What's new

Russia hails Pakistan’s SCO bid

I did not mean to say that democracy cannot go on with communism, but a major point is that democratic countries hold certain common values which lead to joint goals.Also consider that India and China still has some issues to sort out before we can fully deepen this Indo-China relationship.

seems to me USA works with Saudi pretty well, and Bahrain etc. helping them crack down the democratic movement.

it's all about interest, isn't it? now india is a good tool to counter China and Pakistan, isn't that obvious?
 
seems to me USA works with Saudi pretty well, and Bahrain etc. helping them crack down the democratic movement.

it's all about interest, isn't it? now india is a good tool to counter China and Pakistan, isn't that obvious?

Agreed. Hence Pakistan and China are so close to one another. We saw and anticipated their intentions.
 
Russia, Pakistan pledge to combat terrorism

russia-pakistan_2.jpg


Russia and Pakistan on Thursday pledged to boost economic ties and coordinate efforts to fight terror as the Kremlin welcomed the Pakistani president for a key visit after the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Asif Ali Zardari was making the first official visit by a Pakistani leader since the fall of the Soviet Union.

"We are interested in coordinating our efforts on the international arena. It is obvious that our countries are facing absolutely the same threat, I mean international terrorism," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told Zardari at the Kremlin.

"We have to do everything so that we could jointly counter this main evil of the 21st century," Medvedev said in comments released by the Kremlin.

Russia has for years been struggling to root out a Muslim insurgency in the North Caucasus following two wars with separatists in Chechnya after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Kremlin says Caucasus militants receive support from abroad.

Zardari, who kicked off his three-day trip to Russia on Wednesday, expressed hope his historic visit would help deepen ties between the two countries which share a complicated history.

"Our countries are very close neighbours. We are located in the same region. And although we do not share borders our hearts beat in unison," Zardari said.

"The time has come to acknowledge the importance of our countries for each other and the importance of regional cooperation and to also ramp up economic and political joint work," he said.

Zardari's father-in-law, late prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was the country's last leader to make an official visit to Russia when he travelled here in Soviet times, the Pakistani president said.

The two leaders oversaw the signing of several framework agreements on cooperation including in energy and agriculture and adopted a joint declaration highlighting the importance of tighter economic cooperation.

"Projects of regional development can secure prosperity for all the peoples in the region," said the declaration, adding it supported Russian companies willing to pursue economic, infrastructure and banking projects in Pakistan.

Those projects would include plans by gas giant Gazprom to develop gas fields in Pakistan, the declaration said, while Tyazhpromexport, part of state conglomerate Russian Technologies, would help modernise a metals plant in Karachi.

Vedomosti business daily, citing a source close to the management of Russian Technologies, said on Wednesday that the two countries were expected to agree on a $540 million deal for Pakistan to upgrade the Soviet-built Karachi-based Pakistan Steel.

A Kremlin spokesman could not say Thursday whether the loan was discussed during the talks.

The Kremlin also said Zardari supported a plan for Russia to join a project to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India via Afghanistan.

The Russian trip is Zardari's first high-profile visit abroad since Al-Qaeda chief bin Laden, leader, the world's most wanted man, was killed in a raid by US forces on a compound in Abbottabad in Pakistan.

The Kremlin hailed the death of bin Laden as a "serious success... in the war against international terrorism" but Pakistan has expressed fury that US forces carried out the raid without informing Islamabad first.

Moscow suggested Washington had the right to kill bin Laden in Pakistan, saying the UN Security Council recognised the right to self-defence.

Moscow is not usually seen as an ally of Islamabad, not least because of its historically close ties to Pakistan's traditional foe India.

Russian-Pakistani relations, historically somewhat frosty, have recently improved. Little wonder then, that Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari’s visit to Moscow has attracted so much media attention. He met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev twice during a four-party summit also attended by the presidents of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. The intrigue surrounding his current Moscow meeting lies in the crisis in relations between Pakistan and its main patron, the United States.

