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
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Movie: 'Noah' to sail to No. 1 at the box office

G8 to G7 - it's no big deal
The US-led Group of Seven (G7) has decided to suspend participation in the Group of Eight (G8) and abandon the scheduled G8 summit to be held in Sochi in Russia. The Russian Foreign Minister commented with harsh irony that as the G8 is an informal group, there is no formal membership, so there is no such concept as “being ejected”.
As globalization increases, the influence of the group, whether G7 or G8, is becoming weaker. Especially after the global financial crisis, emerging economies have flourished, bringing change to the international economy, and also changing the face of world politics and diplomacy.
As a 'rich man's club', when the G7 absorbed Russia in 1998 it had the strategic intention to westernize Russia. Since Putin came to power, he has had frequent confrontations with the West’s strategic plans, and as result the G8 is becoming something of a “man of straw”, maintaining the form, but with few substantive actions. Thus the matter of the G8 returning to G7 is of little importance for global politics.
The real issues of concern are not whether the G8 can survive, but whether the globalization process will be stopped and whether a new form of cold war will be launched. The G7 changed the theme of the Nuclear Security Summit to condemn Russian actions in Crimea, reflecting the sharp confrontation between the West and Russia.
Excluding Russia from the G8 is a further sanction and a warning shot from the U.S. and its allies to Russia. If the situation in eastern Ukraine deteriorates, tougher economic sanctions will be imposed by the western side against Russia.
We must now wait to see how Russia will react. If Putin offers some compromises to split the U.S. from its allies, it is possible that Russia and the West will shake hands again after a period of cooling-off.
In fact, Russia has already made some conciliatory gestures. During the Nuclear Security Summit, the Foreign Ministers of Russia and Ukraine engaged in a first dialogue, indicating Russia’s tacit assent to the new regime in Ukraine. As long as the situation in eastern Ukraine can be gradually calmed down, Russia, Ukraine and the West can be expected to enter into a period of negotiations.
Unfortunately, Russia is not as clever as China
The decisive and tough position of the Kremlin on the situation around Ukraine was no surprise to the West. Throughout 2013 Russia has demonstrated independence and consistency in defending its national interests. Diplomat Alexander Panov discussed the events of last year in a conversation with the chief editor of Pravda.Ru Inna Novikova.
"I read an opinion of a well-respected expert that the success in Crimea in March of 2014 was based on the successes in Russia's foreign policy in 2013."
"Indeed, it was quite a successful year for the Russian foreign policy. This has to do primarily with the fact that we managed to reduce the risks, the crisis, in the sense that there has been no armed open clash in Syria. It was Russia that had an impact on the Syrian leadership that convinced them to choose chemical disarmament. It was Russia that has become the guarantor that would ensure that the disarmament of Syria will not make it vulnerable to a threat of external forces. Of course, this was a success."
"Was it Russia or Russia and China that played a decisive role in this outcome of the Syrian crisis?
"China was involved to a lesser extent. China is a rather clever state."
"We are clever, too."
"Unfortunately, not really. I believe that we are often too direct; if we want something, we go ahead and do what we need in a rush. The Chinese think in terms of a bigger picture, long term. When they are increasing their presence in global affairs, they are doing it gently, slowly, without sticking out too much."
"Therefore, Syria was Russia's apparent success?"
"Certainly, and it has to do with the fact that Russia timely saw the situation where both the U.S. and the EU were debating whether to fight or not. Obama, generally, was more inclined not to fight. Indeed, why would the Nobel Peace Laureate suddenly start a war?"
"They were paid by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and this is openly discussed."
"I think that the sheikhs paid France, this is why Hollande was so vocal. He was paid more, he has very close relations with Saudi Arabia, and the United States is a wealthy enough country to not depend on Saudi money. France had to work for this money to the fullest. Obama, of course, had doubts, and he hesitated for a long time. Then we realized that through the initiative to destroy chemical weapons, Russia will help to break the impasse. Obama jumped at it. "
"This, I think, was the first time when the Americans abandoned the idea of a declared military strike."
"If the U.S. wanted to fight, they would have hit regardless of Assad's actions. There was a skillful, subtle and brilliant game by the Russian diplomacy. Putin, when he met with G8, clearly and firmly made a proposal that everyone agreed with. Even the fact that when Crimea was annexed to Russia the U.S. has frozen the diplomatic relations with Syria (which, incidentally, is quite a shallow and inconsistent decision) cannot erase our success in Syria."
"Syria was the second victory, because before that there was Snowden, and I think his information was successfully used by our diplomacy ..."
"I have some doubts regarding Snowden. I believe that he was given us by China. He also came to China and likely wanted to stay there. The Chinese have worked with him, but Beijing is now building relationships with the United States, and so Snowden was told to go wherever he wanted. We were in an ambiguous situation, and I think that granting him asylum was a controversial decision."
