Pak seeks bigger SAARC to counter India's influence

October 12, 2016

Islamabad, Oct 12: Pakistan is exploring the possibility of creating a greater South Asian economic alliance to include China, Iran and neighbouring Central Asian republics as part of its bid counter India's influence in SAARC, a media report said today.pak

Dawn News, citing diplomatic observers, said Pakistan is exploring the possibility of creating a greater South Asian economic alliance to counter India's "controlling hold" on the eight-member South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

A parliamentary delegation from Pakistan, which is now in New York, pitched this idea during its five-day visit to Washington last week, the report said.

"A greater South Asia is already emerging," Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed was quoted as saying in one of his interactions with the media.

"This greater South Asia includes China, Iran and the neighbouring Central Asian republics," he said.

He described the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor as the key economic route linking South Asia with Central Asia.

The Gwadar port, Syed said, would be the nearest warm water port, not only for China but also for the land-locked Central Asian states. "We want India to join this arrangement as well," said Syed.

Indians are "unlikely to accept" the offer as they are comfortable with the advantage that SAARC provides them, the report said.

"India used its influence in SAARC to isolate Pakistan when it announced that it would not attend the regional group's 19th summit, scheduled in Islamabad," the report said.

Citing continuous cross border terrorism by Pakistan, India had announced last month that "in the prevailing circumstances, the Indian government is unable to participate in the proposed Summit in Islamabad."

Besides India, four other SAARC members -- Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan -- had also pulled out of the summit.

"Among the eight SAARC nations, Afghanistan and Bangladesh are India's strong allies while Bhutan, surrounded by India from all sides, is too small to resist any move from New Delhi. The Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka have good ties with Pakistan, but they are not large enough to take on India," the report said.

The report cited that a senior diplomat had confirmed reports that Pakistan is actively seeking a new regional arrangement.

"Apparently, the showdown forced Pakistan to conclude that in its present shape, SAARC will always be dominated by India. That's why they are now talking about a greater South Asia," the diplomat was quoted as saying.

"Pakistan hopes that this new arrangement will give it more room to manoeuvre when India tries to force a decision on it," another diplomat said.

The report quoted diplomatic observers in Washington as saying that the proposed arrangement also suits China as it is also worried about India's rapidly growing influence in the region.

"They argue that China can play an important role in persuading Central Asian republics and Iran to join the new arrangement. But the observers warn that SAARC members will have little interest in supporting the idea," the report said.

"There is not much benefit for Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka in joining a land route far from their borders and Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have their own ports," it said.

The report stated thatt he member that is likely to get the most benefits from a greater South Asian alliance is Afghanistan, which is technically a land-locked Central Asian nation.

Any trade route that links South and Central Asian regions is good for Afghanistan, it noted.

"But observers believe that Afghanistan is too closely linked to India to join any arrangement that hurts India's interests. Afghanistan's presence in SAARC, however, justifies Pakistan's argument that Central Asian nations can be included in a greater South Asia.

Afghanistan applied for SAARC membership in 2006 and joined a year later, generating an interesting debate on the definition of South Asian identity because Afghanistan is a Central Asian country, the report said.

"But, as a South Asian diplomat pointed out, even if a greater South Asia became reality, there's no guarantee that its members would support Pakistan in its disputes with India," it said.

"Many Central Asian states have strong ties with India and Iran too has problems with Pakistan," the diplomat was quoted as saying.

Comments

Rikaz
 - 
Wednesday, 12 Oct 2016

India should not have cancelled this conference....

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 8,2020

Washington, Jul 7: President Donald Trump on Tuesday formally started the withdrawal of the United States from the World Health Organization, making good on threats to deprive the UN body of its top funding source over its response to the coronavirus.

Public health advocates and Trump's political opponents voiced outrage at the departure from the Geneva-based body, which leads the global fight on maladies from polio to measles to mental health -- as well as Covid-19, at a time when cases have again been rising around the world.

After threatening to suspend the $400 million (Dh1.47 billion) in annual US contributions and then announcing a withdrawal, the Trump administration has formally sent a notice to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a State Department spokesperson said.

The withdrawal is effective in one year -- July 6, 2021 -- and Joe Biden, Trump's presumptive Democratic opponent, is virtually certain to stop it and stay in the WHO if he wins the November election.

A spokesman for Guterres and the global health body itself confirmed that the United States, a key founding WHO member, gave its notice.

In a speech earlier in the day, WHO chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said of Covid-19, "National unity and global solidarity are more important than ever to defeat a common enemy."

In line with conditions set when the WHO was set up in 1948, the United States can leave within one year but must meet its remaining assessed financial obligations, the UN spokesman said.

'Total control'

In late May, Trump said that China exerted "total control" over the WHO and accused the UN body led by Tedros, an Ethiopian doctor and diplomat, of failing to implement reforms.

Blaming China for the coronavirus, Trump, a frequent critic of the UN, said the United States would redirect funding "to other worldwide and deserving, urgent, global public health needs."

Democratic lawmakers have accused Trump of seeking to deflect criticism from his handling of the pandemic in the United States, which has suffered by far the highest death toll of any nation despite the president's stated hope that the virus will disappear.

