Israelis, Palestinians to launch talks aimed at peace deal, independent Palestinian state


Israeli and Palestinian negotiators shook hands Tuesday to resume long-stalled direct peace talks that Secretary of State John F. Kerry said will seek to give birth to an independent Palestinian state nine months from now.


The goal is ambitious and the history of failed talks daunting, Kerry said, but the consequences of not trying are worse. The United States will be a “facilitator,” he said, but he made clear that he will push both sides hard. He has already won concessions to get talks started after a lull lasting most of the past five years.

“Compromise doesn’t only mean giving up something or giving something away; reasonable, principled compromise in the name of peace means that everybody stands to gain,” Kerry said with the lead negotiators at his side. “Each side has a stake in the other’s success, and everyone can benefit from the dividends of peace.”

Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and Palestinian envoy Saeb Erekat will meet again within two weeks, either in Israel or the West Bank, Kerry said. It is not clear whether Kerry’s newly named chief envoy, veteran U.S. diplomat Martin Indyk, will attend.


The symbolic tableau of the Israeli and the Palestinian flanking the top U.S. diplomat closed two days of talks with Kerry, who has made the resumption of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority the signature effort of his tenure so far.
“It is time for the Palestinian people to have an independent, sovereign state of their own,” Erekat told reporters. “Palestinians have suffered enough.”

Livni shook Erekat’s hand and thanked Kerry for “not giving up” on the possibility of a peace agreement.

“We are hopeful, but we cannot be naive,” Livni said. “We owe it to our people to do everything we can for their security, with the goal of peace for future generations.”

Inaugural meetings were held in Washington on Monday night and Tuesday morning. President Obama and Vice President Biden also met briefly with the negotiators at the White House.

Obama has been far less visible than Kerry in U.S. efforts so far, but his imprimatur would be crucial to any potential settlement.

“Everyone involved here believes that we cannot pass along to another generation the responsibility for ending a conflict that is in our power to resolve in our time,” Kerry said. Future generations, he said, “should not be expected to bear that burden. We should not leave it to them. They should not be expected to bear the pain of continued conflict or perpetual war.”

Kerry said all sides have agreed to directly address the “final-status issues” that have sunk past attempts at a deal, including the borders of a future Palestinian state, whether to establish a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem, and the claims of Palestinians and their descendants to homes they left in what is now Israel.

Talks will go ahead at the negotiator level for now, with an eventual goal of direct talks between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Most meetings will be in the Middle East, with Kerry an occasional visitor.
The United States is expected to step in when bargaining gets particularly difficult, or should one side threaten to walk out.

The nine-month calendar represents the time the two parties have agreed in advance that they will stay at the table, a senior State Department official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide some detail about the plan for talks. While not a formal deadline, the quick time frame is meant to focus both sides on the hardest issues from the start.

It is also meant to forestall the renewal of Palestinian attempts to seek statehood recognition outside of negotiations, through membership in United Nations and other international bodies — almost certainly a deal-breaker for Israel.

The new effort, if it endures, would be the most substantive since 2008, in the waning months of President George W. Bush’s second term, when Israel and the Palestinians came within sight of a deal before talks collapsed. An Obama-led effort to revive negotiations fell apart after only a few meetings in 2010.
Kerry’s frequent warning that time is running out for a “two-state solution” is mostly a reference to the increasingly thorny challenge posed by the growth of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. In the past five years, the population of settlers in the West Bank has grown by about 20 percent, and pro-settler politicians have become major players in Israel’s government.

Israel has observed an unofficial moratorium on most new housing announcements while Kerry worked to restart talks, but building has continued on previously announced projects. The Palestinians agreed to shelve a return to the United Nations.

Powerful political constituencies in both Israel and the West Bank are opposed to talks, or at least deeply suspicious of the other side’s motives. And there will be strong political pull on both Netanyahu and Abbas to reverse course.

Impact of the Arab Spring

The regional unrest has not been limited to countries of the Arab world. The early uprisings in North Africa were inspired by the 2009–2010 uprisings in the neighboring state of Iran; these are considered by many commentators to be part of a wave of protest that began in Iran, moved to North Africa, and has since gripped the broader Middle Eastern and North African regions, including additional protests in Iran in 2011–2012.

In the countries of the neighboring South Caucasus—namely Armenia,Azerbaijan, and Georgia—as well as some countries in Europe, including Albania,Croatia, and Spain; countries in sub-Saharan Africa, including Burkina Faso, and Uganda; and countries in other parts of Asia, including the Maldives and the People's Republic of China, demonstrators and opposition figures claiming inspiration from the examples of Tunisia and Egypt have staged their own popular protests. The protests in the Maldives led to the resignation of the President.

The bid for statehood by Palestine at the UN on 23 September 2011 is also regarded as drawing inspiration from the Arab Spring after years of failed peace negotiations with Israel. In the West Bank, schools and government offices were shut to allow demonstrations backing the UN membership bid in Ramallah, Bethlehem, Nablus and Hebron; echoing similar peaceful protests from other Arab countries.

