Saudi Arabia: Fears grow that three young activists could soon be executed

There are rising fears about the impending executions of Ali Mohammed Baqir al-Nimr and two other young Shi’a activists in Saudi Arabia who were arrested as juveniles after participating in anti-government rallies, Amnesty International said today after learning that they had been moved to solitary confinement.

The organization has been able to confirm that Ali al-Nimr, Dawood Hussein al-Marhoon and Abdullah Hasan al-Zaher were moved to solitary confinement in al-Ha’ir prison in Riyadh on 5 October. They were arrested at different times in 2012, when they were all under the age of 18, and sentenced to death in 2014. All three death sentences were upheld by Saudi Arabia’s appeal court and the Supreme Court earlier this year.

Pro-government media reports that Ali al-Nimr could face crucifixion after his beheading have sparked a global outcry. On 14 October, his mother appealed to US President Barack Obama to step in to save her son.

“The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and there is no convincing evidence that it is a particular deterrent against crime. Its use to punish someone for a crime they allegedly committed when they were under 18 years old is a flagrant violation of international law,” said James Lynch, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.

The death penalty is a cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and ... its use to punish someone for a crime they allegedly committed when they were under 18 years old is a flagrant violation of international law.

James Lynch, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International

“The fact that all three state that they were tortured and denied access to a lawyer during their interrogations raises further grave concerns about the legal proceedings in their cases. It is abundantly clear that they have had nothing that resembles a fair trial.”

Ali al-Nimr was arrested in February 2012, when he was 17 years old, and held in a juvenile rehabilitation centre and then an adult prison. He was sentenced to death in May 2014 by the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) in Jeddah, a security and counter-terrorism court, for 12 offences that included taking part in anti-government protests, attacking security forces, possessing a machine-gun and carrying out an armed robbery. Ali al-Nimr has said that his “confessions” were extracted under torture but the court has refused to order an investigation into his allegations.

Dawood Hussein al-Marhoon and Abdullah Hasan al-Zaher were arrested on 22 May and 3 March 2012, when they were aged 17 and 16 respectively. They were sentenced to death by the SCC in Riyadh in October 2014 on similar charges, which included taking part in anti-government protests, carrying out an armed robbery, and “participating in killing of police officers by making and using Molotov cocktails to attack them.” They too claimed to have been tortured and forced to “confess”.

“Saudi Arabia’s record when it comes to sentencing people to death after deeply flawed legal proceedings is utterly shameful. The death penalty is often arbitrarily applied after blatantly unfair trials,” said James Lynch.

It is absolutely outrageous that the court dismissed all three activists’ allegations of torture to make them ‘confess’ and simply sentenced them to death.

James Lynch

“This is compounded in this case by imposing death sentences on juvenile offenders, which is an egregious violation of international law. It is absolutely outrageous that the court dismissed all three activists’ allegations of torture to make them ‘confess’ and simply sentenced them to death.”

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is legally binding on Saudi Arabia, makes clear that no death sentences may be imposed for offences committed by individuals under the age of 18.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most prolific executioners in the world. The kingdom has executed 137 people so far this year, compared to 90 in the whole of 2014. Death sentences are often imposed after unfair trials, with juvenile offenders and people with mental disabilities not spared, Amnesty International documented in a recent report.

Ali al-Nimr is the nephew of Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, a prominent Shi’a cleric from eastern Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to death in October 2014. Tensions between the Saudi Arabian authorities and the country’s Shi’a Muslim minority have increased since 2011 when, inspired in part by popular protests across the Middle East and North Africa, some citizens in the predominantly Shi’a Eastern Province stepped up calls for reforms.

Background

Since 2012, the Saudi Arabian authorities have been persecuting human rights defenders and dissidents with complete impunity, using both the courts and extrajudicial means such as the imposition of arbitrary travel bans. 
In February 2014, the authorities put into force a new counter-terror law that has since then been used against human rights defenders and activists to sentence them to long prison terms and even to death. 

Most trials of these activists have taken place at the SCC, whose jurisdiction is vague and proceedings shrouded in secrecy.

In addition to the above Shi’a activists, the SCC had also sentenced human rights defender and lawyer Waleed Abu al-Khair under the new counter-terror law. It also recently sentenced Abdulrahman al-Hamed, one of the founding members of the independent human rights organizations, the Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), to nine years in prison on 13 October.

Video Report - Exclusive: Inside Syrian city cleared of jihadists by Assad troops

Western Analyst: How the Syria Game Has Changed, and Why Russia Will Win It

As Russia’s anti-terror campaign continues in Syria, the West is gradually realizing that Moscow’s strategy is the right strategy.

The United States has criticized Moscow’s airstrikes in Syria ever since they began on September 30. But from the beginning, Russia has acted in accordance with international law, acting on the behest of the legitimate government of President Bashar al-Assad.

Plus, as Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake point out in an op-ed for Breaking Defense, Washington is in no position to cast moral stones, in light of recent revelations. The bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan earlier this month, as well the Drone Papers leak published by the Intercept on Thursday have both harmed America’s reputation abroad.

"'US drone operations in Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan, including the mechanism of targeting suspects slated for assassination' have been highlighted as virtual crimes against humanity,"they write, quoting the Intercept, "which provides the Russian leader with more than enough apparent justification to operate in the Syrian airspace to deal with US drones operating in Syrian airspace."

But moral shortcomings aside, Washington’s strategy for dealing with the self-proclaimed Islamic State terrorist group has proven to be jumbled and ineffective.

"In the face of Russian strategy in Syria, the lack of clarity in US strategy and the use of the US military to support strategic incoherence is leaving it exposed," they write. "There are clear limits to relying on UAV technologies except in unique circumstances, namely air dominance and clear strategic purpose."

This incoherence is not limited to the Pentagon’s military strategy, but also manifests itself in the Obama administration’s foreign policy.

"…[Russia’s] Syrian actions are playing off of what Putin sees as the Obama strategy which includes a pro-Iranian stance, an alienation of Israel, a pro-Baghdad Iraq policy, and a very weak 'air campaign' burdened with more lawyers than airstrikes."

Laird and Timperlake also point out Western hypocrisy in reinterpreting ground rules set by the United Nations.

"Putin is backing a sitting government, that of Assad. One should remember that the bias in the UN Charter is to support sitting governments and that Russian claims that Western strikes in Syria are illegal under the UN Charter is not just hyperbole," they write.

"Russian actions in support of Assad also expose the incoherence of the 'other side' supporting the mishmash of opponents of Assad, ranging from ISIL, to the legitimate opponents of Assad."

Support of that legitimate government is key.

"With a well-defined military force on the ground, namely those of Assad, and in support of the legitimate government of Syria, Russian airpower can rely on those Syrian forces to help find and mark targets…

"This is about crafting a clear strategy within which military assets can be used."

If the Obama administration wants to maintain any influence in the conflict, it has to completely reassess its priorities.

"Simply opposing Putin will get the US nowhere. The Obama administration must recognize how the game has already changed and the approach to counter-insurgency which the US has followed for a decade…has been overtaken by events."

"Putin has clearly put his marker down to be a player and kingmaker in the region."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151016/1028651463/how-russia-wins-syria.html#ixzz3om2HKtIZ

Pashto Music - Sardar Ali Takkar - Che Me Meena Khudai Pa Ta Bande

AFGHANISTAN - Opinion: En route to becoming a Western protectorate

By Florian Weigand

US President Barack Obama's decision to extend the military presence in Afghanistan is the right move. However, it lacks a well thought out exit strategy, says DW's Florian Weigand.

It should come as no surprise that Afghanistan is unable to shoulder the security burden on its own. Analysts, members of the military and Afghans themselves often warn that the gradual withdrawal of the Western forces is premature and the country might slide back into anarchy.

On the other hand, ever since the end of the ISAF mission in 2014, diplomats and politicians have stressed tirelessly that the Afghans are in the position to stabilize their own country. They've stated the country only needs some military advisers as part of NATO's follow-up mission to "resolutely support" where the country is headed.

It's easy to determine which of the two factions is right once you examine the facts. 2015 has been the bloodiest on record since the Taliban were ousted from power 14 years ago. Radical Islamists have been gaining control over more ground in the provinces - a development which has gone largely unnoticed by the rest of the world.

It took an emotional wake-up call for the West to take notice. For Berlin, that moment came when Kunduz - which was under Germany military control until last year- came under attack. For Europe, it was an influx of refugees from Afghanistan; for the US, it was the emergence of "Islamic State" (IS) - a spin-off of the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama's decision to keep troops in Afghanistan past 2016 is, therefore, the right one. The West must do everything it can to ensure calm in the region - not only for the sake of the Afghan people, but also for its own security interests and for politics back home. But Obama's decision comes too late. Horror stories from Afghanistan were needed to pave the way for President Obama to sell his decision to the US public.

So what now? There seems to be no comprehensive strategy behind the US pledge to extend its military presence in Afghanistan. Let's remember that the ISAF mission was directly linked to efforts by the international community to reconstruct the country, establish a functioning democracy and train local security forces. All this was designed to help Afghans determine their own future and prevent terrorists from regaining a foothold in the country. But all of these attempts failed.

And the situation has now worsened. The recent US decision to keep troops on the ground beyond 2016 includes no similar mission statement. This leaves behind a Kabul government which depends on Western support for its survival while exercising symbolic democracy. These are no solid foundations for a country which threatens to slide back into colonialism and anachronism. The fact is that Afghanistan is turning into a Western protectorate.

In this context, it doesn't really matter whether the US wields the scepter alone, in cooperation with NATO or even with the United Nations' blessing. As long as there is no clear mission statement and no efforts are made to strength Afghanistan's state structures or to engage in a serious dialogue with neighboring Pakistan and Iran, there will be no lasting peace in the country. One thing is clear: Not even the most liberal of Afghans will want to live in a protectorate.

Assertive Russia Weighs Afghan Perils, Past And Present

By Frud Bezhan

Russia has signaled its willingness to boost its involvement in Afghan security in a power play that could help President Vladimir Putin burnish perceptions of Moscow's global significance while dealing a fresh blow to Western influence.

The indications come with Russian military planes carrying out daily air strikes in Syria in a direct challenge to Western diplomatic and military effectiveness in the Middle East, and with Moscow seeking to reassert its global relevance despite international scorn over its invasion last year of Ukraine.

"A ramped-up presence in Afghanistan, where [the Soviet Union] suffered an embarrassing defeat a generation ago, would likely be another way to telegraph Moscow's continued relevance in the world," says Michael Kugelman, South Asia associate at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. "Russia worries about its global image, which has taken major hits since the conflict began in Ukraine."

Putin described the situation in Afghanistan as "genuinely close to critical" in an address to fellow Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) leaders at a summit in Kazakhstan on October 16. The Russian president warned of "terrorists of different stripes...gaining more influence and not hiding their plans for further expansion" and urged neighbors to "be ready to react in concert."

On October 13, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was closely following events in Afghanistan amid a "sharply deteriorated" military situation there and stood ready to "continue assisting" Kabul's "fighting capability" in the face of security threats.

That compounded recent Russian diplomatic grumblings that NATO's withdrawal from Afghanistan was "overly hasty" and that Taliban militants' takeover last month of a northern provincial capital, Kunduz, provided a "cold shower."

It is unclear whether Moscow's reinvigorated interest in Afghanistan has caught Washington off-guard, but U.S. President Barack Obama on October 15 announced that the United States would be keeping thousands more soldiers in Afghanistan longer than previously scheduled. 

Moscow has got the attention of Kabul, which is pleading for military assistance, including advanced weapons and warplanes, to battle a resurgent Taliban and the presence of Islamic State (IS) militants in Afghanistan.

It has also rekindled fears in the minds of Afghans of a return to the proxy conditions that fueled the Soviet-Afghan War, despite the fact that Washington and Moscow have loosely cooperated for much of the past decade on Afghanistan and there are no clear indications that increased Russian involvement would put Russia on a collision course with the United States.

Lavrov added in his remarks this week, however, that Moscow had not received any "official request" from Kabul for direct military support.

Moscow has pointed in Afghanistan to a similar threat to the one it is ostensibly (but not necessarily, according to U.S. officials) attacking in Syria: the IS militant group and other extremists. IS militants and Taliban fighters appear to have made advances in northern Afghanistan, near the border with the former Soviet republics of Central Asia. Moscow is also worried about the Afghan drug trade, which could worsen Russia's crippling heroin epidemic.

Russia has allowed nonlethal NATO equipment through its territory to Afghanistan in the 14 years since the U.S.-led coalition invaded in response to the 9/11 attacks that Washington said were plotted on Afghan soil. Moscow has also provided training to Afghan pilots and taken part in counternarcotics operations inside the country.

Wary Of Past Mistakes

With insurgent attacks in Afghanistan mounting and U.S. forces eyeing a path to the exit, Kabul's representatives are knocking with increasing urgency on doors in the Russian capital.

A deputy speaker of Afghanistan's lower house of parliament, Mohammad Nazair Ahmadzai, was scheduled to be in Moscow this week to press Russian lawmakers on the need for military assistance from the former foe to counter emerging security threats from Islamist radicals like IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

"We will say that ISIS is not a threat only for Afghanistan, but it's a threat to its neighbors as well," Ahmadzai told RFE/RL ahead of his trip. "But we will make it clear that our neighbors should not violate Afghanistan's sovereignty and we will not allow any military operation in Afghanistan."

A week earlier, Afghan Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord and Afghan army general who commanded alongside Soviet troops trying to defeat U.S.-backed mujahedin in the 1980s, visited Russia torequest helicopter gunships and heavy weapons. 

"Russia is a powerful neighbor with a history of military cooperation with Afghanistan," Najib Mahmood, a professor of political science at Kabul University, says of Soviet-era backing for Afghan armed forces. "Many Afghan military leaders and experts studied in Moscow and have the know-how and experience with Russian technology."

Mahmood also suggests that Kabul has been keen to bolster ties with regional players like Russia to shore up security since the pullout of most NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014.

But Moscow is sure to eye any increased role in Afghan affairs warily. The Soviet Union's calamitous 1979-89 military venture in Afghanistan killed or displaced millions of Afghans and sapped Moscow's precious political, military, and economic resources in the Soviet Union's dying decade.

Mindful of the 15,000 Soviet soldiers lost as a result of Leonid Brezhnev's ill-fated invasion, Russian officials have repeatedly said they will not send troops to Afghanistan.

"There will need to be a trade-off between stepped-up activities to secure its interests and appropriate caution, given its past history in Afghanistan," Kugelman says. "Russia, which is not known for exercising caution in global affairs, may not see it this way, but any form of increased presence in Afghanistan would need to be done very carefully."

Caught In The Middle Again?

While Soviet tanks retreated from Afghanistan a quarter of a century ago, the prospect of Russian security assistance has brought back memories of the Soviet-Afghan War in the minds of Afghans.

Some fear that their officials' pleas for military help from Moscow -- with U.S. troops still in the country and a seemingly rekindled rivalry between Washington and Moscow -- could leave Afghanistan vulnerable to a familiar hallmark of the Cold War: a proxy war.

The Afghan daily Sarnawesht on October 7 drew a direct line between events in Syria and "signs of new rivalries between America and Russia" in Afghanistan, citing a bomb attack near Moscow's embassy in Kabul, "insecurity in border areas of Central Asia, close to Russia," the "brief fall" to Taliban insurgents last month of the provincial capital Kunduz, and "the spread of violence to Central Asia."

"Today everyone can easily see the nature of the war," the editorial argued, "They know there is a foreign, proxy, and intelligence war in Afghanistan."

"A major game is under way between global rivals in Afghanistan," another editorial, in Hewad, a government-run newspaper, warned on October 12. It went on to argue that Russia and the United States had chosen Afghanistan as the venue for their renewed rivalry.

The term "proxy war" has already been invoked about the conflict in Syria from Washington to Beijing, by observers as diverse as Republican Senator John McCain and the Chinese ruling party's official newspaper. 

U.S. President Obama has dismissed that notion, vowing that "we're not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia." 

But that message might not convince average Afghans.

Siltanat, a teacher in Kabul, expresses fears to RFE/RL that "if Russia interferes in Afghanistan, it will pit Russia and America against each other. Afghanistan will be stuck in the middle and will be ruined."

A student at Kabul University, Hasib, tells RFE/RL: "Russia saying it wants to fight and get rid of ISIS in our country is another excuse to capture Afghanistan. They've always wanted to bring Afghanistan under their control. It won't have a good outcome."

Can Moscow Help?

Afghanistan's 350,000-strong army and police forces have complained of weapons and ammunition shortages. The United States purchased transport helicopters from a Russian supplier, but the nascent Afghan air force reportedly lacks warplanes, spare parts, and expertise.

"I think Russia will not get more involved in Afghanistan directly, but it is already increasing its role as supplier of military hardware," says Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, an independent think tank in Kabul. "This will not only be welcomed by the Afghan government but also by Washington."

The Woodrow Wilson International Center's Kugelman says that while Washington may not like that its geostrategic rival is taking on a bigger role in Afghanistan, their interests are largely convergent there and a larger Russian involvement might prove helpful for Washington.

"The uncomfortable truth is that Moscow and Washington share very similar interests in Afghanistan," Kugelman says. "They both want more stability, they both support a peace process with the Taliban, and they both seek a credible and effective Afghan government. Moscow can end up helping Washington out in Afghanistan in a big way, even if indirectly."

Video Report - Taliban one step closer to joining ISIS amid US troops staying longer

Afghan Plan to Expand Militia Raises Abuse Concerns

By MUJIB MASHAL

With the Afghan security forces gravely challenged by Taliban offensives, the government is moving to rapidly expand the troubled Afghan Local Police program by thousands of members, Afghan and Western officials say.

The move to expand the police militias, prompted by the disastrous loss of the northern city of Kunduz to the Taliban almost three weeks ago, is being described by officials speaking privately as an attempt to head off panic in Afghan cities threatened by the insurgents.

But the expansion also amounts to an open admission that the United States’ main legacy in Afghanistan — the creation of nationalized police and army forces numbering more than 350,000 members — is failing under pressure even before any final American military withdrawal. On Thursday, President Obama called off that pullout, originally due at year’s end, leaving 9,800 American troops in the country for at least another year.

Further, the plan would involve a sudden, and potentially poorly vetted, expansion of the Afghan Local Police, an American-created force that in many areas of the country has become synonymous with human rights abuses even when directly supervised by the American Special Forces. Some of the NATO countries involved in Afghanistan have already expressed concerns about the move.

Until recently, requests for funding an expansion of that police force, a collection of local militias with around 30,000 total members, were repeatedly turned down by the United States military. While the forces have performed well in some parts of the country, in other parts, like Kunduz, they are seen as a source of chaos and banditry rather than security.

“The Taliban have all of a sudden felt a rush after Kunduz — they are abandoning plans for districts and making runs on cities,” said a senior Afghan official, who like others interviewed about security spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid political risk.

The militia expansion plan is a reversal for President Ashraf Ghani, who had long talked about the importance of solidifying “the state monopoly over the use of force” in a country still deeply scarred by its civil war. Militia forces wielded by American-backed warlords were responsible for some of the worst atrocities in that decade-long conflict.

Afghan officials who described the new plan, however, bluntly called it a matter of survival: Given a choice between ceding territory to the Taliban and reinforcing areas with semiformal militias deemed abusive and predatory, the government is opting for the latter.

Officials said the plan called for the immediate recruitment of an additional 15,000 armed militiamen under the Afghan Local Police program, and according to some accounts that may rise to as many as 30,000. The measure is supposed to focus on beefing up defenses at the district level, potentially freeing up the badly overstretched army and the national police to concentrate their forces for more strategic strikes.

While the Americans had long told the Afghan government to respect the 30,000 cap for the force, at least two Afghan officials said that discussions were underway and that the American military had shown interest in finding a way to fund the program’s expansion, which is believed to cost more than the force’s current $120 million annual budget. Mr. Ghani has told his officials he will seek other sources if the American funding does not materialize.

Reached for comment, a United States military official said that Afghan police officials had not formally approached the American military command to discuss expanding the Afghan Local Police forces, which the official described as “important.”

But European members of the NATO coalition have expressed concern about the expansion, officials said. And Franz-Michael Mellbin, the European Union’s special representative to Afghanistan, said that even successful reform of the Afghan Local Police, or A.L.P., would not be enough to justify its expansion.

“There is nobody on the European side who want to invest in anything that even remotely resembles the A.L.P.,” Mr. Mellbin said in an interview. “The fear is still there that the A.L.P. becomes the arms of local strongmen. We do not think the A.L.P. has worked – especially in the north, where they have become the extension of local interest groups.”

Afghan officials describe the move as one born of necessity. Mohammed Hanif Atmar, Mr. Ghani’s national security adviser, said the government was faced with a big influx of Taliban from Pakistan, as well as of other foreign militants, just as the effects of the reduction in NATO forces and their close air support were taking a toll.

The insurgency has also changed tactics this fighting season, Mr. Atmar said, noting that the Taliban “no longer fight in small groups, they now fight in large formations,” with intentions of overrunning and holding major territory.

In the meantime, the Afghan security forces have faced a problem that Mr. Atmar called “chronic”: At the local level, a significant number of the forces are scattered, deployed at the service of local strongmen rather than the posts they are assigned to.

For example, a recent government assessment of the A.L.P. force, which is nominally under the Interior Ministry’s authority, found that more than 2,000 officers, about 7 percent of the entire force, was at the direct service of strongmen, according to security officials briefed on the assessment. That is particularly the case in northern areas like Kunduz, where they are widely seen as unaccountable armed groups that extort the local population and turn their guns against one another as much as on the Taliban.

Beyond that, the real numbers of police and military members stationed in some areas are often much lower than officially reported. Naqibullah Fayeq, a member of Parliament from Faryab Province, a vital northwestern region that has come under major Taliban assault recently, said that as much as a third of the security strength in the province is made up of the “ghost police” — empty spots officially reported as drawing a salary.

The widespread nature of the problem has prompted Mr. Ghani to order an immediate “personnel asset inventory,” official said. Mr. Atmar said the increase in recruitment of the A.L.P. was to “front-load” for other national forces, with the goal of eventually using the new recruits to fill the vacancies that exist in the army and the police. The Afghan Local Police were established by American commanders as a low-cost auxiliary force trained by the United States Special Forces. But even when units have been under direct American supervision, some have committed abuses. Several assessments, the most comprehensive of them by the International Crisis Group, have concluded that the A.L.P. “has not improved security in many places and even exacerbated the conflict in many districts.” The current expansion is happening without the mentorship of American forces, and under difficult circumstances. Thousands of men who had once been disarmed by government campaigns costing hundreds of millions of dollars are now being rearmed. The design is also being rolled out at a time when factional strongmen and elements of the former government in Kabul have mounted pressure on Mr. Ghani’s government, accusing him of exclusionary politics. In the wake of the Kunduz disaster, the strongmen, many of whom have pasts as northern warlords, have been pressing the government to use militias loyal to them in the fight against the Taliban. Some officials fear the militia expansion amounts to a political payoff to these strongmen, who have often used A.L.P. units for their personal business. The Kabul government’s political struggles have had a direct affect on the morale of the security forces, some officials say. Many of the army and police commanders who were in Kunduz maintain factional loyalties that at times have been at odds with the central government. In the confusion of the Taliban assault, some simply chose not to fight when the moment arrived, some officials claimed.

“The security challenges cannot be seen in isolation,” said Mr. Mellbin, the European Union representative. “The political space needs to be worked more effectively. If the elite had come together on Kunduz, the situation could have been managed before it became a national security threat.”

Mr. Atmar conceded that amid the intense fighting this year, extensive background checks and training might not be immediately realistic for the expanded forces, but he said better vetting could take hold later. He insisted, however, that the government had made it clear that any new force in the districts would have to serve under the local police chief, and the larger chain of command.

“Without the state’s permission, people used their guns against the enemy,” Mr. Atmar said. “We did not authorize that, but as a responsible government we know they have done the right thing to protect themselves because we were not enough in numbers. Now we go there and say, ‘Look, you did the right thing, but if you continue this’ – and this will continue — ‘you have to now be properly integrated into our forces.’ ”

As a sign of how difficult it is in practice to bring order to the militias, Gen. Baba Jan, who was the police chief of Badakhshan Province, recently posted his resignation. His province has been facing a major Taliban offensive, and in response the local strongmen had armed their militias, often in coordination with the government. But General Jan said he could not control the illegal armed men anymore, and he included the Afghan Local Police in that category.

“They are tied to powerful individuals,” the general said, “and one cannot expect to have authority and order over them.”

Hindu minorities continue to face discrimination in Pakistan

By Nithin Sridhar

Hindu activists in Pakistan have accused the Khyber Pakthunkhwa government of practicing discrimination against Hindu minorities. According to a news report published on October 11, the members from All Pakistan Hindu Rights Movements (APHRM) protested against the alleged exclusion of Hindus from the benefits of the newly enacted RTI act.

If the allegations turn out to be true, it would add yet another incident to the long list of discriminatory actions of the Pakistani government towards Hindu minorities.

Hindus in Pakistan have suffered humongous loses right from the days when Pakistan was newly created. Hindus and Sikhs were not only massacred during the riots that accompanied the partition of India in 1947, but a large number of them were also forced to migrate into India leaving behind their home and property.

As a result, the percentage of Hindus in the then West Pakistan underwent drastic reduction within four years after Partition from 15% in 1947 to 2% in 1951. In Karachi alone, the population of Hindus decreased from 51% to 2%, whereas Muslim population increased from 42% to 96% during those four years after Partition. This clearly establishes a mass exodus of Hindus from Pakistan into India in the years following Partition.

But, the hardships of the Hindus who stayed back in Pakistan have continued to the present. They face discrimination in almost every aspect of social life, be it education, jobs, or marriage. Moreover, they are frequently exposed to various forms of oppression- violence, abduction, forceful conversions, etc.

Consider the case of marriages. Pakistan is yet to legally recognize Hindu marriages. The Hindu marriage Bill, which has been tabled multiple times, is yet to be adopted even after 69 years of Pakistan coming into existence. Just this year, in July, the government again deferred the proposed Hindu marriage bill. Previously it was tabled in 2008, 2011, and 2012and each time it failed to get consent.

The marriage bill is very vital for Hindus in Pakistan because without it they are being exposed to various kinds of socioeconomic discrimination in the society. Hindu women are especially at a disadvantage because without any evidence to prove their marriage, they are exposed to physical exploitation, forceful marriages, and conversions. Further, Hindu women face various difficulties be it in booking a hotel room, getting official documents like National identity cards, or on inheriting husband’s property after the husband’s death.

The Hindu American Foundation’s report on Human Rights of Hindus in South Asia for the year 2014-2015 quotes a report by the National Commission for Justice and Peace that revealed that around 76% of minority women in Pakistan reported that they were sexually harassed. The HAF report further quotes various NGO’s that estimate that around 1000 Hindu and Christian girls are abducted and forcefully converted to Islam every year. According to another estimate, as many as 20-25 Hindu girls are abducted and converted to Islam every month.US Commission on the International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) report for 2015 describes Pakistan as representing‘one of the worst situations in the world for religious freedom.’ It further describes Pakistan’s legal environment as being ‘particularly repressive due to its religiously discriminatory constitutional provisions and legislation, including its blasphemy laws.’

This continued kidnapping and eventual conversion of Hindu women into Islam was also noted by the USCIRF 2014-15 report that stated: “Allegations of kidnappings of Hindu women, followed by forced conversions to Islam and forced marriages to Muslim men, continued to rise throughout 2014.”

Blasphemy laws are another concern for Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan. Defiling of Quran and/or the name of Prophet are considered as Blasphemous. Further, misuse of epitaphs reserved for holy personages are also considered blasphemous. Yet, there is a lack of clarity on what actions exactly constitute as defiling. The punishment for blasphemy is generally a life imprisonment or death.

The UNSCIRF 2014-15 report calls these laws as ‘problematic’ and ‘against human rights protections’. It further notes that: “There is no clear definition of blasphemy, which empowers the accuser to decide if a blasphemous act has occurred. No proof of intent is required, nor must evidence be presented after allegations are made.”

Hence, these laws are highly vague and open for misuse especially against religious minorities. A report by Jinnah Institute states: “Pakistan’s blasphemy laws disproportionately affect Hindus, Christians, and Ahmadis. Hindus have been arrested and abused in recent years due to their religious identity.”

Education is yet another area of concern. The school curriculum is not only factually incorrect at many places but is also highly biased towards religious minorities. A USCIRF’s 2011 study revealed both private owned madrassas and state run public schools ‘devalue religious minorities’ in classroom teaching as well as in textbook contents.

The HAF report quotes a report from 2012-2013 study of textbooks used in Pakistan that revealed that at least 55 chapters from 22 textbooks used in Sindh and Punjab region used discriminatory language against minorities. The HAF report states that: “Hindus have particularly been singled out for criticism in the textbooks, with negative depictions of Hindus pervasive through both“historical distortions and the framing of concepts through religious language that promotes the superiority of Islam over Hinduism.”

This was reiterated in an older report of USCIRF quoted in Dawn newspaper that states:“Hindus are repeatedly described as extremists and eternal enemies of Islam, whose culture and society is based on injustice and cruelty, while Islam delivers a message of peace and brotherhood, concepts portrayed as alien to the Hindu.”

Employment condition of Hindus is no better as well. Religious minorities, including Hindus are mostly confined a low wage, menial employment. A Minority Right’s Group report quotes Asian Human Right’s Commission, according to which a large portion of Hindu women in Pakistan’s cities are employed as scavengers or as sanitary workers. They have very low wages and are without any basic labor protections.

Further, the menace of bonded labor also affects the Hindu community in Pakistan. According to one estimate, there are between three and eight million bonded labors in Pakistan. And poor Hindus, especially Hindus of Scheduled Castes are especially vulnerable to this. The HAF report states: “This modern day form of slavery, which disproportionately impacts poor Hindus, operates on a debt bondage system and is characterized by patterns of abuse, detention, and exploitation. Bonded laborers work in a number of sectors, such as agriculture, brick-kilns, mining, and domestic households.”

The marginalization extends to politics and civil services as well. The representation of Hindus in the provincial legislatures as well as in government services is marginal. According to HAF only 0.21% of the federal civil servants are from Hindu community. Further, out of 342 seats in the National Assembly, only 10 are reserved for minorities.

Another issue that Hindus face in Pakistan is the lack of adequate place of worship. A 2014 survey had indicated that out of 428 places of worship for Hindus, only 20 were operational. The remaining places were leased to residential or commercial purposes by the Evacuee Trust Properties Board(ETPB) that was supposed to manage these properties. Further, there are frequent attacks on Hindu holy places and on the pilgrims who visit them. After Babri masjid was destroyed in India, around 30 temples were attacked in Pakistan.

Therefore, there is a sustained and systematic marginalization, discrimination, exploitation, and persecution of Hindu minorities in Pakistan. Moreover, there is a lack of implementation of the few legal protections given to the religious minorities that further exposes Hindu minorities to exploitation.

Though the Pakistan’s constitution provides few rights and protections to religious minorities, they are often either misinterpreted or simply ignored while dealing with issues concerning minorities. The situation is further complicated by some police and law enforcing agents who continuously engage in activities that threaten the security of religious minorities.

As a result, every year, thousands of Pakistani Hindus migrate to India on the pretext of visiting relatives or tourism and refuse to go back. Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, a member of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), revealed in the PakistanNational Assembly, in 2014, that every year around 5000 Hindus were migrating to India.

The dilemma in which most Pakistani Hindus live can be best summed up in the words of Kapil Dev, a Human Rights activist, who wrote in the Dawn newspaper thus: “That question has always perplexed my mind. Why are we treated as second-class citizens by the state and why are we discriminated in every walk of life just because we are Hindus?

“I can safely say this on behalf of my community that we often feel like citizens of “no man’s land” because here in Pakistan we are treated as Indians and those of us who migrate to India are called Pakistanis. For our love and patriotism for Pakistan, right-wing Indians call us ISI agents, while here just for being Hindu, we are labeled agents of RAW. Where should we go?”

Pakistan: Why are we sending £400 million to a country that kills Christians?

Mark Woods 

Candidly, on most political issues my instinct response to a strongly-held opinion is a sceptical "Really?" and an attempt to point out why things really aren't that simple.

However, I read Ann Widdecombe's Catholic Herald column today and frankly struggled. Widdecombe made an impassioned plea for the Government to stop sending £400 million in aid to Pakistan, in the light of its appalling treatment of Christians.

She retells many of the melancholy stories we have heard during the last few years. Shahbaz Bhatti, the minister for minorities, and Salman Taseer, governor of Punjab, were both murdered after speaking out for Christians. Asia Bibi is still in jail. She tells of another Christian whose brothers broke his legs after he converted and then hired men to kill him. He took shelter with his sister, whose home they then burnt and who died in the inferno. At this point his wife caved in, but he fled to Bangkok with his traumatised 12-year-old son. He is still in danger.

Christians are beaten, burned, fined and murdered. Some of this is local, the result of festering inter-communal prejudice fed by the ignorance and malice of so-called religious teachers. Some of it is structural, the result of the country's bizarre blasphemy laws – wrong in principle and in practice open to every kind of abuse.

So why, in God's name, are we paying so much to prop up a system which is fundamentally rotten, which is opposed to so many of the values we hold both as Christians and as citizens?

The usual answer, of course, is that we aren't – and we have to hear the strength of that argument. A similar criticism was made earlier this year by the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, when it was found that £2 billion in British aid went every year to countries where it was hardest to be a Christian. A Department for International Development spokesman said then: "The truth is, stopping aid to these countries is counterproductive. It will simply cut support to persecuted men, women and children, and harm the future health, education and welfare of the world's poorest people."

And that's right too. Schools are good, and so are hospitals and wells and agricultural programmes – all the things that DfID actually does quite well. If Britain were simply to stop giving aid to Pakistan, it's the poorest of the poor who would suffer.

Furthermore, we can't just ignore the geopolitical role of Pakistan. Its policy regarding the Afghan Taliban, which amounted to running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, has proved to be a terrible error, but it is a crucial regional player. Destabilising it even further is in no one's interests.

But still. Given the sheer scale of the oppression faced by Christians and other minorities there, the chronic abuse of ordinary human values and the poisonous ideology that the instruments of the state are too afraid or to indifferent to challenge, it is hard to argue with Widdecombe's conclusion. She says: "The UN needs more courage and compassion, and so does Britain. The likes of Asia Bibi and every poor unknown soul suffering in obscurity will not be helped by pious words. We need to give our disapproval teeth through the age-old medium of filthy lucre."

Pakistan is not a failed state, which lacks capacity for change. It lacks the will. Britain's aid has so far done nothing to challenge the status quo. This cannot be allowed to continue.

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pakistan.why.are.we.sending.400.million.to.a.country.that.kills.christians/67823.htm

A look at Pakistan's profitable fake admissions business

Thousands of companies in Pakistan offer fake admissions to students into Western schools. For the firms it's a lucrative business, and for the students it's often the only way to leave the country. DW examines.

"Want to study in Europe? Consult us. Hundreds of foreign universities and colleges are affiliated with us, and our experts provide invaluable tips," reads a billboard near the University of Karachi campus.

Many students queue up to register at one such consultancy organization in the Bahadurabad area of Pakistan's biggest metropolis. They are hopeful that the firm will get them fake degrees or an admission into a business school in the UK. It hardly matters to them whether the school is prestigious; all they want is to leave the country.

Easy access to Europe?

"We have no future in Pakistan. Europe's worst colleges are better than our best universities. And of course, there is a chance that we could get a work permit after completing the course," Ali Reza, a 24-year-old economics student, told DW.

Young Pakistanis are desperate to leave the country. The economic situation in the South Asian nation is worsening, and the unemployment rate is getting higher by the day. For the country's students, the only available option to leave and find a better life is to get admissions abroad.

This is where the countless "consultancy firms" come into action as they cash in on the youth's desperation. They claim to offer students "easy access" to Western universities and colleges, including those in European countries such as Germany. But many of these companies get them into schools that only exist on paper, as they have connections with bogus companies in the West, or with some foreign agents.

"While studying in London, I met some Pakistani students who somehow managed to get the British visa on fake admissions," Abdul Agha, an Islamabad-based journalist, told DW. "But they were not studying there; they had been employed by shops owned by South Asians."

According to the BBC, its investigation team last year found that fake University of Kent degree certificates were being sold online for £500 (679 euros).

Tighter policies

Over the years, European countries have tightened their visa policies for Pakistani students and have ordered a crackdown on fake universities. In June, the British government acted against 190 bogus universities offering fake certificates.

"It will help protect the reputation of the UK as a provider of high-quality education," according to Jo Johnson, England's Universities and Science Minister. The UK happens to be the first choice of Pakistani students. The Scandinavian countries, Poland and Germany come next.

"Such action is in the interest of all legitimate providers and genuine students," Johnson added.

Fake degrees scam

Earlier this year, a fake degree scandal involving an Internet-technology firm rocked the Islamic country. On May 17, The New York Times published an investigative report about "a vast education empire" of hundreds of Western universities and schools offering online degrees in various disciplines. At least 370 of them existed only "as stock photos on computer servers," the report claimed.

The investigation into the scandal is still ongoing, but there are claims that tens of millions of dollars in estimated revenue were made by the secretive Pakistani software company Axact from many thousands of people around the world, the report said.

Government inaction

Experts say that Pakistani authorities and relevant ministries have no interest whatsoever in acting against the firms that offer fake admissions to students.

"The government is not taking any step to ban the fake firms that are involved in enrolling students in foreign universities. In the end, the students lose a lot of money. It is a huge business in Pakistan," Irfan Haider, a reporter for Pakistan's Dawn newspaper, told DW, adding that the education ministry, the inter-provincial coordination ministry and the ministry of interior are responsible for dealing with this issue.

But according to journalist Agha, the companies cannot survive without government's covert support: "They (the firms) bribe the government officials. The business involves large amounts of money."

Some analysts, however, believe the fake admissions business is hard to tackle because of the country's deteriorating security situation. They say that extremist violence and the overall security situation are forcing many Pakistanis to look for ways to flee the country, and that they will use any avenue that provides them with this opportunity.

"I know that it won't be an easy life in Europe, but it's better to clean dishes in Germany than to get killed by gunmen in Pakistan," Reza said.

Bilawal Bhutto’s speech at “Asian Political Parties Conference on Silk Road”

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Speech In China Asian... by dm_5131d330eeda9

Bilawal Bhutto meets Chinese President

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari Chairman Pakistan Peoples Party held a meeting with the Chinese President Xi Jinping at the sidelines of Asian Political Parties Conference on Silk Road in Beijing.

Both the leaders exchanged views on matters of mutual interests including People-to-People and Party-to-Party contacts.

Bilawal Bhutto Zardari attended the Conference organized by the Communist Party of China and attended by representatives of political parties from different Asian countries.

https://ppppunjab.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/bilawal-bhutto-meets-chinese-president/