Originally Posted by eshal

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

Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Iran’s Nuclear Program

Outline:

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


Historical Background:

Iran’s nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s when, with strong US support, Iran began its efforts to develop nuclear technology. By 1975 the UD had entered into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran for the sale of equipments and then in 1976, the US offered Iran reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. A nuclearized Iran, at that time, was in the US favour to contain Soviet backed communism and Arab nationalism.

Turning Point:

After the 1979 revolution, during which Shah was overthrown, the relations between Iran and the US changed dramatically, marking a turning point in the once robust international cooperation and the US involvement in Iran’s development of nuclear technology. The issue became highly politicised precisely because the Islamic Republic openly declared its intentions to continue with a reinvigorated nuclear program using indigenously manufactured fuel and sustain an ambitious agenda for developing nuclear power rector and fuel cycle technologies.

Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran:

In November 2006, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to put an end to uranium enrichment, increasing pressure on the Iranian government to prove that it was not trying to make its nuclear weapons.

Currently Iran has again become the focus of US attention because it is trying to build its nuclear and missile capability IAEA has repeatedly expressed its fear that Iran is enriching Uranium in order to make nuclear weapons.

The Obama administrations is perturbed by Iran’s growing nuclear power as well as its long-range development. In April, 2010, US increased pressure to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. Consequently, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanction on Iran on 9th June, 2010 for nuclear program that West Suspect is aimed at the development of atomic weapons.

Energy Demand:

Iran sees nuclear power as a means of modernizing and diversifying its energy supply, since its large oil reserves will be depleted over the next seven to none decades. Its oil reserves are estimated at 137 billion barrel or the 11.6 % of the world’s total reserves; and it has 29,000 billion cubic meters of natural gas or the 15.4% of the World’s total reserves. However, given a doubling of Iran’s population to 70 million since 1979, energy demand at home has risen exponentially.

Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis:

Since Iran is signatory to NPT, it legally allows Iran to build any nuclear facility. It also allow member-states to withdraw from agreement, subject to 90 days’ notice to IAEA, if they believe that abiding by the terms of NPT threaten their national security. The crisis between Iran and the US on Iran’s nuclear program exposed a flaw in the Bush administration’s understanding of why Tehran to be a nuclear power. The Bush administration was willing to negotiate the North Korea that had to quit the NPT and went on for a civilian nuclear deal with India but was not ready to show flexibly in case of Iran.

Conclusion:

President Obama should take political risk of engaging in direct talks with Iran. At the first stage, the process should start with persuasion of political factions inside the United States and encouraging them to change their perception regarding aims and ambitions of Iran’s nuclear program. A key step would be differentiating between the themes of nuclear energy and the issue of weaponization. Moreover, connecting Iran’s nuclear program to issues of deterrence must be stopped. These are the important steps towards confidence-building and to alleviate the perceptions of an Iranian nuclear threat mong the American public and in Congress.

Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

US-India Relations And Pakistan:

Outline:

• Introduction
• Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan
• President Obama’s Visit To India
• Pakistan’s Concerns
• Indo-Pak Tensions
• Kashmir Issue
• Conclusion

Introduction:

The US and India have always considered themselves a major strategic and political powers. Both feel that the world must acknowledge this status. They have defined and described the international peace and priorities within their own norms and terms and have developed their relations with the other states within these parameters.

Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan:

The US is sing different means, methods, techniques, ways, tools and linkages to advance its policy goals in South Asia and its strategic agreement with India signed in June 2005 and July 2005 (Unclear deals) are the most recent and the best examples of Indo-US strategic partnership after 9/11 events.

The indo-US nuclear deal has much implication for the deterrence stability between the nuclear belligerents in South Asia as the nuclear facilities provided through this agreement will spare many Indian nuclear faculties which it has been using for civilian purposes and India will be able to manufacture abundant nuclear warheads out of them. On the other hand, Pakistan found a straight forward negative response for civilian nuclear deal despite the havoc created by the power shortage in the already thriving industrial sector. Then US and Israel backed Indian missile defence system will be another dent to Pakistan’s stability.

President Obama’s Visit To India:

President Obama’s three-day visit to India was predicated on two major objectives-US economic recession and war in Afghanistan.

During his visit, Obama signed 20 business deals worth US 10 billion dollars with India. He also sent message to Pakistan during his visit that “terrorists’ safe places in its territory are unacceptable”. To appease India, he also asked Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he supported Indian desire to become the permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Pakistan’s Concerns:

After Obama’s support to India on the UN seat issue, Pakistan’s Foreign Office reacted immediately and requested Obama not to back New Delhi because of its role in suppression of Kashmiri’s and its hegemonic designs in the smaller countries of the region. India has egregious track record of stranded relations with almost all its neighbouring countries, not to say about Pakistan. It has disputes with Bangladesh over water, with Srilanka for tis backing of Tamils and Nepal for its interference in Kathmandu’s internal affairs.