The 15 October 2011 global protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement, which started in the United States and has since spread to Asia and Europe, drew direct inspiration from the Arab Spring, with organizers asking U.S. citizens "Are you ready for a Tahrir moment?" The protesters have committed to using the "revolutionary Arab Spring tactic" to achieve their goals of curbing corporate power and control in Western governments.

Also, the Occupy Nigeria protests beginning the day after Goodluck Jonathan announced the scrap of the fuel subsidy in oil-rich Nigeria on 1 January 2012, were motivated by the Arab people.

The Tunisian revolution also brought about important changes to the intersection of art and politics in post-2011 Tunisia.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

Pak-India Relations

Following are the factors to be discussed in it:

1) Water Dispute between India and Pakistan

2) Indian Presence in Afghanistan

3) Indian presence in Baluchistan and FATA

4) Economic Liberalization

4.1) Most Favorite Nation (MFN) Status

4.2) Transit Trade
4.2.1) Against Group
4.2.2) Favour Group

1) WATER DISPUTES:

As per the Indus Water Treaty, Pak has to get 55,000 cusec water in peak season but it has got only 20,000 cusec last year. and Since 2007 only receiving 20 to 22 k cusec of water every year in peak seasons. As per the treaty, India may utilise water but can't divert the flow of water. India is violating the treaty in a sense that it has been constructing Baghliar Dam without satisfying Pakistan's concerns. It has also been constructing Kashan Ganga, Dulhasti, Dugar, Gondhala and a few other dams as reservoirs on Chenab and Jhelum rivers diverting the flow of water which is clearly the violation of the said treaty. However, India has right to construct dams but the point of NO DIVERSION OF WATER FLOW should be kept in mind before passingany dam for construction. India is violating the treaty due to this less water flow in Pakistan. Owing to the violation, Pakistan has to bear the brunt of losses worth Rs. 1 billion per crop plus the irrigated land of South Punjab is steadily converting into barren lands. As per the treaty, India has to inform to Pakistan 6 months advance regarding construction of any dam on the river that flows into Pakistan, but it does not which is a clear violation of treaty. Whenever there is more water, India releases its floods into Pakistan. The recent deluge release into Pakistan may be taken as an example. Baghliar and other wager issues shall be solved through negotiations as they were done in case of "SALAL" dam in 1978. Pakistan is always eager for talks with India but India only agrees when there is an international pressure.

2) INDIAN PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN:

Since 2004-2009, India was the biggest regional investor & donor to Afghanistan. India has invested more than $2 billion. It has also constructed Zaranj Dilaram Road or Namyan Chaghbar road that would connect Afghansitan with Iran's sea port Chaabaghar and spent a huge amount of $1.3 billion on this very project. President Commerce and Trade has recently stated that due to this road, the transit capability of of Pakistan will be affected by at least 40%. By this, India also wants to minimize the dependency of world over Pakistan transit facility via Gwadar to reach CAR countries. In April 2012, India had sent a convoy of 400 trucks of donations plus trade to Afghanistan through this route. The basic and long run aim of India is to minimise the transit trade in Pakistan as well as to reach the Central Asian Republic countries. Apart from these investments, India has other investments in Afghansitan worth $1.5 billion.

There are around 17 Indian consulates in Afghanistan particularly on AFPAK border areas e.g. Kandhaar, Kabul, Jalalabad, Khost etc which are indeed a strategic trouble for Afghanistan. A strategic pact has also been signed between India and Afghanistan according to which:

a) India would provide assistance to health, education, telecom and most importantly defence and security.

b) Indian trainers would train Afghan forces.

Pakistan does understand Indian appetite for energy and economic growth and has due concerns against the sectarian involvement as well as their growing number of consulates in Afghanistan.

3) INDIAN PRESENCE IN BALOCHISTAN AND FATA:

The Rameshwar Nath Kao's KAO PLAN made by Research Analysis Wing (RAW) in 1962 under the Prime Minister ship of Indra Gandhi can not be ignored in this regard. It has three parts as follows:

a) KAO PLAN A i.e. Disintegration of East Pakistan

b) KAO PLAN B i.e. Disintegration of Balochistan

c) KAO PLAN C i.e. Disintegration of Khyber Pakhtun Khuaah, the then NWFP



KAO PLAN is considered to be one of the most diligent reasons against the separation of East Pakistan. The similar strategy is being adopted by India in Baluchistan & its role can be easily felt if one critically examines the KAO PLAN. KAO PLAN B i.e. KAO PLAN BALUCHISTAN is practically being implied in Baluchistan since 2006 onward.

According to the Ex-Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Indian ammunition, currency and passports etc were recovered in KOHLO MILITARY OPERATION. The warmth of involvement of India in the region can also be felt by analysing the Red Carpet welcome of Baram Dagh Bugti in New Delhi.

As far as the Indian presence in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) is concerned, during the Rah e Nijat Operation there, Pakistani forces found Indian currency, ammunition and passports which intensifies Indian presence and role in the area.

4) ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION:

Economic liberalization between the two arch rivals will be discussed under the headings of transit trade and MFN status.

4.1) TRANSIT TRADE:

In spite of Zaranj Dilaram Road, India is still interested to trade with Pakistan and want to normalize trade ties with us. The eager of Indian government to increase the ties can be felt by the sign that Indian government allowed Pakistani Investors to invest in India.

Through Iran, India is provided with only one sea route that is Mumbai Sea Port. It is very expensive for transportation particularly the transportation of energy which is almost impossible because such transportation can not be done without pipe lining under the sea which is very expensive. Particularly the transportation of gas in the form of LPG is very expensive, India thoug once part of TAPI Project i.e. Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India is no more a part of this project. Pakistan provides different routes for this such as from Port Qasim to Mumbai and any product for Indian Punjab and Delhi via Wahga, Sindh to Rajhastan and many road points in Kashmir. Pakistan is capable to provide all the three major alternatives of trade route i.e. Road, Rail and Sea.

4.2) MOST FAVORITE NATION (MFN)

As per one of the clauses of World Trade Organisation, when one country gives MFN status to another, the awardening country becomes a priority to conduct business with the target country.

However, there are two groups regarding the MFN Status to India, each in favour and against it.

4.2.1) AGAINST GROUP:

If India is given the MFN Status, it would be a great setback to the agricultural as well as industrial sector of Pakistan. Indian agricultural sector is far developed in terms of both quality and quantity than that of Pakistan. The major reasons behind are subsidies to farmers and low electricity price for agricultural purposes. For Instance, the price of Urea bag in India is Rs. 680 as compared to Pakistan where the price is Rs. 1800 per bag. India has also introduced latest farming technologies and also provide such technical assistance to its farmers, apart, best quality seeds are provided to the farmers for sowing purposes so that the output shall be of supreme quality.

As far as the industrial devastating effects on Pakistan are concerned, they are very high. For Instance the price of Maruti car is half the price of Mehran. One may compare the quality and price of Hero Honda in India and Honda in Pakistan. Furthermore, the multinational companies (MNCs) are stronger in India than in Pakistan due to lower taxes.

Comparing the Pharmaceutical Sector of India with Pakistan, our industry is fulfilling the 85%+ needs of our people. However, our products are generally expensive than Indian products. According to the World Bank Report, if India has been awarded the MFN status by Pakistan, Pakistan would not be able to make a Negative List (NON IMPORTED PRODUCTS) or even a weak list. The similar thing happened to Pakistan in 2010-2011 when Pakistn got $500 million loss, according to the Secretary Commerce and Trade.

Interestingly, India has given us the MFN status in 1996 but we still have not given them that status. Around 2200 different Indian products are floating in Pakistan, however, only around 800 Pakistani products are floating in their economy and even those 800 products are meager in amount. This is because of the high non tariff barriers. As per the WTO Constitution, the percentage ration of such barriers shall be 12%, however, this ratio of non tariff barriers in India is 38%. One of the strong arguments against awarding MFN status to India is that on one side they are asking for MFN status and on the other side, they are busy in designing hegemonic designs against Pakistan.


According to SAFTA i.e. South Asian Free Trade Association, also a sub-institution of SAARC, India is bound to reduce its non tariff barriers to a minimum level. Yet again it is the highest in the region.

4.2.2) FAVOUR GROUP:

The group which is in favour of awarding MFN status argues that the current trade between the two is around $1 billion per annum but the illegal and indirect trade is above $5 billion. They also create an argument that the industrial products are first traveled to Dubai, Singapore and Chabghar in Iran and then floated to Pakistan with higher prices. Such products include Indian MRF tires, Cosmetics e.g. fair and lovely, Dabur Amla, Vatica etc. Smuggling, only in border through red cliff points in Kashmir and Rajasthan is more than $1 billion per annum. Indian products, primarily-ily meant for Afghanistan come back to Paksitan with higher prices through illegal channels. Yet again there is a demand of these products in Pakistan means there is a market space for these products in our economy. Keeping this in mind, there is a dire need to legalise the trade of these products to benefit the end consumer.

Analysts also comment that as India is one if the fastest and highest growing industrial countries of the world i.e.e the 3rd in the world, Pakistan shall grant MFN status to India. For instance, Liver Brothers is the biggest producer of products in India, If Pakistan import these products from India, there will be a sharp difference of prices in locally manufactured products and imported products, the imported ones will be of definitely lower price. It is also stated that giving MFN status to India will also help improves both trade and strategic ties between the two historically arch rival countries. In the repercussion, rise of trade will lead to rise in people-to-people connections i.e.e risen dependency upon each other. This higher dependency will mean less chances of a full fledged war as well as the skirmishes at border, that ultimately means paltry defence budget leading to the higher socio-economic development of both the countries.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

Very nice collection of Information regarding the C.A

Will you Please enlist the C.A In style of MCQs ,

One Sentence Will be better. Please do the needful, Many paper pattern on MCQS based ! Hope you getting My Point

__________________
Omer Riaz
Operation Manager

National security policy — the Baloch perspective

Pakistan’s political-cum-civil-military elite are desperately in search of a ready-made recipe for peace to end chronic politico-religious violence. Since we have a habit of being in utter denial about self-created crises, we always look for foreign remedies and fancy plans.

The previous PPP regime introduced an unrealistic 3D formula — development, deterrence and dialogue — to curb violence without understanding the difference between complex conflicts and geographically disconnected crises. However, the new PML-N government has recently announced a theoretically more complex policy to deal with endless violence and the worsening law and order challenges. Based on Chinese and Malaysian models, the five layers of the national security policy, prepared by the National Counter-Terrorism Authority are: to dismantle, to contain, to prevent, to educate and to reintegrate.

Economically fragile, politically unstable, ethnically divided and strife with sectarian crisis, the ruling elite need to understand before duplicating these that Pakistan is neither equal to economic giant China nor to economically self-reliant Malaysia. And both countries, set as models in the new policy, have never experienced such ethnic discontent, political crises and extreme violence.
The current five-pillar policy looks like mixing oranges and apples. The policy doesn’t differentiate between type of crises and violence and doesn’t have the feel of a serious conflict-resolution initiative. It’s a known fact that crises in Fata and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) need a totally different approach and dealing with unrest in Balochistan requires a unique and bold policy. Moreover, managing the sectarian menace requires both domestic and international efforts.

In spite of thousands of killings, loss of property and humanitarian crises both in K-P and Balochistan, the civil-military elite in Islamabad are in total denial about the existence of politico-economic conflicts in Balochistan and governance-related conflict in Fata.

For conflict-resolution and crisis management, there are three preconditions: acknowledgment, acceptance and adaptability. Bureaucratically-drafted, the national security policy lacks understanding and discounts the existence of conflicts. It would be of no use in addressing the protracted crises.
Regarding Balochistan, the government and its politico-military appendage must demonstrate maturity and acknowledge the conflict’s existence, rather than trying to deny it. The politico-military establishment needs flexibility and adaptability. Adaptability requires openness to ideas that could lead to viable solutions. A firm commitment and resolve, with the flexibility to make concessions, will determine how those solutions will be implemented.
A national security policy, which begins with the idea of “dismantling”, cannot be considered a wise or constructive approach to deal with national crises. The policy should guide national decision-making and determine the courses of action to be taken in order to attain the state or condition wherein the national interests, the well-being of people, and peace and security are protected and enhanced.

The policy must encourage the political-military leadership to acknowledge past mistakes and the existence of multifaceted conflicts — accept the existence of different stakeholders and adapt new ideas and approaches in the conflict-resolution process. Pakistani policymakers must not confuse, and should not avoid the fact that extremism and violence is an offshoot of our politico-military blunders. If we continue to maintain the administrative status quo in Fata for strategic reasons — consider criminals, mafias and extremists as “strategic assets” and political activists as a national threat in Balochistan — peace will have little chance to grow.

Adapting a multilayered conflict- resolution model — Pakistan’s national security policy should focus on four key elements namely: 1) governance; 2) delivery of basic services; 3) economic reconstruction and sustainable development; and 4) security sector reform.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

syria attack and international law

The words "international law" convey the sense of a set of established international rules and authorities agreed by all nations, and easily understood and applied by them.

Sadly that is far from the case, and in practice, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get definitive rulings in international law involving military intervention. There is no international court on hand to give the legal go-ahead to intervene.

However, there is a developing legal framework for military intervention on humanitarian grounds.

Known as the Responsibility to Protect, or R2P, it was born out of the humanitarian disasters of the 1990s in Kosovo and Rwanda.
It is widely but not universally accepted and has three principal elements:
• States must protect their own populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, while, simultaneously, the international community has an obligation to help states prevent such crimes
• Where there is strong evidence of these crimes and a state cannot or will not stop them, the international community should exhaust all peaceful means in seeking to bring the atrocity to an end
• If all that is done, and fails, the international community can use military force
In order to have maximum legitimacy, military intervention should be authorised by the UN Security Council. It holds a unique position as the primary arbiter on the use of force in international law.
However, as in the case of Syria, it may be hamstrung by a lack of consensus, with one or more members opposed to action.

'Coalition of the willing'

In these situations, according to one view, R2P provides a legal framework for the international community to use military force as a last resort - either by way of a regional coalition or a so-called "coalition of the willing".
There are a number of safeguards in R2P:
• There needs to be powerful evidence of an ongoing atrocity
• Peaceful measures, such as diplomacy and sanctions, must have been exhausted
• Any force used must be specifically targeted at stopping the atrocity and protecting the civilian population
In other words, it is a limited power to act. However, if all of the criteria are met, then the limited and targeted use of military force would be legal in international law under R2P, some lawyers and commentators believe.
Ultimately though, military interventions in these circumstances are up to governments rather than lawyers.
It is for them to make the case for military intervention by showing that the legal requirements have been met.

