Saturday, May 26, 2018
Dodging UN And US Designations: Hafez Saeed Maintains Utility For Pakistan And China -Analysis
A recent upsurge in insurgent activity in Kashmir likely explains Pakistani and Chinese reluctance to crackdown on internationally designated militant Hafez Saeed and the network of groups that he heads.
So does the fact that Mr. Saeed and Lashkar-e-Taiba, an outlawed, India-focused ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim group widely seen as one of South Asia’s deadliest, have assisted Pakistani intelligence and the military in countering militants like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban, that have turned against Pakistan itself.
Lashkar-e-Taiba has also been useful in opposing nationalist insurgents in Balochistan, a key node in China’s Belt and Road initiative. The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a $50 billion plus China investment in Pakistani infrastructure and energy, is the initiative’s single largest cost post with the Baloch port of Gwadar as its crown jewel.
The United States has put a $10 million bounty on the head of Mr. Saeed, who is believed to lead Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) as well as Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an alleged LeT front, and is suspected of being the mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which 166 people were killed.
Lashkar-e-Taiba is “not only useful, but also reliable. (Its)…objectives may not perfectly align with the security establishment’s objectives, but they certainly overlap,” says international security scholar Stephen Tankel.
The links between Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani security establishment are reflected in the fact that the group has recruited in some of the same areas as the military and that some former military officers have joined the group.
The relationship is reinforced by a fear in parts of Pakistan’s security establishment that the group’s popularity, rooted partly in social services provided by its charity arm, would enable it to wage a violent campaign against the state if the military and intelligence were to cut it loose.
So far, Pakistan with tacit Chinese backing appear to see mileage in the group’s existence as a pinprick in India’s side even if creating the perception of greater distance to the security establishment has become a more urgent necessity because of international pressure.
One way of doing so, is the apparent backing of Pakistani intelligence and the military of Mr. Saeed’s efforts to enter the political mainstream by securing registration of a political party in advance of elections expected in July. Pakistan’s election commission has so far held back on the application.
Speaking to the Indian Express, Major General Asif Ghafoor, a spokesman for Pakistan’s intelligence service, Inter-Services Intelligence, said that “anything (Mr. Saeed) does, other than violence, is good. There is a process in Pakistan for anyone to participate in politics. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) has its rules and laws. If he (Mr. Saeed) fulfils all those requirements that is for the ECP to decide.”
Indian officials are not so sure. In a world in which demarcations between various militant groups are blurred, Indian intelligence expects a spike in attack in Kashmir this summer as a result of Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives joining groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM).
Twenty-two security personnel and six civilians were either killed or injured in seven attacks in Kashmir in the first five weeks of this year. India said Lashkar-e-Taiba was responsible for an attack in March on soldiers and policemen in which three Army personnel, two policemen, and five militants were killed. Another 20 were killed in clashes in April between Lashkar-e-Taiba and security forces.
Lashkar-e-Taiba’s utility notwithstanding, Pakistan and China are discovering that engagement with militants is never clean cut. Decades of Pakistani support of often Saudi-backed ultra-conservative Sunni Muslim militants has woven militancy into the fabric of militancy into segments of the military, intelligence, bureaucracy and the public.
“A military–mullah–militant nexus has existed for several decades in Pakistan. During this time, the Pakistani military has used religious and political parties connected, directly or indirectly, to various militant outfits as political proxies,” Mr. Tankel said.
National security expert S. Paul Kapur and political scientist Sumit Ganguly noted that “the Pakistan-militant nexus is as old as the Pakistani state. From its founding in 1947 to the present day, Pakistan has used religiously motivated militant forces as strategic tools… Supporting jihad has been one of the principal means by which the Pakistani state has sought to produce security for itself.”
Decades later, the strategy is backfiring. Concern of increased domestic violence if Pakistan were to cut its links to militants and crackdown on them irrespective of their utility is heightened by the fact many of the groups operate either with no regard for the concerns of the security establishment or with the unsanctioned support of individual military and intelligence officials.
That is believed to have been the case in a string of sectarian attacks in Balochistan by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), ultra-conservative, anti-Shiite Sunni Muslim militants, in which hundreds of Shiites have been killed. China has also been a target of militants in Balochistan.
The spike in sectarian attacks prompted a military crackdown earlier this month. “While such intelligence-based operations are vital, they deal with the symptoms rather than the disease,” cautioned Dawn newspaper.
Speaking in September last year in New York when he was still foreign minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif acknowledged that Mr. Saeed and other Pakistani-backed militants have become liabilities. But even so, Mr. Asif appeared to be looking for wiggle room.
“I accept that they are liabilities but give us time to get rid of them because we don’t have the assets to match these liabilities,” Mr. Asif said.
#Pakistan - Lack of medical facilities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa puts lives of newborns at risk
Zeenat Khan
According to doctors practising in Peshawar, the provision of proper medical care to newborn babies has become progressively difficult due to a shortage of medical facilities, staff, and beds.
Lady Reading Hospital (LRH), the largest government hospital in the province, only has 38 beds and 25 incubators in its nursery wards. The average number of patients admitted to the ward every day is 60.
The hospital staff says the nursery section was equipped in accordance with the LRH's gynaecology ward's requirements. However, due to the growing number of referrals, the number of patients admitted is now higher than the ward's capacity.
Since most of the patients brought are in critical condition and cannot be turned away, the staff has to accommodate three to five babies on one bed, a doctor explained.
The situation at the Khyber Teaching Hospital's nursery ward is worse. The hospital only has 35 beds and 11 incubators, while the average number of newborn babies hospitalised every day is 60 to 65. In addition, the hospital also lacks trained staff, which increases the risks to infants' lives.
"The nursery ward is extremely overburdened due to the high number of referral cases," Doctor Hamid Bangash of the Khyber Teaching Hospital told DawnNewsTV.
"As the number of patients is double the number of beds in the ward, there is no choice but to accommodate two to three patients on one bed."
He admitted that the practice is against the standards set by the World Health Organisation, according to which there should be a separate bed and incubator for each newborn in order to prevent the transmission of viruses and infectious diseases.
"But there is no other way to deal with the inflow of patients," he explained.
He also cited management issues faced by the staff in dealing with a huge number of patients.
A paediatrician said that due to the inflow of patients, doctors often have to discharge old patients who have not yet fully recovered in order to accommodate the new ones who are often brought in in critical condition.
They do tell the parents of the newborns being discharged to bring them back in case of an emergency however, he said.
Hayatabad Medical Complex faces more or less the same challenges. At least 40 infants are admitted to the hospital on a daily basis, while the nursery ward only has 30 beds and 11 incubators.
The hospital staff says they often have to shift occupants from the nursery ward to the paediatric ward when the number of patients is high.
The huge number of referral babies increases the burden on the staff and the ward as well.
Private hospitals and inaccessibility
Though there are two to three nurseries in private hospitals in Peshawar, they charge Rs7,000 a day which puts them out of reach for many patients.
The treatment costs are also significantly higher, due to which middle-class and lower-middle-class families are unable to afford them.
Accessibility to medical care is another reason which makes KP a risky province to be born in. There are only four functioning infant and neonatal nursery units in the province, three of which are in Peshawar and one in Abbottabad.
In the rest of the province, there are no proper healthcare units for infants. People from all over the province, as well as Fata, have to bring their children to Peshawar for medical treatment, further increasing the burden on already overcrowded hospitals.
Doctors blame the government for failing to take appropriate measures to ensure that proper medical care for infants is accessible throughout the province.
They say there is an urgent need to build healthcare units in remote districts of the province so that residents are able to get access medical care in their area.
Additional Director General Health, Tahir Bashir, however, maintains that the outgoing government has already bought the necessary equipment and the results will be visible in coming years.
Speaking to Dawn, he said that the government had also hired more medical staff. He further mentioned that the government was also working on new trends of specialised treatment and soon those would be implemented in the hospitals.
ایسی کتاب کوئی سیاستدان لکھتا تو غدار کے فتوے لگتے، رضا ربانی
سابق چیئرمین سینیٹ اور پاکستان پیپلز پارٹی کے رہنما میاں
شہری یا پاکستانی سیا ستد ا ن نے اپنے بھارتی ہم منصب کے ساتھ مل کر لکھی ہوتی تو آسمان سر پر اُٹھا لیا جاتا، کتاب لکھنے والے سیاستدان پر نہ صرف غداری کے فتوے لگ رہے ہوتے بلکہ اس کے خلاف پورے ملک میں احتجاج کا نہ رکنے والا سلسلہ بھی شروع ہو جاتا، رضاربانی نے کہا کہ حیرت کی بات ہے کہ ایک طرف انڈیا اور پاکستان کے تعلقات خراب ترین سطح پر ہیں جبکہ دوسری طرف ایک ایسی کتاب کی رونمائی ہو رہی ہے جو دونوں ممالک کی خفیہ ایجنسیوں کے سابق سربراہوں نے لکھی ہے، میاں رضاربانی نے سوال اُٹھایا کہ کیا لیفٹیننٹ جنرل ریٹائرڈ اسد درانی نے اپنے ادارے یا وفاقی حکومت سے اس بات کی اجازت لی تھی کہ وہ اپنے انڈین ہم منصب کے ساتھ مل کر کتاب لکھ رہے ہیں؟رضا ربانی کا کہنا تھا کہ اگر آئی ایس آئی کے سابق سربراہ نے اجازت لینا ضروری نہیں سمجھا تو کیا اُنھوں نے اس کتاب کے بارے میں وفاقی حکومت یا وزارت دفاع کو آگاہ کیا تھا؟ انہوں نے کہا یہ کوئی آسان معاملہ نہیں ہے کیونکہ دونوں ملکوں کے درمیان خراب تعلقات کی ایک تاریخ ہے، بھارت لائن آف کنٹرول پر آئے روز خلاف ورزیاں کر رہا ہے جس میں مسلح افواج کے علاوہ سویلیں شہری نشانہ بن رہے ہیں، مقبوضہ کشمیر میں انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزیاں ہورہی ہیں، جس پر چیئرمین سینیٹ صادق سنجرانی نے وزیر قانون محمود بشیر ورک سے اس پر جواب کیلئے کہا تو وزیر قانون نے کہا کہ اُنھیں اس کتاب کی اشاعت کے بارے میں حکومت سے اجازت لینے کے بارے میں علم نہیں ہے۔ وزیر دفاع اس پر جواب دیں جس پر چیئرمین سینٹ نے وزیر دفاع سے جواب طلب کر لیا ہے۔ سینیٹر مشتاق نے نکتہ اعتراض پر کہا کہ امریکی کرنل جوزف بارے میں کہا گیا تھا کہ اسے یہاں سے جانے نہیں دیا جائے گا لیکن وہ پھر بھی پروٹوکول کے ساتھ امریکا جاچکا ہے، شکیل آفریدی کے بارے میں بھی بتایا جائے کہ وہ کہاں ہے کیونکہ جنر ل اسد درانی اور بھارتی خفیہ ایجنسی کی کتاب سپائی کرائنکلز میں لکھا گیا ہے کہ جس شخص نے شکیل آفریدی کی امریکا کے لیے جاسوسی کی تھی اسے بھی بحفاظت امریکا پہنچا دیاگیا ہے، ہمیں ان معاملات کا کتاب کے ذریعے علم ہوتا ہے اور ایوان کو بے خبر رکھا جاتا ہے، ایوان کو آگاہ کیا جائے جس پر چیئرمین سینٹ نے وزیرداخلہ سے ایوان میں جواب طلب کر لیا۔ علاوہ ازیں سینیٹر ڈاکٹر جہانزیب جمالدینی نے کہا کہ بلوچستان کے ضلعی چاغی میں صرف چھ گھنٹے بجلی آتی ہے اور میرے حلقےمیں 12گھنٹے بجلی آرہی ہے جس پر کیسکو سے جواب طلب کر لیا گیا۔ سینیٹر رحمن ملک نے کہا کہ امریکا میں پاکستانی طالبہ سبیکا کو شہید کر دیا گیا، پاکستان کی بیٹی کو امریکی دہشت گرد نے شہید کیا، پاکستان ہمیشہ دہشت گردی کے خلاف رہا، ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ نے ہمیشہ دہشت گردی کو اسلام کے ساتھ جوڑا، دہشت گردی کا کوئی مذہب نہیں ہوتا، سبیکا کو ایوارڈ دیا جائے جس پر چیئرمین سینیٹ نے رپورٹ طلب کر لی۔ سینیٹر بہرہ مند خان نے کہا کہ پاکستان سے مختلف گروپس عمرے اور حج کے بہانے لوگوں کو سعودی عرب لے جاتے ہیں اور وہ بھیک مانگتے ہیں جس سے نہ صرف پاکستان کی بدنامی ہوتی ہے۔ اپوزیشن لیڈر سینیٹر شیری رحمن نے کشن گنگا ڈیم کی تعمیر سے پاکستان کا پانی روکنے کے معاملے پر کہا کہ بھارت سندھ طاس معاہدے کی خلاف ورزی کر رہا ہے، دریائے نیلم پر کشن گنگا ڈیم تعمیر کیا گیا جبکہ اس سے پہلے بگلہار ڈیم تعمیر کیا گیا اور پاکستان کو پانی روک لیا، کشن گنگا ڈیم پر پاکستان نے اپنے تحفظات کا اظہار کیا اور چار رکنی وفد واشنگٹن بھیجا گیا ہے، یہ معاملہ بہت اہم ہے اور بتایا جائے کہ پاکستان اس معاملے کو عالمی بنک اور دیگر عالمی اداروں کے سامنے کس طرح پیش کررہا ہے جس پر چیئرمین سینیٹ نے وزارت خارجہ سے رپورٹ طلب کر لی۔
https://jang.com.pk/news/498136#_
Zardari announces to contest election from Nawabshah
Former President and Co-Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party Asif Ali Zardari on Saturday announced to contest for a National Assembly seat in the upcoming polls from Nawabshah.
The party chief made the announcement in an Iftar reception at Karachi. While speaking to the participants, Zardari predicted that no party will hold the majority in the next assembly.
Zardari has been elected as MNA from Karachi's area of Lyari in 1990, and from Nawabshah in 1993.
On Jan 12, while speaking to the party workers, the party chairman at Nawabshah told the workers that he would contest from their city, he told them to expedite the election campaign.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/196979-zardari-announces-to-contest-election-from-nawabshah
North Korea Wants to End up Like Pakistan, Not Libya
DOMINIC TIERNEY
When Donald Trump canceled his planned summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—before hinting that it might happen anyway after all as the South Koreans moved into damage-control mode on Saturday—it followed days of discussion over a historical parallel: Libya. U.S. National-Security Adviser John Bolton said the basis for a deal with North Korea was the “Libya model” from 2003 to 2004, when Muammar Qaddafi essentially handed over his entire nuclear program to the United States. For North Korea, however, this allusion to Libya looked “awfully sinister” because, in 2011, less than a decade after Libya appeased the West, the United States and its allies joined with local rebels to topple Qaddafi’s regime.
For Pyongyang, Libya is not the only warning from history about the perils of disarmament. In 2003, Iraq claimed to have abandoned its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and even allowed inspectors back into the country, but nevertheless endured a U.S. invasion and regime change. In 2015, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but in 2018 Trump tore up the deal.
So are there any models of “rogue” regimes with nuclear programs that might appeal to North Korea? The answer is yes. But, unfortunately, it’s a state that kept its nuclear deterrent intact: Pakistan. If Pyongyang is weighing up two possible futures—Libya vs. Pakistan—it’s not much of a choice.
Pakistan began to seriously pursue nuclear weapons in the 1970s, motivated by a desire to deter its more powerful rival India, as well as match India’s nuclear capability. The Pakistani politician Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who later became prime minister, claimed, “If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves—even go hungry—but we will get one of our own.” In 1998, on a clear and bright day in the Chagai district, Pakistan carried out a series of nuclear tests. Pakistan’s chief scientific officer said “All praise be to Allah” and pushed the button, causing the mountain to shake in a vast explosion.
In 2016, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimated that Pakistan had 130 to 140 warheads and predicted that it would nearly double its arsenal by 2025. Islamabad could deliver nuclear weapons by medium-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, F-16 fighters, and tactical systems for short-range use on the battlefield.
We can be confident that North Korea is paying close attention to Islamabad’s experience. After all, the two countries share important similarities. They both face an enduring rivalry with a far more powerful democratic state that used to be part of the same country (India and South Korea). Furthermore, both North Korea and Pakistan have, at times, flouted international norms. In 2003, North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan never signed the treaty. For decades, North Korea and Pakistan have been informal allies, trading conventional weapons and supporting Iran in the Iran-Iraq War.
Another reason that Pyongyang is certain to consider the Pakistan model is that the two states have cooperated on nuclear development. In 2006, the Congressional Research Service reported that Pyongyang gave missile technology to Islamabad, and Pakistan transferred nuclear technology to North Korea, through the network of the Pakistani nuclear engineer Abdul Qadeer Khan. During the 1990s, when North Korea suffered a famine that killed perhaps 500,000 people, and North Koreans literally ate grass and leaves, Pyongyang continued to prioritize military development and received key data from Pakistan on uranium enrichment. Pakistan is even suspected of having carried out a nuclear test for North Korea.
From North Korea’s perspective, the Pakistan model must look compelling. First of all, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons have successfully deterred India. The 1960s and 1970s were a time of humiliating military defeats for Pakistan, including the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, when Pakistan lost 56,000 square miles of territory, which became the new state of Bangladesh. Nuclear weapons have essentially removed the possibility of a large-scale Indian invasion. In 1987, President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq told his Indian counterpart, “If your forces cross our borders by an inch, we are going to annihilate your cities.” In 1999, Pakistani troops crossed into Indian-controlled Kashmir, triggering the Kargil Crisis and military hostilities. Crucially, India avoided escalation, kept the war limited, and declined to enter Pakistani territory. One study concluded “the principal source of Indian restraint was Pakistan’s overt possession of a nuclear arsenal.”
In addition, Pakistan’s nuclear capability led the West to handle the country with kid gloves. The United States provided millions of dollars of material assistance to guard Pakistan’s nuclear stockpile, including helicopters and nuclear detection equipment. Pakistan’s nuclear capability is also one reason why Washington continued to provide billions of dollars in military and economic aid, even though Islamabad supported the Taliban insurgency that battled U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Pakistan gained prestige as the only Muslim-majority country with nuclear weapons. The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the nuclear program as “Pakistan’s finest hour.” The nuclear program is also domestically popular. The nuclear tests in 1998 that shook mountains led to jubilant street celebrations. Of course, all of this came at a cost. The money poured into Pakistan’s nuclear program could have been spent on health or education. The nuclear tests in 1998 were condemned around the world. After refusing to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Pakistan faces restrictions on importing civilian nuclear technology. Nuclear weapons may deter India, but they also risk accidents and even escalation to nuclear war.
But for North Korea, the balance sheet still favors the Pakistan model: a poor country that ate grass to build a nuclear deterrent, seeks to be accepted as a recognized nuclear power, supports denuclearization in principle but only as part of a broader international disarmament effort (that will likely never happen), successfully deters a more powerful rival, and gains domestic prestige and international status. Saddam and Qaddafi made their choices, and they’re both dead. North Korea wants to follow a different path. Why not become the Pakistan of East Asia?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)