Hi,
I have compiled this list on my own after analysis of ongoing problems. If all of us grab one topic each head and start working on that and submit the work here, it will help us all in a great way! To avoid confusion, mention what topic u have chose for research. One can even add new topics.
Please, participate actively instead of only copying & pasting the information provided by those who post here for everyone as it will benefit us all and no one has ample time to work on all issues in and out! (To all the members and visitors unanimously)

Let's say we are making notes for CA 2011

Regards.




1. Federal Budget 2010

2. Crime & Insurgency in the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, recent trends and future perspectives

3. Corruption in Pakistan 2010

4. Flood 2010, Rehabilitation efforts, & its economic, social, and infrastructure impacts on Pakistan

5. Internally Missing Persons

6. Economic Analysis of Pakistan 2010

7. Rivalry and conflict with India

8. Obama’s visit to India and its impacts on Pakistan

9. Pakistani Military operations in the tribal areas

10. Drone attacks in FATA

11. U.S/NATO Supply Route

12. NRO and President Zardari

13. 18th Amendment

14. Ongoing tension between Judiciary and executive

15. RGST Bill

16. Education Reforms

17. Good Governance issue

18. Poverty and Inflation

19. Unemployment

20. Energy Crisis

21. Democratization

22. War on terror

Introduction:

Pakistan’s budget for year 2010-11 was presented in the National Assembly by Dr. Hafeez Shaikh on Saturday, 5thJune 2010.

Objectives:

Having spent a good amount of time on the context, Dr. Shaikh delineated what the budget was targeting to achieve. The main objectives of the budget are:
 protecting economic recovery
 controlling inflation
 achieving self-reliance through domestic resource mobilization
 targeted social protection regime for poverty reduction
 controlling losses of public sector entities
 reducing unemployment
 improving investment climate
 overcoming energy shortages

size of the budget is PKR 3.259 trillion (USD 38.34 billion) against PKR 2.897 trillion last year. The biggest heads of expenditure are as follows:
1. Debt Servicing: PKR 873 billion (USD 10.27 billion) or 26.78% of the total outlay
2. Defence: PKR 442 billion (USD 5.2 billion) or 13.56%
3. Public Sector Development Program: PKR 663 billion or 20.34%
Against a total outlay of PKR 3.259 trillion, the budget forecasts total revenue at PKR 2.574 trillion, leaving a fiscal deficit of PKR 685 billion which is 4% of the gross domestic product (GDP). It will be met through net external financing of PKR 186 billion, net non-bank borrowing of PKR 332.6 billion and banking borrowing of PKR 166.5 billion.
Another important aspect of the announced budget was the substantial increase of funds to be disbursed to the provinces by the Federal Government. PKR 1.033 trillion will be distributed to the provinces which was PKR 655 billion last year. It was interesting for me to hear “jitna Islamabad kay paas paisa kam hoga utna zaaya honay say bachay ga!”. This is exactly the reason why the PPP government has focused a lot of energies in sorting out the National Finance Commission Award.
Coming to the Revenue side, realistically speaking, though unfortunately, the taxes to be collected are heavily skewed towards the indirect modes of taxation. Out of PKR1.667 trillion, direct taxes are targeted to be PKR 657.7 billion (39.4%) while the indirect taxes of PKR 1.121 trillion shall be 60.6% of the total collection. The composition of indirect taxes is as follows:
 Sales Tax: PKR 675 billion
 Federal excise duty: PKR 153 billion
 Customs duty: PKR181 billion

The government also made a very smart move of deferring the Value Added Taxation (VAT) till 1st October 2010. This has allowed the businesses and FBR to prepare for a less difficult move from the GST to VAT regime.

In all, the budget appears to be realistic in nature. We are, after all, passing through a difficult phase of our existence. We are not being bailed out by other nations and institutions like economically mismanaged states in the Western Europe.

RGST and Budget are not important.

budget comes every year so its not an important topic. Rgst is not final yet so it can't be asked in the examination. Just you have the knowledge of it. it is important for those who are appearing in the interviews.