In the case of Syria, they will argue that there is an ongoing atrocity, all peaceful means of stopping it have been exhausted, and that targeted military action could achieve the twin goals of ending the atrocity and protecting the civilian population.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

Another blow to Pakistan’s water interests
India starts building 850MW Ratle Dam on Chenab

In an another blow to Pakistan’s water interests, India has started constructing the Ratle Hydropower Dam project with a capacity to generate 850MWs of electricity on Pakistan’s Chenab River, in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty, documents available with The News reveal.

Pakistan has already objected to this dam, which will be three times larger than the Baglihar Hydropower Dam. Mirza Asif Baig, Commissioner of Pakistan Commissionof Indus Water, confirmed that India had planned to construct the Ratle Hydropower project on the Chenab and Pakistan’s side had objected to the project saying it was a sheer violation of the provisions of Indus Waters Treaty 1960.

“We have come up with strong objections to the design of the said project in a meeting with India at the Permanent Commission of Indus Waters (PCIW) level,” Baig said and vowed that in the future meeting at the PCIW level, he would continue to oppose the said project as its design violated the Indus Waters Treaty.

Senior Pakistani lawyer Ms Shumaila Mehmood, in the case of Kishenganga Hydropower project, said though she was aware of the development but it was the PCIW which dealt with the projects constructed by India on Pakistani rivers at earlier stages.

India has already carved out a plan to generate 32,000MWs of electricity on Pakistani rivers and will be having the capacity to regulate the water flows that are destined to reach Pakistan. So far India has built Dalhasti hydropower project of 330MWs, Baglihar of 450MWs and now it has started a new project named Ratle Hydropower project.

On the Neelum River that joins the Jehlum River in Pakistan, India has already completed Uri-1, Uri-II Hydropower project and is also close to completing the Kishenganga Hydropower project. So much so, it has also built two hydropower projects on the Indus River that include Nimmo Bazgo and Chattak hydropower project.

Sonia Gandhi, along with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, laid the foundation stone of the 850MWs Hydro Electric Project on the Chenab River in the Kishtwar Tehsil of Doda district of the Indian-Held-Kashmir just a few days ago.

This is the first time that both leaders have jointly laid the foundation stone. The electricity to be produced from the project will be injected into the national grid of India that will then be sold to Pakistan.

Former Wapda chairman Shamsul Mulk said that Pakistan needs to develop water uses in its all rivers by building water reservoirs to prevent India from constructing the hydropower project. “Once Pakistan develops its water uses, then it can argue at any international court that India cannot build its project by injuring committed flows of Pakistan.”

He said that there was a strong lobby of India in our country which did not want Pakistan to develop water uses.However, when this horrifying development surfaced, an eminent water expert Arshad Abbasi had sensitised the-then Minister of Water and Power Dr Mussadik Malik, who is now the special assistant to the PM on powers sector, about this alarming development but he did not respond as expected from him. Rather he was an advocate for import of electricity from India.

Dr Mussadik was asked to probe as to who had cleared this project from Pakistan’s side but he didn’t do so. However, Engr Safiq, who is also an eminent water expert, came down heavily on Dr Mussadik saying he is dual nationality holder and is holding a too-much important post and is an advocate of importing electricity from India and asked where the security agencies were. He said that Pakistan’s water sector had become dysfunctional.

According to documents available with The News, the Ratle project envisages harnessing the hydro-power potential of the river from EL 1000m to EL 887m. This is a concrete gravity dam at a height of 170m, will be built across the river just downstream of the Ratle village and an underground power house with an installed capacity of 4X140MWs is proposed near Juddi village, both in Doda district. The main project will generate 2,483.37 Million Unit of Electricity at the rate of Indian Rupee of only 1.22 per KWh.

After meeting of Arshad Abbasi with Dr Mussadik Malik, a brief paper including measures to check the enforcement of Indus Waters Treaty in letter and spirit was sent to Mussadik, but Musadik preferred playing his role in releasing funds for the IPPs, a more lucrative task for him.

Surprisingly, the former interim minister is an adviser to the current regime, and is only advocating importing electricity at Rs16 per unit. Even though he had been briefed about the 1,460MWs Tarbela Dam Extension VI project, he still preferred to advise the government to import electricity from India.

When contacted, Dr Mussadik Malik said: “Yes I was briefed about Indus Water Treaty issue. However, I focused on the power sector keeping in view the crippling power outages. Now after completing my assignment on power sector, I will pay heed to the water sector.”

He said that the government had planned to develop five dams so that for five times, cheaper electricity on water flows could be produced on one main river and more importantly the per capita water availability could be raised to a reasonable level, which now stands at 1,000 cubic metre per person.

About the Rattle Hydropower project, he said that the PCIW is the department which deals with such issues.

