What's new

19th SAARC Conference in Islamabad 2016-News and Updates

@jbgt90 What are your views, right honorable sir?

@anant_s
@Arsalan
:mad::mad: cheeky bugger... :-)
I do not believe this is the end of SAARC , i would rather, India go to Pakistan and corner it in the meeting with others support. That said , what other option was left with the govt?
They were not able to live up the the hyperbole surrounding them , their jingoism also painted them into a corner which IMHO did not allow them to do better than what they actually could.
What has changed? nothing from the previous govt stand that we wont talk .

Remember both govt got a landslide victories in their respective countries , its up to the leaders to show to their home crowd if it was worth it . :)
 
.
Pakistan Humiliated by south Asian countries' boycott of summit



India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Bhutan cite regional interference as they pull out of what was set to be a historic meeting



Jon Boone in Islamabad and Michael Safi in Delhi

Wednesday 28 September 2016 14.59 BST Last modified on Wednesday 28 September 2016 16.19 BST

Four south Asian countries are to boycott what was set to be a historic regional summit in Islamadad in November, dealing a humiliating blow to Pakistan and isolating it diplomatically.

India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Bhutan all said they would pull out of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) meeting following a collapse in relations between Pakistan and India, the subcontinent’s nuclear-armed rivals.

Statements by the region’s foreign ministries echoed India’s criticism on Tuesday night, which blamed “increasing cross-border terrorist attacks and growing interference of the internal affairs of member states” for Delhi’s decision to boycott the conference.

Until recently, the prospect of the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Islamabad had been seen as a potentially highly symbolic step towards reconciliation between Pakistan and India.

The two countries, however, have been engaged interse exchanges following an attack on an Indian army base on 18 September that killed 19 soldiers, which Delhi has blamed on jihadis based in Pakistan. The raid took place in town of Uri near the line of control that divides the contested Himalayan territory of Kashmir.

Four days later, India denounced Pakistan at the UN as the host of the “Ivy League of terrorism”.

Islamabad says India has provided no evidence linking the attack either to militants based in Pakistan or to the country’s intelligence agencies, which have long been accused of complicity with anti-India jihadi groups.

Pakistan’s defence minister has even suggested that India itself carried out the attack to deflect attention from its ongoing struggle to quell popular disturbances in the Indian part of Kashmir.



Indian soldiers patrol near the line of control in Kashmir following the 18 September attack. Photograph: Mukhtar Khan/AP
Tensions have been fuelled by television networks and social media on both sides of the border, with some pundits appearing to relish the prospect of all-out nuclear war.

Some Indian hawks have demanded retaliatory attacks against suspected militant camps in Pakistan, but Modi has sought to punish Islamabad with steps that fall short of military means.

His strategy is, however, far tougher than the relative restraint shown by previous Indian governments during earlier crises, such as that prompted by the four-day assault on Mumbai by Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2008.


In recent weeks, Modi has publicly backed separatist rebels in the restive Pakistani province of Balochistan, a move that has infuriated Islamabad. He has also questioned a key cross-border river treaty and vowed to orchestrate Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation.

That promise became reality on Wednesday when it became clear four out of SAARC’s eight members would not attend the summit, which it is Pakistan’s turn to host.

Afghanistan’s foreign ministry, which has long accused Pakistan of supporting the Taliban-led insurgency, was most stinging in its criticism, denouncing “the increased level of violence and fighting as a result of imposed terrorism on Afghanistan”.

Nine months ago, hopes were high for a rapprochement between India and Pakistan following Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore on Christmas day, the first time an Indian leader had set foot in Pakistan since 2004.



Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, welcomes his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi to Lahore in December 2015. Photograph: PIB/AFP/Getty Images
His Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, won a landslide election victory in 2013, determined to end the decades’ long standoff and open up trade.

“But Pakistan has a tremendous capacity to withstand coercion and a mindset that wants eternal confrontation with India that is too deeply entrenched,” he said.

On Monday, Modi ordered water officials to step up efforts to divert a greater share of the three rivers the countries share under the Indus treaty, a 1960 agreement that has survived their subsequent conflicts.

“Blood and water cannot flow together,” Modi said, a rare invocation of India’s power to meddle with the Indus river system, which flows downstream into Pakistan and provides water to 65% of the country’s landmass.

Himanshu Thakkar, the coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, said it would take up to a decade to build dams capable of reducing the flow to Pakistan.

“But it sends a signal, and that signal will have an impact,” he said. “If India builds projects to store water from its entitlement, it will provide a means for India to control water flow to Pakistan, even temporarily.”

On Tuesday, Pakistan complained to the World Bank, which brokered the original treaty, urging it to prevent India from starting construction work on the Neelum and Chenab rivers.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ed-by-south-asian-countries-boycott-of-summit


@nair @Joe Shearer @MilSpec

I think this is the end of SAARC as we know it.



Pakistan Humiliated by south Asian countries' boycott of summit



India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Bhutan cite regional interference as they pull out of what was set to be a historic meeting



Jon Boone in Islamabad and Michael Safi in Delhi

Wednesday 28 September 2016 14.59 BST Last modified on Wednesday 28 September 2016 16.19 BST

Four south Asian countries are to boycott what was set to be a historic regional summit in Islamadad in November, dealing a humiliating blow to Pakistan and isolating it diplomatically.

India, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Bhutan all said they would pull out of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) meeting following a collapse in relations between Pakistan and India, the subcontinent’s nuclear-armed rivals.

Statements by the region’s foreign ministries echoed India’s criticism on Tuesday night, which blamed “increasing cross-border terrorist attacks and growing interference of the internal affairs of member states” for Delhi’s decision to boycott the conference.

Until recently, the prospect of the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Islamabad had been seen as a potentially highly symbolic step towards reconciliation between Pakistan and India.

The two countries, however, have been engaged interse exchanges following an attack on an Indian army base on 18 September that killed 19 soldiers, which Delhi has blamed on jihadis based in Pakistan. The raid took place in town of Uri near the line of control that divides the contested Himalayan territory of Kashmir.

Four days later, India denounced Pakistan at the UN as the host of the “Ivy League of terrorism”.

Islamabad says India has provided no evidence linking the attack either to militants based in Pakistan or to the country’s intelligence agencies, which have long been accused of complicity with anti-India jihadi groups.

Pakistan’s defence minister has even suggested that India itself carried out the attack to deflect attention from its ongoing struggle to quell popular disturbances in the Indian part of Kashmir.



Indian soldiers patrol near the line of control in Kashmir following the 18 September attack. Photograph: Mukhtar Khan/AP
Tensions have been fuelled by television networks and social media on both sides of the border, with some pundits appearing to relish the prospect of all-out nuclear war.

Some Indian hawks have demanded retaliatory attacks against suspected militant camps in Pakistan, but Modi has sought to punish Islamabad with steps that fall short of military means.

His strategy is, however, far tougher than the relative restraint shown by previous Indian governments during earlier crises, such as that prompted by the four-day assault on Mumbai by Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba in 2008.


In recent weeks, Modi has publicly backed separatist rebels in the restive Pakistani province of Balochistan, a move that has infuriated Islamabad. He has also questioned a key cross-border river treaty and vowed to orchestrate Pakistan’s diplomatic isolation.

That promise became reality on Wednesday when it became clear four out of SAARC’s eight members would not attend the summit, which it is Pakistan’s turn to host.

Afghanistan’s foreign ministry, which has long accused Pakistan of supporting the Taliban-led insurgency, was most stinging in its criticism, denouncing “the increased level of violence and fighting as a result of imposed terrorism on Afghanistan”.

Nine months ago, hopes were high for a rapprochement between India and Pakistan following Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore on Christmas day, the first time an Indian leader had set foot in Pakistan since 2004.



Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, welcomes his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi to Lahore in December 2015. Photograph: PIB/AFP/Getty Images
His Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, won a landslide election victory in 2013, determined to end the decades’ long standoff and open up trade.

“But Pakistan has a tremendous capacity to withstand coercion and a mindset that wants eternal confrontation with India that is too deeply entrenched,” he said.

On Monday, Modi ordered water officials to step up efforts to divert a greater share of the three rivers the countries share under the Indus treaty, a 1960 agreement that has survived their subsequent conflicts.

“Blood and water cannot flow together,” Modi said, a rare invocation of India’s power to meddle with the Indus river system, which flows downstream into Pakistan and provides water to 65% of the country’s landmass.

Himanshu Thakkar, the coordinator of the South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People, said it would take up to a decade to build dams capable of reducing the flow to Pakistan.

“But it sends a signal, and that signal will have an impact,” he said. “If India builds projects to store water from its entitlement, it will provide a means for India to control water flow to Pakistan, even temporarily.”

On Tuesday, Pakistan complained to the World Bank, which brokered the original treaty, urging it to prevent India from starting construction work on the Neelum and Chenab rivers.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ed-by-south-asian-countries-boycott-of-summit


@nair @Joe Shearer @MilSpec

I think this is the end of SAARC as we know it.


All those above mentioned countries mean as much to Pakistan as does Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea and the North pole. It makes no difference to Pakistan whatsoever. Will not affect us in the slightest. Apart from China & Turkey, all other nations are meaningless to Pakistan. The above title is very misleading also. It insinuates that Pakistan cannot survive because india, afghanistan, bangladesh & Bhutan have boycotted us.......lol.
 
. . .
SAARC ain't anything.
I'm more interested to see what happens on Indus Water Treaty front.
I don't have data of trade between Pakistan and SAARC nations (minus India), but have a feeling it isn't much. So such kind of diplomatic steps won't be of much consequence.
Nothing will happen to the IWT , if we try to alter it we will be condemned by the world for not adhering to an international treaty , what ever we do the GOI has always tried to take the high road in these matters.
 
.
These minions are hurting their own self :)
How so? Bangladesh economy is doing well. Sri lanka is pulling in chinese investment who is considered as enemy of India and frnd of pakistan. Afghanistan is your neighbor.

Listen you cant play cricket or hold a conference , doesnt it look terribly bad when every one (other than china of course) runs away from you. On military field countries having exercise has different meaning but on economic relations seems no one wants to deal with pakistan.
 
.
It seems India does not want small South Asian countries to have a strong linkage
I'm not sure about that, but as history tells us, as countries grow bigger (economy and diplomatic sense), they want smaller nations to have a foreign policy in line with their own. This is what seems to be going on.
I mean if Pakistan was holding cricket/hockey world cup and India could've succeeded in getting nations like Australia, Britain etc to boycott, that would've been a major success (recall 80 Moscow olympics).
Again as i said earlier, SAARC ain't much on Global (or even Asian) diplomatic stage, so it is up to a reader what s/he makes out of this.
 
.
So, apparently even if one member country backs out the meeting cannot be held. Now regardless of the debatable importance of SAARC, how is it beneficial to "anyone" if the meeting itself is called off? It's not like you're having the meeting at a different venue, the meeting isn't taking place at all.

I'm sure regardless of what the public feels about it, SAARC is quiet important to its members and it must be a setback for all of them despite the chest thumping of a few for public consumption.
 
Last edited:
.
India just used 2 separate events and merged it by timing it together and came out on top ...

First -
  • it was clear India did nt want to engage Pakistan in SAARC due to past issues where SAARC as a group has not yielded enough results owing to various reasons.
  • Uri attack and chorus points from BD, Afghanistan and Bhutan basically was used to kill this group and disintegrate it.

Second
  • India is planned to invite leaders of the Bay of Bengal Initiative—a select group of Asian nations—for an outreach session with the leaders of Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa at the eighth Brics summit in October in Goa. This was done in July itself.
  • Brics brings together Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
  • The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (Bimstec) groups seven nations of South and South-East Asia—Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
  • In addition to all these leaders of Afghanistan and Maldives is also invited.

In short all the members were basically shifted from one group to a bigger group and giving them a much bigger space and market.

It's not about winning or isolating. Trade and economic cooperation plays a vital role in today's world. By giving everyone a bigger platform and a better chance of mutually arriving at similar interest considerations, this will only make SAARC redundant and also make India a much more important partner for regional countries. It is important to understand BRICS has China as well implying China who was just an observer gains much more via this route of engagement.

A little timing the steps is now showing multiple effects.. nothing else..
 
.
perception
I think that's the key word.
War is a costly business and if you can prove your position by creating a perception and subsequently support on your position, it probably is the best thing to do!

A word on IWT, war or no war, i think with kind of water problems, both nations are facing (thanks to climate change), i think the treaty would've come under scrutiny in near future.
 
.
Bhutaan ? it's a country ??
anyway few bitches of India backed out no worries... Bangladesh is not our concern... their existance is irrelevant to us... But Afghanistan must pay for it... As for SAARC... it needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs it...

Oh !!! Please do elaborate you have my undivided attention. :)
 
.
Now Afghanistan shouldn't ask Pakistan to play its role to bring peace there. And I'm sure they would beg for this in near future. Afghani hain e lotay.. and Bangladesh??? Haseena announced this to get BD in news. And Bhutan ... wow congratulations India for another friend to rely on.
anyhow they are "independent" countries. let them make their "bf" happy.:rofl:
 
Last edited:
.
Nothing will happen to the IWT , if we try to alter it we will be condemned by the world for not adhering to an international treaty , what ever we do the GOI has always tried to take the high road in these matters.
Wat have we gained by being good? Neither does pakistan have a great image that can help it castigate India in international community. International community will at the best will say serves you well. Any thing other than that will be mere crocodile tears.
 
.
Wat have we gained by being good? Neither does pakistan have a great image that can help it castigate India in international community. International community will at the best will say serves you well. Any thing other than that will be mere crocodile tears.

Unfortunately, you underestimate the diplomatic goodwill.

You will see it come in very good use in future.
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom