thenews.com.pk,  Sat Feb 17 17:26:20 EST 2007

    ISLAMABAD: Decade old friends and allies Pakistan and Sri Lanka Friday agreed to further strengthen cooperation in commerce and trade, tourism, gemology and defence besides closer collaboration in the fight against terrorism.

Wide-ranging talks were held between Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri and his Sri Lankan counterpart Rohitha Bogollagama, who have also announced to hold a review meeting to boost their bilateral trade and economic cooperation through the Free Trade Agreement.

Bogollagama also met with Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Full Story


_________________
- The Academic

undoubtedly PAKs would want to be in SL since it is one strategic location for them as well, therefore taking steps to strengthen the defense ties should not be taken for granted to intimidate our neighbour with billion people, though the capabilities are integrated only due to numbers, they are a force to reckon with, and we should respect their concers as priority, since they are our immediate negihbour.

GOSL should downplay and limit this. There is extreme danger in 'enhancing' these defence ties.
Surely VP would be watching this development.

lenawa50acres wrote:

undoubtedly PAKs would want to be in SL since it is one strategic location for them as well, ........

Yes. They are our good friends.
They are not after our hard earned money of US$ 1.39billion.
billion $ is nothing for them, they would have helped us even if SL said we have no money.

Quote:

Yes. They are our good friends.

That's one side of the story. The main reason they're doing what they're doing is to have a base or foothold in the region.
They would be happy to do it free.
The issue has the potential of moving out of ethnic Tamil homeland problem to escalated dimension of conflict between the
volatile Pak and Ind, and SL is placing herself in the crossfire.

I am not convinced a 3rd world country such as Pak with a tiny GDP have strategic interests in region other than simple business intentions.

The tiny GDP of Pak did not come in the way of fighting 3.5 wars with Ind and even getting split did not stop Pak from venturing into Kargil conflict.

Given the history between these two nations, it is best to be cautious.

Pakistan is important in our current fight against terrorism since India categorically said that they are not going help us in giving military hard wear.  Most of the military supplies for LTTE come from (remember 1.5 million steel balls?) the coastal lines of South India.  It is encouraging to see Indian Coastal guards now make few arrests.  These are few and far in between.  It is better to keep Pakistan as a friend but rather than putting all the eggs in the same basket  SL should explore other possibilities.  In this aspect, MR's current state visit to China is crucial

lenawa50acres wrote:

undoubtedly PAKs would want to be in SL since it is one strategic location for them as well, therefore taking steps to strengthen the defense ties should not be taken for granted to intimidate our neighbour with billion people, though the capabilities are integrated only due to numbers, they are a force to reckon with, and we should respect their concers as priority, since they are our immediate negihbour.

Dumping old weapons for a few dollars.

The bank accounts of Rajapakse family will swell.

Sri Lanka will keep sinking.

So, whatever happened to Help Hambantota funds?

[quote="ranjo123"]

lenawa50acres wrote:

undoubtedly PAKs would want to be in SL since it is one strategic location for them as well, therefore taking steps to strengthen the defense ties should not be taken for granted to intimidate our neighbour with billion people, though the capabilities are integrated only due to numbers, they are a force to reckon with, and we should respect their concers as priority, since they are our immediate negihbour.

Quote:

Dumping old weapons for a few dollars.

Even with these your so called old weaponry, currently SLA is doing well

Quote:

The bank accounts of Rajapakse family will swell.

Substantiate thist

Quote:

Sri Lanka will keep sinking.

Why? Find steel balls?  Remember few days ago, a sunken LTTE boat some 1.5 milloion Steel ballas were salvaged!  Brother Sri Lanka is sinking owing to LTTE.  Even it is sinking better to give a fight.  Don't you agreee

Quote:

So, whatever happened to Help Hambantota funds?

I am sure the since Hambantota Acc came to the knowledge of public (there is an access to its balance), there can be another account which you have to find out.

rm7000 wrote:

The tiny GDP of Pak did not come in the way of fighting 3.5 wars with Ind and even getting split did not stop Pak from venturing into Kargil conflict.