Meanwhile, in a letter addressed to the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Abbasi requested to demand EIA (environment impact assessment) report of Ratle Hydroelectric power project. As the land proposed for this project is mostly thick conifer forests, deforestation will have a terrible impact on the river water yield in the future and the victim will be only lower riparian) i.e. Pakistan.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

Afghan Socio-political Scenario and Ambiguities

The approach of the people and intellectuals towards the socio-political scenario in Afghanistan seems divergent and there are not very certain attitudes in this regard. There are many "ifs" and "buts" and the opinions regarding the situation are very shaky. It is not just about the situation in Afghanistan, but the situations in the neighboring countries are also unpredictable.

Especially, in the last some months the situation seems ambiguous as to where the country is leading and what would be the future of socio-political scenario in the region. Though, since the downfall of Taliban there have been major contributions on the part of international community to help this country out of instability and in that regard billion of dollars have moved in, especially from U.S., the major issues still remain with major concerns. There are many serious minds that doubt the future of the peace, stability and prosperity in the region.

Afghanistan has seen many decades of wars, including both international and civil wars. The people in the country have been seeking a period of stability wherein they get opportunities of development and progress. They have gone through the severest kind of agony and have experienced the worst possible kind of economic, social and political crisis.

There have been hopes lately that country would move towards prosperity, but these hopes are being challenged now in the ongoing period of transition. After more than ten years of war and movement against terrorism, though there have been improvements, the administrative, development and security sectors still remain immature. Yes, it is necessary that these sectors should take long time for their improvement, but the level of the improvement so far made is not in accordance to the energy and resources being utilized.

One of the biggest hurdles in this regard has been the lack of transparency in the utilization of the resources, mostly provided as aid by the international community. The wave of corruption has uprooted the weak foundations of the development projects and possibilities of better outcomes have diminished to a great extent.

There are three basic sectors which require special attention. They include incapacity of the government to provide good governance. Good governance relates to the conduct of the public institutions regarding the public affairs in such a way so as to guarantee well being, prosperity and definitely human rights. But instead our public institutions have been dominated by incapacity and corruption.

These institutions have been further adding to the troubles of the common people instead of solving their problems. They have been vehemently dominated by the individuals in authority. The institutionalization process has been very weak and institutions serve the authoritative people on the top of bureaucratic hierarchy.

The real purpose of a democratic system is to reach to the common people of the society and provide them facilities on their door steps. Further, the so called democratic system in our country has not been able to represent the people of Afghanistan as a whole.

The diverse Afghan society has not been able to be compensated in the system that has been trying to keep the central government stronger. The federal system, wherein the authority should be given to the provinces, can provide better representation to all the ethnic groups in the country and can favor the general will but such a setup has not been appreciated the way it should have been. Even the key institutions like legislature, judiciary and executive have not risen to the task.

They, instead of serving the country, seem to be fanning the flames of controversies. The government that should be the leading force towards a democratic setup, itself seems to be running after authority, not democratic principles. The parliament, which represents the elected members, is not given any sort of priority.

As far as the security of the country is concerned, there have been many improvements but a lot of work still needs to be done. The international security forces, that have been helping out the country so dominantly in the last eleven years or so, are in the process of withdrawal, after which, the vacuum has to be filled by Afghan security forces.

As far as the capacity of Afghan forces to guarantee secure life for Afghan people, there are grey patches. Unless there are speedy development in the capacity building, training and professionalism of Afghan forces, the eyebrows will remain tense as far as security arrangements are concerned. Though the transitional handover of authority from international forces to Afghan security forces is on the way, the prospects of an overall peaceful transition seem very much difficult.

Further, the political reconciliation with Taliban that is expected to find out some political solution to the issues in the country in order to lead to peace is also suffering from lack of clarity and commitment. The trilateral process, including Afghanistan, Pakistan and U.S., which is the requirement for the peace process though seems to be going on but is being time and again influenced by the fluctuations in the relations among the three countries.

On the other hand Taliban have not shown their complete readiness for the peace process. In addition, the factions existing within Taliban also differ in their views regarding any peace deal and this makes the process difficult by introducing the intricacy as to whether which faction should be considered as the true representative to Taliban, and what should be done with the other factions who opt to go against any sort of peace process. In short, the security situation in Afghanistan is still very not certain and future very much ambiguous.

The impact of international assistance will remain limited unless donors, particularly the largest, the U.S., stop subordinating programming to counter-insurgency objectives, devise better mechanisms to monitor implementation, adequately address corruption and wastage of aid funds. In order to address the socio-political and security concerns appropriately there has to be immense effort made on the part of government and other authoritative institutions in the country. Above all, this effort should be directed towards the wellbeing of all the people of Afghanistan.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

New Iranian President and Nuclear Negotiations!

