Daily Times
LAHORE: The CIA has funnelled hundreds of millions of dollars to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) since the 9/11 attacks, accounting for as much as one-third of the foreign spy agency’s annual budget – reported an American newspaper, citing current and former US officials.
The Los Angeles Times quoted officials as saying that the ISI had also “collected tens of millions of dollars through a classified CIA programme that pays for the capture or killing of wanted militants, a clandestine counterpart to the rewards publicly offered by the State Department”.
The officials said the payments have triggered intense debate within the US government, because of “long-standing suspicions that the ISI continues to help Taliban who undermine US efforts in Afghanistan and provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda members in Pakistan”.
But US officials have continued the funding because the ISI’s assistance is considered crucial: “almost every major terrorist plot this decade has originated in Pakistan’s tribal belt, where ISI informant networks are a primary source of intelligence”, said the newspaper.
The White House National Security Council has “this debate every year”, said a former high-ranking US intelligence official involved in the discussions. Despite deep misgivings about the ISI, the official said, “there was no other game in town”. The payments to Pakistan are authorised under a covert programme initially approved by former president George Bush and continued under President Barack Obama.
“The CIA payments are a hidden stream in a much broader financial flow... the US has given Pakistan more than $15 billion over the last eight years in military and civilian aid,” said the Los Angeles Times. “The ISI has used the covert CIA money for a variety of purposes, including the construction of a new headquarters in Islamabad... that project pleased CIA officials because it replaced a structure considered vulnerable to attack: it also eased fears that the US money would end up in the private bank accounts of ISI officials,” it said.
The newspaper said, “The scale of the payments shows the extent to which money has fuelled an espionage alliance that has been credited with damaging Al Qaeda but also plagued by distrusts.”
Given the size of overt military and civilian aid to Pakistan, CIA officials argue that their own disbursements – particularly the bounties for suspected terrorists – should be considered a bargain. “They gave us 600 to 700 people captured or dead,” said one former senior CIA official, who worked with the Pakistanis. “Getting these guys off the street was a good thing, and it was a big savings to [US] taxpayers.”
A US intelligence official said Pakistan had made “decisive contributions to counter-terrorism”. “They have people dying almost every day,” said the official. “Sure, their interests don’t always match up with ours. But things would be one hell of a lot worse if the government there was hostile to us.”
“The CIA also directs millions of dollars to other foreign spy services. But the magnitude of the payments to the ISI reflect Pakistan’s central role. The CIA depends on Pakistan’s cooperation to carry out missile strikes by drones that have killed dozens of suspected extremists in Pakistani border areas,” said the newspaper.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Outrage over Obama's Bow to Japanese Emperor
Critics of President Obama have something new to complain about -- his bow to the Emperor of Japan. Washington is abuzz with what some consider an innapropriate gesture.
When he was in Japan over the weekend as part of his Asian trip, Obama was greeted by Emperor Akihtito and his wife. While shaking hands, the President bowed down to the Emperor.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
3rd bombing in 2 days rocks Peshawar
PESHAWAR,-- The third car bombing in two days rocked Peshawar, Pakistan, Saturday, killing about a dozen people at a police checkpoint, officials said.
Hospitals in the city said the death toll was at least 12, the Daily Times reported. At least 35 were injured, eight of them critically.
Deputy Police Superintendent Shafi Ullah said three women, three children and a police officer were among the dead, CNN reported.
Investigators said the bomber detonated about 120 pounds of explosives in his vehicle after a brief conversation with a police officer at the checkpoint. The blast destroyed several vehicles and a nearby compressed natural gas station..
Peshawar is the capital of the North West Frontier province and is the administrative center for the country's tribal areas. The city was political headquarters of anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the struggle to drive the Soviets out in the 1980s.
Thirteen people were killed Friday in a suicide bombing of the regional headquarters of Inter Services Intelligence, the Pakistani intelligence agency. Another eight died in a suicide bombing of the police station in Bannu, near Peshawar
Why Pakistan is winning ITS war against the Taliban
In Mingora, the city of 250,000 people that was until recently the headquarters of Pakistan’s Swat valley Taliban, the shopping centre is heaving.
‘Bloody Chowk’, the crossroads where the militants used to leave the butchered bodies of their victims every night, is once again merely a mini-roundabout, surrounded by camera and shoe shops.
Further up the valley, a scenically idyllic 100-mile seam of fertility dividing the Northwest Frontier mountains, the girls’ schools that were blown up by the Taliban are reopening, with lessons taking place in tents.
The barbers ordered to stop shaving beards on pain of death are back in business, and Mullah FM, the radio station used by the Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah to broadcast his extremist sermons, is off the air.
Western leaders often insinuate that there is something half-hearted about Pakistan’s struggle against those responsible not only for bringing terror to Swat but providing safe havens for the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan, to say nothing of the series of devastating bombings in the big Pakistani cities.
Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that some in Pakistan’s government must know the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, still said by some to be hiding in the frontier’s tribal areas.
Gordon Brown has repeatedly urged the Pakistanis to ‘do more’, claiming that three-quarters of terrorist plots in Britain have links to Pakistan.
Yet last week he also admitted that, across the Afghan border, some of the territory the British Army took at such terrible cost last summer is already back under Taliban control.
As I walked unmolested through the alleys of Mingora’s bazaar, his comments provoked some uncomfortable thoughts.
First the good news: the Swat example shows that the Taliban are not invincible, and that it is possible to fight a counter-insurgency against them and win.
Unfortunately, however, the very reasons Pakistan appears to be doing quite well, both in Swat and in the current military operation further south in Waziristan, make the prospects of Nato success in Afghanistan more remote.
Moreover, one of the Pakistanis’ evident strengths – a clear strategic focus with operations of limited scope that tackle the enemy one area at a time – is woefully lacking in Afghanistan.
‘You have to recognise the limits of your power. When you try to attain too many objectives simultaneously, you end up attaining nothing,’ General Athar Abbas, the Pakistan army’s chief spokesman, told me.
‘If you don’t have clarity from the beginning, especially about what to do after you capture somewhere, you will run into serious problems – and that is what’s happening across the border.
‘You have to retain your successes, and the only way to do that is with popular support.’
Life in Mingora isn’t yet back to normal: the death and destruction have simply been too great. Fazlullah used to be a chairlift operator and one of the first things the Taliban did was to blow up the Swat valley’s ski facilities.
Skirmishes continue in outlying areas and there is still a curfew. But the progress is unmistakable.
When I last visited Pakistan in June, at the height of the Swat campaign, there were more than two million internally displaced persons (IDPs) living on the scorching plains in camps and relatives’ spare rooms.
But a remarkably efficient army-led transport and reconstruction effort has meant more than 95 per cent of them have been back home for weeks.
More impressive is the fact that despite having been IDPs, and in many cases having once been in favour of the Taliban, few Swat people appear to want them back.
‘When Fazlullah started his broadcasts, he had a lot of support,’ said Shiraz Khan, a local TV cameraman. ‘Not now. Their methods have been exposed.’
One night, he said, he was woken by the shrieks of his next-door neighbour. ‘The Taliban had come to her house and, in front of her and the rest of the family, they were murdering her oldest son and her husband by cutting their throats.’
‘When you see a dead body, its cut-off head lying on its chest, it’s a truly terrible sight,’ said a local professor, who asked not to be named.
‘The people supported the Taliban because they felt the state was not giving them justice. But now they are finished.’
The army is still in Mingora, but responsibility for law and order is back with the police.
‘The community is helping us with information,’ said Qazi Farooq, the district chief.
He said that ‘regular police work’ had led to the capture of dozens of militants, 60 of whom have already been charged in the criminal courts with crimes including murder and blowing up bridges.
In the remoter areas, ‘lashkars’ – tribal militias – have been formed to root out the last Taliban. If only the British Army had encountered similar reactions in Helmand, Afghanistan.
Last Friday, when I visited a new IDP centre established at a cricket ground in Dera Ismail Khan on the South Waziristan border, I heard the main reason why starkly expressed.
The IDPs there come from the same Pathan tribe, the Mehsuds, which is also the main source of the local Taliban.
But having been brutalised in a similar fashion to the people of Swat, several men told me they were ready to work with the army to ensure that its gains were maintained once they went home.
‘The thing is this,’ said Mohammed Qasar, a farmer from the district of Lada. ‘If the army treat us well, we will co-exist with them, because ultimately we are Pakistanis. The soldiers are our people, too.’
And there, alas, is the rub. The new counter-insurgency buzzword for Gordon Brown and Nato’s commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, is ‘protecting the population’ in order to consolidate gains.
But honorable as that intention may be, no Afghan Pathan will ever describe the British or US troops as ‘our people’. Whatever their avowed policy, Nato troops will always look like occupiers.
In Pakistan, the fact that the army is being deployed inside its own country is a possible source of weakness.
This imposes a delicacy that is often not appreciated: it is, in the words of one general, ‘a pretty big deal’, and in order to rely on public support, it has had to wait until the Taliban’s outrages have become manifest before launching operations.
But having got that backing, it has become a source of strength.
Meanwhile, General Abbas cited a further stupefying sign of Nato’s apparent absence of strategic co-ordination.
In the name of the new ‘protection’ strategy, the US has this autumn been withdrawing from its posts on the Afghan side of the frontier, including those in Paktika, the province next to South Waziristan.
‘It will create a vacuum,’ he said, ‘and if militants escape from Waziristan, what can we do? We cannot fire on them when they cross the border.’
For years, Nato chiefs have accused Pakistan of failing to deal with the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistani territory. Now, in one of the more bitter ironies of this ever-lengthening war, that role has been reversed.
‘Bloody Chowk’, the crossroads where the militants used to leave the butchered bodies of their victims every night, is once again merely a mini-roundabout, surrounded by camera and shoe shops.
Further up the valley, a scenically idyllic 100-mile seam of fertility dividing the Northwest Frontier mountains, the girls’ schools that were blown up by the Taliban are reopening, with lessons taking place in tents.
The barbers ordered to stop shaving beards on pain of death are back in business, and Mullah FM, the radio station used by the Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah to broadcast his extremist sermons, is off the air.
Western leaders often insinuate that there is something half-hearted about Pakistan’s struggle against those responsible not only for bringing terror to Swat but providing safe havens for the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan, to say nothing of the series of devastating bombings in the big Pakistani cities.
Last month, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that some in Pakistan’s government must know the whereabouts of Al Qaeda leaders such as Osama Bin Laden, still said by some to be hiding in the frontier’s tribal areas.
Gordon Brown has repeatedly urged the Pakistanis to ‘do more’, claiming that three-quarters of terrorist plots in Britain have links to Pakistan.
Yet last week he also admitted that, across the Afghan border, some of the territory the British Army took at such terrible cost last summer is already back under Taliban control.
As I walked unmolested through the alleys of Mingora’s bazaar, his comments provoked some uncomfortable thoughts.
First the good news: the Swat example shows that the Taliban are not invincible, and that it is possible to fight a counter-insurgency against them and win.
Unfortunately, however, the very reasons Pakistan appears to be doing quite well, both in Swat and in the current military operation further south in Waziristan, make the prospects of Nato success in Afghanistan more remote.
Moreover, one of the Pakistanis’ evident strengths – a clear strategic focus with operations of limited scope that tackle the enemy one area at a time – is woefully lacking in Afghanistan.
‘You have to recognise the limits of your power. When you try to attain too many objectives simultaneously, you end up attaining nothing,’ General Athar Abbas, the Pakistan army’s chief spokesman, told me.
‘If you don’t have clarity from the beginning, especially about what to do after you capture somewhere, you will run into serious problems – and that is what’s happening across the border.
‘You have to retain your successes, and the only way to do that is with popular support.’
Life in Mingora isn’t yet back to normal: the death and destruction have simply been too great. Fazlullah used to be a chairlift operator and one of the first things the Taliban did was to blow up the Swat valley’s ski facilities.
Skirmishes continue in outlying areas and there is still a curfew. But the progress is unmistakable.
When I last visited Pakistan in June, at the height of the Swat campaign, there were more than two million internally displaced persons (IDPs) living on the scorching plains in camps and relatives’ spare rooms.
But a remarkably efficient army-led transport and reconstruction effort has meant more than 95 per cent of them have been back home for weeks.
More impressive is the fact that despite having been IDPs, and in many cases having once been in favour of the Taliban, few Swat people appear to want them back.
‘When Fazlullah started his broadcasts, he had a lot of support,’ said Shiraz Khan, a local TV cameraman. ‘Not now. Their methods have been exposed.’
One night, he said, he was woken by the shrieks of his next-door neighbour. ‘The Taliban had come to her house and, in front of her and the rest of the family, they were murdering her oldest son and her husband by cutting their throats.’
‘When you see a dead body, its cut-off head lying on its chest, it’s a truly terrible sight,’ said a local professor, who asked not to be named.
‘The people supported the Taliban because they felt the state was not giving them justice. But now they are finished.’
The army is still in Mingora, but responsibility for law and order is back with the police.
‘The community is helping us with information,’ said Qazi Farooq, the district chief.
He said that ‘regular police work’ had led to the capture of dozens of militants, 60 of whom have already been charged in the criminal courts with crimes including murder and blowing up bridges.
In the remoter areas, ‘lashkars’ – tribal militias – have been formed to root out the last Taliban. If only the British Army had encountered similar reactions in Helmand, Afghanistan.
Last Friday, when I visited a new IDP centre established at a cricket ground in Dera Ismail Khan on the South Waziristan border, I heard the main reason why starkly expressed.
The IDPs there come from the same Pathan tribe, the Mehsuds, which is also the main source of the local Taliban.
But having been brutalised in a similar fashion to the people of Swat, several men told me they were ready to work with the army to ensure that its gains were maintained once they went home.
‘The thing is this,’ said Mohammed Qasar, a farmer from the district of Lada. ‘If the army treat us well, we will co-exist with them, because ultimately we are Pakistanis. The soldiers are our people, too.’
And there, alas, is the rub. The new counter-insurgency buzzword for Gordon Brown and Nato’s commanding general in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, is ‘protecting the population’ in order to consolidate gains.
But honorable as that intention may be, no Afghan Pathan will ever describe the British or US troops as ‘our people’. Whatever their avowed policy, Nato troops will always look like occupiers.
In Pakistan, the fact that the army is being deployed inside its own country is a possible source of weakness.
This imposes a delicacy that is often not appreciated: it is, in the words of one general, ‘a pretty big deal’, and in order to rely on public support, it has had to wait until the Taliban’s outrages have become manifest before launching operations.
But having got that backing, it has become a source of strength.
Meanwhile, General Abbas cited a further stupefying sign of Nato’s apparent absence of strategic co-ordination.
In the name of the new ‘protection’ strategy, the US has this autumn been withdrawing from its posts on the Afghan side of the frontier, including those in Paktika, the province next to South Waziristan.
‘It will create a vacuum,’ he said, ‘and if militants escape from Waziristan, what can we do? We cannot fire on them when they cross the border.’
For years, Nato chiefs have accused Pakistan of failing to deal with the Taliban’s safe havens in Pakistani territory. Now, in one of the more bitter ironies of this ever-lengthening war, that role has been reversed.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
UN pulls out half its Afghanistan staff and threatens total withdrawal
The United Nations today temporarily pulled half its international staff out of Afghanistan and threatened that a complete and permanent withdrawal could follow.
Amid an atmosphere of increasing gloom in Afghanistan, the UN Special Representative in Kabul, Kai Eide delivered a pointed warning to the government of Hamid Karzai.
“There is a belief among some, that the international community (presence) will continue whatever happens because of the strategic importance of Afghanistan,” he told a press conference this morning. “I would like to emphasise that that’s not true.”
He added that the Afghan government must demonstrate a willingness to reform and address corruption and the power of warlords.
Of the 1,100 foreign UN workers, 600 will now leave until the situation improves. The remaining UN workers are to be relocated inside Kabul from the current network of 93 different UN guesthouses, many of them privately run civilian houses, to a one large compound which is currently used for the European Union police training mission. The new arrangement will echo the ‘Green Zone’ found in Baghdad.
The move follows last week’s attack on a UN guesthouse in the heart of the Afghan capital, Kabul, in which five UN international staff were killed by gunmen and suicide bombers who were disguised in police uniform.
Other aid agencies in Afghanistan have monitored the UN response to the latest attack but most appear to be maintaining their staffing levels in the country for now.
“It will not have major impact on the operations of international NGOs. Those with staff out of country will keep them there but most staff are still on the ground,” said Lex Kassenberg, the head of CARE International in Afghanistan.
Aid agencies said that tighter security restrictions imposed during the election period would remain in place but several said they would resist moves to put armed guards outside their offices, instead strengthening external defences and fitting cameras.
Aid workers told The Times that the UN move was not widely supported within the wider aid community. “We are really concerned about how the UN will provide services while their staff are outside the country and who will pick up the slack,” said one aid worker, who asked not to be named. “There is a perception that this seems like an overreaction which sends a bad message.”