When al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden’s hideout was located 800 yards away from Pakistan’s Military Academy, Washington accused the country of double dealing. Pakistan’s leaders refuted the accusation, responding that U.S. Special Forces had conducted operations in their country without even notifying them.

Pakistan itself is mired in political crisis and mutual trust, which was already running low, has been dealt a heavy blow.

Moscow’s interest in Pakistan has a certain logic to it, as the situation around Afghanistan, which determines the atmosphere in Central Asia, is becoming increasingly unpredictable. U.S. strategy there is vague, the situation inside Afghanistan is unstable, and the possibility of coordinating efforts with neighboring states remains unclear.

The killing of the world’s most wanted man has only deepened uncertainty in the region. President Barack Obama now has a solid reason for pulling U.S. troops out, as the mission set a decade ago has been accomplished. But even if the pullout decision is taken (not everyone in Washington supports it), the United States will need Pakistan’s assistance to maintain control in Afghanistan, something that now looks increasingly unlikely.

Afghanistan’s position is also shrouded in ambiguity. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly said that Afghans must assume responsibility. After the operation in Abbottabad, 75 miles from Pakistan's capital Islamabad, he said it is no longer Afghanistan that is at the epicenter of the threat.

But these are politically motivated statements. From a security standpoint, no one is confident that the Afghan authorities are capable of maintaining law and order without NATO and U.S. assistance. Afghans don’t want to see a repetition of what happened in 1992-1996, when the Soviet departure and the removal of the pro-Moscow Najibullah government left the country at the mercy of the Taliban. It became the scene of a bloody war in which everyone, including Pakistan, had some involvement.

To Afghans, this is a worse option than continued occupation. This is why the idea of maintaining a reduced U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, as Washington is considering, has engendered both disappointment and a sense of relief in the country.

Neighboring countries don’t want U.S. bases permanently deployed in Afghanistan. Russia, China, India and Iran have all supported a vague “regional” solution, advocating a reliance on Kabul rather than on Western troops.

Zardari’s Moscow trip, made immediately after the strategic China-Pakistan consultations in late April and Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi’s visit to Moscow last week, is expected to boost the discussions.

One of Moscow’s ideas for a regional solution involves an enhanced role for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the most representative organization in the region. During the upcoming SCO summit in Astana in June 2011, SCO states are expected to lift the unofficial moratorium on the admission of new members that was imposed in 2006. India and Pakistan are the most likely candidates. The group has refused to consider Iran’s admission request because the country is shackled by international sanctions.

The possible admission of India and Pakistan is a delicate issue because of their tense bilateral relations. Russia would like to see India become a full member, while China prefers Pakistan. However, Moscow will only agree to that if India is also admitted.

The Afghan question is perceived as something that has the potential to unite the SCO member states. The interests of India and Pakistan in the region are unlikely to coincide, but a multilateral format could ease their bilateral tensions by introducing external factors. Besides, if relations between Pakistan and the United States continue to deteriorate, Islamabad could be forced to be more active in diversifying its contacts.

The interests of the army, religious and ethnic groups, and political leaders are all different pieces in one puzzle. They can fit together only if all sides join forces to create a sense of balance in Pakistan. But ever more people in Washington are urging that more pressure be put on Islamabad to force it to up the ante in its fight against the radicals.

The United States has good reason to mistrust its Asian partner. At the same time, their policy toward Pakistan since fall 2001, when former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said the United States would bomb Pakistan “back to the stone ages” unless it joined the fight against al Qaeda, has only served to undermine traditional ties and deepen instability in Pakistan.

The Pakistani leadership’s efforts to reduce external pressure by diversifying its international contacts have provoked ire in Washington. At the same time, the United States has not offered it any other option and so Pakistan needs a fundamentally new paradigm to help it escape from this vicious circle.


Russia, Pakistan pledge to combat terrorism | European Dialogue
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The SCO alternative

Zafar Hilaly

Friday, May 20, 2011

The late Richard Holbrooke felt that Obama’s over reliance on the military in Afghanistan had about it the “whiff of Vietnam.” If so, he was spot-on. The war is on the cusp of becoming a larger regional conflict. Following the drone attacks earlier this week and that on a Pakistani border post, it’s only a question of time before either a drone is brought down or retaliatory fire from a Pakistani outpost on the Pakistani-Afghan border causes American deaths. Thereafter, Pakistan’s ties with America, already hanging by a single thread, will go into free fall. Perhaps, they already are in a free fall; and all that remains is to see whether, when they hit the ground, they will survive the fall or signal the expansion of the war to Pakistan.

Surprisingly, despite Pakistan’s bitter experiences with the American connection, it never occurred to our military or civilian leaders that for a Muslim democracy, as distinct from family-run and -owned fiefdoms and kingdoms of the Gulf, an alliance with a post-9/11 America would be a deadweight. And that, sooner or later, it would drag them down in the eyes of their own people. Or that an alternative alliance or compact was needed in place of the one forged and stubbornly retained with Washington, although America had shown in 1990 that it far preferred to wash its hands of Pakistan. Alas, an inert and sidelined foreign service, a military unable to rethink and plan ahead, immersed in acquisition of plots and pelf, and politicians who were, and still are, mostly functional illiterates, they all sat on their hands and did nothing.

Fortuitously, an alternative arrangement which might be the best way out of the US straitjacket is in the offing, namely, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Becoming a part of the SCO makes much better sense. It is part of the region in which we are physically embedded as it straddles South and Central Asia. Both Pakistan and India may soon be admitted as full members, along with Afghanistan, which should make it a lot easier to tackle the problems of the region on a truly regional basis. Since the SCO has Russia and China as key sponsors, it will not be dominated either by one or the other but will be more collective. In due course, Iran is likely to be admitted as a full member too.

Potentially, the SCO is the best recipe for ensuring that the region does not become a playground for US rivalries with Russia and China; or for Bush-era ambitions focused on Central Asia (both oil and gas and putting western China and Russia in a squeeze). It would be a big plus for Russia and China if the SCO grows into something more significant. Indeed, it is only by combining their strength that they can hope to keep the US firmly in check; help to mitigate China-India rivalry at least in our region, though not perhaps in East Asia; reduce India’s dependence on the US in our region; and make it a lot easier for us to establish ourselves as a regional economic hub for western China and Central Asia in terms of the access we can provide to the sprawling Indian Ocean region. Besides, it would bring in Russian investment in gas and pipeline development in which that country has considerable experience and interest and some spare cash.

Actually, the participation of China and the reinforcement provided by Russia give the SCO an actual and potential clout that exceeds anything that the US has to offer. And if India, Iran and Pakistan join it, then consider the SCO’s potential size and value as an economic market. The SCO could see us through our congenital energy deficiency at least as long as hydrocarbons remain the mainstay of the global economy. So the economic dimension is hugely important in itself.

No less importantly, the SCO would reduce US options to play an aggressive or overambitious role in the region, thereby making it easier to re-establish our ties with them as friends rather than as incompatible lovers or irreconcilable allies. Our dependence on the US would decline dramatically, except that we would have to find resources to tide over our current deficits for which we will have to dig deeper into our own pockets and do things that we should have done earlier, such as widen our tax bases, tighten our belts over the short term.

It is good that Zardari visited Moscow and ties with Russia have indeed been growing under his watch. It is even better that Gilani is now in China, hopefully to let them know that we wish to refashion ties with the US and look to friends like China to step up to the plate as we get ready to jettison the American alliance. The Chinese are likely to be receptive, as they recall how much and for how long they had to endure American hostility till Nixon did his volte face in 1971. In fact they will remember that we helped to make that happen for them. Besides, both Russia and China have a deep and abiding concern about extremism and terrorism. Indeed, while the SCO did not start off as a bulwark against extremism and terrorism—it was meant to deal with issues of border security on a cooperative basis—these issues have become increasingly of major concern in response to regional and international developments.

The SCO framework might also be a better one for tackling India-Pakistan issues as well, though we must not expect much on Kashmir. That would have to be kept bilateral. But the regional context for tackling our concerns about India vis-a-vis Afghanistan and with Afghanistan via-a-vis the Taliban would be a lot better than it is currently. No one has the wherewithal or the desire to settle the issue by war, except the American generals. Finally the SCO would also be a good antidote to the virulent anti-US sentiment in Pakistan.