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s reign brought a complete deadlock in the talks over Islamic Republic’s nuclear program with the West resulting in the worst economic sanctions on the republic which is seen differently by different people. Ahmadinejad was no doubt a hero of his kind; he talked against the West, termed ‘Holocaust’ to be a set of lies and claimed that Iran would be able to stand all these challenges but the grounds realities seem to be bitter than all these. Iran is in its worst economic downfall since the Islamic revolution of 1979 and people have started shouting against this rigid behavior; though not much openly. But it is reported that most of the people who are suffering, seem to be unhappy of all these. Mr. Ahmadinejad was able to gather mass protests against the West showing that his stance was correct, but the way he lost his support in his former political patrons and became much unpopular in the public, shows the other side of this picture. It is said, had there been another term for him, he could have suffered the worst defeat of the history of Iran. At the same time, an opinion is getting strong inside Iran that the nuclear program should not be the matter of ‘Do or Die’, risking the whole economy of the country. The number of political analysts who support to take a middle path are increasing in number but still they are unable to make their voices heard loud due to the strong system prevailing in the country.

In the given circumstances, the election of Mr. Rouhani has emerged as a hope, both for the people of his country and the Western powers. Mr. Rouhani was selected this June and he will take his office next week. His selection is also taken as a switch in the opinion of public who were looking for a person who should sail them out of economic woes by following a middle path.

There is a growing optimism in Iran and in the West that Mr. Rouhani is ready to restart serious talks on the nuclear issue. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told the United States this month that Mr. Rouhani was ready to start direct talks and the Obama administration has indicated willingness to engage in head-to-head dialogue after years of inclusive multiparty negotiations.

In his campaign for president and again in recent weeks, Mr. Rouhani has made it clear that he is deeply concerned about his country’s growing economic troubles and is determined to soften the harsh tone and intransigent tactics of his predecessor, Mr. Ahmadinejad that have stalled nuclear negotiations and cut off relations with most of the developed world. But the question, as always in Iran, is the extent to which President Rouhani can accomplish these goals.

Out of these challenges, the most important is to convince the Supreme Leader of Iran, who remains as the most powerful identity in the political and social arena. It must not be forgotten that it was Mr. Rouhani who convinced the Supreme Leader that Iran needed to suspend nuclear enrichment which resulted in an agreement with the Western powers in 2003. It was the only nuclear deal between Iran and the West in the past 11 years.

However, this agreement was torn apart in 2005 which brought down the political stature of Mr. Rouhani to zero and he was criticized for showing ‘weakness’ in the negotiations with the Europeans, though his supporters would call it reasonableness.

Second would be to face the pressure from the public. Throughout the history of nuclear strife between the West and Iran, the traditionalist leaders have benefitted from the sympathy and support of public by convincing them that West is the worst enemy of Iran and nuclear program is one of the most essential requirements of this state. But the passage of time has made this cloud to evaporate and now, people have started thinking in direction other than those shown by their leaders. This mindset of Iranian voters was evident from the results of the elections in June when Mr. Rouhani was given the passage to the power who promised to redirect his country to the moderate course by stressing greater individual rights, a relaxation of tensions with the West and the repair of Iran’s flagging economy.

Instead of facing the pressure from public, it would be a better and stable strategy if the efforts are made to make the public realize the true picture and make them think about the things with a reason instead of emotions; that has long been driving the direction of Iranian politics and social attachments.

Third, there would be the need of convincing the moderate powers of the world that no country of the world needs to fear the nuclear program of Iran and it is intended for peaceful purposes. Both Iran and its Western foes have been busy in convincing the world about their view points on the nuclear program but most of the countries of the world seem to be afraid of Iran, given its background of rigid Islamic interpretation and opposition of the West. If Islamic republic succeeds in convincing the rest of the countries of the world about its peaceful nuclear program, it would be able to win their support and the cries of opposition against its nuclear program may considerably decrease.

On the other hand, the way the West has handled this issue is also criticized by some of the political analysts. The sanctions being laid on Iran by the West and US have brought no good result except to add to the misery of common public inside the country. No doubt, people seem to be much affected by recent economic shrinkage resulting from the economic sanctions, they are equally not happy of the West who, in their opinion, has used its powers unethically to bring a country on its knees. It has further strengthened the views of traditional religious Iranians that the West will never be the friend of Iran and they should be willing to face all the hardships in this regard. These sanctions are especially criticized on ethical and humanitarian grounds as the political war has been dragged into the houses of common public who are paying by nose to the strife of which most of them are absolutely unaware.

It is also a logical point that like other nuclear powers of the world, it should be the right of every country to be benefitted from the nuclear energy. It would be both illegal and unethical if a country is deprived of this right on the basis of religion or region. It is said that both Iran and North Korea would use the nuclear program for making nuclear weapons and as these radical countries are the strong opponents of the West so they would emerge as prime threats for the Western powers and US but till today, these claims have never been supported by any kind of tangible proof and it is just like the fears of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) of Iraq or use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government forces. Weapons of Mass Destruction were never recovered from Iraq and both the Syrian government and opposition forces are accusing each other of using chemical weapons but still, these accusations are to be verified by a neutral source.

In the end, it is clear for all of us that confrontation would not do any good and in order to bring an end for the economic suffering of the people of Iran and save the world of additional nuclear weapons, the table of negotiations is left as the only point to start the process of repair and recovery.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.

