Turkey

ACCESSION OF TURKEY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.
Bahria Institute of Management and Computer Sciences

Turkey's application to accede to the European Union was made on 14 April 1987. Turkey has been an associate member of the European (EU) and its predecessors since 1963. After the ten founding members, Turkey was one of the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and was also a founding member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ECD) in 1961 and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1973. The country has also been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992, and is a part of the "Western Europe" branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognized as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. This is despite the fact
that only 3% of the country actually is geographically in Europe. Negotiations were started on 3 October 2005, and the process, should it be in Turkey's favor, is likely to take at least a decade to complete. The membership bid has become a major controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union.
History of Turkey
Turkey (Turkish: Trkiye), known officially as the Republic of Turkey ,is a Eurasian country that stretches across the Anatolian peninsula in Western Asia and Thrace in the Balkan region of southeastern Europe. Turkey is bordered by eight countries: Bulgaria to the northwest; Greece to the west; Georgia to the northeast; Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iranto the east; and Iraq and Syria to the southeast. The Mediterranean Sea and Cyprus are to the south; the Aegean Sea to the west; and the Black Sea is to the north. Turkey is a country of significant geostrategic importance. Ethnic Turks form the majority of the population, followed by the Kurds. The predominant religion in Turkey is Islam and its official language is Turkish. Turkey has also fostered close cultural, political, economic and industrial relations with the Eastern world, particularly with the Middle East and the Turkic states of Central Asia, through membership in organizations such as the Organization of the Islamic Conference and Economic Cooperation Organization. Turkey is classified as a developed country by the CIA and as a regional power by political scientists and economists worldwide. After the Ottoman Empire's collapse following World War I, Turkish revolutionaries led by Mustafa Kemal Atatrk emerged victorious in the Turkish War of Independence, establishing the modern Turkish Republic as it exists today. Atatrk, then Prime Minister and later President of Turkey, implemented a series of reforms, including secularization and industrialization, intended to modernize the country. During World War II, Turkey remained neutral until February 1945, when it joined the Allies. The country took part in the Marshall Plan of 1947, became a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and a
member of NATO in 1952.
During the Cold War, Turkey allied itself with
the United States and Western Europe.
The European Union

The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member countries, located primarily in Europe. Committed to regional integration, the EU was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993 upon the foundations of the European Communities. With over 500 million citizens, the EU combined generates an estimated 28% share (US$ 16.45 trillion in 2009) of the nominal gross world product and about 21.3% (US$14.8 trillion in 2009) of the PPP gross world product. The EU has developed a single market through a standardized system of laws which apply in all member states, ensuring the free movement of people, goods, services, and capitalists maintains common policies on trade, agriculture, fisheries and regional development. Sixteen member states have adopted a common currency, the euro, constituting the Eurozone. The EU has developed a limited role in foreign policy, having representation at the World Trade Organization, G8, G-20 major economies and at the United Nations. It enacts legislation in justice and home affairs, including the abolition of passport controls by the Schengen Agreement between 22 EU and 3 non-EU states.
Membership in the EU in 1960s1990s

The country first applied for associate membership in the European Economic Community in 1959, and on 12 September 1963 signed the "Agreement Creating An Association Between The Republic of Turkey and the European Economic Community", also known as the Ankara Agreement. This agreement came into effect the following year on 12 December 1964. The Ankara Agreement sought to integrate Turkey into a customs union with the EEC whilst acknowledging the final goal of membership. In November 1970, a further protocol called the "Additional Protocol" established a timetable for the abolition of tariffs and quotas on goods traded between Turkey and the EEC.
On 14 April 1987, Turkey submitted its application for formal membership into the European Community. The European Commission responded in December 1989 by confirming Ankaras eventual membership but also by deferring the matter to more favorable times, citing Turkeys economic and political situation, as well its poor relations with Greece and the conflict with Cyprus as creating an unfavorable environment with which to begin negotiations. This position was confirmed again in the Luxembourg European Council of 1997 in which accession talks were started with central and eastern European states and Cyprus, but not Turkey. During the 1990s, Turkey proceeded with a closer integration with the European Union by agreeing to a customs union in 1995. Moreover, the Helsinki European Council of 1999 proved a milestone as the EU recognized Turkey as a candidate on equal footing with other potential candidates.
Move towards the EU in the 2000s

The next significant step in TurkeyEU relations came with the December 2002 Copenhagen European Council. According to it, "the EU would open negotiations with Turkey 'without delay' if the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that Turkey fulfills the Copenhagen political criteria." The European Commission recommended that the negotiations should begin in 2005, but also added various precautionary measures. The EU leaders agreed on 16 December 2004 to start accession negotiations with Turkey from 3 October 2005, despite an offer from the Austrian People's Party and the German Christian Democratic Union of a privileged partnership status, a less than full membership, and EU accession negotiations were officially launched. Turkey's accession talks have since been stalled by a number of domestic and external problems. Both Austria and France have said they would hold a referendum on Turkey's accession. In the case of France, a change in its Constitution was made to impose such a referendum. The issue of Cyprus continues to be a major obstacle to negotiations. European officials have
commented on the slowdown in Turkish reforms which, combined with the Cyprus problem, led the EUs Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn in March 2007 to warn of an impeding train crash in the negotiations. Due to these setbacks, negotiations again came to a halt in December 2006, with the EU freezing talks in 8 of the 35 key areas under negotiation. To accede to the EU, Turkey must first successfully complete negotiations with the European Commission on each of the 35 chapters of the acquis communautaire, the total body of EU law. Afterwards, the member states must unanimously agree on granting Turkey membership to the European Union. ( Appendix 1).
Turkish Membership Issues

Proponents of Turkey's membership argue that it is a key regional power with a large economy and the second largest military force of NATO that will enhance the EU's position as a global geostrategic player; given Turkey's geographic location and economic, political, cultural and historic ties in regions with large natural resources that are at the immediate vicinity of the EU's geopolitical sphere of influence; such as the East Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts, the Middle East, the Caspian Sea basin and Central Asia. Some trade benefits and disadvantages have been listed below:
The Turkish high-speed railway network and the Marmaray tunnel can play an important role in improving trade and commerce between the EU and Turkey.
According to the Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt, "the accession of Turkey would give the EU a decisive role for stability in the eastern part of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, which is clearly in the strategic interest of Europe." One of Turkey's key supporters for its bid to join the EU is the United Kingdom.
Upon joining the EU, Turkey's 71 million inhabitants would bestow the second largest number of MEPs in the European Parliament. Demographic projections indicate that Turkey would surpass Germany in the number of seats by 2020.[16]
Turkey's membership would also affect future enlargement plans, especially the number of nations seeking EU membership, grounds on which Valry Giscard d'Estaing has opposed Turkey's admission. Giscard has suggested that it would lead to demands for accession by Morocco. Morocco's application is already rejected on geographic grounds; while Turkey, unlike Morocco, has a small amount of territory in Europe. French President Nicolas Sarkozy stated in January 2007 that "enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept...I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union." EU member states must unanimously agree on Turkey's membership for the Turkish accession to be successful. A number of nations may oppose it; notably Austria, which historically served as a bulwark for Christian Europe against the Ottoman Empire whose armies twice laid siege to Vienna in 1529 and 1683; and France, where some are anxious at the prospect of a new wave of Muslim immigrants, given the country's already large Muslim community.
France and its requirements:

Negotiations to remove the French constitutional requirement for a compulsory referendum on all EU accessions after Croatia resulted in a new proposal to require a compulsory referendum on the accession of any country with a population of more than 5% of the EU's total population; this clause would mainly apply to Turkey and Ukraine. The French Senate, however, blocked the change in the French constitution, in order to maintain good relations with Turkey.
Foreign relations with EU member states

Cyprus The island of Cyprus was divided as a result of the Turkish invasion on 20 July 1974. Since then, Turkey has refused to acknowledge the Republic of Cyprus (an EU member since 2004) as the sole authority on the island, and recognizes the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus since its establishment in 1983. The Turkish invasion in 1974 and the resulting movement of refugees along both sides of the Green Line; and the establishment of the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983 form the core issues which surround the ongoing Cyprus dispute. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots backed the 2004 Annan Plan for Cyprus aimed at the reunification of the island, but the plan was subsequently rejected by Greek Cypriots on the grounds that it did not meet their needs. According to Greek Cypriots, the latest proposal included maintained residence rights for the many Anatolian Turks who moved to Cyprus after the invasion (and their descendants who were born on the island after 1974), while the Greek Cypriots who lost their property after the Turkish invasion would be granted only a restricted right of return to the north following the island's proposed reunification. [citation needed] Although the outcome received much criticism in the EU as well, the Republic of Cyprus was admitted into the EU a week after the referendum. The Turkish government has refused to officially recognize the Republic of Cyprus until the removal of the political and economic blockade on the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus. Turkey's non-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus has led to complications within the Customs Union. Under the customs agreements which Turkey had already signed as a precondition to start EU membership negotiations in 2005, it is obliged to open its ports to Cypriot planes and vessels, but Turkey refuses to do this. Turkeys refusal to implement a trade pact between Turkey and the EU that requires the Turkish Government allow Greek Cypriot vessels to use its air and sea ports has prompted the EU to freeze eight chapters in Turkeys accession talks. In November 2009, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Cicek said "Either Cyprus or the EU, Turkeys choice will forever be to stand next to the Turkish Cypriots. Everybody should understand this." Greece Greece has been supportive overall of Turkish membership, with Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis declaring, "Full compliance, full accession" in December 2006. In 2005 the European Commission referred to relations between Turkey and Greece as "continuing to develop positively" while also citing the lack of progress made by Turkey in dropping their claim of casus belli over a dispute about territorial waters boundaries.
Public reactions Public opinion In the EU

Public opinion in EU countries generally opposes Turkish membership, though with varying degrees of intensity. The Euro barometer September-October 2006 survey shows that 59% of EU-27 citizens are against Turkey joining the EU, while only about 28% are in favor. Nearly all citizens (about 9 in 10) expressed concerns about human rights as the leading cause. In the earlier March-May 2006 Euro barometer, citizens from the new member states were more in favor of Turkey joining (44% in favor) than the old EU-15 (38% in favor). At the time of the
survey, the country whose population most strongly opposed Turkish membership was Austria (con: 81%), while Romania was most in favour of the accession (pro: 66%). On a wider political scope, the highest support comes from the Turkish Cypriot Community (pro: 67%) (Which is not recognized as sovereign state and is de facto not EU territory and out of the European institutions). These communities are even more in favor of the accession than the Turkish populace itself (pro: 54%).Opposition in Denmark to Turkish membership was polled at 60% in October 2007, despite the Danish government's support for Turkey's EU bid. EU sets date for membership talks with Turkey The opening of membership talks with the EU in December 2004 was celebrated by Turkey with much fanfare, but the Turkish populace has become increasingly skeptical as negotiations are delayed based on what it views as lukewarm support for its accession to the EU and alleged double standards in its negotiations particularly with regard to the French and Austrian referendums. A mid-2006 Euro barometer survey revealed that 43% of Turkish citizens view the EU positively; just 35% trust the EU, 45% support enlargement and just 29% support an EU constitution.
The Security Issues involved in Turkeys accession to the EU.

Some of the critical security issues and tensions involved in Turkeys accession to the EU and the related question of Turkeys relationships with its allies can be illuminated by: 1) a better understanding of the potential threats that regional powers pose to Turkeys existence, and
2) a comparison of US and EU perceptions of the threats to Turkey and their differing assessments of Turkeys potential role in furthering their own security interests. 1. Turkeys Vulnerability to External Threats as Factors Regarding EU Accession Since the Gulf War, and in the context of what it has seen as an increasingly hostile post-Cold War regional environment, Turkeys more activist foreign policies towards its neighbors contrast markedly with its prior, more conservative foreign policies. Explanations for these policies are not mutually exclusive. As Deputy Chief of staff General Cevik Bir observed in 1997, some of Turkeys neighboring states continue to claim Turkish territory (one could cite Armenia, Syria, and Greece); some try to export regimes contrary to Turkeys constitutional order (one could cite Iran); and some have supported terrorism against Turkey (one could cite Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and, relatively recently, Greece) 2. US and European views on the importance of Turkey in the geopolitical arena. Just as there are vulnerabilities associated with living in a tough neighborhood, so there are strengths associated with this situation for Turkeys allies. In that context, Turkey's strategic importance as seen by both the United States and the EU is a comparison that underscores their very different perspectives. The United States, with its global responsibilities, has long supported Turkey because of its location and strategic importance in the Caucasus, the Middle East, and the Balkans. The EU, constrained by institutional impediments in addressing collective responsibilities and establishing its collective identity, is divided over the best means to secure its defense interests.
Diagnosis, Alternatives and their evaluation

What we have diagnosed in this report is that from the 1960s up till now no significant steps have been taken by both parties to properly address the issue of accession. The problem lies where there are too many stakeholders within one party. Whenever steps are made for accession of Turkey, these stakeholders
come into action. Problems are addressed and the issue is put on hold. The two major blockers we have identified are France and Germany. Currently right of center parties in both France and Germany, the EUs most powerful members, are strongly opposed to Turkish accession into the EU believing that the country should be given the status of a privileged partner. The accession of Turkey is a conflict in which many countries are involved and have a direct interest. Some countries are opposing the idea of admitting Turkey into the EU as they believe that it would have a great strategic impact. The following are some of the alternatives we have identified and their pros and cons: Option1: Avoid Turkeys admission in the EU adopt a LOOK EAST POLICY If this does not work out the next alternative Turkey has is to withdraw from accession. Currently Turkey alone is doing well by itself and many people in Turkey believe that an accession into the EU is no longer a requirement. Recently Turkey has tried to reassert its influence in former Ottoman Empire countries like the Middle East and Gulf. This has been evidenced by the leading role Turkey is mediating in Palestinian Israeli talks. Turkey has also moved to expand its fair of influence in Africa. In a recent tour to the continent by the Turkish president along with a large business delegation shows that the country is looking elsewhere to expand trade and economic ties. If Turkey is facing opposition it must withdraw its decision from entering the EU. This decision would reduce the concerns many countries have over Turkeys accession. On the other hand turkey would not have to replace its currency (lira) with the euro if it accepts entrance in the euro zone. The disadvantage of using the euro would be that Turkeys economy would be dependent upon the exchange rate of the euro. If there is any fluctuation in the euro the imports and exports of Turkey would be affected directly and they would have little control over determining the rate. Before Turkey takes any decision in relation to other countries or even purchases any equipment, they must follow EU standards.
Option 2: Accommodate Turkey in the EU. Turkey should be considered as a member of the EU. If Turkey is accepted as a member by other EU states it would have many advantages. Turkey would be the first Muslim country to join the EU. It would boost trade between Turkeys, other EU countries as well the rest of the world as being an EU member has a good impact on a countrys image. Turkey would have a strong currency the Euro. New business opportunities would open for Turkish businesses who could reach out further to more consumers. Disadvantages include: Turkey would become dependent upon EU decisions. It could lose autonomy over its foreign affairs. EU could face challenges such as threats from Turkeys neighbors as mentioned above. If Turkey ever faces financial problems it would be the responsibility of other EU members to bail the country out. More conflicts could emerge; an example of such an incident is the recent bail out of Greece by EU countries.
Option3: Compromise on Turkeys accession. Certain conditions of Turkey should be considered and accepted by the EU and vice versa. This would lead to a win-win situation for both the parties. Basically the EU is a governing body which governs different countries. Hence the EU is a direct party as well as itself a 3rd party which has the job of accommodating countries that are its members. To resolve this conflict the United Nations could be brought into the issue as a third party decision maker. This would lead to better understanding of the issue and more parties (countries) would be involved in making the right decision. A disadvantage of this option would be that some countries might favor European countries as they might have stronger ties e.g. Australia and America.
What we have concluded and our recommendations

We believe that Turkey is not being considered as a member of the EU because of its strategic location and it being a Muslim country. EU countries believe that Turkey has strong relations with countries which have been involved in terrorist activities. We recommend that this case be contested by Turkey in the United Nations. Kemal Attaturks vision of Turkey as a modern secular state integrating with Europe led the country to ignore its eastern borders. Even if Turkey does not gain full membership it could gain economic advantages without compromising on EU policies. Turkey has the advantage of a strong strategic position on the globe. It can be considered as the border between the eastern and the western world. Turkey has the advantage of trading with both sides of the globe and not becoming the member of the European Union we believe wont have such a drastic effect ion the country. Recent visits by the Turkish Prime minister and delegates to Pakistan and other states, shows Turkeys growing interest in their look east policy. Also the people of Turkey have expressed their growing frustration towards the delays in the countrys accession.
Annexure
EC Acquis chapter Assessment At Start Screening Screening Started Completed Chapter Opened Chapter Closed Chapter Frozen Chapter Unfrozen
1. Free Movement of Goods
Further efforts 16.1.2006 needed
24.2.2006
11.12.2006
2. Freedom of Very hard to Movement For 19.7.2006 adopt Workers
11.9.2006
8/12/2009 (by CY)
3. Right of Establishment For Companies Very hard to 21.11.2005 20.12.2005 3.10.2005 & Freedom To adopt Provide Services
11.12.2006
4. Free Movement of Capital
Further efforts 25.11.2005 22.12.2005 needed
5. Public Procurement
Totally incompatible 7.11.2005 with acquis
28.11.2005
6. Company Law
Considerable 21.6.2006 efforts needed
20.7.2006
17.6.2008
7. Intellectual Property Law
3.3.2006
17.6.2008
8. Competition Very hard to 8.11.2005 Policy adopt
2.12.2005
9. Financial Services
3.5.2006
3.10.2005
11.12.2006
10. Information Further efforts Society & 12.6.2006 needed Media
14.7.2006
19.12.2008
11. Agriculture Very hard to & Rural 5.12.2005 adopt Development
26.1.2006
11.12.2006
12. Food Safety, Veterinary & Phytosanitary Policy
Very hard to 9.3.2006 adopt
28.4.2006
13. Fisheries
Very hard to 24.2.2006 adopt
31.3.2006
11.12.2006
14. Transport Policy
28.9.2006
11.12.2006
15. Energy
16.6.2006
8/12/2009 (by CY)
16. Taxation
12.7.2006
30.6.2009
17. Economic & Monetary Policy
23.3.2006
19.12.2008
18. Statistics
18.7.2006
25.6.2007
19. Social Policy & Employment
22.3.2006
20. Enterprise & Industrial Policy
No major difficulties expected
27.3.2006
5.5.2006
29.3.2007
21. TransEuropean Networks
29.9.2006
19.12.2007
22. Regional Policy &
10.10.2006
Coordination of Structural Instruments
23. Judiciary & Considerable Fundamental 7.9.2006 efforts needed Rights
13.10.2006
8/12/2009 (by CY)
24. Justice, Freedom & Security
15.2.2006
8/12/2009 (by CY)
25. Science & Research
20.10.2005 14.11.2005 12.6.2006
12.6.2006
26. Education & Culture
Further efforts 26.10.2005 16.11.2005 needed
8/12/2009 (by CY)
27. Environment
Totally incompatible 3.4.2006 with acquis
2.6.2006
21.12.2009[28]
28. Consumer & Health Protection
11.7.2006
19.12.2007
29. Customs Union
31.1.2006
14.03.2006
11.12.2006
30. External Relations
10.7.2006
13.9.2006
11.12.2006
31. Foreign, Further efforts Security & 14.9.2006 needed Defence Policy
6.10.2006
8/12/2009 (by CY)
32. Financial Control
30.6.2006
3.10.2005
33. Financial & No major Budgetary difficulties Provisions expected
6.9.2006
4.10.2006
34. Institutions
Nothing to adopt
35. Other Issues
Nothing to adopt
Progress
14 out of 33
1 out of 33
References
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Turkey_s_Accession_Negotiations_to_EU.pdf www.gtmun.org/documents/2009/CEU/CEU-T3-CSituation.pdf -
Case Study on Microsoft $ Apple
Submitted To: Sir Manzoor Awan Submitted By: Anum Lodhi (Group Leader) Aeman khwaja Farwah Mehdi Sundus hamid Hira Fatima khan Maryam Rehman Mahum Bajwa Fatima Imran
BBA VI(D)
Microsoft History: Microsoft Corporation is a multinational computer technology corporation that develops, manufactures, licenses, and supports a wide range of software products for computing devices. Headquartered in Redmond, Washington, USA, its most profitable products are the Microsoft Windows operating system and the Microsoft Office suite of productivity software. As of the third quarter of 2009, Microsoft was ranked as the third largest company in the world, following Petro China and ExxonMobil. It is also one of the largest technological corporations in the world. Led by Bill Gates, the world's wealthiest individual and most famous businessman, Microsoft has succeeded in placing at least one of its products on virtually every personal computer in the world, setting industry standards and defining markets in the process. The company was founded on April 4, 1975, to develop and sell BASIC interpreters for the Altair 8800. Microsoft rose to dominate the
home computer operating system market with MS-DOS in the mid-1980s, followed by the Windows line of operating systems. Many of its products have achieved near-ubiquity in the desktop computer market. With annual revenues of more than $32 billion, Microsoft Corporation is more than the largest software company in the world: it is a cultural phenomenon. The company's core business is based on developing, manufacturing, and licensing software products, including operating systems, server applications, business and consumer applications, and software development tools, as well as Internet software, technologies, and services .Throughout its history the company has been the target of criticism, including monopolistic business practices and anti-competitive strategies including refusal to deal and tying. The U.S. Department of Justice and the European Commission, among others, have ruled against Microsoft for antitrust violations.
APPLE History: Apple is an American multinational corporation founded in 1976 in a garage in Santa Clara, California, Apple is the brainchild of Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, two college dropouts who sought to provide a user-friendly computer to a new and distinct market of small computer users. Between 1978 and 1980, sales increased from $7.8 million to $117 million, and in 1980 the company underwent its initial public stock offering. In 1983, Steve Wozinak left Apple. That same year Steve Jobs hired away John Sculley from Pepsi to be the company's president. After experiencing several product failures, Apple unveiled the Macintosh computer in 1984 to overwhelming success, setting the stage for Apple's rise and its recognition as a household name. By 1985, relations between Sculley and Jobs became contentious the company he helped found. CEO of Apple, John Sculley ignored Microsoft founder Bill Gates's appeal for Apple to license the Macintosh operating system to Microsoft. Gates had hoped to make the Macintosh platform an industry standard. However, with Sculley refusing to license the operating system, Gates purchased and developed the DOS operating system, which has become the international operating standard for more than 90 percent of all personal computers in the world. By the late 1980s, competition from Microsoft's Windows operating system and the abject failure of Apple's Newton handheld computer caused the earnings of Apple to plunge, forcing a reduction in the Apple workforce and the resignation of John Sculley.
The Early 1980s: Microsoft association with IBM and Apple:
Microsoft worked closely with Apple during the development of Apple's Macintosh computer, which was introduced in 1984. Revolutionary in its design, the Mac featured a graphical user interface based on icons rather than the typed commands used by the IBM PC, making its programs simple to use and easy to learn, even by computer novices. Microsoft introduced Mac versions of BASIC, Word, and the spreadsheet program Multiplan, and quickly became the leading supplier of applications for the Mac. Revenues jumped from $50 million in 1983 to nearly $100 million in 1984. In 1985 Microsoft also introduced Excel 1.0, a Mac spreadsheet product. Based on the earlier and less successful Multiplan, Excel gradually took hold against its principal competitor, Lotus 1-2-3, and eventually came to account for more than $1 billion of Microsoft's annual revenues. That same year Microsoft began collaborating with IBM on a next-generation operating system, called OS/2. Apple organization structure: Steve Jobs is the CEO and have direct control of the company. The nine senior vice presidents and their portfolio responsibilities are specified. Apple manages its business primarily on a geographic basis, with offices in the Americas, Europe, Japan, and Asia-Pacific. In addition, Apple operates and separate tracks sales in 86 retail stores with the majority located in the United States. Apple', products are primarily assembled in Sacramento, California; Cork, Ireland; and external vendors in Fullerton, California; Taiwan, Korea; the People's Republic of China; and the Czech R
Steven P. Jobs CEO

Timothy D. Cook Executive Vice President World wide Sales
Nancy Heinen Senior Vice President General Counsel and Secretary
Ronald B. Johnson Senior Vice President Retail
Steven P. Jobs CEO

Timothy D. Cook Executive Vice President World wide Sales
Nancy Heinen Senior Vice President General Counsel and Secretary

Peter Oppenheimer Senior Vice President Chief CFO
Ronald B. Johnson Senior Vice President Retail Jonathan Rubinstein Senior Vice President Ipod Division
Philip W. SchiUer Senior Vice President Worldwide Product Marketing
Bertrand Serlet, Ph.D. Senior Vice President
Software Engineering
Sina Tamaddon Senior Vice President Applications
Avadis Tevanian, Jr. Ph.D. enior S Vice President Chief Technology Officer
Bill Gates Chairman and Chief Executive software
Steve Ballmer CEO
Jeff Raikes Group VP productivity
Jim All chin Group VP platform Group
Craig Mundle CTO
David Cole VP, personal service design
Mich Matheas VP Mktg group
Eric Rudder VP Tools
David Vaskevitch CTO
Bruce Jaffe CFO
Hank vigil strategies and partnership
Eric Rudder VP Tools
Jon Devvaan VP engineering strategy
Debra Chrapaty MSN operations
Kia Fulee
Rick Rashid VP Microsoft research
Juddy Gibbons VP Global sales and mktg
Will Poule VP Windows chart business
Microsoft Organization Chart
Windows 1.0
The first independent version of Microsoft Windows, version 1.0, released on 20 November 1985, achieved little popularity. It was originally going to be called "Interface Manager" but Rowland Hanson, the head of marketing at Microsoft, convinced the company that the name Windows would be more appealing to consumers. Windows 1.0 was not a complete operating system, but rather an "operating environment" that extended MS-DOS, and shared the latter's inherent flaws and problems. The first version of Microsoft Windows included a simple graphics painting program called Windows Paint, Windows Write, a simple word processor, an appointment "calendar", a "cardfiler", a "notepad", a "clock", a "control panel", a "computer terminal", "Clipboard", and RAMdriver. It also included the MS-DOS Executive and a game called Reversi. Microsoft had worked with Apple Computer to develop several Desk Accessories and other minor pieces of software that were included with early Macintosh system software[citation needed] . As part of the related business negotiations, Microsoft had licensed certain aspects of the Macintosh user interface from Apple; in later litigation, a district court summarized these aspects as "screen displays". In the development of Windows 1.0, Microsoft intentionally limited its borrowing of certain GUI elements from the Macintosh user interface, in order to comply with its license.
Screenshot of Windows 1.0 For example, windows were only displayed "tiled" on the screen; that is, they could not overlap or overlie one another. There was no trash can icon with which to delete files, since Apple claimed ownership of the rights to that paradigm.
The Conflict:
Apple had previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0. When Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0. Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the
existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightableeither they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea. Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invested in Apple (ie, Apple had given Xerox Board members stock in exchange for access to the research performed at PARC) and had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab; these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed because the three year statute of limitations had passed
The Court Case

The district court ruled that it would require a standard of "virtual identity" between Windows and the Macintosh at trial in order for Apple to prove copyright infringement. Apple believed this to be too narrow of a standard and that a more broad "look and feel" was all that should be necessary at trial. As a result, both parties agreed that a jury trial was unnecessary given the rulings, and Apple filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in order to have the district court's characterization overruled. After the district court ruled in favor of Microsoft, Apple appealed the decision arguing that the district court only considered infringements on the individual elements of Apple's GUI, rather than the interface as a whole. The appeals court almost entirely affirmed the ruling of the district court, establishing that, "almost all the similarities spring either from the license or from basic ideas and their obvious expression... illicit copying could occur only if the works as a whole are virtually identical." However, the circuit court did reverse the district court's decision not to award attorney's fees to Microsoft, clarifying and sending the case back to the district court to resolve the issue. The circuit court dissected the GUI, following the lead of the district court, in order to separate expression from ideas (as expressions, but not ideas, are covered by copyright law). The court outlined five ideas that it identified as basic to a GUI desktop: windows, icon images of office items, manipulations of icons, menus, and the opening and closing of
objects. The court established that Apple could not make copyright claims based on these ideas and could only make claims on the precise expression of them. The court also pointed out that many of Apple's claims fail on an originality basis. Apple admittedly borrowed many of its representations from Xerox and IBM and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original.
The Impact:
Because much of the court's ruling was based on the original licensing agreement between Apple and Microsoft for Windows 1.0, it made the case more of a contractual matter than of copyright law, to the chagrin of Apple. This also meant that the court avoided a more far-reaching "look and feel copyright" precedent ruling. However, the case did establish that the analytic dissection (rather than the general "look and feel") of a user interface is vital to any copyright decision on such matters. In 1997, five years after the lawsuit was decided, all lingering infringement questions against Microsoft regarding the Lisa and Macintosh GUI as well as Apples QuickTime against Microsoft were settled in direct negotiations. Apple agreed to make Internet Explorer their default browser, to the detriment of Netscape. Microsoft agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office and other software for the Mac over the next five years. Microsoft also purchased $150 million of non-voting Apple stock, helping Apple in its financial struggles at the time. Both parties entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement. In recent years, Apple has resumed threats of litigation in this area. Before the release of the Aqua GUI for Mac OS X, Apple threatened litigation against a Windows skin named WinAqua which was meant to emulate Apple's GUI based on a Mac OS X beta release. Similarly, Stardock released a desktop enhancement program for Windows, named DesktopX, which was similar to Aqua. Apple, however, demanded the company remove "anything that even remotely looks like Aqua.
The Cause and Effect Relation:

Back in 1975 and 1976, Microsoft was producing BASIC interpreters for nearly every microprocessor that was produced, in hopes of licensing or selling their BASIC to those who built a computer around that chip. In mid-1976, Microsoft's first employee, Marc McDonald, was given the job of creating a version of BASIC that would run on the thennew 6502 microprocessor, even though there not yet any computers that used that
processor. They became aware of Steve Wozniak's efforts in designing his 6502 computer (the Apple-1), and one of Microsoft's programmers called Steve Jobs to see if he would be interested in a BASIC language for this computer. Jobs told him that they already had a BASIC (remember that Wozniak had been writing BASIC interpreters before he even had a computer on which to run them), and if they needed a better one, they could "do it themselves over the weekend". Even without a potential customer for this product, McDonald worked on this BASIC; using a modified 6800 microprocessor simulator (the 6800 had an instruction set that was similar to the 6502). For several months Microsoft had their 6502 BASIC sitting on a shelf, unwanted and unused. But by October 1976 they finally had a contract to put this interpreter into the new Commodore PET computer that was being designed. This would ultimately become the first time that BASIC was included with a computer built into the ROM, rather than being loaded from a paper tape, disk, or cassette. However, the contract Microsoft had with Commodore was no good to them at that time, as far as income was concerned; it stipulated that they would not be paid until some time in 1977, when the computer was to be finished and ready to ship. With income and cash reserves running dangerously low, Microsoft was given a reprieve by none other than Apple Computer .In August 1977, Apple made a $10,500 payment to Microsoft for the first half of a flat-fee license that they were able to negiotate. Typically, Microsoft would license its BASIC on a royalty basis; they would be paid a set fee for every copy of BASIC that went out the door -- in this case, with every computer that was sold. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates the founder of both these companies had many business dealings dating back to the 1977 release of the AppleSoft BASIC programming language. The name came from Joining Apple and MicroSoft. Gates went on to program for the early Mac computers which led to disputes about how much of the Mac's features were "borrowed" for Windows. The similarity among certain features created uproar as Microsoft was increasing on its market share and the rival company sought their claim in the success. As an aftermath apple sought patents, a set of exclusive rights granted to them for a limited period of time in exchange for the public disclosure of this paradigm by filling a law suit against Microsoft. Thus Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation,( 1994) was a copyright infringement lawsuit in which Apple Computer, Inc. (now Apple Inc.) sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard from using visual graphical user interface (GUI) elements that were similar to those in Apple's Lisa and Macintosh operating systems. The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a desktop metaphor [under copyright law] Because Mac's GUI was heavily based on unlicensed GUI developed before by Xerox, in the midst of the Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple on the same grounds. The lawsuit was dismissed because Xerox had waited too long to file
suit, and the statute of limitations had expired. Apple lost all claims in the suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon and file folder icons from HewlettPackard's NewWave windows application were infringing. The lawsuit was filed in 1988 and lasted four years; the decision was affirmed on appeal in 1994[1], and Apple's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied.
Possible options to resolve this Conflict:

Negotiation The authorities make a decision to resolve conflict Mediation Team counseling Arbitration Accomodation
1. Negotiation
The best way to deal with conflict is negotiation.. Negotiation is the most effective response to conflict when parties stand to gain something, each has some power, and there is interdependency. Negotiation offers flexibility and viability those other responses, such as Avoidance, Confrontation, and Diffusion lack. The process of negotiation involves listening to both sides, seeking out common areas of interest and agreement, and building on them so that individuals can understand each other's points of view.
Merits
1-increased understanding: Negotiation leads to mutual discussion needed to resolve conflict. It will expand the peoples awareness of the situation in both companies giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people as well as understanding the interests of the other party and learning their point of view while looking at the situation form various perspectives 2-Increased group cohesion: When conflict will be resolved effectively, they will be able to develop stronger mutual respect, and a renewed faith in each others ability to work together and they will even try to keep the environment friendly as they have been working in collaboration with each other for decades on this project and will also be required in the future. 3-Improved self-knowledge: Negotiation pushes individuals to examine their motives, gains and goals in close detail, helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus, and enhancing their effectiveness. Thus the Microsoft and Apple companies will identify where they had been wrong and what they were gaining out of all this except for creating problems for each other and slowing the research process.
4-Another advantage of negotiation is that it limits the number of players to those involved in the dispute. This allows for a focused approach to problem solving Demerits 1-The biggest problem in the negotiation process would be willingness to negotiate the two companies will have to keep their difference aside and try to listen to what the other has to say 2- If the viewpoints of the parties are too distant then progress is difficult to achieve.
2. Authorities coming to decision The authorities can also come to a suitable decision after going through the entire situation and listening to both the Microsoft and the Apple companies for the betterment . Merits: 1- The decision made would be of benefit to the entire company and would be exemplary Demerits: 1- The final verdict may not be considering the interests of the two companies and may even worsen the situation 2-The decision would have to be imposed and may be resisted having less value 3- If the decision might suppress the conflict temporarily but it will not be a permanent solution
3. Mediation
Mediation is another technique through which the conflict can be resolved. The mediator will propose solutions, trying out scenarios, trying to get commitment to a settlement by both companies. The mediator will go back and forth between the companies during this time, clearing up misunderstandings, and carrying information, proposals, and points of agreement. The mediator will work to find points of agreement between the two departments, in an effort to reach an agreement. At some point, the mediator may pose a final agreement for them and urge them to accept however it depends on the Microsoft or the Apple company to agree or not if not the mediator will come up with other possible terms of agreement. Merits: 1- Mediation has the advantage of allowing a neutral third party assist in helping find a resolution to conflicts 2- A mediator cannot force parties to accept a resolution but he or she can guide the parties to work from points of mutual agreement
Demerits: 1- The mediator cannot enforce any decision and may lose credibility if no resolution is found to the problem 2- It is very difficult to select a mediator and his credibility will always be argued by the compromising party. A mediator may suffer from the same bias problem 3-If the mediator is from the organization his trust and personal gain is an issue and if form outside the expenses will be an issue. 4. Team counseling Another solution is to handle the conflict at a counseling meeting, put the problem on the next agenda and invite the necessary individuals. For this all the facts, relate the issue are brought in the open and are discussed in a private setting, documented, and signed. The Microsoft and the Apple companies can put their issue and problem on the agenda. Working with a professional team counselor will likely involve several different steps and determine what the needs are and how they are going to be met to satisfaction. The counselor will recommend what is suitable based on what he observes and figures out where the fault lays. The counselor will basically after observing advise the two companies to avoid a few things he feels unjust or not suitable at the same time adopting a few traits to deal with each other and if not completely agree then compromise a little. Merits: 1- The counselor makes the parties realize the right and wrong and reminds the merit and plus points of the collaboration. Demerits: 1-The counseling process is time consuming 2- The participants do not agree to the session and fell humiliated or embarrassed in the process 3-the expenses of the counselor are also an issue
5. Arbitration
Arbitration is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts, wherein the parties to a dispute refer it to one or more persons whose decision they agree to be bound. It is a settlement technique in which a third party reviews the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides. The Arbitrator will bring the departments to a settlement based on the scenario that is put forward and then after consideration he will give his verdict which will have to be followed Merits:
1- The advantage of this system is that it allows a neutral party to decide on a resolution to the matter presented which is binding upon all parties Demerits: 1-Arbitration allows a third party to resolve disputes between and confidentiality is at risk 2- There are often differences with regard to who the arbitrator will be and as a result it introduces a new set of conflicts 3-The credibility of the Arbitrator will always raise questions 4-The personal bias of the arbitrator may lead to a ruling which is not fair but none the less binding upon all parties. 5-Bearing the expenses of the Arbitrator is an issue
6.Accommodators:
The Apple company should have sought a common point of understanding with Microsoft over the GUI issue because the law suit only brought a bad image to the company with heavy financial losses . Merits: The decision made would be of benefit to the entire company and would be Demerits: The apple company will appear to get along but will repress hostility.
Suggested option:
The conflict between Apple and Microsoft rose due to the fact that Apple had previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0.Then Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple resented it and filed suit. Moreover Apple's claims failed on an originality basis. Apple borrowed many of its representations from Xerox and IBM and copyright protection only extends to original expression. Apple returned to its "complete look and feel" argument, stating that while the individual components were not original, the complete GUI was. The court rejected these arguments because the parts were not original. Thus negotiation seems the best solution because in this way they can achieve a mutually satisfactory outcome. Both sides will be willing to cooperate in order to gain some of his/her goals but also to let the other to achieve some of theirs. Both Apple and Microsoft if negotiate with a spirit of cooperation, they may create a value added solution that will
benefit both parties more than was considered before the negotiation began. There is no risk of biasness on unfair treatment as no third party is involved. Similarly this also improves the relationship and makes the environment friendlier. Negotiation will also enable apple and Microsoft to examine the problem from all sides. Taking time to listen and to ask questions makes it easier to learn more about someone's perspectives. Considering different perspectives will increase the range and variety of possible solutions. Genuine interest in other people and in their contribution to finding solutions builds trust. Trust provides a foundation for continuing a relationship between the two companies.
Lessons learnt:
Resolving a conflict through different approaches has provided with following lessons 1- To work on the concept of fairness in conflicts and finding resolutions 2-How to strong, or to give in based on the situation 3- Identify how others might be feeling in order to encourage sensitivity. 4- To think of different ways to solve problems, how to brainstorm and to come to a consensus. 5- How to explore the nature of the conflict and distinguish between conflict and violence. 6- To identify what is positive about conflict and what is negative by analyzing a conflict and giving a diagnosis 7-Learnt different kinds of hurtful behavior and how to avoid them 8- Identify the potential positive and negative consequences of using violence to resolve conflicts. 9-This has also helped in learning how to avoid a conflict and getting the best of it an organizational setting by the following measures:
To stop before you lose control of your temper and make the conflict worse To say what you feel is the problem and what is causing the disagreement Listen to the other person's ideas and feelings and try to understand the others point of view.
To think of solutions that will satisfy both the parties involved
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows http://apple2history.org/history/ah16.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
Presented to: Mr. Manzoor Awan Presented by: Muhammad Omer Khan Sheryar kiani Ali Javed Fawad jan M. Yasir Umer Mian Ali Rahim Aqeel asrar M. Waleed Azhar
A Conflict may be defined as a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals. Conflict is inevitable; however, the results of conflict are not predetermined. Conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive results. Conflicts in Pakistan date back to its birth: After the death of QuaideAzam, Liaquat Ali Khan had to deal with a number of difficulties that Pakistan faced in its early days. He helped Quaid-i-Azam in solving the riots and refugee problem and in setting up an effective administrative system for the country. He established the groundwork for Pakistan's foreign policy. He also took steps towards the formulation of the constitution. He presented The Objectives Resolution, a prelude to future. Liaquat Ali Khan was unfortunately assassinated on October 16, 1951. Security forces immediately shot the assassin, who was later identified as Saad Akbar. The question of who was behind his murder is yet to be answered. After the death of Liaquat Ali Khan various conflicts arose within the country the most important being the leadership When Liaquat Ali Khan was assassinated on October 16, 1951, Khawaja Nazimuddin, who was the Governor General at that time, took over as the second Prime Minister of Pakistan. He remained in power till April 1953 when Ghulam Muhammad removed him from the office. Khawaja Nazimuddin's downfall was not only due to his meekness of character, but also due to the power struggle amongst the various leaders. The movement for Tahaffuz-iKhatam-i-Nabuwat and the worsening food condition in Punjab caused a lot of trouble for Khawaja Nazimuddin. The anti-Ahmadiya movement was started in Punjab by the Ahrar and had the support of Mian Mumtaz Daultana, the Chief Minister of Punjab. This movement soon spread to other parts of the country. There were widespread disturbances and the situation in the country soon worsened to the brink of anarchy and civil war. Imposition of Martial Law became imminent. Khawaja Nazimuddin was summoned by the Governor General along with his Cabinet and ordered to resign. Most historians agree that the removal of Khawaja Nazimuddin was improper, undemocratic and objectionable because the Prime Minister still enjoyed the confidence of the Parliament. This act set an unhealthy tradition and precedent for the future Presidents who were fond of removing elected governments, thus creating continued instability in the country.
CONFLICT BETWEEN EAST AND WEST PAKISTAN: Although the Eastern wing of Pakistan was more populous than than the Western one, political power since independence rested with the Western elite. This caused considerable resentment in East Pakistan and a charismatic Bengali leader called, Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, most forcefully articulated that resentment by forming an opposition political party called the Awami League and demanding more autonomy for East Pakistan within the Pakistani Federation. In the Pakistani general elections held in 1970, the Sheikh's party won the majority of seats, securing a complete majority in East Pakistan. In all fairness, the Sheikh should have been Prime Minister of Pakistan, or at least the ruler of his province. But West Pakistan's ruling elite were so dismayed by the turn of events and by the Sheikh's demands for autonomy that instead of allowing him to rule East Pakistan, they put him in jail. The dawn of 1971 saw a great human tragedy unfolding in erstwhile East Pakistan. Entire East Pakistan was in revolt. In the West, General Yahya Khan, who had appointed himself President in 1969, had given the job of pacifying East Pakistan to his junior, General Tikka Khan. The crackdown of 25 March 1971 ordered by Tikka Khan, left thousands of Bengalis dead and Sheikh Mujibur Rehman was arrested the next day. The same day, the Pakistani Army began airlifting two of its divisions plus a brigade strength formation to its Eastern Wing. Attempts to dis-arm Bengali troops were not entirely successful and within weeks of the 25 March massacres, many former Bengali officers and troops of the Pakistani Army had joined Bengali resistance fighters in different parts of East Pakistan. A liberation army was made by the east Pakistanis by the name of Mukti Bahni, which was later supported by Indian government against Wast Pakistan. SECTARIAN VOILENCE: Sectarian violence is amongst the most lethal in Pakistan since the mid-eighties. It opposes mostly Sunnis and Shias. Actually, it would be more accurate to describe this conflict as a Deobandi-Shia conflict since the former somehow appropriated the term Sunni for themselves and is supported in its anti-Shia struggle by Ahle Hadit organizations. Between 1985 and 1989, over 300 Shias were killed in sectarian incidents in Jhang district, Southern
Punjab, the birthplace of organized sectarian militancy, the two sub-sects now living in separate parts of the city. Then, between 1989 and 2003 1,468 persons were killed and 3,370 injured in some 1,813 sectarian incidents. Till the mid-nineties, most of the killings remained concentrated in Punjab. 700 people were killed in this province alone between 1989 and 2001. But then, sectarian violence spread to the whole of Pakistan, first in the Northern Areas and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), then in Sindh, causing 1850 dead in total. In Karachi alone, 293 people died between 1994 and June 2002, of whom approximately 200 were Shias. The sectarian violence peaked in Karachi in 1994-95 as 103 Shias and 28 Sunnis died during this period. The present state of organized sectarian conflict can be traced to the murder of TNJF leader Arif Hussain Al-Hussaini in 1988. Others date it to 1987 when Ahl-e-Hadith leaders, Allama Ehsan Elahi Zaheer and Maulana Habib ur Rehman Yazdani, were killed, along with six others, at a meeting in Lahore. From 1985 to 1995, the dominant pattern of sectarian violence was targeted killings of leaders and militants of each others sects. The spiral of violence registered a sharp rise in February 1990 with the murder of Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, founder of the SSP. This led to violent clashes resulting in dozens of casualties and burning down of many houses and shops in Jhang. Then, by the mid-nineties, the pattern of sectarian violence shifted to targeted attacks on religious gatherings and mosques, even with hand grenades and time bombs. At that time, office bearers and government officials also became targeted. Since 1997, a new feature of sectarian violence appeared with indiscriminate gunfire on ordinary citizens not involved in sectarian activity, and tit-for-tat killings targeting doctors, lawyers and traders. Finally, in the post September 11, 2001 context, suicide bombing tends to become the dominant pattern of sectarian violence. 1988; May 17, The Gilgit Massacre: In Gilgit, the main city of the Northern Areas of Pakistan, a predominantly Shia and Ismaeli area, Sunnis, who were still fasting, attacked Shias while celebrating Eid ul-Fitr, in the wake of a theological quarrel between Shias and Sunnis over the starting date of Ramadan. Official sources said 200 people were killed but it was closer to 800 according to unofficial estimates.
1992; July: A three-day riot occurred in the NWFP, particularly in Peshawar,between Shias and Sunnis. It caused the death of seven Sunnis and three Shias 1996; September: A sectarian clash turned in a nine-day communal war, following an incident of wall chalking by sectarian students, involving mortars, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missiles, between Sunni Orakzai and Shia Bangash tribe in Parachinar, the capital of Kurram Agency of the Federally-Administrated Tribal Areas (FATA). It caused the death of more than 200 people. 1997; August 1-10: More than 100 people, mostly Shias, died in sectarian riots during ten days throughout Punjab in an unprecedented wave of sectarian strife, a few days before the anniversary of 50th year of Independence. 1998; March: Twenty-one Shias were killed in Hangu, NWFP, during an attack by Sunni militant organizations. 2003; July 4, The Jama Masjid-o-Imambargah Massacre: Some 53 people were killed and 57 injured when two men opened fire and one blew himself up in a Shia mosque, the Jama Masjid-o-Imambargah Kalaan Isna Ashri in Quetta, capital of Baluchistan, during the Friday prayers. 2004; March 2: On the day of Ashura, SSP activists in connivance with police officers attacked a procession of Shias, killing 47 of them (especially from the anti-Taliban Shia Hazara community) and injuring 150 others, at Liaquat Bazaar in Quetta. 2004; May 7 and 31: Two suicide bombings, both executed by members of LeJ, respectively on the Shia Hyderi Masjid on May 7 in Karachi and at Imambargah Ali Raza also in Karachi on May 31, killed 47 people 2004; October 1 and 7: Two bomb blasts killed at least 71 people and injured 200 others in Punjab at a Shia mosque at Sialkot during the Friday prayers and at a large gathering assembled to mark the first anniversary of the killing of Sunni leader and SSP chief Maulana Azim Tariq in Multan. 2005; May 27: Bari Imam Shrine Blast: Around 25 people died in a suicide bomb attack and over 100 others were injured during a crowed Majlis, where Barelvi Sunnis were also present at the Bari Imam shrine of the Shia sect located in the vicinity of the diplomatic enclave in Islamabad.
2007; April 6-11: Around 55 people were killed during sectarian clashes in the Kurram Agency of FATA as Shia and Sunni militants attacked each others village with heavy weapons. The violence broke out when Shias were attacked in an Imambargah in the morning while they were staging a demonstration outside their mosque against local Sunnis who allegedly chanted anti-Shias slogans during a religious rally the week before. Intra-Sunni Conflicts: Not only is there violence between Sunnis and Shias but there is also numerous intra-Sunni conflicts, especially between the Barelvis and the Deobandis. Sunnis in Pakistan can be broadly divided into four categories: Deobandis, Barelvis, Ahle Hadit, and revivalist, modernist movements. The first two Sunni sub-sects are products of 19th century IndoMuslim reform movements that emerged from religious seminaries, one located at Deoband in 1867, and the other at Bareilly in 1897, both now in India. Although they both follow the Hanafi school of Sunni Jurisprudence, their interpretations of it radically differ. The main controversy between them deals with the Barelvis promotion of the Sufi Islamic tradition of hereditary saints and shrine culture which is rejected by Deobandis who dismiss these practices as idolatry and favor a strict adherence to the classical texts of Islam. The third category is a small, ultra-orthodox and puritanical sect inspired by the purist Wahabi tradition originating from Saudi Arabia. The latter group is composed of modernist movements, which emerged during the 1940s such as the Jamaat-i-Islami (JI). The main intra-Sunni conflict is the one opposing Deobandis and Barelvis, the two main Sunni sub-sects.The situation deteriorated into large scale violence when the major Barelvi sectarian outfit, the Sunni Tehreek (ST), an off-shot of the JamaatUlema Pakistan (JUP), was created by Mohammad Saleem Qadri in 1990, with its stronghold and headquarters in Karachi, to counter the increasing hegemony of Ahle Hadees and Deobandi organizations over the Pakistani government. The pattern of intra-Sunni violence follows more or the less the same evolution as described in the case of sectarian violence. Beginning by aggressive occupation of mosques, it then moved to targeted killings of the organizations respective leaders (Saleem Qadri was hence assassinated in 2001) to finally suicide bombing as in the case of the Nishtar Park bombing in Karachi in 2006.
Initially, the ST essentially targeted the Sipah-i-Sahaba and the Lashkar-e-Taiba. From 1990 to 2002, it especially resorted to aggressive occupation of mosques in Sindh and Punjab that were thought to have been taken over from their control by Ahle Hadit and Deobandi organizations. It would have lost approximately 30 militants in these operations since 1990. Since 2002, a few months after the targeted assassination of its leader and founder Saleem Qadri on May 18, 2001, the Sunni Tehreek entered politics. This politization of the Sunni Tehreek propelled a conflict with the MQM, the major political party in Karachi, though it is said that an agreement was reached between the two in 1995 when the federal State cracked down MQMs militants according to which these latter were offered protection in the ranks of the Sunni Tehreek. Between 2004 and 2006, the Sunni Tehreek said it lost 75 militants and accused the MQM for most of them. Sunni Tehreeks militants mostly suffered from targeted killings but violence climaxed during the Nishtar Park Bombing on April 11, 2006, when the entire leadership of the organization died. 2006; April 11, The Nishtar Park Bombing: At least 57 people, including prominent clerics, among whom the top leadership of the Sunni Tehreek and the Jamaat Ahl-e Sunnat, were killed and more than 200 people sustained injuries in a suicide bomb attack at Nishtar Park in Karachi. It is believed members of the Sunni Tehreek were outwardly targeted. However, it remains unclear whether the bombing should be attributed to Deobandi organizations or the MQM. CULTURAL CONFLICT: Pakistan today is undergoing an identity crisis a crisis which the author feels arises from culture conflict. One of the causes of this conflict is that the Pakistani society possesses imported cultures along with its own; varying with the diverse regions. The numerous cultures tend to conflict with one another. This crisis is clearly manifest in the actions of the Pakistani youth --rebellions, and indecisiveness. ETHNIC CONFLICTS: Mohajir dominance in Pakistans politics was gradually eroded by the Punjabi bureaucratic-military clique, and Federal power gradually shifted to Punjab. This was
followed by instances of Sindhi assertiveness, particularly provincial government initiatives, such as imposition of the Sindhi language in education and the adoption of the Sindh (Teaching, Promotion and Use of Sindhi Language) Act in 1972. These actions led to the first violent clashes involving mohajir groups. In 1985, when a mohajir girl was crushed to death under a bus, a fresh round of violence involving the mohajirs and Pathans began, since the latter were perceived to control the urban transport business. Subsequent police intervention led, for the first time, to clashes between the state and mohajir groups, a common occurrence since then. Until this time, ethnic clashes in Sindh were marked by animosity between Mohajirs on the one side and other ethnic minorities (Sindhis, Pathans) on the other. In 1986, Mohajir Quami Movement (MQM) leader Altaf Hussain provided a new direction to the ethnic strife. The agenda of MQM has been to get a better deal for the Mohajirs from the Punjabi centre and from the Sindhi provincial government, which it sees as oppressive. One of its important demands has been the change in quota policy which it feels is inimical to Mohajir interests. It has not been able to wrest substantive concessions despite using coercion, violence and terror tactics. But some of its demands that Mohajirs be declared as the fifth nationality have not been well received. It has managed to cut across red tape and solve some of the housing problems in the city of Karachi. Its support base is the lower middle class and it has been financed by middle class Mohajirs. Several bouts of violence have occurred after 1986, when Altaf Hussain first gave the call for a movement against the Punjabi dominated state. These include the reported spate of reprisal killings by drug barons in Karachi, where over one hundred persons lost their lives and several hundred were injured. Several connected instances of attacks on Sindhis and Mohajirs sparked riots in 1988, with Hyderabad bearing the brunt. According to a report, the "streets of Hyderabad were littered with bodies right from Hirabad to Latifabad". The riots claimed over 60 dead in just one day, and more than 250 deaths in this phase of rioting. In a backlash, more than 60 Sindhi speaking people were gunned down in Karachi. In Pakistan one can easily say that religious and ethnic organisations representing their respective communities are increasingly using violent methods including terrorism and even democratic and legal tools to achieve the ends that they have set for themselves thereby resulting in increasing incidents of violence and terrorism the last decade.
RECENT TARGET KILLINGS IN KARACHI: The demand for a decisive action has come from the MQM at a time when Awami National Party (ANP), mainly representing the Pakhtuns, and some other groups have started blaming the MQM for the violence in the city. Dr Sattar is of the view that land and encroachment mafias are responsible for 80 per cent incidents of target killings in the city. He admitted that there was a possibility that some elements belonging to these mafias had taken refuge in political parties. HAZARA CONFLICT: Part of the reason the Sooba Hazara issue is not going to go away very soon is that it has in fact been around for a long time. Beyond the Hazarewals' resentment of slights (both real and perceived) and the fear of becoming dominated by another ethnic group, however are deeper issues. A regional Hazarewal identity wasn't galvanized simply on the back of the 18th Amendment. It is rooted in several other processes and events. One of its roots is how Hazarewals perceive the history of Pakhtun nationalism, and its relationship with, at first the idea of Pakistan, and later, the Pakistani state. Hazarewals see themselves as being among the most instrumental groups in the formation of Pakistan, because they defeated the referendum held in 1947 to decide on the fate of the NWFP. Political Upheaval in 2007: Pakistan in 2007 suffered from considerable political uncertainty as the tenuousgovernance structure put in place by President Musharraf came under strain. Amongordinary Pakistanis, criticism of the military typically among the most respected institutions in the country and its role in governance has become much more common, especially as the army has proven unable to ensure security and stability in both major cities and in the western provinces of Baluchistan and the North West Frontier. Many among the Pakistani public appear increasingly put off by a seemingly arbitrary electoral process that preserves
the power of a corrupt elite that demonstrates little meaningful concern with the problems of ordinary citizens. Moreover, there has been an accompanying and widespread dismay among Pakistanis at the appearance of unabashed U.S. interference in their political system, interference that from their perspective serves only to perpetuate the corruption. Judicial Crisis: A judicial crisis began with President Musharrafs summary March 2007 dismissal of the countrys Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, on charges of nepotism and misconduct. Analysts widely believe the action was an attempt by Musharraf to remove a potential impediment to his continued roles as president and army chief, given Chaudhrys rulings that exhibited independence and went contrary to government expectations. The move triggered immediate outrage among Pakistani lawyers; ensuing street protests by opposition activists grew in scale. By providing a platform upon which anti-Musharraf sentiments could coalesce, the imbroglio morphed into a full-fledged political crisis. The deposed Chief Justice became an overnight political celebrity. In May, tens of thousands of supporters lined the streets as Chaudhry drove from Islamabad to Lahore to address the High Court there. Chaudhry later flew to Karachi but was blocked from leaving the citys airport, reportedly by activists of the regional, government-allied Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) party. Ensuing street battles between MQM cadres and opposition activists left at least 40 people dead on May 12, most of them PPP members. Reports had local police and security forces standing by without intervening while the MQM attacked anti-Musharraf protesters, leading many observers to charge the government with complicity in the bloody rioting.10 In July, in what was widely seen as a major political defeat for Musharraf, the Supreme Court unanimously cleared Chaudhry of any wrongdoing and reinstated him to office. When, in August, Musharraf reportedly came close to declaring a state of emergency, Secretary of State Rice placed a late-night telephone call to Islamabad, by some accounts in a successful effort to dissuade him.
August brought further indications that the Supreme Court would not be subservient to military rule and could derail President Musharrafs political plans. Most significantly, the court ruled that former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif could return to Pakistan after seven years in exile. When Sharif attempted to return on September 10, the government immediately arrested him on corruption charges and deported him. (On October 24, Pakistans Chief Justice stated that Sharif still has an inalienable right to return to Pakistan, and he accused then-Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz of violating a Supreme Court order by arranging for Sharifs most recent deportation.) In September, the Islamabad government arrested hundreds of opposition political leaders and activists, many of them deputies of Nawaz Sharif, including some sitting members of Parliament. A statement from the U.S. Embassy called the development extremely disturbing and confusing, and Secretary Rice called the arrests troubling.At years end, Pakistans judicial crisis was far from fully resolved. Changes made by Musharraf under the emergency remain controversial, perhaps most especially the questionable dismissal of many Supreme Court justices, some of whom remain under house arrest in 2008. Aitzaz Ahsan, the lawyer who lead the successful effort to have former Chief Justice Chaudhry reseated earlier in 2007, has been at the forefront of the current effort to have the Supreme Court reconstituted by Musharraf restored to its preNovember status. In early December, he proposed requiring all parliamentary candidates to sign an oath pledging to restore the judiciary, but this tack was rejected by Bhutto and other opposition leaders as unrealistic. Ahsan himself accused the U.S. government of not seeming to care about Musharrafs crackdown on the Supreme Court and making no mention of the issue in various agency briefings.
Suggestions: We recommend the following solutions for these scenarios: Provincial Autonomy: This may seem to be a problem as of now but if done in the right context and correct way; this can be a very viable solution to many problems. By this, we mean that the current existing provinces should be allowed certain powers to exercise. These include health, education, development etc. Small Provinces: This has been an issue of debate over the past few months now. But this can be a handy solution too. If people and authorities are facing conflict situations within, than they can be allowed to establish a small state or province of their own and they could be provided with the facilities to do so by the federal government. This can be a good way of avoiding the circumstances developing. For example Hazara and Bahawalpur situation can be handled this way. Either they could be given their equal rights or given a separate province to run on their own rules and regulations. Centre of authority to be Federal Government: After giving autonomy to the provinces, not all but few important authorities should be only given to and exercised by the Federal Government alone. They may include the Interior Ministry, Defense Ministry, Finance Ministry and Currency. All the rest should be equally divided to the rest of the provinces so that burden is lifted off from the federal government and this will make them able to pay more attention on the bigger issues. Recommendations: Islam is our Deen (Religion):
The first pillar rejects the terrorism, extremism, and sectarianism in our society. Islam preaches moderation, tolerance, non-violence, and co-existence, hence, establishment of an enlightened, moderate, and egalitarian society. Democracy is our politics: It puts an end to militarism and dictatorship in our society. Preaches freedom of expression, independence of media, protection of human rights, rule of law and independence of justice system. The modern Muslim thinkers support democracy. Quaid-eAzam achieved his target through democratic process. We need to democratise our society in essence. Socialism is our economy: It is a great challenge to the exploiters and marauders. The capitalist and the feudal lords have looted the resources of Pakistan. There is no economic parity. Socialism will put an end to capitalism and feudalism in our society. There is a dire need of economic and social justice. This will help to eradicate terrorism, criminals, prostitution, and other social evils. People are the source of power: In Islam, sovereignty belongs to Allah. The Islamic government is formed through elections for the well being of the people. People have every right to decide their fate. The fact of the matter is that the privileged class has always undermined the rights of unprivileged. The touts of imperialism are anti-public. It is very tragic that in the third world, people have no voice. The continuation of a democratic process will establish that the people are the source of power Asif Ali Zardari needs a team of educated, honest, devoted politicians and intellectuals.
Pakistan India Water Dispute

RAJA ALI, KHURRAM FAIEQ USMAN BUTT M.ALI BAIG FAHAD JAVED BAHRAM KHAN MUSA ADNAN
UMAIR RASOOL
Executive Summary
India is controlling the water flow of rivers that flow from India into Pakistan, especially the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum rivers that pass through Indias Jammu & Kashmir state. Pakistan has raised objections to Indian water projects, but a World Bank-appointed neutral expert rejected most of the Pakistani objections, especially with regard to the Baglihar Dam on Chenab River, while also advising India to make some changes to the dams height. Pakistani commentators, pressure groups and religious leaders think that India is controlling the river waters to strangulate Pakistani agriculture, which could affect Pakistani exports and increase its dependency on food imports. Pakistani commentators fear future war with India may break out over water disputes. Public debate on the issue in Pakistan is often framed in terms of an international conspiracy involving the Jews, the Israel and the United States, though the issue itself is of bilateral nature with India. The water issue is seen as a defense security concern. Senior Pakistani editor Majeed Nizami, considered close to the military establishment, has threatened nuclear war against India. There is a realization in Pakistan that the 1960 Indus Water Treaty that establishes legal framework for use of river waters has been to the advantage of India. However, Pakistani authorities are raising the issue of water sharing between the two nuclear neighbors. Bilateral talks on Indias water projects are continuing. Recent stresses and strains in the observance of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) have had many analysts believe that water sharing will take a politically charged dynamic and may even replace Kashmir as the primary source of conflict between India and Pakistan. Therefore it is important to have comprehensive understanding of the overall issues of the Indus system of rivers and the IWT as this article attempts to provide. It is formatted introduce the Indus river system, a brief overview of the principles of water sharing, the historical background leading up
to the water crisis between India and Pakistan and the mediation by the World Bank, various provisions of the IWT, current disputes in water projects on the Indus River System bilaterally between India and Pakistan, and a look into the state of affairs of the Indus River System within Pakistan today.
Introduction
Prior to independence the British started to establish a linked canal system in various parts of subcontinent. For this purpose number of head works and canals were built, dams were envisioned. On April 1st, 1948, India stopped supply of water to Pakistan from every canal flowing from India to Pakistan. Pakistan protested and India finally agreed on an interim agreement on May 4, 1948 (Inter-Dominion Accord). This accord required India to release sufficient waters to Pakistani regions of the basin in return for annual payments from the government of Pakistan so this agreement was not a permanent solution. By 1951, dispute had taken a very dangerous turn as both countries were not talking to each other on this matter anymore and a war was very much at hands therefore, Pakistan approached the World Bank in 1952 to help breaking the deadlock and settle the problem permanently. Negotiations were carried out between the two countries through the offices of the World Bank for six years (1954-60). It was finally in Ayub Khan's regime that an agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in September 1960. This agreement is known as the Indus Water Treaty.
Indus Water Treaty 1960 (IWT)
This treaty divided the use of rivers and canals between the two countries. Pakistan obtained exclusive rights for three western rivers, namely Indus, Jehlum and Chenab. And India retained rights to three eastern rivers, namely Ravi, Beas and Sutluj. The treaty also guaranteed ten years of uninterrupted water supply. During this period Pakistan was to build huge dams, financed partly by long-term World Bank loans and compensation money from India but India denied money to Pakistan for this purpose.
After Indian denial of money The Bank responded with a plan for external financing supplied mainly by the United States and the United Kingdom Three multipurpose dams, Warsak, Mangla and Tarbela were built. A system of eight link canals was also built and the remodeling of existing canals was carried out. Five barrages and a gated siphon were also constructed under this treaty.
Important points of IWT (Indus water Treaty)

1. India will have exclusive right over Eastern Rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej) until they crossed into Pakistan. 2. Pakistan will have exclusive rights over Western Rivers (Chenab, Jehlum and Indus) 3. India will be allowed to use Western River waters for non-consumption use only (excluding irrigation and storage). 4. India will pay one time to Pakistan for loss of its water of Eastern Rivers. 5. A transitions period till 31 March 1970 will be maintained by both sides so that Pakistan can build its link canal system to divert water from its Western Rivers to Eastern Rivers through these link canals. 6. Both sides will avoid building any man made structure which can change natural course of water. 7. Both sides will be responsible for maintaining Indus basin by adopting best practices available. 8. India will be bound to inform Pakistan about design of any work on Western river well before start of any work on Western rivers. 9. If India construct any work on Western Rivers it will supply water downstream that was received by a dam or barrage within 24 hours.
The Situation
During past decade nuclear arch rivals Pakistan and India came to brink of war many times but shown restrain every time. Better sense prevailed on both sides. In 2004 by announcing unilateral ceasefire at LOC (line of control) Pakistan paved the way forward for durable peace in subcontinent. It was envisaged after initializing peace process that now as both the countries are N-capable so they are bound to solve their bilateral issues on table but courtesy to Indian aggressive water policy these hopes are fading away with each passing day. Population growth in subcontinent is major impediment in progress. Pakistan is facing stiff challenges on many fronts. Water and energy security are most important of these. Pakistan is on the brink of water disaster and its availability has decreased to 1,200 cubic meters per person from 5,000 cubic meters in 1947 and is predicted to plunge to 800 cubic meters by 2020. This is alarming situation and making the things even worse India has started many hydro power projects, dams, reservoirs and barrages on Pakistani rivers in Kashmir. Water dispute between Pakistan and India started when a boundary commission for demarcating the international boundaries, in the states of Punjab and Bengal under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Radcliffe was constituted. He awarded most of the canals and the canal irrigated land to Pakistan, but the sources of all the five tributaries of the Indus- Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej- remained in India. Thus, India continued to be the "upstream riparian" of the Indus and its tributaries. To fully comprehend the complication that the Indus River bears, it is essential to understand Indus River system. Situation is going to get worse in future if India completed all its projects on Pakistani rivers flowing from Kashmir into Pakistan. Many international authors and thinkers have already rung the alarm bell while analyzing Pakistans water, food and energy security in future in context of Indian plans on Pakistani rivers and clumsy response from many Pakistani governments in Islamabad.
Indus River Basin
Dispute between Pakistan and India on water can only be understood after getting an insight about Indus river basin system. Soon after independence, the problem drew the attention of the governments of India and Pakistan as both countries wanted to extend irrigation on their side of border. Bilateral negotiations were initially held but settlement was ultimately arrived under the patronage of the World Bank. In Sep. 1960, The Indus Water Treaty was signed. Under this treaty, Pakistan received exclusive rights to the water from the three Western rivers Indus, Jelum and Chenab with an assured flow of about 166.46 x 109 m3 or 135 million acre-feet (MAF). Water from three eastern riversRavi, Beas and Sutlej, with an annual flow of 33 MAF were allocated to India. The treaty established a transition period up to 31st March 1970 for Pakistan to construct its systems of works, called Indus st Basin Replacement Plan. Meanwhile, India was to continue supply of water to Pakistan to irrigate about 1.2 Mha areas before replacement works (two storage dams, five barrages, one siphon and eight link canal system) were completed. As a result, there is an impressive list of post independence irrigation works in the Pakistan.
Indian Plans for Pakistani Rivers

