Forget SAARC, if Pakistan doesn't cooperate, India will come up with 'BBIN'

[Sugarcane]

Go get your suicide vest on and do us all a favor and pull that chord..

You better close PDF and jump out of window, nobody invited you here.

 

[Ronin]

What about Sri Lanka
Do we build that shipping channel in the palk straits

 

[HRK]

Right, Ask Modi sarkar to use cultural centers in Afghanistan for some productive purpose

sorry Sir not possible ....

 

[Finer]

Despite of poor economy with instability in Pakistan, yet Pakistan is lucky to be geographically mapped that connects Middle East, Central Asia and the rest of Asia including China and Russia.

Afghanistan is important asset for Pakistan along with Balochistan. As long as Pakistan holds on to them, the future of Pakistan will be bright as nothing lasts forever, similarity bad times in Pakistan won't last forever.

Pakistan army did the right thing by executing Zarb-e-Azb and maintaining aggressive stances on Afghanistan, and the result is here for the whole world to witness as the heat is getting to certain PM of certain nation.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Another bound failure is about to happen. Basically after ASEAN indians are trying to get something in their east. But then again the East doesnt hold any good.

 

[Kambojaric]

This region is screwed to eternity. Can we join ASEAN please?

That would be wise tbh. India's size makes any South Asian organization where it doesnt act as a hegemon impossible (even if it doesnt intend to its huge size as compared to say Bhutan makes the possibility of these two countries acting as equals not possible). In contrast ASEAN is made up of countries of generally speaking similar sizes (economically and militarily speaking). As such it is a far more stable and successful organization. SAARC ultimately will fail because only Pakistan is barely able to stand up to India and look how it already is out of the picture. Countries like Bhutan or Nepal however have no choice but to use Indian ports for their exports and are thus hugely reliant on the goodwill of India. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh however have the opportunity to join ASEAN and I believe should strongly be looking in that direction.

 

[Viper0011.]

In a way, it is a subtle message to Pakistan that its age-old policy of stonewalling connectivity efforts within SAARC will no longer be allowed to succeed.
whims and fancies. The bottom line is this: forget SAARC; if Pakistan doesn’t cooperate India will come up with BBIN.
Forget SAARC, if Pakistan doesn't cooperate, India will come up with 'BBIN' - Firstpost

Well......whoever wrote this, obviously don't understand strategic importance, influence and realities. Pakistan has become a much bigger reality than it's ever been. The trade route with the Chinese, eventually going to Central Russia, better ties with Russia and obviously, growing trade ties with the European union and the US......all are pointing to a growing Pakistan in the next 3 years or so. Add Gold, Copper, Iron and some Oil recently found and you can see the map of the poor Pakistan change.

With these changes happening, and Pakistan all of a sudden providing trade, goods services to over 400 million Chinese consumers (and capturing pass through taxes, tolls and revenues), Pakistan really doesn't need India's trade in the next 5 years, if you look at it carefully.

She can actually block access to Afghanistan for Indian goods and services and the Chinese will support it. Bangladesh and Nepal are already not that significant in terms of trade for Pakistan. Sri Lanka buy military stuff so its also not significant. So Pakistan really has nothing to lose. However, just like Israel and the US, would Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh want to piss of Pakistan, knowing Pakistan's super close to the Chinese (not to mention that these countries have historically kept good relations with Pakistan despite India's concerns)? The answer is no or a HELL NO!

On the other hand, if the SAARC breaks, Indian goods such as vegetables, flours, etc, etc will have to be flown in to Afghanistan as there will not be any access from Pakistan by road. Does anyone want to pay 200 rupees for One Cucumber in Afghanistan because it was "air shipped" or two Indian Oranges for 1000 Pakistani rupees????
When Pakistan or Iran can sell them these for few Pakistani rupees due to road delivery...This is crazy trade and a loss of many millions of dollars.

Pakistan is located at such a strategic location that this country could've been in top 15 economies decades ago, if the military hadn't kept running the system and never developed economics based infrastructure. Pakistan can provide the easiest and cheapest access to about 5 countries outside of China. And that's huge in terms of gathering toll taxes, pass through taxes and gain billions in revenue. So I don't see anyone with commonsense in India, trying to alienate Pakistan. Unless its done with sheer stupidity, vs. economic rational.

 

[MilSpec]

Well......whoever wrote this, obviously don't understand strategic importance, influence and realities.

She can actually block access to Afghanistan for Indian goods and services and the Chinese will support it. .

Apart from the usual nonsensical Blah blah and moaning.......
What is pakistan waiting for... go ahead and block access to afghanistan ... Pakistan will be hit by sanctions faster than it can enunciate AK47 for violation of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which gives a landlocked country a right of access to and from the sea without taxation of traffic through transit states.....

And for the ones who "obviously don't understand strategic importance, influence and realities".
some simplified disambiguation


The Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States is a multilateral treaty that addresses international rules allowing forland-locked countries to transport goods to and from seaports. The convention imposes obligations on both land-locked states and on coastal states that ratify the treaty.

The convention was concluded at the United Nations Conference on Transit Trade of Land-locked Countries, which had been established by the United Nations General Assembly. It was concluded and signed on 8 July 1965. The treaty came into force on 9 June 1967.

Coastal states that ratify the convention (known as "transit states") agree to make arrangements with land-locked states that are party to the treaty that wish to transit goods across the territory of the transit state to or from a coastal port in the transit state. The transit states agree that they will not discriminate based on place of origin or destination of the goods being transported. The land-locked states agree to be responsible for any expenses that the transit states incur in supervising or protecting the transit of the land-locked state's goods.

The convention has been noted as the first international agreement to recognize the special disadvantaged position of land-locked states.

As of June 2014, the treaty has been ratified by 43 states, made up of an approximately even split of land-locked and coastal states. The convention has essentially been superseded by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which contains similar provisions for transit arrangements to be made between coastal and land-locked states.



The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea now gives a landlocked country a right of access to and from the sea without taxation of traffic through transit states. The United Nations has a programme of action to assist landlocked developing countries

Landlocked states are given a right of access to and from the sea, without taxation of traffic through transit states by UN to which pakistan is a signatory.... So maybe elect a leader who will remove pakistani participation from UNCLOS... and then you can dominate afghanistan's trade the way you want to.

 

[Azizam]

That would be wise tbh. India's size makes any South Asian organization where it doesnt act as a hegemon impossible (even if it doesnt intend to its huge size as compared to say Bhutan makes the possibility of these two countries acting as equals not possible). In contrast ASEAN is made up of countries of generally speaking similar sizes (economically and militarily speaking). As such it is a far more stable and successful organization. SAARC ultimately will fail because only Pakistan is barely able to stand up to India and look how it already is out of the picture. Countries like Bhutan or Nepal however have no choice but to use Indian ports for their exports and are thus hugely reliant on the goodwill of India. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh however have the opportunity to join ASEAN and I believe should strongly be looking in that direction.

To be honest I wouldn't mind India being the leader of South Asia as long as it be a responsible leader but the current leadership of India is turning it into a cheap comedy show. The difference between ASEAN and South Asia is that ASEAN know their priorities which is improving their economy but in the case of South Asia, all parties are heavily divided and push which gives the impression of a group of pigs fighting in a mud hole. Sadly, this is the reality. Also bro we can't afford to single out India under any circumstance. We should be pragmatic enough to understand that India is the face of South Asia. A good India means a good South Asia.

I think Sri Lanka can be considered as an Asia-pacific country but what are the limitations that prevent from Sri Lanka joining the ASEAN?

 

[Viper0011.]

Apart from the usual nonsensical Blah blah and moaning.......
What is pakistan waiting for... go ahead and block access to afghanistan ... Pakistan will be hit by sanctions faster than it can enunciate AK47 for violation of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which gives a landlocked country a right of access to and from the sea without taxation of traffic through transit states.....

And for the ones who "obviously don't understand strategic importance, influence and realities".
some simplified disambiguation


The Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked States

The convention was concluded at the United Nations Conference on Transit Trade of Land-locked Countries, which had been established by the United Nations General Assembly. It was concluded and signed on 8 July 1965. The treaty came into force on 9 June 1967.

As of June 2014, the treaty has been ratified by 43 states, made up of an approximately even split of land-locked and coastal states. The convention has essentially been superseded by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which contains similar provisions for transit arrangements to be made between coastal and land-locked states.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea .

LOL, an Indian citizen giving out references from the United Nation's resolution. You forgot....a couple of these resolutions were passed for India to leave Kashmir and hold general elections in Kashmir so people can live freely ....in the 60's. In fact, a lot of content for the Iraqi occupation resolution in the UN was taken from the resolution passed against India on human right violation and abuse in Kashmir.

So if India can totally ignore, by pass and violate UN's resolution on human rights and can kill hundreds of thousands in Kashmir SINCE these resolutions were passed, you think Pakistan can't block Afghanistan? And what "sanctions"?? Reality: China will veto anything without even taking a second breathe.Plus, if you can blatantly violate the UN resolutions, Pakistan can too, specially backed up by a veto power!!

There is a valid reason why the Chinese refer to Pakistan as their "Israel" if you know what I mean. After our alliance with Israel, Pakistan and Chinese alliance is probably another similar example. So back to the topic, no sanctions will be applied. In this time, the Indian influence is very marginal on this SAARC deal. Indian influence is actually minimizing across the globe, another example, Russia opening up its weapons industry to Pakistan. Another example yet?? The French starting (or restarting) to work with Pakistan on JF-17 avionics and weapons. They've realized where Pakistan is headed and it may not be the size of India, but it will in the next 3-5 years, be able to give 5-10 billion dollars cash to anyone for weapons purchases every year. And trust me, cash has power and the world knows it.

 

[MilSpec]

LOL, an Indian citizen giving out references from the United Nation's resolution. You forgot....a couple of these resolutions were passed for India to leave Kashmir and hold general elections in Kashmir so people can live freely ....in the 60's. In fact, a lot of content for the Iraqi occupation resolution in the UN was taken from the resolution passed against India on human right violation and abuse in Kashmir.

Thats just plainly funny.... you are the one who was claiming pakistan is free to block trade with afghanistan, now when confronted with UNCLOS, same bitching and moaning starts again...

As far as UN resolution on kashmir is concerned, it i better than you refrain from making a fool of your self.

Here you go... a thread created just to treat exactly such dumbassery....
Kashmir, Plebiscite and UN security council Resolution

So if India can totally ignore, by pass and violate UN's resolution on human rights and can kill hundreds of thousands in Kashmir SINCE these resolutions were passed, you think Pakistan can't block Afghanistan? And what "sanctions"?? Reality: China will veto anything without even taking a second breathe.Plus, if you can blatantly violate the UN resolutions, Pakistan can too, specially backed up by a veto power!!

Learn about UN security resolutions, before making a fool out of yourself with such ridiculous comments.... read pre-requisites for Plebiscite...