__________________
Shabdon mein kya tareef karoon aap ki MUSSAA
Aap shabdon mein kahan bandh payenge.
Kabhi mere aankhon mein jhaank kar dekho,
Hazaron alfaz khud-b-khud bikhar jayenge.

what is expected regarding the the final setting of paper?At what time ,i mean how earlier the paper is set before commencing exam

__________________
"Fardaa o Dee ka tafarqa yakk baar mit gya
Kal tum gaey k hum pe Qyamat guzar gai"

No one took it seriously and posted any info on any topic!
Anyhow! I will keep posting what I can!
Regards


The Great New Game


Historical Preview
The Great Game

term used for the strategic rivalry and conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for supremacy in Central Asia. The classic Great Game period is generally regarded as running approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. A second, less intensive phase followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The Great Game dwindled after the United Kingdom and Russia became Allies of World War II.
The term "The Great Game" is usually attributed to Arthur Conolly (1807–1842), an intelligence officer of the British East India Company's Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry. It was introduced into mainstream consciousness by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel Kim (1901).

Introduction

The New Great Game is a term used to describe the conceptualization of modern geopolitics in Central Eurasia as a competition between the United States, the United Kingdom and other NATO countries against Russia, the People's Republic of China and other Shanghai Cooperation Organisation countries for "influence, power, hegemony and profits in Central Asia and the Transcaucasus".
It is a reference to "The Great Game", the political rivalry between the British and Russian Empires in Central Asia during the 19th century.
Many authors and analysts view this new "game" as centering around regional petroleum politics. Now, instead of competing for actual control over a geographic area, "pipelines, tanker routes, petroleum consortiums, and contracts are the prizes of the new Great Game". The term has become prevalent throughout the literature about the region, appearing in book titles, academic journals, news articles, and government reports. Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid claims he coined the term in a self-described "seminal" magazine article published in 1997, however uses of the term can be found prior to the publication of his article.

WikiLeaks Cable on The Great New Game

n a leaked US Embassy cable released by WikiLeaks, it was reported that Prince Andrew, Duke of York, supports the concept of a New Great Game:
Addressing the Ambassador directly, Prince Andrew then turned to regional politics. He stated baldly that “the United Kingdom, Western Europe (and by extension you Americans too”) were now back in the thick of playing the Great Game. More animated than ever, he stated cockily: “And this time we aim to win!”

Petroleum Policy and Geostrategy in Central Asia are the tools of The Great Game.

Palestine-Israel Conflict

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is the ongoing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The conflict is wide-ranging, and the term is also used in reference to the earlier phases of the same conflict, between Jewish and Zionist yishuv and the Arab population living in Palestine under Ottoman or British rule. It forms part of the wider, and generally earlier, Arab–Israeli conflict. The remaining key issues are: mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Palestinian freedom of movement and legalities concerning refugees. The violence resulting from the conflict has prompted international actions, as well as other security and human rights concerns, both within and between both sides, and internationally.


Since 2003, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions: Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas. Following Hamas' seizure of power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the territory controlled by the Palestinian National Authority (the Palestinian interim government) is split between Fatah in the West Bank, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The division of governance between the parties has effectively resulted in the collapse of bipartisan governance of the Palestinian National Authority (PA).
A round of peace negotiations began at Annapolis, Maryland, United States, in November 2007. These talks were aimed at having a final resolution by the end of 2008.
Direct negotiations between the Israeli government and Palestinian leadership began in September of 2010 aimed at reaching an official final status settlement.

Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Balfour Declaration (1917)
King-Crane Commission (1919)
1920 Palestine riots
1921 in Jaffa
1929 Palestine riots
1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine
The approval of the UN Partition Plan according to which Palestine would be divided into two states – a Jewish state and an Arab state (1947)
1947–1948 Civil War in Mandate Palestine
1948 Arab-Israeli War, 1948 Palestinian exodus and the establishment of the state of Israel (1948)
The creation of the Palestinian refugee problem (1948–1951) and Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands (1948–1952)
Suez Crisis (1956)
War over Water (1964–1967)
Six-Day War (1967) – Israel occupies the territories populated by Palestinians from Jordan and Egypt, prompting 1967 Palestinian exodus while Arab League's policy causes the final phase of Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim lands (1967–1972)
War of Attrition (1968–1970)
Black September – the deportation of the PLO from Jordan to Lebanon (1970)
Operation Litani – Israel's military campaign which pushed PLO forces north of the Litani river (1978)
First Lebanon War - Israeli invasion of Lebanon in order to expel PLO forces from the country (1982)
First Intifada - Palestinian uprising against Israel in the Palestinian Territories (1987–1993)
Second Intifada (began in 2000)
Israel's unilateral disengagement plan (2005)
The Gaza War (2008–2009)

Recent Developments

The direct negotiations between the PLO and the Israeli government remains a complicated issue to resolve, and this have continued for many decades.
Since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, he has made peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a top priority of his administration, appointing former Senator George Mitchell as his peace envoy.
In March 2009 US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton traveled to Israel. She said that Israeli settlements and demolition of Arab homes in East Jerusalem were "unhelpful" to the peace process. Clinton also voiced support for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu supports Palestinian self-government but has not explicitly endorsed the US and Palestinian vision for statehood. Upon the arrival of President Obama administration's special envoy, George Mitchell, Netanyahu stated that any furtherance of negotiations with the Palestinians will be conditioned on the Palestinians recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. So far the Palestinian leadership has rejected a US-backed proposal extending a settlement freeze in exchange for recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, as this issue had not been sufficiently clarified by Israel at that time.
On June 4, 2009 Obama delivered a speech at the Cairo University in Egypt in which Obama addressed the Muslim world. The speech called for a "new beginning" in relations between the Islamic world and the United States and also called for resumed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. In addition, during the speech Obama stated among other things that "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements". "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop."
On June 14, in what was understood as a response Obama's Cairo speech, Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University in which he endorsed, for the first time, a "Demilitarized Palestinian State", after two months of refusing to commit to anything other than a self-ruling autonomy when coming into office. Netanyahu also stated that he would accept a Palestinian state if Jerusalem were to remain the united capital of Israel, the Palestinians would have no army, and the Palestinians would give up their demand for a right of return. He also claimed the right for a "natural growth" in the existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank while their permanent status is up to further negotiation. In general, the address sounded like a complete turnaround from his previously hawkish positions against the peace process.
On 23 August 2009, Netanyahu announced in his weekly cabinet meeting that negotiations with the Palestinians will begin in September 2009 and will be officially launched on his visit to New York, after he had accepted an invitation from President Barack Obama for a "Triple Summit" there. He added that there is progress with special envoy George Mitchell, though there is no full agreement on everything, and there will be more rounds of meetings until September. On the same day, a spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas said there would be no negotiations so long as Israel continued West Bank settlement construction.
On 20 September 2009, the White House announced that it will host a three-way meeting between President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas, within the framework of the United Nations General Assembly, "in an effort to lay the groundwork for renewed negotiations on Mideast peace." The meeting took place on 22 September, in New York. Afterwards, Netanyahu said that he agreed with Abbas during the meeting that peace talks should be relaunched as soon as possible.
On 25 November 2009, Netanyahu announced a 10 month partial settlement freeze plan, seen as due to pressure from the Obama administration, which urged the sides to seize the opportunity to resume talks. In his announcement Netanyahu called the move "a painful step that will encourage the peace process" and urged the Palestinians to respond. Palestinians rejected the partial freeze as being insignificant, since Israel continued building 3,000 units in the West Bank already approved, and since the partial freeze did not extend to East Jerusalem, which also falls outside Israel's 1967 border. In addition, the Palestinian leadership claimed continued Israeli settlement construction, and Israel's failure to remove settlement outposts illegal under Israeli law, as violations of Israel's obligations under the Road Map for Peace.
In August 2010 Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton stated that a Palestinian state is possible to achieve within one year.
A renewed effort to negotiate peace was initiated by the Obama administration by getting the parties involved to agree to direct talks for the first time in a long while. The Barack Obama administration was successful after many months, in part by getting support for direct talks from Egypt and Jordan, in persuading the Palestinians leadership to enter direct talks despite the Palestinian's reluctance caused by continued Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. The aim of the talks was to forge the framework of a final agreement within one year on a two-state solution, although general expectations of a success were fairly low.

