Nuclear Weapons threat

STOCKHOLM: More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed around the world and nuclear powers continue investing in new weapon systems, making meaningful disarmament in the near future unlikely, a report published Tuesday said.

“More than 5,000 nuclear weapons are deployed and ready for use, including nearly 2,000 that are kept in a high state of alert,” according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
SIPRI’s report said the world’s eight nuclear powers – Britain, China, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russia and the US – possess more than 20,500 warheads.
As of January 2011, Russia had 11,000 nuclear warheads, including 2,427 deployed, while the United States had 8,500 including 2,150 deployed, the report said.
The US and Russia have signed a Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) that calls for a maximum of 1,550 warheads deployed per country.
However SIPRI argued that prospects for meaningful disarmament in the short term are grim as all eight countries seem committed to either improving or maintaining their nuclear programmes.
“The five legally recognised nuclear weapons states, as defined by the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty are either deploying new nuclear weapon systems or have announced their intention to do so,” the report said, referring to Britain, China, France, Russia and the US.
India and Pakistan are “expanding their capacity to produce fissile material for military purposes,” according to the report.
SIPRI Director Daniel Nord said south Asia, where relations between India and Pakistan seem perpetually tense, is “the only place in the world where you have a nuclear weapons arms race.” While Israel, which has never conclusively declared itself a nuclear weapons state but is almost universally assumed to be one, “appears to be waiting to assess how the situation with Iran’s nuclear programme develops,” SIPRI said.
Nord argued that because “nuclear weapons states are modernising and are investing in their nuclear weapons establishments (it) seems unlikely that there will be any real nuclear weapon disarmament within the foreseeable future.” The report said that North Korea “is believed to have produced enough plutonium to build a small number of nuclear warheads, but there is no public information to verify that it has operational nuclear weapons.” Nord identified Pakistan “losing control of part of its nuclear arsenal” to a terrorist group as a specific concern.
He also voiced worry over the potential consequences if “Israel or the United States decide that they will have to intervene and do something about the programme in Iran.” Iran has repeatedly insisted that its nuclear programme is non-military, but several world powers have demanded closer international inspection of Iran’s nuclear sites to verify the claim.
SIPRI is an independent institution that receives 50 per cent of its funding from the Swedish state.

Big Deceit

 Pakistan: Every one seems to be happy from the fourth annual budget presented by Dr. Abdul Hafiz. No doubt, this budget includes many friendly policies which attracts Awam. There are lot of subsidies and special attention is given to public sector and tax revenue which is applaud-able.
But behind the screen there is truth which a common man can not understand. Presenting friendly budget is good on one hand but if one see the other side of the picture he would realize that this would bring even worst fiscal problems in near future. The question is How??? let me tell you one thing. Now that every one here knows that in coming elections PPP will fail definitely. People over here are tired of this government. Tired of false promises. So next turn would be of another party. Now by presenting this budget which is enough friendly, this government will try to prove that it is and was the best choice of people. After one year when our national treasures would be left to zero...and next government will not be able to cope with the conditions. In order to stable the economy and government they would definitely hike the prices. Which would seriously effect on their vote bank. And PPP propagandists making best of that moment try all means to prove that they were better than the present government. As in Pakistan people only see that is happening!!!
Its time for us to awake. When will we b united??? Conditions are getting worst and worst with each passing day. Rise compatriots Rise.,,,

 Salman 

Indian army hurdle in way of Siachen solution

KARACHI: The Indian army, and not just the civilian government, has played a role in the ongoing deadlock with Pakistan over the Siachen dispute, according to American and Indian assessments contained in confidential US diplomatic cables.

“On Siachen, Joint Secretary (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran) T. C. A. Raghavan” — who has also served as the Indian Deputy High Commissioner in Pakistan — “reported that the Indian army has drawn a line with its political leadership. It has told the government of India that withdrawal was tantamount to ceding the area to Pakistan due to the difficulty of retaking it should Pakistan occupy it,” wrote the New Delhi embassy in September 2008.

While talks held on Siachen this week between the two countries’ defence secretaries may have been inconclusive for a variety of reasons, cables reveal that the Indian army has historically had a role to play, calling into question commonly held perceptions that India’s foreign policy lies firmly in the hands of its civilian government.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is described as having to fight intense domestic pressure, and not just from political hardliners. “Were any deal to crystallise, PM Singh would need buy-in from the army and the BJP to avoid handing himself a political firestorm,” noted a 2006 cable in anticipation of talks on Siachen scheduled for May that year.

In a section titled “First Obstacle: Managing the Military”, the cable described how “Army Chief J. J. Singh appears on the front page of the Indian Express seemingly fortnightly to tell readers the army cannot support a withdrawal from Siachen”.

Although the report acknowledged that “Given India’s high degree of civilian control over the armed forces, it is improbable that Gen Singh could repeatedly make such statements without Ministry of Defence civilians giving at least tacit approval”, it concluded that “Whether or not this is the case, a Siachen deal is improbable while his — and the army’s — opposition continues to circulate publicly. …

“The army says the Siachen presence costs 3,000 crore rupees per year ($670m), which is a small sum when compared to the entire Indian defence budget.”

The cable also noted that Gen Singh’s position on the issue “is reflected in the Foreign Ministry as well”: India would not make a deal on demilitarization without Pakistan signing a map laying out Indian and Pakistani troop positions before withdrawal. The primary purpose of this would be to justify action if Pakistan reneged on the withdrawal agreement.

Any deal, the cable implied, could only come after a go-ahead from the army: “The most telling signpost indicating the GOI is preparing the country for [a deal] would be Gen Singh publicly adopting a neutral (or supportive) position on a Siachen deal to signal in advance that the army is on board, and that the GOI no longer needs to point to army concerns to explain why a deal is not possible.”

This pressure is seen as holding back Prime Minister Singh, who is described as being in favour of a deal — former National Security Adviser M. K. Narayan tells American officials in May 2005 that “the PM had instructed all his subordinates that ‘we need to accept Musharraf’s bona fides, even on Siachen’ … With this guidance in mind, the Ministry of Defence has been instructed ‘to take as flexible a position as possible’”.

A comment written in November 2006 sums up the American view of the matter. “India has repeatedly come ‘very close’ to an agreement on the Siachen issue in 1989, and again (less so) in 1993.

“Each time the prime minister of the day was forced to back out by India’s defence establishment, the Congress Party hardline, and opposition leaders. The Indian army is resistant to giving up this territory under any condition for a variety of reasons — strategic advantage over China, internal army corruption, distrust of Pakistan, and a desire to keep hold of advantageous territory that thousands of Indian soldiers have died protecting.”

Noting that then Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri had recently claimed he expected an agreement on Siachen, the New Delhi embassy added that his statements “go against longstanding conventional wisdom in India that an agreement on Siachen is unlikely anytime soon because the Indian army and the hardline in the Congress Party would not be able to trust Pakistan enough to withdraw, regardless of how much Pakistan is willing to concede”.

America’s own opinion of Siachen is that “this remote region lacks military strategic relevance”. Despite this, cables over the years dating as far back as 2004 describe the issue as an “intractable” one unlikely to be resolved.

According to at least one Pakistani government official, Prime Minister Singh had admitted to this pressure in talks with Gen Musharraf.

In an October 2006 meeting at the Islamabad embassy, then MFA Director General (India) Jalil Jilani “said that he had absolutely no hope of a Siachen solution in the near term, even though Islamabad and New Delhi have already sketched the outlines of a deal.

“Jilani pointed to strong opposition to a Siachen resolution amongst the Indian military and defense establishment as the barrier to a resolution, a hurdle that PM Manmohan Singh had raised in his Havana meeting with President Musharraf in mid-September. Singh had told Musharraf that his military advisers are apprehensive that Pakistan would re-occupy the heights — including Indian posts — were the sides to withdraw from their current lines.”

Major Phases of Pakistan's Foreign Policy

Major Phases:

1. 1947-53: Exploration and Friendship with All

Foundations of Foreign Policy

      Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan and its first Governor-General, gave two special talks on radio to introduce Pakistan to the people of the United States and Australia. He expressed a strong desire to develop friendly ties with other states on the eve of his meeting with the special representative of the king of Afghanistan in December 1947. Similar views were expressed when the first ambassadors of Burma (Jan 1948), France (Jan 1948), the United States (Feb 1948), Turkey (March 1948), and Afghanistan (May 1948) presented their credentials. Outlining the goals of foreign policy, Jinnah Declared:

                "Our foreign policy is one of friendliness and goodwill towards the nations of the world. We do not cherish aggressive designs against any country or nation. We believe in the principle of honesty and fair play in national and international dealings and are prepared to make our utmost contribution to the promotion of peace and prosperity among the nations of the world. Pakistan will never be found lacking in extending its material and moral support to the oppressed and suppressed peoples of the world, and in upholding the principles of the United Nations Charter."

