions, but it
was a temporary settlement by India only to convince Kashmiris to accede to join
the Indian Union.

Kashmir breathed the air of freedom after years with its flag, judiciary,
constitution, and government. India went as far to exile Maharaja in June 1949
and incorporated his son as Regent. The National Conference was handed over to
Sheikh Abdullah to run the administration of the State smoothly.

In 1950, the National Conference assembled its separate Constituent Assembly

for the determination of future of the State. However, in 1951, when India
showed interest in the approval of accession of the State to India, Sheikh Abdullah
asserted his intention to keep the State autonomous under Indian rule. Later, in
July 1952, a Dehli Agreement was signed between Nehru and Abdullah where
they committed to keeping the special autonomous status of Kashmir intact
unless the Kashmir Constituent Assembly decides the oppose it.

It aggravated the Hindus of Kashmir and anti-Abdullah demonstrations were held.

Abdullah, reacted, by adopting strict policies against the Hindu protestors and got
them all arrested. Indian government showed disapproval and dismissed the
authority of Abdullah as Prime Minister in August, 1953. Abdullah faced
imprisonment and got replaced by Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad.

India succeeded in turning the tables according to their plans in February, 1954
when Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad confirmed the accession of the State to the
Indian Union as legal. In 1954, the president snatched the autonomous functions
of Kashmir back to the Indian Government. In January, 1957, Indian Constitution
came out as that the State is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India.

Later on, after Simla Agreement between India and Pakistan on 3rd July, 1972,
India asserted that the two countries are resolved to settle differences by
peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. But, Simla Agreement, in
no way, dissipated the UN insistence on conduction of referendum in the
disputed territory of Kashmir.
Through the two major Indo-Pak wars in 1965 and 1971, Pakistan kept its position
clear on Kashmir. When armed insurgency erupted in Kashmir, Pakistan assisted
the freedom fighters fighting for their rights till 2001.

In 2001, the September 9/11 attacks by al-Qaeda led the U.S. to respond by
invading Afghanistan and destroy the safe havens of terrorist groups there. U.S.
demanded from Pakistan to join it in its war on terror and Pakistan was left with
no option than to accede to it. During US anti-terroristic campaigns, Pakistans
relations with its neighboring countries of Afghanistan and India became
complicated.

Moreover, no jihadist organization took the responsibility of the Parliament

attack. India, still, blamed Pakistan for fostering such terroristic forces in its cradle
and of providing duress to extremist elements against India called as Difa-e-
Pakistan in Kashmir. However, President Pervez Musharraf, completely kept back
army from interfering with Kashmir issues after 9/11 to maintain the diplomatic
relations of two states as well as the peace of Kashmiris.

During the regime of Nawaz Sharif, till date, no progress in Kashmir has been
made except settlement of arguments through peaceful measures and diplomatic
means. Freedom fighters still revolt against the brutalities of government and
fight for their rights and the perpetual war continues to cause great devastation
in the beauteous land. Nawaz Sharif predicts the future of Kashmir dispute, quite
horrifically, as he once mentioned, Kashmir might become a nuclear flashpoint
and cause of the fourth war between India and Pakistan, so it should be
resolved.

The UN has failed to resolve Kashmir dispute due to resistance of the Indian
government. Moreover, terrorism and change in governments have weakened
the economy of Pakistan massively. In such critical situation, the US-led war on
terror and the hollow threats of the Indian government have left Pakistan in an
awkward and tense situation. Kashmir wants independence from the Indian
Occupation.

Current Relation and Kashmir

 In Pakistan today, there is practically a cross-party consensus for
having better relation with India. More significantly, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
has invested considerable political capital in promoting this agenda. The military
leadership that traditionally has been opposed to rapprochement is now
supportive of this policy in light of the changed threat scenario and emerging
geopolitical and strategic imperatives. Indeed, Prime Minister Sharif was quick to
send a message of congratulations to Mr. Modi on his elections victory, inviting
him to visit Pakistan.

But how does one achieve normalization when Pakistan and India have
contrasting and even conflicting perceptions? Pakistan feels that an enduring
normalization requires addressing the full range of issues across the board,
including Kashmir. Pakistans hope was that in the composite dialogue progress
on the entire spectrum would be in tandem. But that has not happened despite
the fact that Pakistan has shown considerable flexibility. The problem is India is
treating the normalization process not horizontally but vertically, as a kind of
pyramid. Its base is the so called confidence building measures (CBMs), including
military hotlines, people to people contacts and economic and commercial
relations, to which India has lately added terrorism. Then in the middle it has
other non-Kashmir issues like energy, water, Siachen, and Sir Creek. And the top
of the pyramid is Kashmir.

India wants both countries to climb to the top by stages, a climb that India has
made very strenuous by lowering the center of gravity of the relationship to the
whole range of non-Kashmir issues. Progress on Kashmir is of course on a
standstill, but even on other issues there has been very little movement from the
Indian side. The idea is to take a hard line stance on these issues in order to get
pre-negotiation concessions from Pakistan to the extent that India considered
even the resumption of a dialogue or a visit by the Indian Prime Minister to
Pakistan as a concession.