2010 Israel-Palestinian peace talks

On September 2, the U.S. launched direct negotiations between Israel and The Palestinian Authority in Washington D.C. On September 14 a second round of Middle East peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority concludes in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Palestinians and Israel have agreed on the principle of a land swap. The issue of the ratio of land Israel would give to the Palestinians in exchange for keeping settlement blocs is an issue of dispute, with the Palestinians demanding that the ratio be 1:1, and Israel offering less.
During the direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, Hamas and Hezbollah reaffirmed to threat peace talks if both sides were matriculated towards any possible agreement. Thirteen Palestinian militant groups led by Hamas initiated a violent campaign to disrupt peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. A series of attacks killed and wounded eight Israelis, including two Israeli pregnant woman, between August and September 2010.
On September 21, 2010 Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad stormed out of a meeting in New York, which was held as part of the d-Hoc Liaison Committee (AHLC) meetings, and canceled a scheduled joint press conference with the Israeli President Shimon Peres and Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon following Ayalon's demand that the meeting summary refer to the notion of "two states for two peoples", meaning Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian state, rather than a homogeneous Palestinian state alongside a bi-national Israel. Ayalon later commented on the event, stating: Ayalon later commented on the event stating that "What I say is that if the Palestinians are not willing to talk about two states for two peoples, let alone a Jewish state for Israel, then there's nothing to talk about."
President Obama indicated in a speech to the United Nations he held on September 23, 2010 that he is hopeful of a diplomatic peace within one year. Contrary to popular belief Israel was not present at the UN speech because of the Jewish Holiday of Sukkot. Israel was not boycotting the speech.
Despite Palestinian and international pressure to extend the Israeli 10 month moratorium in construction of new Israeli settlement homes in the West Bank, on September 26 the 10 month Israeli freeze expired and Israel rejected the demands to extend the freeze.
On October 2, 2010 the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated that peace negotiations will not continue until Israel makes a new freeze for the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, thus putting an de facto halt to the current Israel-Palestine peace negotiations.
On October 4, 2010, Netanyahu stated that the Israelis were working behind the scenes with the United States to resolve the issues and resume talks. Israeli sources had said that this would involve a 60 day extension of the freeze.
Chief Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath accepted a US proposal to extend the West Bank settlement freeze by another two months. Sha'ath said the Palestinians accept such a limited extension provided the two sides can reach an agreement on the borders between Israel and a future Palestine in those two months.
After a meeting in Libya on 8 October 2010, the Arab League leaders announce their support for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's decision to stop peace talks with Israel over the expiration of the 10 month Israeli moratorium on construction in the West Bank. The Arab League also stated that it would give the United States another month to to persuade Israel to renew the settlement moratorium and that "The committee will convene again in a month to study the alternatives".
On 11 October 2010, during a speech at the opening of the third session of the 18th Knesset, Netanyahu stated that he would initiate a cabinet proposal to renew a settlement freeze if the Palestinian Authority would declare its recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. the Palestinian Authority quickly rejected Netanyahu's proposal and stated that the issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter.Speaking on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, chief negotiator Saeb Erekat stated on October 11 that the PA "forcefully reject all these Israeli games. The racist demands of Netanyahu cannot be tied to the request to cease building in the settlements for the purpose of establishing a state."Palestinian negotiators announced that their rejection of the Jewish state would undermine the rights of Israeli-Arabs, and eliminate the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees, which President Abbas stressed as being a non-negotiable condition for peace. Israel has repeatedly stressed its total rejection of any right of return to Israeli territory, saying that it would make Arabs a majority within Israel.
On 13 October 2010 Yasser Abed Rabbo, the secretary general of the PLO, stated in a press statement that the PLO would recognize Israel as a "Jewish state" in exchange for a sovereign Palestinian state within the 1967 borders which would include East Jerusalem stating that "Any formulation the Americans present – even asking us to call Israel the 'Chinese State' – we will agree to it, as long as we receive the 1967 borders. We have recognized Israel in the past, but Israel has not recognized the Palestinian state."
Abed Rabbo's statements were immediately disowned by the Palestinian political factions, mainly because his remark are viewed as conceding the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel proper. The Fatah movement called for Abed Rabbo's immediate resignation. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Shaath dismissed Abed Rabbo's statements and claimed that "Abed Rabbo's statements don't represent the views of the PLO or Fatah movement or President Abbas". In addition, the Hamas government in Gaza called for the immediate resignation of Abed Rabbo.

2010 Palestinian militancy campaign[/B]

In September, a coalition of 13 Palestinian militant groups, led by Islamist group Hamas, joined forces to derail the negotiations and torpedo the drive for Middle East peace by means of attacks on Israelis. Hamas declared that "we will not allow these negotiations to pass over" and that "all options are open" regarding the nature of the attacks. The participating groups also included Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees and an unnamed splinter group of Fatah. Attacks on Israeli civilians intensified in frequency and severity during this period, and included a number of drive-by shootings on highways as well as rocket and mortar attacks, including white phosphorus shellings, on Israeli towns.

Shooting attacks

31 August drive-by shooting: Palestinian gunmen shot four Israeli civilians to death in their car. Hamas claimed responsibility and declared the shooting to be a "chain in a series of attacks". Islamic Jihad endorsed the killings, asserting that "[the] negotiations can only be stopped by a barrage of bullets." The attack was described by Israeli sources as one of the "worst" terrorist acts in years.

1 September drive-by shooting:

Palestinian gunmen opened fire on two Israelis in their car, seriously wounding one. Hamas claimed responsibility for the shooting, stating that "the attack was a message to those who pledged to the Zionist enemy there would be no more attacks".

26 September drive-by shooting:

Palestinian gunmen opened fire on a pregnant woman and her husband in their car, wounding them both in the legs. The gunmen also shot at another car, which evaded injury. Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack.

Khaled Mashaal, the main leader of Hamas since the assassination of Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi in 2004, has said that the "resistance" will continue if Israel doesn't withdraw to the 1967 borders and that Hamas will resume to "kill illegal settlers on our land."
On 4 September a senior Hamas official stated that Israeli settlers in the West Bank are legitimate targets since "they are an army in every sense of the word".
The Irish Times noted that Palestinians had responded to previous rounds of peace talks with Israel by initiating a wave of suicide bombings inside Israel.

Israeli settlement freeze expiration

As the Israeli 10 month partial moratorium in construction of new settlement construction in the West Bank was nearing its expiration date on September 26, Mahmud Abbas stated that he would abandon the negotiations if settlement construction was renewed. He said "Israel has a moratorium for 10 months and it should be extended for three to four months more to give peace a chance." In the view of the Palestinian Authority leadership, Israeli construction of settlements constitutes Israel's imposition of "facts on the ground" in the West Bank, and is a violation of international law. See generally, International law and Israeli settlements
On September 25, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas stated in the U.N. General Assembly that Israeli settlements were a key issue. Stating that "Israel must choose between peace and the continuation of settlements". The United States has pushed Israel to extend the settlement freeze.
Eventually, on September 26 the 10 month Israeli freeze expired at 22.00 (GMT) and Israel rejected the demands to extend the freeze.
The rejection to extend the moratorium has been criticized by the US, Europe and UN. Abbas stated that Netanyahu cannot be trusted as a 'genuine' peace negotiator if the freeze is not extended. Natanyahu's failure to uphold the commitments he gave just two weeks earlier "to reaching comprehensive piece agreement with palestinians" through extending the term of moratorium has caused a de facto halt of peace talks.
On October 4th, 2010, Netanyahu said that the Israelis were working behind the scenes with the United States to resolve the issues and resume talks. Israeli sources had said that this would involve a 60 day extension of the freeze. Michael Oren said that the United States had offered Israel "incentives" for an extension of the freeze.
On October 11th, Israel offered a renewed building freeze in exchange for a PA recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The proposal was rejected by the Palestinian leadership, that said that the topic on the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the building freeze.
On October 15th, it was reported that Israel had approved new settlement construction in East Jerusalem.
In November 2010, the U.S. government offered a military aid package worth $3 billion, including delivery of 20 F-35 fighter jets to Israel, if the government of Israel agreed to a 90 freeze on settlement construction in the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem. According to the U.S. offer, the U.S. will not ask Israel to extend the 90 day moratorium when it expires. The "inner cabinet" of Israel is considering the offer. Former Ambassador Dan Kurtzer, commenting on the deal said: "But now, the administration says it is prepared to pay off Israel to freeze only some of its settlement activity, and only temporarily,", "For the first time in memory, the United States is poised to reward Israel for its bad behavior."
On December 2, a Palestinian official announced that Washington had officially informed the PA that Israel had refused to agree to a new settlement freeze.

The effect of the leaked cables on Pakistan-US relations will be minimal in the short-term for two reasons. Firstly, most of what is contained in them was well within the knowledge of our leaders and senior officials. Secondly, the contours of Pakistan-US relations are determined by the ground realities in both the countries and their national interests, as perceived by their respective leaders. These are unlikely to change in the short-term. However, if in the long-term these leaks lead to significant changes in the Pakistani leadership or its conduct because of the public censure, we may see a Pakistan which is economically and militarily less dependent on the US, and therefore less willing to countenance the US diktat. Thus, providing the basis for a durable and mutually beneficial friendship between the two countries.

Pakistan – United States relations are the relations between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States of America. The United States established diplomatic relations with Pakistan started on October 20, 1947. The relationship since then was based primarily on U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan. Pakistan is a Major non-NATO ally of the United States.

2010 Trends

In February 2010, Anne W. Patterson (U.S. Ambasador to Pakistan) said that the United States is committed to partnership with Pakistan and further said “Making this commitment to Pakistan while the U.S. is still recovering from the effects of the global recession reflects the strength of our vision. Yet we have made this commitment, because we see the success of Pakistan, its economy, its civil society and its democratic institutions as important for ourselves, for this region and for the world.”

Between 2002–2010, Pakistan received approximately 18 billion in military and economic aid from the United States. In February 2010, the Obama administration requested an additional 3 billion in aid, for a total of 20.7 billion.
In mid February, after the capture of Taliban No.2 leader Abdul Ghani Baradar in Pakistan the White house 'hails capture of Taliban leader'.Furthemore White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that this is a "big success for our mutual efforts(Pakistan and United States)in the region" and He praised Pakistan for the capture, saying it is a sign of increased cooperation with the U.S. in the terror fight.Furthermore Capt. John Kirby, spokesman for Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said 'We also strongly support Pakistani efforts to secure the border region,Kirby added, noting that Pakistan has lost soldiers in that effort.'Mullen, (President Barack Obama's senior military adviser)has made strengthening 'U.S. military relationship with Pakistan a top priority'.The U.S. and Pakistan have a robust working relationship that serves the mutual interests of our people,' Kirby said. "We continue to build a long-term partnership that strengthens our common security and prosperity.".
In March, Richard Holbrooke U.S special envoy to Pakistan had said U.S.-Pakistani relations have seen 'significant improvement' under Obama. Furthermore he also said 'No government on earth has received more high-level attention' than Pakistan

