EDITORIAL :DAILY TIMES

M WAQAR..... "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Albert Einstein !!! NEWS,ARTICLES,EDITORIALS,MUSIC... Ze chi pe mayeen yum da agha pukhtunistan de.....(Liberal,Progressive,Secular World.)''Secularism is not against religion; it is the message of humanity.'' تل ده وی پثتونستآن
EDITORIAL :DAILY TIMES
timesofindiaWhile David Cameron faces awkward questions in India over bribe-tained British-built helicopters, the prime minister is in a fresh storm over another set of defence deals involving Lanka's war on Tamils. Government records, revealed by activists in London, show that UK has been supplying weapons - both small and large, worth "millions of pounds" to the Sri Lankan government even though Britain's foreign office (FO) has in the recent past expressed concern over human rights violations by the island nation. Britain's foreign office calls Sri Lanka "a country of concern" with questionable human rights records. However the UK based NGO Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) has sent documents to TOI showing that between July and September 2012, Cameron's government approved export licences on military items to Sri Lanka worth over £3 million. Nearly £2m of the sales were in the category "ML1" label denoting small arms. In total, the UK government approved the sale of 600 assault rifles, 650 rifles, 100 pistols and 50 combat shotguns. The sale also included £330,000-worth of ammunition and £655,000 in body armour. A consignment of arms worth £1.16 million (pistols, assault rifles and combat shot guns) was sent to Sri Lanka on August 21, 2012, body armour and rifles worth £ 505,000 sent on August 22, direct viewing imaging equipments and small arms worth £699,000 on July 19 and ammunition for small arms worth £578,000 on August 6. A consignment of assault rifles and body armour was sent from UK to Sri Lanka on September 20 worth £50,000 while on August 24, another consignment worth £60,000 which included military assault rifles was shipped to Sri Lanka. Kaye Stearman from the CAAT told TOI, "There were no licence refusals in these months, despite concerns being raised about human rights in Sri Lanka. The total amount is a large increase, given that from the beginning of 2008 until June 2012 the value of export licences to Sri Lanka amount to £12 million. A note in the government data says that some of these weapons were to be used in anti-piracy operations." "We're told that the arms industry is essential for jobs and the economy. In the UK, the government uses grossly inflated and out of date jobs figures. We're told that we need to export arms for our national security. Yet the UK sold weapons to Argentina weeks before the Falklands War. It sold arms to Saddam Hussein months before the First Gulf War. It actively courted Gaddafi weeks before going to war with him last year," the group said.
From Egypt with LoveBy Nervana Mahmoud
Kamila Shamsie
Pakistan's government and military alike are silent on who is promoting the murder of Shias in BaluchistanOn Monday, in Karachi, I stayed at home while protesters took to the streets in an attempt to rouse Pakistan into action against the continuing extermination of Shia Muslims. On Saturday in Quetta a bomb had exploded in a busy market, killing 84 people; two days later, amid sit-ins and protests in different parts of the country in response to the attack, a Shia doctor and his school-age son were shot and killed in Lahore.
http://www.nydailynews.comObama is pushing Republicans to avoid the so-called sequester by accepting a combination of targeted spending cuts and increased tax revenue. But the GOP says further tax hikes are not an option. Staking out his ground ahead of a fiscal deadline, President Barack Obama lashed out against Republicans, saying they are unwilling to raise taxes to reduce deficits and warning that the jobs of essential government workers, from teachers to emergency responders, are on the line. Obama spoke as a March 1 deadline for automatic across-the-board spending cuts approached and with Republicans and Democrats in an apparent stalemate over how to avoid them. Obama cautioned that if the $85 billion in immediate cuts — known as the sequester — occur, the full range of government would feel the effects. Among those he listed: furloughed FBI agents, reductions in spending for communities to pay police and fire personnel and teachers, and decreased ability to respond to threats around the world. He said the consequences would be felt across the economy. "People will lose their jobs," he said. "The unemployment rate might tick up again." "So far at least, the ideas that the Republicans have proposed ask nothing of the wealthiest Americans or the biggest corporations," Obama said. "So the burden is all on the first responders, or seniors or middle class families." House Republicans have proposed an alternative to the immediate cuts, targeting some spending and extending some of the reductions over a longer period of time. They also have said they are willing to undertake changes in the tax code and eliminate loopholes and tax subsidies. But they have said they would overhaul the tax system to reduce rates, not to raise revenue. Obama's remarks came a day after he returned to Washington from a three-day golfing weekend in Florida. Congress is not in session this week, meaning no votes will occur before next week and complicating the ability to negotiate any short-term resolution. Obama said the anticipated cuts were already having an effect, noting that the Navy had already delayed the deployment of a carrier to the Persian Gulf. "Changes like this — not well thought through, not phased in properly — changes like this effect our ability to respond to threats in unstable parts of the world," he said. Obama wants to offset the immediate spending cuts, known as a sequestration in budget language, through a combination of targeted spending cuts and increased tax revenue. The White House is backing a proposal unveiled last week by Senate Democrats that is in line with the president's principles. But that plan has met an icy reception among Republicans, who oppose raising taxes to offset the cuts. GOP leaders say the president got the tax increases he wanted at the beginning of the year when Congress agreed to raise taxes on family income above $450,000 a year. Obama called on congressional Republicans to compromise and accept the Senate Democrats' proposal. The Democrats propose to generate revenue by plugging some tax loopholes. Those include tax breaks for the oil and natural gas industry and businesses that have sent jobs overseas, and by taxing millionaires at a rate of at least 30 percent.
The era of presidents that Ed Rogers admires is over. And many of us are relieved that we will never again have a president who only has his visor set on making the rich richer in the hopes that some of the good fortune will trickle down to the rest of the population. In effect, the 1 percent are giving the rest of us their goodwill and not much of the fortune. President Obama has a rich legacy of accomplishments: Do they really need to be repeated, Ed? He brought the country back from the worst economic crisis since the Depression – a crisis created by President George W. Bush. He ended the misguided war in Iraq and has now pledged to do the same in Afghanistan. He has set the bar high on resurrecting important issues such as domestic manufacturing, principally by saving GM and Chrysler. And he has reinvigorated the domestic energy industry. Indeed, domestic oil production has increased, as has the investment in alternative fuels. He fundamentally reformed the banking system with new legislation and regulations to ensure against reckless behavior and abuse of consumer rights. He has made my life and the life of millions of other gay and lesbian Americans better by calling for an end to discrimination in all its forms. And perhaps his largest domestic achievement to date is that he, unlike the many who have tried before him, presided over a health care reform process that will now bring insurance to the 40 million people who were left out of the equation heretofore – people who work hard and pay their bills and their taxes but couldn’t afford insurance or didn’t have access to a large enough group. It is a large legacy. One to make any president proud. But I think that this president’s legacy will be more important than any single piece of domestic legislation. Obama has presided over a shift in politics – a shift in our country. It is a movement more toward economic justice and equality for all. And he has transformed the nation’s thinking on this, not by taking from the top but by empowering the middle. By making investments in education and infrastructure and energy and human rights, the president has chosen our next path as a nation. And it drives folks in the white, privileged GOP crazy. We will see a fundamental change over the next 50 years as our electorate becomes dominated by minorities and women. That shift alone will control the debate of the government’s role in our lives. That is so scary to Ed and his friends that they have to demonize President Obama to try to hold it off, but it is coming.By Hilary Rosen
http://thehill.comTiger Woods said Tuesday that his weekend golf outing with President Obama was "pretty cool" and that he and the president teamed up for a win against a pairing of U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Houston Astros owner Jim Crane. "He's just a wonderful person to be around. And we won," Woods said at a press conference ahead of the Match Play Championship, according to Sports Illustrated. Woods also joked that Obama is "an avid golfer, and so am I."The comments by the 14-time major tournament champion were the first window into the Presidents' Day weekend golf trip in Florida. Reporters were not allowed on to the golf course during the game, drawing complaints from the White House press corps. "Speaking on behalf of the White House Correspondents' Association, I can say a broad cross section of our members from print, radio, online and TV have today expressed extreme frustration to me about having absolutely no access to the president of the United States this entire weekend," White House Correspondents Association president and Fox News reporter Ed Henry said in a statement. "There is a very simple but important principle we will continue to fight for today and in the days ahead: transparency." Press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that he was "completely sympathetic" to complaints from reporters, having covered the White House himself for Time magazine. "I would note that, you know, and this is important to note given some of the coverage of this issue, that when it comes to solo news conferences, where the president of the United States stands up, and for 40 minutes, 50 minutes, or an hour, takes your questions, allowing reporters to go deep on issues, President Obama has given 35 of those. President Bush, his immediate predecessor gave 19," Carney said. "When it comes to interviews, the president's given 591 interviews since he took office. So, I think, that it is clear that we are making an effort to provide access, to make sure that the president is being questioned by reporters and anchors and others. And we'll continue to do that." Asked specifically about complaints lodged over his game with Woods this weekend, Carney argued the press office had provided enough access. "I mean, the president had some downtime, he was playing golf," Carney said. "You know, I understand that there was a desire to have access or a photograph of that, but the president was having [a vacation]."
http://www.thehindu.comAgainst all odds, feisty women journalists continue to be undeterred by threats of persecution Women journalists routinely face harassment and threats, including death threats while covering conflict zones everywhere, including in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Yet these feisty women continue to swim against the tide and create space for themselves in journalism. Farida Nekzad, 40, is a role model for many girls keen on pursuing journalism in Afghanistan today. She has faced threats of kidnapping, acid attacks and even an attempt to blow up her apartment ever since she set up her own news agency eight years ago in Kabul. Despite the fact that the Taliban routinely bombards her with threatening e-mails and phone calls warning her of horrendous consequences if she continues her work, Nekzad remains undeterred. In a country where women’s voices often go unheard, Waqt (which means time in the native Dari dialect), is one amongst the handful of women-dominated media outlets making its presence felt. Recalling the initial days of her difficult journey, Nekzad says, “It wasn’t easy. When the Taliban took over, my parents took refuge in Pakistan and I had to withdraw my name from Kabul University where I was studying journalism. I taught in private Pakistani schools, supervised basic education programmes for Afghan refugees and helped out with Afghan cultural groups in Peshawar. But I wanted to be a journalist. So I went to India and continued my education at the Indian Institute of Mass Communication in New Delhi. Later, I began to write as a freelancer for both Afghan and Pakistani publications.” When Nekzad returned to her country in late 2001, she was devastated with the destruction she saw everywhere. In 2004, her Kabul-based Pajhwok Afghan News first started publishing work in Dari, Pashto and English. “We were always stirring the political class with the kind of stories we carried, especially those concerning Afghan warlords and provincial power brokers. Features that commented on new restrictions being imposed on women and the resurgence of violence against women too created quite a furor. I remember one controversial story we published about a warlord exchanging his dog for a young girl, which raised a big hue and cry. Our reporters including me were many times asked to ‘beg for an apology’ or be killed.” Nekzad describes working as a journalist in her country as “walking on a sword”. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, since late 2001, 19 journalists have been killed in Afghanistan — 18 while covering war. In Pakistan, 34 have lost their lives, seven while covering war. A report of the South Asia Media Monitor reveals that in 2012, 13 journalists lost their lives in Pakistan and two in Afghanistan. After the collapse of the Taliban regime in late 2001, a large number of women journalists joined media outlets in the war-torn region even though it is still difficult for them to operate owing to deeply entrenched cultural and religious barriers. “We journalists often faced intimidation from militants, government-backed warlords, drug-smugglers and government officials who interfere with our coverage and dictate terms and conditions of our work...Being a woman one becomes very vulnerable as no steps have been taken for the safety and security of women journalists,” says Hela Haya, a journalist with a local radio station in Kandahar. The Pakistan Association of Television Journalists (ATJ) has only 50 women among its 700 members. Defying this statistic, women are now visible in the Pakistani media as anchors and talk show hosts on dozens of private radio and television channels, thanks to the burgeoning electronic media industry. There are approximately 3,200 journalists in Pakistan — 2,842 men and 362 women, making it a ratio of 5:1. Similarly, Afghanistan’s Independent Journalists Association (AIJA) reports that there are around 25 to 30 per cent women journalists and media workers among the 10,000-odd media persons working there. While the media is a growing industry in both countries, issues like sexual harassment and unequal pay packets are a matter of grave concern, even as the battle against severely limiting cultural norms and perceptions continues. Says Shamim Bano, a senior political reporter with The News, a English daily published from Karachi, “Most of the time Pakistani women journalists are not assigned any important beats like politics, economics, courts or even sports. We simply have to fight harder.” Young Pakistani journalists, Sabba, from Friday Times Weekly and Shumaisa Rehman from News One, are mentally prepared to accept the challenges that come with their profession. They state in unison, “We know that the odds are against us, but we have to fight to initiate a change.”
by Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa
http://www.rferl.orgPakistan has awarded a contract to a Chinese company for the operations of its strategic Gwadar port. The signing ceremony was witnessed by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and Chinese Ambassador Liu Jian on February 18. Zardari said Gwadar will soon be a "hub of trade and commerce in the region." He said that China, which imports much of its oil from the Persian Gulf, could use the facility to provide supplies to the western Chinese provinces of Xinjiang and Tibet, which are closer to Gwadar than to any port in China. The port, completed in 2006 with the financial assistance of China, was initially operated by a Singaporean company. No reason was given for the cancelation of that contract. The move could cause concern in India, which is wary of China's growing strategic clout.
http://www.dw.deAfghanistan's security forces are scheduled to take the lead in the fight to combat in the spring. Despite all the difficulties, ISAF spokesman Günter Katz tells DW the country is on the right track. DW: Brigadier General, at a meeting with his army, Afghan President Hamid Karzai instructed his security forces that, in future, even in an emergency, they should not use NATO air support. Is this a sign of distrust of NATO and ISAF? Günter Katz: Firstly, Mr Karzai is the president of a sovereign state who gives instructions to his own security forces. I think that is a quite normal thing. With this step he is trying to take greater consideration of deaths and injuries among the civilian population. This is also clearly in ISAF's interest. In that respect, our interests are the same. The commander of ISAF has made clear that we will act according to the president's wish and, in any case, continue to support the Afghan security forces. Afghanistan itself has only a very weak functioning air force. Does that mean that the Afghan army must now fight against the Taliban and other rebels without air support? The Afghan security forces would have to do that in the future, anyway, without the support of NATO or, more specifically, ISAF. As I have said, we will adhere to the president's wish. The Afghans have a basic competence as far as the air force is concerned. They also have a very well-trained artillery which can play a supporting role, meaning there are other options. The details of how we will implement the whole thing with our Afghan partners, and how we will proceed in the future, will be discussed in the coming days. The Afghans have always said that their air force is very weak. In this case, NATO must not only provide training but also equip them with the necessary weaponry. To what extent is that actually happening? We do that already and we are on the right track. Of course, we cannot forget that it is much more difficult to establish an air force in comparison with an army. We are dealing with a country here in which 75 percent of the population is illiterate. We need an air force in which everyone can read and write and in which the pilots and technicians know English, because the documentation is only available in English. Then we are faced with the challenge of training pilots, and also technicians. All of that takes a very long time. We anticipate that it will take until 2016 before the air force is fully operational. We will continue our efforts and we are already seeing the first successes: Afghan crews are now manning helicopters - the Afghans already have a small capacity for air transport so we are already heading in the right direction. We just have to accept that it takes longer with air force than with other forces. US President Barack Obama last week announced that 34,000 troops will be pulled out of Afghanistan by the end of the year. His Afghan counterpart Karzai has decreed, in future, his forces should not call upon NATO air support. Experts say that such messages only go to strengthen the rebels. How great is the danger that Afghanistan will slide into another civil war in 2014? We cannot forget that what President Obama said had already been decided in the 2010 NATO summit as far as deadlines and strategy are concerned. The US can certainly withdraw 34,000 soldiers within the coming year. We know that the Afghan forces will, in principle, take the lead in the fight from spring onwards. The results that we see there are such that we can look forward to the future with satisfaction. Afghanistan will not slide into a civil war as it did after the fall of the Najibullah regime. We have 50 countries that, most recently at the NATO Summit in Chicago have said that they will remain involved in the country even beyond 2014. At the Afghanistan Conference in Tokyo in summer last year, we received clear commitments as far as funding is concerned. We are able to say that the international community will not leave the country on its own but will instead stand side by side with Afghanistan when it comes to ensuring a better, more secure future. Brigadier General Günter Katz is the spokesman of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kabul.