IWT was a treaty heavily in favor of India. India got unrestricted allocation of Eastern Rivers and some limited allocation on Western Rivers along with permission to complete under-construction dams and reservoir these included Mahora, Ganderbal, Kupwara, Bhadarwah, Kishtwar, Rajouri, Chinani Nichalani Banihal etc. Pakistan did accept accord as there were still guarantees and criteria to ensure water availability to Pakistan and this was perhaps the last chance for settling the dispute peacefully. India till this day has continued to pursue its dream of making Pakistan docile to fulfill Indian desires. To achieve this dream India decided to manipulate provisions of IWT1960 cleverly and now is in process of building multiple dams and barrages clearly breaching the provisions described in the treaty. The aim is
to damage link canal system of Pakistan by blocking water in one season and to destroy ready crops in the other season by releasing excessive waters through these dams and barrages. Diversion of water is also a disturbing practice opted by India during recent years. Below are the details of some of the current and proposed Indian projects on Western rivers. These details clearly showcase intentions of India about water flow towards Pakistan.
Chenab
India has already built 14 hydroelectric plants on Chenab River and is building more plants which will enable it to block entire water of Chenab for 20-25 days. These dams have also enabled India to release huge quantity of water downstream not only to cause damage to standing crops but also to our canal systems. Chenab River provides water to 21 canals and irrigates about 7 million acres of agriculture land in Punjab province of Pakistan.
Baglihar Dam
Baglihar Dam is located near Doda (on river Chenab which according to Indus Water Treaty belongs to Pakistan. Baglihar dam is 143 meters (470 feet) high, equal to worlds largest rockfilled dam at Tarbela, Pakistan. The dam also houses gated spillways to control the flow of water of river Chenab. India initiated this project in 1999 and spent more money than what was estimated. The increase in initial estimated cost of the dam in 2002 resulted in Rs5 per unit (highest in India) increase cost of electricity to be produced from the dam. Baglihar dam was the first project by Indian which was referred to neutral expert in the World Bank.
Above:An Baglihar built damage ground station 2008 alone.
ariel
view to
of
massive tunnel divert
Above:Massive
dam after completion. Dam caused River water to under power at Baglihar Dam.
of Rs.23 billion to Pakistani agriculture
Pakistan time and again reminded India about its reservations and concerns regarding this project but instead of taking Pakistani concerns into consideration India continued construction of Baglihar dam even after the matter was taken to World Bank for arbitration. Pakistan rose following concerns regarding design of the dam;
Height of Dam: Height of freeboard (The vertical distance between the top of the dam and the full supply level on the reservoir) of dam must be reduced as it is in excess of designed parameter of the dam.
Gated spillways: India must abandon gated spillways design as it will enable India to manipulate water flow by blocking. There must be only a run of river project.
Poundage /Storage: Storage capacity of reservoir of the dam must be reduced so that flow of the river is not interrupted. The World Bank expert Raymond Lafitte approved the project in February 2007 but asked India to reduce height of the freebed by one and a half meters and reduction in poundage of
storage from Indian claimed 38 million cubic meters (MCM) to 32 million cubic meter whereas Pakistan asked to reduce it. Other objections were rejected. Right: A view of Massive gated spillways at Baglihar dam. Height of dam also suggested that this dam is built basically as a reservoir and not for just hydel power generation as India is trying to project. One opened gate of spillways as shown in the above picture tells how much water can be blocked behind all gates of spillways. During 2008 Rabi sowing season (Jan-Mar) Pakistan suffered a loss of more than 20 billion rupees. Not only that but production of Wheat crop along with petty crop like Rice, Cotton also got affected due to low water in canals originated from Chenab. Financial Viability of the project shows India is determined to cut flow of Pakistani rivers from Kashmir. Per MW cost of electricity from Baglihar is Rs8.89 Corer which is much higher than other parts of India and the only reason for that is the increased cost of the project which was initially estimated at Rs27 Billion but increased to more than Rs40 billion. Despite this surge in cost India never showed any hesitation to undertake this enterprise. Cost will further increase after India modified its design in order to implement verdict of neutral expert which includes reducing height of freeboard of dam. Hydrologic viability is another gauge of Indian intention behind this project. After commissioning second phase of Baglihar total electricity out put will be 900 MW. In its May 2005 issue, Dams, Rivers & People reported, It will require 860 cumecs of water (to generate 900 MW), but Chenab flow reduces to lower than that in winter. In fact flow in Chenab reduced to upto 50 cumecs. The Indian authorities have not made public the hydrologic data or the projected power generation from the project. The experience of the existing 690 MW Salal project on Chenab 480 MW Uri HEP on the adjoining basin Jhelum shows that these projects in fact generate much less power in winter when the need for power is maximum in J&K.
So it is evident that purposes of the dam, electrical station, reservoir and gated spillways are much more than what the Indians have projected about this dam.
Salal Dam
This dam was built on River Chenab in 1987 and was commissioned in 1993; it is built downstream of Baglihar. It is medium size dam with height of 113 meters and it has a reservoir level of 494 meters. Means it can block water of Chenab. Water discharging from downstream of Baglihar reaches Salal. India has always claimed that hydro projects in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) are for the population of Jammu and Kashmir but according to official sources of National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), the main contractor and builder of many dams in India and Kashmir including Salal dam, electricity generated by Salsal project will be provided to Punjab, Haryana, Delhi, Himachal Pradesh, Rajhisthan, and Uttar Pradesh, and the union territory of Chandigarh. Like always India told the world and Pakistan that this project is built adopting run-of- river method (without any reservoir) but below image taken from Google Maps clearly exposes a reservoir and blocked water flow of Chenab.
Dul Hasti
Located in Kishtwar district Hydro-electric power project comprises a diversion dam at Dul across the river Chenab and a power house at Hasti. Test runs begun in 2007. The dam was initiated by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi way back in 1983. Thedam infrastructure was demolished once by Kashmiri freedom fighters in early 1990s and work on dam was abandoned afterwards. The construction started later on the project. Once again built in Kashmir, the dam benefits only parts of India including Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan and Chandigarh whereas Jammu and Kashmir will merely get 12% of royalty of the project. Concrete gravity dam of 185 m length and 65 m height has an ungated spillway of 40 m and a gated spillway of 64 m with 4 radial gates. Again gated spillways are there just to stop flow of water to Pakistan.
This dam also tells the same story how committed India is to carry the plan to barren Pakistan completely by blocking flow of water of Pakistani rivers. Initial cost of the dam was estimated at Rs183 corer (in 1983) but due to delays the project cost climbed to Rs5228 Corer. This is 28 times increase in cost but still India completed this project and commissioned it on April 26, 2008. War is the only thing where any government can put so much resources and time on a single project.
Tawi-Ravi Link
River Tawi is a major left bank tributary of Chenab. It also flows into Pakistan along with Chenab and finally joins latter. To steal river Tawis water India built a lift irrigation scheme on the left bank of Tawi River. Main elements of this scheme are an uplift pump near Bahu fort in Jammu city and a canal system which joins another canal, Ravi-Link canal, near Vijaypur. Ravi Link Canal is drawn out from right bank of river Ravi. To send water into Tawi canal system, uplift water pumps lift water 31 meter higher from river level and put it into canal from where it is send to Ravi-Link Canal so that India can use this water in Ravi River which was given to India in IWT 1960.
Future Plans of India on Chenab
Indian determination to make Pakistan barren in near future has pushed her nefarious designs up to next level. All the above mentioned dams were not adequate to fulfill Indian designs against Pakistan therefore more dams and reservoirs are planned on river Chenab according to next five-year development plan of India. Below is the detail of these projects.
Pakal Dul & other Chenab Basin Projects
Pakal Dul and two other projects aggregating to about 2100 MW in Chenab Basin are proposed to be implemented through a Joint Venture Company in pursuance to MoU signed on 10.10.2008.
According to Indian ministry of water Pakal Dul (Drangdhuran) Hydroelectric Project is envisioned as a reservoir based scheme proposed on river Marusudar, the main right bank tributary of river Chenab in Kishtwar Tehsil of Doda District in Jammu & Kashmir. This is again a violation of IWT. The Project envisages construction of a concrete face rockfill dam across river Marusudar at village Drangdhuran and an underground Powerhouse at a location 2 km upstream of Dul dam, near village Trimuli. At Full Reservoir Level (EL 1700 M), the gross storage of the reservoir is 125.4 MCM. The project will cost more than Rs5500 Corer. After Baglihar, It will be interesting to see how an even higher dam affects the flow of Chenab and this is the first time Indians are going to build a dam with reservoir and they have announced this plan vocally. Capacity of the reservoir is another indication of how big this will be after completion. Baglihar with its 32 MCM can reduce flow of 7000 cusecs to Pakistan it must be much easier to understand that what impact a reservoir with a capacity of 124.4 MCM will have on downstream flow of the river. Environmentally, this project can prove to be an ecological disaster as most of its submerged area will consist of forests and agriculture lands. Submergence of forest land leads to loss of biodiversity and habitat destruction of wildlife on the other hand submergence of agriculture land as well as dwelling require rehabilitation of ousted people.
The Bursar Hydroelectric Project
To complete the agenda of blocking water of Chenab India has stepped up its plans mainly encouraged by clumsy and delayed response and quietness of Pakistani government on other above mentioned dams. India wants a reservoir based dam upstream to all other dams i.e. Pakal Dul, Dul Hasti, Rattle, Baglihar, Sawalkot and Salal Hydroelectric Projects, thereby enhancing the potential of all downstream schemes in winter season as Chenab flow reduces to a large extent in winter. India needs enough water which she can feed to its downstream dams then those dams will also store water and hence
blocking entire water of Chenab in winter season when Pakistani farmer sow wheat. This purpose will be served by The Bursar Hydroelectric Project. It is declared Indian project and it is going to be a reservoir based dam. According to Indian claims this will mitigate the shortage of water availability in the river during the winter months. But this dam just like Pakal Dul will be built on Marusudar River a major right bank tributary of Chenab. Pakal Dul dam itself will have a storage capacity of 125 MCM besides this Bursar another dam will be a 252m high rock fill dam these two dams will give India total control of this major tributary of Chenab. Once again a project built on Pakistani river flowing in a disputed territory will serve Indian states Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Union territories of Chandigarh & Delhi.
Jehlum
Jehlum is second in list of Western Rivers which were given to Pakistani according to IWT in 1960. Indian plans to block water of Pakistani Rivers ajre not limited to Chenab. Jehlum is the next target of India. Indian schemes on this river are more impudent and will violate IWT much more meanly. On Chenab Indian are busy building dams with excessive poundage capacities while on Jhelum plans are more inline with diversion of water from Jehlum and its tributaries so that flow of river can be reduced when it cross into Pakistan.
Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project
This barrage is going to be built on river Jelhum near mouth of Wullar Lake near Sopore town in Kashmir. Wullar is largest fresh water lake in Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan gave it the name according to design of project i.e. Wullar Barrage while India once Again to deceive everybody around calls it Tulbul Navigation Project. Barrages are built mainly to divert water from rivers into canals for irrigation or link purposes. India has no such provision on Jehlum under IWT. This barrage was proposed in 1984 when tension between Pakistan and India was high.
Mostly projects built on Western rivers were conceived in 1980s. India claims that this barrage will make Jehlum navigable in summer while Pakistan knows that India will use it as a geo-strategic weapon to manipulate flow of water specifically in winter. This project is a clear violation of IWT as according to IWT India is not allowed to built any man- made structure on Western river which can interrupt flow of any of these rivers. This proposed barrage will eventually have a potential to destroy whole triple canal system which Pakistan built after IWT was signed. This system includes major canals which irrigate millions of acres in Punjab and consists of Upper Jhelum Canal, Upper Chenab Canal and the Lower Bari Doab Canal. According to the original Indian plan, the barrage was expected to be of 439-feet long and 40-feet wide, and would have a maximum storage capacity of 0.30 million acres feet of water. Right: Map showing location of various hydro projects on Jehlum River What India has done to
Pakistan in case of Baglihar dam there is no reason to believe what India is telling the world about this project. World Bank once again favored India on this project as well and could not force her to abandon the project when the matter was referred to it in 1986 eventually Pakistan was forced to knock the door of International Arbitral Court in 1987 when India was forced to stop further construction work.
Wullar Barrage is one of the agenda item in composite dialogue between Pakistan and India and after more than 10 rounds there is no progress as usual due to Indian persistence that this project is rightful under IWT.
KishanGanga
Once again India named this project as such so that real intension can be concealed. Kishanganga project is going to be a dam on river Neelam, known as Kishanganga in Indian Held Kashmir. Geologically it is an extremely complex project as it will have a 27 km long tunnel to divert water of Neelam from its natural course which is a clear violation of IWT. This tunnel will be connected to Jehlum in South through North Kashmir mountain range. The tunnel will initiate and take water from a 103 meter high reservoir on river Neelam. This reservoir is also part of the project and will submerge almost the entire Gurez valley along the AJK's Neelum valley but for India any ecological disaster is miner thing to take into consideration when it comes to blocking or diverting Pakistani water so these concerns were never taken up by higher echelons in New Delhi. The plan is to change the course of river Neelam about 100 km from its natural course and link it to Jehlum at Wullar Lake near Bandipur through a channel and above mentioned tunnel. Presently, the Neelam and
Jhelum rivers join each other at Muzaffarabad at a point called Domail. Through the proposed Wullar claims reality barrag to this project, India maintain 100constant kilometre
yearly flow in Jhelum but in diversion of the Neelum River, Pakistan's Neelum Valley could dry up and become a desert.
The most important issue here is the diversion of the Neelum River waters to the Wuller Lake. According to some estimates, the diversion will also reduce the flow of water into Pakistan by a factor in between 25 percent to 33 percent. Further it will ruin Pakistans Neelum-Jhelum project as water of Neelam will be diverted by India already from its 14 natural course and power generation capacity of the project will reduce to an extent that sole purpose of the project would die. Blueprints and technical stipulations for this project were finalized in 1997 and WAPDA selected this project in 2001 for execution under its Vision 2025. India is going to complete its project after a gap of 18 years and the cost have gone up by 68% than what it was estimated at the time of its inception. India wants to gain control over Neelam and thats why she has decided to initiate work on the project in 2008 and complete it by January 2016. Although the matter is disputed between two countries but Indian intentions are to exploit condition in IWT which allow control over Neelams water to whoever completes their project first. In 2008, Indian minister for water affairs, Jairam Ramesh, said, This project is of strategic importance to India. We will shortly take the revised cost estimates of Rs3,700 crore ($928 million) for the project for the cabinets approval. We have to move heaven and earth to ensure the earliest commissioning of the project, This statement must be an eye opener for anyone who still has any doubt about Indian plans about making Pakistan barren in near future. This project would pose a serious threat to wildlife in and around Wullar Lake and also affect people who live on the banks of Neelam and utilise its water for daily usage. Even environmentalists in India have objected to the project. Once again the beneficiary states include Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, Rajasthan, Union Territory of Chandigarh & Delhi for a project which is going to be executed in Jammu and Kashmir and was claimed to be a project for local population of Jammu and Kashmir.
URI Power Project
Uri hydro power project is next dam on a Pakistani river where a dam is constructed. Uri is a town on the river Jhelum in the Baramula district, in Jammu and Kashmir. The town is very near to LoC. This project consists of a 52 m high and 152 meter long dam with 4 spillways. Indian claims that purpose of the project was to generate cheap electricity from run of river project. In reality this project is already causing many problems to locals and to ecosystem as well. According to Jan 2006 issue of Dams, River and people it was expected to generate full output almost continuously for five months of the year (April-Aug) with production falling to lower levels in the winter. Further it was stated that project has cost 98% more than initial estimates meaning doubling the cost of power generated and yet it performed 27% less than what was envisaged since its commissioning in 1996-97. NHPC, company which has built the dam admitted in 2004-05 that URI is a non-peaking station and the result is low performance and huge cost of the electricity produced by this project which is too high to buy for state of Jammu and Kashmir. Uri project was executed without a proper plan for the people affected by the project and their compensation is due compensation issues remain unresolved over eight years after completion of the project. Instead of learning some lesson from its mistakes made in Uri-I, India has announced to undertake Uri-II hydro power project which will be built downstream to Uri-I. Accordingly to NHPC this Project is planned immediately downstream of Uri-I and will pick up its tail water to make use of the gross head of about 130m available in the course of the river between Uri-I tailrace outlet and a place located about 1.25 km downstream of the confluence of Goalta Nallah and Jhelum River, close to the Line of Control (LoC). It is strange to go for such a project which is located at line of fire despite the failure of Uri-I which already has destroyed another old 1962 built Mohra HEP of
9 MWas URI diverts all the water from upstream of this project. Now this must be no surprise why 16 after so many failures in one single project India has given a go-ahead to its second extension at the same location. From all above mentioned projects it has become clear that Indian intentions about Pakistani waters are very malicious. India is very carefully choosing spots on Western Rivers so that it can block flow of water despite small size of dams and reservoirs. These spots are located in areas where rivers flow very low in winter season. Even small and medium size dams on these spot on rivers and their tributaries will enable India to manipulate water flow if it is desired.
Indus
Indus is largest river in Pakistan and largest of all three Western rivers which were allocated to Pakistan under IWT in 1960. the river initiates from China and reaches Jammu and Kashmir region and flow there for a kilometer and then cross into Northern areas of Pakistan and take its natural turn towards south in NWFP and continues for almost 1700 kilometer towards south passing through Punjab and Sindh before it finally falls into Arabian Sea. Indus is fed from nine Himalayan glaciers and number of tributaries also initiated from Himalayan ranges. Although Indus and its tributaries belong to Pakistan as per IWT but India has started building dams ( work on minimum three is underway) on Indus main and its tributaries to interrupt flow of Indus before it cross into Pakistan. According to media reports Indian Parliament has approved construction of 500 km long train track from Hamachel Pradesh to Ladakh which would be utilised for transportation of construction material for Kargil dam and three other reservoirs being built on the Indus River.
Nimoo Bazgo
Nimoo Bazgo is 57 m (187 feet) high Concrete Gravity dam which is under construction on main Indus River. The main site is located 70 km from Leh and work is already underway.
Once again Indian claims that this is a run-on-river scheme but looking at average availability of water in the river in winter it is hard to believe that this is a hydro power project. India initiated this dam in November 2006 and completion is planned to be happen in October 2010. The dam is being built on a location where seven sub watersheds join Indus and the dam is going to face a problem of muck due to geology of the site. The area is highly non forest so nothing will stop water from brining mud along with water which would have a possibility to stop water flow completely. India is spending Rs6.11 billion just to produce 45 MW electricity and that would only possible when power station works on full capacity which is not possible in winter when glaciers stop melting. The more interesting thing to note here is Indian contractor (NHPC) never released any data on its website regarding capacity of the reservoir and type of spillways which is really disturbing as any gated spillways on Indus would enable India to block every drop of water flowing into Pakistan.
The Dumkhar
Following the pattern of building multiple dams on western rivers in single area, which was adopted on Chenab, India is perusing its plan daringly for Indus river as well and there has been a urgency in this drive since last year or so. After Nimoo-Bagzo, Indias next dam would be some 48 km downstream i.e. Dumkhar hydro power porject. The project is located 128 Km from Leh near Dumkhar village. The Dumkhar project envisages construction of a 42 m high concrete gravity dam across river Indus. This dam would also house two diversion tunnels although the project is a run on river but still diversion tunnels will affect the flow of water particularly in winter season. Again no data is given about reservoir and discharge spillways (gated or ungated) are provided by Indian authorities.
Chutak Hydroelectric Project
Just like tributaries of Chenab Indian belligerence is once again evident by Chutak dam which India is building on river Suru. River Suru is one of major Indus river tributary. The barrage of the project is located near Sarzhe Village and the power house will be located on the right bank of river Suru near Chutak Village. The project is located near Kargil airfield of Inain Air Force.
Other Issues
River training works like spurs and groynes
IWT prevents both countries from building any structure that can change natural flow of water from its natural course. India has built river training works on Ravi River opposite to Narowal (Pakistan). Narowal has suffered a dreadful flood in 1992-93 in monsoon when India released excessive water into Ravi River. River Training Works usually carried out to divert the flow of a river for some other construction work like bridge, dams, barrages etc.
International Water warfare against Pakistan
After blocking its water in Kashmir by building multiple dams on Pakistani rivers now India has taken this water war beyond bilateral level. Currently due to changed geo political environment India has excellent relation with puppet Afghan government. By harnessing these relations now India is pursuing an agenda of persuading Afghan government to build a big dam on Kabul River so that its flow into Indus River in Pakistan can be blocked. Afghanistan at present utilises just a fraction of Kabul waters to irrigate about 12,000 acres of land. According to new proposed plans a dam will be constructed on the Kabul River and will set up Kama Hydroelectric Project to utilise 0.5 MAF water to irrigate additional 14,000 acres.
Any dam on Kabul River will affect its flow into Indus especially in winter as Indus emits from glaciers which melt less in winter and some of these glaciers dont melt in winter season at all. Indian plans dont end here. This is just beginning of a very troublesome water policy by India towards Pakistan. Below is list of Indian planned dams on Pakistani rivers all these dams along with completed projects will enable India to block Pakistani water for a considerably long period of the time.
Planned dams / Barrages on Pakistani Rivers
According to Jammu and Kashmir State Power Development Corporation Ltd following projects would also built on Pakistani rivers. Jhelum River Basin

Lower Jhelum Upper Sindh-I Ganderbal Upper Sindh-II Pahalgam Karnah
Chenab Basin

Chenani-I Chennai-II Chenani-III Bhaderwah Baglihar-II
Indus Basin

Iqbal Hunder
Sumoor Igo-Mercellong Haftal Marpachoo Bazgo Stakna (with J&KPDD)
Impact of Indian dams in Kashmir over Pakistan
Apart from huge storage capacities of abovementioned dams time of their filling is also a high concern for Pakistan for example Baglihar Dam can block 7000 cusecs of water per day whenever India wishes to. Storage of water in Baglihar Dam reduced the flow of water in Chenab River during the sowing period of August to October 2008 and badly affected the agriculture sector of Pakistan. Pakistan lost 23000 cusecs of water; farmers could not irrigate their fields due to shortage of water and resultantly 3.5 million agriculture tracts got barren. The standing cotton, paddy crops of basmati rice of Kharif season in Punjab which were ripe got badly affected.
The sowing of next crop of wheat in September-October also got affected and so was the case with Rabi crop in January-February this year due to reduced flow of water. The Baglihar Dam together with Dul Hasti and other dams can plainly diminish the flow of Chenab during the vital Rabi crop-sowing season (January and February).
Both countries have allocated resources and have shown will to fight with time togain control over Neelam. For Pakistan it is a matter of survival, once control over Neelam lost life of Mangla dam would be at risk and the entire investment made on Neelam-Jehlum project will also be wasted.
In worst case scenario, agriculture and electricity aside, Indian blockade of Pakistani water will tear apart Pakistani social fabric as there will be a
severe reduction in productivity and millions of people will be deprived of food and water. Riots in large cities and towns may erupt and this would jolt the law and order situation in the country. Such incidents with less intensity have already taken place in Pakistan against constant loadshedding of electricity. Trains and infrastructure was set on fire in some cities, roads were blocked in other and thousands of employees lost their jobs. The impact will be multifold in case of water scarcity. Millions of people in Punjab, NWFP and Sindh are directly or indirectly related to agriculture sector. These people will be worst sufferers and as a result of no agriculture productivity those who are not related to agriculture would also get affected as there would be no food item like wheat, sugar, rice, cotton etc. in market. As a result of mass hunger, provinces can also turn into hostile neighbors to which eventually would weaken Pakistani state. The country would descend into battles, riots and quarrels over food and water like many African countries.
India in the past have released excessive water into rivers crossing into Pakistan and as a result severe floods in NWFP, Punjab and some parts of Sindh as well played havoc. The 1992 flood is one such example when India released excessive water into Ravi River which badly affected lands of Punjab and Norowal district in particular.
Other than flood there are multiple concerns over Indian plans vis--vis Pakistani interests like
In May 2009, Chairman Indus Water Council Pakistan and Coordinator World Water Assembly Zahoorul wrote that Indian water terrorism posed more serious threat to Pakistan than Taliban. He said the pace with which India was diverting Pakistani rivers, the day is not far off when the country would face situation like Somalia, Ethiopia and Chad.
Indian water aggression will destroy local industry and agriculture. Trailer of this horror movie has already been played during Rabi season last year when India started to fill Baglihar dam despite knowing it was sowing
season in Pakistan. With even larger dams India will be able to stop Pakistani water for entire season which will destroy linked canal system of Pakistan.
Chutak is under construction on River Suru. In case any of these dams collapse or large quantity of water is deliberately released, it will not only endanger our proposed Bhasha dam but also submerge Skardu city and airport. KKH between Besham and Jaglot would wash away.
Uri Power Project is located very near to LoC and the world knows that LoC is a constant flashpoint where exchange of artillery fire always remains probable. Any such fire exchange put this project at risk as well but still Indians are pushing it hence it is evident that India wants Pakistan to take a provoking step in this sector and India can use this opportunity to attack Azad Jummu Kashmir. Dams Despite problems, why? Most notable aspect of Indian water aggression is that India has a poor record of dam safety. Many projects after or during execution have ran into serious technical hazards;
Two persons died and a dozen were injured when a tunnel of the prestigious Dul Hasti hydro project collapsed on January 29th 2007. The incident took place a day before the National Hydro Power Corporation (NHPC) was scheduled to carry out trial run. This happened due to use of substandard material.
The hydel project on river Chenab near Kishtwar (Doda) had been in controversy ever since the French consortium Domez Sogia Boresea stopped work midway after the abduction of one of its engineer in 1992. Four years later, NHPC engaged Jai Parkash Industries to execute the civil works and at that time, the project was estimated to be commissioned by October 2003 at a cost of Rs4,000 corer. Now, the project cost has increased to Rs5, 000 corers, with NHPC authorities expecting to complete it by March.
ANALYSIS:
As India is stopping the water of Pakistan and wants to kill the agriculture of Pakistan and in other words its a try to weaken the economic situation of the country, but its a fact that both countries are well equipped with the atomic power and both are neighboring countries this fact can not be changed so to live with peace both countries have to solve the conflict very seriously so when we apply these styles, these mite be the consequences.
Collaborative Style:
Pros:
Both parties will be benefited by using the collaborative style of
resolving conflict, as both parties will be getting their needs.
There would be good relationship and the issue will be resolved
in pleasant manner. Cons: o It is very difficult to achieve means that both countries representative sit together and find a solution acceptable to both countries because the problem is more like a political problem.
Competitive Style:
Pros:
o One country will be winner in the conflict and the victory will be clear.
The real inside will come out, means that what both countries want from each other because most of time in anger and emotions people say out the real truth, which they had been hiding inside their heart.
Cons:
o
As the looser will be clear, so as a result the looser will hold grudges in their heart regarding the other country. As a result relationship will go bad and there is a chance a new conflict arises.
This may cause a war between countries in future.
Accommodative Style:
Pros:
The relationship between both the countries will go better.
Cons:
o
Countries will not be bound to work about the solution found.
Compromising Style:
Pros:
o Both countries will have a good relationship and a friendly relationship if they purely work on the compromising style which may decrease the conflicts between the countries and increase the trade between them.
Cons:
o No one gets what it wants there is no actual end to the conflict. It is like a dead end.
Alternative Solution
Competition
Collaboration
Compromising
Assertiveness
Avoiding
Accommodating
Cooperativeness As Considering the 5 styles of Resolving Conflict: Collaborative Style:
An aggressive and principled position must be taken at global level on water issue with India. It must be aired at every international forum that consequences of Indian water belligerence towards Pakistan would be worst and would put lives of 1.5 billion people of the region at risk.
An aggressive policy is needed to be adopted on funding problems for Diamir- Basha dam as it is the only big reservoir on Indus which can ensure water security of the country. Government must also approach friendly countries like China, UAE for the project if World Bank and Asian Development bank fail to provide finances for the project.
Competitive Style:
Water security must be an integral part of Pakistans defense policy. To make sure that Pakistani rivers (Indus, Chenab, Jehlum, Nelam) keep flowing normally Pakistan must utilize every possible mean from legal to military.
Pakistan must declare its response in case India tries to divert or block Pakistani water in Kashmir. Parliament and military brass must form a uniform and cohesive policy to counter this existential threat.
Power generation by hydro power plants must be encouraged at all levels and government must set a clear target of building specific number of
dams to fulfill the needs of energy and irrigation and also to reduce oil export bill which currently is being used in thermal power plants.
Parliament must define a maximum threshold time period, based on estimates of population growth and increase in local demand, after it must become necessary for ruling government to initiate at least one large reservoir in the country.
To overcome the loss of water for the last three decades Pakistan needs more than one big dam and Kalabagh dam is one such project which can fulfill the needs of the country. Political parties must constitute a team and must review objections of Sindh and NWFP provinces on this project and must come up with a workable solution instead of criminally putting the most important project in cold storage as the current government in Islamabad has done.
After Baglihar experience, Pakistan must have no doubt about Indian intentions about Pakistani rivers flowing from Kashmir. Pakistan needs real time imagery satellite to monitor its rivers in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) and Indian activities on these rivers. So more funds for scientific research and development are recommended here. For interim bases friendly countries like China can be approached to get satellite imagery of Western Rivers. There are reports that India has stolen water from Indus via a tunnel. These kinds of activities can only be monitored in real time using satellite technology.
All Indian dams in Jammu and Kashmir are in disputed area since the entire region is disputed as per UNO between Pakistan and India. Pakistan foreign office must take up this matter with international donors. An awareness campaign must be launched in local and international media to highlight this duality by international donors.
If India delivers information about its future plans on Pakistani rivers in Kashmir, the matter could be taken up in parliament by political forces. While a group of experts in WAPDA and Water and Power ministry must
come up with a report about potential side effects of any such project being executed on Pakistani rivers so that solid objections can be raised on proposed Indian projects on Western Rivers. Accommodative Style:
Kashmir is sensitive for both India and Pakistan and without any local support India will try to avoid war in this sector but will use every possibility to damage Pakistani agriculture sector by blocking waters and would try to maintain her peaceful posture in international community by propaganda. To counter this Pakistan must rush to approach International Court of Justice for its share of water which India did block in 2008 through Baglihar dam and which is very probable in near future as well. A strong case in International courts would put international construction companies and donors not to provide assistance in any water project on Western Rivers in Jammu and Kashmir.
Compromising Style:
Pakistan must ask India to provide complete record of its activities on Western rivers. This is important because under IWT either party must notify the other of plans to construct any engineering work which could affect the other party and to provide data about such works.
Recommendation
The style and recommended for the conflict is the collaboration style because we need some positive anger to force the Indians to come to the conflict listen it and sit to solve it. In other case they will not be willing to solve it the other benefit we are going to have using this style would be that as they are our neighbor which can not be changed so either they are good or bad we have to live with them so this style will help us making good relations.
The most feasible option for Pakistan in this case is to build more dams like kalabagh dam, to overcome the shortage of water in Pakistan, and to full fill the country needs of water. The positive impact of a mega project like Kalabagh dam would evidently be multifarious and wide spread. The positive effects are generally quantified in terms of economic benefits accruing from the project. This is a constructive development resulting from the growing environmental preservation, under which general criteria are being prescribed for environmental assessment of development of projects. This approach helps in defining the likely adverse effects at the project formulation stage when a realistic idea can be made and provision for corrective or mitigating steps can be incorporated in the project scheme. In addition to the main economical benefit in irrigation and power sector the most significant benefit of kalabagh dam would be its effective role in mitigating the flood damages which occur in lower sindh and lower Punjab almost every year. These floods of abnormal intensity damage the agricultural crops, infrastructure and even loss of live take place.
Lesson Learnt
Everything we do in life it must be according to some planning dont just use rough ideas to do work. Find solutions for the problem as soon as possible because many things changes with time and also if the problem prolonged it become more complex to resolve. While solving the problem must see both parties advantages so no one get the feeling that he or they are doing things just
for themselves. Must see opponent strength how much powerful he is dont underestimate others while making decisions.
Reference:
http://brasstacks.pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=207:paperon-water-issue&catid=45:articles&Itemid=95&lang=en
Current Wave of Fundamentali sm

Presented To: Sir Manzoor Awan
Presented By:
M. Usman Khan Sherwani Aminah Fawzy
Rameez Rana Usman Shahid Maria Amir Fatima Mustafa Hasan Jahanzeb Bushra Tashfeen
CURRENT WAVE OF FUNDAMENTALISM

All religious organizations see themselves as following the most important, essential, basic and crucial aspects of their religion. If we define "fundamentalists" as people who accept their sacred texts literally, then we should be calling them "literalists". The term "fundamentalist" has no objective meaning; it is simply a description that is used to refer to a religious person who, in the view of the writer, is taking a passage of scripture literally when they should not. This is why all definitions of the term have so far been inaccurate. Pakistan is situated in a region where fundamentalism has been posed, of late, as one of the most threatening questions. The process initiated by the Islamic revolution in Iran has even been internationalized by the Taliban's victory in Afghanistan. At the same time, the rise of Hindu radicalism in India has further complicated the situation in Pakistan. Recently Islamic fundamentalism has risen as an alternative political phenomenon not only in Pakistan but also in the entire Muslim world. Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan is partly a link of this international phenomenon and partly caused by specific local reasons. When analyzing Islamic fundamentalism, one must understand that the religion of Islam and Islamic fundamentalism are not one and the same thing. Islamic fundamentalism is a reactionary, non-scientific movement aimed at returning society to a centuries-old social set-up, defying all material and historical factors. It is an attempt to roll back the wheel of history.
The current wave of fundamentalism is just eating up the country from with in, in my opinion fundamentalism is the name of the conflict which is created when the meaning is not perceived as it should have, and instead the literal meaning is paid more heed.
H ISTORY :
Fundamentalism has always been religiously motivated as people are susceptible and easy to mould when religion is used as a catalyst. The word fundamentalism was firstly used by the Protestants of United States. Fundamentalism exists in all religion in one form or the other. Weather it be Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity ,Islam or even Atheism fundamentalist thinking is present.
I SLAMIC V IEW
ON
F UNDAMENTALISM :
It describes the beliefs of traditional Muslims that they should restrict themselves to literal interpretations of their sacred texts, the Qur'an and Hadith. This may describe the private religious attitudes of individuals and have no relationship with larger social groups.
It describes a variety of religious movements and political parties in Muslim communities.
As opposed to the above two usages, in the West "Islamic fundamentalism" is most often used to describe Muslim individuals and groups which advocate Islamism, a political ideology calling for the replacement of state secular laws with Islamic law.
P AKISTAN
AS A
B REEDING G ROUND :
Pakistan is officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Religion is part and parcel of the state. The constitution and judiciary are full of Islamic demagogy. Most of the education syllabus is also coloured with Islamic ideology; even scientific explanations somehow manage to drag in religion. Religion has become a way of life. Every donation to charity ends up in the coffers of the religious institutions. Pakistan was intended to be a secular Muslim state. When the state was formed in 1947, the population was not fundamentalist. But as time went on, Pakistan adopted an Islamic ideology more favorable to the fanatics. When Russia invaded Afghanistan at the end of the 1970s, Washington decided to develop an indigenous counter force. To fight communism in Afghanistan, Washington worked closely with Pakistans military dictator, General Zia ulHaq, and the Pakistani intelligence, the Inter-Services intelligence (ISI).
T H E US E F F E C T :
US secretary of state Hillary Clinton told a US Congressional sub-committee in April about the US role in promoting the fundamentalists: It was President Reagan in partnership with Congress led by Democrats who said, you know what it sounds like a pretty good idea ... lets deal with the ISI and the Pakistan military and lets go recruit these mujahideen. Here is a very strong argument ... it wasnt a bad
investment to end the Soviet Union but lets be careful with what we sow, because we will harvest. Numerous Pakistani governments were ready to do whatever the US wanted out of sheer financial greed. Since 1978 the different governments have all been close US allies. This includes 20 years of military dictatorship under Zia (1977-1988) and General Pervez Musharaf (1999-2008). Various Pakistani governments helped the religious fanatics establish religious educational institutions (madrasas) that have changed the countrys religious culture. These schools mushroomed under the Zia dictatorship. There are now religious schools throughout Pakistan. The madrasas were marketed as offering a free education with religious teachings. The failure of the government to provide free public education paved the way for their progress. Pakistan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world. Only about half of Pakistanis can read and write, far below other countries with a similar per-capita income, such as Vietnam. The enrollment of girls is among the lowest in the world, lagging behind Ethiopia and Yemen. The influence of the madrasas is increased by the lack of public education. These schools are breeding grounds for religious fundamentalism. After 9/11, the religious fanatics who left Afghanistan came to Pakistan and were able to establish more madrasas. At this time, Musharaf was a partner in the alliance against terrorism. He was manipulating both the fanatics and the imperialists. The partnership of the religious fanatics with US and Pakistani intelligence agencies went unchecked until 9/11. Then the whole scenario shifted. Themujahideen were labeled terrorists and the US sought a military solution to their growth. This growth was not only the result of the US and Pakistani support, but also the complete failure of Pakistans civilian and military governments to solve the basic problems of the working class and other sectors. Successive regimes have failed to end the grip of feudalism, the exploitation by
Pakistani capitalists and their humiliating treatment of workers and farmers, the repression of smaller nationalities and the theft of their natural resources.
F UNDAMENTALISM C AUSES :
IN
P AKISTAN
HAS A NUMBER OF
Pakistan is not a nation-state. It is an unnatural country with its borders drawn in the name of religion. Besides Israel, it is the only country founded in the name of religion. Religion was and still is exploited to provide a basis for the country.After its creation, the ruling class, in order to keep the country intact and run the state in a multi-national country, has constantly used religion as a tool to deny the rights of small nationalities and to justify unelected regimes. This has combined state and religion. The ruling class has always exploited religion to justify its regimes or to win popularity. The unelected governments used religion to argue that Islam and Western democracy do not match, while so-called elected governments used religion to gain popularity whenever it was threatened. After decades of exploitation of religion by rulers, there is a developing view that if Islam is the only solution to all problems, then one might as well give the government to those who practice Islam most consistently, i.e. the fundamentalists. There are 8000 religious schools, with an estimated 2.5 million to 3.5 million students. These schools are run with money from the Saudi or Kuwaiti governments, various departments of the Pakistani government and local wealthy people, who give big donations from their corruptly obtained money, are to please Allah as well as to purify their corrupted money. Poor parents are compelled by their circumstances to send their children to these schools. Their only options are to send their children to child labour or to these schools, where they will get religious education, food, shelter and a job at some mosque on completing their
education. There is an additional factor: it is believed that by learning the Quran by heart at these schools, a boy will secure heaven for himself and his family.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan really began in the 1980s. On the one hand, the military dictator, General Zia-ul-Haq, was imposing laws under the umbrella of Socio Islamic Society. On the other hand, Pakistan had become a base camp for the forces opposing the Afghan revolution. Not only were thousands of Pakistani guerrillas operating from Pakistani soil but also 25,000 guerrillas from other Muslim countries reached Afghanistan through Pakistan.After the end of the Afghan war, the Pakistan Army started using these guerrilla forces to fight a proxy war in Kashmir. It is still going on. The Pakistan Army is interested in using them only in Kashmir, but the way these guerrillas are brainwashed, it is not possible to restrict them to Kashmir. They are taught to fight against all infidels; hence they reach from the Moro (Philippines) to Chechnya to help their Muslim brethren. When their foreign engagements end and they return home, they may pose a big challenge to the state. Already they are flexing their muscles. The attack on the US embassy in Islamabad in 1999 and the hijacking of an Indian plane from Nepal demanding the release of Maulana Massod, a militant leader, show their strength. Pakistans strategic position also provides a fertile ground for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. Two Muslim countries with fundamentalist governments, Iran and Afghanistan, lie on its western border. The governments in both these countries have strong connections with the fundamentalist parties belonging to their respective sects. Pakistan borders India in the east. India is experiencing the rise and rise of Hindu fundamentalists, who have been in power now for about three years. These Hindu reactionaries use sloganeering and war mania against Pakistan to seek popularity. As a reaction to Hindu fundamentalism, Islamic fundamentalism gains popularity in Pakistan.
All these aspects added to lead to the point where we are now where people are afraid to pray in mosques, where children are stricken of the their schools, fundamentalists have no goals other than to damage people along the reputation of Islam as a peace loving Religion. Fundamentalists are in conflict with there own religion, the thought process is directed towards the literal meaning of the teachings of Islam.
D EMOCRATIC
FAILURE
Democracy has been as much part of the problem as any of the other factors. The Pakistani ruling class has failed miserably to bring about democratic norms. The present civil government of the Pakistan People's Party has been contradictory in dealing with religious fanatics. In the Swat area, it went from peace talks to agreements with the fanatics to establish Islamic courts. The religious forces were decisively defeated during the 2008 general elections. In the 2002 general elections, they received 15% of the vote, but in 2008 got less than 3%. Instead of mass mobilizations to confront religious fundamentalism, the PPP regime opted for negotiations. This gave the fanatics an incentive to go further: they demanded sharia laws in the Malakand division. This was accepted and an agreement signed. This encouraged the fundamentalists to go even further in their attempt to control more areas, appearing close to Islamabad. Panicked, the regime, with full US support, carried out a full military operation in the Malakand division in June. The result was more than 3.5 million internally displaced people and more than 5000 deaths. The government claimed victory, but it was only a temporary retreat of the fanatics, who were able to save their infrastructure. The "victory" celebrations had not lasted even one month before the fanatics attacked the military's general headquarters, the famous GHQ, along with several police training centres in different parts of the country in October. Many Pakistani liberals have supported the military actions against the fanatics, arguing there is no alternative. But no military solution can eliminate the
religious fundamentalists. This is clear in Afghanistan as well as Pakistan. The religious fundamentalists are using the tactics of urban terrorism. This cannot be eliminated by invading areas considered to be under fundamentalists' control Military actions in Malakand division and Waziristan have just pushed the fanatics to other areas. This is not the solution to bring about sustainable peace, which is necessary in this region.
P ROPOSED S OLUTIONS :
Force (military action) Education and Awarness Collaboration (with the tribals to root out fundamentalism)
F ORCE :
A military solution has been presented as an immediate step to an ultimate, lasting solution to fight against fundamentalism.This has been presented as short-term and long-term strategies. For many liberals, a military solution is a short-term strategy, while the long-term strategy requires reforms and more development. But the military strategy will achieve nothing beyond pleasing US imperialistic thought who on one hand encourage dialogue with the Afghan Taliban but are against any kind of dialogue on the other side of the border.For the fight against religious fanatics to advance, it has to start with the political will to separate religion from the state. Military action will only give them an excuse to bomb our cities like the have. There is no justification for what they have done.
Military action can never be regarded as a solution but rather a tool to weaken the opposition for a small time it cannot bring about a viable solution, when u kill the enemy other will find reasons and ways to avenge that death and the conflict will go on. Force not only closes many doors but also creates problems, and in Pakistans case killing a lot of those Pakistani people whose minds have been corrupted by the fundamentalists. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan by the imperialist forces is providing the religious fanatics with a political justification for their terrorist activities. These occupations must end.We must oppose occupations and religious fundamentalism. There should be no support for one against the other. The fight between the religious fundamentalists and the imperialists is a fight between bulls.There is not much to gain by siding with one against the other. Rather, we need to end the fight and open the space to create an alternative system. US occupation is not helping rather is one of the basis of problems in our country. Our army has done a very good job and many soldiers have given their lives for their country.
E DUCATION
AND
A WARENESS
A nation wide offensive through education. Education is a self defense, religion and terrorism itself. Terrorists who try to pass themselves off as jihaadis have an advantage of exploiting young unnurtured minds who are not acquainted with the concept of jihad an thus instead of challenging the terrorists version of glorifying terrorism by labeling it as jihad, most ignorant people accept it blindly. People need
to be educated, given jobs; bank loans for starting small business to divert their energy to positive activities, not let terrorists exploit people through the lure of a means of income. A jihad ON terrorism needs to be waged. An self defense plus a coordinated link wd local police station to report suspicious people A thoroughly negative image portrayed thru media to project terrorists as invaders fighting a nonreligious cause so no one gives them sanctuary/support. Al monetary transactions from outside countries monitored. Immigrant registration done plus tight control on border to prevent infiltration by potential terrorists. Fundamentalism is always conflictual. Its mentality considers those who advocate moderation, understanding, or dialogue to be even more detrimental to the cause than the real enemy. Understanding that dialogue is only a tool a means, a step towards a solution. As long as such people determine the terrain, the final confrontation will always be postponed. All the burning issues must be solved through dialogue. But making people aware of what is going around them and how terrorists are manipulating children and grown men to use them for their own purposes. Killing the cancer before it spreads is the way to go. Interreligious dialogue will never fulfill its unique mission until it recognizes fundamentalisms as conversation partners.
C OLLABORATION :
It is the menace which has affected the very fabric of our society, and also gave a reason to the west to malign our great religion, as the one propagating violence and extremism. Fundamentalism is the term coined by the west to suggest that all practicing Muslims are extremists, fundamentalists, leading to terrorism and violence. If we see in the hindsight one would poor economic condition, social distribution of wealth, and host of compelled a very large segment of find that due to our injustice, unequal other factors which our society to look
towards the madrassas to educate and feed their children, which are being managed by hardliner mullahs, of course not all madrassa fall in this category. Many non-state actors, and other stake holders which want to put our country in turmoil started exploiting these students of madrassas and brain washed them to turn violent against the state using the religion as a motivating theme. These elements have linkages world over, hence this phenomenon is taken as global issue for which the entire world is joining hands. To eradicate this menace, and save the world from this fundamentalism, which leads to extremism and ultimately to violence and terrorism. In order to contribute towards arresting this trend, following measures are suggested: Revamping our educational system:The immediate need is to provide equal opportunities to all the children free or affordable, with the arrangements to absorb them in the job market. Easy and affordable justice:Everyone has a right to get justice if he/she is a victim to injustice. Absence of justice leads to violence and makes the victim an easy prey for such people who work for their own agenda. Registration of madrassas:Unchecked mushrooming of madrassas needs to be brought into effective legislation. Proper monitoring regarding induction, syllabi is must to curb this trend. Involvement of civil society:Well to do people must be motivated at government level, at social level to step forward to join hands with the government to boost the efforts generated in that direction. Interaction with Mullahs:The term Mullah is always suggested negatively, which may not be true in entirety. We need to take this class on board, and initiate measured to compel them to change their outlook and also to make rehabilitation programs for them, so that in turn they propagate the same to the madrassa students.
Role of Media:It is the most powerful medium to sell any ideas, and to bring awareness amongst the societies. The media must not be let free, rather they should be used to help the affected segment of the society, which have already fallen prey, or those who were likely to be trapped into this web.
CONCLUSION:
The issue of fundamentalism cant be resolved with any of one measures, rather a combination of all the measures will help in this regard. The negative fallout may be pronounced because of the ineffective implementation or piecemeal application but if with earnest, a wholesome and all encompassing strategy is evolved, it is for sure that we will be successful in combating the menace of fundamentalism.

Turkey

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Turkey

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ACCESSION OF TURKEY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Bahria Institute of Management and Computer Sciences

member of NATO in 1952.

During the Cold War, Turkey allied itself with

the United States and Western Europe.

The European Union

Membership in the EU in 1960s1990s

Move towards the EU in the 2000s

Turkish Membership Issues

France and its requirements:

Foreign relations with EU member states

Public reactions Public opinion In the EU

The Security Issues involved in Turkeys accession to the EU.

Diagnosis, Alternatives and their evaluation

What we have concluded and our recommendations

1. Free Movement of Goods

Further efforts 16.1.2006 needed

2. Freedom of Very hard to Movement For 19.7.2006 adopt Workers

8/12/2009 (by CY)

4. Free Movement of Capital

Further efforts 25.11.2005 22.12.2005 needed

Totally incompatible 7.11.2005 with acquis

Considerable 21.6.2006 efforts needed

7. Intellectual Property Law

Further efforts 6.2.2006 needed

8. Competition Very hard to 8.11.2005 Policy adopt

Considerable 29.3.2006 efforts needed

10. Information Further efforts Society & 12.6.2006 needed Media

11. Agriculture Very hard to & Rural 5.12.2005 adopt Development

12. Food Safety, Veterinary & Phytosanitary Policy

Very hard to 9.3.2006 adopt

Very hard to 24.2.2006 adopt

14. Transport Policy

Considerable 26.6.2006 efforts needed

Considerable 15.5.2006 efforts needed

8/12/2009 (by CY)

Considerable 6.6.2006 efforts needed

17. Economic & Monetary Policy

Considerable 16.2.2006 efforts needed

Considerable 19.6.2006 efforts needed

19. Social Policy & Employment

Considerable 8.2.2006 efforts needed

20. Enterprise & Industrial Policy

No major difficulties expected

21. TransEuropean Networks

Considerable 30.6.2006 efforts needed

22. Regional Policy &

Considerable 11.9.2006 efforts needed

Coordination of Structural Instruments

23. Judiciary & Considerable Fundamental 7.9.2006 efforts needed Rights

8/12/2009 (by CY)

24. Justice, Freedom & Security

Considerable 23.1.2006 efforts needed

8/12/2009 (by CY)

25. Science & Research

No major difficulties expected

20.10.2005 14.11.2005 12.6.2006

26. Education & Culture

Further efforts 26.10.2005 16.11.2005 needed

8/12/2009 (by CY)

Totally incompatible 3.4.2006 with acquis

28. Consumer & Health Protection

Further efforts 8.6.2006 needed