Article by Air Commodore Khalid
American media has its share in shaping the perceptions about Pak-US relations. Public opinion in Pakistan is significantly influenced by American media. In anticipation to the third round of Pak-US strategic dialogue, spoilers are out on a Pakistan bashing spree.
All dead and buried issues aimed at projecting negative image of Pakistan have been resurrected. Besides tarnishing the integrity of civilian and military leadership, issues of non-proliferation, pending military action in North Waziristan, corruption and the like have been being rehashed and put on exhibition. Nonetheless, there are a few saner voices as well.
Bob Woodward’s book “Obama’s wars”, has already laid the framework by discrediting the Pakistani leadership. Though he is equally or more harsh while describing the soap opera regarding American leadership.
New York Times has floated a theory that Pakistan can divert the relief aid towards its nuclear programme. The Cutting Edge News reported, ‘Pakistan Goes Rogue and Worries Europe and America.’ This story is based on satellite images showing that the cooling towers at Pakistan’s Khushab-III reactor have been completed.
Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has given out a recent estimate that Pakistan had assembled 70-90 nuclear warheads to India’s 60-80, and had produced enough fissile material to manufacture another 90 more.
Ashley Tellis, an associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: ”Pakistan thinks it is going to be forced to cap its fissile material stocks and wants to make sure it has as much as it can get before then.”
No moral courage has been displayed by most of these nuclear experts by referring to the strategic fallout of Agreement 123, which has allowed India to liberate its eight fast breeder reactors that can churn out sufficient Plutonium to make around 280 nuclear warheads per year. India possesses more than 1300 tons of un-safeguarded reactor grade plutonium in the spent fuel which its power reactors have generated over the years; and one of the Indian nuclear tests of 1998 was based on reactor grade plutonium.
While writing for Wall Street Journal, Ryan Crocker, former US ambassador to Pakistan, captions his column as ‘Pakistan is Not America’s Enemy’. However, he is worried that the news from Pakistan is grim ‘as Obama administration’s recent report to Congress charges that the Pakistanis aren’t doing enough against the Taliban and al-Qaeda…and press accounts quote unnamed officials asserting that elements in Pakistani intelligence are encouraging the Taliban to step up attacks on NATO forces’. Crocker further opines that ‘one could easily conclude that we are describing an enemy, not an ally. Many in Pakistan feel the same way’. Crocker envisages robust and durable Pak-US relations and argues that there is no alternative to this option.
Apart from media facade, since the commencement of ‘Strategic Dialogue’ between the two countries, Pak-US relations have graduated to a higher level of maturity, trust deficit has reduced quite a bit. Both sides have begun to take care of each other’s sensitivities and relationship has moved beyond day to day firefighting. Forum of strategic dialogue has a well structured sectoral approach toward eleven key areas. However, institutional and structural frameworks need to be strengthened to close the gaps.
Third round of dialogue offers an opportunity to rediscover centre of gravity of the alliance, refine understanding of each other’s position on core issues, and side step the hubbub of distrust and blame game. Both sides need to take a fresh look at the overall cooperation between the two countries encompassing all issues and irritants.
Recent chopper attacks into Pakistani territory, belittling Pakistan’s sovereignty and loss of the lives of its soldiers did trigger a spike of public anger. However, damage reduction actions by both sides were prompt, and prudence prevailed at the end. Frenzy dampened soon, and both the countries are back to business as usual. Pakistani side is planning concrete steps to improve the security of logistic containers by shifting the responsibility form private transporters to National Logistics Cell, which is a semi government entity, with major stakes in transportation business.
There is a need to revisit NATO/ISAF’s operational vision for Afghanistan and make necessary adjustments to cater for Pakistan’s sensitivities. Trigger happy incursions into Pakistan at tactical level are not likely to bring any worthwhile gains; it could cause a major rupture in Pak-US relations.
To improve the working level military relations, NATO Secretary General’s proposal for deeper ties between NATO and Pakistan needs to be evaluated in the backdrop of recently floated idea of giving Pakistan a full member status.
Time has come for America to abandon its dual policy of talking to Taliban alongside a military campaign to decimate them. Most glaring loss due to this policy has been lack of strategic space for the willing segments of Taliban to dissociate from al-Qaeda. Indeed any meaningful reconciliation should begin from Haqqani network. Two-track policy of weakening the Taliban and also putting up a façade of dialogue is leading towards mistrust between the well meaning Taliban elements and the United States. To be meaningful, these negotiations should be based on a bold agenda.
Optimism about Afghan security forces’ capability to takeover the responsibility of their national security needs a realistic review; strategies cannot be based on wishful thinking. Structural weaknesses and capacity inadequacies coupled with demographic distortions hint that these forces could very well be a vehicle for protracted instability. There is a need to workout additional umbrella security structures to underwrite stability in Afghanistan.
America needs to come clean on the issue of division of Afghanistan. Pakistan does not support this idea thrown in by David Blackwell. Any such effort is envisaged to be resisted by all Afghans irrespective of their ethnicity. The US should distance itself from this disastrous concept.
America needs to follow a viable approach towards Pakistan’s critical shortages in power generation sector. Availability of electricity at affordable cost necessitates that a bulk of power be generated through nuclear facilities. It is time to put Dr A Q khan episode behind us, and America should move ahead to support Pakistan in setting up mega power projects under IAEA safeguards.
Devastating floods have caused destruction and degradation of infrastructure. There is a need to go beyond Kerry-Lugar allocations to take care of post foods revival. Facilitation of soft loans by World Bank and other international financial institutions would provide essential breather to Pakistan’s economy.
Legislative process regarding market access to Pakistani textiles and setting up of ‘Reconstruction Opportunity Zones’ needs to be expedited.
Forthcoming round provides a venue to breakout from the inertia of mundane levels of activity and enter the real strategic orbit. Notwithstanding the American interpretation of the word ‘strategic’ Pakistanis always equate it with some thing big.

The Sino-Pakistan Agreement (also known as the Sino-Pakistan Frontier Agreement and Sino-Pak Boundary Agreement) is a 1963 document between the governments of Pakistan and China establishing the border between those countries. It resulted in China ceding over 1,942 square kilometers (749.8 sq mi) to Pakistan and Pakistan recognizing Chinese sovereignty over hundreds of square kilometers of land in Northern Kashmir and Ladakh. The agreement is controversial, not recognized as legal by India, which also claims sovereignty over part of the land. In addition to increasing tensions with India, the agreement shifted the balance of the Cold War by bringing Pakistan and China closer together while loosening ties between Pakistan and the United States.

Current Development
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 the first time China has ever sent such rescue operations overseas.
Sino-Pak relations proved to be "All-Weathered-Friends"

Afghanistan–Pakistan relations began in 1949 after British India was partitioned into the Republic of India and the state of Pakistan. Afghanistan and Pakistan are usually described as inseparable states 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 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, the 2001-present war in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan's relations with India and Shia Iran.

Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement (2010)

n October 2010, Afghanistan and Pakistan finally inked together the long-awaited Pak-Afghan Transit Trade Agreement between the two states. The landmark agreement was signed by Pakistani Commerce Minister Makhdoom Amin Fahim and Anwar ul-Haq Ahady, Afghan Ministry of Commerce. The ceremony was attended by Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a number of foreign ambassadors, Afghan parliamentarians and senior officials. In July 2010, a Memorandum of understanding (MoU) was reached between the two states, which was observed by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It would allow each nation's shipping trucks into the others; Afghan container trucks will be allowed to drive through Pakistan to the Wagah border with India, including to the port cities of Karachi and Gwadar. Also in July 2010, the two states signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing the construction of rail tracks in Afghanistan to connect with Pakistan Railways (PR). Work on the proposed project is set to start in the next four months, which has been in the making since at least 2005. In November 2010, the two states formed a joint chamber of commerce to expande trade relations and solve the problems traders face.