Obama’s support for India’s UN bid has compounded Pakistan’s concerns over its rival designs in Afghanistan. Pakistan is already anxious at its nuclear-armed rival’s growing role in Afghanistan and fears India is trying to gain a foothold along its Western borders.

Indo-Pak Tensions:

President Obama during his visit also offered to play a role in reducing Indo-Pak tensions. The efforts of the sole superpower in reducing tensions between the two nuclear states can help maintain peace in the region. But the problem is that US is willing to mediate provided both India and Pakistan request. But India is not ready to accept any third party mediation and insist all the issues including Kashmir will be resolved bilateral negotiations as per Tashkent and Simla Agreement.

Kashmir Issue:

Washington has been unsympathetic to appeals of help from the people of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Obama said, “We will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. US could play role in resolving the dispute if both the sides asked to do so but it could not impose any solution on the both sides.” Obama kept quiet about human rights violations by the Indian occupation forces, contrary to what human rights organizations have been saying against brutal killings in the valley.

Conclusion:

There are many in Pakistan who view with alarm the growth in India-US ties that have now been reinforced by Obama visit. But, it is a mistake to regard the matter as a zero-sum game. If US ties with India grow, it does not necessarily mean loss for Pakistan, or vice versa. Pakistan-US relations are based on their own rationale. In fact, at time when the primary US security concern is the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, US considers Pakistan as a pivotal ally without whose support the war cannot be won. Obama has already confirmed that he will be visiting Pakistan soon.

Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Iran’s Nuclear Program

Outline:

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


Historical Background:

Iran’s nuclear program can be traced to the 1950s when, with strong US support, Iran began its efforts to develop nuclear technology. By 1975 the UD had entered into a nuclear cooperation agreement with Iran for the sale of equipments and then in 1976, the US offered Iran reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. A nuclearized Iran, at that time, was in the US favour to contain Soviet backed communism and Arab nationalism.

Turning Point:

After the 1979 revolution, during which Shah was overthrown, the relations between Iran and the US changed dramatically, marking a turning point in the once robust international cooperation and the US involvement in Iran’s development of nuclear technology. The issue became highly politicised precisely because the Islamic Republic openly declared its intentions to continue with a reinvigorated nuclear program using indigenously manufactured fuel and sustain an ambitious agenda for developing nuclear power rector and fuel cycle technologies.

Current Situation And US Sanctions On Iran:

In November 2006, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to impose sanctions on Iran for refusing to put an end to uranium enrichment, increasing pressure on the Iranian government to prove that it was not trying to make its nuclear weapons.

Currently Iran has again become the focus of US attention because it is trying to build its nuclear and missile capability IAEA has repeatedly expressed its fear that Iran is enriching Uranium in order to make nuclear weapons.

The Obama administrations is perturbed by Iran’s growing nuclear power as well as its long-range development. In April, 2010, US increased pressure to impose sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program. Consequently, the UN Security Council imposed a fourth round of sanction on Iran on 9th June, 2010 for nuclear program that West Suspect is aimed at the development of atomic weapons.

Energy Demand:

Iran sees nuclear power as a means of modernizing and diversifying its energy supply, since its large oil reserves will be depleted over the next seven to none decades. Its oil reserves are estimated at 137 billion barrel or the 11.6 % of the world’s total reserves; and it has 29,000 billion cubic meters of natural gas or the 15.4% of the World’s total reserves. However, given a doubling of Iran’s population to 70 million since 1979, energy demand at home has risen exponentially.

Iran And US Double Standard OR Critical Analysis:

Since Iran is signatory to NPT, it legally allows Iran to build any nuclear facility. It also allow member-states to withdraw from agreement, subject to 90 days’ notice to IAEA, if they believe that abiding by the terms of NPT threaten their national security. The crisis between Iran and the US on Iran’s nuclear program exposed a flaw in the Bush administration’s understanding of why Tehran to be a nuclear power. The Bush administration was willing to negotiate the North Korea that had to quit the NPT and went on for a civilian nuclear deal with India but was not ready to show flexibly in case of Iran.

Conclusion:

President Obama should take political risk of engaging in direct talks with Iran. At the first stage, the process should start with persuasion of political factions inside the United States and encouraging them to change their perception regarding aims and ambitions of Iran’s nuclear program. A key step would be differentiating between the themes of nuclear energy and the issue of weaponization. Moreover, connecting Iran’s nuclear program to issues of deterrence must be stopped. These are the important steps towards confidence-building and to alleviate the perceptions of an Iranian nuclear threat mong the American public and in Congress.

Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

US-India Relations And Pakistan:

Outline:

• Introduction
• Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan
• President Obama’s Visit To India
• Pakistan’s Concerns
• Indo-Pak Tensions
• Kashmir Issue
• Conclusion

Introduction:

The US and India have always considered themselves a major strategic and political powers. Both feel that the world must acknowledge this status. They have defined and described the international peace and priorities within their own norms and terms and have developed their relations with the other states within these parameters.

Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan:

The US is sing different means, methods, techniques, ways, tools and linkages to advance its policy goals in South Asia and its strategic agreement with India signed in June 2005 and July 2005 (Unclear deals) are the most recent and the best examples of Indo-US strategic partnership after 9/11 events.

The indo-US nuclear deal has much implication for the deterrence stability between the nuclear belligerents in South Asia as the nuclear facilities provided through this agreement will spare many Indian nuclear faculties which it has been using for civilian purposes and India will be able to manufacture abundant nuclear warheads out of them. On the other hand, Pakistan found a straight forward negative response for civilian nuclear deal despite the havoc created by the power shortage in the already thriving industrial sector. Then US and Israel backed Indian missile defence system will be another dent to Pakistan’s stability.

President Obama’s Visit To India:

President Obama’s three-day visit to India was predicated on two major objectives-US economic recession and war in Afghanistan.

During his visit, Obama signed 20 business deals worth US 10 billion dollars with India. He also sent message to Pakistan during his visit that “terrorists’ safe places in its territory are unacceptable”. To appease India, he also asked Pakistan to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. While addressing the Indian Parliament, he supported Indian desire to become the permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Pakistan’s Concerns:

After Obama’s support to India on the UN seat issue, Pakistan’s Foreign Office reacted immediately and requested Obama not to back New Delhi because of its role in suppression of Kashmiri’s and its hegemonic designs in the smaller countries of the region. India has egregious track record of stranded relations with almost all its neighbouring countries, not to say about Pakistan. It has disputes with Bangladesh over water, with Srilanka for tis backing of Tamils and Nepal for its interference in Kathmandu’s internal affairs.

Obama’s support for India’s UN bid has compounded Pakistan’s concerns over its rival designs in Afghanistan. Pakistan is already anxious at its nuclear-armed rival’s growing role in Afghanistan and fears India is trying to gain a foothold along its Western borders.

Indo-Pak Tensions:

President Obama during his visit also offered to play a role in reducing Indo-Pak tensions. The efforts of the sole superpower in reducing tensions between the two nuclear states can help maintain peace in the region. But the problem is that US is willing to mediate provided both India and Pakistan request. But India is not ready to accept any third party mediation and insist all the issues including Kashmir will be resolved bilateral negotiations as per Tashkent and Simla Agreement.

Kashmir Issue:

Washington has been unsympathetic to appeals of help from the people of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Obama said, “We will continue to welcome dialogue between India and Pakistan, even as we recognize that disputes between your two countries can only be resolved by the people of your two countries. US could play role in resolving the dispute if both the sides asked to do so but it could not impose any solution on the both sides.” Obama kept quiet about human rights violations by the Indian occupation forces, contrary to what human rights organizations have been saying against brutal killings in the valley.

Conclusion:

There are many in Pakistan who view with alarm the growth in India-US ties that have now been reinforced by Obama visit. But, it is a mistake to regard the matter as a zero-sum game. If US ties with India grow, it does not necessarily mean loss for Pakistan, or vice versa. Pakistan-US relations are based on their own rationale. In fact, at time when the primary US security concern is the war against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, US considers Pakistan as a pivotal ally without whose support the war cannot be won. Obama has already confirmed that he will be visiting Pakistan soon.

Originally Posted by Roshan wadhwani

Israel-Palestine issue:

Outline:

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

Background:

It is a historical fact that the Jewish came into existence in 1948 with the blessings of the US, Great Britain and France. Later on, it succeeded in defeating the Arabs in the wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973 with the active military and financial support of USA and her allies. America needed a vassal state in the heart of the Middle East to keep the oil-rich Arab States under control. From the Suez Crisis in 1956 to the disintegration of USSR in 1991, the Middle East has been the hot spot in the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West. Since 1948 Israel has played at the hands of America and in turn has received billions of dollars worth military and economic assistance.

Arab-Israel Peace Accords:

After the 1973 Arab-Israel War, Israel has signed the following peace accords with the Arab States.

i) The Sinai Agreement: Egypt and Israel signed two Sinai agreements in January 1974 and September 1975.

ii) Camp David Accord: Egypt and Israel signed the famous Camp David Accord in September, 1978. According to this agreement, Israel withdrew from Gaza Strip and Sinai peninsula. This pact ended confrontation between two traditional rivals.

iii) Oslo Accord: PLO chief Yasser Arafat signed Oslo agreement in 1955 on interim autonomy of the Palestinians.

iv) Wye River Peace Accord: PLO signed the historic Wye River Peace Accord with Israel in October, 1998. Under this agreement Israel agreed to transfer 27 per cent territory of West Bank, Gaza strip and Jericho peninsula to the Palestinian Authority. It also provided safe passage to the Palestinian from Gaza to West Bank and allowed the opening of an airport at Gaza.