"To call Trump's response to Covid chaotic and incoherent doesn't do it justice," said Senator Robert Menendez, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

"This won't protect American lives or interests -- it leaves Americans sick and America alone," he wrote on Twitter.

Representative Ami Bera, himself a physician, said that the United States and World Health Organization had worked "hand in hand" to eradicate smallpox and nearly defeat polio.

"Our cases are increasing," Bera said of Covid-19. "If the WHO is to blame: why has the US been left behind while many countries from South Korea to New Zealand to Vietnam to Germany return to normal?"

Even some of Trump's Republican allies had voiced hope that he was exerting pressure rather than making a final decision to abandon the World Health Organization.

The investigative news outlet ProPublica reported last month that most of Trump's aides were blindsided by the WHO withdrawal announcement, which he made during an appearance about China. 

The Trump administration has said that the WHO ignored early signs of human-to-human transmission in China, including warnings from Taiwan -- which, due to Beijing's pressure, is not part of the UN body.

While many public health advocates share some criticism of the WHO, they question what other options the world body had other than to work with China, where Covid-19 was first detected late last year in the city of Wuhan.

The anti-poverty campaign ONE said the United States should work to reform, not abandon, the WHO.

"Withdrawing from the World Health Organization amidst an unprecedented global pandemic is an astounding action that puts the safety of all Americans the world at risk," it said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 15,2020

Stockholm, Jun 15: Nuclear powers continue to modernise their arsenals, researchers said Monday, warning that tensions were rising and the outlook for arms control was "bleak".

"The loss of key channels of communication between Russia and the USA... could potentially lead to a new nuclear arms race," said Shannon Kile, director of the nuclear arms control programme at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and co-author of the report.

Russia and the US account for more than 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons.

Kile was referring to the future of the New START treaty between the US and Russia, which is set to expire in February 2021.

It is the final nuclear deal still in force between the two superpowers, aimed at maintaining their nuclear arsenals below Cold War levels.

"Discussions to extend New START or to negotiate a new treaty made no progress in 2019," the SIPRI researchers noted.

At the same time, nuclear powers continue to modernise their weapons while China and India are increasing the size of their arsenals.

"China is in the middle of a significant modernisation of its nuclear arsenal. It is developing a so-called nuclear triad for the first time, made up of new land- and sea-based missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft," SIPRI said.

The country has repeatedly rejected Washington's insistence that it join any future nuclear arms reduction talks.

The number of nuclear warheads declined in the past year.

At the start of 2020, the United States, Russia, Britain, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea together had 13,400 nuclear arms, according to SIPRI's estimates, 465 fewer than at the start of 2019.

The decline was attributed mainly to the United States and Russia.

While the future of the New START treaty remains uncertain, Washington and Moscow have continued to respect their obligations under the accord.

"In 2019, the forces of both countries remained below the limits specified by the treaty," the report said. But both nations "have extensive and expensive programmes underway to replace and modernise their nuclear warheads, missile and aircraft delivery systems, and nuclear weapon production facilities," it added.

"Both countries have also given new or expanded roles to nuclear weapons in their military plans and doctrines, which marks a significant reversal of the post-Cold War trend towards the gradual marginalisation of nuclear weapons."

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), a cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime, celebrates its 50th anniversary this year.

The number of nuclear arms worldwide has declined since hitting a peak of almost 70,000 in the mid-1980s.

The five original nuclear powers -- Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Paris and London -- in March reiterated their commitment to the treaty.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
June 16,2020

Washington, Jun 16: The United States will reduce its troop strength in Germany from the nearly 52,000 at present to 25,000, President Donald Trump has said in Washington.

In an interaction with reporters at the White House on Monday, Trump attributed the move to high costs and Germany being "delinquent" in its payment to NATO.

"We have 52,000 soldiers in Germany. That's a tremendous amount of soldiers. It's a tremendous cost to the United States and Germany, as you know, is very delinquent in their payments to NATO.

"They are paying one per cent and they're supposed to be a two per cent. And then two percent is very low. It should be much more than that. So they are delinquent of billions of dollars," Trump alleged.

"So, we're putting the number down to 25,000 soldiers. We'll see what happens, but Germany has not been making payments. In addition to that, I was the one that brought it up. Everybody talks about Trump with Russia. Well, I brought this up a long time ago. Why is Germany paying Russia billions of dollars for energy and then we're supposed to protect Germany from Russia? How does that work? It doesn't work," the US president said.

US soldiers, he said, are paid well. "They live in Germany. They spend vast amounts of money in Germany. Everywhere around those bases is very prosperous for Germany. So, Germany takes. And then on top of it, they treat us very badly on trade. We have trade with the EU, Germany being the biggest member, and very, very badly on trade and we are negotiating with them on that. But right now, I'm not satisfied with the deal they want to make," Trump said.

"They've cost the United States hundreds of billions of dollars over the years on trade," he said.

The US protects them and then they take advantage of America on trade, the president said.

"So we are working on a deal with them, but it's very unfair and I would say by far, the worst abuser is Germany," he said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.