NATO’s chief piled pressure on Pakistan on Friday to step up the fight against “terrorists” enjoying safe havens in the border region with Afghanistan.
Amid growing US pressure for Pakistan to take action against Al-Qaeda-linked extremists, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called for a “positive engagement” from Islamabad to ensure stability in Afghanistan.
“We encourage the Pakistani military and the Pakistani government to do its utmost to fight extremism and terrorism in the border region,” Rasmussen said at a defence forum hosted by the European Policy Centre think tank. “It is really a security problem for our troops in Afghanistan that terrorists have safe havens, and that’s a fact, in Pakistan,” he said.
“We have to deal with that and it’s in our mutual interest to deal with that.” “That’s a reason why we have conveyed that clear message to Pakistan authorities.” The Pakistani government and opposition leaders on Thursday closed ranks against increasing US pressure for action against the Al-Qaeda-linked Haqqani network, refusing to be pressured into doing more in the war on terror.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Bank of America faces outrage over debit card charge
The Washington Post
Bank of America got pummeled by investors and its customers Friday, a day after announcing that it would charge many debit card users a $5 monthly fee when they shop.
The troubled bank, already besieged by multibillion-dollar lawsuits and massive financial losses, saw its stock fall more than 2 percent in late-morning trading. The shares have plunged almost 44 percent for the quarter, the worst-performing in the Dow Jones industrial average by far. For the year, the stock is down 56 percent.Now the bank faces a public relations backlash.
The debit card change has sparked fury on the Web and cable news channels. Consumers complained on message boards and in social media, vowing to take their business elsewhere.
Fox Business Network’s Gerri Willis went as far as to cut up her debit card on the air Thursday evening. “Right here, right now, I’m going to show Bank of America what I think of their fees,” she said before using a pair of scissors.
“That $5 fee may not seem like a lot, but it’s the principle of the thing — more and more coming out of my pocket,” she said.
Bank of America has said it decided to impose the fee after legislation sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) reduced the amount of money banks get when consumers swipe their debit cards in stores.
“Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers,” Durbin said in a statement Thursday. “It’s overt, unfair, and I hope their customers have the final say.”
Bank of America, the largest bank in the country by deposits, is facing lawsuits stemming from shoddy mortgage practices during the housing boom. Last month, it announced it would shed 30,000 jobs and reshuffle its corporate leadership.
To shore up confidence in the company, the bank has repeatedly insisted that it does not need to raise capital and has sold off several valuable properties. It also took a $5 billion investment from Warren Buffett in August.
The bank will begin charging the fee next year for the bank’s basic checking accounts. It will apply only to debit card purchases and not to ATM withdrawals, online bill payments or mobile phone transfers, the company said.
Bank of America got pummeled by investors and its customers Friday, a day after announcing that it would charge many debit card users a $5 monthly fee when they shop.
The troubled bank, already besieged by multibillion-dollar lawsuits and massive financial losses, saw its stock fall more than 2 percent in late-morning trading. The shares have plunged almost 44 percent for the quarter, the worst-performing in the Dow Jones industrial average by far. For the year, the stock is down 56 percent.Now the bank faces a public relations backlash.
The debit card change has sparked fury on the Web and cable news channels. Consumers complained on message boards and in social media, vowing to take their business elsewhere.
Fox Business Network’s Gerri Willis went as far as to cut up her debit card on the air Thursday evening. “Right here, right now, I’m going to show Bank of America what I think of their fees,” she said before using a pair of scissors.
“That $5 fee may not seem like a lot, but it’s the principle of the thing — more and more coming out of my pocket,” she said.
Bank of America has said it decided to impose the fee after legislation sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill) reduced the amount of money banks get when consumers swipe their debit cards in stores.
“Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers,” Durbin said in a statement Thursday. “It’s overt, unfair, and I hope their customers have the final say.”
Bank of America, the largest bank in the country by deposits, is facing lawsuits stemming from shoddy mortgage practices during the housing boom. Last month, it announced it would shed 30,000 jobs and reshuffle its corporate leadership.
To shore up confidence in the company, the bank has repeatedly insisted that it does not need to raise capital and has sold off several valuable properties. It also took a $5 billion investment from Warren Buffett in August.
The bank will begin charging the fee next year for the bank’s basic checking accounts. It will apply only to debit card purchases and not to ATM withdrawals, online bill payments or mobile phone transfers, the company said.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Dengue cases rise to 173
The Health Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa confirmed 173 dengue patients out of 377 suspected cases with six deaths in the province.
The Directorate General Health Services said in a report eight suspected cases were reported on Wednesday with three confirmed positive. One patient was admitted to a hospital while seven were patients discharged after necessary treatment.
The Directorate General Health Services said in a report eight suspected cases were reported on Wednesday with three confirmed positive. One patient was admitted to a hospital while seven were patients discharged after necessary treatment.
‘Revolutionary programmes for poverty alleviation’
Chief Minister Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Ameer Haidar Khan Hoti has said that establishment of IT Parks and Call centers in the province is part of Government’s special initiatives aiming at provision of employment opportunities and promotion of economic activities. He said that ensuring spirited implementation on these initiatives is earnestly required. He was chairing the 1st meeting of IT Board at his office.
Participants of the meeting were Provincial Information Minister Mian Iftekhar hussain, Chief Secretary Ghulam Dastageer, ACS Atta Ullah Khan, Secretary Finance Sahibzada Saeed, Director IT Bilal Jabar, and Deputy Director Zia Ullah Khan, MD Pak Software Export Board Islamabad, DG Pak T&A, DG COMSAT and other concerned authorities. Secretary Science and Technology Muhammad Hamayun Khan presented detailed briefing on establishment of IT Parks in Peshawar and Abbotabad, establishment of IT Board and its administrative setup, and budget during the meeting. The chief minister said that the elected government has initiated such revolutionary programs for alleviation of poverty and unemployment in the province that are matchless and fully backed by the people, added, these included Bacha Khan Khpal Rozgar Scheme, Poverty Alleviation Program, Hunarmand Rozgar Scheme and free technical training to students in different disciplines.
He said that the main objective of establishment of IT Parks and Call centers is to facilitate Software Companies and Call Centers to establish their business in the province, added, the program will cost Rs. 200 million annually during 5 years. He said that this effort of the government will boost information technology and software industry along with training to thousand unemployed youth and employment opportunities.
Secretary Science and Technology Muhammad Hamayun Khan said that establishment of IT Parks in Peshawar and Abbotabad has been approved and thanked the chief minister for issuing orders for transfer of 22 kanal land in Abbotabad to Science and Technology Department.
He said that establishment of IT Parks in Peshawar and Abbotabad will be realized simultaneously.
The chief minister expressed satisfaction over progress made so far and directed for steps for realizing the programme.
Participants of the meeting were Provincial Information Minister Mian Iftekhar hussain, Chief Secretary Ghulam Dastageer, ACS Atta Ullah Khan, Secretary Finance Sahibzada Saeed, Director IT Bilal Jabar, and Deputy Director Zia Ullah Khan, MD Pak Software Export Board Islamabad, DG Pak T&A, DG COMSAT and other concerned authorities. Secretary Science and Technology Muhammad Hamayun Khan presented detailed briefing on establishment of IT Parks in Peshawar and Abbotabad, establishment of IT Board and its administrative setup, and budget during the meeting. The chief minister said that the elected government has initiated such revolutionary programs for alleviation of poverty and unemployment in the province that are matchless and fully backed by the people, added, these included Bacha Khan Khpal Rozgar Scheme, Poverty Alleviation Program, Hunarmand Rozgar Scheme and free technical training to students in different disciplines.
He said that the main objective of establishment of IT Parks and Call centers is to facilitate Software Companies and Call Centers to establish their business in the province, added, the program will cost Rs. 200 million annually during 5 years. He said that this effort of the government will boost information technology and software industry along with training to thousand unemployed youth and employment opportunities.
Secretary Science and Technology Muhammad Hamayun Khan said that establishment of IT Parks in Peshawar and Abbotabad has been approved and thanked the chief minister for issuing orders for transfer of 22 kanal land in Abbotabad to Science and Technology Department.
He said that establishment of IT Parks in Peshawar and Abbotabad will be realized simultaneously.
The chief minister expressed satisfaction over progress made so far and directed for steps for realizing the programme.
Nation's leaders do not want to hear the truth: Talal Bugti
Jamhoori Watan Party chief Nawab Talal Bugti said Friday he was not invited to the All Parties Conference (APC) because the country's leaders did not want to hear the truth, Geo News reported.
Speaking during a news conference in Quetta, Talal Bugti said the purpose of the APC was to earn dollars. He added that the country was facing internal and external challenges, Balochistan was burning and people were tired of losing their loved ones.
Talal Bugti said the killers of Nawab Akbar Bugti and other Baloch leaders were roaming freely and despite court orders they were not being prosecuted.
Speaking during a news conference in Quetta, Talal Bugti said the purpose of the APC was to earn dollars. He added that the country was facing internal and external challenges, Balochistan was burning and people were tired of losing their loved ones.
Talal Bugti said the killers of Nawab Akbar Bugti and other Baloch leaders were roaming freely and despite court orders they were not being prosecuted.
A simmering down
EDITORIAL:Daily Times
The seemingly precarious dance at the edge of the precipice between Pakistan and the US looks as though it is toning down in intensity. Various statements are being issued from different quarters on how the tensions have simmered down and how both sides are actively “engaged” to decrease the irritants. US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman has said that the Pak-US relationship is an important one and that the US will not end it. These are comforting words indeed but one must not take complete solace in them as there are still calls coming in from the US for tough action. Support is growing at an unsettling rate in rhe US Congress for military action in Pakistan beyond the drone strikes if the country does not get serious about combating terrorism, particularly the Haqqani network. The US’s highest military commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, is standing by his statement that the Haqqani network is the “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), a blunt statement that Washington seems to be backing irrespective of the calls for diffusing tensions.
It is evident that, while the Americans believe that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment has ties to the Haqqani group, it is making efforts not to allow a complete breakdown in relations. That is why there are, at times, conflicting statements — both soft and harsh in nature. The Americans are convinced of our double-faced policies and have wisened up to how they have been ‘played’ for a number of years. While the White House may consider Mullen’s statement harsh and particularly blunt, it also realises that distancing itself from Mullen will not serve the US’s interests. The bottom line? The US will make efforts to remain on friendly — or cordial — relations with us but will keep on demanding tougher action against the Haqqani network, their most dreaded enemy because of its attacks on US troops in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the All Parties Conference (APC) was held yesterday. The Prime Minister has asked the country’s 180 million people to stand united to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country. And who exactly are we standing united against one may ask. The Americans who, until now, were our allies and biggest financiers? Are we really staging an entire conference with all political parties of the country on board to tell the big, bad Americans that we will not take a stand against the militants? The same militants that have been wreaking havoc against our own people in our own country? This does not sound like responsible political decision-making. Instead, it sounds like an agenda set by the very establishment the US is accusing. The APC is meant to come up with key political solutions, not toe lines or priorities set by any other body or establishment.
It was clear, even before it began, that the APC is nothing more than a political-cum-media circus aimed at telling the US who is boss. We all know who decides policy when it comes to foreign and security matters.. The shrill defiance being touted by the political leadership is synonymous with the defiance being shown by the military.
Although it is unlikely that there will be a mega showdown with US boots on the ground in Pakistan, we should not take the accusations lightly. The drone attacks could definitely intensify and aid could be cut substantially. The terrorists, whether of the Haqqani ilk or other, are no friends of anyone. It is better to have a friendly ally and benefactor than an unruly and untrustworthy ‘friend’ for ‘strategic’ purposes. *
The seemingly precarious dance at the edge of the precipice between Pakistan and the US looks as though it is toning down in intensity. Various statements are being issued from different quarters on how the tensions have simmered down and how both sides are actively “engaged” to decrease the irritants. US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman has said that the Pak-US relationship is an important one and that the US will not end it. These are comforting words indeed but one must not take complete solace in them as there are still calls coming in from the US for tough action. Support is growing at an unsettling rate in rhe US Congress for military action in Pakistan beyond the drone strikes if the country does not get serious about combating terrorism, particularly the Haqqani network. The US’s highest military commander, Admiral Mike Mullen, is standing by his statement that the Haqqani network is the “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), a blunt statement that Washington seems to be backing irrespective of the calls for diffusing tensions.
It is evident that, while the Americans believe that the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment has ties to the Haqqani group, it is making efforts not to allow a complete breakdown in relations. That is why there are, at times, conflicting statements — both soft and harsh in nature. The Americans are convinced of our double-faced policies and have wisened up to how they have been ‘played’ for a number of years. While the White House may consider Mullen’s statement harsh and particularly blunt, it also realises that distancing itself from Mullen will not serve the US’s interests. The bottom line? The US will make efforts to remain on friendly — or cordial — relations with us but will keep on demanding tougher action against the Haqqani network, their most dreaded enemy because of its attacks on US troops in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, in Pakistan, the All Parties Conference (APC) was held yesterday. The Prime Minister has asked the country’s 180 million people to stand united to protect the sovereignty and integrity of the country. And who exactly are we standing united against one may ask. The Americans who, until now, were our allies and biggest financiers? Are we really staging an entire conference with all political parties of the country on board to tell the big, bad Americans that we will not take a stand against the militants? The same militants that have been wreaking havoc against our own people in our own country? This does not sound like responsible political decision-making. Instead, it sounds like an agenda set by the very establishment the US is accusing. The APC is meant to come up with key political solutions, not toe lines or priorities set by any other body or establishment.
It was clear, even before it began, that the APC is nothing more than a political-cum-media circus aimed at telling the US who is boss. We all know who decides policy when it comes to foreign and security matters.. The shrill defiance being touted by the political leadership is synonymous with the defiance being shown by the military.
Although it is unlikely that there will be a mega showdown with US boots on the ground in Pakistan, we should not take the accusations lightly. The drone attacks could definitely intensify and aid could be cut substantially. The terrorists, whether of the Haqqani ilk or other, are no friends of anyone. It is better to have a friendly ally and benefactor than an unruly and untrustworthy ‘friend’ for ‘strategic’ purposes. *
4 million children at risk of hunger, disease in Sindh
At least four million children are at risk of hunger and disease in Sindh as funding fatigue from rich nations continues to fuel the desperation faced by families, a recent report of Save the Children warned.
Pledges to help aid agencies meet the massive needs of displaced communities has been sluggish with only 3 percent of the $357 million UN appeal received so far.
It said that up to eight million people have been affected by the flooding again this year after torrential rains caused riverbanks to burst and overflow in late August.
Some villages were drowned by rainfall in just one day, forcing people to flee to roadside, railway tracks, schools and higher ground in search of shelter.
Save the Children started delivering food rations to 5,000 families in the Sanghar district where a total of 900,000 people have been affected by flooding, according to local authorities. It said that children and families are drinking from floodwater contaminated with sewage.
The aid agency has launched a $30 million flood response appeal for lower Sindh. Save the Children aims to provide support to 1 million people, including 600,000 children in four of the worst hit districts: Badin, Mirpurkhas, Sanghar and Tando Allahyar.
Save the Children has been working in Pakistan for more than 30 years and is already supporting nearly seven million people in the country.
Save the Children has delivered 9,900 litres of clean water to three relief camps and a hospital from the water point in Badin. Save the Children in partnership with WFP has distributed 1,075 metric tonnes of food to over 88,000 people in Badin and Mirpurkhas, including wheat flour, pulses, rice, vegetable oil, salt, high-energy biscuits, wheat-soya blend and ready-to-use supplementary food for infants.
Over 2,300 families in Badin and Mirpur Khas districts have received emergency family packages including plastic sheeting, basic household goods and soap. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that nearly three quarters of Sindh crops have been damaged, while two thirds of food stocks have also been hit.
One year after the country experienced its worst-ever floods, affecting 21 million people. Crops of grain, cotton, sugarcane, fruit and vegetables have been submerged, clocking up nearly $2 billion in farming losses, private news channel reported. Sindh agriculture ministry said the financial cost of crop losses so far was estimated at $1.87 billion.
Cotton faces losses of $998 million, income from chilli crops will be down $427 million and both rice and sugarcane will lose an estimated $135 million, said Agha Jan Akhtar, the ministry secretary.
“Besides that, we have lost $180 million through the destruction of tomato, onion, banana and other vegetable crops,” he said.
The floods will certainly affect the trade and may cause a loss of at least $3 billion to the Pakistani exchequer,” an economist said.
Pledges to help aid agencies meet the massive needs of displaced communities has been sluggish with only 3 percent of the $357 million UN appeal received so far.
It said that up to eight million people have been affected by the flooding again this year after torrential rains caused riverbanks to burst and overflow in late August.
Some villages were drowned by rainfall in just one day, forcing people to flee to roadside, railway tracks, schools and higher ground in search of shelter.
Save the Children started delivering food rations to 5,000 families in the Sanghar district where a total of 900,000 people have been affected by flooding, according to local authorities. It said that children and families are drinking from floodwater contaminated with sewage.
The aid agency has launched a $30 million flood response appeal for lower Sindh. Save the Children aims to provide support to 1 million people, including 600,000 children in four of the worst hit districts: Badin, Mirpurkhas, Sanghar and Tando Allahyar.
Save the Children has been working in Pakistan for more than 30 years and is already supporting nearly seven million people in the country.
Save the Children has delivered 9,900 litres of clean water to three relief camps and a hospital from the water point in Badin. Save the Children in partnership with WFP has distributed 1,075 metric tonnes of food to over 88,000 people in Badin and Mirpurkhas, including wheat flour, pulses, rice, vegetable oil, salt, high-energy biscuits, wheat-soya blend and ready-to-use supplementary food for infants.
Over 2,300 families in Badin and Mirpur Khas districts have received emergency family packages including plastic sheeting, basic household goods and soap. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that nearly three quarters of Sindh crops have been damaged, while two thirds of food stocks have also been hit.
One year after the country experienced its worst-ever floods, affecting 21 million people. Crops of grain, cotton, sugarcane, fruit and vegetables have been submerged, clocking up nearly $2 billion in farming losses, private news channel reported. Sindh agriculture ministry said the financial cost of crop losses so far was estimated at $1.87 billion.
Cotton faces losses of $998 million, income from chilli crops will be down $427 million and both rice and sugarcane will lose an estimated $135 million, said Agha Jan Akhtar, the ministry secretary.
“Besides that, we have lost $180 million through the destruction of tomato, onion, banana and other vegetable crops,” he said.
The floods will certainly affect the trade and may cause a loss of at least $3 billion to the Pakistani exchequer,” an economist said.
'Egypt not to return to Mubarak era'
Egypt's military rulers have re-imposed the country's emergency law since anti-Israeli protesters stormed the embassy of the Tel Aviv regime in Cairo earlier this month.
Egypt's political parties continue organizing nationwide protests, calling for the abolishment of the country's decades-old emergency law.
The following is the transcript of Press TV's interview with Khaled Elshami, the political editor of Al-Quds online on the matter.
Press TV: What exactly does this mean? We are talking about laws that Egyptian people thought should have been buried with former dictator Hosni Mubarak, but now they are going to go on until June next year and the scope of them is being extended.
Elshami: Yes, that is true. People expected all that to be ended before the elections as promised by the military council. It is a setback, but does not mean that we are going back to the days of Mubarak. Egypt has changed and will never go back to the days of Mubarak.
Emergency law simply means that the police have the right to imprison any individual for virtually no reason for any period of time without even putting them on trial.
Press TV: These laws date back to 1981 and the assassination of former president Anwar Sadat. How have they been used over the years and have we seen a decrease in their use since February this year when Mubarak was deposed or indeed an increase? Because I read that over 12,000 civilians have come before military court since he was deposed.
Elshami: The emergency law has been used by Mubarak to prolong his role and his stay in power. It was never used to serve the security of the people in Egypt. Since the revolution, security has been deteriorating and the government has been unable to implement normal laws, leave alone the emergency law. This is like posing the question whether it is durable to enforce new emergency law, which is like the full version of the law, if the government is still unable to enforce the regular laws.
Press TV: I was wondering whether or not in the absence of the rule of law, in the absence of ordinary everyday political representation, Egypt should look to postpone the elections that are forthcoming, because some people say we do need the state of emergency; we cannot have a democratic election during the period of the state of emergency. So, something has to give.
Elshami: I agree that we cannot really have fair and free elections under the emergency law. We have tried this under Mubarak for 30 years. The Military Council has promised to abolish the emergency law before the elections.
Press TV: But the elections are supposed to be held before the end of the year.
Elshami: This is the promise we had from the Military Council. Up to this minute, we have not heard the declaration was the timetable of the elections. Everybody in Egypt is now waiting for this and if it does not happen it is going to be a big problem and we will have massive demonstrations asking for the elections so that the Military Council keep its promise.
As far as security [is concerned], I think in the days of Mubarak the emergency law failed to oppress the opposition. Now we fear that the real motive behind imposing this full version of the emergency law is not a direct response to the attack on the Israeli embassy or even to the attacks on the Interior Ministry which happened on the same night.
People fear that the real motive is to oppress the political opposition to the ruling Military Council and fear that the government wanted more tools to be able to oppress these sit-ins and demonstrations every Friday people go on strikes, but it has been tried in the days of Mubarak and it has failed.
Press TV: You have been to Egypt in a couple of occasions since the fall of Mubarak in February. What have you seen and does the situation worry you?
Elshami: It does not worry me. I should say that Egypt does have institutions. We have a political heritage. We have a long history of political establishments and the practice. Egypt had its first parliament in 1866. So, we do have this. We have the history; we have the experience. But circumstances are very difficult at the moment as it is in any transitional period.
Press TV: What did you see in Cairo for example?
Elshami: I spent time in Tahrir Square as well and there was no police force or army. This was purposely designed to avoid any frictions or any confrontation between the demonstrators and the police especially after over 800 people were killed during the demonstrations. They decided to stay out and I think this is the right decision for now, but definitely the police has to start coming back to fulfill its duties and maintain security.
I think generally people are happy that the revolution has succeeded, because this is a major change in Egypt. But [they are] also a bit disappointed that they have not got everything that they hoped for, particularly on the economic side. People are still suffering and the government seems to have failed in addressing their demand.
There is a government but the question is how much power it has, because it seems that it is the Military Council who calls the shots and other have to obey it.
Press TV: Let us look at the relationship between the Military Council and the people. Because when you have lived under the yoke of dictatorship for over 30 years, you get used to it and you get used to not questioning. Then you look at the other countries and say they have their freedoms, what about us? Then you go through this revolution and you think everything is going to change, but it does not and many of the same people are still in place. So, what is the relationship between the people who now call the shots in Egypt and the ordinary people who bled? We talk about 800 victims. What did they die for?
Elshami: You have mixed kind of opinions there. The military establishment in Egypt historically has enjoyed huge respect from the people in Egypt for its patriotic history not only in defending Egypt but the whole Arab and Muslim world. So, we really differentiate between two things. One is the army, which is hugely respected and the other thing is the Military Council who is now acting like a president.
Press TV: What kind of people own the Military Council?
Elshami: There are 19 people in the council. They are the heads of different branches of the armed forces. So, people respect the army, but many would disagree politically with the Military Council that is acting politically now as a president. So, there is a difference ...
We have a statement by a military source, saying we have to stay until June; we are going to cancel it as we promised as soon as we can, because they do realize that this is very unpopular in Egypt. So, the question is not whether we should have election or not, it is about what kind of election we should have. Do we have enough guarantees for a free and fair election?
This is something that needs to be worked on. I think there are some decisions that make us worried. For example, the Military Council has refused any foreign observers to involved in the voting process and this makes us wonder why.
Press TV: Are Egyptians free today?
Elshami: Of course Egypt is free after Mubarak and the people will never be the same like before. It is not only about Egypt. I think the whole Arab world will never be the same again.
Palestinians:'We have eight Security Council votes'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
The Palestinians have secured eight Security Council yes votes for their UN membership bid, just one short of the nine they need, their foreign minister said.
On Thursday Riyad al-Malki said Nigeria and Gabon had also promised they would vote in favour of the Palestinian bid for full state membership at the UN, possibly giving them a ninth and a tenth vote.
Mr Malki told reporters in Ramallah that the Palestinians have assurances of "yes" votes from Lebanon, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Brazil, in addition to the new confirmations from Nigeria and Gabon.
"We are working on Bosnia, Colombia and Portugal," he added, saying he was scheduled to visit Bosnia shortly. Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas will make stops in Colombia, Portugal, Honduras and the Dominican Republic in October.
Mr Abbas will also deliver an address in Strasbourg on October 6, Mr Malki said.
The Palestinians need to secure at least nine Security Council votes in favour of their membership bid for it to be approved and advanced to the General Assembly.Even with the requisite nine votes, the United States has pledged to use its veto to block the request, but the Palestinians hope they can at least claim a diplomatic victory by securing a majority in the Security Council.
Mr Abbas submitted the bid on Friday, shortly before he delivered a historic address to the General Assembly, urging their support for the request.
After closed-door debate on Monday, the Security Council on Wednesday referred the request to a committee set to meet on Friday.
The bid has attracted criticism from Washington and divided the membership of the European Union, raising the prospect that the Security Council might seek to delay a vote altogether to avoid embarrassing its members.
But Mr Malki said the Palestinians would not accept any delay "for political reasons."
US and EU representatives sought to head off the bid before it was submitted to the United Nations, trying to put together a proposal for new peace talks that would convince the Palestinians to drop their request.
Instead, they announced their new proposal shortly after the request was submitted, calling for talks to resume within a month with the goal of achieving a deal before the end of 2012.
Negotiations have been on hold for just over a year, grinding to a halt shortly after they began over the issue of Israeli settlement construction.
The Palestinians say they will not hold talks while Israel builds on land they want for their future state, but Israel says negotiations should restart without preconditions, and declined to renew a 10-month partial settlement freeze that expired shortly after the talks began last year.
Both sides have responded cautiously to the Quartet proposal, with the Israelis saying they are studying the offer and the Palestinians emphasising that they will not hold talks without a settlement freeze.
The Palestinians have secured eight Security Council yes votes for their UN membership bid, just one short of the nine they need, their foreign minister said.
On Thursday Riyad al-Malki said Nigeria and Gabon had also promised they would vote in favour of the Palestinian bid for full state membership at the UN, possibly giving them a ninth and a tenth vote.
Mr Malki told reporters in Ramallah that the Palestinians have assurances of "yes" votes from Lebanon, Russia, China, India, South Africa and Brazil, in addition to the new confirmations from Nigeria and Gabon.
"We are working on Bosnia, Colombia and Portugal," he added, saying he was scheduled to visit Bosnia shortly. Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas will make stops in Colombia, Portugal, Honduras and the Dominican Republic in October.
Mr Abbas will also deliver an address in Strasbourg on October 6, Mr Malki said.
The Palestinians need to secure at least nine Security Council votes in favour of their membership bid for it to be approved and advanced to the General Assembly.Even with the requisite nine votes, the United States has pledged to use its veto to block the request, but the Palestinians hope they can at least claim a diplomatic victory by securing a majority in the Security Council.
Mr Abbas submitted the bid on Friday, shortly before he delivered a historic address to the General Assembly, urging their support for the request.
After closed-door debate on Monday, the Security Council on Wednesday referred the request to a committee set to meet on Friday.
The bid has attracted criticism from Washington and divided the membership of the European Union, raising the prospect that the Security Council might seek to delay a vote altogether to avoid embarrassing its members.
But Mr Malki said the Palestinians would not accept any delay "for political reasons."
US and EU representatives sought to head off the bid before it was submitted to the United Nations, trying to put together a proposal for new peace talks that would convince the Palestinians to drop their request.
Instead, they announced their new proposal shortly after the request was submitted, calling for talks to resume within a month with the goal of achieving a deal before the end of 2012.
Negotiations have been on hold for just over a year, grinding to a halt shortly after they began over the issue of Israeli settlement construction.
The Palestinians say they will not hold talks while Israel builds on land they want for their future state, but Israel says negotiations should restart without preconditions, and declined to renew a 10-month partial settlement freeze that expired shortly after the talks began last year.
Both sides have responded cautiously to the Quartet proposal, with the Israelis saying they are studying the offer and the Palestinians emphasising that they will not hold talks without a settlement freeze.
Washington condemns assault on envoy in Syria; Clinton says the attack ‘unjustified’
alarabiya.net
The Obama administration blamed the Syrian government for an attack on the top U.S. envoy to Syria, saying it was part of an ongoing, orchestrated campaign to intimidate American diplomats in the country.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the attack as “wholly unjustified.”
Clinton demanded that the Syrian government fulfill its international obligations to protect all foreign diplomats and diplomatic properties after an angry mob pelted U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and several aides with tomatoes and eggs as they visited a prominent opposition figure.
Neither Ford nor his aides were injured but several armored embassy vehicles were badly damaged before Syrian security forces arrived and were able to escort them to safety.
Administration officials said they had lodged formal protests with Syrian authorities over the incident but there were no plans to recall Ambassador Ford from Damascus.
They also said Ford would continue to meet opposition figures and press the government to end its brutal six-month crackdown on pro-reform demonstrators. The crackdown led President Barack Obama and some European leaders to demand that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down.
“It is not an isolated incident, it is part of a pattern that we’ve seen,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.
He added that it was “part of an ongoing campaign to intimidate our diplomats as they were undertaking their normal activities and duties. Intimidation by pro-government mobs is just not civilized behavior. It’s an inexcusable assault that reflects intolerance on the part of the regime and its supporters.”
Toner said the assault reflected “the same kind of intolerance that we see that stirs the regime to use arrests, beatings and tortures and killings against those whose crime is only exercising their universal rights to gather peacefully and express their opinions.”
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said the attack was “unwarranted and unjustifiable.” He praised Ford for bearing witness to the “brutality of the Assad regime” and putting “himself at great personal risk to support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.”
Ford and his colleagues had left the embassy to visit opposition leader Hassan Abdul-Azim, who heads the outlawed Arab Socialist Democratic Union party. Trying to keep a low profile, they parked about a block away and walked to the office where they were confronted by the crowd, according to Toner.
Abdul-Azim said Ford was inside his office when the Assad supporters tried to force their way in, breaking some door locks. Office staff prevented them from rushing in, but the ambassador was trapped inside for about three hours by the hostile pro-government protesters outside. Ford called the U.S. embassy for help and alerted Syrian authorities to the situation. But Syrian security forces did not show up for more than an hour.
Syria’s Foreign Ministry said the U.S. Embassy informed the ministry that Ford was confronted by protesters when he visited Abdul-Azim. The statement added that the ministry immediately contacted security authorities, who “took all measures needed to protect the ambassador and his team and secured their return to their work in accordance with Syria's international commitments.”
Ford has angered the Syrian regime in past months by visiting a couple of the protest centers outside of Damascus in a show of solidarity with the anti-government uprising. The latest incident could further raise tensions between Washington and Damascus, which has accused the United States of helping incite violence in Syria. In August, Obama demanded Assad resign, saying he had lost his legitimacy as a ruler.
The attack on Ford came five days after government supporters threw eggs and stones at France’s ambassador as he left a meeting in Damascus with a Greek Orthodox patriarch. Ambassador Eric Chevallier was unharmed.
Tension between the West and Syria – Iran’s closest Arab ally - have been rising for months.
Washington and the European Union have imposed sanctions on some Syrian officials, including Assad, because of Assad’s crackdown that has left some 2,700 people dead, according to the United Nations.
A trip in July by Ford and the French ambassador to the central city of Hama to express support for protesters drew swift condemnation from the Syrian government, which said the unauthorized visits were proof that Washington was inciting violence in the Arab nation. Authorities then warned both ambassadors not to travel outside the capital without permission.
A month later, the Obama administration brushed off a complaint by Syrian authorities that Ford violated their travel rules by leaving Damascus without permission. The Syrian foreign ministry registered concern over Ford's trip in August from Damascus to the southern village of Jassem, where he met opposition activists.
The Obama administration blamed the Syrian government for an attack on the top U.S. envoy to Syria, saying it was part of an ongoing, orchestrated campaign to intimidate American diplomats in the country.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton condemned the attack as “wholly unjustified.”
Clinton demanded that the Syrian government fulfill its international obligations to protect all foreign diplomats and diplomatic properties after an angry mob pelted U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford and several aides with tomatoes and eggs as they visited a prominent opposition figure.
Neither Ford nor his aides were injured but several armored embassy vehicles were badly damaged before Syrian security forces arrived and were able to escort them to safety.
Administration officials said they had lodged formal protests with Syrian authorities over the incident but there were no plans to recall Ambassador Ford from Damascus.
They also said Ford would continue to meet opposition figures and press the government to end its brutal six-month crackdown on pro-reform demonstrators. The crackdown led President Barack Obama and some European leaders to demand that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad step down.
“It is not an isolated incident, it is part of a pattern that we’ve seen,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.
He added that it was “part of an ongoing campaign to intimidate our diplomats as they were undertaking their normal activities and duties. Intimidation by pro-government mobs is just not civilized behavior. It’s an inexcusable assault that reflects intolerance on the part of the regime and its supporters.”
Toner said the assault reflected “the same kind of intolerance that we see that stirs the regime to use arrests, beatings and tortures and killings against those whose crime is only exercising their universal rights to gather peacefully and express their opinions.”
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney said the attack was “unwarranted and unjustifiable.” He praised Ford for bearing witness to the “brutality of the Assad regime” and putting “himself at great personal risk to support the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people.”
Ford and his colleagues had left the embassy to visit opposition leader Hassan Abdul-Azim, who heads the outlawed Arab Socialist Democratic Union party. Trying to keep a low profile, they parked about a block away and walked to the office where they were confronted by the crowd, according to Toner.
Abdul-Azim said Ford was inside his office when the Assad supporters tried to force their way in, breaking some door locks. Office staff prevented them from rushing in, but the ambassador was trapped inside for about three hours by the hostile pro-government protesters outside. Ford called the U.S. embassy for help and alerted Syrian authorities to the situation. But Syrian security forces did not show up for more than an hour.
Syria’s Foreign Ministry said the U.S. Embassy informed the ministry that Ford was confronted by protesters when he visited Abdul-Azim. The statement added that the ministry immediately contacted security authorities, who “took all measures needed to protect the ambassador and his team and secured their return to their work in accordance with Syria's international commitments.”
Ford has angered the Syrian regime in past months by visiting a couple of the protest centers outside of Damascus in a show of solidarity with the anti-government uprising. The latest incident could further raise tensions between Washington and Damascus, which has accused the United States of helping incite violence in Syria. In August, Obama demanded Assad resign, saying he had lost his legitimacy as a ruler.
The attack on Ford came five days after government supporters threw eggs and stones at France’s ambassador as he left a meeting in Damascus with a Greek Orthodox patriarch. Ambassador Eric Chevallier was unharmed.
Tension between the West and Syria – Iran’s closest Arab ally - have been rising for months.
Washington and the European Union have imposed sanctions on some Syrian officials, including Assad, because of Assad’s crackdown that has left some 2,700 people dead, according to the United Nations.
A trip in July by Ford and the French ambassador to the central city of Hama to express support for protesters drew swift condemnation from the Syrian government, which said the unauthorized visits were proof that Washington was inciting violence in the Arab nation. Authorities then warned both ambassadors not to travel outside the capital without permission.
A month later, the Obama administration brushed off a complaint by Syrian authorities that Ford violated their travel rules by leaving Damascus without permission. The Syrian foreign ministry registered concern over Ford's trip in August from Damascus to the southern village of Jassem, where he met opposition activists.
Labaki: the rising star of Lebanese cinema
Flush with the triumph of her latest film at the Toronto International Film Festival, Lebanese director Nadine Labaki
is the toast of the town as she sits in a Beirut cafe giving interview after interview.
The movie “Where Do We Go Now?”, about a group of women determined to prevent the men in their village from getting involved in a religious war, won best picture at the festival’s People’s Choice Award, seen as a bellwether for Oscar success.
Previous winners of the award including “The King’s Speech” and “Slumdog Millionaire” went on to win Oscars at the Academy Awards, and should Labaki’s film follow in their footsteps it would be a first for Lebanon.
“With success comes a sense of responsibility as you take on the role of spokesperson for your country,” said the 37-year-old, clearly still overwhelmed by her film’s achievement.
“When I am told ‘you make us proud’ or ‘you are the pride of our country’ I get teary-eyed,” she added. “At the same time, I don’t want to disappoint, and I certainly don’t want to misrepresent the reality in my country.”
Her first feature film “Caramel,” about the lives of five Lebanese women working in a Beirut beauty salon, also won critical acclaim in 2007 and thrust Labaki, who stars in both her movies, into the international limelight.
She wrote the script of “Where Do We Go Now?” in 2008 while pregnant with her first child and as Lebanon stood on the brink of sectarian warfare.
“In a matter of hours, people who had lived next to each other for years became enemies,” she said, referring to the conflict in May 2008 that pitted mainly Sunnis against Shiites in Beirut.
Born on the eve of Lebanon’s 15-year civil war (1975-1990), Labaki says she quickly became interested in film to escape boredom.
“I lived between four walls as a little girl, with my days consisting of running down to the shelter,” she recalled. “So television offered an escape from all this.”
After earning a degree in media at Beirut’s Saint Joseph University she began producing music videos, including for such stars as Lebanese singer Nancy Ajram, and got her first major breakthrough with “Caramel.”
“I learned the trade in Lebanon on my own, where there are no famous directors to speak of, no reference,” Labaki said.
“I don’t know if I’m good at what I do but the fact that my movies were well received at the Cannes Film Festival and in Toronto gives me reassurance.”
Labaki baulks at critics who say that her movies are tailored for Western audiences, given her portrayal of Arab women as daring and set in a burlesque environment that mocks Lebanese society.
“I don’t follow recipes, I just follow my instinct,” she said, also brushing aside criticism that her message is too direct or even naive.
“I want my movies to be direct,” she insisted. “I am sick of seeing women in mourning in my country, women who see their children die, stuffed into the boot of a car or killed in a bus bomb.”
She said movie-making has become a sort of therapy for her, and she is keen on continuing to examine themes common to the region where she lives.
“I want to explore the fear of the ‘other’ and show this constant search for a better world,” she said.
New U.S. Military Chief Differs With Mullen Over National Security Threat Posed by Debt
It's too early to know how much change
Army Gen. Martin Dempsey will foster in his role as the top U.S. military officer, but it's certain that pressures to cut the defense budget -- and what that implies for the military and for American foreign policy -- will be a dominant issue from Day One of his tenure.
Even before taking over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest military office in the U.S., Dempsey made one thing clear. He differs with his predecessor on one of the most important issues of the day: the threat posed to national security by a growing national debt.
Dempsey was being sworn in Friday as successor to Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, who is retiring. At his Senate confirmation hearing in July, Dempsey was asked whether he agrees with Mullen's oft-repeated assertion that the debt crisis is the single biggest threat to American national security.
"I don't agree exactly with that," Dempsey said.
In his view, developed in the course of a 37-year career that includes two tours of command in Iraq and one in Saudi Arabia, American global power and influence are derived from three strengths: military, diplomatic and economic.
"You can't pick or choose," he said; none of the three is paramount.
So while he sees the debt problem as highly important, Dempsey believes the United States cannot be successful in managing its national security and international affairs without asserting influence through a combination of a powerful military, an effective diplomatic corps and a sound economy.
His will be among the key voices in recommending how to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from the defense budget over the coming decade.
By law, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs serves as the senior military adviser to the president, the president's National Security Council and the secretary of defense. But the chairman is not directly in the chain of command that extends from the president to the secretary of defense to commanders in the field. He is the public face of the U.S. military and weighs in on major policy decisions but is not actually in charge of any troops.
Dempsey is the first Army general to hold the job since Hugh Shelton retired in 2001.
One of the legacies of Mullen's four years as chairman was his less-than-successful effort to persuade Pakistan's military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, to do more to contain and disable violent extremist groups like Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network that use Pakistan as a haven.
In the final week of his tenure, Mullen made his biggest headline by telling a Senate committee that the Haqqanis are a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's intelligence service and by asserting that Pakistani intelligence supported and facilitated a string of Haqqani attacks on Americans in Afghanistan. His statement infuriated the Pakistan government and arguably set back, at least temporarily, an already frayed U.S.-Pakistani relationship.
Dempsey's views on Pakistan's importance to success in Afghanistan appear similar to Mullen's, although he has been less specific about the role of the Haqqanis. In his July testimony, he said it has never been clear to him why the Pakistani government goes after some extremist groups but not others. He said that as Joint Chiefs chairman he would work with the Pakistanis to improve border security.
Like many who rise to the highest ranks of the U.S. military, Dempsey is not known for his public outspokenness. He took over as Army chief of staff in April. Before that he commanded the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, and he previously served for several months as acting commander of U.S. Central Command with responsibility for all U.S. military operations and relations in the greater Middle East.
He graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1974.
Dempsey's swearing-in completes the transition of President Barack Obama's senior national security team, which included Leon Panetta taking over for Robert Gates as defense secretary on July 1, followed by Marine Gen. John Allen's arrival in Kabul as the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces, Gen. David Petraeus' retirement from the Army to become CIA director and Gen. Raymond Odierno replacing Dempsey as Army chief of staff.
Mullen, who served two two-year terms as Joint Chiefs chairman, is retiring. He has served 43 years in uniform.
In his confirmation hearing testimony in July, Dempsey was not explicitly comparing and contrasting his views with those of Mullen. But in addition to stating a different view on the issue of debt and national security, he echoed Mullen on the matter of defending against cyber threats.
Mullen said several times in his final days in office that cyber attacks are one of just two threats to the continued existence of the nation. The other, he said, is Russian nuclear weapons, and he said that threat is well contained by arms control agreements, including the New START treaty of 2010.
And like Mullen, Dempsey acknowledged that he is not particularly well versed on the subject of cyber warfare.
"I'll confess at the start that my thinking on this is nascent, at best," Dempsey told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He added that he had been advised that cyber war was likely to be one of several issues that define his tenure. He did not mention what he expects will be the other defining issues, but almost certainly they include winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and reorienting U.S. forces for the post-war period.
Obama Backed by 63% of Investors for Buffett Rule to Cut Deficit
http://www.businessweek.com
Global investors overwhelmingly support President Barack Obama’s proposed tax increase for those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more in an effort to reduce the deficit.
By a margin of 63 percent to 32 percent, respondents in a Bloomberg Global Poll approved of the president’s proposal, known as the “Buffett rule” in a nod to Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., who has said it is wrong that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than does his secretary.
Obama said Sept. 19 that making sure that the wealthy pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class was “just the right thing to do.” House Speaker John Boehner accused the president of practicing “class warfare,” saying any new tax would hurt job creation and Buffett’s situation was not typical.
The call for the rich to pay more, however, found backing among financial professionals in the quarterly Global Poll of 1,031 investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers. “Higher tax payments could help to avoid or delay potential social disturbances and in addition create some kind of a general solidarity,” says Henry Littig, chief executive officer of Henry Littig Global Investments AG in Cologne, Germany, a poll respondent.
In the U.S., support for the idea was lower, with more than half opposing it, although four in 10 supported it. “The U.S. does not have a tax rate problem -- we have a spending and entitlement problem,” said poll respondent Jay Wright, managing director of Samco Capital Markets in San Antonio, Texas. “And if we do not address it quickly we are going to be Greece.”
Strong Support
Support for the millionaire’s tax was highest in Europe, where French President Nicolas Sarkozy plans a 3 percent surcharge on incomes above 500,000 euros ($680,000.) European poll respondents backed Obama 78 percent to 17 percent; Bloomberg customers in Asia supported the president’s idea 69 percent to 21 percent.
“Increasing taxes on millionaires may not harm the economy, but it will not help it either,” said Don Lindsey, chief investment officer at George Washington University, who participated in the survey. “What we need is a complete overhaul of the tax system.”
In a New York Times op-ed last month, Buffett wrote that his federal income tax bill was $6.94 million, or 17.4 percent of his taxable income -- a lower rate than any of the other 20 employees in his Omaha, Nebraska, office.
‘Send in a Check’
Buffett has repeatedly said that his secretary pays a higher share of her income in taxes than he does, prompting Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to gibe: “If he’s feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check.”
Some participants in the Bloomberg poll agreed. “Buffett is being very deceptive,” said Michael Prisby, corporate investment officer at Citizens Financial Bank in Munster, Indiana. “He may be taxed at a capital gains rate of 15 percent, but that doesn’t mean all high earners are.”
On average, taxpayers with annual incomes of more than $1 million last year paid a 29 percent tax rate, compared with 15.1 percent for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
Some high-income individuals, like Buffett, do pay a lower average tax rate because much of their income is derived from capital gains rather than wages. In 2009, the most recent Internal Revenue Service data shows that 1,470 individuals with at least $1 million in annual income paid no income tax.
‘Disproportionate Rewards’
The debate over a “Buffett rule” tax caps an era in which have gone to those at the top of the nation’s income distribution. Between 1993 and 2008, the top 1 percent of families captured 52 percent of total income gains, according to a 2010 paper by economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley.
“The Buffett rule does not apply to all rich people or the average rich person, but it does apply to some rich people,” said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center.
The administration has said it has no plans to submit a detailed millionaires’ tax proposal to Congress. For now, that means the main significance of the Buffett rule is political not financial.
The proposed tax is the rhetorical centerpiece of White House jockeying in the run-up to the deliberations of a congressional “supercommittee” seeking $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Nov. 23.
Earlier this week, Douglas Edwards, who described himself as “unemployed by choice” after retiring as an early employee from Google, urged the president to “please raise my taxes” at a town hall in Mountain View, California.
Far From Rich
Lionel Mellul, co-founder of Momentum Trading Partners in New York, said he endorsed the idea of the rich paying more, while taking issue with the $1 million threshold. A New Yorker with a $1 million annual income is “far from really being rich,” he said.
In follow-up interviews, many respondents called for a stem-to-stern overhaul of the tax code.
“Until the administration completely overhauls the personal and corporate tax code to both drive growth and incentivize the efficient transfer of capital and risk, the wealthy people will just have their tax lawyers find more loopholes to lower their taxes,” said Jonathan Sadowsky, chief investment officer at Vaca Creek Asset Management in San Francisco.
The quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll was conducted by Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm, on Sept. 26. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
--Editors: Gail DeGeorge, Christopher Wellisz
Global investors overwhelmingly support President Barack Obama’s proposed tax increase for those earning annual incomes of $1 million or more in an effort to reduce the deficit.
By a margin of 63 percent to 32 percent, respondents in a Bloomberg Global Poll approved of the president’s proposal, known as the “Buffett rule” in a nod to Warren Buffett, the chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., who has said it is wrong that he pays a smaller share of his income in taxes than does his secretary.
Obama said Sept. 19 that making sure that the wealthy pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class was “just the right thing to do.” House Speaker John Boehner accused the president of practicing “class warfare,” saying any new tax would hurt job creation and Buffett’s situation was not typical.
The call for the rich to pay more, however, found backing among financial professionals in the quarterly Global Poll of 1,031 investors, analysts and traders who are Bloomberg subscribers. “Higher tax payments could help to avoid or delay potential social disturbances and in addition create some kind of a general solidarity,” says Henry Littig, chief executive officer of Henry Littig Global Investments AG in Cologne, Germany, a poll respondent.
In the U.S., support for the idea was lower, with more than half opposing it, although four in 10 supported it. “The U.S. does not have a tax rate problem -- we have a spending and entitlement problem,” said poll respondent Jay Wright, managing director of Samco Capital Markets in San Antonio, Texas. “And if we do not address it quickly we are going to be Greece.”
Strong Support
Support for the millionaire’s tax was highest in Europe, where French President Nicolas Sarkozy plans a 3 percent surcharge on incomes above 500,000 euros ($680,000.) European poll respondents backed Obama 78 percent to 17 percent; Bloomberg customers in Asia supported the president’s idea 69 percent to 21 percent.
“Increasing taxes on millionaires may not harm the economy, but it will not help it either,” said Don Lindsey, chief investment officer at George Washington University, who participated in the survey. “What we need is a complete overhaul of the tax system.”
In a New York Times op-ed last month, Buffett wrote that his federal income tax bill was $6.94 million, or 17.4 percent of his taxable income -- a lower rate than any of the other 20 employees in his Omaha, Nebraska, office.
‘Send in a Check’
Buffett has repeatedly said that his secretary pays a higher share of her income in taxes than he does, prompting Republicans such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to gibe: “If he’s feeling guilty about it, I think he should send in a check.”
Some participants in the Bloomberg poll agreed. “Buffett is being very deceptive,” said Michael Prisby, corporate investment officer at Citizens Financial Bank in Munster, Indiana. “He may be taxed at a capital gains rate of 15 percent, but that doesn’t mean all high earners are.”
On average, taxpayers with annual incomes of more than $1 million last year paid a 29 percent tax rate, compared with 15.1 percent for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.
Some high-income individuals, like Buffett, do pay a lower average tax rate because much of their income is derived from capital gains rather than wages. In 2009, the most recent Internal Revenue Service data shows that 1,470 individuals with at least $1 million in annual income paid no income tax.
‘Disproportionate Rewards’
The debate over a “Buffett rule” tax caps an era in which have gone to those at the top of the nation’s income distribution. Between 1993 and 2008, the top 1 percent of families captured 52 percent of total income gains, according to a 2010 paper by economist Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley.
“The Buffett rule does not apply to all rich people or the average rich person, but it does apply to some rich people,” said Roberton Williams, an analyst at the Tax Policy Center.
The administration has said it has no plans to submit a detailed millionaires’ tax proposal to Congress. For now, that means the main significance of the Buffett rule is political not financial.
The proposed tax is the rhetorical centerpiece of White House jockeying in the run-up to the deliberations of a congressional “supercommittee” seeking $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Nov. 23.
Earlier this week, Douglas Edwards, who described himself as “unemployed by choice” after retiring as an early employee from Google, urged the president to “please raise my taxes” at a town hall in Mountain View, California.
Far From Rich
Lionel Mellul, co-founder of Momentum Trading Partners in New York, said he endorsed the idea of the rich paying more, while taking issue with the $1 million threshold. A New Yorker with a $1 million annual income is “far from really being rich,” he said.
In follow-up interviews, many respondents called for a stem-to-stern overhaul of the tax code.
“Until the administration completely overhauls the personal and corporate tax code to both drive growth and incentivize the efficient transfer of capital and risk, the wealthy people will just have their tax lawyers find more loopholes to lower their taxes,” said Jonathan Sadowsky, chief investment officer at Vaca Creek Asset Management in San Francisco.
The quarterly Bloomberg Global Poll was conducted by Selzer & Co., a Des Moines, Iowa-based firm, on Sept. 26. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
--Editors: Gail DeGeorge, Christopher Wellisz
Michelle Obama's secret shopping
US First Lady Michelle Obama
went shopping at down market chain store Target incognito and and no one recognised her except the cashier, CNN reported.
She shopped on Thursday at in Virginia with no noticeable entourage - although Secret Service agents were discreetly shadowing her.
She wore a Nike baseball cap and sunglasses and blended in with the other shoppers as she pushed her trolly around the store. The first lady and an assistant browsed the aisles for about 40 minutes, according to CBS News.
'People did not approach her, she was very incognito,' Maria Panagopulof told CNN.
'We didn't realise truly what was happening until she had almost left. The cashier recognised her, but she was very unassuming.'
Panagopulof said the store was not warned to expect Obama.
'We did not have advance notice; it was as big a surprise to us as it was to everyone else,' she said.
Obama's experience at the store wasn't entirely like that of the average Target shopper.
An Associated Press photographer snapped a photo of her at the checkout area.
Since the first lady's every move is not tracked by reporters, it's unclear if the White House tipped off the photographer so he could be at the right spot at the right time, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Obama's office simply said the photographer 'caught her' at the store.
'It is not uncommon for the First Lady to slip out to run an errand, eat at a local restaurant or otherwise enjoy the city outside the White House gates,' Kristina Schake, communications director for the First Lady, told CBS News.
In May, Michelle Obama told Oprah Winfrey in an interview that she missed going shopping.
'I think one of the greatest sacrifices for people like us - who like being with people - is that it's the bubble,' Obama said.
'We talked about it. I can't go to Target and walk around. I guess I could but it would mess up everyone else's shopping experience.'
went shopping at down market chain store Target incognito and and no one recognised her except the cashier, CNN reported.
She shopped on Thursday at in Virginia with no noticeable entourage - although Secret Service agents were discreetly shadowing her.
She wore a Nike baseball cap and sunglasses and blended in with the other shoppers as she pushed her trolly around the store. The first lady and an assistant browsed the aisles for about 40 minutes, according to CBS News.
'People did not approach her, she was very incognito,' Maria Panagopulof told CNN.
'We didn't realise truly what was happening until she had almost left. The cashier recognised her, but she was very unassuming.'
Panagopulof said the store was not warned to expect Obama.
'We did not have advance notice; it was as big a surprise to us as it was to everyone else,' she said.
Obama's experience at the store wasn't entirely like that of the average Target shopper.
An Associated Press photographer snapped a photo of her at the checkout area.
Since the first lady's every move is not tracked by reporters, it's unclear if the White House tipped off the photographer so he could be at the right spot at the right time, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Obama's office simply said the photographer 'caught her' at the store.
'It is not uncommon for the First Lady to slip out to run an errand, eat at a local restaurant or otherwise enjoy the city outside the White House gates,' Kristina Schake, communications director for the First Lady, told CBS News.
In May, Michelle Obama told Oprah Winfrey in an interview that she missed going shopping.
'I think one of the greatest sacrifices for people like us - who like being with people - is that it's the bubble,' Obama said.
'We talked about it. I can't go to Target and walk around. I guess I could but it would mess up everyone else's shopping experience.'