The head of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon Moon, was critical of the response of both Afghan and Nato security forces following the Kabul attack last week.
Two UN security guards armed with pistols held off the Taleban attack for over an hour before being killed. Another armed UN worker continued resistance from the guesthouse laundry room. Some 20 UN workers were able to escape as a result.
However, Afghan security forces took more than an hour to arrive on the scene.
“For at least an hour, and perhaps more, those two security officers held off the attackers. They fought through the corridors of the building and from the rooftop," Ban told the UN General Assembly. "They held off the attackers long enough for their colleagues to escape, armed only with pistols against assailants carrying automatic weapons and grenades and wearing suicide vests."
Mr Ban said that "the UN security team repeatedly called for help from both Afghanistan government forces and other international partners". He added: "Initial reports suggest that it was approximately an hour, if not longer, before Afghan police or others arrived on the scene."
Both the Afghan government and Nato denied that they had failed to respond effectively to the attack on UN staff.
The UN has 6,700 staff working in Afghanistan, of whom 5,600 are Afghan nationals.
Amid an atmosphere of increasing gloom in Afghanistan, the UN Special Representative in Kabul, Kai Eide delivered a pointed warning to the government of Hamid Karzai.
“There is a belief among some, that the international community (presence) will continue whatever happens because of the strategic importance of Afghanistan,” he told a press conference this morning. “I would like to emphasise that that’s not true.”
He added that the Afghan government must demonstrate a willingness to reform and address corruption and the power of warlords.
Of the 1,100 foreign UN workers, 600 will now leave until the situation improves. The remaining UN workers are to be relocated inside Kabul from the current network of 93 different UN guesthouses, many of them privately run civilian houses, to a one large compound which is currently used for the European Union police training mission. The new arrangement will echo the ‘Green Zone’ found in Baghdad.
The move follows last week’s attack on a UN guesthouse in the heart of the Afghan capital, Kabul, in which five UN international staff were killed by gunmen and suicide bombers who were disguised in police uniform.
Other aid agencies in Afghanistan have monitored the UN response to the latest attack but most appear to be maintaining their staffing levels in the country for now.
“It will not have major impact on the operations of international NGOs. Those with staff out of country will keep them there but most staff are still on the ground,” said Lex Kassenberg, the head of CARE International in Afghanistan.
Aid agencies said that tighter security restrictions imposed during the election period would remain in place but several said they would resist moves to put armed guards outside their offices, instead strengthening external defences and fitting cameras.
Aid workers told The Times that the UN move was not widely supported within the wider aid community. “We are really concerned about how the UN will provide services while their staff are outside the country and who will pick up the slack,” said one aid worker, who asked not to be named. “There is a perception that this seems like an overreaction which sends a bad message.”
The head of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon Moon, was critical of the response of both Afghan and Nato security forces following the Kabul attack last week.
Two UN security guards armed with pistols held off the Taleban attack for over an hour before being killed. Another armed UN worker continued resistance from the guesthouse laundry room. Some 20 UN workers were able to escape as a result.
However, Afghan security forces took more than an hour to arrive on the scene.
“For at least an hour, and perhaps more, those two security officers held off the attackers. They fought through the corridors of the building and from the rooftop," Ban told the UN General Assembly. "They held off the attackers long enough for their colleagues to escape, armed only with pistols against assailants carrying automatic weapons and grenades and wearing suicide vests."
Mr Ban said that "the UN security team repeatedly called for help from both Afghanistan government forces and other international partners". He added: "Initial reports suggest that it was approximately an hour, if not longer, before Afghan police or others arrived on the scene."
Both the Afghan government and Nato denied that they had failed to respond effectively to the attack on UN staff.
The UN has 6,700 staff working in Afghanistan, of whom 5,600 are Afghan nationals.
Designers shrug off militant violence for Pakistan's fashion week
KARACHI: Pakistan's fashion week started with an opulent opening ceremony, against a backdrop of militant violence and security fears that delayed the event and kept away foreign glitterati.
Models will sashay down catwalks, flaunting the latest creations by local designers in a country where most women cover up and observe varying degrees of Islamic dress.
The event's chief organiser, Ayesha Tammy Haq, said: ''We, the members of Fashion Pakistan, feel great to host this colourful event at difficult times of our history when the entire nation is waging a battle against militancy.''
A spokeswoman for Fashion Pakistan, Tehmina Khaled, said it would continue until Saturday.
''The situation was so painful in the country that we postponed it for three weeks,'' she said, referring to a spate of deadly attacks blamed on Taliban militants in which more than 340 people died.
''We have 32 designers from across the country who will participate in the event.''
Sonya Battla, the first designer to show, presented a collection that she said celebrated strong women.
She dismissed the fact that, in more conservative parts of the country, her designs might get women driven out of town or stoned to death.
''I'm a very brave woman,'' the 38-year-old designer said.
''I'm not going to be scared and no one's going to judge me.''
Clinton encouraged by ‘overwhelmingly positive’ Pakistani response
Describing the response to her candid engagement with the Pakistani civil society as “overwhelmingly positive,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the U.S. is building a strong base for ties between the two nations. She also made a subtle contrast of her frank discussions on mutual security concerns in Pakistan with the one-sided tone of the former U.S. Administration, that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks sought to pursue relations on “with us or against us” basis. “The reaction that I got in Pakistan was overwhelmingly positive and I’ve been reading a lot of the blogging and the reaction on the press in part because they’re not used to anyone from the United States Government coming and opening herself to their concerns,” Clinton told National Public Radio traveling in Cairo.
“They (the Pakistanis)’re just used to saying to having somebody say, take it or leave it, with us or against us, go forward or not. And so I think we’re building a stronger base for our relationship,” she noted recounting her talks in Pakistan, which was the first stop of her ambitious nine-day trip to the broader Middle Eastern region. Hillary Clinton also argued that her remarks on Pakistanis not being able to know about al-Qaeda leaders whereabouts were not meant to cast a doubt on the Pakistani government’s anti-terror commitment but were part of an open conversation she was trying to have with the Pakistani people about each other’s concerns.
“They (the Pakistanis)’re just used to saying to having somebody say, take it or leave it, with us or against us, go forward or not. And so I think we’re building a stronger base for our relationship,” she noted recounting her talks in Pakistan, which was the first stop of her ambitious nine-day trip to the broader Middle Eastern region. Hillary Clinton also argued that her remarks on Pakistanis not being able to know about al-Qaeda leaders whereabouts were not meant to cast a doubt on the Pakistani government’s anti-terror commitment but were part of an open conversation she was trying to have with the Pakistani people about each other’s concerns.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
US gives Karzai six-month ultimatum to stem Afghanistan corruption
www.timesonline.co.uk
President Karzai has six months to sideline his brother and reduce corruption or risk losing American support, Afghan officials have told The Times.
Senior palace insiders said that President Obama delivered the ultimatum when he congratulated Mr Karzai on his re-election on Monday. Top of his demands was action against corruption, the appointment of “reform-minded ministers” and several high-profile scalps to prove Mr Karzai’s commitment to cleaning up his Government.
“If he doesn’t meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out,” said an official with access to Mr Karzai’s inner circle. “Obama said they don’t want their soldiers’ lives wasted for nothing. They want changes in Cabinet, and changes in his personal staff.”
It is extremely unlikely that British troops would stay in Afghanistan if US forces were withdrawn.
The President’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has repeatedly denied claims that he controls Afghanistan’s billion-dollar heroin trade. As head of Kandahar’s provincial council, he is the main powerbroker in the south of the country, but the President has refused to remove him, insisting that there is no proof of wrongdoing.
In his acceptance speech yesterday, Mr Karzai vowed to eradicate the “dark stain of corruption”, which he admitted had undermined faith in his regime. But Mr Obama had earlier cautioned: “The proof is not going to be in words; it’s going to be in deeds.”
Afghan officials said that there were efforts to find Wali Karzai a new position. “There have been talks to find a new term of reference for the President’s brother,” said one. One option would be to send him abroad.
The American Embassy is understood to have warned Mr Karzai it will start collecting evidence against Wali Karzai if he is not removed from Kandahar. “They want tangible progress over the next three to six months on corruption, the culture of impunity and rising crime,” said a senior Western analyst with close links to the State Department.
“They have told Karzai they are going to start collecting evidence and if he doesn’t act on it, they will go public. We’ve never been able to back up our claims about his brother, or any of the commanders, with evidence. Now when we say something, we’ll show the smoking gun and say, ‘Arrest him’.”
An embassy official said Washington wanted proof that Mr Karzai was taking the challenges “as seriously as we are”. Last week Wali Karzai denied fresh allegations that he has been on the CIA payroll for much of the past eight years. The claims, in The New York Times, prompted the Republican Senator John McCain to demand he be sent into exile.
The allegations have also exposed tensions between the State Department, which wants people like Wali Karzai removed, and the secret intelligence agencies that rely on morally dubious partners to get things done.
Wali Karzai, who campaigned for his brother in Kandahar, celebrated their victory yesterday with a feast for a thousand people at his home.
Diplomats said the milestones for Mr Karzai’s progress would be agreed at a conference in Kabul immediately after his inauguration. A second conference, six months later, will be convened to measure achievement. If Mr Karzai doesn’t meet his targets, several options are being considered, including scaling back the military presence.
Mr Obama is due to make a decision on whether to send up to 40,000 more troops in the coming weeks. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, requested reinforcements to mount a counter-insurgency strategy. Others in the White House, including Joe Biden, the Vice-President, favour using foreign forces and relying on unmanned drones and Special Forces raids to target terrorist training camps.
President Karzai has six months to sideline his brother and reduce corruption or risk losing American support, Afghan officials have told The Times.
Senior palace insiders said that President Obama delivered the ultimatum when he congratulated Mr Karzai on his re-election on Monday. Top of his demands was action against corruption, the appointment of “reform-minded ministers” and several high-profile scalps to prove Mr Karzai’s commitment to cleaning up his Government.
“If he doesn’t meet the conditions within six months, Obama has told him America will pull out,” said an official with access to Mr Karzai’s inner circle. “Obama said they don’t want their soldiers’ lives wasted for nothing. They want changes in Cabinet, and changes in his personal staff.”
It is extremely unlikely that British troops would stay in Afghanistan if US forces were withdrawn.
The President’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, has repeatedly denied claims that he controls Afghanistan’s billion-dollar heroin trade. As head of Kandahar’s provincial council, he is the main powerbroker in the south of the country, but the President has refused to remove him, insisting that there is no proof of wrongdoing.
In his acceptance speech yesterday, Mr Karzai vowed to eradicate the “dark stain of corruption”, which he admitted had undermined faith in his regime. But Mr Obama had earlier cautioned: “The proof is not going to be in words; it’s going to be in deeds.”
Afghan officials said that there were efforts to find Wali Karzai a new position. “There have been talks to find a new term of reference for the President’s brother,” said one. One option would be to send him abroad.
The American Embassy is understood to have warned Mr Karzai it will start collecting evidence against Wali Karzai if he is not removed from Kandahar. “They want tangible progress over the next three to six months on corruption, the culture of impunity and rising crime,” said a senior Western analyst with close links to the State Department.
“They have told Karzai they are going to start collecting evidence and if he doesn’t act on it, they will go public. We’ve never been able to back up our claims about his brother, or any of the commanders, with evidence. Now when we say something, we’ll show the smoking gun and say, ‘Arrest him’.”
An embassy official said Washington wanted proof that Mr Karzai was taking the challenges “as seriously as we are”. Last week Wali Karzai denied fresh allegations that he has been on the CIA payroll for much of the past eight years. The claims, in The New York Times, prompted the Republican Senator John McCain to demand he be sent into exile.
The allegations have also exposed tensions between the State Department, which wants people like Wali Karzai removed, and the secret intelligence agencies that rely on morally dubious partners to get things done.
Wali Karzai, who campaigned for his brother in Kandahar, celebrated their victory yesterday with a feast for a thousand people at his home.
Diplomats said the milestones for Mr Karzai’s progress would be agreed at a conference in Kabul immediately after his inauguration. A second conference, six months later, will be convened to measure achievement. If Mr Karzai doesn’t meet his targets, several options are being considered, including scaling back the military presence.
Mr Obama is due to make a decision on whether to send up to 40,000 more troops in the coming weeks. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, requested reinforcements to mount a counter-insurgency strategy. Others in the White House, including Joe Biden, the Vice-President, favour using foreign forces and relying on unmanned drones and Special Forces raids to target terrorist training camps.
Mousavi supporters clash with police in Tehran
TEHRAN- Police clashed with supporters of Iran's opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi in Tehran on Wednesday when a rally marking the 30th anniversary of the storming of the U.S. embassy turned violent, witnesses said.
Reformist website Mowjcamp said police opened fire on protesters at Haft-e Tir square, but there was no independent confirmation. "Some people were injured," Mowjcamp said, reporting protests elsewhere such as the central city of Shiraz.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards and their allied Basij militia had warned the opposition to avoid using anti-U.S. rallies to revive protests against the clerical establishment after June's disputed presidential election.
"Police clashed with hundreds of protesters. They were chanting: 'Death to dictators'. Police used batons to disperse them," a witness said. People traditionally chant, "Death to America" to mark the anniversary.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, locked in a row with the West over Iran's nuclear program, won a second term. Washington says Iran seeks a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran denies, and has threatened more sanctions through the United Nations.
The turmoil after the June vote was the worst in Iran since protests which led to the ouster of the U.S.-backed Shah three decades ago. Authorities deny vote-rigging and portrayed the unrest as a foreign-backed bid to undermine the Islamic state.
Thousands of Iranian security forces assembled on the streets of Tehran on Wednesday to prevent opposition rallies and rein in political dissent.
Opposition leaders Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who both ran against Ahmadinejad, had urged their supporters to take to the streets to protest against his government despite warnings from the Iranian police about "illegal gatherings."
Mowjcamp said Karoubi joined the protest on Wednesday. "He is walking toward the former American embassy," the site said.
Another witness said police fired teargas at the crowd and arrested at least five protesters.
"There are hundreds, chanting 'God is greatest'. Police and Basij militia are outnumbering the protesters," one witness said. "Hundreds of police, riot police, Basij militia and plainclothes are in the main squares," another said.
OFFICIAL RALLY
Thousands of people also gathered in front of the former U.S. embassy for an official ceremony where influential lawmaker Gholamali Haddadadel criticized the opposition leaders.
"I don't know how they (opposition leaders) are going to answer to the great Iranian nation. They claim they are followers of the revolution but issue statements that are in the interests of Iran's enemies," he said in a speech.
Haddadadel said the U.S. administration should change its policy toward Iran's nuclear energy program: "No one in Iran can make a deal on Iran's obvious right to nuclear technology."
President Barack Obama used the anniversary of the hostage crisis to urge Tehran to make concessions over its nuclear program, saying it needs to turn the page on the past and forge a new relationship with the United States.
"Iran must choose," Obama said. "We have heard for 30 years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for."
Protesters carried banners saying "We are ready to sacrifice our blood for (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei," and "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Anti-Western rallies usually take place outside the building -- now called the "den of espionage" in Iran -- to mark the anniversary of the day in 1979 that the embassy was seized.
During the Iranian revolution, militants stormed the embassy on November 4, 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Protesters in the opposition camp targeted other foreign countries too. Some reformist websites called on people to gather outside the Russian embassy, in an apparent protest at Moscow's recognition of Ahmadinejad's re-election on June 12.
"Dozens of police and Basij forces are around the Russian embassy as well," one witness said. Another witness said dozens of police were walking around the British embassy in Tehran.
In September, opposition demonstrators clashed with government backers and police at annual pro-Palestinian rallies.
Reformist website Mowjcamp said police opened fire on protesters at Haft-e Tir square, but there was no independent confirmation. "Some people were injured," Mowjcamp said, reporting protests elsewhere such as the central city of Shiraz.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards and their allied Basij militia had warned the opposition to avoid using anti-U.S. rallies to revive protests against the clerical establishment after June's disputed presidential election.
"Police clashed with hundreds of protesters. They were chanting: 'Death to dictators'. Police used batons to disperse them," a witness said. People traditionally chant, "Death to America" to mark the anniversary.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, locked in a row with the West over Iran's nuclear program, won a second term. Washington says Iran seeks a nuclear weapon, a charge Tehran denies, and has threatened more sanctions through the United Nations.
The turmoil after the June vote was the worst in Iran since protests which led to the ouster of the U.S.-backed Shah three decades ago. Authorities deny vote-rigging and portrayed the unrest as a foreign-backed bid to undermine the Islamic state.
Thousands of Iranian security forces assembled on the streets of Tehran on Wednesday to prevent opposition rallies and rein in political dissent.
Opposition leaders Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, who both ran against Ahmadinejad, had urged their supporters to take to the streets to protest against his government despite warnings from the Iranian police about "illegal gatherings."
Mowjcamp said Karoubi joined the protest on Wednesday. "He is walking toward the former American embassy," the site said.
Another witness said police fired teargas at the crowd and arrested at least five protesters.
"There are hundreds, chanting 'God is greatest'. Police and Basij militia are outnumbering the protesters," one witness said. "Hundreds of police, riot police, Basij militia and plainclothes are in the main squares," another said.
OFFICIAL RALLY
Thousands of people also gathered in front of the former U.S. embassy for an official ceremony where influential lawmaker Gholamali Haddadadel criticized the opposition leaders.
"I don't know how they (opposition leaders) are going to answer to the great Iranian nation. They claim they are followers of the revolution but issue statements that are in the interests of Iran's enemies," he said in a speech.
Haddadadel said the U.S. administration should change its policy toward Iran's nuclear energy program: "No one in Iran can make a deal on Iran's obvious right to nuclear technology."
President Barack Obama used the anniversary of the hostage crisis to urge Tehran to make concessions over its nuclear program, saying it needs to turn the page on the past and forge a new relationship with the United States.
"Iran must choose," Obama said. "We have heard for 30 years what the Iranian government is against; the question, now, is what kind of future it is for."
Protesters carried banners saying "We are ready to sacrifice our blood for (Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei," and "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."
Anti-Western rallies usually take place outside the building -- now called the "den of espionage" in Iran -- to mark the anniversary of the day in 1979 that the embassy was seized.
During the Iranian revolution, militants stormed the embassy on November 4, 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Protesters in the opposition camp targeted other foreign countries too. Some reformist websites called on people to gather outside the Russian embassy, in an apparent protest at Moscow's recognition of Ahmadinejad's re-election on June 12.
"Dozens of police and Basij forces are around the Russian embassy as well," one witness said. Another witness said dozens of police were walking around the British embassy in Tehran.
In September, opposition demonstrators clashed with government backers and police at annual pro-Palestinian rallies.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Obama plays China card, but who holds the ace?
Reuters
WASHINGTON/BEIJING - Although U.S. President Barack Obama has never set foot there, China cast a long shadow in the Pacific region where he grew up.
Obama, who will visit Shanghai and Beijing for the first time on November 15-18, spent much of his childhood in Hawaii, five time zones away from Washington, D.C.; and beginning in 1967, when he was six years old, he lived in Jakarta for four years.
At the time, China was in the throes of Chairman Mao Zedong's bloody Cultural Revolution. Abroad, the nation was less interested in selling widgets than in promoting Mao's brand of radical communism -- a force the U.S. saw behind communist movements and political upheaval in Vietnam, Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
In 1979, Obama's senior year at Punahou school in Honolulu, China and the United States normalized diplomatic relations, launching a three-decade period in which ties between the two grew inexorably tighter and deeper -- and complicated.
"Think of what China was in 1979: It was an autarkic, insular, inward-looking country that was preoccupied with its own internal things," said a senior U.S. official. "Even 10 years ago ... there was still a sort of sense of 'We're not a part of these global rules, we're not doing this stuff.' Now they see themselves as sitting at the table."
If there were any doubts that China would have a seat at the table from now on, Obama dispelled those when he sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton there on her first official trip abroad -- not Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other foreign policy hot spot.
"That the first major visit (was) to China, and to Asia as well, is symbolic of where the locus of international economic activity -- and to some degree the locus of international activity, period -- is going to be in the coming years," said economist and author Zachary Karabell, whose new book "Superfusion" posits that the U.S. and Chinese economies have effectively merged.
Beijing, once considered a wallflower on global affairs, is in turn warming to its more prominent role, though it's unclear that will translate into greater cooperation with Washington on issues like climate change and the nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea -- not to mention human rights differences.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg highlighted the tension at the heart of the relationship in a speech in September. "Given China's growing capabilities and influence, we have an especially compelling need to work with China to meet global challenges," he said.
But Steinberg added that there was a tacit bargain in which the United States expects China to reassure the rest of the world that its growing role "will not come at the expense of security and wellbeing of others."
That of course includes America's.
"The big challenge there is going to be to maintain a competitive U.S. economy, and at the same time to maintain a high degree of stability and equanimity in the U.S.-China relationship," said Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute think tank.
Indeed, even as the United States and China have grown closer diplomatically, their economic and trade ties have deepened to the point of mutual dependence. Not only does China depend on the U.S. export market to fuel its highflying economic growth rates, the United States relies on China's vast savings to help finance its burgeoning budget deficits.
"It is clearly unsustainable. This relationship helped give rise to global economic imbalances," said Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist with Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong. "If we are ever going to free ourselves of these imbalances, we need to reverse this relationship, get China to buy things in the U.S. and the U.S. to invest in China."
"STAKEHOLDER" STRATEGY
When it comes to the big foreign policy issues of the day, the Obama White House and that of his predecessor George W. Bush tend to live in opposite worlds. The rare exception is China.
Obama's approach builds on aspects of the Bush administration's stance toward China, which encouraged Beijing to be a responsible "stakeholder" in the global community.
But all indications are that the Obama White House intends to move the bilateral relationship to the next level, making it more of a partnership -- and that in turn is raising hackles among some traditional U.S. allies, who often don't see eye to eye with China and now worry they will be marginalized.
One of the clearest signals of the Obama administration's desire to give China and other large, fast-growing economies more global clout was the decision -- adopted at the Pittsburgh Group of 20 summit in September -- to make the G20 the premier forum for discussing global economic issues.
The shift reduces the role of the G7 and G8, groups dominated by rich Western countries that have long enjoyed elite status in global economic decision-making. And that has led to some European anxiety that the G20 could give way to a G2 of the United States and China.
In Pittsburgh, European officials privately vented frustration at a U.S. willingness to bend over backwards to give China a voice. During one session on International Monetary Fund voting power, a European official became so angry at China's position he had to leave the room to cool down.
At a luncheon, some Europeans were less astonished by China's refusal to include climate change in the communique than by the United States' willingness to go along. Several delegates could barely eat their lunch, according to a former U.S. official who was told of how the discussion played out.
But the Obama administration wants to reassure Beijing that the United States, for one, welcomes China's new assertiveness on the world stage, even if the two countries don't always agree.
Climate change is expected to be a major topic of Obama's meetings with President Hu Jintao when he visits Beijing. Ahead of the December 7 global climate talks in Copenhagen, the administration sees this issue as a key test of whether China will step up to the plate as a truly global player.
"What we're seeing here is for the first time really in the history of U.S.-China relations, truly global issues are moving to the center of the U.S.-China relationship," said Kenneth Lieberthal, who was a top Asia adviser to former President Bill Clinton.
IS CHINA A RIVAL OR AN ALLY?
For all the talk of a growing U.S.-China partnership, in many ways the two remain rivals. Both U.S. conservatives and the Pentagon express concern about a decade of double-digit annual growth in the budget of China's secretive military.
"We don't deny the legitimacy, that they're entitled to modernize their military," said the U.S. official. "But given the size of China and its position, its neighbors, we are entitled to ask, 'Why are you doing the things that you're doing?'"
The top concern on both the left and the right in the United States, however, is Beijing's growing economic clout.
Highlighting U.S. ambivalence about China, a Thomson Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that while Americans view China as important, many are wary.
Thirty-four percent of Americans chose China as the "most important bilateral relationship" in a poll of 1,077 adults across the United States. Next were Britain, selected by 23 percent, and Canada, the choice of 18 percent.
When asked to characterize China, 56 percent saw it as an adversary while only 33 viewed it as an ally.
In some sectors, trade issues are going to "pit the U.S. against China" and Obama will need to assert U.S. interests without inviting a "nasty confrontation with China," said Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute.
The Obama administration says it will not shrink from standing up for U.S. economic interests. For proof, it says, look no further than its decision in September to slap a 35 percent duty on Chinese-made tires.
Since Obama took office in January, the administration has twice declined to label China a "currency manipulator" -- a designation that could trigger negotiations leading to possible trade sanctions. But Treasury has made clear it thinks China's currency, the renminbi, is undervalued and the topic is expected to come up when Obama meets Hu.
U.S. manufacturers say Beijing's policy of managing its currency puts them at a big disadvantage because the cheaper renminbi lowers the price of Chinese goods abroad. Last year, imports from China totaled more than $330 billion, making it by far the biggest contributor to the U.S. current account deficit.
But in a sense, no one buys American like Beijing -- at least when it comes to investing in debt securities. Having amassed some $800 billion of U.S. Treasuries, China is the largest holder of the U.S. government debt, giving Beijing new leverage over Washington but also making their economies more closely intertwined than ever.
"SHOT ACROSS THE BOW"
In what some U.S. analysts saw as a "shot across the bow" of the United States this year, Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan called for the creation of a super-sovereign reserve currency, all but saying the U.S. dollar's days as the world's preeminent currency were numbered.
He made the suggestion in an essay published a week before the London Group of 20 summit. Clearly aiming at an international audience, the central bank took the unusual step of publishing the paper in English at the same time as it issued the Chinese version.
"The central bank's discussion really did reflect China's anxieties about its massive forex reserves, the depreciating dollar and U.S. monetary issuance," said Dong Xian'an, chief economist at Industrial Securities in Shanghai.
China fears U.S. authorities will be tempted to "monetize the debt" by allowing inflation to rise, eroding the value of U.S.-dollar denominated assets held by the Chinese.
Premier Wen Jiabao put it bluntly when he spoke in March at the most important Chinese press conference of the year: "We have lent a massive amount of capital to the United States and of course we are concerned about security of our assets. To speak truthfully, I do indeed have some worries."
He urged America to maintain its "creditworthiness" and safeguard Chinese assets, a lecture that did not go unnoticed.
CURRENCY TALK HITS A NERVE
Chinese officials have taken umbrage at some suggestions that China's high savings rate contributed to the global imbalances. Some private-sector U.S. analysts say massive capital inflows from China helped fuel the housing bubble that set the stage for the financial crisis.
Zhou said in September that the paper about the dollar had been partly a way of rebuffing such criticisms.
But the central banker's proposal hit a nerve. Persistent complaints from Washington about the Chinese currency have long been a source of friction.
Moreover, the dollar has been sliding lately and public comments about the possibility of it losing its stature could reinforce its weakness, posing dangers for both China and the United States.
So the two countries have since found a way of discussing currencies that causes less of a stir in their capitals and in foreign exchange markets -- and the new name of the game is "rebalancing."
Although it was hesitant at first, Beijing got on board in Pittsburgh with a U.S. call for an economic rebalancing. The idea is for export-driven economies like China to boost domestic demand while big spenders like the United States strive to increase savings.
It is in this context that currencies could come up in the Hu-Obama meeting, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
"It will be clear that part of rebalancing is having a more balanced economic growth that depends more on domestic demand and that obviously implicates macroeconomic policy in all its dimensions," the official said.
This official rejected the widely held view that China's vast holdings of U.S. Treasuries are a matter of concern.
"They have an enormous stake in our economic success and we have an enormous stake in their economic success," this official said. "That's not a problem; it's a good thing. It's an enormously good thing and it should be welcomed."
Prestowitz said China's leverage is limited by an awareness that it too, would, suffer drastic consequence if it decided to suddenly unload its holdings of U.S. Treasuries.
"It would be a mutually-assured destruction situation," Prestowitz said in a view shared by many Chinese analysts.
"Under extreme circumstances, it might be possible for Chinese leaders to threaten to sell Treasuries," said Xie Tao, an expert on U.S.-China relations at the Beijing Foreign Studies University.
"But at the moment, I really cannot believe that they would do this," Xie said.
Rebalancing and currency rows are new items on a list of U.S.-China faultlines that has long been topped by Taiwan and human rights.
TENSIONS COOLING WITH TAIWAN
Taiwan is still the one issue that could trigger war between China, which claims sovereignty over the self-ruled island, and the United States, which is committed by U.S. law to provide weapons for Taiwan's defense.
But Obama's tenure has coincided with a cooling of tensions between Beijing and Taipei thanks to the 2008 election of Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, who has sought better ties with China. But potential friction over U.S. arms sales remains.
The Obama administration has angered some for appearing to play down human rights in the interest of gaining Chinese cooperation in combating the financial crisis.
Obama broke with presidential tradition and did not meet the Dalai Lama when the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader visited Washington last month. But U.S. officials reject the idea that Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama and tell critics to judge the policies by their results.
Other foreign policy disputes stem from China's scorching economic growth. China's need for energy and raw materials to fuel its growth has led it to deepen ties with countries which have troubled relations with the United States or face international condemnation for their human rights records or pursuit of banned weapons.
China's oil investments in Sudan drew calls for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics by critics who said China abetted the perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur. China's energy trade with Iran is seen as helping Tehran withstand Western economic sanctions over its nuclear ambitions.
Drew Thompson, director of China Studies at the Nixon Center in Washington, said the United States has started to take into account how Chinese "resource needs and self-perceived insecurities" influence its foreign policy.
"The more we address those insecurities and resolve them as much as possible, the more we will get from China in terms of shaping the behavior of other nations, such as Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe," he said.
NO LONGER CHURCHILL AND ROOSEVELT WITH A BRANDY
The new dynamic in Sino-America relations was on clear display last April, when Obama brokered a dispute between Hu and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G20 summit in London in April.
The G20 was under enormous pressure to show unity amid fears financial markets could face another wave of turmoil after the chaos of late 2008 and early 2009.
But at a luncheon of beef and asparagus, Hu and Sarkozy were deadlocked over the French president's proposal to crack down on international tax havens. China was concerned about the potential impact on the Hong Kong and Macau banking sectors.
Ratcheting up the pressure was a threat Sarkozy had issued on the eve of the summit to walk out unless the G20 talks yielded a firm commitment on financial regulatory reforms.
Obama pulled each leader aside and urged each to give ground, even though his own view on tax havens was closer to Sarkozy's.
At a news conference later, he spoke approvingly of the rise of countries like China and said it was a good thing decisions were no longer made by "Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy."
"That's an easier negotiation but that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be," Obama said.
WASHINGTON/BEIJING - Although U.S. President Barack Obama has never set foot there, China cast a long shadow in the Pacific region where he grew up.
Obama, who will visit Shanghai and Beijing for the first time on November 15-18, spent much of his childhood in Hawaii, five time zones away from Washington, D.C.; and beginning in 1967, when he was six years old, he lived in Jakarta for four years.
At the time, China was in the throes of Chairman Mao Zedong's bloody Cultural Revolution. Abroad, the nation was less interested in selling widgets than in promoting Mao's brand of radical communism -- a force the U.S. saw behind communist movements and political upheaval in Vietnam, Indonesia and elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
In 1979, Obama's senior year at Punahou school in Honolulu, China and the United States normalized diplomatic relations, launching a three-decade period in which ties between the two grew inexorably tighter and deeper -- and complicated.
"Think of what China was in 1979: It was an autarkic, insular, inward-looking country that was preoccupied with its own internal things," said a senior U.S. official. "Even 10 years ago ... there was still a sort of sense of 'We're not a part of these global rules, we're not doing this stuff.' Now they see themselves as sitting at the table."
If there were any doubts that China would have a seat at the table from now on, Obama dispelled those when he sent Secretary of State Hillary Clinton there on her first official trip abroad -- not Pakistan, Afghanistan or any other foreign policy hot spot.
"That the first major visit (was) to China, and to Asia as well, is symbolic of where the locus of international economic activity -- and to some degree the locus of international activity, period -- is going to be in the coming years," said economist and author Zachary Karabell, whose new book "Superfusion" posits that the U.S. and Chinese economies have effectively merged.
Beijing, once considered a wallflower on global affairs, is in turn warming to its more prominent role, though it's unclear that will translate into greater cooperation with Washington on issues like climate change and the nuclear disputes with Iran and North Korea -- not to mention human rights differences.
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg highlighted the tension at the heart of the relationship in a speech in September. "Given China's growing capabilities and influence, we have an especially compelling need to work with China to meet global challenges," he said.
But Steinberg added that there was a tacit bargain in which the United States expects China to reassure the rest of the world that its growing role "will not come at the expense of security and wellbeing of others."
That of course includes America's.
"The big challenge there is going to be to maintain a competitive U.S. economy, and at the same time to maintain a high degree of stability and equanimity in the U.S.-China relationship," said Clyde Prestowitz, president of the Economic Strategy Institute think tank.
Indeed, even as the United States and China have grown closer diplomatically, their economic and trade ties have deepened to the point of mutual dependence. Not only does China depend on the U.S. export market to fuel its highflying economic growth rates, the United States relies on China's vast savings to help finance its burgeoning budget deficits.
"It is clearly unsustainable. This relationship helped give rise to global economic imbalances," said Ben Simpfendorfer, an economist with Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong. "If we are ever going to free ourselves of these imbalances, we need to reverse this relationship, get China to buy things in the U.S. and the U.S. to invest in China."
"STAKEHOLDER" STRATEGY
When it comes to the big foreign policy issues of the day, the Obama White House and that of his predecessor George W. Bush tend to live in opposite worlds. The rare exception is China.
Obama's approach builds on aspects of the Bush administration's stance toward China, which encouraged Beijing to be a responsible "stakeholder" in the global community.
But all indications are that the Obama White House intends to move the bilateral relationship to the next level, making it more of a partnership -- and that in turn is raising hackles among some traditional U.S. allies, who often don't see eye to eye with China and now worry they will be marginalized.
One of the clearest signals of the Obama administration's desire to give China and other large, fast-growing economies more global clout was the decision -- adopted at the Pittsburgh Group of 20 summit in September -- to make the G20 the premier forum for discussing global economic issues.
The shift reduces the role of the G7 and G8, groups dominated by rich Western countries that have long enjoyed elite status in global economic decision-making. And that has led to some European anxiety that the G20 could give way to a G2 of the United States and China.
In Pittsburgh, European officials privately vented frustration at a U.S. willingness to bend over backwards to give China a voice. During one session on International Monetary Fund voting power, a European official became so angry at China's position he had to leave the room to cool down.
At a luncheon, some Europeans were less astonished by China's refusal to include climate change in the communique than by the United States' willingness to go along. Several delegates could barely eat their lunch, according to a former U.S. official who was told of how the discussion played out.
But the Obama administration wants to reassure Beijing that the United States, for one, welcomes China's new assertiveness on the world stage, even if the two countries don't always agree.
Climate change is expected to be a major topic of Obama's meetings with President Hu Jintao when he visits Beijing. Ahead of the December 7 global climate talks in Copenhagen, the administration sees this issue as a key test of whether China will step up to the plate as a truly global player.
"What we're seeing here is for the first time really in the history of U.S.-China relations, truly global issues are moving to the center of the U.S.-China relationship," said Kenneth Lieberthal, who was a top Asia adviser to former President Bill Clinton.
IS CHINA A RIVAL OR AN ALLY?
For all the talk of a growing U.S.-China partnership, in many ways the two remain rivals. Both U.S. conservatives and the Pentagon express concern about a decade of double-digit annual growth in the budget of China's secretive military.
"We don't deny the legitimacy, that they're entitled to modernize their military," said the U.S. official. "But given the size of China and its position, its neighbors, we are entitled to ask, 'Why are you doing the things that you're doing?'"
The top concern on both the left and the right in the United States, however, is Beijing's growing economic clout.
Highlighting U.S. ambivalence about China, a Thomson Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that while Americans view China as important, many are wary.
Thirty-four percent of Americans chose China as the "most important bilateral relationship" in a poll of 1,077 adults across the United States. Next were Britain, selected by 23 percent, and Canada, the choice of 18 percent.
When asked to characterize China, 56 percent saw it as an adversary while only 33 viewed it as an ally.
In some sectors, trade issues are going to "pit the U.S. against China" and Obama will need to assert U.S. interests without inviting a "nasty confrontation with China," said Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute.
The Obama administration says it will not shrink from standing up for U.S. economic interests. For proof, it says, look no further than its decision in September to slap a 35 percent duty on Chinese-made tires.
Since Obama took office in January, the administration has twice declined to label China a "currency manipulator" -- a designation that could trigger negotiations leading to possible trade sanctions. But Treasury has made clear it thinks China's currency, the renminbi, is undervalued and the topic is expected to come up when Obama meets Hu.
U.S. manufacturers say Beijing's policy of managing its currency puts them at a big disadvantage because the cheaper renminbi lowers the price of Chinese goods abroad. Last year, imports from China totaled more than $330 billion, making it by far the biggest contributor to the U.S. current account deficit.
But in a sense, no one buys American like Beijing -- at least when it comes to investing in debt securities. Having amassed some $800 billion of U.S. Treasuries, China is the largest holder of the U.S. government debt, giving Beijing new leverage over Washington but also making their economies more closely intertwined than ever.
"SHOT ACROSS THE BOW"
In what some U.S. analysts saw as a "shot across the bow" of the United States this year, Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan called for the creation of a super-sovereign reserve currency, all but saying the U.S. dollar's days as the world's preeminent currency were numbered.
He made the suggestion in an essay published a week before the London Group of 20 summit. Clearly aiming at an international audience, the central bank took the unusual step of publishing the paper in English at the same time as it issued the Chinese version.
"The central bank's discussion really did reflect China's anxieties about its massive forex reserves, the depreciating dollar and U.S. monetary issuance," said Dong Xian'an, chief economist at Industrial Securities in Shanghai.
China fears U.S. authorities will be tempted to "monetize the debt" by allowing inflation to rise, eroding the value of U.S.-dollar denominated assets held by the Chinese.
Premier Wen Jiabao put it bluntly when he spoke in March at the most important Chinese press conference of the year: "We have lent a massive amount of capital to the United States and of course we are concerned about security of our assets. To speak truthfully, I do indeed have some worries."
He urged America to maintain its "creditworthiness" and safeguard Chinese assets, a lecture that did not go unnoticed.
CURRENCY TALK HITS A NERVE
Chinese officials have taken umbrage at some suggestions that China's high savings rate contributed to the global imbalances. Some private-sector U.S. analysts say massive capital inflows from China helped fuel the housing bubble that set the stage for the financial crisis.
Zhou said in September that the paper about the dollar had been partly a way of rebuffing such criticisms.
But the central banker's proposal hit a nerve. Persistent complaints from Washington about the Chinese currency have long been a source of friction.
Moreover, the dollar has been sliding lately and public comments about the possibility of it losing its stature could reinforce its weakness, posing dangers for both China and the United States.
So the two countries have since found a way of discussing currencies that causes less of a stir in their capitals and in foreign exchange markets -- and the new name of the game is "rebalancing."
Although it was hesitant at first, Beijing got on board in Pittsburgh with a U.S. call for an economic rebalancing. The idea is for export-driven economies like China to boost domestic demand while big spenders like the United States strive to increase savings.
It is in this context that currencies could come up in the Hu-Obama meeting, said a senior U.S. official who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity.
"It will be clear that part of rebalancing is having a more balanced economic growth that depends more on domestic demand and that obviously implicates macroeconomic policy in all its dimensions," the official said.
This official rejected the widely held view that China's vast holdings of U.S. Treasuries are a matter of concern.
"They have an enormous stake in our economic success and we have an enormous stake in their economic success," this official said. "That's not a problem; it's a good thing. It's an enormously good thing and it should be welcomed."
Prestowitz said China's leverage is limited by an awareness that it too, would, suffer drastic consequence if it decided to suddenly unload its holdings of U.S. Treasuries.
"It would be a mutually-assured destruction situation," Prestowitz said in a view shared by many Chinese analysts.
"Under extreme circumstances, it might be possible for Chinese leaders to threaten to sell Treasuries," said Xie Tao, an expert on U.S.-China relations at the Beijing Foreign Studies University.
"But at the moment, I really cannot believe that they would do this," Xie said.
Rebalancing and currency rows are new items on a list of U.S.-China faultlines that has long been topped by Taiwan and human rights.
TENSIONS COOLING WITH TAIWAN
Taiwan is still the one issue that could trigger war between China, which claims sovereignty over the self-ruled island, and the United States, which is committed by U.S. law to provide weapons for Taiwan's defense.
But Obama's tenure has coincided with a cooling of tensions between Beijing and Taipei thanks to the 2008 election of Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, who has sought better ties with China. But potential friction over U.S. arms sales remains.
The Obama administration has angered some for appearing to play down human rights in the interest of gaining Chinese cooperation in combating the financial crisis.
Obama broke with presidential tradition and did not meet the Dalai Lama when the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader visited Washington last month. But U.S. officials reject the idea that Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama and tell critics to judge the policies by their results.
Other foreign policy disputes stem from China's scorching economic growth. China's need for energy and raw materials to fuel its growth has led it to deepen ties with countries which have troubled relations with the United States or face international condemnation for their human rights records or pursuit of banned weapons.
China's oil investments in Sudan drew calls for a boycott of the 2008 Beijing Olympics by critics who said China abetted the perpetrators of atrocities in Darfur. China's energy trade with Iran is seen as helping Tehran withstand Western economic sanctions over its nuclear ambitions.
Drew Thompson, director of China Studies at the Nixon Center in Washington, said the United States has started to take into account how Chinese "resource needs and self-perceived insecurities" influence its foreign policy.
"The more we address those insecurities and resolve them as much as possible, the more we will get from China in terms of shaping the behavior of other nations, such as Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe," he said.
NO LONGER CHURCHILL AND ROOSEVELT WITH A BRANDY
The new dynamic in Sino-America relations was on clear display last April, when Obama brokered a dispute between Hu and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the G20 summit in London in April.
The G20 was under enormous pressure to show unity amid fears financial markets could face another wave of turmoil after the chaos of late 2008 and early 2009.
But at a luncheon of beef and asparagus, Hu and Sarkozy were deadlocked over the French president's proposal to crack down on international tax havens. China was concerned about the potential impact on the Hong Kong and Macau banking sectors.
Ratcheting up the pressure was a threat Sarkozy had issued on the eve of the summit to walk out unless the G20 talks yielded a firm commitment on financial regulatory reforms.
Obama pulled each leader aside and urged each to give ground, even though his own view on tax havens was closer to Sarkozy's.
At a news conference later, he spoke approvingly of the rise of countries like China and said it was a good thing decisions were no longer made by "Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy."
"That's an easier negotiation but that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be," Obama said.
Karzai Vows Corruption Fight, but Avoids Details
New York Times
KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai, in his first speech since he was declared the winner of the much disputed presidential election, said Tuesday that he wanted to tackle corruption but made no specific commitments to reorganizing his administration.“Afghanistan has been tarnished by administrative corruption, and I will launch a campaign to clean the government of corruption,” he said.Asked if that might involve changing important ministers and officials, he said: “These problems cannot be solved by changing high-ranking officials. We’ll review the laws and see what problems are in the law, and we will draft some new laws.”Mr. Karzai’s cabinet and members of his campaign office attended the news conference, and he was flanked by his two vice presidents, Karim Khalili and Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim. Marshal Fahim is among the powerful Afghans the international community has accused of abuses or corruption and has been pressing Mr. Karzai to act against. He is accused of drug trafficking, as is Mr. Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai.Mr. Karzai said he would try to strengthen an anticorruption commission that was set up last year.Although he said repeatedly that his government would seek to unify the country and that he wanted to work with all Afghans, Mr. Karzai did not offer his former rival, Abdullah Abdullah, a place in the government and pointedly avoided answering questions about what role he might have.On Monday, Mr. Karzai was declared the winner of the fraud-marred Aug. 20 presidential election, after Mr. Abdullah’s withdrawal from the runoff.The next days and weeks will be absorbed with choosing Mr. Karzai’s new cabinet and balancing the many demands of his political allies who supported him in the election race and international pressure for competent and reform-minded ministers.He is expected to reach out to Mr. Abdullah and bring some members of Mr. Abdullah’s team into the government in the interests of national unity.No date has been set yet for the inauguration, but Western diplomats are already hoping that Mr. Karzai will use his inaugural speech to lay out an agenda responsive to international concerns ahead of a donors conference in December in Kabul.
KABUL, Afghanistan — President Hamid Karzai, in his first speech since he was declared the winner of the much disputed presidential election, said Tuesday that he wanted to tackle corruption but made no specific commitments to reorganizing his administration.“Afghanistan has been tarnished by administrative corruption, and I will launch a campaign to clean the government of corruption,” he said.Asked if that might involve changing important ministers and officials, he said: “These problems cannot be solved by changing high-ranking officials. We’ll review the laws and see what problems are in the law, and we will draft some new laws.”Mr. Karzai’s cabinet and members of his campaign office attended the news conference, and he was flanked by his two vice presidents, Karim Khalili and Marshal Muhammad Qasim Fahim. Marshal Fahim is among the powerful Afghans the international community has accused of abuses or corruption and has been pressing Mr. Karzai to act against. He is accused of drug trafficking, as is Mr. Karzai’s brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai.Mr. Karzai said he would try to strengthen an anticorruption commission that was set up last year.Although he said repeatedly that his government would seek to unify the country and that he wanted to work with all Afghans, Mr. Karzai did not offer his former rival, Abdullah Abdullah, a place in the government and pointedly avoided answering questions about what role he might have.On Monday, Mr. Karzai was declared the winner of the fraud-marred Aug. 20 presidential election, after Mr. Abdullah’s withdrawal from the runoff.The next days and weeks will be absorbed with choosing Mr. Karzai’s new cabinet and balancing the many demands of his political allies who supported him in the election race and international pressure for competent and reform-minded ministers.He is expected to reach out to Mr. Abdullah and bring some members of Mr. Abdullah’s team into the government in the interests of national unity.No date has been set yet for the inauguration, but Western diplomats are already hoping that Mr. Karzai will use his inaugural speech to lay out an agenda responsive to international concerns ahead of a donors conference in December in Kabul.
Citizens’ security top priority: Hoti
PESHAWAR: The NWFP government is taking measures to guarantee the security of the citizens, NWFP Chief Minister Ameer Haider Khan Hoti said on Tuesday. Addressing a press conference at the Frontier House, Hoti said the provincial government had deployed 300 former army personnel in Peshawar, adding that another 700 officials would be deputed soon. “The government is taking serious steps to protect the citizens and their property,” he said. Hoti ordered the Finance Department to release the funds he had approved for the Police Department. The CM lauded security forces for rendering sacrifices in the war against militancy. Hoti did not rule out the “possibility of involvement of foreign hands in terrorism”, adding that such elements wanted to destabilise Pakistan. He said the masterminds of the recent bombings in Peshawar had been arrested and were being interrogated. The CM also said the NWFP would get an additional Rs 157 billion as interest on the actual amount of arrears of the net hydel profit.
Pakistanis Seek Blame for Bombing
NewYorkTimes
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — It has been a week since the bomb exploded at the women’s market here, but people still talk about the images of its aftermath: women’s bodies, naked and broken. A hand with hennaed nails. An arm still wearing bracelets.
Even for Peshawar, a city that has long been pummeled by violent attacks, the bombing in the Meena market last week felt different. The violence was aimed not at soldiers or the police, but at society’s most vulnerable members — poor women and children, who made up about half of the bombing’s 114 victims.
In two days of interviews, Pakistanis here said they believed the war had taken a dark new turn, with civilians now bearing the brunt of insurgents’ fury. But that does not mean greater public anger at the Taliban.
The attack was so disturbing that people refused to believe that their countrymen were the culprits. If anything, it was met with disbelief or anger at the government for failing to protect civilians.
“The Taliban talk about morality and women’s dress, but they wouldn’t do such a thing to us,” said Muhamed Orenzeib Khan, a gas station attendant who lost nine members of his family in the blast. “Their target was never the common people.”
The brutality of the bombing and people’s reaction show just how complicated Pakistan’s militancy problem has become. The military is now in the third week of a campaign against the Taliban, and though it has widespread public support, there is still a great reluctance to accept that Pakistanis or fellow Muslims are the ones doing the killing.
Like Iraqis in the early days of their war, many Pakistanis insist that foreigners carry out the most devastating bombings, and turn to conspiracy theories to explain a reality that is otherwise too awful to face.
“It’s not easy to say our countrymen are in any way involved,” said Altaf U. Khan, a professor in the journalism department at the University of Peshawar. “There is a feeling of extreme helplessness: ‘We have no power, so why take responsibility?’ ”
Denial brings its own problems, namely the risk of prolonging the insurgency, because people do not know who their enemy is. That seemed to be the case for Muhammed Afzal, an oil trader whose building was damaged in the blast. “I know my tribal people,” he said, sitting on a couch in a room with blown-out windows. “They aren’t strong enough to do something like this.”
Mr. Afzal, who has relatives in Texas and Florida, offered a view of who was responsible, similar to many others interviewed here. “I’m telling you categorically — the people behind this bomb are the Indians and Mossad,” he said, referring to Israel’s intelligence agency. India and Pakistan are archenemies, and India figures into many Pakistani conspiracy theories.The Meena market is packed with vendors selling fabrics, spices and soap. But it is best known as the place where poor families shop for weddings, whose season begins this month, when Pakistan’s boiling weather cools.
The Khan family members who were killed — among them six children — had gone to the market to buy bangles and new shoes for the children for a wedding that they calculated would cost about $1,250, a sum that took them five years to save.
“These people are merely spectators in our society — they don’t have any say,” said Professor Khan of the University of Peshawar. “They grasp these small happinesses.”
The bombing, he said, “has stabbed at the weakest part of our hearts.”
As confused as people were about the perpetrators of the bombing, their anger at the government was clear and sharp.
Why does the government protect five-star hotels like the Marriott and Serena, where Islamabad’s elite celebrate, but not places like the Meena market? Sonia Khan asked angrily. “This blast targeted poor people,” she said, kneeling in a room without power in an apartment near the market that her family rents. “All the machinery is put toward guarding the rich, and we are left out in the open.”
On Monday, rescue workers were still digging for 15 people who remained missing. Mazar Iqbal, the owner of a plastic-bag shop, stood watching. He was saved by sugar — his wife had asked him to buy some just minutes before the blast — but his neighbor was crushed to death when his shop collapsed from the force of the blast.
Mr. Iqbal said he could not get the images of the women out of his mind, their naked bodies lying on the pavement, a deeply unnatural sight. “We are confused,” he said, as a backhoe scraped at what was left of his shop. “We are not blaming anyone. We are not ready to believe that this was done by a human being.”
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — It has been a week since the bomb exploded at the women’s market here, but people still talk about the images of its aftermath: women’s bodies, naked and broken. A hand with hennaed nails. An arm still wearing bracelets.
Even for Peshawar, a city that has long been pummeled by violent attacks, the bombing in the Meena market last week felt different. The violence was aimed not at soldiers or the police, but at society’s most vulnerable members — poor women and children, who made up about half of the bombing’s 114 victims.
In two days of interviews, Pakistanis here said they believed the war had taken a dark new turn, with civilians now bearing the brunt of insurgents’ fury. But that does not mean greater public anger at the Taliban.
The attack was so disturbing that people refused to believe that their countrymen were the culprits. If anything, it was met with disbelief or anger at the government for failing to protect civilians.
“The Taliban talk about morality and women’s dress, but they wouldn’t do such a thing to us,” said Muhamed Orenzeib Khan, a gas station attendant who lost nine members of his family in the blast. “Their target was never the common people.”
The brutality of the bombing and people’s reaction show just how complicated Pakistan’s militancy problem has become. The military is now in the third week of a campaign against the Taliban, and though it has widespread public support, there is still a great reluctance to accept that Pakistanis or fellow Muslims are the ones doing the killing.
Like Iraqis in the early days of their war, many Pakistanis insist that foreigners carry out the most devastating bombings, and turn to conspiracy theories to explain a reality that is otherwise too awful to face.
“It’s not easy to say our countrymen are in any way involved,” said Altaf U. Khan, a professor in the journalism department at the University of Peshawar. “There is a feeling of extreme helplessness: ‘We have no power, so why take responsibility?’ ”
Denial brings its own problems, namely the risk of prolonging the insurgency, because people do not know who their enemy is. That seemed to be the case for Muhammed Afzal, an oil trader whose building was damaged in the blast. “I know my tribal people,” he said, sitting on a couch in a room with blown-out windows. “They aren’t strong enough to do something like this.”
Mr. Afzal, who has relatives in Texas and Florida, offered a view of who was responsible, similar to many others interviewed here. “I’m telling you categorically — the people behind this bomb are the Indians and Mossad,” he said, referring to Israel’s intelligence agency. India and Pakistan are archenemies, and India figures into many Pakistani conspiracy theories.The Meena market is packed with vendors selling fabrics, spices and soap. But it is best known as the place where poor families shop for weddings, whose season begins this month, when Pakistan’s boiling weather cools.
The Khan family members who were killed — among them six children — had gone to the market to buy bangles and new shoes for the children for a wedding that they calculated would cost about $1,250, a sum that took them five years to save.
“These people are merely spectators in our society — they don’t have any say,” said Professor Khan of the University of Peshawar. “They grasp these small happinesses.”
The bombing, he said, “has stabbed at the weakest part of our hearts.”
As confused as people were about the perpetrators of the bombing, their anger at the government was clear and sharp.
Why does the government protect five-star hotels like the Marriott and Serena, where Islamabad’s elite celebrate, but not places like the Meena market? Sonia Khan asked angrily. “This blast targeted poor people,” she said, kneeling in a room without power in an apartment near the market that her family rents. “All the machinery is put toward guarding the rich, and we are left out in the open.”
On Monday, rescue workers were still digging for 15 people who remained missing. Mazar Iqbal, the owner of a plastic-bag shop, stood watching. He was saved by sugar — his wife had asked him to buy some just minutes before the blast — but his neighbor was crushed to death when his shop collapsed from the force of the blast.
Mr. Iqbal said he could not get the images of the women out of his mind, their naked bodies lying on the pavement, a deeply unnatural sight. “We are confused,” he said, as a backhoe scraped at what was left of his shop. “We are not blaming anyone. We are not ready to believe that this was done by a human being.”
Pakistan’s Army Captures Taliban Stronghold in South Waziristan
Pakistan’s army said it captured a Taliban stronghold at Sararogha in South Waziristan as troops try to complete an offensive to clear fighters from the region before winter starts next month.
“Security forces have commenced sanitization of Sararogha” and are clearing the area of explosive devices, the army said in a statement yesterday. Pakistan says the offensive in South Waziristan has cut off escape routes to prevent the Taliban from fleeing in large numbers.
The Taliban denied their forces are being defeated, saying they are withdrawing in order to fight a “long war,” the Associated Press reported yesterday, citing a spokesman for the group.
The army began its largest operation against militants in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan last month. The offensive provoked suicide bombings and attacks that have killed more than 300 people.
“There is no place for the Taliban in Pakistan,” the Associated Press of Pakistan cited Interior Minister Rehman Malik as saying in a radio interview yesterday in Islamabad. “The entire nation has said no to the Taliban.”
Fifty-one percent of people supported the government’s offensive, according to a poll by the Gilani Research Foundation conducted by Gallup Pakistan, the Dawn newspaper reported yesterday on its Web site. Thirteen percent of more than 2,700 people surveyed across the country opposed the military action and 36 percent were undecided, the newspaper said. It didn’t give a margin of error for the poll.
Stocks Rise
Pakistan stocks rose for the first day in six yesterday with the benchmark Karachi Stock Exchange 100 Index gaining 0.8 percent. The gauge fell 5.4 percent in the previous five trading sessions, driven down by the resurgence of terrorist attacks, including a suicide bombing in Rawalpindi Nov. 2 that killed 35 people queuing outside a bank.
“We are prepared for a long war,” AP cited Azam Tariq, a Taliban spokesman, as saying by telephone yesterday. “The areas we are withdrawing from, and the ones the army is claiming to have won, are being vacated by us.’
The move is part of the Taliban’s strategy to draw the army into a trap deep inside South Waziristan, he said.
Accounts of the fighting are difficult to confirm as Pakistan bars foreigners from the tribal areas and local journalists have been forced out by the government and Taliban.
Pakistan’s government earlier this week offered cash rewards of $5 million for the capture of Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud and 18 of his fighters.
The United Nations said two days ago it is withdrawing some international workers from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas that include Waziristan and North West Frontier Province, leaving only those vital for emergency work.
As many as 300,000 people fleeing the fighting have arrived in the Tank and Dera Ismail Khan area and “around 25,000 more are expected to arrive in the next few weeks,” Khalid Fayaz Khan, director of the Fida Welfare Organization, a charity working with those displaced from South Waziristan, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
“Security forces have commenced sanitization of Sararogha” and are clearing the area of explosive devices, the army said in a statement yesterday. Pakistan says the offensive in South Waziristan has cut off escape routes to prevent the Taliban from fleeing in large numbers.
The Taliban denied their forces are being defeated, saying they are withdrawing in order to fight a “long war,” the Associated Press reported yesterday, citing a spokesman for the group.
The army began its largest operation against militants in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan last month. The offensive provoked suicide bombings and attacks that have killed more than 300 people.
“There is no place for the Taliban in Pakistan,” the Associated Press of Pakistan cited Interior Minister Rehman Malik as saying in a radio interview yesterday in Islamabad. “The entire nation has said no to the Taliban.”
Fifty-one percent of people supported the government’s offensive, according to a poll by the Gilani Research Foundation conducted by Gallup Pakistan, the Dawn newspaper reported yesterday on its Web site. Thirteen percent of more than 2,700 people surveyed across the country opposed the military action and 36 percent were undecided, the newspaper said. It didn’t give a margin of error for the poll.
Stocks Rise
Pakistan stocks rose for the first day in six yesterday with the benchmark Karachi Stock Exchange 100 Index gaining 0.8 percent. The gauge fell 5.4 percent in the previous five trading sessions, driven down by the resurgence of terrorist attacks, including a suicide bombing in Rawalpindi Nov. 2 that killed 35 people queuing outside a bank.
“We are prepared for a long war,” AP cited Azam Tariq, a Taliban spokesman, as saying by telephone yesterday. “The areas we are withdrawing from, and the ones the army is claiming to have won, are being vacated by us.’
The move is part of the Taliban’s strategy to draw the army into a trap deep inside South Waziristan, he said.
Accounts of the fighting are difficult to confirm as Pakistan bars foreigners from the tribal areas and local journalists have been forced out by the government and Taliban.
Pakistan’s government earlier this week offered cash rewards of $5 million for the capture of Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud and 18 of his fighters.
The United Nations said two days ago it is withdrawing some international workers from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas that include Waziristan and North West Frontier Province, leaving only those vital for emergency work.
As many as 300,000 people fleeing the fighting have arrived in the Tank and Dera Ismail Khan area and “around 25,000 more are expected to arrive in the next few weeks,” Khalid Fayaz Khan, director of the Fida Welfare Organization, a charity working with those displaced from South Waziristan, said in a telephone interview yesterday.
Hydel profit to help NWFP stand on its feet: CM
PESHAWAR: Chief Minister Ameer Haider Khan Hoti on Tuesday said that his government planned to invest in hydel power generation, oil and gas exploration, tourism and mineral development to generate resources and enable the province stand on its own feet.
‘Internal security remains high on our agenda but our major thrust would be on investing in sectors that generate resources for us. This is very, very important for the future of our province,’ the chief minister told a news conference.
The chief minister lauded his government’s efforts for effectively pleading the case of the province with reference to the long-stalled issue of net profits from hydel power generation.
He was flanked by senior ministers Bashir Ahmad Bilour and Rahimdad Khan, Finance Minister Humayun Khan and NWFP representative in the National Finance Commission Haji Muhammad Adeel and former chief secretary Khalid Aziz.
The chief minister said that the federal government had agreed to pay Rs10 billion on account of NWFP’s liabilities towards Wapda, while the remaining Rs100 billion would paid in four equal installments over a period of four years.
He said that he had already directed all the concerned departments to complete their spadework and prepare feasibility reports to utilise the money in a proper way.
‘We better prepare ourselves, so that we don’t squander precious time,’ he said.
Mr Hoti said that his party leaders had struggled for provincial autonomy and provincial rights and termed the federal government’s decision to own Wapda’s liabilities as a big achievement.
He also thanked other political parties for their support in achieving provincial rights. ‘This is a major achievement but much remains to be done,’ he remarked.
‘At a time when we are in a state of war and need extraordinary support, not only did the federal government recognise our role but also supported us by giving what has long been our due right.’
He said that matter relating to the balance payment of Rs157 billion on account of mark-up and unpaid dues from 2006 to 2009 had been handed over to a technical committee.
He hoped that the matter would be resolved in two to three months time.
He said that the amount of net profits from hydel generation had been capped at Rs6 billion. It would be uncapped and worked out in accordance with the agreed formula, he added.
‘What we need to see is that now that financial space has been created, what will be our priorities,’ he asked.
He said that social sectors would not be sidestepped and much of the money would be spent on developing vital sectors to secure the future of the NWFP and expand its financial base.
He said that the NFC would meet in Karachi and then reconvene in Lahore to finalise its recommendations. The chief minister said that internal security would continue to be high on his government’s agenda and priority.
He pointed that the entire amount of Rs24 billion from the federal government was being spent on enhancing pay and packages of the police, giving them better arms, ammunition and equipment to meet their security requirements.
He said that the prime minister had agreed to announce a special package for Peshawar and southern districts of the NWFP amounting to Rs23 billion.
‘Internal security remains high on our agenda but our major thrust would be on investing in sectors that generate resources for us. This is very, very important for the future of our province,’ the chief minister told a news conference.
The chief minister lauded his government’s efforts for effectively pleading the case of the province with reference to the long-stalled issue of net profits from hydel power generation.
He was flanked by senior ministers Bashir Ahmad Bilour and Rahimdad Khan, Finance Minister Humayun Khan and NWFP representative in the National Finance Commission Haji Muhammad Adeel and former chief secretary Khalid Aziz.
The chief minister said that the federal government had agreed to pay Rs10 billion on account of NWFP’s liabilities towards Wapda, while the remaining Rs100 billion would paid in four equal installments over a period of four years.
He said that he had already directed all the concerned departments to complete their spadework and prepare feasibility reports to utilise the money in a proper way.
‘We better prepare ourselves, so that we don’t squander precious time,’ he said.
Mr Hoti said that his party leaders had struggled for provincial autonomy and provincial rights and termed the federal government’s decision to own Wapda’s liabilities as a big achievement.
He also thanked other political parties for their support in achieving provincial rights. ‘This is a major achievement but much remains to be done,’ he remarked.
‘At a time when we are in a state of war and need extraordinary support, not only did the federal government recognise our role but also supported us by giving what has long been our due right.’
He said that matter relating to the balance payment of Rs157 billion on account of mark-up and unpaid dues from 2006 to 2009 had been handed over to a technical committee.
He hoped that the matter would be resolved in two to three months time.
He said that the amount of net profits from hydel generation had been capped at Rs6 billion. It would be uncapped and worked out in accordance with the agreed formula, he added.
‘What we need to see is that now that financial space has been created, what will be our priorities,’ he asked.
He said that social sectors would not be sidestepped and much of the money would be spent on developing vital sectors to secure the future of the NWFP and expand its financial base.
He said that the NFC would meet in Karachi and then reconvene in Lahore to finalise its recommendations. The chief minister said that internal security would continue to be high on his government’s agenda and priority.
He pointed that the entire amount of Rs24 billion from the federal government was being spent on enhancing pay and packages of the police, giving them better arms, ammunition and equipment to meet their security requirements.
He said that the prime minister had agreed to announce a special package for Peshawar and southern districts of the NWFP amounting to Rs23 billion.
Karzai readies for second term as Afghan president
KABUL : President Hamid Karzai prepared for a second term of office on Tuesday with US President Barack Obama telling him to wipe out corruption and world leaders urging him to unify Afghanistan.
Karzai was declared president for another five years after the cancellation of a run-off by the country's election commission, which followed the withdrawal at the weekend of his only challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.
Obama and UN chief Ban Ki-moon led world powers in congratulating Karzai, who is due to give a press conference around 10:00 am (0500 GMT) Tuesday.
But the US president said he had told his opposite number to make "a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption" while calling for a "new chapter" in cooperation between the two countries.
"This has to be point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter based on improved governance," Obama said he had told Karzai in a telephone call.
Karzai "assured me that he understood the importance of this moment but... the truth is not going to be in words, it's going to be in deeds," Obama added.
Earlier the White House declared Karzai the "legitimate leader of the country" but said it would begin "hard conversations" with the new president, with Obama expected to make a decision on whether to deploy thousands more troops "in the coming weeks".
Former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah quit the contest on Sunday, saying there were no safeguards against a repeat of widespread fraud that resulted in the throwing out of nearly a quarter of votes cast in August.
Karzai's anointment by the Independent Election Commission followed intense diplomatic pressure and sought to draw a line under two months of political chaos in a war-torn nation where 100,000 Nato and US troops are battling an increasingly violent Taliban insurgency.
UN chief Ban met Karzai and Abdullah amid a concerted diplomatic push to bring a quick end to chaos that has undermined Western efforts to cultivate democracy in Afghanistan eight years after a US-led invasion.
IEC chief Azizullah Ludin, a Karzai appointee who oversaw a fraud-riddled first round, said the decision had been made in line with the provisions of Afghan electoral law and constitution and was "consistent with the high interest of the Afghan people".
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose country is the second biggest contributor of foreign troops in Afghanistan, telephoned Karzai to urge him to plot a course of national unity.
"They discussed the importance of the president moving quickly to set out a unifying programme for the future of Afghanistan," said a spokesman for Brown.
Nato powers France and Germany urged Karzai to work with his defeated rival to end the political strife.
Congratulations also came from Pakistan and Russia, which said the election had "opened the way for the formation of the new national government, whose great task is the key problem of stabilising conditions in the country."
There had been great unease about staging the November 7 poll at a time when a Taliban insurgency is gathering pace.
The IEC's deputy chief electoral officer Zakria Barakzai said the commission would have been in breach of article 61 of the constitution -- which states two candidates must contest a run-off -- had they allowed the contest to go ahead without Abdullah.
First-round turnout was as low as five percent on August 20 in areas worst hit by the Taliban insurgency and with the militia threatening fresh attacks, the numbers voting this time were likely to have been even lower.
Analysts said Karzai, already tainted by the first round fraud, would struggle to proclaim his legitimacy in such circumstances.
After Karzai snubbed a series of demands promoted by his rival as a chance to avoid a repeat of massive first-round fraud, Abdullah said Sunday that he saw no point in standing, but had stopped short of calling for a boycott.
Karzai was declared president for another five years after the cancellation of a run-off by the country's election commission, which followed the withdrawal at the weekend of his only challenger, Abdullah Abdullah.
Obama and UN chief Ban Ki-moon led world powers in congratulating Karzai, who is due to give a press conference around 10:00 am (0500 GMT) Tuesday.
But the US president said he had told his opposite number to make "a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption" while calling for a "new chapter" in cooperation between the two countries.
"This has to be point in time in which we begin to write a new chapter based on improved governance," Obama said he had told Karzai in a telephone call.
Karzai "assured me that he understood the importance of this moment but... the truth is not going to be in words, it's going to be in deeds," Obama added.
Earlier the White House declared Karzai the "legitimate leader of the country" but said it would begin "hard conversations" with the new president, with Obama expected to make a decision on whether to deploy thousands more troops "in the coming weeks".
Former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah quit the contest on Sunday, saying there were no safeguards against a repeat of widespread fraud that resulted in the throwing out of nearly a quarter of votes cast in August.
Karzai's anointment by the Independent Election Commission followed intense diplomatic pressure and sought to draw a line under two months of political chaos in a war-torn nation where 100,000 Nato and US troops are battling an increasingly violent Taliban insurgency.
UN chief Ban met Karzai and Abdullah amid a concerted diplomatic push to bring a quick end to chaos that has undermined Western efforts to cultivate democracy in Afghanistan eight years after a US-led invasion.
IEC chief Azizullah Ludin, a Karzai appointee who oversaw a fraud-riddled first round, said the decision had been made in line with the provisions of Afghan electoral law and constitution and was "consistent with the high interest of the Afghan people".
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose country is the second biggest contributor of foreign troops in Afghanistan, telephoned Karzai to urge him to plot a course of national unity.
"They discussed the importance of the president moving quickly to set out a unifying programme for the future of Afghanistan," said a spokesman for Brown.
Nato powers France and Germany urged Karzai to work with his defeated rival to end the political strife.
Congratulations also came from Pakistan and Russia, which said the election had "opened the way for the formation of the new national government, whose great task is the key problem of stabilising conditions in the country."
There had been great unease about staging the November 7 poll at a time when a Taliban insurgency is gathering pace.
The IEC's deputy chief electoral officer Zakria Barakzai said the commission would have been in breach of article 61 of the constitution -- which states two candidates must contest a run-off -- had they allowed the contest to go ahead without Abdullah.
First-round turnout was as low as five percent on August 20 in areas worst hit by the Taliban insurgency and with the militia threatening fresh attacks, the numbers voting this time were likely to have been even lower.
Analysts said Karzai, already tainted by the first round fraud, would struggle to proclaim his legitimacy in such circumstances.
After Karzai snubbed a series of demands promoted by his rival as a chance to avoid a repeat of massive first-round fraud, Abdullah said Sunday that he saw no point in standing, but had stopped short of calling for a boycott.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Suicide attack kills at least 34 near Pakistani army HQ in Rawalpindi
www.timesonline.co.uk/
At least 34 people were killed and many others injured in a suicide bomb attack on a busy commercial area close to the Pakistani Army’s headquarters in Rawalpindi yesterday. It was the second attack in the high-security zone within a month.
The bomber on a motorbike blew himself up outside a crowded bank a few hundred metres away from the scene of last month's attack.
Government employees lined up outside the National Bank branch to collect their salary were among the victims. Several offices, a part of a nearby hotel and a number of vehicles were destroyed.
Zahid Dar was driving through the main Mall Road. “There was huge blast and I was thrown off my motorbike,“ he said.“The street was strewn with dead bodies and broken glasses. Many of the dead were in the army uniform.”
Doctors at a district hospital said that the death toll could rise as many of the injured were in a critical state. Some of the bodies could not be identified. At least five women were among the victims.
No one has claimed responsibility but security officials suspect that the Taleban, who claimed responsibility for previous attacks, could be involved.
The attack came as the UN suspended long-term development work in two key areas along Pakistan's volatile border with Afghanistan in a blow to international efforts to counter the country's rising militancy.
The UN decision, which applies to Pakistan's tribal areas and North West Frontier Province, came after 11 of its staff were killed this year.
The UN will reduce the level of international staff in the country and confine its work to emergency, humanitarian relief and security operations, and also “any other essential operations as advised by the Secretary-General”, the organisation said.
The UN has been deeply involved in helping Pakistan to deal with refugee crises that have resulted from army offensives against militants in the north west. It assisted in relief camps set up to house some of the two million people displaced by an operation begun this spring in the Swat Valley.
It is also providing relief goods for those forced to leave South Waziristan because of an offensive last month against the Taleban and al-Qaeda strongholds in tribal areas. Militants have responded to the operations with a wave of attacks against security forces and civilians, including UN personnel.
In the deadliest attack in more than two years, more than 120 people were killed and scores more wounded last Wednesday when a car bomb was detonated in a crowded market in the northwest frontier city of Peshawar. The Taleban threatened more attacks if Pakistan did not stop military offensives in the tribal region.
A military spokesman said that the troops were engaged in a fierce battle in Kaniguram town, a Taleban stronghold where hundreds of Uzbek fighters were entrenched. Security forces have captured Kotkai, the birthplace of Hakimullah Mehsud, the chief of the Pakistani Taleban and hometown of Qari Hussain, another senior militant commander.
The latest attack in Rawalpindi came as Pakistani authorities announced a $50 million (£30.5 million) bounty on the heads of eight top militant commanders including Hakimullah, who is spearheading the battle in the tribal region.
"These people are definitely killers of humanity and deserve exemplary punishment," read the front-page advertisement, with photographs of Hakimullah and seven senior lieutenants in the national newspapers. "Help the government of Pakistan so that these people meet their nemesis."
Pakistan's credibility
If we go by the recent statement of the Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki Moon, the two most dangerous countries on this planet are Pakistan and Afghanistan. This statement of Moon is neither prejudiced, nor does he belong to any enemy country of Pakistan or Afghanistan rather this statement is the harsh reality of the world today. The question is that who is responsible for notoriety of these two neighbouring countries? This is clear that the decisions of the political bosses of these countries and the misleading statements of Pakistani leadership are behind the current scenario.
The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan based Taliban is not new. Pakistan was the first country to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan, who captured power by ousting the democratic Najeeb government. Since then the Taliban has deepened its roots in Pakistan. The same Taliban is now eyeing power in Pakistan and therefore Pakistan Army has started operation ‘Rah-e-Nijaat’ against them. But the intentions of Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan are not new.
A decade ago, these Talibans had pasted posters in all major cities of Pakistan in which their plans were clearly mentioned. Through these posters, they made it clear that they want to enforce Sharia’h law in Pakistan. Pakistan’s courts would give verdicts based on the holy Quran. Gold coins would be used as currency during the Taliban regime etc.
The question is that when a decade ago, the Taliban sympathizers were launching such campaigns, was the Pakistani administration asleep then? Was India directing this terrorist organization named Tehrik-e-Taliban a decade ago? Or the Pakistani administrators, according to their habit, were doing nothing while these enemies of humanity were prospering in Pakistan?
The entire world knows all these facts that how the former President of Pakistan, Gen. Zia-Ul-Haq encouraged the extremist and Jehadi ideology during his ten year regime. Since then the tradition of patronizing extremist Islamists by the Pakistani rulers has continued. This has today become an incurable disease that the Pakistan Army itself is finding a way out of this trap or in other words ‘Rah-e-Nijaat’ with them .
Ignoring all these facts, the Interior Minister of Pakistan, Rehman Malik recently shocked the entire world by saying that India is helping Taliban for creating disturbance in Pakistan. How much truth is there in his statement, he himself and the Pakistani people better know. What is conveyed by such misleading statement of Malik? Pakistan has previously too accused India for deteriorating situation in Baluchistan. And now a new misinformation campaign is launched by accusing India of supporting the Taliban. The world knows that Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban or any organization sympathizing with Taliban ideology see India as their enemy, and not friend. These organization uses to threaten India from time to time. In these circumstances, how can India ‘help’ these organizations? What the Pakistani Interior Minister wants to tell through such statement, while Pakistan has no such proof through which it can prove India’s involvement in destabilizing Pakistan by helping the Taliban.
On the contrary, there are thousands of evidences which can prove that the terrorists and extremists operated along with the Pakistan administration and the proofs which army and these inhuman organizations are created to created disturbance in India. Ajmal Aamir Kasaab, the only terrorist caught alive in 26/11 is the living example. Kasaab has repeatedly told in his confession how he was sent to Mumbai with the help of Pakistani administration. To clean itself from the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan is now adopting such cheap tactics of misleading statements. The fact is that, the Talibans, so called protectors of Islam, don’t even deserve to be called human beings. It doesn’t seem that there is any other administration than Pakistan, which had ever expressed sympathy with the cruel Talibans. The world still remembers that during the NATO attack on Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, the Taliban spokesman used to address the world media from Pakistan and even he was arrested from Pakistan. Therefore it is not going to help Pakistan by accusing India. Other countries too can’t digest this. In fact, there is danger of Pakistan losing its own credibility by such absurd statements.
The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan based Taliban is not new. Pakistan was the first country to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan, who captured power by ousting the democratic Najeeb government. Since then the Taliban has deepened its roots in Pakistan. The same Taliban is now eyeing power in Pakistan and therefore Pakistan Army has started operation ‘Rah-e-Nijaat’ against them. But the intentions of Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan are not new.
A decade ago, these Talibans had pasted posters in all major cities of Pakistan in which their plans were clearly mentioned. Through these posters, they made it clear that they want to enforce Sharia’h law in Pakistan. Pakistan’s courts would give verdicts based on the holy Quran. Gold coins would be used as currency during the Taliban regime etc.
The question is that when a decade ago, the Taliban sympathizers were launching such campaigns, was the Pakistani administration asleep then? Was India directing this terrorist organization named Tehrik-e-Taliban a decade ago? Or the Pakistani administrators, according to their habit, were doing nothing while these enemies of humanity were prospering in Pakistan?
The entire world knows all these facts that how the former President of Pakistan, Gen. Zia-Ul-Haq encouraged the extremist and Jehadi ideology during his ten year regime. Since then the tradition of patronizing extremist Islamists by the Pakistani rulers has continued. This has today become an incurable disease that the Pakistan Army itself is finding a way out of this trap or in other words ‘Rah-e-Nijaat’ with them .
Ignoring all these facts, the Interior Minister of Pakistan, Rehman Malik recently shocked the entire world by saying that India is helping Taliban for creating disturbance in Pakistan. How much truth is there in his statement, he himself and the Pakistani people better know. What is conveyed by such misleading statement of Malik? Pakistan has previously too accused India for deteriorating situation in Baluchistan. And now a new misinformation campaign is launched by accusing India of supporting the Taliban. The world knows that Taliban, Tehrik-e-Taliban or any organization sympathizing with Taliban ideology see India as their enemy, and not friend. These organization uses to threaten India from time to time. In these circumstances, how can India ‘help’ these organizations? What the Pakistani Interior Minister wants to tell through such statement, while Pakistan has no such proof through which it can prove India’s involvement in destabilizing Pakistan by helping the Taliban.
On the contrary, there are thousands of evidences which can prove that the terrorists and extremists operated along with the Pakistan administration and the proofs which army and these inhuman organizations are created to created disturbance in India. Ajmal Aamir Kasaab, the only terrorist caught alive in 26/11 is the living example. Kasaab has repeatedly told in his confession how he was sent to Mumbai with the help of Pakistani administration. To clean itself from the Mumbai attacks, Pakistan is now adopting such cheap tactics of misleading statements. The fact is that, the Talibans, so called protectors of Islam, don’t even deserve to be called human beings. It doesn’t seem that there is any other administration than Pakistan, which had ever expressed sympathy with the cruel Talibans. The world still remembers that during the NATO attack on Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11, the Taliban spokesman used to address the world media from Pakistan and even he was arrested from Pakistan. Therefore it is not going to help Pakistan by accusing India. Other countries too can’t digest this. In fact, there is danger of Pakistan losing its own credibility by such absurd statements.
Obama urges Karzai to tackle corruption
In a congratulatory call to Hamid Karzai, who retains leadership of Afghanistan after a presidential run-off vote was scrapped on Monday, US President Barack Obama urged the Afghan leader to step up efforts to fight corruption in the war-torn nation.
US President Barack Obama congratulated Afghan leader Hamid Karzai on his re-election on Monday - but warned him to step up efforts to fight corruption.
The administration earlier said it recognised Hamid Karzai as the legitimate president of Afghanistan, despite a fraud-riddled election that saw millions of ballots favouring Karzai to be thrown out.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Obama told Karzai it was time to “write a new chapter based on improved governance” and to make “a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption.”
"He assured me that he understood the importance of this moment. But as I indicated to him, the proof is not going to be in words. It's going to be in deeds," Obama warned.
Karzai, installed as the Afghan leader after the US forces ousted Taliban Islamic militants in 2001, was on Monday declared the winner of August's presidential election, which was marred by widespread fraud and ballot-stuffing.
"Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law, which I think is very important not only for the international community that has so much invested in Afghan success, but most importantly is important for the Afghan people," Obama said.
Legitimacy questioned
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs faced repeated questions at a briefing on how Washington could work with Karzai when his legitimacy had been so widely questioned after the tainted August vote.
"President Karzai has been declared the winner,” Gibbs told reporters. “So obviously he is the legitimate leader of the country.”
Gibbs tried to put the best face on a situation that presents a potential headache for the Obama administration..
Afghan election officials on Monday scrapped a Nov. 7 run-off vote and declared Karzai president after the only other candidate, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, withdrew, citing doubts about the fairness of the process.
US officials had said previously they needed a credible partner in Afghanistan as Obama considers a request for up to 40,000 extra troops to halt a deteriorating security situation.
Gibbs said Obama would announce his new strategy "in the next few weeks."
The timing had never been dependent on the outcome of the election, he said, although administration officials had previously suggested it was a factor.
A senior administration official told Reuters that Obama was not likely to announce his new strategy before he embarks on a 10-day trip to Asia on Nov. 11.
US President Barack Obama congratulated Afghan leader Hamid Karzai on his re-election on Monday - but warned him to step up efforts to fight corruption.
The administration earlier said it recognised Hamid Karzai as the legitimate president of Afghanistan, despite a fraud-riddled election that saw millions of ballots favouring Karzai to be thrown out.
Speaking from the Oval Office, Obama told Karzai it was time to “write a new chapter based on improved governance” and to make “a much more serious effort to eradicate corruption.”
"He assured me that he understood the importance of this moment. But as I indicated to him, the proof is not going to be in words. It's going to be in deeds," Obama warned.
Karzai, installed as the Afghan leader after the US forces ousted Taliban Islamic militants in 2001, was on Monday declared the winner of August's presidential election, which was marred by widespread fraud and ballot-stuffing.
"Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law, which I think is very important not only for the international community that has so much invested in Afghan success, but most importantly is important for the Afghan people," Obama said.
Legitimacy questioned
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs faced repeated questions at a briefing on how Washington could work with Karzai when his legitimacy had been so widely questioned after the tainted August vote.
"President Karzai has been declared the winner,” Gibbs told reporters. “So obviously he is the legitimate leader of the country.”
Gibbs tried to put the best face on a situation that presents a potential headache for the Obama administration..
Afghan election officials on Monday scrapped a Nov. 7 run-off vote and declared Karzai president after the only other candidate, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah, withdrew, citing doubts about the fairness of the process.
US officials had said previously they needed a credible partner in Afghanistan as Obama considers a request for up to 40,000 extra troops to halt a deteriorating security situation.
Gibbs said Obama would announce his new strategy "in the next few weeks."
The timing had never been dependent on the outcome of the election, he said, although administration officials had previously suggested it was a factor.
A senior administration official told Reuters that Obama was not likely to announce his new strategy before he embarks on a 10-day trip to Asia on Nov. 11.
Schools reopen with low attendance.
PESHAWAR: The educational institutions including schools of NWFP were reopened on Monday with tight security. These educational institutions remained closed for two weeks due to threats from terrorist elements to target the schools. All the educational institutions were closed country-wide after deadly suicide attack in Islamic International University, Islamabad on October 20. But unlike other provinces where educational institutions were reopened after a week, the NWFP government extended the closure of schools, colleges and universities for another week due to the security situation. Some private schools remained closed on Monday and are expected to reopen today. The attendance in almost all the schools remained low as parents did not send their children due to security concerns. The car parking inside and around the school buildings was prohibited. There are 27,000 schools, both government and private, in NWFP DCO Peshawar Sahibzada Anees told a private TV channel that police officials have been deployed at schools and private security guards will be hired. The administrations of schools have been directed to take extra security measures. The educationalist said they had issued a circular to all private schools to take precautionary measures, adding that the school gates would be locked soon after the school opening time in the morning and no one would be allowed to enter the schools.
Karzai Gets New Term as Afghan Runoff Is Scrapped
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan officials canceled a runoff presidential vote set for Saturday and declared President Hamid Karzai the winner on Monday, a day after his remaining challenger, , Abdullah Abdullah, withdrew.
The announcement capped a fraught election widely depicted as deeply flawed by corruption and voting irregularities.
Azizullah Ludin, the chairman of Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission, said the Constitution did not require a runoff and the second-round vote, set for Saturday, had been canceled after Mr. Abdullah’s announcement that he was dropping out.
Mr. Ludin said Mr. Karzai had won the majority of votes in the first round “and was the only candidate in the second round,” and so was “declared the elected president of Afghanistan.”
Among the commission’s reasons for canceling the vote, Mr. Ludin said at a news conference, was to spare Afghans the high costs and security risks of a fresh round of balloting. Those concerns reflected the difficulties of holding an election amid a growing Taliban insurgency.
But Mr. Karzai and the election commission had been under intense pressure from Afghanistan’s international backers, including the United States, to cancel the runoff, in part because of worries that the vote-rigging that marred the first round might be repeated.
While the international community and the United Nations congratulated Mr. Karzai and urged him to set about unifying the country, the way ahead was foggy at best. There has been talking of forming a unity government, but Mr. Abdullah said he would not participate.
Further, there is little popular support in Afghanistan for that option. For many Afghans a coalition government brings to mind the chaotic period in the 1990s when armed strongmen competed for turf in bloody battles that killed many civilians around the country and destroyed a swath of Kabul.
Officials from the United States and United Nations welcomed the decision and congratulated Mr. Karzai.
“We congratulate President Karzai on his victory in this historic election,” said a statement from the United States Embassy in Kabul, “and look forward to working with him, his new administration, the Afghan people and our partners in the international community to support Afghanistan’s progress towards institutional reforms, security and prosperity.”
The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who arrived in Kabul on Monday, said the election process had been “difficult,” and urged Mr. Karzai to form a government that would have the support of Afghanis and the international community.
“I welcome today’s decision by Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission to forego a run-off vote and to declare Hamid Karzai as the winner of the 2009 presidential elections,” Mr. Ban said in a statement. “I congratulate President Karzai.”
Since the first round of voting on Aug. 20., casualties have mounted among American and allied forces fighting the Taliban, while accounts of widespread vote-rigging to deliver Mr. Karzai’s victory have strengthened.
Earlier on Monday, Mr. Ban met both Mr. Karzai and Mr. Abdullah “to assure them and the Afghan people of the continuing support of the United Nations towards the development of the country and the humanitarian assistance that the U.N. provides to millions of Afghans every day,” a United Nations statement said.
He arrived days after three men dressed as Afghan police officers attacked a guesthouse in Kabul, killing eight people, five of them foreigners who worked for the United Nations. But Mr. Ban said his organization would not be deterred from working in Afghanistan.
In an emotional speech on Sunday to thousands of supporters here, Mr. Abdullah said he could not take part in a runoff that he believed would be at least as fraudulent as the tainted first round in August, in which almost a million ballots for Mr. Karzai were thrown out as fakes.
“I hoped there would be a better process,” he said. “But it is final. I will not participate in the Nov. 7 elections.”
Advisers to President Obama called Mr. Abdullah’s decision a personal choice that would not greatly affect American policy and was in line with the Afghan Constitution. They portrayed the election of Mr. Karzai as essentially settled, enabling Mr. Obama to move forward with deciding whether to send as many as 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, although an announcement probably remains at least three weeks away.
“Every poll that had been taken there suggested that he was likely to be defeated anyway, so we are going to deal with the government that is there,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.
Administration officials alluded to the criticisms bedeviling Mr. Karzai — focusing on corruption and ineffectiveness in fighting the intensifying Taliban insurgency — in their comments on Sunday. But they sought to focus on security questions rather than governance and political stability, emphasizing that the chief American goal now in Afghanistan was to make sure that Al Qaeda would not re-establish bases there.
“Obviously, there are issues we need to discuss, such as reducing the high level of corruption,” Mr. Axelrod said. “These are issues we’ll take up with President Karzai.”
Mr. Abdullah’s supporters, who traveled from all over the country to hear his decision in Kabul, were unanimous in calling Mr. Karzai an illegitimate leader.
The decision was clearly a hard one for Mr. Abdullah. He choked up at the moment of announcing it before his supporters and had to pause to drink water before speaking.
“It did not come easily,” he told the crowd, which had begun cheering at his announcement. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, traveling in Morocco, released a statement saying that while the Obama administration would support Mr. Karzai as president, she hoped Mr. Abdullah would “stay engaged in the national dialogue and work on behalf of the security and prosperity of the people of Afghanistan.”
Mr. Abdullah rejected any suggestion of joining Mr. Karzai’s government, and he clearly signaled that he was positioning himself as a future player in Afghan politics. In a news briefing later at his home, he said: “I did it with a lot of pain, but at the same time with a lot of hopes toward the future. Because this will not be the end of anything, this will be a new beginning.”
The announcement capped a fraught election widely depicted as deeply flawed by corruption and voting irregularities.
Azizullah Ludin, the chairman of Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission, said the Constitution did not require a runoff and the second-round vote, set for Saturday, had been canceled after Mr. Abdullah’s announcement that he was dropping out.
Mr. Ludin said Mr. Karzai had won the majority of votes in the first round “and was the only candidate in the second round,” and so was “declared the elected president of Afghanistan.”
Among the commission’s reasons for canceling the vote, Mr. Ludin said at a news conference, was to spare Afghans the high costs and security risks of a fresh round of balloting. Those concerns reflected the difficulties of holding an election amid a growing Taliban insurgency.
But Mr. Karzai and the election commission had been under intense pressure from Afghanistan’s international backers, including the United States, to cancel the runoff, in part because of worries that the vote-rigging that marred the first round might be repeated.
While the international community and the United Nations congratulated Mr. Karzai and urged him to set about unifying the country, the way ahead was foggy at best. There has been talking of forming a unity government, but Mr. Abdullah said he would not participate.
Further, there is little popular support in Afghanistan for that option. For many Afghans a coalition government brings to mind the chaotic period in the 1990s when armed strongmen competed for turf in bloody battles that killed many civilians around the country and destroyed a swath of Kabul.
Officials from the United States and United Nations welcomed the decision and congratulated Mr. Karzai.
“We congratulate President Karzai on his victory in this historic election,” said a statement from the United States Embassy in Kabul, “and look forward to working with him, his new administration, the Afghan people and our partners in the international community to support Afghanistan’s progress towards institutional reforms, security and prosperity.”
The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, who arrived in Kabul on Monday, said the election process had been “difficult,” and urged Mr. Karzai to form a government that would have the support of Afghanis and the international community.
“I welcome today’s decision by Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission to forego a run-off vote and to declare Hamid Karzai as the winner of the 2009 presidential elections,” Mr. Ban said in a statement. “I congratulate President Karzai.”
Since the first round of voting on Aug. 20., casualties have mounted among American and allied forces fighting the Taliban, while accounts of widespread vote-rigging to deliver Mr. Karzai’s victory have strengthened.
Earlier on Monday, Mr. Ban met both Mr. Karzai and Mr. Abdullah “to assure them and the Afghan people of the continuing support of the United Nations towards the development of the country and the humanitarian assistance that the U.N. provides to millions of Afghans every day,” a United Nations statement said.
He arrived days after three men dressed as Afghan police officers attacked a guesthouse in Kabul, killing eight people, five of them foreigners who worked for the United Nations. But Mr. Ban said his organization would not be deterred from working in Afghanistan.
In an emotional speech on Sunday to thousands of supporters here, Mr. Abdullah said he could not take part in a runoff that he believed would be at least as fraudulent as the tainted first round in August, in which almost a million ballots for Mr. Karzai were thrown out as fakes.
“I hoped there would be a better process,” he said. “But it is final. I will not participate in the Nov. 7 elections.”
Advisers to President Obama called Mr. Abdullah’s decision a personal choice that would not greatly affect American policy and was in line with the Afghan Constitution. They portrayed the election of Mr. Karzai as essentially settled, enabling Mr. Obama to move forward with deciding whether to send as many as 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, although an announcement probably remains at least three weeks away.
“Every poll that had been taken there suggested that he was likely to be defeated anyway, so we are going to deal with the government that is there,” David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.
Administration officials alluded to the criticisms bedeviling Mr. Karzai — focusing on corruption and ineffectiveness in fighting the intensifying Taliban insurgency — in their comments on Sunday. But they sought to focus on security questions rather than governance and political stability, emphasizing that the chief American goal now in Afghanistan was to make sure that Al Qaeda would not re-establish bases there.
“Obviously, there are issues we need to discuss, such as reducing the high level of corruption,” Mr. Axelrod said. “These are issues we’ll take up with President Karzai.”
Mr. Abdullah’s supporters, who traveled from all over the country to hear his decision in Kabul, were unanimous in calling Mr. Karzai an illegitimate leader.
The decision was clearly a hard one for Mr. Abdullah. He choked up at the moment of announcing it before his supporters and had to pause to drink water before speaking.
“It did not come easily,” he told the crowd, which had begun cheering at his announcement. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, traveling in Morocco, released a statement saying that while the Obama administration would support Mr. Karzai as president, she hoped Mr. Abdullah would “stay engaged in the national dialogue and work on behalf of the security and prosperity of the people of Afghanistan.”
Mr. Abdullah rejected any suggestion of joining Mr. Karzai’s government, and he clearly signaled that he was positioning himself as a future player in Afghan politics. In a news briefing later at his home, he said: “I did it with a lot of pain, but at the same time with a lot of hopes toward the future. Because this will not be the end of anything, this will be a new beginning.”
Twin suicide attack in Lahore kills policeman
LAHORE: Two suicide bombers blew themselves up at a police checkpoint near bus terminals at the entrance to the city of Lahore late Monday, killing one policeman and wounding 25 people, including seven policemen.
The bombers struck after dark at the Babu Sabu police checkpost on a link road to Pakistan’s intercity motorway that dissects the country from the northwestern city of Peshawar to the capital Islamabad and east to Lahore.
Both of the attackers were killed in the bombing as they reportedly blew themselves up while carrying out the attack.
‘A car was stopped at the check post and the two suicide bombers in the car exploded themselves. We have found legs and a head,’ city police chief Pervez Rathor told reporters at the scene.
According to Rescue 1122, at least 25 people have been injured in the attack. The injured are being taken to the Jinnah Hospital and the Services Hospital.
The bombers struck after dark at the Babu Sabu police checkpost on a link road to Pakistan’s intercity motorway that dissects the country from the northwestern city of Peshawar to the capital Islamabad and east to Lahore.
Both of the attackers were killed in the bombing as they reportedly blew themselves up while carrying out the attack.
‘A car was stopped at the check post and the two suicide bombers in the car exploded themselves. We have found legs and a head,’ city police chief Pervez Rathor told reporters at the scene.
According to Rescue 1122, at least 25 people have been injured in the attack. The injured are being taken to the Jinnah Hospital and the Services Hospital.
Proof of Indian involvement in Waziristan found: army
ISLAMABAD: The security forces have found substantial evidence of Indian involvement for assisting terrorists in South Waziristan Agency, Director General ISPR Major General Athar Abbas said.
‘Indian literature and weapons under the use of terrorists have been recovered from South Waziristan and more evidence is being gathered,’ he said addressing a joint media briefing on Operation Rah-e-Nijat here Monday.
Minister for Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira, Secretary Information Suhail Mansoor and Principal Information Officer Ch Rashid Ahmed were also present.
‘We have sent all the proofs of Indian involvement to the Foreign Office for their onward presentation at the appropriate forum,’ he said.
‘Indian literature and weapons under the use of terrorists have been recovered from South Waziristan and more evidence is being gathered,’ he said addressing a joint media briefing on Operation Rah-e-Nijat here Monday.
Minister for Information and Broadcasting Qamar Zaman Kaira, Secretary Information Suhail Mansoor and Principal Information Officer Ch Rashid Ahmed were also present.
‘We have sent all the proofs of Indian involvement to the Foreign Office for their onward presentation at the appropriate forum,’ he said.
UN suspends development work in NWFP, tribal areas
ISLAMABAD: Citing security concerns, the UN suspended long-term development work in two key areas along Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan on Monday, a blow to international efforts to counter the rising militancy.
The decision, which applies to Pakistan’s tribal areas and North West Frontier Province, comes amid a wave of recent attacks in the country that killed some 250 people last month. Eleven UN staff have been killed in attacks in Pakistan this year.
The UN will reduce the level of international staff in the country and confine its work to emergency, humanitarian relief, and security operations, and also ‘any other essential operations as advised by the secretary-general,’ the organization said in a statement.
UN spokeswoman Amena Kamaal told The Associated Press that the organisation is still determining which programs will be suspended and how many staffers will be withdrawn from the country. The staff that remains in the country will be assigned additional security, she said.
‘We have had 11 of our colleagues killed because of the security situation,’ said Kamaal.
‘All of the decisions are being made in light of that.’
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said he would reserve comment until he had a chance to review the UN’s statement.
The decision, which applies to Pakistan’s tribal areas and North West Frontier Province, comes amid a wave of recent attacks in the country that killed some 250 people last month. Eleven UN staff have been killed in attacks in Pakistan this year.
The UN will reduce the level of international staff in the country and confine its work to emergency, humanitarian relief, and security operations, and also ‘any other essential operations as advised by the secretary-general,’ the organization said in a statement.
UN spokeswoman Amena Kamaal told The Associated Press that the organisation is still determining which programs will be suspended and how many staffers will be withdrawn from the country. The staff that remains in the country will be assigned additional security, she said.
‘We have had 11 of our colleagues killed because of the security situation,’ said Kamaal.
‘All of the decisions are being made in light of that.’
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said he would reserve comment until he had a chance to review the UN’s statement.
Huge blast hits Rawalpindi safe zone; 30 killed
RAWALPINDI: An explosion occurred on Rawalpindi’s busy Mall Road on Monday. At least 30 people were killed, while more than 45 were reportedly injured.
According to reports, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the vicinity of the busy Mall Road, in the high-security area of Rawalpindi Cantt. Major hotels, including the Pearl Continental, as well as other important government and army installations are located in the area where the blast occurred.
Monday's explosion left bodies on the ground outside the bank and in a nearby hotel parking lot, witness Zahid Dara said. The stricken area also lies close to the army's main headquarters.
‘I was nearby and rushed toward the parking area,’ Dara told a private television channel. ‘There were many people lying on the ground with bleeding wounds, and a motorcycle was on fire with one man under it.’
The attacker rode a motorbike to the scene, and the 30 people dead included military personnel, Rawalpindi police chief Rao Iqbal said. Some 45 others were wounded, he said.
‘The bodies were lying all over,’ said Ali Babar, a rescue official who was doing a refresher course at a nearby college and rushed to the scene to help. ‘This is a terrible thing. It is happening again and again.’
The intensity of the blast left numerous buildings in the area with shattered windows. Vehicles parked in the area were also damaged.
Rescue work was underway and the injured were being shifted to hospitals.
The government declared an emergency in hospitals across the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
Security forces also cordoned off the area, while military personnel also arrived at the site of the blast.
The attack comes amidst a deadly wave of terrorist attacks which have killed over 190 in the last month.
According to reports, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the vicinity of the busy Mall Road, in the high-security area of Rawalpindi Cantt. Major hotels, including the Pearl Continental, as well as other important government and army installations are located in the area where the blast occurred.
Monday's explosion left bodies on the ground outside the bank and in a nearby hotel parking lot, witness Zahid Dara said. The stricken area also lies close to the army's main headquarters.
‘I was nearby and rushed toward the parking area,’ Dara told a private television channel. ‘There were many people lying on the ground with bleeding wounds, and a motorcycle was on fire with one man under it.’
The attacker rode a motorbike to the scene, and the 30 people dead included military personnel, Rawalpindi police chief Rao Iqbal said. Some 45 others were wounded, he said.
‘The bodies were lying all over,’ said Ali Babar, a rescue official who was doing a refresher course at a nearby college and rushed to the scene to help. ‘This is a terrible thing. It is happening again and again.’
The intensity of the blast left numerous buildings in the area with shattered windows. Vehicles parked in the area were also damaged.
Rescue work was underway and the injured were being shifted to hospitals.
The government declared an emergency in hospitals across the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
Security forces also cordoned off the area, while military personnel also arrived at the site of the blast.
The attack comes amidst a deadly wave of terrorist attacks which have killed over 190 in the last month.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Single-candidate election pointless: UN
KABUL: As Afghan presidential challenger Abdullah Abdullah quit an election run-off on Sunday, the UN conceded it was “difficult to see” how an election could take place with just one candidate.
His voice faltering and his eyes welling with tears, Abdullah told hundreds of supporters, including white-bearded tribal elders, in a giant tent used for grand assemblies that he had reached the decision “in the interests of the nation”.
A spokesman for UN mission chief Kai Eide voiced doubts about the practicality of carrying on with the election.
“It’s difficult to see how you can have a run-off with only one candidate, UN spokesman Aleem Siddique told AFP.
Abdullah accused the government of not meeting his demands for a fair vote. The situation now leaves a cloud over the legitimacy of the next government.
Election officials said hours later that the November 7 vote would go ahead with both names on ballot papers, but with Karzai as the only candidate.
“Based on election laws and based on the constitution there should be a second round. The constitution is clear,” Daoud Ali Najafi, chief electoral officer of the government-appointed Independent Election Commission, told Reuters.
Abdullah, an eye doctor and Karzai’s urbane former foreign minister, appeared to rule out any immediate chance of a power-sharing deal with Karzai in return for withdrawing, but also told his supporters not to boycott the run-off. agencies
His voice faltering and his eyes welling with tears, Abdullah told hundreds of supporters, including white-bearded tribal elders, in a giant tent used for grand assemblies that he had reached the decision “in the interests of the nation”.
A spokesman for UN mission chief Kai Eide voiced doubts about the practicality of carrying on with the election.
“It’s difficult to see how you can have a run-off with only one candidate, UN spokesman Aleem Siddique told AFP.
Abdullah accused the government of not meeting his demands for a fair vote. The situation now leaves a cloud over the legitimacy of the next government.
Election officials said hours later that the November 7 vote would go ahead with both names on ballot papers, but with Karzai as the only candidate.
“Based on election laws and based on the constitution there should be a second round. The constitution is clear,” Daoud Ali Najafi, chief electoral officer of the government-appointed Independent Election Commission, told Reuters.
Abdullah, an eye doctor and Karzai’s urbane former foreign minister, appeared to rule out any immediate chance of a power-sharing deal with Karzai in return for withdrawing, but also told his supporters not to boycott the run-off. agencies
Afghan run-off should take place: Karzai spokesman
KABUL: Afghanistan's run-off election should still take place despite opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah's withdrawal from the contest, a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai said Sunday."We believe that the election has to go on, the process must complete itself," Karzai's chief campaign spokesman Waheed Omar said in address to Hamid Karzai’s supporters."The people of Afghanistan have to be given the right to vote," he said.
Tehran set to lose status as Iran capital
It has witnessed some of Iran's most tumultuous events: the fall of the shah, the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the transformation from pro-western monarchy to revolutionary Islamic republic.
Now Tehran's days as the Iranian capital appear numbered after a powerful state body approved a plan for a new principal city. The idea was proposed by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and rubber-stamped by the expediency council.
Seismologists have warned that Tehran is liable to be struck by a catastrophic earthquake in the foreseeable future. It is not clear whether a new capital will be built from scratch or sited in an existing city.
Iran has had numerous capitals during its history, including Isfahan, Qazvin, Shiraz, Mashhad and Hamedan. Since the Qajar king Agha Mohammad Khan declared it capital in 1795, Tehran has become the country's political, social, economic and cultural centre.
Its infrastructure has been left creaking by rapid population growth that has seen it become home to 12 million people, up from 250,000 at the start of the 20th century.
A mass influx from the countryside under the last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fed the social discontent unleashed by the 1979 Islamic revolution. The population has continued to spiral since then, with unregulated development creating a traffic-clogged and polluted urban sprawl.
Most recently, Tehran was the centre of mass street protests triggered by the disputed re-election of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which opponents insist was achieved through fraud.
Plans for a new capital were first drawn up 20 years ago, but officials only gave them serious consideration after the 2003 earthquake that devastated the south-eastern city of Bam and killed an estimated 40,000 people. Experts warn that Tehran sits on at least 100 faultlines – including one nearly 60 miles long – and that many of its buildings would not survive a major quake.
Professor Bahram Akasheh, a seismologist and dean of the faculty of basic sciences at Tehran Azad University, said the city had been chosen as capital "by mistake" and its north-eastern suburbs were vulnerable to an earthquake measuring eight on the Richter scale.
"I warned of this 40 to 50 years ago and if they had listened to me then, Tehran wouldn't have grown into a macro-city, but now control is lost over it. The city is growing bigger and bigger every day and so are the poor suburbs around it," he told the Guardian.
He said a new capital should be built between Qom – home to the country's clerical establishment – and Delijan, in Markazi province, an area that has not seen an earthquake in 2,000 years.
Now Tehran's days as the Iranian capital appear numbered after a powerful state body approved a plan for a new principal city. The idea was proposed by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and rubber-stamped by the expediency council.
Seismologists have warned that Tehran is liable to be struck by a catastrophic earthquake in the foreseeable future. It is not clear whether a new capital will be built from scratch or sited in an existing city.
Iran has had numerous capitals during its history, including Isfahan, Qazvin, Shiraz, Mashhad and Hamedan. Since the Qajar king Agha Mohammad Khan declared it capital in 1795, Tehran has become the country's political, social, economic and cultural centre.
Its infrastructure has been left creaking by rapid population growth that has seen it become home to 12 million people, up from 250,000 at the start of the 20th century.
A mass influx from the countryside under the last shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fed the social discontent unleashed by the 1979 Islamic revolution. The population has continued to spiral since then, with unregulated development creating a traffic-clogged and polluted urban sprawl.
Most recently, Tehran was the centre of mass street protests triggered by the disputed re-election of the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which opponents insist was achieved through fraud.
Plans for a new capital were first drawn up 20 years ago, but officials only gave them serious consideration after the 2003 earthquake that devastated the south-eastern city of Bam and killed an estimated 40,000 people. Experts warn that Tehran sits on at least 100 faultlines – including one nearly 60 miles long – and that many of its buildings would not survive a major quake.
Professor Bahram Akasheh, a seismologist and dean of the faculty of basic sciences at Tehran Azad University, said the city had been chosen as capital "by mistake" and its north-eastern suburbs were vulnerable to an earthquake measuring eight on the Richter scale.
"I warned of this 40 to 50 years ago and if they had listened to me then, Tehran wouldn't have grown into a macro-city, but now control is lost over it. The city is growing bigger and bigger every day and so are the poor suburbs around it," he told the Guardian.
He said a new capital should be built between Qom – home to the country's clerical establishment – and Delijan, in Markazi province, an area that has not seen an earthquake in 2,000 years.
Who were the ‘Pakhtun elders’ who met Clinton?
PESHAWAR: The ‘Pakhtun elders’ who met US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Islamabad during her visit didn’t include anyone from conflict-hit South or North Waziristan and even Swat though it was reported that they came from these places.
In fact, a bearded man wearing a big turban like those worn by the Mahsud and Wazir tribesmen wasn’t a tribal elder and parliamentarian. He was seen in pictures in the company of Ms Clinton and newspapers reported he was a tribal elder. He turned out to be Faisal Awan, belonging to Dera Ismail Khan and executive director of a non-governmental organization called FIDA. This NGO has been given the task to register the people displaced from South Waziristan and arriving in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank following the military operation there.
A number of Mahsud tribesmen wondered as to who was this man wearing a turban that is usually worn by the Mahsuds. He looked unfamiliar and this made them to ask journalists and others about his identity.
The US embassy and its consulate in Peshawar had drawn up the list of invitees to this meeting of ‘Pakhtun elders’ with the Secretary of State. There was only one tribal parliamentarian in the group that twice met Ms Clinton, for an hour first and then for another half an hour later. He was Munir Orakzai, the MNA from Kurram Agency and also leader of the tribal parliamentary group in the parliament.
Another invitee from FATA was Dr Begum Jan, who runs an NGO. The other women in the list of ‘Pakhtun elders’ invited to meet Ms Clinton were NWFP social welfare minister Sitara Ayaz, who belongs to the ANP, a PPP lawmaker Shazia Tehmas, another NGO head Maryam Bibi who is founder of the Khwendo Kor organization, and Frontier Women University vice-chancellor Farhana Jehangir.
The politicians in the group were ANP NWFP president Senator Afrasiyab Khattak, PML-N provincial head and former chief minister Pir Sabir Shah and JUI-F lawmaker Mufti Kifayatullah.
Nauman Wazir, a Frontier industrial, and Dr Farooq, a former Jamaat-i-Islami member and writer and religious scholar, were also part of the group that exchanged views with Ms Clinton.It was learnt that Pir Sabir didn’t say much in the meeting and failed to attend the second part of the session. Munir Orakzai opposed US drone attacks and Mufti Kifayatullah argued that presence of American and Nato forces in Afghanistan and the region was the real cause of unrest. Afrasiyab Khattak echoes the ANP policies, which support the US and Nato military presence in Afghanistan and support tough army action against the militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Dr Farooq stressed that the US must send the 40,000 extra troops demanded by its military commander to Afghanistan to stabilize the country and tackle the militants. Other participants mostly restricted themselves to their own fields such education, social welfare work, development activities and outside support for the NGOs.
Monday, November 02, 2009
By Bureau report
PESHAWAR: The ‘Pakhtun elders’ who met US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Islamabad during her visit didn’t include anyone from conflict-hit South or North Waziristan and even Swat though it was reported that they came from these places.
In fact, a bearded man wearing a big turban like those worn by the Mahsud and Wazir tribesmen wasn’t a tribal elder and parliamentarian. He was seen in pictures in the company of Ms Clinton and newspapers reported he was a tribal elder. He turned out to be Faisal Awan, belonging to Dera Ismail Khan and executive director of a non-governmental organization called FIDA. This NGO has been given the task to register the people displaced from South Waziristan and arriving in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank following the military operation there.
A number of Mahsud tribesmen wondered as to who was this man wearing a turban that is usually worn by the Mahsuds. He looked unfamiliar and this made them to ask journalists and others about his identity.
The US embassy and its consulate in Peshawar had drawn up the list of invitees to this meeting of ‘Pakhtun elders’ with the Secretary of State. There was only one tribal parliamentarian in the group that twice met Ms Clinton, for an hour first and then for another half an hour later. He was Munir Orakzai, the MNA from Kurram Agency and also leader of the tribal parliamentary group in the parliament.
Another invitee from FATA was Dr Begum Jan, who runs an NGO. The other women in the list of ‘Pakhtun elders’ invited to meet Ms Clinton were NWFP social welfare minister Sitara Ayaz, who belongs to the ANP, a PPP lawmaker Shazia Tehmas, another NGO head Maryam Bibi who is founder of the Khwendo Kor organization, and Frontier Women University vice-chancellor Farhana Jehangir.
The politicians in the group were ANP NWFP president Senator Afrasiyab Khattak, PML-N provincial head and former chief minister Pir Sabir Shah and JUI-F lawmaker Mufti Kifayatullah.
Nauman Wazir, a Frontier industrial, and Dr Farooq, a former Jamaat-i-Islami member and writer and religious scholar, were also part of the group that exchanged views with Ms Clinton.It was learnt that Pir Sabir didn’t say much in the meeting and failed to attend the second part of the session. Munir Orakzai opposed US drone attacks and Mufti Kifayatullah argued that presence of American and Nato forces in Afghanistan and the region was the real cause of unrest. Afrasiyab Khattak echoes the ANP policies, which support the US and Nato military presence in Afghanistan and support tough army action against the militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Dr Farooq stressed that the US must send the 40,000 extra troops demanded by its military commander to Afghanistan to stabilize the country and tackle the militants. Other participants mostly restricted themselves to their own fields such education, social welfare work, development activities and outside support for the NGOs.
In fact, a bearded man wearing a big turban like those worn by the Mahsud and Wazir tribesmen wasn’t a tribal elder and parliamentarian. He was seen in pictures in the company of Ms Clinton and newspapers reported he was a tribal elder. He turned out to be Faisal Awan, belonging to Dera Ismail Khan and executive director of a non-governmental organization called FIDA. This NGO has been given the task to register the people displaced from South Waziristan and arriving in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank following the military operation there.
A number of Mahsud tribesmen wondered as to who was this man wearing a turban that is usually worn by the Mahsuds. He looked unfamiliar and this made them to ask journalists and others about his identity.
The US embassy and its consulate in Peshawar had drawn up the list of invitees to this meeting of ‘Pakhtun elders’ with the Secretary of State. There was only one tribal parliamentarian in the group that twice met Ms Clinton, for an hour first and then for another half an hour later. He was Munir Orakzai, the MNA from Kurram Agency and also leader of the tribal parliamentary group in the parliament.
Another invitee from FATA was Dr Begum Jan, who runs an NGO. The other women in the list of ‘Pakhtun elders’ invited to meet Ms Clinton were NWFP social welfare minister Sitara Ayaz, who belongs to the ANP, a PPP lawmaker Shazia Tehmas, another NGO head Maryam Bibi who is founder of the Khwendo Kor organization, and Frontier Women University vice-chancellor Farhana Jehangir.
The politicians in the group were ANP NWFP president Senator Afrasiyab Khattak, PML-N provincial head and former chief minister Pir Sabir Shah and JUI-F lawmaker Mufti Kifayatullah.
Nauman Wazir, a Frontier industrial, and Dr Farooq, a former Jamaat-i-Islami member and writer and religious scholar, were also part of the group that exchanged views with Ms Clinton.It was learnt that Pir Sabir didn’t say much in the meeting and failed to attend the second part of the session. Munir Orakzai opposed US drone attacks and Mufti Kifayatullah argued that presence of American and Nato forces in Afghanistan and the region was the real cause of unrest. Afrasiyab Khattak echoes the ANP policies, which support the US and Nato military presence in Afghanistan and support tough army action against the militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Dr Farooq stressed that the US must send the 40,000 extra troops demanded by its military commander to Afghanistan to stabilize the country and tackle the militants. Other participants mostly restricted themselves to their own fields such education, social welfare work, development activities and outside support for the NGOs.
Monday, November 02, 2009
By Bureau report
PESHAWAR: The ‘Pakhtun elders’ who met US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Islamabad during her visit didn’t include anyone from conflict-hit South or North Waziristan and even Swat though it was reported that they came from these places.
In fact, a bearded man wearing a big turban like those worn by the Mahsud and Wazir tribesmen wasn’t a tribal elder and parliamentarian. He was seen in pictures in the company of Ms Clinton and newspapers reported he was a tribal elder. He turned out to be Faisal Awan, belonging to Dera Ismail Khan and executive director of a non-governmental organization called FIDA. This NGO has been given the task to register the people displaced from South Waziristan and arriving in Dera Ismail Khan and Tank following the military operation there.
A number of Mahsud tribesmen wondered as to who was this man wearing a turban that is usually worn by the Mahsuds. He looked unfamiliar and this made them to ask journalists and others about his identity.
The US embassy and its consulate in Peshawar had drawn up the list of invitees to this meeting of ‘Pakhtun elders’ with the Secretary of State. There was only one tribal parliamentarian in the group that twice met Ms Clinton, for an hour first and then for another half an hour later. He was Munir Orakzai, the MNA from Kurram Agency and also leader of the tribal parliamentary group in the parliament.
Another invitee from FATA was Dr Begum Jan, who runs an NGO. The other women in the list of ‘Pakhtun elders’ invited to meet Ms Clinton were NWFP social welfare minister Sitara Ayaz, who belongs to the ANP, a PPP lawmaker Shazia Tehmas, another NGO head Maryam Bibi who is founder of the Khwendo Kor organization, and Frontier Women University vice-chancellor Farhana Jehangir.
The politicians in the group were ANP NWFP president Senator Afrasiyab Khattak, PML-N provincial head and former chief minister Pir Sabir Shah and JUI-F lawmaker Mufti Kifayatullah.
Nauman Wazir, a Frontier industrial, and Dr Farooq, a former Jamaat-i-Islami member and writer and religious scholar, were also part of the group that exchanged views with Ms Clinton.It was learnt that Pir Sabir didn’t say much in the meeting and failed to attend the second part of the session. Munir Orakzai opposed US drone attacks and Mufti Kifayatullah argued that presence of American and Nato forces in Afghanistan and the region was the real cause of unrest. Afrasiyab Khattak echoes the ANP policies, which support the US and Nato military presence in Afghanistan and support tough army action against the militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Dr Farooq stressed that the US must send the 40,000 extra troops demanded by its military commander to Afghanistan to stabilize the country and tackle the militants. Other participants mostly restricted themselves to their own fields such education, social welfare work, development activities and outside support for the NGOs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)