"What were the risks for Russia?"
"This could have led and did lead to a certain deterioration of the relations. On the other hand, unfortunately, now we do not have the best relations with the United States. I believe that under Obama we could have had more constructive and productive relations because there is no guarantee that the next U.S. president will take a constructive approach towards Russia. Maybe it will be the opposite. We have seen how the Republican candidates generally speak against Russia. There are only two years left until the next election, we'll see. However, the relationship with Obama is not getting better.
"Look at a photo where Putin and Obama are sitting next to each other, their poses send a clear message that these are two people who do not even want to talk to each other. Now take the U.S. and China. The Chinese leader visited California last summer. The two leaders talked for eight hours. Of course, they talked not so much about the economy or contradictions. They talked about something else, and now it is clear that certain agreements on the delimitation of interests have been reached. We do not have any high-level dialogue with the United States."
"This is a strange situation ..."
"Perhaps this is a question for both leaders. It happens at times that there is no relationship between the leaders, no desire or willingness to talk and negotiate."
"But they have to understand that they represent their countries, regardless of personal feelings ..."
"Of course, but in this case for a number of reasons it has not happened. In politics, personal factors are very significant. Remember when Germany was under Schroeder Putin had great relationship with him, and with Merkel it is not all that smooth."
"Let's go back to the successes of our foreign policy. I think that the main success is in the fact that in the hot spots Russia has successfully resisted tough and selfish policy of the USA, this empire that no one contradicted in the last quarter of a century, with the exception of maybe China, sometimes. Everything worked for Washington."
"I agree. But we must admit that now there is one empire, the United States, albeit peculiar, soft, so to speak, but it defines the international climate policy as a whole. We should remember though that empires do not last forever. This is a topic for a separate discussion."
Putin demands quick legislative groundwork for Crimea, Sevastopol
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday demanded that the Russian parliament promptly ensure the necessary legislative groundwork for the economic and social development of Crimea and Sevastopol. Russia's President also announced the country's intention to build national payment-processing systems, similar to those in China and Japan.
"It is necessary to ensure legislative groundwork for everything that concerns the development of the economy and social spheres of Crimea and Sevastopol," the president said at a meeting with the upper house’s council.
Putin said their accession to Russia necessitated a solution to many tasks. "We must smoothly, carefully, consistently and professionally ensure the entry of Crimea and Sevastopol into our legal system without creating problems for the people, but on the contrary creating conditions for the development of the economy and social spheres in Russia’s new entities," the president added.
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_03_27/Putin-demands-quick-legislative-groundwork-for-Crimea-Sevastopol-6006/
Obama to Visit Saudi Arabia, Key Source of Funding for Growing Jihadi Militarism in Middle East

NERMEEN SHAIKH: "Al-Qaida, the Second Act. Why the Global 'War on Terror' Went Wrong." That’s the name of the new five-part series published in the U.K.'s Independent newspaper that examines the resurgence of jihadists across the Middle East. A key part of the series examines how Saudi Arabia has openly backed militant groups in Syria, Iraq and other countries. Many analysts say the conflict in Syria has grown into a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia's history of backing jihadist groups goes back decades. Fifteen of the 19 September 11th hijackers were Saudi. The 9/11 Commission Report identified Saudi Arabia as the main source of al-Qaeda financing. And in 2010, WikiLeaks published U.S. diplomatic cables which identified Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups.
