Music Video - Lewis Capaldi - Someone You Loved

Video - #Colbert #ALateShow #Monologue A Very Unusual Friday And A Very Unexpected Friday Late Show

#WearADamnMask - What Happens If Trump Is ‘Unable’ to Govern

By Cass R. Sunstein 

 A crash course in the 25th Amendment, from someone who was in the Justice Department when Reagan was shot.

Now that President Donald Trump has tested positive for Covid-19, the Department of Justice is almost certainly focusing on the 25th Amendment, which provides for the transfer of presidential authority to the vice president.

No one who works for a sitting president wants to think about that amendment. But in any administration, worst-case scenarios get attention, and if the president is sick, the lawyers and the vice president have to be clear on what the 25th Amendment says and requires.

The good news is that for most imaginable health outcomes associated with the virus, it is entirely clear. The less good news is that for some imaginable health outcomes, especially those associated with Covid-19, the 25th Amendment is ambiguous.

It offers two different routes by which the transfer of power can occur. Section 3 says this:

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4 says this:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Under section 3, the president voluntarily transfers power to the vice president. Under section 4, the decision is made by the president’s own team – by majority vote.

Section 4 also allows a role for Congress. If power has been transferred to the vice president, the president can produce a written declaration that he is well and can become president again – unless the vice president and a majority disagree. In the (unlikely) event of disagreement, Congress resolves the issue, with the president prevailing unless both houses vote, by a two-thirds margin, that he cannot discharge the powers and duties of his office.

In 1981, I was a young lawyer in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice, and I saw the operation of these provisions in real time. My boss, Theodore Olson, had asked me, very early in Ronald Reagan’s presidency, to become the resident expert on the 25th Amendment.

I thought it was a hypothetical exercise (and pretty pointless). But when John Hinckley shot Reagan, Olson quietly called me aside and told me that the president was in worse shape than the press was reporting. He told me to write two declarations, transferring power to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Both were sent over to the White House.

Fortunately, Reagan recovered well, and no one needed to invoke the 25th Amendment.

For that reason, we didn’t need to focus on a crucial unresolved question: the meaning of “unable,” which is the amendment’s most important word.

As everyone knows, people who test positive for Covid-19 have a continuum of symptoms. These can include essentially nothing; mild flu-like systems; serious but not life-threatening unpleasantness for a week or two; heart problems; severe respiratory problems requiring hospitalization; and worse.

That means that for 25th Amendment purposes, the Department of Justice’s analysis is mostly straightforward. The purpose of the amendment is to handle just one problem: incapacitation.

If the president has mild flu-like symptoms, or anything in that vicinity, the 25th Amendment should not and cannot be invoked. If the president is essentially flat on his back and unable to do his job (realistically speaking), the 25th Amendment must be invoked. That is not discretionary. If he is capable of doing so, he himself must sign the declaration required by section 3; if he cannot, the vice president and the cabinet must proceed under section 4.

Unfortunately, we can also imagine hard cases. The course of Covid-19 is unpredictable, and for some of its symptoms, people can reasonably disagree about whether it renders its victims “unable” to do their jobs. Symptoms that involve extreme fatigue, headaches and cognition could present borderline cases. It’s highly unlikely, but we cannot rule out a situation in which the president refuses to sign a declaration under section 3 but in which the vice president and the cabinet are compelled to proceed under section 4.

For anyone who gets Covid-19, including the president, there is a good chance that the disease will not prove incapacitating. If so, we will have no need to worry about the 25th Amendment. But it’s essential to understand what it makes clear, and what it leaves open.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-02/what-happens-if-trump-is-unable-to-govern?sref=2o0rZsF1&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_content=view&__twitter_impression=true&__twitter_impression=true

#WearADamnMask - The president’s personal agony is also a moment of deep national reckoning

Geoffrey Kabaservice

Before he went into hospital, we saw Donald Trump as seldom seen – sombre, scared. The country he leads is facing its own demons

Impending death, as the saying goes, has a way of focusing the mind. There’s no reason to believe President Trump faces imminent death as a result of his recently testing positive for the coronavirus.

But the brief video he released before he went into hospital showed a Trump we’ve rarely seen before: sombre, scared and, perhaps for the first time, truly shaken by the pandemic’s threat to both the nation and himself. It’s conceivable that this momentous new development in the US presidential race, just a month from election day, could restore a seriousness to our politics that it has lacked for quite a while.

Exhibit A in the unseriousness of American political life has, of course, been our tragically inept response to the pandemic. Not all of the blame can be pinned on the Trump administration. The coronavirus has demonstrated a widespread breakdown in national competence that has become increasingly evident since the end of the cold war, which likely will receive further confirmation when we prove ourselves incapable of conducting a successful election next month.

Trump’s opponents have some justification for considering his contracting the coronavirus to be karmic retribution But Trump’s distinctive contribution to our cack-handed response to this pandemic has been to politicise the public health measures to combat it. His irresponsible pursuit of partisan advantage over the national interest led him to downplay the threat of the virus, to demand a premature return to business as usual, to ignore social distancing at his public rallies and to mock wearing a mask as somehow weak and un-American.

Trump’s opponents have some justification for considering his contracting the coronavirus to be a kind of karmic retribution. Bu fortunately, most prominent Democrats and Never Trumpers understand that the presidency as an institution, as opposed to any particular individual who occupies the White House, is too important to the nation’s security and wellbeing to be completely a matter of partisan politics.

Most have also refrained from publicly indulging in the kind of schadenfreude that will only deepen our tribal divisions. Joe Biden hit exactly the right note with his message wishing the first couple a speedy recovery and his campaign’s suspension of negative advertising.

It’s distantly possible that Trump, after what I pray will be his complete recovery, might return to campaigning with a new maturity brought on by being forced to confront his mortality. He might issue a bipartisan call for mask-wearing and social distancing and for taking the pandemic out of politics.

No one seriously expects this of Trump, however, even though such a course would be the most likely to give him a rally-around-the flag bump in popularity. As Biden observed in the last debate, Trump is who he is.

It’s far more likely that Trump will boast that his recovery is a tribute to his personal strength and shows that the coronavirus is, as he has said on many occasions, not much worse than the flu. And, given that his admission to hospital will take him off the campaign trail at the very moment when he most needs to narrow his polling gap with Biden, the likelihood of his defeat will increase his desperation. That in turn makes it likelier that he will try to sabotage the legitimacy of the election.

But if the virus can’t change Trump, perhaps it can have a sobering effect on a critical mass of Americans who, for too long, have regarded politics merely as cheap entertainment and the venue for the expression of culture war grievances. Just as Trump has not been a saviour for his supporters, removing him from office will do little in itself to arrest the reality of American decline.

Vladimir Putin has claimed that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” but hindsight may show America’s victory in the cold war as the prelude to a greater tragedy. The end of the cold war at least deprived the US of the desire to live up to its image as the leader of the free world and the national unity needed to pursue that end.

Perhaps it will have a sobering effect on a critical mass of Americans who have regarded politics as cheap entertainment There was a time when it would have been a matter of deep and widely shared national embarrassment that the US, which makes up 4% of the world’s population, should account for 20% of all Covid-19 deaths. There was a time when the country that saw itself as the beacon of global democracy would have undertaken the kind of reforms needed to conduct a national election during a pandemic.

The lukewarm enthusiasm of most of Biden’s supporters, in sharp contrast to their passionate determination to oust Trump, is an indication of political maturity. The fact that few of them expect Biden to be a saviour indicates a wider understanding that the responsibility for reversing our national decline rests with the American people. Some of this same understanding has glimmered, however faintly, with those of Trump’s supporters who have been forced by his illness to think about the possibility of his defeat or even his incapacitation or death.

Just as the pandemic has touched every part of the country, the problems driving our national decline extend to both red and blue America. The solutions will have to come from the same kind of national mobilisation, skill at practical problem-solving and facility for governance and political compromise that allowed the country to win a world war, put a man on the moon and extend the benefits of peace and prosperity to much of the globe.

P

erhaps Trump’s illness will, in hindsight, be seen to have provided a much-needed national wake-up call.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/03/the-presidents-personal-agony-is-also-a-moment-of-deep-national-reckoning

#WearAMask #WearAMaskSaveALife - Trump’s Diagnosis Is a Wake-Up Call for Americans Forget the snark. Just wear a mask.

 By Nicholas Kristof

The first thing to say is simple: Best wishes to President Trump and the first lady for a speedy recovery from Covid-19.

After the announcement that they had tested positive for the coronavirus, I tweeted that I hope we can all remain civil, avoid snark, seek lessons and wish the Trumps a swift recovery. The result was an outpouring of gloating and snark — one person responded that “my thoughts and prayers go out to the virus.”

Let’s think about that. One of my objections to Trump has been the way he has eroded norms that underpin this country — like accepting election outcomes, respecting science and acting in a respectful way to opponents. If we decry such behavior and hope that the election can begin a period of national healing and recovery, then don’t we uphold norms best by modeling them?

A second point is also straightforward: Let’s learn from the president’s infection. Let’s make this a wake-up call that leads to mask-wearing and social distancing, saving lives.

The United States has lost 208,000 people to the pandemic in part because we as a country didn’t take the virus seriously. We’re seeing a rise in new infections, which now exceed 40,000 a day, roughly twice the level of early June, and many epidemiologists warn that it will most likely get worse. One reason for the uptick in numbers is increased testing, but another is simply that people in the United States and all over the world are suffering pandemic fatigue.

We’re sick of isolation. We crave human contact. We want hugs. We are social animals, and the virus exploits that instinct.

I’m now in Oregon, and I sense that we are all becoming more lax, particularly in parts of the country where the virus never hit hard and people didn’t lose friends or see refrigerator trucks parked outside hospitals. That laxity is lethal.

The Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation predicts that 363,000 Americans will have died of Covid-19 by Jan. 1. That would amount to more Americans dying in nine months from the virus than the total number of combat deaths over four years in World War II.

Yet the institute’s model also suggests that if 95 percent of Americans just wore masks (the level in Singapore), then nearly 100,000 lives could be saved between now and the end of the year.

Think about that. As a country, we’re still seared by the nearly 3,000 deaths in the 9/11 attacks. But the institute’s model warns that by the end of December, we’ll be losing that many each day.

Larry Brilliant, an epidemiologist who early in his career helped eradicate smallpox, argues that we can crush this virus as well. We’ve seen the toolbox that other countries employed to do so: universal mask use, social distancing, testing, contact tracing and so on.

We as a country have the tools and we have the resources; what we lack is the will. Dan Patrick, the lieutenant governor of Texas, suggested that he and other grandparents would prefer to die rather than take measures against the virus that would disrupt the economy. Uncovered protesters rampage through stores without masks, shouting “Take off your mask,” “It’s all a lie,” and “Take it off.” Store and restaurant employees have been shot by customers angered at requests that they wear masks.

Mask-wearing lags in the United States compared with some other countries, particularly among men. A poll suggests that many American men see mask-wearing as wimpish, “a sign of weakness.” Likewise, some Americans seem to believe that avoiding masks is a measure of freedom.

No, it’s a measure of decency, altruism and responsible behavior. But note that one should avoid masks with valves (which are less protective of other people) and use the mask to cover one’s nose as well as one’s mouth. And it’s profoundly unhelpful to remove one’s mask when speaking.

Strangely, many of those who denounce masks are also those who claim to believe in “personal responsibility” yet don’t understand that going without a mask is just like driving while drunk.

Sure, most of the time when you go without a mask, you won’t infect anybody, just as most of the time if you drive while tipsy, you won’t crash your car. Every day some 300,000 people drive while intoxicated, and they kill about 10,000 people a year — which pales beside the 100,000 who the modelers believe will die in the next three months because of reckless Americans who won’t wear masks.

Drunken driving, like mask avoidance, is largely male; three times as many men as women are arrested on charges of driving drunk. But we have been able to change norms and stigmatize drunken driving, while also nurturing new norms even about tasks that people find yucky, such as picking up dog poop. Perhaps the shock of Trump’s infection gives the United States an opportunity to build a new national norm about wearing masks.

It’s extraordinary that mask-wearing is even controversial, considering that masks were used more than 100 years ago to mitigate the influenza pandemic of 1918 (although there was resistance then, too). A review of 172 studies in The Lancet found that face masks significantly reduce virus transmission, and one recent study estimated that state mask mandates (covering about half the American population) might have averted 230,000 coronavirus infections.In one study published this year, researchers placed hamsters with the coronavirus in cages next to those without the virus. When surgical masks were placed between the cages, infections fell by more than half.Asia’s success in combating the virus — in Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Vietnam and Thailand — appears to be a result in part of people’s willingness to wear masks. Crowded Hong Kong, for example, has a per capita death rate from Covid-19 only one-45th the rate of the United States, and Dr. Kwok-Yung Yuen, an infectious disease specialist there, told me the reason is straightforward: 97 percent of Hong Kong residents wear masks.

Even without a vaccine, Dr. Yuen said, a country can get the pandemic under control if people simply wear masks consistently for four weeks.

One encouraging real-world experiment unfolded in May. In Missouri, two hair stylists were found to have Covid-19, but they and their 140 customers had worn masks — and even though they were in close contact, not one tested positive.

Masks also protect jobs and our national economy. Goldman Sachs estimated that a national mask mandate could substitute for lockdowns that would shrink the economy by 5 percent.

Joshua Lederberg, a renowned geneticist and Nobel Prize laureate, argued that in the struggle against new diseases, “it’s our wits versus their genes.” So far we’ve bungled the fight and lost 208,000 Americans as a result. So as the Trumps battle the virus, let’s learn lessons, sharpen our wits — and commit ourselves to a lifesaving norm of social distancing and wearing masks.

Video - #NayaDaur #Pakistan Media Censorship, And PDM's Plan Of Action

#Pakistan #PPP - Federal govt should refrain from interfering in GB elections: Bilawal Bhutto

 

Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, while presiding over the meeting of Parliamentary Board on Gilgit-Baltistan elections, said that PTI is synonymous with rigging, it should refrain from interfering in the Gilgit-Baltistan elections.

He said that Gilgit-Baltistan is a geographically important region and all possible steps should be taken to make its election fair and transparent. There will be no tolerance for rigging as election meddling in such a sensitive region will be a national security risk.

Chairman PPP said that people of GB love PPP and they have always shown their respect through public mandate, as they will in the coming elections.

He directed all candidates to spread PPP’s manifesto door to door in all the districts of Gilgit-Baltistan and in their respective constituencies so that the people could cast their valuable votes to strengthen the relationship between the party and the region.

He further said that in the coming elections, PPP will contest under its 2018 manifesto, which clearly states that PPP will make Gilgit-Baltistan an interim province and take steps to make this a reality.

 https://dunyanews.tv/en/Pakistan/566931-Federal-govt-refrain-GB-elections-Bilawal

OP-ED - #Pakistan - Dual Citizenship: Violation of the Oath

Jamil Mogul

Recently, in Pakistan, a dual citizenship concern or issue has become a hot-button topic of conversations or discussions in the electronic/TV or print news media and been covered in op-ed write-ups. There are those who defend dual citizenship as a personal preference for traveling more easily and hassle-free to a native country and/or as a needed means for taking an advantage of a political appointment opportunity in the native country’s government. But there are others who are ardently opposed to dual citizenship on moral, ethical, or legal grounds while pointing to an oath of allegiance taken by an immigrant to become a naturalized citizen of an adopted country.

To become a naturalized citizen of America, an immigrant takes an oath of allegiance in a citizenship-oath ceremony by raising the right hand and is sworn in to renounce any allegiance to a foreign country (i.e. the country of origin) and to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies (the text of the U.S. citizenship oath is available online).

Those who defend the dual citizenship may give examples of certain Western officeholders who were or are dual citizens. But this does not mean that what these officeholders have done is ethically or legally right. It is because when they took an allegiance oath, these officeholders violated their previous oath of allegiance to their former country while not renouncing simultaneously or priorly their original or former citizenship. Also, when they pledged another allegiance to the constitution and laws of a second country, the first country of their citizenship should have taken a notice of their oath violation, not the second country. As an example, it has been reported that the former governor of California (U.S.A), Arnold Schwarzenegger, retained his dual citizenship of Austria and America while serving in office. Well, possibly, this matter of oath violation was (or is) between him and Austria, not between him and the U.S.A, though he might be perceived to be disloyal by ethical or law-abiding people who know the contents of the U.S. citizenship oath. Hence, it is advisable to follow principles, not people as examples who are often found to be wrong or misguided.

In an op-ed that I read, a defender of dual citizenship has asserted that people who staunchly support single citizenship only are zealots or patriots who seem to ask for a test or show of loyalty. But these days in this modernity, there is practically no such thing as a loyalty test, nor is it necessary to exhibit loyalty by wearing a nationality on forehead or carrying a flag or reciting an anthem. (These three seemingly sarcastic phrases were essentially said by the op-ed writer in a response to my comments on the op-ed). With regards to a country, loyalty which is an inner matter that has to do with sincerity (and fairness) is required solely for honoring the oath of citizenship so the country that relies on its citizens can be defended or supported in the time of a conflict or crisis. Also, labeling law-abiding or ethical people as single-citizenship zealots is uncalled for and unfair, frankly speaking. These people, as I mentioned above, seem to point out a violation of an allegiance oath on moral, ethical and/or legal grounds.

This defender of dual citizenship has alluded in the op-ed that a second citizenship is like a first citizenship and hence should not require any oath of allegiance or swearing-in. But a second citizenship is not like a first citizenship. With regards to America, a first citizenship is associated with a natural citizen who was naturally born in America and who does not seem to have been required to take an oath to be a U.S. citizen, while a second citizenship is related to a naturalized citizen who is an immigrant (and who took an oath to become a U.S. citizen). Also, a naturalized citizen can be de-naturalized and possibly deported if a fraud had been committed and was later uncovered in the immigration visa application. Moreover, a U.S. immigrant who committed a felonious crime would be permanently barred from obtaining a U.S. citizenship—a second citizenship. This immigrant, in this case, would remain forever as an alien U.S. resident holding a Green Card (alien resident card) or Permanent Resident Card only.

For a first citizenship, an oath of loyalty to a country is not necessary for a person who was naturally born on the land of the country of the citizenship (on the native land that figuratively gave birth to the person), just like it is not necessary for a person to take an oath of loyalty to the person’s natural mother or father. In both cases, the person is naturally expected to be loyal or obedient. On the contrary, in either case, a person would be a rebel to the mother or father if the person demonstrated disobedience, or a traitor to the country if the person demonstrated disloyalty.A person with a dual nationality who has a U.S. passport and who later officially decides to be loyal, in every aspect, to the native country or to the country of origin must renounce the U.S. nationality and surrender the U.S. passport. Otherwise, this person would be in violation of the U.S. citizenship oath if the U.S. passport is still used for traveling to the United States or to other visa-free countries allowed by holding the U.S. passport.

In certain cases in Pakistan, when they were sworn in or they pledged an allegiance to the Pakistan Constitution and laws, the Pakistani officials with a dual nationality broke the other country’s oath of allegiance that they had taken previously, or these officials were being evasive in Pakistan. In other words, their swearing-in or pledge invalidated their prior allegiance to the constitution or laws of the other (adopted) country. So, these officials who still carry and use the passport of the adopted country are either disloyal to the adopted country or insincere to Pakistan; and as such, obviously, these officials are potentially traitors. Therefore, it is incorrect to say, “Dual nationals are not traitors.”

Another issue with certain naturalized citizens—with a dual nationality or even a single nationality—is their relentless refusal to integrate into the Mainstream society of their adopted country, culturally or socially. A large majority (70% to 90%) of naturalized citizens originally from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and Arab and Islamic countries seems to be culturally, mentally, and/or emotionally attached to their country of origin. They often socialize only with those people who are from their own country of origin while they misconstrue and denigrate the culture or society of the adopted country in a hostile manner, especially if the adopted country is a Western country (just like, they often used to say anti-West things in their country of origin). They usually watch TV programs of their own country of origin; and they get any news about the adopted country from the electronic/TV news media based in their own country of origin. They keep to themselves and they often do not know, nor do they interact with, their next-door neighbor who is Western. Simply speaking, they work in the adopted country, but they mentally live in their own country of origin. In other words, they have diligently sought and gotten the citizenship papers and insensitively taken the benefits of and/or availed themselves of the opportunities in the adopted country, but they have rejected the adopted country’s Mainstream society, which is not fair to the adopted country that has provided them with all the economic, academic, professional and/or business opportunities, and financial and other benefits and a better quality of life with advanced facilities.

Additionally, certain naturalized citizens still literally associate themselves with their country of origin. For an example, Over 90% of naturalized American citizens originally from Pakistan still call themselves Pakistanis or “Overseas Pakistanis”, not Americans (but occasionally, they call themselves Pakistani-Americans for a personal or political expediency); and they consider themselves as pure Pakistani nationals with a desire or demand to participate in voting during elections in Pakistan; and surprisingly, the “Overseas Pakistanis” were (and are) allowed (to break their oath of allegiance to their adopted countries) by the Election Commission of Pakistan to cast their votes online, just like the Pakistani nationals in Pakistan. This, I am sorry to say, seems so strange (and unsettling), from my American perspective.

In America, except for the indigenous Indians (who are correctly called Native Americans), all the other peoples are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from countries all over the world. Just like Pakistani-Americans, there are generationally British-Americans, Scottish-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, French-Americans, Polish-Americans, Norwegian-Americans, Swedish-Americans, Danish-Americans, Dutch-Americans, Swiss-Americans, and etc. But all of them gave up the hyphenation and integrated—culturally and socially melted together—to form a different culture (an American culture) and a diverse society (a Mainstream American society) with an American English containing American slangs, idioms, vernaculars and accents, and model civic values that are a beacon of individual liberty, freedom, and democracy for other countries to potentially or possibly follow the civic values. And they call themselves Americans.

So, like the other naturalized American citizens originally from UK and Europe, the Pakistani-Americans who call themselves Pakistanis or “Overseas Pakistanis” must learn from their fellow Americans and integrate culturally and socially into the Mainstream American society and also give up the hyphenation and call themselves just Americans. In addition, they must be sincere and fair to America; and most importantly, they must honor the oath of the U.S, citizenship by being loyal to America and by having only one passport—the U.S. passport. No dual citizenship so as to stay true to the oath of allegiance.

https://dailytimes.com.pk/673744/dual-citizenship-violation-of-the-oath/

Pakistan-Turkey-Azerbaijan Trilateral Partnership Emerges As A Big Threat To Armenia

Published: January 23, 2020

Pakistan has augmented its ties with both Turkey and Azerbaijan in recent years. At the same time, the process of the establishment of trilateral cooperation between Turkey and Azerbaijan and Pakistan commenced sometime in 2017.

The article attempts to assess Pakistan–Turkey, Pakistan–Azerbaijan and Pakistan–Turkey–Azerbaijan cooperation and the possible impact of that partnership on the Karabakh conflict settlement process.

Pakistan – Turkey

Pakistan and Turkey established a high-level military dialogue mechanism in 2003. Adding a brand new chapter to their relations, in May 2019, they upgraded their military and strategic relationship. And since Pakistani PM Imran Khan’s visit to Ankara in January 2019, the two countries’ defence relations have been getting stronger and are firmly on an upward trajectory.

Facing constraints in updating the F-16s provided by the US for its air force, Pakistan asked Turkey for help. Filling the vacuum left by Washington, Istanbul came to the rescue and helped upgrade a batch of 41 F-16 fighter jets for the Pakistan Air Force and has become Pakistan’s second-biggest arms supplier after China.

Up until now, the most important defence deal between Islamabad and Ankara has been the procurement of four MILGEM Ada-Class Corvettes for the Pakistani Navy, while the largest-ever defence contract has been the sale of 30 Turkish T129 ATAK helicopters to Pakistan for $1.5 billion. In 2017, Turkey had purchased 52 MFI-17 Super Mushshak training planes from Pakistan.

From being Islamabad’s lone supporter when Pakistan was being put on the “grey list” by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in 2018, to being one of the main and most regular participants in Pakistan’s International Defense Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS), Ankara remains one of Islamabad’s most reliable ally.

With efforts from both sides, Turkey’s export to Pakistan increased from US$ 155 million in 2008 to a whopping US$ 352 million in 2017. Turkey has always stood beside Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir on all possible forums. Pakistan has supported the Turkish stance on tensions with Greece and Cyprus.

Not limited to products and defence capabilities, Turkey and Pakistan are also training their troops to meet any unforeseen challenge together. With regards to this, six-day exercises between Turkish, Pakistani and Uzbek armies were conducted in April last year in eastern Uzbekistan. Called the Partnership Shield 2019, these drills simulated terrorist infiltrations in a country.

One of the most serious issues faced by Pakistan-Turkey relations ensuing from the 2016 military coup attempt in Turkey was Pak-Turk schools which were set up as part of a global network by Fetullah Gülen. In early 2019, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared the Gülenists a terrorist outfit and ordered that Pak-Turk schools be handed over to the Maarif Foundation – an Islamic school organization established by the Turkish government to counter Gülenist influence.

Pakistan – Azerbaijan

Pakistan was one of the first countries to recognize Azerbaijan as an independent state in December 1991. The bilateral strategic cooperation between two states embraces the economic, cultural, political, and especially defence fields.The two countries had inked a defence agreement in May 2003. As a part of the agreement, Azerbaijan’s naval personnel participated in the biggest Pakistan-led multinational exercise, AMAN-2013, held in March 2013 in the Arabian Sea. Beyond this, the two countries have engaged in continuous dialogue at high-level meetings.

Pakistan is the only state in the world that does not recognize Armenia as an independent state because of the Karabakh conflict and fully supports the Azerbaijani position. Meanwhile, Baku “fully supports the settlement of the Kashmir problem based on the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council,” as President Ilham Aliyev stated during his meeting with the then PM of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in Azerbaijan in October 2016.

In October 2018, a delegation of Pakistani Armed Forces visited Azerbaijan to discuss bilateral military cooperation. This growing defence cooperation between the two states is based on a protocol on bi-lateral military cooperation signed on March 31st, 2015, which finally led to the signing of the “Book of Honour” on November 24th, 2017.Baku is interested in the growing expansion of military ties with Islamabad. Pakistan can offer Azerbaijan Anza-II anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank missiles, Mushak aircraft, and related hardware. Azerbaijan is actively discussing the possibilities of buying the JF-17 Thunder (also known as the FC-1 Xiaolong), a multi-functional aircraft that was jointly developed by Pakistan and China.The mutual defence ties were discussed during March 2019 Azerbaijani defence Minister Colonel-General Zakir Hasanov’s visit to Pakistan. The parties focused on the development of cooperation in the field of security, as well as military, military-technical, military-educational and other spheres.

Pakistan – Turkey – Azerbaijan Trilateral Cooperation

Pakistan – Turkey – Azerbaijan trilateral cooperation was officially launched in November 2017 when Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov held meeting with his counterparts from Turkey and Pakistan, Mevlut Cavusoglu and Muhammad Asif, in Baku.

According to Mammadyarov, sides agreed to increase trade turnover, support each other in international organizations and intended to multiply partnership in the defence sphere. The three countries have all had defence-related agreements in the past with each other, and now looking towards creating a trilateral format of defence cooperation.

In the declaration adopted after the meeting, the ministers expressed their contentment with the existing bilateral cooperation among their countries based on the strategic partnership, mutual respect, and trust and reconfirmed their mutual respect and strong support for independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of international borders of states.

The declaration also underscored the significance of trilateral cooperation in energy and trade among three countries, as well as the development of transport infrastructure highlighting the importance of trilateral cooperation to enhance rail, road and air connectivity.

Ramifications for Armenia

Since the end of the hostilities in Nagorno Karabakh in May 1994 Armenian game plan on Karabakh conflict has been based on two key pillars – Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic should be able to deter Azerbaijan by itself.

Simultaneously, Armenia should develop a strategic partnership, including guarantees on mutual defence, with Russia to prevent Turkey from any direct involvement in the potential new war over the Karabakh.The deployment of the Russian military base in Armenia, Armenia’s membership into the Collective Security Treaty Organization and later into the Eurasian Economic Union is based on this logic. This policy justified itself in 1993, during the active phase of hostilities in Karabakh when Turkey made a public threat to attack Armenia. However, there was a strong warning from Russia that this might spark World War III.However, the defence partnership between Azerbaijan and Turkey including the acquisition of military hardware and the education and training of Azerbaijani officers in Turkish military universities is the source of permanent concern for Armenia. During their education, Azerbaijani officers participate in the operations against Kurdish PKK forces which gave them combat experience.

Armenia seeks to counterbalance it through membership into the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) which gives Armenia the advantage to buy Russian weapons by “significantly reduced prices”. Meanwhile, it should be mentioned that in recent years the key provider of modern assault armament to Azerbaijan was not Turkey, but Israel and Russia.

Israel has provided approximately US$ 1.5-2 billion weapons to Azerbaijan including drones and anti-tank guided missiles, while Russia sold Azerbaijan multiple launch rocket systems such as Smerch and Hurricane (Uragan), modern T-90 tanks, S–300 air defence systems worth of US$ 5 billion.

However, the key task for Yerevan is not to prevent the sales of weapons from Turkey, Israel or Russia to Azerbaijan but to keep military balance with Baku, simultaneously using its strategic alliance with Russia as an effective tool to prevent Turkey’s direct military involvement in case of a new wave of hostilities in Karabakh.

There is no widespread debate in Armenia at both state and expert levels regarding the possible direct or indirect participation of Pakistan in the revival of hostilities in Karabakh or in general concerning Pakistan’s negative impact.

Nor Azerbaijan–Turkey–Pakistan trilateral neither Azerbaijan–Pakistan bilateral defence partnership is among the key topics discussed in Armenia. The fact that Pakistan is the only state which does not recognize Armenia as an independent state definitely creates enmity towards Pakistan.

However, in Armenian strategic thinking, Pakistan is not perceived as a significant threat worthy of deterrence. There can be no comparison between the perception of the threat level of Turkey and Pakistan. Islamabad is not viewed as an actor involved in the South Caucasus geopolitics. Pakistan is perceived as a hostile state but with a little real capacity to harm Armenia.

https://eurasiantimes.com/pakistan-turkey-azerbaijan-trilateral-partnership-emerges-as-a-big-threat-to-armenia/

#Pakistan Has Deployed Its Soldiers In Azerbaijan To Fight Armenia – Armenian Media

 Pakistan has allegedly deployed its army to the war-torn region of Nagorno-Karabakh to fight Armenia alongside Azerbaijani troops, claimed an Armenian news report citing telephonic conversation between two civilians.

Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Why Armenia Needs To Pull-Out From Occupied-Regions Of Azerbaijan: OPED

According to FreeNews.AM, the following conversation took place that revealed the presence of Pakistani Army in Azerbaijan.

“How can we write? I don’t have money. We are fine, don’t worry, 7-8 villages were liberated, don’t be afraid,” said a second civilian. “Yes. I know. I have seen on Instagram that Fizuli, Agdam have been liberated from occupation. Our side says that we have also taken Mrav mountain.

What’s wrong with the internet, why doesn’t it work?” the first civilian asked. The second one said that their ministry has turned it off. “As a lot of things happen here, people get in touch with Armenians, that’s why they have turned it off.”

On being asked whether the shooting is taking place in the second civilian’s region, he said, “on Agdam’s side. They have gathered Pakistani soldiers and have taken them towards Agdam.”

Pakistan is the second country, apart from Turkey, that recognised Azerbaijan’s sovereignty in 1991. Ties between Islamabad and Ankara have been strengthened as the latter has been openly supporting Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir issue. 

Perhaps, the alleged presence of Pakistani troops points to Islamabad reciprocating Turkey for its support on the Kashmir issue by lending the Pakistani military support in Ankara’s misadventure in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

Ankara has been supportive of Azerbaijan claim on the conflicted region of Armenian-controlled Karabakh. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has condemned Armenia for the attack calling to immediately end the occupation of Azerbaijani territories.

“Turkey continues to stand with the friendly and brotherly Azerbaijan with all its facilities and heart,” he said. Any imposition or offer other than ending the occupation “will not only be unjust and unlawful but continue to spoil Armenia,” Erdogan added.

Meanwhile, Armenian President Armen Sarkissian has confirmed the presence of Turkish personnel, advisers, mercenaries and also their F-16s in the region.

“Unfortunately, I have to declare that NATO member Turkey is fully supporting now Azerbaijan through its electronic drones – through cyber-attacks. But it’s not only that. Turkey is supporting Azerbaijan also through their personnel, advisers, mercenaries and also with their F-16s,” he said.

Armenian ambassador to Russia has further claimed that Turkey has sent about 4,000 fighters from Syria, however, Azerbaijan has rejected the claim.

“Rumors of militants from Syria allegedly being redeployed to Azerbaijan is another provocation by the Armenian side and complete nonsense,” an aide to Azerbaijani President Ilhan Aliyev told Reuters. 

The tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia soared on Sunday morning when deadly attacks and shelling started in Nagorno-Karabakh. The long-standing dispute took a violent turn and both the sides have blamed each other for the escalation. 

According to a statement by the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry, as many as 2,300 Armenian soldiers have been killed or wounded, and about 130 tanks and other armoured vehicles, 200 artillery and rocket systems, 25 air defence systems, six command and observation posts, five ammunition depots and 55 vehicles destroyed since the outbreak of the conflict. 

On the other side, Armenia has claimed a total of 790 Azerbaijani servicemen have been killed and as many as 1,900 soldiers injured, said Artsrun Hovhannisyan, a representative of the country’s Defence Ministry, adding that the Armenian army destroyed 137 tanks and armoured vehicles, 72 UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), seven helicopters and one aircraft of the Azerbaijan army during the battles.

/pakistani-soldiers-fighting-along-side-azerbaijani-turkish-troops-against-armenia-armenian-reports/

Swagger and arrogance of Pakistani government officers - Your obedient servant! ???

Arrogance of govt officers are well known and their exhibition of power are sometimes on display in excess. Swagger and arrogance of government officers — also known as bureaucrats in high-falutin language — are well known and their pomp and show and exhibition of power are sometimes on display in excess. It’s appalling and disgusting. Recently, bodyguards of an assistant commissioner of Burewala in Punjab province allegedly thrashed a school security guard for merely asking the identity of the officer. The bureaucrat has lodged an FIR with the police in which he claimed that the guard had misbehaved with him and that he was not allowed to enter the school premises even after he disclosed his identity. However, the school administration contradicted the officer saying the guard was only taking the temperature of the officer.

Perhaps, what infuriated the security guards was that a ‘lowly’ security guard had the audacity to inquire about the identity of their officer, for they thought that it was below the dignity of a government officer accompanied by armed security to be stopped at the school gate and asked to disclose his identity. Their rough behaviour shows that an officer with official protocol was automatically entitled to enter any place without revealing his identity. His pompous protocol was sufficient to guarantee him free access, in all circumstances, to any place — whether private or public. Punjab CM Usman Buzdar has suspended the officer and ordered an inquiry.

What is more surprising is that the bureaucrat, who is supposed to be an obedient servant of the people, has accused the school guard of being rude to him, instead of reprimanding his guards. This brings out the fact in the open that the ’obedient servant of the people’ treats the common people as his minions. While the so-called servants of the people make the ordinary people run around for addressing even their small problems, they consider that the sole aim of human society is to provide jobs to civil servants with all the trappings that go with their ‘giant stature’.

 https://tribune.com.pk/story/2266717/your-obedient-servant

#Pakistan - Peace And Indo-Pak Complex Relation – OpEd

 

By Areeja Syed

Peace or amity is the opposite form of hostility and conflict. In political parlance and international studies, peace is defined as a state of tranquility when there is no hostility or end of battle or aggression. To subjugate the enemy, freedom from disturbance or settle the disputes at the diplomatic level are its examples. In this context, the term, war, is applied at the semantic level to explain peace. Both terms are used as antonyms of each other as one denotes stability and order and the other disorder and instability.  The absence of one indicates the presence of the other. Peace has not to be considered a complicated procedure to be carried out carefully to maintain it, rather it is deemed as the opposite condition of the war. This ambiguous explanation of peace and ignoring its essential other conditions makes the process complex to resolve inter-state conflicts. This obscure explanation was presented by Johan Galtung and Kenneth Boulding. They also analyzed brief and comprehensive terms and essential requirements for this process. It is an interrelated process and indicates tranquil and violent moments among states. In the end, they describe all terms and including aberrant and harmonious situations.

In a broader term, peace is generally defined as an absence of war, but this is not precisely the case. Scholars, experts, analysts, and other officials designed many models and suggested different devices to implement it to achieve world peace and stability and resolve life-long rivalries. Still, this is an obscure term with multiple meanings following the situation and nature of cases and has been used for many centuries by different societies and nations. On account of this, the educational or theoretical study and practical approach of peace and settlement of conflict can be defined as ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ peace. The other definition simply describes it as the non-existence of hostility. The second definition explains other related concepts and procedures including justice and impartiality to achieve peace in its true sense.

War and Peace:

Is peace the non-existence of violence or something else? Peace is sometimes considered to be the opposite form of war but if a country is not engaged in battle with the other state, still can it be called a peaceful situation? Are human beings facing corporal retribution? Are the problems of exploitation, despotism, racism, and inequity comes under the definition of peace? The famous analyst, Johan Galtung also pointed out it while presenting the theory of positive and negative peace. One solution to remove ambiguity regarding the right concept of both terms is to mention kinds of war and peace. In this context, Wars can be classified as hot war, cold war and oeace can be define as hot peace, and cold peace. Hot war or severe kind of war is related to the use of missiles, torpedo, tanks, troops, weapons, ammunition, bombs, airstrikes or face to face fighting, etc. This war is waged to terminate or subjugate the enemy or occupy the territory. The war concludes in victory or defeat. The cold war pertains to the mutual animosity and blame game without using weapons. In this war, the belligerent states are engaged in the use of harsh words, production and purchase of weapons, bombs, etc. They increase their military budget and exercises and overlook other necessities of the masses. Patriotism is at zenith during this cold war but both sides avoid direct invasion, use of artillery, or atomic bomb as it can result in mass destruction and annihilation for both parties. According to Galtung, negative peace is a social condition which demands the prevention of human rights violation and abuses at the personal or national level. Keeping in view negative peace, hushing up such human rights abuses, domestic and social violence can aggravate the situation on a large scale that’s why it must be avoided. Positive peace on the other side is the peace where there is no war but also no negative peace.

Best Strategy to convert negative peace into positive peace between India and Pakistan

Most of the countries are subject to negative peace as they mistrust each other. India and Pakistan are also suffering from the same issue. Both counties are traditional rivals since their independence in 1947. The history of both countries is replete with incidents of aggression, animosity, battles, mutual conflicts, cross-firing at LOC, etc. The governments of both states use this rivalry as their political strategy and also indulge themselves in the cold war. Lack of trust, confidence, and cooperation has augmented tensions. This hostility has posed a great threat of war in South Asia. The processes of dialogue, peace treaty, arbitration were carried out but to no avail. All this resulted in more clashes and disputed. Though they are joined by borders but are unable to join hands for mutual progress and maintenance of peace. The communication gap at social and diplomatic levels has also increased. Since the creation of both countries, they are at a logger’s head and do not trust each other. They come to blows even for a minor issue and spread propaganda against each other. Incidents like cross-firing at LOC is a matter of routine. Military and border forces are active as almost all diplomatic, military, international efforts and treaties prove futile. During talks, both sides are unable to build confidence and the signed deals remain unfruitful. Tashkent Declaration can be viewed as its example, concluded on January 19, 1966, to end the 1965 war. It was mentioned in the treaty that both sides will not meddle in each other’s affairs but again no implementation. In 2004, both countries gathered for Agra Summit but did not sign it due to clashes over the Kashmir issue. In 2002, the Parliament attack and in 2008, Mumbai attacks, again both sides started to blame games instead of finding a mutual solution. The existence of mistrust is the major reason for all disputes and abortive dialogues and efforts. The unresolved Kashmir dispute is the main hindrance, though by acting upon UN Resolution, it can be easily solved. The final solution changing negative in to positive peace for both countries is to initiate CBMs and to implement the existing CBMs, because only communication and interaction between the people of both the states and the government of these states can be helpful in mitigating the tensions between the two. As there is negative peace between India and Pakistan most of the times, CBMs can convert negative peace in to positive.

Confidence building measures

Confidence building measures are different measures which states adopt to build some sort of confidence and trust between them. There are two types, military, and non-military CBMs. The first one is already implemented between India and Pakistan on many points. Non-military CBMs are a type where trust-building initiatives can be taken in the field of trade, commerce, culture, and where there can be people to people contacts. CBMs are the steps, taken to develop confidence and trust between nations. There are 3 phases of military CBMs. First is, Conflict Avoidance: This is the first stage. At this level, diplomatic ties, mutual understanding, and trust are required. Though the governments endeavored to settle the disputes yet they are adamant on some points. Thus, it is difficult to solve the dispute completely. Second Phase: Confidence Building: This stage is not as easy as the first one. As in the first step, only diplomatic willingness is enough as a sensible leadership evade direct military conflict or battle. The first stage acts as a base for this step. It entails more diplomatic capital and a higher level of trust as only a minor difference can stop this process. The countries can strive for more diplomatic resources. A long enmity or unsettled major disputes can hinder the progress of this phase. The Indo-Pak clashes seek brave leaders who can take daring decisions at the diplomatic level to resolve all disputes. Many CBMs have been taken but they are unable to achieve the desired outcomes due to ineffective measures. It is difficult to implement this phase in South Asia as there is no active leadership and proper dialogue process. There should be effective table talks to check and resolve the controversial issues. Third Phase is the Consolidation of Peace: at this level, the heads of the states take all necessary steps to implement CBMs effectively and strengthen peace in the region. They hold peace talks and evade war and direct conflict. This phase entails sensible planning and involvement of major organizations and factors.

One the other, non-military CBMs mostly involve low politics. Where the people of both states take certain types of initiatives to change the mind and perceptions of each other. This type of interaction can have a spillover effect on High politics as well. The history of Previous non-military CBMs between India and Pakistan is not significant because of various reasons. In 1999 Atal Bahari Vajpayee Visited Lahore and both the leaders initiated many CBMs, but the Kargil episode by General Pervaiz Musharaf becomes a hurdle in the implementation of the Lahore declaration. In 2001 there was Agra summit, where India invited Pakistan in Agra for the talks, where Gen Musharaf went open heartedly by saying that ‘I have come here to make history and to make Sub-continent a peaceful region and surely peace will tackle poverty which is prevailing in both the nations’. However, the attack on the Indian Parliament again deteriorated the relations and become a reason for the failure of the Agra Summit as well. In 2004, there was a Composite Dialogue Process between them, where both the states come to the Table talks, but again this peace initiative was halted due to another major incidence. In 2007 there was an attack on Samjhota express,42 passengers lost their lives in that incident. In 2008, There were Mumbai attack and a terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba accepts the responsibility of this incident.

 From these above historical examples, one can easily analyze the reasons of the failure of previous CBMs. Whenever there is any major incident happens, both the states blame each other even before investigating the whole event. Indeed, CBMs cannot resolve the long-lasted disputes, but they can only provide a pathway for communication and interaction, which can further lead towards the table talks on the bigger issues. In History it can be seen that Both the states stop implementing the CBMS whenever any major incident happens between them, this practice needs to be stopped as foremost incidents should not halt the process of CBMs. There are many aspects where the people of both states can work together which not only will build trust but also will have a positive effect on the economies of both states. CBM is the only solution that can eradicate the trust between India and Pakistan. We cannot expect much from the CBMs, of course, they have a quiet slow process in building peace but as it is said that slowly and gradually always wins the race that’s why CBMs can also do their work slowly and gradually if they implemented properly. It is essential to eliminate grudges from both sides and dispel the notion of traditional rivals so that the minds of the masses of both nations can be shaped and it can render all CBMs possible.

https://www.eurasiareview.com/03102020-peace-and-indo-pak-complex-relation-oped/

#Pakistan - Right should be given to the deserving people

 

By: Ismail Baloch

COVID-19 has become a great challenge worldwide. It is affecting people in every walk of life, with different impacts in every country. It is also affecting people in Pakistan financially and it will most likely increase poverty. The COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan was confirmed on 26 February 2020. Till today thousands of cases have been tested positive and registered in entire country.  Numerous steps are underway to control COVID-19. With the limited resources, apart from health facilitated measures Pakistan has also taken actions for awareness campaign and lockdown to control the spread of virus.

It goes without saying that due to the long lockdown millions of Pakistanis were compelled to strive. While lockdown was imposed on April 2nd in Balochistan, and it is still continued till today on the federal direction. 

So as to assist people the government of Pakistan launched Ehsaas Emergency Cash program to financially support vulnerable people during the lockdown.  Ehsaas Emergency Cash program was launched by the Prime Minister on April 1, 2020 in the context to cope with the economic hardship.    Also a large number of the beneficiaries in Balochistan included female. Government of Balochistan also announced to provide food commodities to 1.20 million households in Balochistan and in case of prolonged lockdown government could facilitate to 2 million households. 

 In the current situation social activists, philanthropists and charity organizations are actively playing role to help needy people with food commodities and cash amounts. However, there is great need to handover the food and aid to the right people since in such situation hundreds of fake and so called organizations become active and exploit the right of deserving people.  

Some so called organizations collect aid and then misuse them for social disorganization and in terrorism activities. In order to control the misuse of charity or aid the philanthropists and the receiving hands should properly be monitored. For long time there has been no proper check and balance of on humanitarian activities, giver and receivers of the charity.

So as to deliver the charity, food commodities or cash should be carried following the set laws of the country. The commodities be handed over to the trustworthy and registered organizations or trust distributed among the deserving people.  The cash amounts should be paid through banks. This will help the individuals and other organizations to convey the Right to the Right people.  Since it is not only our religious, responsibility but also social, and ethical duty.

No doubt the misuse of public wealth and charity increase sense of deprivation in society which affects mental health. The HARD Balochistan, Awaz Foundation Pakistan, Center for Development services and Ujala Network have also highlighted the issues related to mental health due to fear of lockdowns and coronaviruses.

The fear of lockdowns and coronaviruses, changes in daily routine / daily routines have radically changed attitudes, irritability, stress and social issues. In this situation, women are being subjected to all kinds of violence. According to survey reports, the first quarter of this year saw a 200% increase in violence against women and children due to the corona virus lockdown in Pakistan. 90% of the incidents of violence against women and children took place in different cities and villages.

Similarly, in the first three months of this year, 74 cases of child abuse were reported in Pakistan. Of these, 61 cases were reported in March when the country began partial lockdown.

In the first quarter of this year, homicide cases increased by 142.1%, while 164 kidnappings were reported, apart from the with incidents of sexual violence and suicides. Unemployment and stress will increase in the country. As a result, crime and suicide are on the rise, along with suicides.

http://thebalochistanpoint.com/right-should-be-given-to-the-deserving-people/

US didn’t tell Pakistan location of Osama bin Laden due to lack of trust, says ex-CIA chief

The former US defence secretary Leon Panetta said he finds it difficult to believe that Pakistan wasn't aware of Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad compound.

The US did not inform Pakistan about Osama bin Laden’s location due to lack of trust and past experiences of terrorists being tipped off after information was shared with Islamabad, former American defence secretary and ex-CIA chief Leon Panetta has said.

Panetta, in an interview to WION TV, also said he finds it “difficult to believe” that there wasn’t somebody in Pakistan who was aware of Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound.

Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist and the then al-Qaeda chief, was killed in a covert raid by a US Navy SEAL team at his Abbottabad compound in Pakistan on May 2, 2011.

“When we discovered the location of this compound in Pakistan, it was located in a place called Abbottabad. Abbottabad is a centre for their intelligence services and the Pakistani West Point is located there as well,” Panetta said.

The US military academy is located in West Point in New York.

This compound was three times the size of other compounds, it had 18-foot walls on one side and 12-foot walls on the other side with barbed wire around it, said Panetta, who was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director when the raid was carried out.

“I find it very difficult to believe that there wasn’t somebody in Pakistan who was aware of this compound,” he said.

Once the US found the compound, it had to make a decision whether it would share that information with Pakistan and President Barack Obama made the decision on the basis that when information was shared with Pakistan about the location of terrorists, they were tipped off and suddenly were able to disappear, Panetta said.

“Because of that concern and that lack of trust, very frankly, we decided not to inform the Pakistanis about the location of bin Laden and we did not inform them about the operation that we conducted because we were concerned that if we did that it was likely bin Laden would be advised to move,” he said.

“So, because of what we did I think we were able to be successful in the mission to go after bin Laden,” Panetta said.

https://theprint.in/world/us-didnt-tell-pakistan-location-of-osama-bin-laden-due-to-lack-of-trust-says-ex-cia-chief/515382/

Gulalai Ismail - Pakistani rights worker: Charges against family unfounded

KATHY GANNON

An elderly Pakistani human rights worker said Friday his wife and their daughter — who has already fled to America after being targeted by the country’s powerful military for her investigations into human rights abuses by soldiers — face new terrorism-related charges.

In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, retired university professor Mohammad Ismail said he has a number of court appearances this month after an anti-terrorism court charged him, his wife and daughter with involvement in two suicide attacks, one in 2013 and one in 2015.“They just want to get our girl with these terrorist financing charges,” said Ismail. “ Because they can't get her they are going after me and my wife, who is a housewife, who has not even had an education but still they ae after her.”

Rights workers in Pakistan like Ismail, and journalists, have increasingly come under attack by Pakistan's government and security establishments, restricting the space for criticism and dissent.

“We are deeply concerned at increasing attempts to control the media, suppress independent voices, and curb political dissent, thereby creating an environment of constant fear,” said the highly respected independent human rights commission in Pakistan in a recent statement. “It is the responsibility of the government to provide safety and security to every citizen, irrespective of his or her religious or political beliefs.”

Ismail denies the charges against him and says they are aimed at intimidating his daughter, Gulalai Ismail, who fled to safety in the United States earlier this year.

The charges against the 66-year-old Ismail and his family include an allegation by Pakistan's civilian investigation agencies lodged with an anti-terrorist court in the northwest city of Peshawar. It alleges that a donation to his daughter's children's charity, Aware Girls, was spent on cars that were used as suicide bombs. Aware Girls fights discrimination and abuse of girls and women.The donation came from a group known as Asia Safe Abortion Partnership, which aims to assist young girls with safe abortions. It has an office in hostile neighbor India, but operates in a number of countries in Asia.

Gulalai Ismail has been a longtime advocate of women's and girls' rights, particularly in Pakistan's conservative northwest regions.

In a tweet this week she assailed the attacks on her parents calling Pakistan's security agencies “shameless," and accusing Pakistan's intelligence of aiding anti-India terrorist groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Both are banned organizations whose operations the government and military say they have stopped.

Gulalai Ismail went into hiding and eventually fled the county after Pakistan's powerful intelligence agency, known by its acronym ISI, accused her of sedition because of a report she and other rights workers published into allegations of soldiers sexually harassing women and girls in Pakistan's tribal regions.

The military flatly denied the allegations, but in Pakistan criticism of the military or its intelligence agency can result in threats, intimidation, sedition charges and in some cases being picked up without warning. Mohammad Ismail said he already faces charges under the country's sweeping cybercrimes law for criticism of the military on social media. “I never used bad language or said anything that was against Pakistan,” he said.

Ismail said authorities are trying to have his bail revoked in the cybercrimes case and have him imprisoned.

Rights workers are not the only ones under attack in Pakistan.

Advocacy groups have also been critical of a heavy-handed approach to journalists who write critically of the military, which is widely considered to be the power behind the country's civilian government.

The Committee to Protect Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists have issued a number of statements in recent weeks. Most recently the federation was critical of sedition charges against journalists Asad Toor, Bilal Farooqi and Absar Alam “for publishing allegedly ‘objectionable’ and ‘derogatory’ material online.”

The journalists federation called on authorities to “reign in the broad powers of this Act to ensure no journalists are charged solely for criticizing government officials and institutions."

https://news.yahoo.com/pakistani-rights-worker-charges-against-144511373.html