Is Change in the air ?

Society Military and Strategic Issues
1

Pakistan is getting very understanding towards the needs and expectancies of its eastern neighbours.

Only weeks after announcing that the two governments will co-operate in ship building and merchant trading and just a month after announcing that the RCD(ECO) agreements would be overhauled, (might explain Musharaf’s second visit to Turkey), and an interest in amalgamating pending DEFENCE PROJECTS, the government has now announced further developments in Pakistan’s extremelt unutilised natural gas reseerves.

See http://www.dawn.com/2000/03/12/

Seems like the present government is keen to strengthen ties that were ailing for time.
The Saudi emisaary also attended some meetings with his Iranian and Pakistani counterparts previous to the talks mentioned.

HHmmmmmmmmmmmm

Have we muslims finally got our act together???

2

I really hope and pray that muslims can get their act together.

I think it's a moral responsibilty of Pakistan, Iran , and Saudi Arabian authorities to come up with a solution for the creatiion of stable regime in Afghanistan. Afghan people have endured enough hardships, it has to come to an end.

I also believe that there won't be any peace in Afghanistan untill there's a mutual understanding , and respect for each other's opinion, amongst all Afghan warring factions

We must strive to create an atmosphere of forgivenss and tolerence in Afghinistan.

Pakistan should stenghten it's political relations with Iran . There should be frequent exchange of religious, political ,and business deligates. These delegate exchanges will broaden understanding about each other's stance on vital issues.
Pakistan should keep up it's side of the bargain for all the past oil agreements with Iran. This can be achieved by giving a green signal for the construction of, Pakistan-Iran oil refinery , and Iran-India oil pipeline which will run through Pakistan. This oil pipeline will bring $600 million anually in the form of royalties to Pakistan.

Pakistan should share it's experties with Turkey in defence and technology. Pakistan can be lucrative a market for Turkish arms and ammunions which are the by product of Western technology. Turkey can benefit from Pakistani automobile industry and agriculture.

I also think there should be an ongoing dialoge with Pakistan and Iraq. I think Musharraf regime is trying to promote relations with Iraq.

Pakistan can't make it's imapact on the global forum uneless it reaches out and brace stronger ties with these countries.

Just reminds me of a song I heard long long time ago.. and have forgotten almost all the lyrics

Hum mustafafee mustafafee Musstafee Hainn

and it ends with

Allah akbar Allah Akbar..

3

Inshallah! Musharraf is genuinely keen on building relations with Islamic countries - he has many in the last five months.

Also it is encouraging to see the Arab countries get together a few days ago to take a united stand on Lebanon - giving Israel food for thought!

There are 6 billion people in the world, and 1.35 billion of them are Muslims - it is projected that by 2012 Muslims will be the single largest religion in the world - we will rule!!

4

[quote]
Originally posted by kmailik:
There are 6 billion people in the world, and 1.35 billion of them are Muslims - it is projected that by 2012 Muslims will be the single largest religion in the world - we will rule!!
[/quote]

So! then. How will it change the face of the earth? How will it help the people who are suffering because of poverty, illiteracy, hunger? How will they be benefitted if all becomes Muslims? I believe after Muslims rule, they won't be bothered about all these things as then they will have spiritual enlightenment provided to them by the supreme religion of the world - Is that what you want to say?

5

Why is it so hard to understand the concept ?

I do understand that some of teh rhetoric used by muslims is vague (to say the very least), but the expansion of teh relegion is a concern to other relegions.

Come on Dhir ...are you telling me that christians, jew, buddhists, hindus and atheists(especially as they were herald as the ANSWER in 60s US & UK) are not worried about the unseemingly proactive conversions ?

The question should be WHY are these people converting ?
Muslims are at present the most down trodden of the three major relegions.....

It can not be the financial security, nor the "Rome Syndrome".

So, the question that should be asked is not from muslims. It is jovial for you to ask "SO WHAT ?"

It is more appropriate for muslims to ask "WHY ARE YOU WORRIED ?"

6

Now, back to the ACTUAL topic of the thread.

There are repurcussions being felt already to the discussions of the three countries.

The Crown Prince has shown a clear indication to visit Pakistan and Iran after Hajj. Iran and Pakistan are going to co-operate on OIL-GAS issues (cold since 1983). Iranian Navy has shown an inclination for Agustas, very interesting.
Saudi are holding talks to enlarge the Pakistani contingent on their soil and increase their "frame of deployment".

However, concrete steps have not yet been announced. No press releases have been made about the secretaries' meetings in Jeddah and no formal statements have been made in Tehran , Islamabad or Riyadh.

What is it that is being discussed with such a guard ?

7

You are giving it a religious twist. When I said so what, I mean to say how will it make a difference. And your reaction suggests that all matters concerning Pakistan should be seen from a religous point of view because you think it is the duty of Islamic nations to help each other, or if we see it from another angle, Islamic countries are suppose to cooperate with each other just because they are Islamic and thus suggested Islam does not teach universal bortherhood but muslim brotherhood, which I feel is not a good thing to do, or may be your interpretation is wrong.

And, b.t.w. who is afraid of spread of pro-active religion like yours. If people are afraid they would ban spread of any other religion in their respective countries which, as you know, is not the case. Instead Muslim countries do impose their religion as a state policy and do not allow other religions to prosper. So, what does it suggest, who is insecure of their religion.

8

Instead Muslim countries do impose their religion as a state policy and do not allow other religions to prosper. <<
Get your fact right dear, if you’re talking about Pak, we do have other religions then Islam, and ppl are allowed to follow their religious belief, as long they don’t go against the law.

And I don’t get your point, what is wrong if some countries want to co-operate, for whatever reason? Democracy nahiN… Islam teaches universal brotherhood – however as they say, first your family then your muhalah and so forth.

Btw. Stick with the topic thanks.

Now back to the topic,

Re. We will rule, Insha Allah, lekin only if we stick together. We have too many differences to start dreaming. Every idiot can trigger a Sunni-Shia conflict and we start killing each other like Maut ke farishte on special duty.
Also if any super power feels threaten they’ll put every thing they have up against us, which includes ’propaganda’ – and we have always been weak on table-talk, so this is just as dangerous as good.

However a tie will mean a lot especially for developing Muslim countries, plus any ‘greater’ country will think twice before creating a Chechnya or Kashmir like situation, and this is what I think the ‘civilized world’ will be afraid of.

[This message has been edited by sabah (edited March 15, 2000).]

9

Good point Sabah:

There are many factors that are leading to a favourable viewing of such cooperation in these countries.
American defence conglomerates (which are being swallowed by EU companies at an alarming rate), see such close cooperation as an open market for their weapons, (something that former USSR states have been reluctant to do and India still, inadvisably, persists on doing).

Pakistan has been able to develop renditions of US techs that are compatible with the Chinese.
Tehran has been very slow to do this, and is taking advantage of the USSR breakup to fund indegineous facilities to rehash Rusee techs. Saudi still relies on PAF to operate and command its airforce technology.

A LOOSE co-operation between these countries would generate a lot of income for the US and for the Chinese. China should see Tehran as a prime target for upgrade equipments and rendetion sales.

Such cooperation is very lucrative for these two nations.
Israel, bed partners of the US as they are, are out of this circle. They find a good partner in India.
Lets face it, India does have a larger potential than any union. They also have a lot of PILE HIGH USSR tech, which needs serious upgrading, (something India has been very slow to develop due to their expensive indeginous programs).

So, the reason why no one else wishes to oppose LOOSE cooperation, is because they find it lucrative.
The only people who strategically loose out are other muslim countries (Damishq, Cairo and Baghdad). If they see the progression of the union, they will have an option to render services to one of the 5 sidea to the region.

One of the things that is actually helping this is India's decleration of its motives for the region. Countries in teh middle east do not think of India as a threat to them.

On the contrary, they have supported India on many of its stances (including Kargil).
However, its India as a market for military equipment that they are worried about.
Israel is by far one of the largest arms exporter in the world.(6th by turnover).
Close cooperation between these two nations is what is raising eyebrows in Riyadh (generally the softest of the states in Indian affairs).
Damishq and Tehran have never really been pro Indian (sometimes completely the opposite).

So, India actually is, in a way, doing a lot to promote this, rather than deter it.

This is what our opinion on the matter is regarding why there is no reproachment by the US on these designs.

10

'Saudi still relies on PAF to operate and command its airforce technology.'

It relies on USA, NOT Pakistan. Pakistanis are only involved in low skilled ground equipment (towing vehicles, etc) maintenance.

11

yes eli, thankyou.

That would explain the pressure the US put on the PAF when the desert shield was in sync.

I guess the wanted the chaps at Dharan and Tabuk to tow trucks :)and when the refused, they had to fly in (at great cost) a whole Air Recon and Command Camp from Farnborough (UK) (very well reported by the BBC and it sighted the refusal of teh PAF operators to fight under American lead against Iraq, a lot of hoo haa was made about UK sending its tech-men "INTO THE SHADOW OF THE SCUDS" ). ( Our men were courageous to volunteer to serve the co alition when the Pakistanis refused to man teh Command centre in Dharan" was the BBC's quote when the Dharan Airbase was targeted by scuds in the second wave of attacks).

Quite right, as you say the PAF tows trucks, so the UK was angry that their recon guys had to tow trucks....get real, check facts. :)

Were you at the AIR SHOW IN UAE where the Saudis proudly showed the Pak SAM units to be placed onm their airfields and manned by Pakistanis ? I guess the pakistanis just tow them to the right place :)

Pakistanis are still training 2 squadrons in Saudi in close range combat and I/I capabilities. (The instructors have previously been used in the Turkish and German Air Forces, that was one of the reasons they were employed even though they had limited exposure to Eagles).

Next time, just make sure the guys towing the trucks are not the one flying as well :) :) :)