Israel’s Intransigence:

So far Israel has in one way or other safeguarded American interests in the region. Without US support it would not have been possible for Tel Aviv to survive in the face of bitter Arab opposition. Due to this factor Israel has been able to back out from its commitments on several occasions. For example, the 1993accord required Israel pull out from all of its West Bank settlement and the occupied West Bank areas. But Israel did not fulfil its commitments mainly due to American backing. Furthermore, Israel has surpassed all limits of brutality by using military force against the unarmed Palestinians. In addition Israel has accelerated its settlement expansion drive.

Apathetic Role Of Arabs:

After the reverses suffered in the Arab-Israel wars of 1948, 1967 and 1973, the Arab leaders were convinced that it was not possible to wipe out the Israel through war. Thus President of Egypt Anwar Sadat signed Camp David Accord with Israel in September, 1978. Under this agreement Egypt got Gaza Strip and Sanai Desert back and felt satisfied. Consequently, the withdrawal of Egypt, the strongest nation from the theatre betrayed the Palestinian cause and made the issue more complicated. Similarly, Jordan under Shah Hussain signed peace accord with Israel and pulled itself out of boiling pot of the Middle East. This accord further weakened the position Palestine Liberation Organisation. While after signing peace accords with Egypt and Jordan Israel attained a strong position. The Arab States viz Egypt, Jordan, Syria, UAE and Saudi Arabia have adopted an apathetic role towards Palestine. They have confined their role to passing resolutions only. The GCC and Arab League have no practical role to play for the establishment of a free Palestinian States.

Current Situation:

The US announced the resumption of direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians in Washington on September 2, 2010. However, the talks stalled within four weeks when Israel refused to extend a self-imposed 10 month building freeze that expired on September 26, 2010. Washington has since offered Israel a package of jet fighters and diplomatic guarantees in exchange for concession on settlements.

Limitations To Direct Negotiations:

As the rounds of talks move forward there are three basic limitations to direct negotiations. First, the Palestinians are concerned that the talks without deadline would simply allow Israel more time to build more settlements, which would further undermine any agreement.

The second problem is that a bilateral peace deal is no longer attractive to either side. Israel would find it difficult to find stomach the painful concessions necessary to win peace deal with only some Palestinians-Hamas, who run Gaza, are not involved-while the Palestinians need cover from wider Arab World to sell tough choices to their own people.

Finally, and worst of all, a two-state solution will no longer work. Despite serious efforts to build a Palestinian State this option effectively disappeared as Israel settlers spread throughout the West Bank.

Only A Regional Approach Can Bring Middle East Peace:

Given this trio of deficiencies, the bilateral approach alone should be abandoned. Instead, a comprehensive accord between Israel and all Arab countries should be pursued. This could build on the terms laid out in Arab Peace Initiative; adopted during an Arab League in meeting in Beirut in 2002. This offered Israel both normalised relations with Arab countries and security guarantees, in exchange for agreements over borders and the refugee problem. A further strength of the plan was that it offered regional cover for both sides.

Conclusion:

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

Originally Posted by Call for Change

nice attempt. i would like to suggest few points.

1- Role of Pakistan . Dr.Abdul Qadeer khan was the key players in starting the Nuclear program of Iran, IAEA found the samples of the nuclear warhead which actually belongs to Pakistan .

2- Suntex
3- Threat to Israel
4- killing of Iranian Nuclear Scientists
5- Aftermaths if Iran became a nuclear Power

Originally Posted by SYEDA SABAHAT

Outline:

• Introduction
• Indo-US Strategic Partnership And Implications For Pakistan
• President Obama’s Visit To India
• Pakistan’s Concerns
• Indo-Pak Tensions
• Kashmir Issue
• Conclusion

roshan introduction to sahi ha per apne apni 2nd heading ma he gist of the question explain ker dya ha.

my teacher used to told me that current affairs means cu.affairs. you need to update yourself with the recent developments.

indopak tension ko aj kal ke senerio ma explain karo bcoz situation has changed alot now b/w india and pakistan and explain that if pakistan will be able to resolve its issue with its neighbour then what would be the implecation on us.

i think this trio relation kashmir issue do have importance but more than afghanistan.

roshan you need to add more recent and solid points in your outline. some points have already mentioned by shooting star.
regrds sabahat