Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pakistan's Int'l Participation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Pakistan's Int'l Participation

    Hey guys,

    I have found out the following list of organizations in which Pakistan currently participates. Just sort them out in two catagories like usefull and useless. After doing that, contact the foreign ministry and tell them to kick the asses of the useless and hopeless clubs.

    International organization participation: AsDB, C, CCC, CP, ECO, ESCAP, FAO, G-19, G-24, G-77, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICFTU, ICRM, IDA, IDB, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Inmarsat, Intelsat, Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, MINURSO, MONUA, NAM, OAS (observer), OIC, OPCW, PCA, SAARC, UN, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNIKOM, UNITAR, UNMIBH, UNMOP, UNOMIG, UNOMIL, UNOMSIL, UNPREDEP, UPU, WCL, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTrO



    ------------------
    Sarfraz Khan

    #2
    Difficult to survive without any of them....!!!!

    ------------------
    *************************
    There is no way to happiness.
    Happiness is the way....
    *************************

    Comment


      #3
      Elegencia - difficult to survive without any of them! I don't think so - there is quite a lot I think that we should leave, because they are a waste of time and money, and are really just talking shops. The separate UN agencies I think we should think about, because it depends howe much they bring ecomomic, scial and cultural benefits.

      But I think we should leave some regional/international agencies on the basis of principle. We should leave SAARC, because it brings no benefit to Pakistan and any other of its members (except India) and it brings no regional (South Asian) benefits. SAARC should be the ideal regional forum to discuss regional problems like Kashmir, Tamil Ealam, Chittagong and the status of Nepali's in Bhutan etc - BUT IT WILL NOT EVEN DISCUSS SUCH ISSUES - WE SHOULD LEAVE.

      And then there is the commonwealth - it has the nerve to talk about democracy, as if ALL its members were fuctioning parliamentary democracies:-

      1) Brunei - an absolutist monarchy which had never had an election in its entire existence! No talk about democracy here - maybe because the Sultan of Brunei owns 1 billion pounds in sterling currency, and is the best of pals with the British government and its military??

      2) Zimbabwe - I am sure you have seen recent horrific events in the news - NO TALK OF SUSPENDING THIS COUNTRY FROM THE COMMONWEALTH? Why - because Britain sells its weapons and is the biggest investor there??

      3) Tonga - still very much a feudal monarchy.

      4) Ghana, Nigeria and Gambia ruled by former military rulers who got themselves 'democratically elected'.

      WHAT HYPOCRISY!

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by kmailik:
        [b]

        SAARC should be the ideal regional forum to discuss regional problems like Kashmir, Tamil Ealam, Chittagong and the status of Nepali's in Bhutan etc - BUT IT WILL NOT EVEN DISCUSS SUCH ISSUES - WE SHOULD LEAVE.

        Mailik, those are the internal issues.

        And then there is the commonwealth - it has the nerve to talk about democracy, as if ALL its members were fuctioning parliamentary democracies:-

        1) Brunei - an absolutist monarchy which had never had an election in its entire existence! No talk about democracy here - maybe because the Sultan of Brunei owns 1 billion pounds in sterling currency, and is the best of pals with the British government and its military??

        2) Zimbabwe - I am sure you have seen recent horrific events in the news - NO TALK OF SUSPENDING THIS COUNTRY FROM THE COMMONWEALTH? Why - because Britain sells its weapons and is the biggest investor there??

        3) Tonga - still very much a feudal monarchy.

        4) Ghana, Nigeria and Gambia ruled by former military rulers who got themselves 'democratically elected'.

        WHAT HYPOCRISY!
        So leave the Commonwealth & SAARC.

        Comment


          #5
          KMalik, let us also talk about OIC. The OIC was formed with an emphasis on 'Islamic solidariy', however, it equally underlined the respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each member state.

          The contradictions in charter of OIC has made A.Khomeini to react about OIC summits in these words: Gatherings held in the name of the Islamic countries. However, all the OIC member states have not declared Islam as their official relgion, eg. Turkey, Algeria, Egypt, Bangladesh, etc. In the same vein, the OIC has given the observer status to Muslim community of breakaway Northern Cyprus, and to Mozambique which does not have a muslim majority. However, the same very status has been denied to India which has the second largest Muslim population in the world.

          The OIC professed to articulate and protect the muslim interests in the world. However the response of he OIC states to the crisis within the Islamic countries has not ben consistent. The OIC failed to intervene in Iran-Iraq war or play any role in Palestine problem. The OIC has failed to resolve Algeria-Morocco feud and it did not equally intervene in the Gulf crisis in 90-91.