Will Talks with Pakistani Taliban Work?

Since the joint meeting of Pakistan’s government, military officials and all major political parties of the country approved talks with the Pakistani Taliban, the militant groups in Pakistan have continued to target minority groups and security forces of the country. The recent attack on the Christian minority group of Pakistan shocked the nation and brought the government-led efforts to resume talks with the militant groups in the spotlight. The two major bomb blasts that targeted a church in the Pakistani city of Peshawar killed at least 80 people wounding dozens of others. The attack on one of the most vulnerable non-Muslim communities of Pakistan has been widely condemned by Pakistani political parties and religious figures.

The attack on Pakistani Christian minority group is coming only a few days after Pakistan’s major political parties approved Nawaz Sharif’s initiative to talk with the militant groups in order to end the militancy ravaging in the country for about a decade. In his route to the United Nations headquarter in New York to attend the UN General Assembly, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sahrif said the attack in Peshawar did not bode well for the negotiations with the militant groups. Pakistan’s prime minister, who has long been an advocate of talks with the Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups to bring peace in the country, knows very well that such attacks could derail the initiative he started to end the militancy in the country.

In the last decade, Pakistan has been a hotspot of insurgency and militancy not only organizing attacks against NATO and Afghan forces in neighboring Afghanistan but also attacking Pakistani security forces and government’s interests. In recent years, however, the militancy has taken an enormous toll from minority groups as attacks on these communities have seen a sharp rise. The wave of attacks on minority communities has been such intense that the situation is bordering a real crisis in the country regarding the inter-ethnic coexistence and social harmony. Many label Pakistan as the safe haven of terrorist groups.

In his speech in the grand session of political parties of Pakistan in Islamabad, Nawaz Sahrif stressed that the country was the scene of violence and militancy, and that there is no ground for the country’s political parties to play politics over the issue. Perhaps it not only Sharif who understands the enormity of the situation in his country, but also other senior political figures and major parties is concluding the same judgment. Former Pakistani president Parviz Musharraf even jeopardized his very own political capital to fight the Islamist militant groups.

In his attempt to start peace talks with the militant groups, Pakistan’s Prime Minister is facing a number of hard-line militant groups which in many cases are opposing each other. Among the militant groups, there are also groups such as the banned Lashkar-e Jhangvi and Al-Qaeda which are active in the country, but it is almost impossible for Islamabad to include them in the talks. The Pakistani government is counting on talks with the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and some other groups which are more leaning towards peaceful engagement with the Pakistani government.

Despite that some Pakistani militant groups have welcomed the recent moves by Nawaz Sharif’s government to begin talks with the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan, many others sub-groups that are not willing to enter to talks with Nawaz Sharif’s government and press for targeting military and government targets. Nawaz Sahrif started well in garnering support from various political parties of the country – including religious parties such as the one led by Mulana Fazl Mohammad – to enter in talks with the TTP and other Punjab-based Islamist groups who are fighting against the Pakistani forces. But, gradually it emerges that his plan for talks with the Islamist groups would be much more complicated than what is being decided in Islamabad.

One of the reasons for that is that the Pakistani government is not facing a monolithic insurgent umbrella group, rather there are many major and sub-groups operating under the umbrella group of the TTP or in the rival groups based in North Waziristan and Punjab. After Sahrif’s moves to enter talks with Pakistani Taliban, some Punjab-rooted sub-groups have welcomed the move, while the TTP as the main umbrella group has put forward preconditions for talks that Nawaz Sahrif’s government is finding it very difficult to accept. The conditions put forward by the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan are complete withdrawal of the army forces from the north-western tribal areas and release of the Taliban senior members in prisons.

However, there could be no guarantee from the militant groups based in northwestern tribal agencies of Pakistan that if the army starts to withdraw from the region, the Islamist groups won’t seize the areas and try to expand their control as they did many years ago before the invasion of Pakistan army against the Taliban in Swat and neighboring areas. In his attempts for talks with militant groups, Pakistani Prime Minister also needs to convince the powerful military establishment that his efforts to compromise with the Islamists will work. Pakistan’s security establishment is concerned that if the army withdraws from the tribal areas, where the militants have high influence and dominant presence, it may provide the chance for the militant groups to restructure and strengthen their control in the areas and against the security forces.

However, since Prime Minister Sharif has managed to build an extensive political consensus among the key stakeholders in Islamabad, the option cannot be ruled out that Pakistan’s government may move to secure some sorts of agreement with the Taliban that includes security arrangements and guarantees for security of the region after the withdrawal of the army. Given the diversity of the Pakistan’s militant groups and their agendas, the Pakistani government will never be able to secure any kinds of deals with some of the hard-line groups from the hodgepodge networks of militants which are well active in terrorist attacks across the country. And, it will remain a mystery that how the Nawaz Sharif’s administration is going to manage securing a long-lasting deal with the major militant groups such as the TTP based in northwestern Pakistan and others in Punjab.

__________________
God has sent us to do something special,Life is once for all but not to be Repeated by a pendulum.