AMY GOODMAN: Despite this record, Saudi Arabia remains a close U.S. ally. President Obama is heading to Saudi Arabia this week to meet with King Abdullah. Saudi Arabia is the only Middle Eastern or Gulf nation on Obama’s overseas itinerary. Members of Congress and human rights organizations have also been calling on Obama to address the kingdom’s treatment of women, religious minorities and political activists. To talk more about Obama’s visit to the oil-rich kingdom, we go to London to speak with Patrick Cockburn, the Middle East correspondent for The Independent who wrote the five-part series on the resurgence of al-Qaeda. One of the pieces is called "Is Saudi Arabia Regretting Its Support for Terrorism?" So, can you answer that question, Patrick Cockburn, and also talk about it in the context of President Obama meeting with King Abdullah?PATRICK COCKBURN: The Saudis have got rather nervous at the moment that—having supported these jihadi groups, that are all either linked to al-Qaeda or have exactly the same ideology and method of action of al-Qaeda, so they’ve introduced some laws saying that—against Saudis fighting in Syria or elsewhere. But it’s probably too late for this to have any effect. The al-Qaeda-type organizations really control a massive area in northern and eastern Syria at the moment and northern and western Iraq. The largest number of volunteers fighting with these al-Qaeda-type groups are Saudi. Most of the money originally came from there. But these people now control their own oil wells. They probably are less reliant on Saudi money. Will President Obama’s visit make much difference? It’s doubtful. I mean, it’s a rather extraordinary relationship, which doesn’t get much attention, between Saudi Arabia and the United States. Saudi Arabia is one of the few theocratic absolute monarchies on Earth, and therefore it was always absurd to be allied to Saudi Arabia in a bid to introduce secular democracy in Syria or Libya or anywhere else. So, probably, they will come out with comforting statements, and the Saudis will be saying to Obama, "Well, look, we’re taking measures against the jihadis now, so let’s step up our attempts to overthrow Assad in Syria." But in practice, the groups that they’re supporting are closely linked to Jabhat al-Nusra, the main al-Qaeda group. So I don’t think things are going to change very much. NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn to U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks in 2010. In a December 2009 memo, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified Saudi Arabia as the world’s largest source of funds for Islamist militant groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. She writes, quote, "While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority. Due in part to intense focus by the [U.S. government] over the last several years, Saudi Arabia has begun to make important progress on this front and has responded to terrorist financing concerns raised by the United States through proactively investigating and detaining financial facilitators of concern. Still, donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide." Patrick Cockburn, that was a U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 released in 2010. Could you explain why you think the U.S. has been hesitant to act against Saudi Arabia in the way that it has against other countries in the Arab world following 9/11, and especially following these revelations? PATRICK COCKBURN: It’s pretty extraordinary, given that so much of what happened on 9/11 can be traced back to Saudi Arabia. Why hasn’t there been a greater reaction in the U.S. and the rest of the world? Well, the Saudis have cultivated people in Washington, government in Washington. There are enormous arms sales by the U.S. to Saudi Arabia. The arms on orders—on order at the moment are worth a total of $86 billion—fighter aircraft, helicopters, everything else. And they’ve also spent money cultivating former diplomats, officials, academics and so forth. And therefore, there hasn’t been—though I find this rather amazing—more pressure on Saudi Arabia or on the U.S. government to stop Saudi Arabia supporting jihadi movements. It’s not just money. It’s, I mean, a lot of it, propaganda of a satellite television, which is anti-Shia, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, hate propaganda. So long as they have these methods of propaganda, they can probably raise men and money to send to Syria and Iraq and elsewhere. AMY GOODMAN: Patrick, this trip that President Obama—accompanied by Secretary of State John Kerry, to show the significance of it—in the United States is being seen as a reconciliation trip, the U.S. wanting to improve its relationship with Saudi Arabia, especially frayed when Saudi Arabia wanted the U.S. to be tougher on Iran—interestingly, Saudi Arabia sharing the same view as Israel on this issue. Can you talk about that in the context of the role Saudi Arabia is playing in the world? PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes, I mean, last year, there was difference between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. over the support of al-Qaeda-type organizations in Syria, which in turn are destabilizing Iraq. Saudi Arabia was eager for Obama to launch a military assault on Syria last August after the use of poison gas in Damascus. They were vocally upset when the U.S. didn’t do this. They have pushed for a U.S. war with Iran, going back several years. King Abdullah is quoted by—on a diplomatic cable as saying, "Cut off the head of the snake." So they’ll try to ensure that they’re at one with the U.S. in trying to bring down Assad and opposing Iran. NERMEEN SHAIKH: Patrick Cockburn, you’ve also pointed out that these Islamist groups, violent Islamist groups, have proliferated since 9/11, and especially after the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011. Could you explain what the distinction is, if any, between al-Qaeda and all of these offshoot groups, and if the hesitation on the part of the U.S. has to do with the fact that these new groups operate regionally rather than in the West? PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes, I think that they draw too great a distinction—I mean, Washington draws too great a distinction between people who have a direct operational link to the remains of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda in Pakistan and other groups that have the same ideology, operate in the same way, have the same methods. And you could see that in Libya, when—where the U.S. ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was killed by jihadis, who were not, in fact, al-Qaeda, and he seems to have thought, and the people around him thought, were not as dangerous as al-Qaeda. And tragically, he and they were proved wrong. You can see that in Syria at the moment, that the largest group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, is not in fact part of al-Qaeda—it used to be. There’s a new group, Jabhat al-Nusra, which is the official representative, but there isn’t much difference between these groups. They’re all pretty well the same. They are extraordinarily bigoted. They’re extraordinarily brutal. They kill Shia or any other nonfundamentalist Muslims who fall into their hands. So, pretending that one group, simply because it’s funded by Saudi Arabia, is not the equivalent of al-Qaeda, I think, is self-deception—and self-deception which may well have disastrous results, you know, as happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which eventually produced the Taliban and Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda. AMY GOODMAN: In 2011, Democracy Now! spoke to former Senator Bob Graham and asked him about how part of the 9/11 Commission Report remains redacted. BOB GRAHAM: The suppressed pages were in the Congressional Joint Inquiry. We worked diligently throughout 2002 to gather as much of the information as we could and to make recommendations. We had an 800-plus-page report, one chapter of which, which related primarily to the role of the Saudis in 9/11, was totally censored. Every word of that chapter has been denied to the American people. AMY GOODMAN: What about that, Patrick Cockburn? You know, Bandar Bush, of course, as he was called, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, sitting out on the Truman Balcony with President Bush the day after the 9/11 attacks. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And then Bandar Bush, the former U.S.—Saudi ambassador to the U.S., being one of the major forces behind the forces, the rebel forces in Syria? PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes, it’s sort of—it’s amazing. And, I mean, it’s had a very unfortunate consequence by not going after the very obvious roots of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia, in terms of money and political support and so forth. This has enabled al-Qaeda to grow again. I mean, al-Qaeda, I worked out on the map, now controls an area in northern Syria and northern Iraq which is about the size of Great Britain. Al-Qaeda was rather a small organization at the time of 9/11. Since then, we’ve had the war on terror. We’ve had vast resources poured into this, increase in intelligence and security services, rendition, torture, everything else. And at the end of it, al-Qaeda and its affiliates are far larger than they were in—at the time of 9/11. I mean, this is a pretty extraordinary situation. AMY GOODMAN: Of course, I just want to clarify, Bandar Bush was the nickname for him. His name was Prince Bandar bin Sultan. He’s now Saudi Arabia’s intelligence minister. Nermeen? NERMEEN SHAIKH: Patrick Cockburn, that’s right, he’s the intelligence minister now, but as you point out in one of your articles, he’s no longer in charge of Saudi Arabia’s policy in Syria. Could you explain what you think the impact of that decision will be, and whether Saudi policy with respect to the rebels is actually changing? PATRICK COCKBURN: I mean, it’s a very good question, and I think we’re going to maybe see the answer over the next week. Maybe one of the things it will be interesting to see, what comes out of Obama’s visit. Bandar bin Sultan’s policy in Syria failed somewhat disastrously. He wanted to get rid of Assad; they failed to do that. Instead, we’ve had these jihadi, al-Qaeda-type organizations grow enormously. And they now, sort of really the whole way from Baghdad to the Mediterranean, they control much of the territory. Now, the Saudis are—seem to be taking a slightly more diplomatic line, but what they’re saying is: "We shall support jihadis, who are different from al-Qaeda but will still be able to overthrow Assad. We’ll do this from Jordan." But will this really happen? And if they do fund a anti-Assad army there, would it just be a mercenary army that has no real support within Syria? AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to move onto a segment next on Iraq. And earlier this month, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused Saudi Arabia and Qatar of openly funding the Sunni Muslim insurgents in western Anbar province. He told France 24, quote, "I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them." If you could, finally, comment on that, as well as your final comment in your recent piece, saying, "All the ingredients for a repeat of 9/11 are slipping into place, the difference today being that al-Qa’ida-type organisations are now far more powerful." PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, the Iraqis have felt for a long time, but didn’t say so openly, that Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Gulf monarchies were an essential prop to al-Qaeda in Iraq through private donations, through hate preachers, anti-Shia preachers, and finally they’ve come out and said it. And they have a lot of evidence also from suicide bombers who were captured before they blew themselves up. On the other question, yes, definitely. I mean, you know, these drone attacks in Yemen and Waziristan, these declarations of victory, I think, just divert attention from the fact that you look at the map, that al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-type groups, that are no different from those that followed Osama bin Laden, now control a large territory. They have large revenues from oil wells. They have lots of experienced people. At the moment, they’re fighting against Assad and the Iraqi government. But they don’t Ike the governments of the West anymore. They’re not ideologically committed to only one enemy in their home countries. So if they do want to start making attacks in the West again along the lines of 9/11, they’re far better equipped militarily and politically, financially and any other way than they were when the attacks of 9/11 were originally made. AMY GOODMAN: Patrick Cockburn, we want to thank you for being with us, Middle East correspondent for The Independent, just concluded a five-part series on the resurgence of al-Qaeda, including that piece, "Is Saudi Arabia Regretting Its Support for Terrorism?" President Obama is visiting Saudi Arabia on Friday along with Secretary of State John Kerry. When we come back, two women, a U.S. soldier and an Iraqi feminist, join together for the right to heal on this 11th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Stay with us.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/26/obama_to_visit_saudi_arabia_key
Turkey shuts off YouTube after 'Syria invasion plan' leak

Access to YouTube has been cut off in Turkey after an explosive leak of audiotapes that appeared to show ministers talking about provoking military intervention in Syria. Other social media have already been blocked ahead of tumultuous local elections. The latest leaked audio recording, which reportedly led to the ban, appears to show top government officials discussing a potential attack on the tomb of Suleyman Shah, the grandfather of the founder of the Ottoman Empire.The tomb is in Syrian territory, but protected by Turkish soldiers.

Since then, the California-based social network and organizations have fought in several courts to have the decision reversed, calling it “disproportionate and illegal.” A court ruling in Ankara on Wednesday supported the appeal, but the country’s regulator has a month to unblock Twitter, leading to speculation that any such move would only take place after the election. The incumbent party also enjoys the benefit of robust privacy legislation passed last month, which makes it easy to cut off any website even before any violation has been legally proven. The US has led the chorus of international condemnation, calling the government’s moves "censorship" tantamount to “21st century book-burning.”
Pakistan: Christian man awarded death penalty in Joseph Colony case


Afghans Criticize Government’s Handling Of International Norouz Event

Pakistan Taliban Agrees to Ceasefire to Help Afghan Allies
Iranian president calls for regional unity in first official visit to Afghanistan

Pakistan: Marvi stands in face of CII with bill against child marriage
Pakistan: The Federally Abandoned Tribal Areas
Dr Mohammad Taqi
No matter how negotiations with the TTP end, lasting peace in Pakistan, Afghanistan and FATA itself will remain elusive without addressing the constitutional status of the tribal areasThe Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial Assembly has sneakily passed a resolution asking the federation to vivisect the province. The speaker did not order a headcount for the resolution that calls for carving out a Hazara province from the current boundaries of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The constitutional and legal status of the move is moot and may be challenged in court. Ironically, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), which were instrumental in bringing this resolution, want one section of the Pakistani population to have the right to self-determination, including a new province based purely on linguistic grounds, but seem hell-bent on throwing the Pashtuns of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) back not just a few decades but all the way to the seventh century. The PTI, PML-N and JI are key players in the dialogue with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which, if successful, could turn already forsaken FATA into the Federally Abandoned Tribal Areas. While the new administrative structure, including the judicial system along with a new high court in a modern state is considered desirable for the Hazarawals — no prejudice intended against their demand — the parties rooted in Punjab and Islamism are determined to shove FATA further down the primitive abyss of the jirga (tribal court) and Taliban sharia. The TTP’s political cheerleaders in Pakistan paint a romantic picture of the defaced and dysfunctional tribal justice system, which even in its most pristine and functional state was quite brutal and arbitrary, especially to the weak. In hypocrisy of the tallest order, the rest of Pakistan gets to enjoy, at least in principle, the right to the due process of law under Article 10-A of the constitution, and FATA is being pushed into the deadly embrace of the jirga/sharia-mongers. Those presenting the jirga in the media as the panacea to all tribal troubles forget that it is this very institution that frequently settles feuds not just through payments of blood money or cattle heads but also by giving away young girls in marriage in the notorious practice called swara. The manipulation-prone jirga system, wherein no provisions for evidence, forensics or female participation exist, clearly flouts the fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution, especially Article 25 that calls for all citizens to enjoy equal protection of the law and proscribes discrimination on the basis of sex. No doubt, the great values (arzakhtoona) of Pashtunwali (the Pashtun code) like hospitality (milmastia), sanctuary (nanawatay), deference (ehteram) to elders (masharan) and deterrence through revenge (badal) along with the institution of jirga were once the pillars of a primordial democratic tribal society. However, over the centuries, the commune-like structure of the tribes gave way to exploitative structures, especially the British-introduced Maliki aristocracy and later the TTP’s barbaric sharia. The Maliki arrangement was merely a modification of the Sandeman system deployed by the British in Balochistan, wherein they dealt with the tribes through tribal chieftains. As Sir Olaf Caroe, the last British governor of the North West Frontier Province (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) himself noted, in the absence of a well-defined hierarchy in the acephalous Pashtun tribes, the British created a system of stipends (maujib) for handpicked leaders (Maliks) in a largely transactional relationship. Unfortunately, a self-serving arrangement by a colonial power is being touted today as the replacement for modern constitutional structures. Leaving FATA in constitutional and legal limbo also has geopolitical motives and ramifications. The Pakistani state’s pretence that FATA is ungovernable, while claiming it as an integral part of the state, is a ruse to continue using it as a base for intervention in Afghanistan and buffer against a blowback. Turmoil, not order, in FATA is what Pakistani strategic planners have wanted for decades in order to unilaterally impose a government of their liking in Kabul as well as to neutralise the Pashtun nationalist-irredentist movement. Ironically, the most vociferous champions of the status quo in FATA and the Durand Line and tribal justice are not the Pashtuns. The mess created in FATA is now threatening Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — dubbed the ‘Fatafication’ of the province by some. However, the Pakistani state’s thrust still is anything but regularising the tribal areas, despite the constitution bestowing tremendous powers upon the president to usher in such reform. Indeed, Article 247(6) of the constitution empowers the president, after seeking the opinion of a tribal jirga, to “direct that the whole or any part of a Tribal Area shall cease to be Tribal Area”. Clearly, the framers of the 1973 constitution envisioned bringing FATA into the mainstream, not alienating and marginalising it any further. No matter how negotiations with the TTP end, lasting peace in Pakistan, Afghanistan and FATA itself will remain elusive without addressing the constitutional status of the tribal areas. Abolishing the 113-year-old draconian Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) could be a start but repealing the FCR is neither possible by itself nor will it change much unless FATA is given provincial status or allowed to join Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The judicial, revenue and policing systems — the sine qua non of a state — have to follow the constitutional reform. The Maliki system cannot hold its own after the TTP onslaught — political parties and the local and provincial government systems must upend that decaying structure. The political parties, however, ought to help determine what the people of the seven tribal Agencies want. The reform task, as arduous as it is, will become perilous if the denizens of FATA feel that a party, province or the federation is imposing the solution. A major issue attached to the reform in FATA is the status of the Durand Line and a Pashtun nationalist-irredentist sentiment that, though on the ropes, still exists. Candidates in Afghanistan’s upcoming presidential elections have danced around the status of the Durand Line. Until a permanent solution can be found to the border issue, Afghanistan could consider adopting something similar to the China/Taiwan policy or the former West Germany’s Neue Ostpolitik (New East policy) that in essence meant a détente without dropping the mainland’s revanchist claims. This is one area where the Pashtun nationalist outfits, the Awami National Party and the Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party can play a huge role. These two parties have effectively accepted a two-state solution for the Pashtuns; the least they can do now is defend the constitutional rights of the people they claim to represent within the federation lest the state codifies the status of the federally abandoned tribal areas as such.
Pakistan: The Abandoned Refugees of North Waziristan
By Taha Siddiqui
Pakistan refugees to acknowledge a growing crisis emerging from its tribal belt.As the government of Pakistan and the Pakistani Taliban continue to discuss conditions for a peace dialogue, thousands of refugees have fled the tribal belt that sits alongside the Pakistan-Afghan border, especially the North Waziristan area where the terrorist organization commonly known as Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is based. The refugees have made their way to safer areas in the settled areas of the Khyber Pakthunkhwa province. The mass exodus happened when the Pakistani army carried out airstrikes in the region last December on suspected militant hideouts. The refugee crisis has yet to be acknowledged by the government of Pakistan, because it has not formally announced any operation in the North Waziristan region, even though there have been a wave of airstrikes by the country’s armed forces in areas occupied by the TTP and other foreign terrorists. Most of these terrorists have been hiding in Pakistan’s lawless tribal belt since they escaped from neighboring Afghanistan in the aftermath of the U.S.-led attack following 9/11. The military’s media wing has been claiming that it has killed scores of militants in these strikes, the first of which took place four months ago. However, since journalists from outside are not allowed to visit the North Waziristan area, there is no independent verification of these claims. Refugees who have fled the area have another story to tell. “The bombardments happened near our homes in the market area and the army was not precise in these airstrikes so many civilian homes were targeted too,” says Javed Iqbal, a 31-year-old who comes from North Waziristan’s Mir Ali area and is currently living in Bannu city, next to the Waziristan’s tribal region. Mr. Iqbal who fled in the middle of the night with more than forty members of his family after the December air strikes had to pay exorbitant sums to transporters in his hometown to shift them to a safer area. Even now, he and his family have received no help from official authorities. “No one is registering us or giving us any aid. Our children are not going to school anymore. There are no medical facilities being offered to us either. We are left entirely on our own,” he adds. According to independent estimates by local non-government organizations operating within the region, more than 40,000 people have been displaced by the ongoing troubles. “We sent out appeals to foreign and local donors to help us out with the refugee crisis but they said unless and until the government issues an official notification about an operation, they cannot help,” Nizam Dawar, a social worker based in Islamabad but originally from North Waziristan, tells The Diplomat. Dawar, who recently met with the refugees in Bannu and has been trying to help them on his own, complains that many of the displaced families are living in the open on vacant Bannu land. They do not even have the money to buy food. “In turning a blind eye to this influx of refugees, the government is also unwittingly allowing terrorists to flee the area under the garb of refugees. If they would acknowledge the exodus, and register the refugees or anyone escaping the area, there is a good chance that it will help the government in identifying militant elements and apprehending them,” Dawar adds. Other refugees agree with Dawar’s assessment. “We want an operation against those terrorists hiding in our homeland, but the government needs to plan it properly,” says Mohammad Imran, who fled North Waziristan in January with fourteen of his family members, and is currently living in Bannu in a rented house. “There is an air of uncertainty and confusion now,” he tells The Diplomat. “The government should be clear about what it wants to do. It should ensure that common people like us are given safe passage and rehabilitation afterwards like in Swat Valley or South Waziristan operations in past.” In past years, the Pakistani army conducted military operations in other parts of the tribal belt and also in Swat Valley, successfully driving the Taliban out of those areas. In contrast, the current Pakistani government, which came to power in May last year, has been a proponent of peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban, after a consensus to do so was developed at an all parties conference last September. The government then announced a peace committee that was able to settle on a ceasefire earlier this month between the government and the TTP. However, within the TTP there are now breakaway offshoots that have vowed to continue the attacks. “What we have seen is that as these groups, which to my understanding are still connected to the parent TTP organization, carry out terrorist acts. And then the government retaliates too. Its a tit for tat kind of a response,” says Safdar Hayat, former head of the tribal union of journalists, who hails from North Waziristan. Hayat feels the government has been held hostage to the security policy of the state. “The Pakistani military establishment expects the Afghan Taliban to go home soon since the Americans are pulling out. So it cannot launch a full-scale operation in North Waziristan since the Afghan Taliban occupy the same space as the Pakistani Taliban,” Hayat explains, adding that until then the government will continue to carry out what it calls targeted strikes. But for the refugees these strikes and no visible strategy from the government means many more months of misery. “The people are turning against the Pakistani government and the military,” warns Imran, the refugee in Bannu. “The tribal belt was already neglected, even constitutionally we have no rights. And now in times of conflict, the state is not coming forward to help us,” he adds. Indeed, the Pakistani constitution does not apply to the tribal belt. Divided into seven different agencies, the tribal belt is governed by the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), an early 20th century draconian law introduced during the British colonial period of South Asia. Even after independence in 1947, the Pakistan government continues to govern the area through FCR, which does not allow basic constitutional rights to the citizens of the tribal belt. For this reason, most of the region has remained impoverished and neglected, and often used as an experimental backyard for Pakistan’s military’s security policy. It was here the Americans and the Pakistanis trained the Mujahideens in the eighties to fight the Soviets. And it is here today that the Pakistani state is accused of providing safe havens to Afghan insurgents. Islamabad has come under international pressure to act against these hideouts. Since 2004, the CIA has carried out its own secret drone strikes. Now Islamabad has apparently asked the Americans to halt the drone strikes, yet has started its own air attacks using fighter jets and gunship helicopters. “At least when there were drone strikes, we knew they would be more precise and very targeted. But ever since these airstrikes by the Pakistani army have started, many civilian homes have been damaged and locals killed because they shell and hit the villages indiscriminately,” Imran, the refugee who escaped in January says, adding that even though the drone strikes created a lot of mental stress, it did not force them to flee, as they have had to do now. “No one knows when we will go back home. All we want is peace. The government should fulfill its responsibility to take care of its citizens,” he concludes.
PPP Senator criticizes Punjab govt over Hafiz Saeed funding
http://mediacellppp.wordpress.com/
Pakistan People’s Party Senator Farhatullah Khan Babar has said that the government of Punjab allocated Rs61 million for Hafiz Saeed despite the United Nations ban on Jaamtu Dawa chief. He said that Saeed had been working despite the UN ban while chief of Jesh-e-Muhammad Maulana Masood Azhar attended a book launching ceremony only three days before the government unveiled its security policy. The PPP Senator was speaking at the meeting of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Interior on Wednesday. The opposition members of the NA body opposed the Protection of Pakistan bill.
Endemic threat: ‘Pakistan can transmit polio abroad’
The Express TribuneIn a damning verdict, the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative has cautioned that the current situation of polio in Pakistan is a ‘powder keg’ that could ignite widespread polio transmission. “If the current trend continues, Pakistan will be the last place on earth in which polio exists,” wrote IMB Chairperson Sir Liam Donaldson in a letter to the World Health Organisation director general Dr Margaret Chan in February. The letter – a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune – says the new government has been slow to grasp the severity of the situation, adding that the number of polio cases in Pakistan is going in the wrong direction. The most serious situation is in the northwest, where the virus is enjoying unencumbered circulation at great human cost, the letter says. “We welcome the firm and intelligently designed anti-polio campaign [Sehat Ka Insaf] under way in Peshawar, but such innovation must be sustained and promoted elsewhere in the country,” it adds. “The adequacy of the government’s plans will be in full public view at our May meeting and at the subsequent World Health Assembly,” the letter says. Commenting on the letter, an official of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) Health Department said in 2012, 58 polio cases were reported in Pakistan; the number surged to 93 in 2013. 36 cases have already been reported this year. He added that the situation was dangerous not only for Pakistan but for the whole world. He said there were misunderstandings amongst the government and donors. “The success of the K-P government’s drive is reversible unless polio is eradicated from Khyber Agency and [North and South] Waziristan agencies,” he said. Talking to The Express Tribune, the focal person of the chief minister’s Polio Monitoring Cell, Dr Imtiyaz Khan, said that the IMB assessed progress towards the attainment of a polio-free world and its views were very broad. He said millions of children in North Waziristan and Bara tehsil of Khyber Agency had not been vaccinated since June 2012 due to a ban by militants and as a result the virus could spread to other parts of the country.
Pakistan:Mufti Shakirullah accepts responsibility for killing of Chaudhry Aslam

Pakistan: Aasia Bibi case hearing postponed to April 14

Pakistan: Child marriage bill

Bilawal Bhutto: 'Coalition once MQM retracts on Sindh's breakup, martial law'


THE LAHORE LOG: Pakistan's minority report
By NAJAM SETHI
Political Islam and national security policy are ravaging Pakistan. But - neither the military generals, who spawned this symbiotic process in the 1980s and nurtured it in the 1990s, nor the politicians, who exploited or condoned it for legitimising themselves - have the will to turn the tide back. In consequence, the country is besieged by dozens of armed non-state ethnic, sectarian, jehadi, criminal, separatist and terrorist groups, in one garb or another, that have overrun law and order and plunged different communities into a pool of blood.The minorities, in particular, are being targeted with a genocidal vengeance. The targeted killing of Shias, in particular the Hazara community in Balochistan, has captured headlines in the last two years for three reasons. First, the scale of the killings is alarming - nearly 1,000 people have been killed in the last eighteen months, mainly in Balochistan, Karachi and the Northern Areas. Second, the assassins - Sipah- e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and various related offshoots - have been audacious enough to claim responsibility. Third, the civil-military establishment has admitted its unwillingness or inability to tackle this menace for reasons that are flimsy and self-serving. The Ahmedis and Christians have been laid low by the blasphemy laws that enable mischief mongers and vested interests to target them with impunity. In the last decade, for example, there have been 12 major anti-Christian incidents across the country, mainly in the Punjab. Chapels, charities, schools and homes have been attacked. In the Gojra riots in 2009, a Christian community was forced to flee, its homes were looted and burnt down. In 2011, Shahbaz Bhatti, a notable Christian leader, was assassinated in broad daylight. The same year, a mob attacked a Christian community in Gujranwala. In every case, the administration has either avoided pre-emptive action or stood by, while the Muslims mobs rampaged. Indeed, in every case, the provincial or local government in question has screamed its party-political innocence by scapegoating the police department, swept the inquiry report under the rug and refused to learn any lessons for the future. The Gojra incident illustrates this well. A Tribunal of Inquiry headed by Justice Iqbal Hameedur Rehman, who is now a Supreme Court judge, delivered a 258-page indictment of the provincial government. Although the report was never made public precisely for this reason, its main conclusions saw the light of day. First, it warned that "the unfortunate incident of Gojra must be taken seriously and the needful be done on a war-footing without further loss of time." But the PML-N government did exactly the opposite by consigning it to the rubbish bin. Second, the Tribunal advised appropriate amendments to the blasphemy laws and Police Order 2002 to strip them of their mischief-making potential. But no government has had the courage to do this. Third, it focused "on the inability of the police to assess the gravity and sensitivity of the situation", it noted the "inadequate precautionary and preventive measure by the police", and the "failure of the intelligence agencies in providing prompt and correct information". Much the same charge is now being laid at the door of the various law and order departments of government. Fourth, it criticised the "irresponsible behaviour of the administration" for willfully ignoring the developing situation. This happens time and again. The recent incident in Lahore demonstrates the opportunist political approach of the PML-N. The police, and therefore the government, knew the full facts of the matter before the alleged Christian blasphemer was even arrested. They knew that the charge was patently fabricated; that a section of the traders of the area had a vested interest in driving the Christians out and seizing their property; that the local PML-N "influentials" were egging on the vested interests. But the police did nothing for 36 hours after the arrest to thwart any Muslim mob attack on the Christian community. Indeed, if anything the lack of any preventive show of force by the administration or warning to potential trouble-makers that they would be dealt with an iron hand, probably encouraged the mob-drivers to attack the Christian community. In fact, when a contingent of the police arrived on the scene during the mob's looting and arson, it preferred to stand aside and watch, rather than wade in to disperse the arsonists. Police officials openly admit that when they sought orders from their political masters, the orders were ambiguous, delayed or contradictory. In other words, the government didn't much care about the fate of the Christians and only moved to redress the situation with offers of compensation after the media flogged it for its antipathy. The PML-N's attitude towards the Christians and Ahmedis is blameworthy. Worse, its soft, hands-off approach to militant anti-Shia organisations like the SSP and LeJ is condemnable. A bit of fear and some sneaking sympathy for the causes of such groups is all too evident. For a party that bodes to rule Pakistan for the third time, this is a bad sign. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2293467/THE-LAHORE-LOG-Pakistans-minority-report.html#ixzz2x9qFVrkK Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Iran warns Pakistan after abducted soldier feared executed

Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)