          Three characteristics of OIC are quite prominent: First, the OIC is predominantly tilted towards West. Second, OIC member state is pursuing its strategic and national self-interest. Third, OIC are not at peace even with each other.

          Like you were saying about SAARC and NAM's importance for India, same is true when we talk of OIC in the context of Pakistan. Pakistan has been quite active in projective Pan-Islamism through OIC since 1971. However, in reality, Pakistan has been using the OIC mainly to serve the interests of her western allies particularly US. In recent years, Pakistan has used the OIC forum extensively to internationalise Kashmir issue. However the failure of Pakistan in bringing a resolution against India in UN and subsequent withdrawal of Pakistan's resolution against India at UNHCR in Geneva in 1994 has brought forth the complexities of international diplomacy. The developments in UN and UNCHR indicate that OIC in general and Pakistan in particular are not in a position to go beyond the stages of creating commotions in raising muslim issues.

          In fact OIC is an Arab institution which is erroneously projected as a muslim organisation.

          [This message has been edited by dhir (edited April 18, 2000).]

          Comment


            #6
            Dhir - your are absolutely right about the OIC, and Pakistan instead of leaving it should be at the forefront of creating a successor organization i.e one that has Pakistan,Afghanistan, Iran, the Gulf states, the Central Asian Republics, and maybe Turkey and Yemen as members. - this is more in line with Paksistan's Islamic destiny. As a Muslim of course there should be an all-Muslim grouping or organization, but the OIC does not serve this purpose.

            Dhir - Bangladesh made Islam its official religion in 1988.

            Elegencia - when a dispute involves becomes (or is of national importance) to two or more states it becomes an international issue not internal. The world recognizes Kashmir a dispute between India and Pakistan, and the status of ethnic Nepali's in Bhutan is a dispute between Bhutan and Nepal. The LTTE struggle to form a homeland for the 3.5 million Tamils in Sri Lanka, IS definetly of concern to India, which is home to 60 MILLION TAMILS!, and Bangladesh has always claimed that India supports the Chittagong separatists - just as Indian claims that Bangladesh supports the ethnic-Bengali speaking Tripura separatists.

            If other regional organizations like the OAU (in Africa), the OAS (in the America's), and the OSCE (in Europe) can mediate in disputes among their members, then surely SAARC should be able to do the same??

            Comment


              #7
              The Central Asian Republics are more likely to pursue the policy of national self-interest rather than Islamic internationalism, although these states have the potential of transforming any Islamic forum (including OIC) into a purposeful international pressure group in coping with the realities of post cold war era. The CARs are not exactly religious in their character. The 77 years of Soviet experience has created a society which is educated, skilled and secular in outlook and work culture. Although these states wre trying to reassdert their identities in the historic context, they would not turn officially religious. They have more or less the Indian model of secular democracy which they could effectively apply in the governance of their societies and polities.

              Nevertheless pan-Islamic card, if played well, may benefit Pakistan in the long run, as a good many of these republics blame their fate on Russia and given cordial relations between India and Russia may bring them closer to Pakistan giving it more liverage in international foras.

              Comment


                #8
                Dhir - you are only looking at short term factors when it comes to the CAR's. You assume that because they have been under Russian rule for 200 years they are going to remain secular or liberal. The opposite is in fact true. There has been a move towards reaaserting their old cultural and religious values. The Turkish speaking republics have stopped writing their languages in the Cryllic-Russian alphabet, and Arabic is becoming the fastest rising language, helped by the fact that 6 million ethnic Russians, Germans, Ukranians have left Central Asia since 1990. The Turkic republics have moved closer to Turkey, and Persian-speaking Tajikistan is moving closer to Iran. Islam is reasserting itself at a fantastic speed - e.g. ther were only 50 mosques in the whole of Central Asia in 1989, and today there are close to 50,000!

                The resurgence of local cultures, Islam and the fleeing of Russian speakers combined with the economic potential of these states is bound to move them away from Russia and these states will either need Turkey, Iran and Pakistan or more than one of them to expand in the world.

                Dhir - you must look at whats happening to established religion in the world today. Christianity is becoming more and more secular, to the point where church attendances are dropping alarmingly and atheism is widely accepted. Hinduism is becoming more fractured and secular, and heading on the same path as Christianity. BUT Islam is not only growing in numbers, but becoming less secular.

                Comment

                Working...
                X