Bank of America to charge $5 monthly debit card fee
Get ready for a new wave of bank fees. 
Bank of America will begin charging a $5 monthly fee at the beginning of next year for customers who make debit card purchases.
Whether you use your card for one purchase a month or 20, you will pay $5 per month starting in 2012. It doesn't matter if you select "debit" or "credit" at the point of sale.
If you don't use your card at all, you won't be assessed a fee, and you can still use ATMs as much as you want without getting hit with the new charge. Plus, customers with certain premium accounts will be exempt from the charge.Other banks have been flirting with the idea of introducing a fee for debit card usage, but Bank of America is one of the first major institutions to announce that it will make this a reality for active debit card customers.
The move coincides with the implementation of new rules limiting the revenue banks will be able to get from merchants. Beginning this weekend, a cap on the fees banks can charge retailers every time customers swipe their debit cards will take effect.While banks used to charge an average fee of 44 cents, now the maximum fee is only 21 cents. This is expected to cost the banking industry billions of dollars. The Federal Reserve introduced the cap this summer, despite protests from many financial institutions.
"The economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations," said Bank of America spokeswoman Betty Riess, adding that customers will be notified of the change at least 30 days before it takes effect.Last month, Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) said it will test a $3 monthly fee in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington beginning Oct. 14 for customers who use their debit card for purchases.
At the end of last year, JPMorgan Chase announced a similar test, in which it charged customers in northern Wisconsin a $3 fee for using their debit cards. A Chase spokesman said last month that the tests were still underway.
America's most loyal bank customers
But Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the swipe-fee cap in an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, said the cap simply evens out the playing field for retailers because the fees Visa and MasterCard had set for banks "grossly exceed the cost of processing a debit card transaction by some 400%."
"After years of raking in excess profits off an unfair and anti-competitive interchange system, Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers," Durbin said in a statement Thursday. "It's overt, unfair and I hope their customers have the final say."
Bank of America will begin charging a $5 monthly fee at the beginning of next year for customers who make debit card purchases.
Whether you use your card for one purchase a month or 20, you will pay $5 per month starting in 2012. It doesn't matter if you select "debit" or "credit" at the point of sale.
If you don't use your card at all, you won't be assessed a fee, and you can still use ATMs as much as you want without getting hit with the new charge. Plus, customers with certain premium accounts will be exempt from the charge.Other banks have been flirting with the idea of introducing a fee for debit card usage, but Bank of America is one of the first major institutions to announce that it will make this a reality for active debit card customers.
The move coincides with the implementation of new rules limiting the revenue banks will be able to get from merchants. Beginning this weekend, a cap on the fees banks can charge retailers every time customers swipe their debit cards will take effect.While banks used to charge an average fee of 44 cents, now the maximum fee is only 21 cents. This is expected to cost the banking industry billions of dollars. The Federal Reserve introduced the cap this summer, despite protests from many financial institutions.
"The economics of offering a debit card have changed with recent regulations," said Bank of America spokeswoman Betty Riess, adding that customers will be notified of the change at least 30 days before it takes effect.Last month, Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) said it will test a $3 monthly fee in Georgia, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington beginning Oct. 14 for customers who use their debit card for purchases.
At the end of last year, JPMorgan Chase announced a similar test, in which it charged customers in northern Wisconsin a $3 fee for using their debit cards. A Chase spokesman said last month that the tests were still underway.
America's most loyal bank customers
But Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who introduced the swipe-fee cap in an amendment to the Dodd-Frank financial reform act, said the cap simply evens out the playing field for retailers because the fees Visa and MasterCard had set for banks "grossly exceed the cost of processing a debit card transaction by some 400%."
"After years of raking in excess profits off an unfair and anti-competitive interchange system, Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers," Durbin said in a statement Thursday. "It's overt, unfair and I hope their customers have the final say."
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Bahraini women rage at regime
Bahraini women hold protests in the country's capital against the detention of anti-regime protesters and the harsh sentences handed down to them as well as those, who helped them.
The demonstration was held in Miqsha just outside Manama on Thursday after Bahrain sentenced 20 doctors to between five and 15 years in jail for their treating anti-regime protesters, Reuters reported.
The doctors, who denied the charges, were among dozens of medical staff arrested during protests, which have been raging on since February 14.
Ahlam Al-Khezaei, the head of Women's Affairs for Al Wefaq, the biggest opposition party in Bahrain, called for the release of female prisoners.
"We ask for all women prisoners to be freed and for all charges against them to be dropped. These cruel sentences of our doctors, nurses and teachers, Rola al-Safar, Jalila al-Salman and Dr. Nadi Dhaif, and everyone else," she said, referring to some of the detainees.
Bahrainis have been holding the peaceful rallies since mid-February, demanding an end to the Al Khalifa's over-40-year-long rule over the Persian Gulf island.
Scores of people have been killed and hundreds more arrested in a brutal Manama-ordered and Riyadh-backed crackdown in the country, which hosts a huge American military installation for the US Navy's Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf.
The demonstration was held in Miqsha just outside Manama on Thursday after Bahrain sentenced 20 doctors to between five and 15 years in jail for their treating anti-regime protesters, Reuters reported.
The doctors, who denied the charges, were among dozens of medical staff arrested during protests, which have been raging on since February 14.
Ahlam Al-Khezaei, the head of Women's Affairs for Al Wefaq, the biggest opposition party in Bahrain, called for the release of female prisoners.
"We ask for all women prisoners to be freed and for all charges against them to be dropped. These cruel sentences of our doctors, nurses and teachers, Rola al-Safar, Jalila al-Salman and Dr. Nadi Dhaif, and everyone else," she said, referring to some of the detainees.
Bahrainis have been holding the peaceful rallies since mid-February, demanding an end to the Al Khalifa's over-40-year-long rule over the Persian Gulf island.
Scores of people have been killed and hundreds more arrested in a brutal Manama-ordered and Riyadh-backed crackdown in the country, which hosts a huge American military installation for the US Navy's Fifth Fleet in the Persian Gulf.
US tones down rhetoric
The United States appeared on Thursday to have adopted a new approach for dealing with the alleged presence of terrorist outfits in Fata, taking legal action against militants without further escalating tensions with Pakistan.
As the US Treasury Department blacklisted seven people from the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba as terrorists, the State Department continued to stress Washington’s close ties with Islamabad.
“The US and Pakistan have a very clear and direct relationship … I don’t think that the US and Pakistan need a third country to mediate between them. We are working directly,” said the department’s spokesperson Victoria Nuland when asked if the Obama administration had contacted other countries for deescalating tensions with Islamabad. Also on Thursday, one of the original authors of the aid to Pakistan bill, Senator Richard Lugar said the US effort to aid Pakistan had not had enough time to achieve its goal: dispel Pakistani mistrust of the United States. Senator Lugar told the US media that one reason the Kerry-Lugar-Berman programme had not yet had a chance to work was that very little money had actually been spent.
That’s due in part to disagreements between the US and the Pakistani government about how programmes would be administered, he said. The US Congress is re-evaluating a $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan following allegations that Islamabad has links to anti-US militant groups. The five-year aid package, known as Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, was passed in 2009 but in the last three years, Pakistan has only received less than $500 million.
Last week, US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen told a Senate panel that Pakistan was helping the militants and that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm” of the ISI. However, the White House and the State Department have refused to endorse the admiral’s claim while US media reports, attributed to official sources, said that Mr Mullen’s assertion was based on faulty intelligence. Since then the Obama administration also has launched a diplomatic offensive to reduce tensions and on Thursday Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani was invited to the State Department for consultations.
The legal sanctions announced on Thursday target a powerful commander of the Haqqani network, Abdul Aziz Abbasin. An Afghan native, Abbasin is the network’s “shadow governor” in Orgun district of Afghanistan. Four other figures with links to Taliban and Al Qaeda activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan were named in the sanctions, which aim at putting pressure on financial links to the groups. Treasury listed Afghanistan natives Haji Faizullah Khan Noorzai and Haji Malik Noorzai as Taliban financiers who helped the militant group invest money in various businesses. It also named Pakistan national Abdur Rehman, who operates a religious school in Karachi, as aiding the Taliban and Al Qaeda logistically and financially. The fifth person named was Fazal Rahim, called a financial facilitator for Al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Rahim had helped the IMU send foreign fighters to Pakistan for training. “These financiers and facilitators provide the fuel for the Taliban, Haqqani network and Al Qaeda to realise their violent aspirations,” Treasury under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence David Cohen said in a statement.
On Wednesday, the US had blacklisted two Lashkar-e-Taiba officials for their alleged link to terrorism. The official US statement identified Zafar Iqbal or Hafiz Abdul Salam Bhuttavi as the Lashkar’s co-founders. In Congress, where sentiments against Pakistan are high, Senator Lugar broke away from other lawmakers in calling for continuing US assistance to Islamabad. Senator Lugar told the US media he believed that American development aid could help change perceptions about the United States in Pakistan. “It could and would have, but it won’t unless the money is spent,” he said. “I think it’s a good approach, but the question is what our overall relationship will be” with Pakistan, he added.
Congressman Howard Berman, another co-author of the aid to Pakistan bill, however, was reluctant to endorse him. He told the media that he believed Americans were “right to be frustrated with Pakistan” but he also warned against a blanket cut-off.
This “may make us feel good in the short term, but will only harm our long-term interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of South Asia,” he said.
As the US Treasury Department blacklisted seven people from the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba as terrorists, the State Department continued to stress Washington’s close ties with Islamabad.
“The US and Pakistan have a very clear and direct relationship … I don’t think that the US and Pakistan need a third country to mediate between them. We are working directly,” said the department’s spokesperson Victoria Nuland when asked if the Obama administration had contacted other countries for deescalating tensions with Islamabad. Also on Thursday, one of the original authors of the aid to Pakistan bill, Senator Richard Lugar said the US effort to aid Pakistan had not had enough time to achieve its goal: dispel Pakistani mistrust of the United States. Senator Lugar told the US media that one reason the Kerry-Lugar-Berman programme had not yet had a chance to work was that very little money had actually been spent.
That’s due in part to disagreements between the US and the Pakistani government about how programmes would be administered, he said. The US Congress is re-evaluating a $7.5 billion aid package for Pakistan following allegations that Islamabad has links to anti-US militant groups. The five-year aid package, known as Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, was passed in 2009 but in the last three years, Pakistan has only received less than $500 million.
Last week, US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen told a Senate panel that Pakistan was helping the militants and that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm” of the ISI. However, the White House and the State Department have refused to endorse the admiral’s claim while US media reports, attributed to official sources, said that Mr Mullen’s assertion was based on faulty intelligence. Since then the Obama administration also has launched a diplomatic offensive to reduce tensions and on Thursday Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani was invited to the State Department for consultations.
The legal sanctions announced on Thursday target a powerful commander of the Haqqani network, Abdul Aziz Abbasin. An Afghan native, Abbasin is the network’s “shadow governor” in Orgun district of Afghanistan. Four other figures with links to Taliban and Al Qaeda activities in Afghanistan and Pakistan were named in the sanctions, which aim at putting pressure on financial links to the groups. Treasury listed Afghanistan natives Haji Faizullah Khan Noorzai and Haji Malik Noorzai as Taliban financiers who helped the militant group invest money in various businesses. It also named Pakistan national Abdur Rehman, who operates a religious school in Karachi, as aiding the Taliban and Al Qaeda logistically and financially. The fifth person named was Fazal Rahim, called a financial facilitator for Al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Rahim had helped the IMU send foreign fighters to Pakistan for training. “These financiers and facilitators provide the fuel for the Taliban, Haqqani network and Al Qaeda to realise their violent aspirations,” Treasury under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence David Cohen said in a statement.
On Wednesday, the US had blacklisted two Lashkar-e-Taiba officials for their alleged link to terrorism. The official US statement identified Zafar Iqbal or Hafiz Abdul Salam Bhuttavi as the Lashkar’s co-founders. In Congress, where sentiments against Pakistan are high, Senator Lugar broke away from other lawmakers in calling for continuing US assistance to Islamabad. Senator Lugar told the US media he believed that American development aid could help change perceptions about the United States in Pakistan. “It could and would have, but it won’t unless the money is spent,” he said. “I think it’s a good approach, but the question is what our overall relationship will be” with Pakistan, he added.
Congressman Howard Berman, another co-author of the aid to Pakistan bill, however, was reluctant to endorse him. He told the media that he believed Americans were “right to be frustrated with Pakistan” but he also warned against a blanket cut-off.
This “may make us feel good in the short term, but will only harm our long-term interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the rest of South Asia,” he said.
Pakistani Politicians Reject Mullen’s Charges
Even as it revealed growing skepticism toward Pakistan’s powerful military, an extraordinary national security conference ended here late Thursday with a statement rejecting as “baseless” allegations from America’s top military official that Pakistan was facilitating militant attacks in Afghanistan.
Military leaders and more than 50 politicians representing 32 political parties gathered at the residence of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to discuss the charges made by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Last week, Admiral Mullen told a Senate panel that the Haqqani network, a potent part of the insurgency battling American forces in Afghanistan, was a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s spy agency. He also accused the agency of supporting an attack this month by Haqqani militants on the United States Embassy in Kabul, the Afghan capital.
The statements reopened a rift between the nominal allies and set off a furor in both countries, with the White House on Wednesday seeking to temper the remarks. In an interview with National Public Radio on Thursday, however, Admiral Mullen stood by his testimony, revealing a divide within the Obama administration that has, unusually, placed Admiral Mullen publicly in the hard-line position toward Pakistan. He has been the American official leading the effort to improve cooperation.
He would not change a word of his testimony, Admiral Mullen insisted, saying, “I phrased it the way I wanted it to be phrased.”
Since his remarks last week, an atmosphere of crisis has gripped Pakistan, and the meeting on Thursday was called to address fevered speculation among politicians and in the media that the United States was preparing to attack Haqqani havens, which American officials have said are in North Waziristan, a part of Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
On Thursday, the politicians issued a 13-point resolution saying that Admiral Mullen’s “assertions are without substance and derogatory to partnership approach.” They extended full support to the country’s armed forces “in defeating any threat to national security.”
The meeting of top officials here was addressed by Mr. Gilani and the foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar. The Pakistani Army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen. Khalid Shameem Wynne, also attended the meeting, which lasted more than seven hours.
Most notable was a briefing by Lt. Gen. Ahmad Shuja Pasha, the director general of the spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI.
Various accounts provided by participants and news networks, which cited unnamed sources, quoted General Pasha as saying that while Pakistan “did not want to take relations with the United States to the point of no return, it also was capable to defending itself in case of an attack.”
“Any U.S. attack against Pakistan in the name of extremists would be unacceptable,” he said.
He also denied that the Haqqani network was even in Pakistan or that contacts with the group were significant. Instead, he said, it operated inside Afghanistan and along the porous border, echoing what has become a familiar refrain among top Pakistani officials.
General Pasha “told the participants that Haqqani network has three wings and ISI does not maintain contacts with Haqqani’s militant wing,” said Imran Khan, an opposition politician, talking with reporters after the meeting.
Mr. Khan, who has been advocating against military operations in the restive tribal regions, said that the participants agreed to “give peace a chance.”
“There is no military solution,” said Mr. Khan, a former cricket star. “It has failed in Afghanistan. It has failed in our tribal regions.”
The military leadership also faced some skepticism, however. GEO, the country’s leading television news network, reported that during the meeting, one participant, Mahmood Khan Achakzai, a Pashtun politician who has a reputation as a straight-shooter, put General Pasha on the spot by saying, “Peace can be attained in Afghanistan within a month if you want.” It was not clear how the general responded.
The leading opposition politician, Nawaz Sharif, who was toppled in a military coup in 1999, also criticized the role of the ISI and the army. “There must be something that the whole world is pointing its fingers towards us,” Mr. Sharif was quoted as saying by local news networks.
The head of the army, General Kayani, rose and said that he could answer Mr. Sharif’s concerns, though it was not clear how he attempted to do so.
Earlier, in an opening address that was televised live, Mr. Gilani also rejected the “assertions” and said that “Pakistan cannot be pressured to do more” to fight militants. The “blame game is counterproductive,” he said. “This should end and Pakistan’s red lines and national interests must be respected.”
President Asif Ali Zardari did not attend the meeting. Instead, he met with Sania Mirza, an Indian tennis star, and her husband, Shoaib Malik, a Pakistani cricketer. Mr. Zardari had met with the army chief and prime minister Wednesday, according to a presidential spokesman.
Pakistan paying heavily for its mistakes in the 1970s
PAKISTAN TODAY
Pakistan is ''paying heavily'' for its mistakes in the 1970s when it started mixing religion with politics and promoted extremism, said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"I think Pakistan is paying a heavy price for the mistakes of 1970s by linking religion with politics and developing religious schools which are, in some cases, dangerous sources of extremism," Blair was reported telling a news channel.
The former British Prime Minister was responding to queries relating to the role of ISI in spreading terrorism and its links with the Haqqani group in Afghanistan.
When asked if the US, after eliminating Osama bin laden, should also go after the Haqqani faction, Blair said it was something which the Americans have to decide.
"If ISI is engaged in such activities, in the end it will not merely affect US, UK, Afghanistan or India, it poisons the atmosphere in Pakistan also," Blair said.
The former British Prime Minister said that if there was any linkage between the ISI and terror groups, such as the Haqqani group and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, "it is a mistake."
Blair said there was a need to engage "modern and open-minded" Pakistanis who are involved in a struggle against the extremists.
"We have to see how we can engage elements in Pakistan who believe that this was a mistake. The best way is to allow Pakistan to change and evolve and there are a lot of decent people in Pakistan," he said.
Pakistan is ''paying heavily'' for its mistakes in the 1970s when it started mixing religion with politics and promoted extremism, said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"I think Pakistan is paying a heavy price for the mistakes of 1970s by linking religion with politics and developing religious schools which are, in some cases, dangerous sources of extremism," Blair was reported telling a news channel.
The former British Prime Minister was responding to queries relating to the role of ISI in spreading terrorism and its links with the Haqqani group in Afghanistan.
When asked if the US, after eliminating Osama bin laden, should also go after the Haqqani faction, Blair said it was something which the Americans have to decide.
"If ISI is engaged in such activities, in the end it will not merely affect US, UK, Afghanistan or India, it poisons the atmosphere in Pakistan also," Blair said.
The former British Prime Minister said that if there was any linkage between the ISI and terror groups, such as the Haqqani group and the Lashkar-e-Taiba, "it is a mistake."
Blair said there was a need to engage "modern and open-minded" Pakistanis who are involved in a struggle against the extremists.
"We have to see how we can engage elements in Pakistan who believe that this was a mistake. The best way is to allow Pakistan to change and evolve and there are a lot of decent people in Pakistan," he said.
Confrontation not in interest of US, Pakistan
Former foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi
has said confrontation is neither in the interest of Pakistan nor US and solution to Pakistan-US relations lies in political rather than military means.
Talking to a private TV channel, Qureshi said Pakistan had reservations for not being taken into confidence by US despite the fact it was ally of US in the war against terrorism.
He went on to say situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating day by day and peace process had been affected due to assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani.
He said that allegations levelled by US against institutions of Pakistan were baseless and added that US had charged Pakistan with using terrorism as a policy. “We will have to present our stance”, he stressed. US allegations shocked Pakistani nation, he underlined.
has said confrontation is neither in the interest of Pakistan nor US and solution to Pakistan-US relations lies in political rather than military means.
Talking to a private TV channel, Qureshi said Pakistan had reservations for not being taken into confidence by US despite the fact it was ally of US in the war against terrorism.
He went on to say situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating day by day and peace process had been affected due to assassination of Burhanuddin Rabbani.
He said that allegations levelled by US against institutions of Pakistan were baseless and added that US had charged Pakistan with using terrorism as a policy. “We will have to present our stance”, he stressed. US allegations shocked Pakistani nation, he underlined.
Pakistan closes Afghan border route after bombing
Pakistani authorities have closed one of the two border crossings used by trucks carrying Nato war supplies into Afghanistan after a bomb hit an oil tanker.
Police officer Mohammad Tayab said the Chaman border crossing was closed ”for security reasons” after an explosion on Thursday killed a bomb disposal expert who was trying to defuse the device.
Tayab didn’t elaborate on the bombing attack.
Pakistan sometimes closes the border temporarily after attacks, though earlier this year the other, busier route in Torkham was closed for 10 days in protest against the killing of two Pakistani troops by a Nato helicopter nearby.
Relations between US and Pakistan are currently strained because of US allegations Islamabad supports Afghan insurgents.
Police officer Mohammad Tayab said the Chaman border crossing was closed ”for security reasons” after an explosion on Thursday killed a bomb disposal expert who was trying to defuse the device.
Tayab didn’t elaborate on the bombing attack.
Pakistan sometimes closes the border temporarily after attacks, though earlier this year the other, busier route in Torkham was closed for 10 days in protest against the killing of two Pakistani troops by a Nato helicopter nearby.
Relations between US and Pakistan are currently strained because of US allegations Islamabad supports Afghan insurgents.
US 'threat' of military action unites Pakistan
U.S. accusations that Pakistan is supporting Afghan insurgents have triggered a nationalist backlash and whipped up media fears of an American invasion, drowning out any discussion over the army's long use of jihadi groups as deadly proxies in the region.
The reaction shows the problem facing the United States as it presses Pakistan for action: Strong statements in Washington provoke a negative public response that makes it more difficult for the army to act against the militants — even if it decided it was in the country's interest to do so.
Pakistan's mostly conservative populace is deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions a decade after Washington forged an alliance with Islamabad. Many people here believe the U.S. wants to break up Pakistan and take its arsenal of nuclear weapons, and America is very unpopular throughout the country.
By contrast, Pakistanis lack unity against Islamic militants. Politicians and media commentators are often ambiguous in their criticism of the Pakistani Taliban, despite its carrying out near weekly bombings in Pakistan over the past four years.
One small private television channel has aired an advertisement that features images of Adm. Mike Mullen, America's top military officer, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta along with scenes of the Pakistani army fighting and raising the country's flag.
Each time the Americans appear, a shrill voice sings: "Enemies, you have challenged a nation which has a growing knowledge of the Quran and the support from Allah. Our task in this world is to eliminate the name of the killers!"
Mullen's comments on Capitol Hill last week set off the storm.
He said the Haqqani network, the most deadly and organized force fighting American troops in Afghanistan, was a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's premier spy agency, the strongest public statement yet by U.S. officials on Pakistan's long suspected duplicity.
He and other U.S. officials suggested that the U.S. would use any means necessary to defend itself. That raised speculation here that America might deploy troops in Pakistan's North Waziristan territory, the Afghan border region where the Haqqanis are based.
Most analysts view that scenario as highly unlikely because of the risks it entails for U.S. interests in the region. But it has not stopped right-wing politicians and retired generals that are well represented on TV talk shows from speculating on the threat of American boots on Pakistani soil.
On Thursday, the leaders of the country's feuding political parties will put aside their differences to sit under one roof to discuss the issue. In announcing the meeting, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said the lawmakers will discuss "the security situation in the wake of threats emanating from outside the country."
The Sunni Ittehad Council, an organization representing the country's Barelvi sect, often referred to as the most moderate among Pakistani Muslims, issued a statement saying it was obligatory on all Muslims to wage jihad against the United States if it attacked Pakistan.
"The Pakistani government and the armed forces should start preparing to counter any possible American attack as Islamic law suggests 'keeping the horses ready' to counter any sort of foreign aggression," the statement said.
There have been a few small street protests since Mullen's comments, but nothing major.
In some respects, the situation mirrors the atmosphere after the May 2 American helicopter raid on Osama bin Laden, which was carried out without the knowledge of the Pakistani army. There was outrage then over the infringement of the country's sovereignty by the U.S., but little on how bin Laden had been living in the army town of Abbottabad for so long.
Now, the focus is on Pakistan's public humiliation at the hands of a supposed ally — and the threat of American action.
There appears to have been little debate on whether Pakistan is right to allow the Haqqani network free reign in parts of the country. Nor has there been much discussion of Pakistan's historical use of militant proxies in India. This is all the more striking because the Haqqani network and other militants are allied, at least ideologically, to the Pakistani Taliban, who carry out attacks inside Pakistan.
The dominant right-wing narrative in Pakistan following Mullen's comments has been that the United States is losing the war in Afghanistan and wants to pin the blame on Islamabad. The threat posed by the Haqqani network is seen as exaggerated, and tackling them now is thought not to be in Pakistan's interest.
The anger this week at America coincided with the visit of Chinese Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu, allowing the media and politicians to peddle another populist trope: that Beijing will be able to replace the United States as a source of funds if and when Pakistan chooses to sever its ties with Washington.
"American allegations and threats have extremely endangered our country's security and sovereignty. It is high time ... we should consult our friendly neighbors and other countries out of this region and get their support," said an editorial in the right-wing mass circulation paper, Nawa-i-Waqt.
Most analysts say this hope is misplaced, noting that Beijing shares international concerns about Pakistan as a breeding ground for terrorism and has shown little sign it wants to prop up the government. The hope also fails to address how China would replace American influence on institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan was already rife and growing, following the shooting deaths of two Pakistanis by CIA operatives in Lahore in January and the raid on bin Laden. Both events were portrayed here as further evidence of the malign intentions of the United States.
The Pakistani media tend to focus on the supposed American threat because that's what Pakistanis want to read and hear about, said Cyril Almedia, a liberal political analyst and columnist. But he said there were signs that those who wanted to see the alliance with the United States break down may be disappointed, noting that the army — which receives billions from the United States in aid — had been relatively muted in its reaction.
"Emotions are running high, but there are indications the military is performing a delicate balancing act," Almedia said. "On the one hand, it is trying to give a response that satisfies a paranoid, conservative population and the rank-and-file, yet also a feeling that this is not the moment to cause a complete rupture with the United States."
Cantaloupe outbreak is deadliest in a decade
Health officials say as many as 16 people have died from possible listeria illnesses traced to Colorado cantaloupes
, the deadliest food outbreak in more than a decade.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Tuesday that 72 illnesses, including 13 deaths, are linked to the tainted fruit. State and local officials say they are investigating three additional deaths that may be connected.
The death toll released by the CDC Tuesday — including newly confirmed deaths in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Texas — surpassed the number of deaths linked to an outbreak of salmonella in peanuts almost three years ago. Nine people died in that outbreak.The CDC said Tuesday that they have confirmed two deaths in Texas and one death each in in Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska. Last week the CDC reported two deaths in Colorado, four deaths in New Mexico, one in Oklahoma and one in Maryland.
New Mexico officials said Tuesday they are investigating a fifth death, while health authorities in Kansas and Wyoming said they too are investigating additional deaths possibly linked to the tainted fruit.
Listeria is more deadly than well-known pathogens like salmonella and E. coli, though those outbreaks generally cause many more illnesses. Twenty-one people died in an outbreak of listeria poisoning in 1998 traced to contaminated hot dogs and possibly deli meats made by Bil Mar Foods, a subsidiary of Sara Lee Corp. Another large listeria outbreak in 1985 killed 52 people and was linked to Mexican-style soft cheese.
Listeria generally only sickens the elderly, pregnant women and others with compromised immune systems. The CDC said the median age of those sickened is 78 and that one in five who contract the disease can die.
Dr. Robert Tauxe of the CDC says the number of illnesses and deaths will probably grow in coming weeks because the symptoms of listeria don't always show up right away. It can take four weeks or more for a person to fall ill after eating food contaminated with listeria.
"That long incubation period is a real problem," Tauxe said. "People who ate a contaminated food two weeks ago or even a week ago could still be falling sick weeks later."
CDC reported the 72 illnesses and deaths in 18 states. Cases of listeria were reported in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The most illnesses were reported in Colorado, which has seen 15 sickened. Fourteen illnesses were reported in Texas, 10 in New Mexico and eight in Oklahoma.
The outbreak has been traced to Jensen Farms in Holly, Colo., which recalled the tainted cantaloupes earlier this month. The Food and Drug Administration said state health officials had found listeria in cantaloupes taken from grocery stores in the state and from a victim's home that were grown at Jensen Farms. Matching strains of the disease were found on equipment and cantaloupe samples at Jensen Farms' packing facility in Granada, Colo.
FDA, which investigates the cause of foodborne outbreaks, has not released any additional details on how the contamination may have happened. The agency says its investigation is ongoing.
The Rocky Ford-brand cantaloupes from Jensen Farms were shipped from July 29 through Sept. 10 to Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
The recalled cantaloupe may be labeled "Colorado Grown," ''Distributed by Frontera Produce," ''Jensenfarms.com" or "Sweet Rocky Fords." Not all of the recalled cantaloupes are labeled with a sticker, the FDA said.
Unlike many pathogens, listeria bacteria can grow at room temperatures and even refrigerator temperatures. The FDA and CDC recommend anyone who may have one of the contaminated cantaloupes throw it out immediately and clean and sanitize any surfaces it may have touched.
About 800 cases of listeria are found in the United States each year, according to CDC, and there usually are three or four outbreaks. Most of these are traced to deli meat and soft cheeses, where listeria is most common.
Produce has rarely been the culprit, but federal investigators say they have seen more produce-related listeria illnesses in the past two years. It was found in sprouts in 2009 and celery in 2010.
While most healthy adults can consume listeria with no ill effects, it can kill the elderly and those with compromised immune systems. It is also dangerous to pregnant women because it easily passes through to the fetus. Dr. Tauxe of the CDC said the type of listeria linked to the cantaloupes is not one that is commonly associated with pregnancy-associated illnesses, however. State and federal health authorities have not definitively linked any miscarriages, stillbirths or infant illnesses to the current outbreak.
Symptoms of listeria include fever and muscle aches, often with other gastrointestinal symptoms. Victims often become incapacitated and unable to speak.
Debbie Frederick said her mother knew something was wrong when her father, 87-year-old William Thomas Beach, collapsed at his home in Mustang, Okla. and couldn't get up. He died a few days later, on Sept. 1. The family later learned his death was linked to eating the cantaloupe and sued Jensen Farms.
"First you just kind of go into shock," said Frederick. "Then it settles in that he would still be alive if this hadn't happened. It's a life, for what?"
PM Gilani says we should not be asked to do more
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani rejected all US allegations and said that we should not be asked to do more adding that the nation is capable of warding off any challenge.
PM Gilani was addressing the All Parties Conference (APC)and pointed out that the US leveled allegations despite Pakistan's sacrifices. "We are looking forward to international cooperation".
PM Gilani added that national interests should be respected and the armed forces were capable and had never disappointed us.
The All Parties Conference (APC) began here at the PM House, politicians from all shades have gathered here for a brain-storming session to review the serious challenges to national security and will evolve a strategy to counter threats at all fronts.
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is hosting the crucial APC to take a threadbare look at the overall security situation, particularly in the wake of serious charges levelled by the US officials against Pakistan and its military establishment.
The APC which holds great significance in the backdrop of strained ties between the US and Pakistan, is attended by 58 leaders of various political, religious and nationalist parties as well as Chief of Army Staff General and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee.
During the APC Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and DG ISI Ahmed Shuja Pasha will brief the participants on internal and external challenges being faced by the country.
The Prime Minister House on Wednesday confirmed that about the political leaders who have confirmed their participation. These include Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, President PML-N, Senator Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, President PML-Q, Syed Haider Abbas Rizvi, Deputy Parliamentary Leader MQM, Asfandyar Wali Khan, President ANP, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman of JUI (F), Haji Khuda Bux Rajar, Minister for Narcotics Control from PML (F), Haji Munir Khan Aurakzai MNA from Fata, Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao MNA of PPP (S), Ghulam Murtaza Khan Jatoi MNA of National Peoples Party (NPP), Senator Mir Israrullah Zehri of BNP (A), Syed Munawar Hassan, Chief of Jamaat-e-Islami, Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali former Prime Minister, Mehmood Khan Achakzai of PKMAP, Senator Salim Saifullah Khan from PML (LM), Awami Muslim League (AML) Chief Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, Imran Khan Chief of PTI, Hasil Khan Bazenjo NPB, Allama Sajid Ali Naqvi of TJP, Senator Shahid Hassan Bugti of JWP, Akhtar Mengal of BNP (Mengal Group), Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri of Tehrik-e-Minhaj-ul-Quran, Hamid Ali Shah Moosvi of TNFJ, Maulana Sami-ul-Haq of JUI (S), M. Sarwat Ejaz Qadri, President Sunni Tahrik, Haji Muhammad Hanif Tayyab, President Nizam-e-Mustafa Party, Sahibzada Abu Khair Muhammad Zubair of JUP (N), Pir Fazal Haq, President Jamiat Mashaikh, Sahibzada Haji Muhammad Fazal Karim, Chairman Sunni Ittehad Council, Khan Amanullah Khan, PML (Q), Dr. Paul Bhatti Advisor to the Prime Minister on National Harmony, Ameer Hussain Gilani, Mufti Feroze Din Hazarvi, Mutahidda Ulema Forum Pakistan, Abdul Qadeer Khamosh, Allama Tahir Ashrafi, Chairman Ulema Council Bait-ul-Aman, Sardar Attique Ahmad Khan, former Prime Minister AJK, Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, Leader of the Opposition in National Assembly, Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haideri Leader of Opposition in Senate and Rasul Bux Palejo.
All parties conference begins in Islamabad
http://tribune.com.pk
The political leadership of Pakistan is meeting in Islamabad today (Thursday) for an all parties conference on the national security situation, which has been called in the wake of serious US allegations against Pakistan.
The outgoing top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, has accused Pakistan of exporting violent extremism to Afghanistan and called the Haqqani network a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
In today’s meeting at the Prime Minister House, politicians will prepare a coordinated response to the latest allegations levelled by the United States against Pakistan.
Express 24/7 correspondent Sumera Khan reported that a number of politicians had arrived and that a total of 58 political leaders are expected to attend the meeting.
Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan Muslim League – Quaid (PML-Q) leader Chaudhry Shujaat, Pakitan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan, Awami National Party (ANP) leader Asfandyar Wali, chief of Awami Muslim League (AML) Sheikh Rasheed and other political leaders are currently present at the PM House.
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, director general (DG) military operations and Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha are expected to brief the high-profile meeting.
Speaking to the media, Imran Khan said that he was attending the conference because it was a national cause and that he would try to convince the leadership to “come out of a military option.”
The political leadership of Pakistan is meeting in Islamabad today (Thursday) for an all parties conference on the national security situation, which has been called in the wake of serious US allegations against Pakistan.
The outgoing top US military officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, has accused Pakistan of exporting violent extremism to Afghanistan and called the Haqqani network a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
In today’s meeting at the Prime Minister House, politicians will prepare a coordinated response to the latest allegations levelled by the United States against Pakistan.
Express 24/7 correspondent Sumera Khan reported that a number of politicians had arrived and that a total of 58 political leaders are expected to attend the meeting.
Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) chief Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan Muslim League – Quaid (PML-Q) leader Chaudhry Shujaat, Pakitan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) chief Imran Khan, Awami National Party (ANP) leader Asfandyar Wali, chief of Awami Muslim League (AML) Sheikh Rasheed and other political leaders are currently present at the PM House.
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, director general (DG) military operations and Director General Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha are expected to brief the high-profile meeting.
Speaking to the media, Imran Khan said that he was attending the conference because it was a national cause and that he would try to convince the leadership to “come out of a military option.”
Pak-US relationship: Hide and seek
EDITORIAL:DAILY TIMES
The Pak-US relationship is at an all-time low, with the Haqqani network being the reason behind this latest disruption of relations. The US seems to have had enough of Pakistan’s alleged ‘ties’ to the militant organisation and Pakistan remains unwavering in denying this accusation at any cost. Prominent officials and military authorities are making the rounds and talks are taking place in an attempt to defuse tensions. However, the situation looks bleak. US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen has not only accused Pakistan’s ISI of supporting the Haqqani network — in the wake of the attack on the US embassy in Kabul — he has now said that even he, a person who had been a ‘friend’ of Pakistan, has been brought to this breakdown point. In this tense imbroglio, the latest statement to come from the militants is quite interesting. The Taliban have claimed that the Haqqani network is being supported — in fact “owned” — by them and not by Pakistan. Such a statement coming on the heels of the accusations that are flying against Pakistan makes this a convenient claim of ownership. The Afghan Taliban have also claimed that none of their bases or fighters are within Pakistan. Instead, they say, they have their own country and they conduct operations inside and outside the country according to their own initiatives. If such a statement by the Taliban is to be believed then it must be asked: who controls the group that claims it ‘owns’ the Haqqani network? Where exactly are these Taliban fighters operating from? Pertinent questions when one considers that the Pakistani establishment has always distinguished the Afghan Taliban as the ‘good Taliban’.
The Americans have, apparently, reached their threshold. This latest statement by the Taliban will be considered as little more than propaganda that serves to back Pakistan’s denials. Too many instances have pushed the US towards the edge: the US sharing intelligence on militant whereabouts in North Waziristan only to receive news that they had run off to Kurram Agency, Osama bin Laden’s peaceful abode in Abbottabad, the deadly siege of the US embassy in Kabul only two weeks ago and other such instances that have cost US soldiers’ lives in Afghanistan. Strong statements about Pakistan’s relations with the Haqqani network are now being made because, obviously, the Americans have our tactics and double-faced strategies figured out. Despite ongoing efforts to ease the confrontation between the US and Pakistan, there is still smoke. The US Congress has moved a resolution to completely cut off aid to Pakistan in the light of the strong accusations against us. The American public is increasingly demanding a stoppage of aid to a country that encourages militants to attack US interests. Without American dollars supporting our economy, we will be in for a very tough time ahead.
The real question remains: what will we do now? Our ‘strategic depth’ policy looks ready to backfire unless we retreat from this position. It is obvious that, in the endgame in Afghanistan, no one really wants to see al Qaeda at the negotiation table, least of all the Americans. If the Afghan Taliban really is supporting the Haqqanis, then it is ardently supporting al Qaeda’s ideology. The Haqqani network, with its violence-prone outlook towards the Americans and its unacceptable links with al Qaeda is not going to be allowed near the negotiation table. The losses incurred by Mullah Omar after 2001 may have rendered him slightly more ready to distance himself from al Qaeda and thus be more acceptable to the Americans once 2014 comes round. However, the Haqqani network will never be allowed to have a place in the future set-up of Afghanistan. Pakistan would do well to think about that.
The Pak-US relationship is at an all-time low, with the Haqqani network being the reason behind this latest disruption of relations. The US seems to have had enough of Pakistan’s alleged ‘ties’ to the militant organisation and Pakistan remains unwavering in denying this accusation at any cost. Prominent officials and military authorities are making the rounds and talks are taking place in an attempt to defuse tensions. However, the situation looks bleak. US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen has not only accused Pakistan’s ISI of supporting the Haqqani network — in the wake of the attack on the US embassy in Kabul — he has now said that even he, a person who had been a ‘friend’ of Pakistan, has been brought to this breakdown point. In this tense imbroglio, the latest statement to come from the militants is quite interesting. The Taliban have claimed that the Haqqani network is being supported — in fact “owned” — by them and not by Pakistan. Such a statement coming on the heels of the accusations that are flying against Pakistan makes this a convenient claim of ownership. The Afghan Taliban have also claimed that none of their bases or fighters are within Pakistan. Instead, they say, they have their own country and they conduct operations inside and outside the country according to their own initiatives. If such a statement by the Taliban is to be believed then it must be asked: who controls the group that claims it ‘owns’ the Haqqani network? Where exactly are these Taliban fighters operating from? Pertinent questions when one considers that the Pakistani establishment has always distinguished the Afghan Taliban as the ‘good Taliban’.
The Americans have, apparently, reached their threshold. This latest statement by the Taliban will be considered as little more than propaganda that serves to back Pakistan’s denials. Too many instances have pushed the US towards the edge: the US sharing intelligence on militant whereabouts in North Waziristan only to receive news that they had run off to Kurram Agency, Osama bin Laden’s peaceful abode in Abbottabad, the deadly siege of the US embassy in Kabul only two weeks ago and other such instances that have cost US soldiers’ lives in Afghanistan. Strong statements about Pakistan’s relations with the Haqqani network are now being made because, obviously, the Americans have our tactics and double-faced strategies figured out. Despite ongoing efforts to ease the confrontation between the US and Pakistan, there is still smoke. The US Congress has moved a resolution to completely cut off aid to Pakistan in the light of the strong accusations against us. The American public is increasingly demanding a stoppage of aid to a country that encourages militants to attack US interests. Without American dollars supporting our economy, we will be in for a very tough time ahead.
The real question remains: what will we do now? Our ‘strategic depth’ policy looks ready to backfire unless we retreat from this position. It is obvious that, in the endgame in Afghanistan, no one really wants to see al Qaeda at the negotiation table, least of all the Americans. If the Afghan Taliban really is supporting the Haqqanis, then it is ardently supporting al Qaeda’s ideology. The Haqqani network, with its violence-prone outlook towards the Americans and its unacceptable links with al Qaeda is not going to be allowed near the negotiation table. The losses incurred by Mullah Omar after 2001 may have rendered him slightly more ready to distance himself from al Qaeda and thus be more acceptable to the Americans once 2014 comes round. However, the Haqqani network will never be allowed to have a place in the future set-up of Afghanistan. Pakistan would do well to think about that.
Slightly high blood pressure also dangerous: study
Even a slightly high blood pressure is considered dangerous to largely increase the stroke risk, a new study found.
The finding was published Wednesday on the online edition of U.S. medical journal Neurology.
In the study, researchers found people who have pre-hypertension, whose blood pressure measured between normal and high, are 55 percent more likely to suffer a stroke compared with normal people.
The study involved data from 12 previous studies on blood pressure and stroke occurrence of some 500,000 adults.
About one in three U.S. adults suffer from pre-hypertension, which is defined at a systolic blood pressure between 120 and 139 or a diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89, according to the U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.
"People who do fall into the higher range of pre-hypertension should modify their lifestyle as much as possible," suggested Dr. Bruce Ovbiagele, director of the Olive View-UCLA Stroke Program and leading author of the study.
Stroke is the number three cause of death, killing more than 130,000 in the U.S. a year, according to a CBS report.
The finding was published Wednesday on the online edition of U.S. medical journal Neurology.
In the study, researchers found people who have pre-hypertension, whose blood pressure measured between normal and high, are 55 percent more likely to suffer a stroke compared with normal people.
The study involved data from 12 previous studies on blood pressure and stroke occurrence of some 500,000 adults.
About one in three U.S. adults suffer from pre-hypertension, which is defined at a systolic blood pressure between 120 and 139 or a diastolic blood pressure between 80 and 89, according to the U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.
"People who do fall into the higher range of pre-hypertension should modify their lifestyle as much as possible," suggested Dr. Bruce Ovbiagele, director of the Olive View-UCLA Stroke Program and leading author of the study.
Stroke is the number three cause of death, killing more than 130,000 in the U.S. a year, according to a CBS report.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Adm. Mullen’s words on Pakistan come under scrutiny
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week that an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington, according to American officials involved in U.S. policy in the region.
The internal criticism by the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to challenge Mullen openly, reflects concern over the accuracy of Mullen’s characterizations at a time when Obama administration officials have been frustrated in their efforts to persuade Pakistan to break its ties to Afghan insurgent groups.The administration has long sought to pressure Pakistan, but to do so in a nuanced way that does not sever the U.S. relationship with a country that American officials see as crucial to winning the war in Afghanistan and maintaining long-term stability in the region.
Mullen’s testimony to a Senate committee was widely interpreted as an accusation by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Pakistan’s military and espionage agencies sanction and direct bloody attacks against U.S. troops and targets in Afghanistan. Such interpretations prompted new levels of indignation among senior officials in both the United States and Pakistan.
Mullen’s language “overstates the case,” said a senior Pentagon official with access to classified intelligence files on Pakistan, because there is scant evidence of direction or control. If anything, the official said, the intelligence indicates that Pakistan treads a delicate if duplicitous line, providing support to insurgent groups including the Haqqani network but avoiding actions that would provoke a U.S. response.
“The Pakistani government has been dealing with Haqqani for a long time and still sees strategic value in guiding Haqqani and using them for their purposes,” the Pentagon official said. But “it’s not in their interest to inflame us in a way that an attack on a [U.S.] compound would do.”
U.S. officials stressed that there is broad agreement in the military and intelligence community that the Haqqani network has mounted some of the most audacious attacks of the Afghanistan war, including a 20-hour siege by gunmen this month on the U.S. Embassy compound in Kabul.
A senior aide to Mullen defended the chairman’s testimony, which was designed to prod the Pakistanis to sever ties to the Haqqani group if not contain it by force. “I don’t think the Pakistani reaction was unexpected,” said Capt. John Kirby. “The chairman stands by every word of his testimony.”
But Mullen’s pointed message and the difficulty in matching his words to the underlying intelligence underscore the suspicion and distrust that have plagued the United States and Pakistan since they were pushed together as counterterrorism partners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
U.S. military officials said that Mullen’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee has been misinterpreted, and that his remark that the Haqqani network had carried out recent truck-bomb and embassy attacks “with ISI support” was meant to imply broad assistance, but not necessarily direction by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.U.S. officials have long accused Pakistan of providing support to the Haqqani network and allowing it to operate along the Afghanistan border with relative impunity, a charge that Pakistani officials reject.
But Mullen seemed to take the allegation an additional step, saying that the Haqqani network “acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” a phrase that implies ISI involvement and control.That interpretation might be valid “if we were judging by Western standards,” said a senior U.S. military official who defended Mullen’s testimony. But the Pakistanis “use extremist groups — not only the Haqqanis — as proxies and hedges” to maintain influence in Afghanistan.
“This is not new,” the official said. “Can they control them like a military unit? We don’t think so. Do they encourage them? Yes. Do they provide some finance for them? Yes. Do they provide safe havens? Yes.”
That nuance escaped many in Congress and even some in the Obama administration, who voiced concern that the escalation in rhetoric had inflamed anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.
U.S. officials said that even evidence that has surfaced since Mullen’s testimony is open to differences in interpretation, including cellphones recovered from gunmen who were killed during the assault on the U.S. Embassy.
One official said the phones were used to make repeated calls to numbers associated with the Haqqani network, as well as presumed “ISI operatives.” But the official declined to explain the basis for that conclusion.
The senior Pentagon official treated the assertion with skepticism, saying the term “operatives” covers a wide range of supposed associates of the ISI. “Does it mean the same Haqqani numbers [also found in the phones], or is it actually uniformed officers” of Pakistan’s spy service?
U.S. officials said Mullen was unaware of the cellphones until after he testified.
Pakistani officials acknowledge that they have ongoing contact with the Haqqani network, a group founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, who was one of the CIA-backed mujaheddin commanders who helped drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Now in poor health, Haqqani has yielded day-to-day control of the network to his son, Sirajuddin.
U.S. officials see indications that their Pakistani counterparts can exert influence on the Haqqani group in some cases, if not exert control.
Last year, at the United States’ behest, the ISI appealed to the Haqqani group not to attack polling stations during Afghan elections, a request that appears to have been honored. The senior Pentagon official declined to say how U.S. intelligence knows that the request was made, except to say, “We were aware of it.”
Mullen’s testimony was prepared at a time of intense frustration with Pakistan, in the aftermath of the embassy attack and other incidents. His remarks were striking in part because Mullen has long been sympathetic to Pakistan, traveling frequently to Islamabad and meeting more than two dozen times with its army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani.
But with his term as Joint Chiefs chairman about to expire, Mullen has become increasingly frustrated with the failure to get Pakistan to cut ties with Haqqani, and instructed his staff to compose testimony for last week’s hearing that would convey a message of exasperation.
In Pakistan, a military official emerged from a meeting of corps commanders Sunday saying they would make no move against Haqqani in the North Waziristan tribal region and warning that a unilateral U.S. action would have “disastrous consequences.”
The reaction in the Pakistani press to Mullen’s message has been more severe. A column this week by retired air vice marshal Shahzad Chaudry asked, “What could be the possible motives for America’s recent diatribes?” It concluded that the United States was intentionally sowing chaos in the region to weaken Pakistan.
In Washington, a senior Obama administration official said that “no one has any interest in walking back” what Mullen said, even while voicing concern over the comments’ impact on the fragile relationship with Pakistan.
“If the Pakistanis are finally scared about this, great,” the administration official said. “But we don’t want to walk [the relationship] over a cliff.”
Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week that an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington, according to American officials involved in U.S. policy in the region.
The internal criticism by the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to challenge Mullen openly, reflects concern over the accuracy of Mullen’s characterizations at a time when Obama administration officials have been frustrated in their efforts to persuade Pakistan to break its ties to Afghan insurgent groups.The administration has long sought to pressure Pakistan, but to do so in a nuanced way that does not sever the U.S. relationship with a country that American officials see as crucial to winning the war in Afghanistan and maintaining long-term stability in the region.
Mullen’s testimony to a Senate committee was widely interpreted as an accusation by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Pakistan’s military and espionage agencies sanction and direct bloody attacks against U.S. troops and targets in Afghanistan. Such interpretations prompted new levels of indignation among senior officials in both the United States and Pakistan.
Mullen’s language “overstates the case,” said a senior Pentagon official with access to classified intelligence files on Pakistan, because there is scant evidence of direction or control. If anything, the official said, the intelligence indicates that Pakistan treads a delicate if duplicitous line, providing support to insurgent groups including the Haqqani network but avoiding actions that would provoke a U.S. response.
“The Pakistani government has been dealing with Haqqani for a long time and still sees strategic value in guiding Haqqani and using them for their purposes,” the Pentagon official said. But “it’s not in their interest to inflame us in a way that an attack on a [U.S.] compound would do.”
U.S. officials stressed that there is broad agreement in the military and intelligence community that the Haqqani network has mounted some of the most audacious attacks of the Afghanistan war, including a 20-hour siege by gunmen this month on the U.S. Embassy compound in Kabul.
A senior aide to Mullen defended the chairman’s testimony, which was designed to prod the Pakistanis to sever ties to the Haqqani group if not contain it by force. “I don’t think the Pakistani reaction was unexpected,” said Capt. John Kirby. “The chairman stands by every word of his testimony.”
But Mullen’s pointed message and the difficulty in matching his words to the underlying intelligence underscore the suspicion and distrust that have plagued the United States and Pakistan since they were pushed together as counterterrorism partners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
U.S. military officials said that Mullen’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee has been misinterpreted, and that his remark that the Haqqani network had carried out recent truck-bomb and embassy attacks “with ISI support” was meant to imply broad assistance, but not necessarily direction by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.U.S. officials have long accused Pakistan of providing support to the Haqqani network and allowing it to operate along the Afghanistan border with relative impunity, a charge that Pakistani officials reject.
But Mullen seemed to take the allegation an additional step, saying that the Haqqani network “acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” a phrase that implies ISI involvement and control.That interpretation might be valid “if we were judging by Western standards,” said a senior U.S. military official who defended Mullen’s testimony. But the Pakistanis “use extremist groups — not only the Haqqanis — as proxies and hedges” to maintain influence in Afghanistan.
“This is not new,” the official said. “Can they control them like a military unit? We don’t think so. Do they encourage them? Yes. Do they provide some finance for them? Yes. Do they provide safe havens? Yes.”
That nuance escaped many in Congress and even some in the Obama administration, who voiced concern that the escalation in rhetoric had inflamed anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.
U.S. officials said that even evidence that has surfaced since Mullen’s testimony is open to differences in interpretation, including cellphones recovered from gunmen who were killed during the assault on the U.S. Embassy.
One official said the phones were used to make repeated calls to numbers associated with the Haqqani network, as well as presumed “ISI operatives.” But the official declined to explain the basis for that conclusion.
The senior Pentagon official treated the assertion with skepticism, saying the term “operatives” covers a wide range of supposed associates of the ISI. “Does it mean the same Haqqani numbers [also found in the phones], or is it actually uniformed officers” of Pakistan’s spy service?
U.S. officials said Mullen was unaware of the cellphones until after he testified.
Pakistani officials acknowledge that they have ongoing contact with the Haqqani network, a group founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, who was one of the CIA-backed mujaheddin commanders who helped drive the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Now in poor health, Haqqani has yielded day-to-day control of the network to his son, Sirajuddin.
U.S. officials see indications that their Pakistani counterparts can exert influence on the Haqqani group in some cases, if not exert control.
Last year, at the United States’ behest, the ISI appealed to the Haqqani group not to attack polling stations during Afghan elections, a request that appears to have been honored. The senior Pentagon official declined to say how U.S. intelligence knows that the request was made, except to say, “We were aware of it.”
Mullen’s testimony was prepared at a time of intense frustration with Pakistan, in the aftermath of the embassy attack and other incidents. His remarks were striking in part because Mullen has long been sympathetic to Pakistan, traveling frequently to Islamabad and meeting more than two dozen times with its army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani.
But with his term as Joint Chiefs chairman about to expire, Mullen has become increasingly frustrated with the failure to get Pakistan to cut ties with Haqqani, and instructed his staff to compose testimony for last week’s hearing that would convey a message of exasperation.
In Pakistan, a military official emerged from a meeting of corps commanders Sunday saying they would make no move against Haqqani in the North Waziristan tribal region and warning that a unilateral U.S. action would have “disastrous consequences.”
The reaction in the Pakistani press to Mullen’s message has been more severe. A column this week by retired air vice marshal Shahzad Chaudry asked, “What could be the possible motives for America’s recent diatribes?” It concluded that the United States was intentionally sowing chaos in the region to weaken Pakistan.
In Washington, a senior Obama administration official said that “no one has any interest in walking back” what Mullen said, even while voicing concern over the comments’ impact on the fragile relationship with Pakistan.
“If the Pakistanis are finally scared about this, great,” the administration official said. “But we don’t want to walk [the relationship] over a cliff.”