For Pak Kashmir & East Pakistan issues are fight for their own struggle, like SL fight for N&E.
SL will fight for last drop of blood for N&E.
SL is not a Kashmir for Pak, nor Pak is US or Europe.
Thus there is no regional stratergic factor in Pak selling arms to SL.

Negombo wrote:

rm7000 wrote:

The tiny GDP of Pak did not come in the way of fighting 3.5 wars with Ind and even getting split did not stop Pak from venturing into Kargil conflict.

For Pak Kashmir & East Pakistan issues are fight for their own struggle, like SL fight for N&E.
SL will fight for last drop of blood for N&E.
SL is not a Kashmir for Pak, nor Pak is US or Europe.
Thus there is no regional stratergic factor in Pak selling arms to SL.

Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka are concerned and worried about the expansionist tendencies of India.After all india annexed Hyderabad,Junagarath,Goa and part of Kasmir.I beleive if LTTE manage to get a seperate state, it will be annexed to Tamil Nadu.

Quote:

After all india annexed Hyderabad,Junagarath,Goa and part of Kasmir.

It is true that India annexed Goa, but a European enclave in the second half of the twentieth century was such an anachronism it was what was to be expected.

All the other cases of 'annexation' were the result of the dynamics of partition.

When Indepence was arranged in 1947 there arose the question of what to do with the one-third of the sub-continent that didn't form part of British India but were technically 540 independent princedoms. It was decided that the Maharajas would make the decision whether to join India or Pakistan. The Nizam of Hyderabad, having little desire to lose the source of the income that made him the richest man in the world, tried to buck the trend and announced he would remain independent. As he was surrounded by India on four sides this was as impractical as it was unjustifiable, and one year after signing a Standstill Agreement with India, he was forced to sign the annexation treaty the other princedoms had signed a year before.

The case of Jammu and Kashmir was again the result of a foolish decision by a spoilt Maharaja, as well as a sign of the hurriedness of independence. The Maharaja of Kashmir was a Hindu in charge of a largely Moslem state. Having delusions of independence he signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan. India, the other neighboring country refused to sign one. When Pakistan decided to invade Kashmir to support a Pashtun rebellion against the Maharaja, the latter requested the military assistance of India, which reasonably refused to give it unless the Maharaja signed an annexation treaty, which he did. Both Pakistan and India can be held at fault over the refusal to honor the subsequent UN resolution, but neither can be accused of initial forcible annexation.

Junagadh, like Hyderabad, was entirely surrounded by India. The Moslem ruler agreed to annexation to Pakistan, but made no standstill agreement with India, and then fled to Karachi with the state treasury. The Dewan invited India to intervene and a plebliscite of its 191,000 voters was held, only 91 of whom voted against joining the Indian union.

The question of the annexation of Sikkim I have referred to in a previous post. Once again this was the result of idiotic despotic rule, and accepted by a majority of the population in a pleblisicite.

Quote:

Amarakoon wrote:

Even with these your so called old weaponry, currently SLA is doing well

What do you mean by doing well? Do you think the tide has changed, so to speak, and the Tigers are on the run?  I wouldn't be so sure.  First of all, all the information is provided by the military.  They are, after all, an interested party, and are likely to exaggerate their successes and minimize their defeats.  There is no independent reporting from the battlefield.  Perhaps there are no laws on the books forbidding people from writing about the the war, but what you have is de facto censorship, enforced with threats and then the white van abduction if that doesn't work.  So, I would count my eggs yet.
By the way, Mangala spilled the beans the other day.  He said the army is just capturing desert.

Oh Danny Boy,

Danny wrote:

What do you mean by doing well? Do you think the tide has changed, so to speak, and the Tigers are on the run?

It’s not important whether LTTE can somehow survive the onslaught. The question is can LTTE remain true to its primary objective of creating a separate state and how much longer will it need? Its does not seem to have the ability to even sustain its current boundaries. Since this is the case, why is it insisting on carrying on regardless? And why is it that ordinary Tamils aren’t intervening to bring LTTE into the negotiations? The only way LTTE could get this far is by throwing everything at it. It used women and children by making them into killers and adopted suicide as a weapon. How long do you think they can go on this way? This is the million dollar question.


_________________
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein