Sunday, September 27, 2015
Russia respects Ukraine's sovereignty, would like others to act in same vein, says Putin
Russia respects Ukraine’s sovereignty and wants others to do the same, which means refraining from any support to state coups, Russian President Vladimir Putin told US journalist Charlie Rose in an interview with CBS and PBS.
When asked whether he respected Ukraine’s sovereignty, the Russian president answered, "Certainly."
"However, we would like other countries to respect the sovereignty of other states, including Ukraine, too. Respecting the sovereignty means preventing coups, unconstitutional actions and illegitimate overthrowing of the legitimate government," he said.
"At no time in the past, now or in the future has or will Russia take any part in actions aimed at overthrowing the legitimate government," Putin underscored and answered in the negative when asked whether Russia has to use the military force to accomplish that objective.
Commenting on remarks about Russia’s military presence on the borders with Ukraine, the Russian president said, "And if we keep our troops on our territory on the border with some state, you see it is a crime?"
In this connection, he reminded about U.S.’ military presence in Europe. "The U.S. tactical nuclear weapons are in Europe, let us not forget this. Does it mean that the U.S. has occupied Germany or that the U.S. never stopped the occupation after World War II and only transformed the occupation troops into the NATO forces?," he said.
David Cameron will remain open to the possibility of Bashar al-Assad remaining President
David Cameron will remain open to the possibility of Bashar al-Assad remaining President of Syria in the short term when he goes to New York to address the UN on Sunday.
In an extraordinary U-turn since pushing for air strikes against the Assad regime in 2013, the Prime Minister is reportedly willing to side-line the issue of regime change in order to keep alive the prospect of a grand coalition to defeat Isis.
An alliance involving all of the West, Russia and powers in the region could turn the tide in the military campaign against the so-called “Islamic State” militant group – but Vladimir Putin has made it clear he will back Assad against any international intervention.
Speaking as Mr Cameron prepared to fly out to the US, a senior government source told reporters that the Prime Minister still saw a change of leadership as the desired “endgame” in Syria.
But leaving the window open for Assad to remain in power for the foreseeable future, the official said: “There has always been the idea that there will be a political transition and there are differing views between members of the international community ... on what the steps are in the process.
The source made clear that Mr Cameron would make no call in New York for Assad to step down with immediate effect.
While Mr Putin is expected to meet President Barack Obama on the side-lines of the UN summit, there are believed to be no plans for a similar meeting between Mr Putin and Mr Cameron.
The US has already suggested it could give way to Russia on the issue of Assad, with Secretary of State John Kerry saying that the timing of regime change was up for negotiation. He has said: “It doesn’t have to be on day one or month one. There is a process by which all the parties have to come together and reach an understanding of how this can best be achieved.”
German Chancellor Angela Merkel also said last week it was necessary to speak to "many actors, among them Assad".
German government officials, however, denied Merkel was backing the positions of Spain or Austria, who see Assad as possibly playing a role in an interim solution for Syria that would involve joining with international military forces to defeat Isis.
The British official said that Mr Cameron believed global outcry over the refugee crisis could provide impetus for a new push to end the fighting.
“Events over the last few months have shifted the dynamic and added to the urgency of finding a political solution. We want to seize that opportunity to inject some momentum into the process,” the official said.
Syrians are overwhelmingly opposed to the division of the country
Syrians are overwhelmingly opposed to the division of the country and believe a political solution is still possible, according to a new poll.
In spite of the continuing carnage and a spiralling refugee crisis, the survey by ORB International said that 64 percent of Syrians believed that a political solution was still possible “despite the differences that exist between the Syrians".
The survey also revealed that 70 percent of Syrians were opposed to the division of the country, with only the Kurds being divided on the issue, split evenly 48 percent in favour and against.
The poll, which surveyed a cross section of 1,365 people across all of Syria’s 14 governorates - including areas controlled by IS - also suggested that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was slightly more popular among ordinary Syrians that any of the opposition groups - though no one was ranked as having a net positive influence.
"It's very, very regional - if you look into the actual data it differs massively by region," Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB International, told Middle East Eye.
"At the moment, it's fair to say the opposition in Syria isn't as strong as it used to be. It's split right down the middle. It's been infiltrated by all kinds of militias - so Assad in certain sectors of society is the preferred option, but in others, absolutely not."
The government-controlled Alawite stronghold of Tartous viewed Assad’s influence least negatively at 11 percent while the opposition-controlled Idlib viewed him most negatively with 90 percent.
The US, UK and Saudi Arabia have all repeatedly stated that Assad has no future in post-war Syria and have called on him to go - though the UK recently conceded that he could stay in power for a transitional period.
However, many analysts have suggested that the lack of unity among the opposition and the rise of al-Qaeda-linked and inspired groups like the Islamic State group and al-Nusra Front has made the US more wary of who might hold power after his downfall.
The survey also shows that more Syrian men than women view IS as having a “completely negative” influence in Syria (53 percent versus 43 percent) though both genders viewed the group as negative overall.
Overall, 22 percent of Syrians said that IS is having a positive influence on their country.
Gathering data from Syrians has been difficult since the beginning of the country’s civil war 2011, both as a result of a government-imposed crackdown on media and NGOs and the increasing violence.
Heald said that ORB International had been operating in Syria since before the civil war and that a “team of interviewers and supervisors was already on the ground".
He said that using locals was the only effective way of gathering information from areas controlled by IS.
“The supervisor who looks after the interviewing in [IS stronghold] Raqqa is actually from Raqqa,” he told MEE. “You don’t send people into those areas who are not from those areas.”
“The rules are, basically, as long as you’re not from a Western media organisation and don’t pull out a camera, you can go and talk to the people and I think one of the reasons our supervisor was happy or content for that to happen is because he knows that over time more people will say that they are tolerant of IS.”
The poll suggested that the vast majority of Syrians - 81 percent - believed that IS was the creation of the US and other foreign countries.
When Beheading Won’t Do the Job, the Saudis Resort to Crucifixion
The stunning human-rights abuses of a U.S. ally.
For Saudi Arabia, sometimes it’s not enough to simply behead a person who has run afoul of the government: On some occasions, there’s nothing like crucifixion to make your point:
A group of U.N. experts has joined rights groups in calling on Saudi Arabia to halt the execution of a Shiite man convicted of crimes reportedly committed as a teenager during protests inspired by the Arab Spring.
Ali al-Nimr, the nephew of firebrand Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, faces execution by beheading and an additional rare punishment of “crucifixion,” which means publicly displaying the body after death as a warning to others, according to Saudi state media.
Saudi Arabia, of course, is a world champion of human-rights abuse. Freedom, in all of its manifestations, is absent from the country. For an accounting of Saudi Arabia’s dismal human-rights record, please see Amnesty International’s latest country report. (I would direct you to Human Rights Watch’s work, except that Human Rights Watch has a history of—believe it or not—fundraising in Saudi Arabia. It should not, of course, fundraise in any non-democratic, primary-target country, particularly one in which giving to a human-rights group could land the donor in terrible trouble.)
Naturally, Saudi Arabia’s human-rights record makes it, in the eyes of the United Nations, an expert on the subject: Saudi Arabia sits on the UN Human Rights Council and is even part of the committee that helps choose the council’s human-rights experts. The UN Human Rights Council is already a debased body, whose members include Cuba, Venezuela, China, Pakistan, Qatar, and Vietnam. Providing Saudi Arabia with a leadership role in this group is an affront to morality and good sense.
It also puts the United States in a difficult position, as we saw earlier this week, when Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, was asked about Ali al-Nimr, and about the crucial role Saudi Arabia is meant to play in the advancement of human rights. A transcript of the relevant exchange is posted below. I don’t know Toner, but I feel pity for any U.S. government official who believes that he is forced by the nature of his job to cover up for Saudi Arabia:
QUESTION: Yesterday, Saudi Arabia was named to head the Human Rights Council, and today I think they announced they are about to behead a 21-year-old Shia activist named Muhammed al-Nimr. Are you aware of that?
MR. TONER: I’m not aware of the trial that you—or the verdict—death sentence.
QUESTION: Well, apparently, he was arrested when [he] was 17 years old and kept in juvenile detention, then moved on. And now, he’s been scheduled to be executed.
MR. TONER: Right. I mean, we’ve talked about our concerns about some of the capital punishment cases in Saudi Arabia in our Human Rights Report, but I don’t have any more to add to it.
QUESTION: So you—
QUESTION: Well, how about a reaction to them heading the council?
MR. TONER: Again, I don’t have any comment, don’t have any reaction to it. I mean, frankly, it’s—we would welcome it. We’re close allies. If we—
QUESTION: Do you think that they’re an appropriate choice given—I mean, how many pages is—does Saudi Arabia get in the Human Rights Report annually?
MR. TONER: I can’t give that off the top of my head, Matt.
QUESTION: I can’t either, but let’s just say that there’s a lot to write about Saudi Arabia and human rights in that report. I’m just wondering if you [think] that it’s appropriate for them to have a leadership position.
MR. TONER: We have a strong dialogue, obviously a partnership with Saudi Arabia that spans, obviously, many issues. We talk about human-rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it’s an occasion for them to look at human rights around the world but also within their own borders.
So, the United State welcomes the leadership of Saudi Arabia on a body meant to expose the human-rights violations of countries like Saudi Arabia. This is straight-up “Alice in Wonderland” policymaking. There are reasons we are allies with Saudi Arabia, of course, but even Barack Obama has made it clear—even before he was president—that these reasons ought to be scrutinized.
By the way, I’m sure that Saudi Arabia will itself benefit from membership on the Human Rights Council. It will no doubt learn new and exciting torture techniques from its fellow members, some of whom might be able, for reasons of public relations, to guide Saudi Arabia away from crucifixion, and toward less outre forms of punishment.
Will Saudi Arabia Prevent the UN From Investigating Its War Atrocities in Yemen?
As Saudi government launches diplomatic blitz against human rights probe, Obama administration remains silent
The Saudi Arabian government is unleashing a vigorous diplomatic campaign to block a United Nations proposal for a human rights investigation into the country’s six-month-old military assault on Yemen—waged with the backing of international powers including the United States.
President Barack Obama has so far remained silent on the resolution, which was submitted by the Netherlands Thursday and calls for the UN Human Rights Council to launch a probe into abuses committed by all parties.
The Dutch proposal requires the UN High Commissioner to “dispatch a mission, with assistance from relevant experts, to monitor and report on the human rights situation in Yemen.” In addition, the resolution calls for players to grant access to humanitarian aid, in a clear reference to the Saudi-led and U.S.-backed naval blockade that is choking off food and medical aid.
The proposal follows the call, earlier this month, by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein for an “international, independent, and impartial” investigation into human rights violations. Groups including the Cairo Institute for Human Rights, the Gulf Center for Human Rights, and Human Rights Watch have also urged the international community to end the “impunity that fuels humanitarian crisis” in Yemen.
“With no end to this deadly conflict in sight and a spiraling humanitarian crisis, civilian suffering is at an all-time high,” James Lynch, deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International, warned in a statement released Friday. “The international community must seize this moment to establish a credible, international inquiry that offers hope for accountability and justice for victims of serious violations and abuses in Yemen.”
However, the Saudi government and some of its key allies appear determined to prevent such a probe.
“Saudi diplomats have robustly lobbied Asian, African and European states through their capitals or missions in Geneva,” Nick Cumming-Bruce reports in the New York Times.
“Gulf countries Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have argued for shelving plans for an independent inquiry into rights abuses in Yemen,” writes Foreign Policyjournalist Colum Lynch, citing notes obtained from a September 17 intergovernmental meeting. “They maintained that a commission of inquiry established by the Saudi-backed Hadi government should be given a chance to demonstrate whether it has the capacity to do the job.”
What’s more, Saudi Arabia submitted a competing resolution on Monday excluding any reference to an independent investigation and focusing solely on abuses committed by “Houthi militias against the government.”
Despite its role in the war, the U.S. has yet to weigh in on the debate.
“The United States, which has provided extensive support to the Saudi-led coalition, has been surprisingly discreet on whether a U.N. mission should be dispatched to investigate crimes in Yemen,” said Philippe Bolopion, the U.N. and crisis advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. “This stands in sharp contrast to U.S. support for international inquiries and missions in Syria, North Korea, Libya, Sri Lanka, and Eritrea.”
The Obama administration’s muteness is in keeping with its larger silence about the Saudi-led military campaign, which the U.S. is arming, politically backing, and directly participating in through logistics and intelligence support.
At least 2,100 civilians, including more than 400 children, have been killed—the vast majority by the Saudi alliance, which stands accused of war crimes. The coalition has also fired cluster bombs produced in the United States and launched deadly air strikes on humanitarian aid warehouses, internally displaced persons camps, factories, densely populated residential neighborhoods, schools, shelters, and water infrastructure.
The Saudi government’s efforts to prevent a probe come amid growing concern over the petro-monarchy’s recent appointment to head a UN human rights panel, a development that was welcomed by the U.S. State Department.
The evil empire of Saudi Arabia is the West’s real enemy
Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain: planners to financiers, cadres to foot soldiers, ideologists to cheerleaders.
Iran is seriously mistrusted by Israel and America. North Korea protects its nuclear secrets and is ruled by an erratic, vicious man.Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions alarm democratic nations. The newest peril, Isis, the wild child of Islamists, has shocked the whole world. But top of this list should be Saudi Arabia – degenerate, malignant, pitiless, powerful and as dangerous as any of those listed above.
The state systematically transmits its sick form of Islam across the globe, instigates and funds hatreds, while crushing human freedoms and aspiration. But the West genuflects to its rulers. Last week Saudi Arabia was appointed chair of the UN Human Rights Council, a choice welcomed by Washington. Mark Toner, a spokesperson for the State Department, said: “We talk about human rights concerns with them. As to this leadership role, we hope that it is an occasion for them to look into human rights around the world and also within their own borders.”
The jaw simply drops. Saudi Arabia executes one person every two days. Ali Mohammed al-Nimr is soon to be beheaded then crucified for taking part in pro-democracy protests during the Arab Spring. He was a teenager then. Raif Badawi, a blogger who dared to call for democracy, was sentenced to 10 years and 1,000 lashes. Last week, 769 faithful Muslim believers were killed in Mecca where they had gone on the Hajj. Initially, the rulers said it was “God’s will” and then they blamed the dead. Mecca was once a place of simplicity and spirituality. Today the avaricious Saudis have bulldozed historical sites and turned it into the Las Vegas of Islam – with hotels, skyscrapers and malls to spend, spend, spend. The poor can no longer afford to go there. Numbers should be controlled to ensure safety – but that would be ruinous for profits. Ziauddin Sardar’s poignant book Mecca: The Sacred City, describes the desecration of Islam’s holiest site.
Even more seriously, the pernicious Saudi influence is spreading fast and freely. King Salman has offered to build 200 mosques in Germany for recently arrived refugees, many of whom are Muslims. He offered no money for resettlement or basic needs, but Wahhabi mosques, the Trojan horses of the secret Saudi crusade. Several Islamic schools are also sites of Wahhabism, now a global brand. It makes hearts and minds small and suspicious, turns Muslim against Muslim, and undermines modernists.
The late Laurent Murawiec, a French neocon, wrote this in 2002: “The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadres to foot soldiers, from ideologists to cheerleaders.” Murawiec’s politics were odious, but his observations were spot on. Remember that most of the 9/11 killers were Saudi; so was the al-Qaeda hierarchy.
In the 14 years that have followed 9/11, the Saudis have become more aggressive, more determined to win the culture wars. They pour money into Islamist organisations and operations, promote punishing doctrines that subjugate women and children, and damn liberal values and democracy. They are pursuing a cruel bombing campaign in Yemen that has left thousands of civilians dead and many more in dire straits.
So, what does our ruling establishment do to stop the invisible hand of this Satan? Zilch. The Royal Family, successive governments, parliamentarians, a good number of institutions and people with clout collectively suck up to the Saudi ruling clan. I have not seen any incisive TV investigation of this regime. We know it is up to no good, but evidence is suppressed. Some writers have tried to break this conspiracy of obsequiousness. Craig Unger’s book, House of Bush, House of Saud was published in 2004. It established beyond reasonable doubt that Saudi Arabia was the nerve-centre of international terrorism. And that the Bush family was unduly close to the regime. Many of us believed the revelations were even more explosive than those by the journalists Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, who exposed the lies told by Richard Nixon.
This deadly enemy will not be cowed or stopped by Trident. Our leaders know what is going on. So what do they do? They pick on the small people. The Government’s Prevent programme now imposes a duty on educators to watch out for young “radicals” and nip them in the bud. Older dissenters, too. To date, 4,000 young Muslims have been referred for reprogramming. One was three years old. In May, a young Muslim schoolboy talked about “eco-terrorists” and was taken away to be interrogated about whether he supported Isis. Academics, lawyers, doctors and nurses are also expected to become the nation’s spies. Mohammed Umar Farooq, a student at Staffordshire University, was accused last week of being a terrorist because he was reading a book entitled Terrorism Studies in the library.
In the US, 14-year-old Ahmed Mohamed was arrested because he took a home-made clock to school. (Richard Dawkins, these days a manic tweet preacher, questioned whether the clock was part of a “hoax” designed to get Mohamed arrested, before backtracking.) The West, it seems, is free only for some. And to be a Muslim is a crime.
Extremism is a serious problem. Westernised, liberal Muslims do try to influence feverish, hostile young Muslim minds, but we are largely powerless. Our leaders will not confront Saudi Arabia, the source of Islamist brainwashing and infection. They won’t because of oil and the profits made by arms sales. Political cowards and immoral profiteers are the traitors, the real threat to national security, patriotism and cohesion. How do they answer the charge?
Hajj tragedy caused by Saudi Arabia’s ‘criminal negligence’ – Nigerian Islamic Group
The Muslim Rights Concern, MURIC, has blamed Saudi Arabian authorities for the stampede in Muna on Thursday during Hajj activities.
At least 769 people were killed in the stampede during the devil stoning right performed by Muslims who travelled to Saudi Arabia for the Hajj. Over a dozen Nigerians have been confirmed dead from the stampede with many more yet to be accounted for.
In a statement on Saturday, MURIC whose officials were in Muna during the incident, said the failure of adequate planning for the event was “criminal negligence” and “the Saudi authorities must be held accountable.”
The group, in the statement by its director, Ishaq Akintola, urged “the Nigerian government to support NAHCON’s (Nigerian Hajj agency) stand on this.
“Nigeria must demand compensation from the Saudis for families of the bereaved. We should also task the Saudis to involve the world Muslim Ummah in the planning and implementation of the annual hajj exercise in view of the emerging scenario of complacency on the part of the Saudi authorities.”
Apart from Nigerian officials, Iran has also blamed Saudi authorities for the stampede during which about 130 Iranians were killed.
Read MURIC’s full statement below
SALAH DAY STAMPEDE: SAUDI AUTHORITIES MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
The stampede in Muna on the way to the stoning spots (jamaraat) which occurred on Salah day Thursday 24th September, 2015 claimed about 717 lives among whom about 30 are suspected to be Nigerians.
The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) is deeply saddened by the death of highly qualified Nigerians like Professor Tijani Elmiskin and Bilkisu Yusuf in the stampede. We are devastated and we are in a mourning mood with the bereaved families. In particular, we commiserate with President Muhammadu Buhari, Muhammad Abubakar III, the Sultan of Sokoto and President-General of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs as well as all Nigerian Muslims at this trying moment.
We remind all true believers that Allah allows tragedies in times like these in order to test their faith. “Or do you think Allah will not try you simply because you are believers? Remember that we tested those before you…” (Qur’an 19:1-3).
As part of the team which officiated during this year’s pilgrimage, we affirm that officials of the National Hajj Commission performed their duties as expected of them. The airlift from Nigeria to Saudi Arabia was hitch free and the two tragedies which occurred in Saudi this year can only be blamed on situations beyond NAHCON’s control. The current chairman of NAHCON, Abdullahi Mukhtar, was seen on several occasions getting personally involved in operations and keeping vigil at night to ensure a smooth hajj exercise. He stayed among the pilgrims and officials, rode in the same buses with them and shunned all offers for VIP treatment.
As eyewitnesses of the gory stampede incident, we testify that it was caused by security breakdown on the part of the Saudi authorities. We left Muzdalifah for Muna around 6 am on that fateful day. We branched in the NAHCON camp to drop our personal effects and headed straight to the jamaraat which were less than three kilometres away. To our surprise, the road was blocked by Egyptian pilgrims who had cast their own stones and were returning to their camp. Instead of taking the route designated for returning pilgrims, they stubbornly took the route meant for those who were going. The road became narrow and movement became difficult. The atmosphere became charged and even breathing and visibility were affected. The few policemen who were around desperately threw water at us to save us from collapsing. It became glaring to us at that moment that a monumental stampede was just around the corner.
The Saudi authorities therefore lied when they tried to put the blame squarely on African pilgrims. The stampede would not have occurred at all if Saudi security agents had disallowed pilgrims returning from the jamaraat from taking the same route on their way back. The practice over the years have always been to take a detour but this was not enforced on Thursday. The fact that the road to the same jamaraat became very free and safe yesterday and this morning when Saudi security agents strictly enforced the rules by disallowing returning pilgrims to use the same route as those going proves that our hypothesis is correct.
This is criminal negligence and the Saudi authorities must be held accountable. We urge the Nigerian government to support NAHCON’s stand on this. Nigeria must demand compensation from the Saudis for families of the bereaved. We should also task the Saudis to involve the world Muslim Ummah in the planning and implementation of the annual hajj exercise in view of the emerging scenario of complacency on the part of the Saudi authorities.
In conclusion, MURIC commends NAHCON for insisting that Nigeria should be part of any investigation of the tragedy. We laud the professionalism of the Nigerian officials in the team. We pray that Allah gives the bereaved families the fortitude to bear the losses.
Hillary Clinton Explains Discrepancy in When She Began Using Private Email Server
Hillary Clinton said today that newly released emails dated before she had said her private server was operational were from a "transition period."
There "was about a month" when all of her emails weren't on the server that was later turned over to the State Department because her account needed to be added, she said in an interview on NBC "Meet the Press."
“There was about a month where I didn't have everything already on the server, and we went back, tried to recover whatever we could recover," she said. "I think it's also fair to say that there are some things about this that I just can't control. I can't control the technical aspects of it.
"There was a transition period," she continued. "I wasn't that focused on my email account to be clear here."
The Democratic presidential candidate also said that she been as transparent as possible in releasing her emails.
Newly disclosed emails from Clinton to then-CENTCOM chief David Petraeus show the former secretary of state was using a private server earlier than she had previously said.
The new set of emails, from January to February 2009, was turned over to the State Department by the Department of Defense, said State Department spokesman John Kirby. The story was first reported by The Associated Press.
The State Department said its record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009. Over the nearly two months she was in office before that, Clinton has said she used a Blackberry email account that she can no longer access.
The discovery appears to contradict Clinton's sworn statement that she had turned over all the email from her private server to the State Department.
“I’m not by any means a technical expert,” Clinton said today. “I relied on the people who were and we have done everything we could in response to the State Department asking us to do this review because they asked all the former secretaries.”
It is unclear where Clinton’s email was hosted during the transition period she referenced.
The revelation about the earlier emails came the same day the State Department said it had found previously undisclosed emails related to the Benghazi terror attack on Clinton's private email account.
In February, the Department turned over 296 emails relating to Benghazi to the House Select Committee investigation the attack, claiming at the time they were the only emails relevant to the committee's request.
The discovery Friday of a handful of new emails, first reported by the Daily Beast, contradicted that claim.
A senior State Department official told ABC News on Friday that it missed these emails the first time around because of the cumbersome nature of discovery process. Clinton turned over 55,000 printed pages of documents that had to be search by hand, which prevented researchers from conducting electronic keyword searches, according to this official. The new emails were discovered only after the documents had been scanned and searched on a computer.
Clinton today also brushed off the theory that she used a private email server to make her records inaccessible to FOIA requests and referred to it as “another conspiracy theory."
"It's totally ridiculous,” she said. "That never crossed my mind."
Islamic State Inroads in Afghanistan Concern US
A senior State Department official said Saturday that the U.S. was concerned about the Islamic State group’s efforts to try to establish a stronghold in Afghanistan.
“It is a newly emerging threat,” the official said in a background briefing on Afghanistan. “It is unpredictable as yet how it might evolve. It is something that we are taking seriously.”
The official commented a day after the United Nations released a report that indicated the militant group was gaining influence in the country.
The report, by the U.N. al-Qaida monitoring team, said the number of individuals and groups who openly declared sympathy with or loyalty to IS had continued to grow in Afghanistan.
The report also said Afghan security forces estimated that about 10 percent of Taliban militants were also Islamic State “sympathizers” and that IS had some form of “branding or sympathy” in about two-thirds of the country’s provinces.
The State Department official said the potential IS threat in Afghanistan was something that the U.S. was factoring into how it engaged with the country and supported Afghanistan’s efforts to improve security and stability.
Afghan development
The official commented after U.S., Afghan and Chinese officials led a high-level meeting Saturday on Afghan development and cooperation.
The meeting, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, included Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Secretary of State John Kerry.
Kerry said that while al-Qaida remained a threat in Afghanistan, “the presence of Daesh, ISIL, has brought a new and unprecedented element of risk” into an already “volatile environment.” Daesh and ISIL are acronyms for Islamic State.
Later, in a joint statement, the U.S., China and Afghanistan said meeting participants “reiterated support” for the Afghan-led peace process and its efforts to advance reconciliation with the Taliban.
Appeal to Taliban
When Afghan President Ashraf Ghani took office last year, he called on the Taliban and other insurgent groups to join peace talks and end the bloodshed in the country.
However, efforts to negotiate with the Taliban broke down in July when it was revealed that Mullah Omar, the longtime leader of the group, had died two years ago.
Earlier this week, new Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akthar Mansoor said he would reject peace talks with the government unless it revoked security agreements with the U.S. and NATO and required all foreign forces to withdraw from the country.
NATO’s combat mission in Afghanistan formally ended last year. However, the Afghan government signed agreements with the U.S. and the foreign military coalition for some troops to remain in the country to continue training and advising Afghan forces.
افغان ولسمشر وايي پاکستان له افغانستان سره په نا اعلان شوي جنګ کې ښکېل دی
افغان ولسمشر محمد اشرف غني يو وار بيا ويلي دي چې پاکستان له افغانستان سره په يو نا اعلان شوي جنګ کې ښکېل دی.
ولسمشرغني پرون د ارګ په ماڼۍ کې د یو شمیر ولایتي شوراګانو له استازو سره د لیدلو پر مهال پاکستان ته په اشاره وویل، چې سوله د افغانستان حق دی او د ټينګښت لپاره یې چاته زارۍ نه کوي. نوموړي زیاته کړه :
« موږ د سولې لپاره له پاکستان سره لوی ګامونه واخیستل ، لږ تر لږه څوارلس کاله کیږي چې پاکستان په یو نا اعلام شوي جنګ له افغانستان سره ښکېل دی، موږ دغه جګړه ختمول غواړو. موږ ددې لپاره ننواتې او زارۍ نه کوو ، دا زموږ د ولس حق دی. »
بلخوا څو ورځې وړاندې د پاکستان د ملي امنيت سلاکار ويلي وو چې دوی هڅه کوي د افغان دولت او طالبانو ترمنځ د سولې خبرې بيا پېل شي چې په په نتيجه کې به يې د افغانستان او پاکستان اړيکې ښې شي.
د طالبانو د مشر ملا عمر د مړيني خبر تر راتلو وروسته له طالبانو سره د سولې خبرې وځنډيدې او له دې وروسته په افغانستان او پاکستان کې د ترسره شوو بريدونو تور دواړه هيوادونه پر يو بل لګوي.
http://www.mashaalradio.com/content/article/27273242.html
Stop constant competition with India: Husain Haqqani to Pakistan
"There is anxiety in Pakistan about everything that puts India at the centre on global stage," said former Pakistan's ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani to NDTV, adding that the anxiety will remain "as long as we continue to believe that Pakistan's future lies in constant competition and rivalry with India". His message to Pakistan, "stop competing with India and start focusing on our own welfare".
Should Pakistan join the U.S-led coalition against ISIS?
By Sumbula Ahmad
Not many days have passed since the attack by Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on the PAF base in Badaber, Peshawar and now, the Pakistani government is faced with a decision of whether or not to enter into another brutal war. The U.S is trying to persuade Pakistan to become an ally of the U.S military coalition against the extremist group, Islamic State (IS).
The U.S is tactfully using the Coalition Support Fund as a way to pressurise Pakistan into the alliance. We all know that in the past, foreign aid to Pakistan from the U.S has been cut, this year, the U.S warned aid would be slashed if Pakistan does not do “enough” to target militants. It is clear that the pattern is being repeated again. Details of the alliance are yet to be revealed to the important stakeholders but Pakistan should not become convinced to join this alliance while the threat of terrorism on its soil is yet to be eliminated. Militants are committed to threatening the sovereignty and prosperity of Pakistan and the first priority must be to abolish these threats.
Due to terrorism, Pakistan has had losses in almost every way that many nations cannot begin to comprehend. The losses are enormous with causalities being greater than those in all wars fought against India. For many years now, schools, mosques and innocent civillians in Pakistan have been a target for the extremists. When a country is at war, its objective should nonetheless be to protect itself. It is illogical to accuse Pakistan of not condemning terrorism in other parts of the world due to this. Since Operation Zarb-e-Azb was initiated in June 2014, we have rejoiced in the success of capturing militants but at the same time, we find ourselves mourning the irreplaceable losses of our valiant soldiers.
Every Pakistani shed tears when they heard stories of Captain Isfandyar Bukhari, who was planning to get married in three months and had uploaded his Facebook status last Monday, martyred fighting the terrorists. Pakistan’s capable forces, who deserve nothing but utter praise and admiration, should not be exerted and overstretched – they are our lifelines. The loss of lives of civilians including security personnel is too many and after previous unsuccessful negotiations with extremist groups, Pakistan must ensure its every resource and effort is to root out terrorism from its land. The barbaric attacks from insurgents must come to an end after more than a decade of severe impacts on the economy, security, and political stability of Pakistan. The general public of Pakistan share this view as well as the Chief of Army Staff, Raheel Sharif, who is determined to defeat terrorism in Pakistan first.
It should not be forgotten that before Pakistan joined the U.S to combat global terrorism after the September 11 attacks, suicide bombing as well as other terrorist attacks were practically unheard and unseen of in Pakistan. Afterwards, TTP came into existence, which Pakistan needs to focus on destroying at the moment. Also, the questions rises, is the U.S a reliable ally? The U.S has always used Pakistan as a scapegoat in order to advance its strategic interests in the region. In hindsight, the relationship between the two countries is a mistrusted one and has had negative implications after Pakistan became the first ally in Asia to join the War on Terrorism. The relationship can go from the most allied ally to the most sanctioned ally and eventually, the most bullied U.S ally. The recent drone attack on North Waziristan in early September by the U.S military should be an eye-opener and reminder of the continuous violations of our territory.
Some suggest that Pakistan is threatened by IS (well yes, the whole Muslim Ummah is) and should do something productive. While there are many terrorist organisations that may be linked or have similar objectives, Pakistan is aiming to destroy them all – but on its land first. Operation Zarb-e-Azb is expected to cost $1.9 billion and let us not forget the internally displaced persons (IDPs) need to be attended to as well. So before the international community points fingers at Pakistan, they should grasp the valuable contributions that we are making as well as our incomprehensible sacrifices. But of course, it is a challenge to understand these realities if you are not the one facing the grave dangers of terrorism on a daily basis. Our people are not safe and there have been serious economic repercussions since the Taliban began to attack us. It does not make sense to indulge in another war at present.
In the coming days, the stakeholders must evaluate the cost-benefits of an U.S alliance, make a decision that reflects Pakistan’s national interests and hopefully, react the way it did on the Saudi-Yemen conflict. We are an independent nation and should focus on primarily stabilising our country before we start to bite off more than we can chew.
Afghanistan - Blood donated on Dr. Najib death anniversary
A number of people on Sunday donated blood for wounded Afghan soldiers on the occasion of the 18th death anniversary of former president Dr. Najibullah in Kabul.
Najibullah was born in 1947 in the Ahmadzai sub-tribe of Ghilzai. Born in Kabul, his ancestral village was located between the towns of Syed Karam and Gardez districts in Paktia.
Once the then Afghan spy service (KHAD) chief, Najibullah was elected as president of the Soviet-backed government in 1986, replacing Babrak Karmal. When the Taliban captured Kabul 15 years later, Najibullah sought refuge at the UN office, but was killed along with his brother.
The Taliban fighters hanged the bodies of Najibullah and his brother Shahpur Ahmadzai at the Ariana Square. Najibullah, who was president for five years, spent four and a half years at the UN office.
One of Najib government’s former generals, Abdul Wahid Taqat, told a ceremony marking his death anniversary: “A martyr should be remembered the way it does not create problems for others.”
A member of the Hezb-i-Watan party, Taqat said his party had decided to give bloods for the wounded Afghan soldiers on the occasion of Najib’s death anniversary.
He said Najibullah had been seeking peace and stability in Afghanistan, but he was killed by regional enemies of the Afghans.
A participant of the blood donation campaign, Ilyas Rahmani, said the drive was good for the soul of Najibullah because the former president loved his forces.
Hafizullah, donor, said Najibullah was killed under an international conspiracy and the international community should respond. A large number of people donated blood measuring up to 300CC for the wounded soldiers.
http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2015/03/10/blood-donated-dr-najib-death-anniversary
Pakistan - Death anniversary of Dr Najeebullah observed
Awami National Party (ANP) leader Senator Afrasiab Khattak Friday said that Pakistan was fast slipping into the hands of militants who were gaining ground with each passing day and the writ of the government was becoming weaker.
“If the rulers didn’t take proper steps and evolve a proper strategy, the cities will soon fall to militants,” he said told a gathering at the ANP’s Bacha Khan Markaz. The meeting was organised in connection with the 17th death anniversary of Dr Najeebullah, late president of Afghanistan who was killed by Taliban soon after capturing Kabul on September 27, 1996.
The followers and admirers of Dr Najeebullah across the Durand Line regularly observe his death anniversary to pay him homage. Afrasiab Khattak warned the forces who once again want to allow militants to take over Afghanistan that any such move would create Yugoslavia-like chaos in the entire region.
He stressed that the neighbouring countries should not interfere in Afghanistan’s affairs and instead allow the Afghans to decide their destiny. Afrasiab Khattak said, “Dr Najeeb was a dynamic, intelligent, energetic and courageous person who stood for the unity of Afghan nation and never compromised on interests of his country.”
The ANP leader said Dr Najeeb was the architect of reconciliatory politics in Afghanistan. “He started negotiations with all the stakeholders. Had he been allowed to succeed in his endeavours, Afghanistan would have been a cohesive, democratic and peaceful country with no signs of terrorism,” he opined.
Bashir Khan Matta, provincial organising secretary of the party, said that Dr Najeeb was beacon of light for those who believe in peace, progress and prosperity of Afghans. He added that the Afghan leader envisioned a free, democratic and developed Afghanistan for which he negotiated with all stakeholders including his bitter rivals.
Former provincial minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said that Dr Najeeb was a popular Afghan leader whose bravery and love for his land could be gauged from the fact that despite offers from different quarters to take him out of the country he refused and said that he would rather die on Afghan soil than to live abroad.
He said that Dr Najib was killed in a very humiliating and brutal manner and the Pakhtuns could not forget it and will keep on the struggle against those anti-humanist forces. “Today, we are facing the same enemy that killed Dr Najib and we pledge that the party will continue its efforts till elimination of such evil forces,” he stressed.
ANP leaders and workers, members of Malagary Doctaran, Malgaray Wakeelan, Pukhtun Students Federation and National Youth Organisation were present on the occasion. Dr Saeedur-Rahman, president of Malgaray Doctaran also spoke on the occasion and lauded the sacrifices of Dr Najib.
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-7-204913-Death-anniversary-of-Dr-Najeebullah-observed