Pakistan refuses to sign three multilateral pacts at SAARC summit: officials

[Sliver]

Maybe the best way is for Pakistan to come out of SAARC, and create its own bloc.
India's leadership role (either because of its size or because of its own) is not taken in by Pakistan, doing so has scuttled development for itself and in a more lesser extent, India as well.

May be Pakistan can make an Iran, Afghanistan, Free Kashmir, + a few central asian countries. But for SAARC or any other bloc to function with India and Pakistan as its "bigger" powers, its not going to function.

 

[surya kiran]

If both Pakistan and India demilitarize, who will hold the elections? UN?

There is no plebiscite. Paksitanis do not realise their government has lost the game in the Simla Accord and are not explaining the same to them. Now, we hear this new thing about IWT. Which again the GoP signed. But the baniyas are the culprits.

 

[Norwegian]

Your government signed this. Unless you want to say that your government signs any document without reading, which btw I will agree to.

Oh, they CAN read it of course. They just can't understand it

 

[Not Sure]

As I have argued, ship based transport is widely considered to be the most efficient form of transport, so I don't see how the argument that transit through India is the only way to make trade with Bangladesh feasible is legitimate.

Ab iske aage main kya boluun jab aapne faisla pehle hi suna diya?

I was not going to compare water vs road transport systems, rather I was saying that the trade that can happen through road would be cheaper and will benefit the poor of Pakistan. How often have you rented space on ships and what do you think how many small scale businesses can rent that space? How many of them would do that with their perishable goods? But let us take your view as well - ship transport is more efficient than road transport:

Why is it that water transport between Canada and the US accounts for less than 10% of all of their bilateral transports? Majority of the transport happens through roads - over 70%. Rest through air and rail.

No matter how many ships you have (mind you, transport ships are efficient only for durable produces, your food will rot by the time it reaches Bangladesh or Sri Lanka), water transport will always be feasible only for big businesses - but we want to help the small scale industries, the ones that can use their own vehicles to transport their goods, right?

Why would Sri Lanka be interested with trade with Pakistan under the framework of SAARC if it doesn't see enhanced trade with Pakistan in a bilateral framework as being in her interests?

Because businesses become difficult to sustain when done only on bilateral basis. For instance, you will need your raw material to be finished in India so it can be sold in Sri Lanka, so that you can demand higher prices owing to the value of the finished product. Bilateral trade is just a sophisticated form of barter agreement, and we have seen how far Iran has come with it. When you do trade, you cannot take only one member into account and forget all others - your business won't grow at all.

India is not the only country in the world that Pakistan can trade with, so I don't see the validity of your argument that the lack of trade with India will cause an noncompetitive market in Pakistan

Indeed, India is not the only country for Pakistan to trade with, even if it is the largest market in the region. Perhaps, that is why Pakistan and India do not have FTA. Keep the status quo if you wish, but how far has it gotten you yet?

 

[he-man]

Even i am inclined to say now

GO NAWAZ GO

Lets support imran khan,maybe he can bring some change.

 

[he-man]

Maybe the best way is for Pakistan to come out of SAARC, and create its own bloc.
India's leadership role (either because of its size or because of its own) is not taken in by Pakistan, doing so has scuttled development for itself and in a more lesser extent, India as well.

May be Pakistan can make an Iran, Afghanistan, Free Kashmir, + a few central asian countries. But for SAARC or any other bloc to function with India and Pakistan as its "bigger" powers, its not going to function.

Are u serious?

 

[surya kiran]

Maybe the best way is for Pakistan to come out of SAARC, and create its own bloc.
India's leadership role (either because of its size or because of its own) is not taken in by Pakistan, doing so has scuttled development for itself and in a more lesser extent, India as well.

May be Pakistan can make an Iran, Afghanistan, Free Kashmir, + a few central asian countries. But for SAARC or any other bloc to function with India and Pakistan as its "bigger" powers, its not going to function.

Pakistan has tremendous potential. Make no mistake. If this State lets go of the Kashmir issue, its citizens will be de-fundamentalised as a consequence. It is a state between the oil rich and oil starved state. It has vast territories which can be made arable. Pak getting out of SAARC or remaining in SAARC is inconsequential.

 

[Norwegian]

Even i am inclined to say now

GO NAWAZ GO

Lets support imran khan,maybe he can bring some change.

LOL! An Indian chanting GO NAWAZ GO! You made my day. Where are you @Leader @Jazzbot

 

[surya kiran]

Even i am inclined to say now

GO NAWAZ GO

Lets support imran khan,maybe he can bring some change.

Nawaz is better than Imran. Nawaz is business friendly. Circumstances and timing is wrong. Give it time.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Nothing to do with any "trust deficit". When Pakistanis and Indians meet abroad, they are like long lost best friends, even more friendly than their own Pakistani or Indian friends. I know it because I have seen it myself. Our governments should reflect ground realities, and ground realities are such that we as a nation we DO NOT hate each other anymore. Its our propaganda ministries run by extreme right wing or left wing that are always spewing hatred between us for their own political goals.

I agree with you completely; having lived and worked with Pakistan-origin people, outside the sub-continent. There was no taint on us of the baggage of the fraught political relation-ship.
Having said that; there is no reason why the "multi-lateral agreements" in fora like SAARC cannot be signed by GoP. Those agreements address multilateral issues among all SAARC nations pertaining to trade, commerce, tourism culture and so on. Pakistan will only end up "painting itself into a corner", considering that all the other SAARC countries are willing to sign on.
Never mind that obtuse-minds like @AgNoStiC MuSliM are advocating not to do so; maybe he is not caring of Pakistan's long term interests with all the SAARC community!

 

[surya kiran]

I agree with you completely; having lived and worked with Pakistan-origin people, outside the sub-continent. There was no taint on us of the baggage of the fraught political relation-ship.
Having said that; there is no reason why the "multi-lateral agreements" in fora like SAARC cannot be signed by GoP. Those agreements address multilateral issues among all SAARC nations pertaining to trade, commerce, tourism culture and so on. Pakistan will only end up "painting itself into a corner", considering that all the other SAARC countries are willing to sign on.
Never mind that obtuse-minds like @AgNoStiC MuSliM are advocating not to do so; maybe he is not caring of Pakistan's long term interests with all the SAARC community!

Oye you did not solve my query regarding the P8I in the other thread

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It says principle of the Charter. Does not state UNSC resolutions.

The principles of the UN Charter lay out the framework for UNSC Resolutions, and the governments of India and Pakistan both requested and accepted UNSC mediation, thereby making commitments to implement said resolutions.

Instead it says, "(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them"

Correct, and the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and UN mediation were in fact initiated at the request of India and Pakistan and therefore meet that standard. On the other hand, one could also argue that the clause does not apply retroactively (in which case it would also invalidate the Indus Water Treaty), and therefore only applies to new disputes that come up after the Simla Agreement, such as Siachen, Sir Creek or LoC violations.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Oye you did not solve my query regarding the P8I in the other thread

Now, what query was that; yaar? Anyway I'll visit that thread to find out.

 

[Norwegian]

Pakistan will only end up "painting itself into a corner", considering that all the other SAARC countries are willing to sign on.

Its just like Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. These nations held referendum on joining the European Union and their citizens refused. So their governments just signed economic parts of the EU. Easy. But we are Desis, not enlightened Europeans
European Free Trade Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[definitelynotIndian]

LOL! An Indian chanting GO NAWAZ GO! You made my day. Where are you @Leader @Jazzbot

Isnt Imran Khan pro taliban? Why do you support him?