Pakistan jouined the United Nations of Sept 30 1947, as a new member and stayed in the commonwealth. Its leadership established contacts with other states, emphasising friendship with all, promotion of peace and harmony, support for liberation of the colonised people, and a strict observance of the principles of international conduct as enshrined in the UN Charter. 

Bismarck Foreign Policy

Introduction: 
 Bismarck was among those persons who were responsible for changing the world political and social scenario.
He was the person who saw the dream of German unification and then stood successful. In view of his activities between 1871 and 1890 it is not surprising that this period of diplomacy is frequently named after Bismarck. Through wars as an aspect calculated diplomacy he had built Germany; how he restored to diplomacy to avoid international wars, which would disturb the consolidation of the new state. He announced;
       "We have no further demands to make.......have annexed enough population."
Objectives of Bismarck's Foreign policy:
Fundamentally Bismarck sought to maintain peace and equilibrium in Europe. To do this involved

• Isolation of France; Since the desire for revenge made France the most likely that she had to be isolated from potential allies.
• To maintain good relations with both Austria and Russia.
• Peace in Europe, where Germany was supreme and where all the main string of diplomacy were in his own hands.

Miscalculations of Bismarck:

 Curiously enough, Bismarck began with a serious miscalculations such as,

• France would take many years to recover.
• He also guessed that in the meantime, Germany will improve the armament.
• He could keep France isolated.

But France showed the results;

• France paid a huge amount to army of occupation and it had to leave france.
• France made quick recovery.
• France increased her army 
• France became a Republic.

Korean War

Korean War:
            According to the decisions reached at Crimea and Potsdam conferences, the United states after WW2 occupied the southern half of Korea up to the 38th parallel, while the Soviet Union took over the northern half. Each occupying power installed a group of Korean advisers, strongly conservative in the American and pro-communist in the Soviet-zone.
Dec. 27, 1945 the Moscow conference between Great Britain, the United states and the Soviet Union called for a Provisional Korean Democratic Govt. under a five year trusteeship of the three powers and of China. Subsequent attempts of a Joint Soviet-American Commission to put this agreement into force failed because of basic differences between the two parties over the definition of democracy. Korea thus remained divided into an agricultural south and industrial north, with disastrous consequences to her economy. Sept, 1947 following another futile attempts to settle the future of Korea by negotiations with the Soviet Union the United states referred the Korean problem to the United Nations. The UN General assembly recognized Korea's claim to independence and laid plans for the establishment of a govt. and the withdrawal of occupation forces. A UN commission arrived in Seoul to supervise elections. Its admission was refused to the Soviet Zone.
Aug 15, 1948 the Republic of Korea was proclaimed with SYNGMAN RHEE as a president. US military govt was officially terminated and the new govt. entered into an agreement with US for the training of Korean forces. Sept 9, 1948 a Korean people democratic republic claiming authority over the entire country, was inaugurated in Northern Korea, under the presidency of veteran communist KIM IL SUNG. Its institutions were modeled after those of the Soviet Union. Dec 25, 1948 the S.U announced the complete withdrawal of its forces from N.Korea. June 29, 1949 the United states completed the withdrawal of occupation forces from S.Korea. Sept 2, 1949 the UN commission reporting on its failure to mediate between North and South Korea, warned of possible war.
North Korea proposed negotiations for all Korean assembly refused to deal with the govt of SYNGMAN Rhee.

Cold War

Cold War:
          Definition:
                     The phrase Cold war is remarkable for its lack of accurate definition. It could be define as,

• "A state of intensive competition, political, economical and ideological which fell short of an armed conflict between the states." OR
• "A state of tension in which a country or a group of countries tries to influence the behavior and policies of the other- a line falling short of hot war."

The term Cold war was first came into use during the period that included the absorption of East European nations into communist orbit. The blockade of Berlin and elsewhere as well as the Korean war.
Background:
As WW2 drew to a close in 1945, it became increasingly apparent that one era of international politics was coming to an end and a new one was commencing. Unparalleled in scope and unprecedented in destructiveness. The second great war of 20th century brought into being a transformed system dominated by two super states, the US and the S.U, whose combined power and resources far surpassed those of the rest of the world. Although they fought as allies in the war against their common enemy Nazi Germany but after war they drifted away from each other. Out of these circumstances grew the conflict between East and West, that is the Cold war.
Now two blocks emerged, one was leading by S.U and having communist ideology and second was leading by US having capitalist ideology.