But it would require us to shift to Russia and China our sources of primary military equipment from the US high-tech stuff (which in any case would not be forthcoming as long as our growing differences with them remain irreconcilable). In time, if the situation around our country improves, Europe too could become an option. Concerns about high-tech military equipment would diminish dramatically, of course, if we can achieve a breakthrough in Afghanistan, which would reduce our India-related concerns on the western border and may also lead to a reduction of thereat perceptions on our eastern border.

In any case, our options, thanks to our disastrous ties with the US, are limited and we have to optimise from available options. Among them, the SCO stands out.



The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com



Source: The SCO alternative
 
:pakistan:
Some of you are so predictable, so 90's, so un-imaginative!
Let me tell you: For about half of Pakistan's history the military has DIRECTLY ruled Pakistan. And for much else, the military is the ultimate power. EVEN NOW the President of Pakistan Zardari cannot go deep into the Pakistani 'sensitive' installations. Same was with Benazir Bhutto. And yet you blame a lame-duck Zardari? Who was the president--the all-powerful one, answerable to no one--from 2001-2008? Why did he leave Pakistan if he was so good?
You guys take us for fools. Any good thing done by the civilians is done because the 'military' is forcing them to so. Right!

As for the 'defeatist' attitude, I don't think so. I certainly wish Pakistan could be somewhere in the middle of the Pacific instead of where it is. All we forum members--not just from Pakistan--are out here to prove macho, wise, strategic, blah, blah but in reality there is just too much worries in life when being 'strategically' located.

Now, Pakistan can try to be a Switzerland: Being surrounded by the crap but manage to use rationality and a peacetime 'reserve' forces to tackle aggressors. Only if that could be possible....

This is my first mail as I am a new member and I really find it strange that we Pakistani's whether they are in Pakistan/ overseas, majority of them still believe that our armed forces & agencies are sincere and devoted to safeguard the interests of Pakistan & its nationals. Which is only a false dream. Bhai in brief note some queries which I will try to raise to have your insight (You may consider/ reject its your decision);
1. Have ever our armed forces won any wars with India, if so my dear, the size & shape of our country would not have shrunk since independence?
2. For decades we have been spending billions of dollars over these pathetic loosers, cowards & opportunists but what is the return we as a nation getting?
3. Have ever any penal action taken against the persons responsible for their cowardness, misadventures, misdeeds, corruptions, negligiences etc ?
4. Do we really need this size & form of armed forces & intelligence agencies which have only destroyed Pakistan & its nationals for personal interests of only few?

Awaits for any constructive response.

Thanks
 
A great development, this could possibly lead to a Russian-Chinese-Central Asian-Pakistan Bloc.
1. All countries have contiguous borders
2. Russia will not favor India all the time, with the new prospects of trade and geo-strategic relations with Pakistan

However if India also manages to get into SCO which I heard was also a possible candidate, it may obviously cause cooperation problems due to Kashmir which is a territorial dispute recognized by the UN.

It is in CAR's best interest to have Pakistan in SCO, because if the CAR's get too cozy with Bharat, Pakistan could easily cut trade routes from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.

Another thing,
Iran is not an option because it has a bad international PR, and it is also under sanctions. CAR's would obviously not want to cooperate with a nation which has bad foreign relations.

If people want SCO to be taken seriously, then obviously between Pakistan and India, Pakistan should be selected. India has nothing to offer to CAR's.
 
If people want SCO to be taken seriously, then obviously between Pakistan and India, Pakistan should be selected. India has nothing to offer to CAR's.

I agree with you 100%. :tup:

Pakistan is the member we need the most, for the SCO's geostrategic requirements. I.e. A land-link to Central Asia and China, and a warm-water port on the Arabian sea (Gwadar port). This will allow the SCO to have a direct land-link to the Gulf region.
 
Fortunately those who take decisions may turn out be sane people. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom