PESHAWAR: Eid shopping in the provincial metropolis could not gain momentum despite that the religious festival is just three days away while the city police blocked traffic to certain busy bazaars to stave off bombing.
The provincial government also ordered law-enforcement agencies to launch search operation in the city to track down terrorists and their supporters. Dozens of brave policemen have offered sacrifice of their lives to protect Peshawar and other towns.
The seven bomb blasts in the current month and three in October have taken the lives of hundreds of people, not only unleashing terror on the city of three-million people but also filled the atmosphere with deep grief and sorrow.
On account of these two reasons, the Peshawarites are yet to go to the markets for Eid shopping and most of the busy marketplaces have been wearing a deserted look.
The historic and one of the busiest bazaars, Qissa Khwani, is a forlorn place where people scare to go. The visitors to the bazaar are its shopkeepers, who are waiting for the customers to come to their shops, just three days ahead of the Eid.
“There is a great fear among the shopkeepers following rumours of bomb blasts, which has also forced customers to stay away,” a shopkeeper said.
The bazaar has been blocked for all kinds of traffic at Kabuli (Now Khan Raziq) Police Station to ward off car-bombings.
Eating sweets on happy occasions, particularly Eid, is a tradition but this is not the case this time. “We are running the business in loss. Even during Eid days, we are earning only Rs2,500-3,000 a day while our expenses exceed Rs5,000,” the owner of sweets shop, Arshad Ahmad said.
The bombed Meena Bazaar, still reeling under the devastating blast on October 28, is situated at a short distance from the Qissa Khwani. As the people stayed away from all bazaars near the site of the blast on Tuesday, some shopkeepers were still seen engaged in reconstructing their destroyed shops. One could see concrete pillars being erected and ramshackle buildings repaired but fear still engulfed the place.
“People would tread on each others feet due to rush during the last few days to Eid but now you can see the market is empty,” Yasin, a shopkeeper dealing in cosmetics in Meena Bazaar, said.
In his opinion, the customers were not coming to the market after the October 28 blast. It was afternoon but Yasin said he had not earned a penny.
Rafiullah, selling bangles, in the same bazaar, said their sales had steeply dropped. “Previously, we would earn over Rs15,000 a day but now hardly make Rs3,000.” During Eid shopping in normal times, he said they would not have time “to scratch our head” but now all the Eid-specific items were lying unsold.
Saddar Bazaar, an up-market of the city, has been blocked for taxis and rickshaws and private vehicles are not allowed to park in front of shops. Eid shopping in this bazaar, where everything is available, has also not gathered momentum.
NWFP Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said Monday the government would celebrate Eid with simplicity to pay tribute to people martyred in blasts.
The NWFP government has directed all law-enforcement agencies to start search operation in Peshawar and hunt down terrorists and their supporters. They have also been asked to nab all Afghan refugees without legal documents and evict non-local prayer leaders.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Pakistan troops repulse militant attack
Pakistani troops on Sunday repulsed an attack by militants on one of their posts in a lawless tribal region, killing 11 rebels, officials said.
Armed with heavy weapons, a group of 30-40 militants launched the attack on an army post in Rashakai area in the Bajaur region, which borders Afghanistan, senior local administration official Adalat Khan told AFP.
"Troops effectively repulsed the attack, killing 11 militants," Khan said, adding that two soldiers were wounded in the exchange of fire.
Another security official in the area confirmed the incident and said the remaining militants fled, leaving behind their weapons.
Elsewhere, fighter jets bombarded militant hideouts in the Mamound area of Bajaur on Sunday, killing five rebels.
Militants have recently stepped up attacks on security forces and government installations in Bajaur, one of Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal districts considered a stronghold of Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked extremists.
The violence has surged since Pakistan launched a major offensive in the Taliban bastion of South Waziristan on October 17. Officials say the aim is to distract the army's attention from South Waziristan.
In February, the army declared a major six-month operation in Bajaur successful. But violence continues to rock the region.
Meanwhile, security forces continued their operation in South Waziristan tribal region, killing five militants, the military said in a statement.
Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal areas have been infiltrated by hundreds of extremists who carved out safe havens after the ouster of Afghanistan's hardline Taliban regime in a US-led invasion in 2001.
Pakistani security forces also foiled an attempt to smuggle weapons and explosives into the country from Afghanistan, officials said on Sunday.
"Tribal police seized two trucks with a huge cache of weapons after a brief exchange of fire with those driving the vehicles in Khyber tribal region on Saturday," top local administration official Shafeerullah Khan said.
He said that the weapons seized by tribal police included rifles of different calibres, rockets, rocket launchers and other ammunition worth millions of (Pakistani) rupees.
He said that weapons were concealed under fresh fruit and garments in the two trucks, adding that all seven men in the two vehicles had fled during the exchange of fire.
Khan said that the trucks had entered Khyber region after crossing the border from Afghanistan at Torkhum.
Another senior administration official, Rehan Gul Khattak, confirmed the seizure and said that raids were being carried out to arrest the smugglers.
Armed with heavy weapons, a group of 30-40 militants launched the attack on an army post in Rashakai area in the Bajaur region, which borders Afghanistan, senior local administration official Adalat Khan told AFP.
"Troops effectively repulsed the attack, killing 11 militants," Khan said, adding that two soldiers were wounded in the exchange of fire.
Another security official in the area confirmed the incident and said the remaining militants fled, leaving behind their weapons.
Elsewhere, fighter jets bombarded militant hideouts in the Mamound area of Bajaur on Sunday, killing five rebels.
Militants have recently stepped up attacks on security forces and government installations in Bajaur, one of Pakistan's seven semi-autonomous tribal districts considered a stronghold of Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked extremists.
The violence has surged since Pakistan launched a major offensive in the Taliban bastion of South Waziristan on October 17. Officials say the aim is to distract the army's attention from South Waziristan.
In February, the army declared a major six-month operation in Bajaur successful. But violence continues to rock the region.
Meanwhile, security forces continued their operation in South Waziristan tribal region, killing five militants, the military said in a statement.
Pakistan's semi-autonomous tribal areas have been infiltrated by hundreds of extremists who carved out safe havens after the ouster of Afghanistan's hardline Taliban regime in a US-led invasion in 2001.
Pakistani security forces also foiled an attempt to smuggle weapons and explosives into the country from Afghanistan, officials said on Sunday.
"Tribal police seized two trucks with a huge cache of weapons after a brief exchange of fire with those driving the vehicles in Khyber tribal region on Saturday," top local administration official Shafeerullah Khan said.
He said that the weapons seized by tribal police included rifles of different calibres, rockets, rocket launchers and other ammunition worth millions of (Pakistani) rupees.
He said that weapons were concealed under fresh fruit and garments in the two trucks, adding that all seven men in the two vehicles had fled during the exchange of fire.
Khan said that the trucks had entered Khyber region after crossing the border from Afghanistan at Torkhum.
Another senior administration official, Rehan Gul Khattak, confirmed the seizure and said that raids were being carried out to arrest the smugglers.
Regrouping Taliban May Widen War as Pakistan Pays Economic Toll
www.bloomberg.com
Taliban fleeing a Pakistani offensive are regrouping in the country’s northwest, threatening to spread and prolong a conflict that has strained the nation’s economy and may hamper efforts to attract foreign investment.
While Pakistan says its month-old offensive in South Waziristan has destroyed the largest Taliban sanctuary, some militants are falling back to Orakzai, a mountain region less than 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province, said Talat Masood, an independent military analyst in Islamabad.
Rising violence in the region last year prompted London- based Tullow Oil Plc to give up operational control of drilling operations near Orakzai. A wider conflict may make it harder to attract companies like Mol Nyrt., Hungary’s largest oil refiner, which this month started natural gas production in the province.
“Naturally, this violence is not good for the investment climate, but the government’s decision this year to tackle the Taliban is a good one for the long term,” said Habib-ur-Rehman, who manages $48 million of stocks and bonds at Karachi-based Atlas Asset Management Ltd.
Peshawar, Pakistan’s eighth-largest city, suffered 11 major terrorist attacks this year, including a Nov. 19 suicide bombing at the main courthouse that killed 18 people. The city has a U.S. consulate and straddles the truck route for supplies from the port of Karachi to U.S. troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
Mountainous Trails
South of Peshawar, guerrillas are escaping over trails that snake through the mountains, military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said in a Nov. 13 interview. While “sealing off the footpaths is not realistic,” the army is “preventing the militants from moving vehicles or heavy weapons,” he said.
Some escaped militants will abandon the Taliban movement and others will continue, making Orakzai the army’s possible next target, Abbas said. Pakistani air force jets have bombed Taliban positions there this month, killing as many as 20.
The fighting is hurting what the International Monetary Fund has called an “anemic” economy. Foreign aid and loans financed 40 percent of Pakistan’s $10 billion current account deficit in the year ended June 30, said Asad Farid, an economist at AKD Securities in Karachi. This year such assistance will entirely cover a deficit of $6 billion, he said.
Rising Cost
The war against the Taliban has been costing the government $8.5 billion a year, Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin said July 15. This year’s figure is higher, Tarin told reporters Nov. 16, declining to give details.
Successes in South Waziristan, where the army has captured militant strongholds and main roads, may revive an argument with the Obama administration over which Taliban factions Pakistan’s forces should strike next. U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones has renewed pressure for Pakistan to hit the groups that attack U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported Nov. 15, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
“The Pakistani response to any new U.S. demand will be the same as before: that they have no resources to open a new front,” said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council in Washington.
The army’s current offensive targets a Taliban faction in South Waziristan that opposes Pakistan’s government, which blames it for 80 percent of Islamic attacks in the country. While Taliban groups that fight in Afghanistan are based nearby in North Waziristan, Abbas said the army has no plans to expand its assault there.
Shifting Focus
“Cost and security reasons” led oil developer Tullow to hand over control of a drilling project at Kohat, near Orakzai, to its local partner, spokesman George Cazenove said in an e- mail. “Because they are no longer the operator, the number of Tullow employees in Pakistan has been reduced significantly,” although Tullow retains a 40 percent stake in the project, Cazenove said.
Budapest-based Mol, Hungary’s largest oil refiner, began production at its Manzalai field last week after an initial investment of $500 million. Initial output of 250 million cubic feet of gas a day will be increased 40 percent to 350 million cubic feet by 2013, Mol Chief Executive Officer Gyorgy Mosonyi told a press conference in Islamabad on Nov 11.
“We are reducing risk to the possible minimum,” the company said in a statement in response to questions about security. “Operations at both the office in Islamabad and at the countryside facilities are continuous and uninterrupted.”
The Karachi Stock Exchange 100 Index fell 2.1 percent last month, the most since January, as bombings and assaults in major cities eroded confidence.
Sanctuary Disrupted
The South Waziristan campaign will improve Pakistan’s security because it has disrupted the country’s largest Taliban sanctuary, said Mahmood Shah, an analyst who once served as security chief for the border zone.
“We should see a reduction in the attacks within as little as two weeks,” Shah said.
On Oct. 17, the army sent 28,000 troops into the lands of the ethnic Pashtun Mehsud tribe, which has about 5,000 to 8,000 Taliban fighters, Abbas said. The battlefield is a forested, mountainous zone of 2,200 square kilometers, about half the size of the U.S. state of Rhode Island.
Taliban fleeing a Pakistani offensive are regrouping in the country’s northwest, threatening to spread and prolong a conflict that has strained the nation’s economy and may hamper efforts to attract foreign investment.
While Pakistan says its month-old offensive in South Waziristan has destroyed the largest Taliban sanctuary, some militants are falling back to Orakzai, a mountain region less than 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of Peshawar, the capital of North West Frontier Province, said Talat Masood, an independent military analyst in Islamabad.
Rising violence in the region last year prompted London- based Tullow Oil Plc to give up operational control of drilling operations near Orakzai. A wider conflict may make it harder to attract companies like Mol Nyrt., Hungary’s largest oil refiner, which this month started natural gas production in the province.
“Naturally, this violence is not good for the investment climate, but the government’s decision this year to tackle the Taliban is a good one for the long term,” said Habib-ur-Rehman, who manages $48 million of stocks and bonds at Karachi-based Atlas Asset Management Ltd.
Peshawar, Pakistan’s eighth-largest city, suffered 11 major terrorist attacks this year, including a Nov. 19 suicide bombing at the main courthouse that killed 18 people. The city has a U.S. consulate and straddles the truck route for supplies from the port of Karachi to U.S. troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
Mountainous Trails
South of Peshawar, guerrillas are escaping over trails that snake through the mountains, military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas said in a Nov. 13 interview. While “sealing off the footpaths is not realistic,” the army is “preventing the militants from moving vehicles or heavy weapons,” he said.
Some escaped militants will abandon the Taliban movement and others will continue, making Orakzai the army’s possible next target, Abbas said. Pakistani air force jets have bombed Taliban positions there this month, killing as many as 20.
The fighting is hurting what the International Monetary Fund has called an “anemic” economy. Foreign aid and loans financed 40 percent of Pakistan’s $10 billion current account deficit in the year ended June 30, said Asad Farid, an economist at AKD Securities in Karachi. This year such assistance will entirely cover a deficit of $6 billion, he said.
Rising Cost
The war against the Taliban has been costing the government $8.5 billion a year, Finance Minister Shaukat Tarin said July 15. This year’s figure is higher, Tarin told reporters Nov. 16, declining to give details.
Successes in South Waziristan, where the army has captured militant strongholds and main roads, may revive an argument with the Obama administration over which Taliban factions Pakistan’s forces should strike next. U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones has renewed pressure for Pakistan to hit the groups that attack U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported Nov. 15, citing unnamed U.S. officials.
“The Pakistani response to any new U.S. demand will be the same as before: that they have no resources to open a new front,” said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center of the Atlantic Council in Washington.
The army’s current offensive targets a Taliban faction in South Waziristan that opposes Pakistan’s government, which blames it for 80 percent of Islamic attacks in the country. While Taliban groups that fight in Afghanistan are based nearby in North Waziristan, Abbas said the army has no plans to expand its assault there.
Shifting Focus
“Cost and security reasons” led oil developer Tullow to hand over control of a drilling project at Kohat, near Orakzai, to its local partner, spokesman George Cazenove said in an e- mail. “Because they are no longer the operator, the number of Tullow employees in Pakistan has been reduced significantly,” although Tullow retains a 40 percent stake in the project, Cazenove said.
Budapest-based Mol, Hungary’s largest oil refiner, began production at its Manzalai field last week after an initial investment of $500 million. Initial output of 250 million cubic feet of gas a day will be increased 40 percent to 350 million cubic feet by 2013, Mol Chief Executive Officer Gyorgy Mosonyi told a press conference in Islamabad on Nov 11.
“We are reducing risk to the possible minimum,” the company said in a statement in response to questions about security. “Operations at both the office in Islamabad and at the countryside facilities are continuous and uninterrupted.”
The Karachi Stock Exchange 100 Index fell 2.1 percent last month, the most since January, as bombings and assaults in major cities eroded confidence.
Sanctuary Disrupted
The South Waziristan campaign will improve Pakistan’s security because it has disrupted the country’s largest Taliban sanctuary, said Mahmood Shah, an analyst who once served as security chief for the border zone.
“We should see a reduction in the attacks within as little as two weeks,” Shah said.
On Oct. 17, the army sent 28,000 troops into the lands of the ethnic Pashtun Mehsud tribe, which has about 5,000 to 8,000 Taliban fighters, Abbas said. The battlefield is a forested, mountainous zone of 2,200 square kilometers, about half the size of the U.S. state of Rhode Island.
Operation in Darra, Bara soon to save Peshawar: Malik
ISLAMABAD: The government will soon start an operation in Darra Adam Khel and Bara to clear the area of terrorists, Interior Minister Rehman Malik said on Saturday.
Asked about the incessant terrorist attacks in Peshawar, Malik told reporters that due to the ongoing military operation in South Waziristan and Swat, terrorists were on the run and had amassed in the areas around Peshawar.
He said more troops would be dispatched to South Waziristan, adding that the government had sent additional forces to Peshawar and had dispatched new security equipment, including mobile scanners, to the city.
Asked about the incessant terrorist attacks in Peshawar, Malik told reporters that due to the ongoing military operation in South Waziristan and Swat, terrorists were on the run and had amassed in the areas around Peshawar.
He said more troops would be dispatched to South Waziristan, adding that the government had sent additional forces to Peshawar and had dispatched new security equipment, including mobile scanners, to the city.
Security conference focuses on Pakistan nuclear capabilities
www.canada.com
HALIFAX — The Afghan war and the growing Taliban insurgency inside Pakistan are putting that country's nuclear arsenal at risk, says Stephen Hadley, an arms control expert who served as national security adviser to former U.S. president George W. Bush.
"The situation in Pakistan is troubling from a lot of perspectives," Hadley said. "There is a lot of concern about what happens to Pakistan's nuclear weapons if the government fragments in some way."
Hadley, who now advises the United States Institute of Peace — a Washington-based think-tank — was speaking in Halifax Sunday at an international security conference, where the worsening insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan were the focus of three days of talks by defence ministers, academics and military leaders from the Americas, Asia and Europe.
The consensus at the conference was that Pakistan is the key to solving the war in Afghanistan because the Pakistan military established the Taliban and brought them to power as a proxy government in Kabul following the Soviet withdrawal.
As the Taliban have reasserted their strength in Afghanistan in recent years, however, so too have they and other Pashtun extremist groups begun to destabilize Pakistan, working from the same safe havens near the Afghan frontier.
Hadley said there was concern inside the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of 2001, that U.S.-led military action inside Afghanistan might destabilize Pakistan and could even lead to a Taliban government in Islamabad.
So far that hasn't happened, and as a result, Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain firmly in the control of the established civilian government, Hadley said, adding that the U.S. has assisted Pakistan since 9/11 in maintaining legitimate command and control efforts over its arsenal.
"Whenever we checked in with our military and intelligence people, we said, 'Is this a nuclear arsenal at risk?' The answer so far has always been, 'No,'" Hadley said.
"And we have now a democratic government in Pakistan that is really revitalizing their effort against the Taliban. They see it now for what it is — a strategic threat to the stability of that democracy.
"So I think that's a problem that we have done pretty well in managing, all of us together, in the last eight years."
Yet it remains "a risk" that circumstances could rapidly change, he said.
Ellen Tauscher, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control in the Obama administration, also attended the conference on Sunday, but declined to comment on questions about Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
HALIFAX — The Afghan war and the growing Taliban insurgency inside Pakistan are putting that country's nuclear arsenal at risk, says Stephen Hadley, an arms control expert who served as national security adviser to former U.S. president George W. Bush.
"The situation in Pakistan is troubling from a lot of perspectives," Hadley said. "There is a lot of concern about what happens to Pakistan's nuclear weapons if the government fragments in some way."
Hadley, who now advises the United States Institute of Peace — a Washington-based think-tank — was speaking in Halifax Sunday at an international security conference, where the worsening insurgencies in Afghanistan and Pakistan were the focus of three days of talks by defence ministers, academics and military leaders from the Americas, Asia and Europe.
The consensus at the conference was that Pakistan is the key to solving the war in Afghanistan because the Pakistan military established the Taliban and brought them to power as a proxy government in Kabul following the Soviet withdrawal.
As the Taliban have reasserted their strength in Afghanistan in recent years, however, so too have they and other Pashtun extremist groups begun to destabilize Pakistan, working from the same safe havens near the Afghan frontier.
Hadley said there was concern inside the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of 2001, that U.S.-led military action inside Afghanistan might destabilize Pakistan and could even lead to a Taliban government in Islamabad.
So far that hasn't happened, and as a result, Pakistan's nuclear weapons remain firmly in the control of the established civilian government, Hadley said, adding that the U.S. has assisted Pakistan since 9/11 in maintaining legitimate command and control efforts over its arsenal.
"Whenever we checked in with our military and intelligence people, we said, 'Is this a nuclear arsenal at risk?' The answer so far has always been, 'No,'" Hadley said.
"And we have now a democratic government in Pakistan that is really revitalizing their effort against the Taliban. They see it now for what it is — a strategic threat to the stability of that democracy.
"So I think that's a problem that we have done pretty well in managing, all of us together, in the last eight years."
Yet it remains "a risk" that circumstances could rapidly change, he said.
Ellen Tauscher, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control in the Obama administration, also attended the conference on Sunday, but declined to comment on questions about Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
NRO beneficiaries’ list to media
ISLAMABAD : State Minister for Law and Justice Afzal Sindhu on Saturday issued the list of beneficiaries of National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), Aaj News Reported.
Addressing a press conference here, he said a total of 8041 were benefited from NRO, adding that 7793 were benefited from Sindh only.
Sindhu said that President Asif Ali Zardari and MQM Chief Altaf Hussain are also among the beneficiaries from Sindh. The number of cases against Altaf Hussain was 72.
Brigadier Imtiaz, Salman Farooqi, Farooq Sattar, Shoaib Bukhari, Dr Ishratul Ibad, Babar Ghori, Saleem Shehzad, Rehman Malik, Kanwar Khalid Younus, Usman Farooqi, Hussain Haqqani and Aftab Sherpao are also beneficiaries of NRO.
Wife of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is not among the beneficiaries.
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was acquited honourably by the court.
Addressing a press conference here, he said a total of 8041 were benefited from NRO, adding that 7793 were benefited from Sindh only.
Sindhu said that President Asif Ali Zardari and MQM Chief Altaf Hussain are also among the beneficiaries from Sindh. The number of cases against Altaf Hussain was 72.
Brigadier Imtiaz, Salman Farooqi, Farooq Sattar, Shoaib Bukhari, Dr Ishratul Ibad, Babar Ghori, Saleem Shehzad, Rehman Malik, Kanwar Khalid Younus, Usman Farooqi, Hussain Haqqani and Aftab Sherpao are also beneficiaries of NRO.
Wife of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani is not among the beneficiaries.
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani was acquited honourably by the court.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Rs1,000 billion corruption swept under the carpet
ISLAMABAD: According to the official National Accountability Bureau (NAB) list, approximately Rs165 billion was written off because of the promulgation of the NRO and the subsequent act of making the NAB impotent but official sources claim that according to ‘actual’ calculations corruption cases of about Rs1000 billion were terminated.
These also include such cases where even the initial investigations had yet to begin. In just one case, a case of a highly influential individual involving a US$1.5 billion (Rs122 billion) plunder was terminated with the legal stroke of an illegal pen. In yet another case, the wife of an influential politician walked away scot-free and an amount of exactly Rs310 million was written off. There is a long list of cases in which complete immunity of billions of rupees was granted to a select segment of society.
Besides the NAB list of NRO beneficiaries given to the Law Ministry for presentation before the prime minister and then the National Assembly, hundreds of other political luminaries were given a clean slate in corruption cases without mentioning the word NRO and thousands of political workers involved in heinous criminal activities too got their records cleansed.
The National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) was promulgated as a result of a deal between then military dictator Pervez Musharraf and the PPP leadership on the night of October 5, 2007 to facilitate the election of General Musharraf in Army uniform on October 6, 2007. Under this highly controversial, discriminatory and unconstitutional NRO, corruption cases of hundreds of politicians, influential bureaucrats and political activists of some political parties were withdrawn and terminated with one stroke of the pen.
According to legal experts the NRO was unconstitutional and a discriminatory law on the basis of the following three points; first, it applied to a certain category of people and is not applicable to each and every citizen. Second, it applies for a specific duration of time i.e. before October 12, 1999, thus it involved time limitations which again make it discriminatory with respect to time limits. Third, it excludes the indemnity benefits to people accused of cooperative societies, financial and investment scams which effectively means it excluded some people from taking benefits and included a select group of people to be benefited. It is in sheer violation of articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution which speaks of equality of citizens and declare that every citizen is entitled to equal treatment of law.
It is worth mentioning here that the National Assembly Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which has a majority of ruling PPP members and comprises mostly ex-judges and senior lawyers, has recommended removal of these three discriminatory steps from the NRO thus admitting that it was an entirely unconstitutional and discriminatory law.
These also include such cases where even the initial investigations had yet to begin. In just one case, a case of a highly influential individual involving a US$1.5 billion (Rs122 billion) plunder was terminated with the legal stroke of an illegal pen. In yet another case, the wife of an influential politician walked away scot-free and an amount of exactly Rs310 million was written off. There is a long list of cases in which complete immunity of billions of rupees was granted to a select segment of society.
Besides the NAB list of NRO beneficiaries given to the Law Ministry for presentation before the prime minister and then the National Assembly, hundreds of other political luminaries were given a clean slate in corruption cases without mentioning the word NRO and thousands of political workers involved in heinous criminal activities too got their records cleansed.
The National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) was promulgated as a result of a deal between then military dictator Pervez Musharraf and the PPP leadership on the night of October 5, 2007 to facilitate the election of General Musharraf in Army uniform on October 6, 2007. Under this highly controversial, discriminatory and unconstitutional NRO, corruption cases of hundreds of politicians, influential bureaucrats and political activists of some political parties were withdrawn and terminated with one stroke of the pen.
According to legal experts the NRO was unconstitutional and a discriminatory law on the basis of the following three points; first, it applied to a certain category of people and is not applicable to each and every citizen. Second, it applies for a specific duration of time i.e. before October 12, 1999, thus it involved time limitations which again make it discriminatory with respect to time limits. Third, it excludes the indemnity benefits to people accused of cooperative societies, financial and investment scams which effectively means it excluded some people from taking benefits and included a select group of people to be benefited. It is in sheer violation of articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution which speaks of equality of citizens and declare that every citizen is entitled to equal treatment of law.
It is worth mentioning here that the National Assembly Standing Committee on Law and Justice, which has a majority of ruling PPP members and comprises mostly ex-judges and senior lawyers, has recommended removal of these three discriminatory steps from the NRO thus admitting that it was an entirely unconstitutional and discriminatory law.
Despite U.S. pressures, Pakistan continues to follow its own road
SLAMABAD, Pakistan — The Pakistani government has some advice the Obama administration may not want to hear as it contemplates sending additional U.S. troops to neighboring Afghanistan : Negotiate with Taliban leaders and restrain India .
Pakistan embraces U.S. efforts to stabilize the region and worries that a hasty U.S. withdrawal would create chaos, but Pakistani officials worry that thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines would send Taliban forces retreating into Pakistan , where they're not welcome.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's office said Friday that he told visiting CIA Director Leon Panetta of " Pakistan's concerns relating to the possible surge of the U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan which may entail negative implications for the situation in Baluchistan," the Pakistani province that borders Afghanistan to the south.
The Pakistanis' advice is almost diametrically opposed the strategy outlined by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan : Don't send additional forces to protect Afghan cities, but send them to outposts along the Pakistani border — where McChrystal has withdrawn troops.
It's just one example of how Pakistan , a critical U.S. ally in the struggle against Islamist extremists and a major recipient of American military aid, continues to deal differently with the violence that threatens not only the U.S.-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai , but also impoverished, nuclear-armed Pakistan .
The two countries' divergent views of the threat posed by Islamist extremists, and the Obama administration's efforts to press Pakistan to move against groups that menace Afghanistan have produced strains between the two countries and between Pakistan's civilian government and its powerful military and Inter Services Intelligence agency — and a growing drumbeat of Pakistani allegations about alleged nefarious CIA activities in Pakistan .
"The Pakistanis say some things in public — often for reasons related to internal politics, it seems — that they don't focus on in private," said a senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified. "That's not to say that we see eye-to-eye on everything behind closed doors, but both sides realize that — whatever the disagreements of the moment might be — the long-term partnership is essential. After all, Pakistani contributions to counterterrorism since 9/11 have been decisive, and our government recognizes that."
Instead of escalating the war in Afghanistan , however, top Pakistani officials are pressing the administration to try to negotiate a political settlement with top Taliban commanders that would allow the U.S. to exit Afghanistan .
Pakistani officials argue that that such a negotiating strategy can't work unless the rebel leadership is involved, right up to Jalaluddin Haqqani , the head of the most dangerous insurgent faction, and Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed founder of the Afghan Taliban and Osama bin Laden's ally and host.
Because Pakistan is a longtime patron of the Taliban and of the Haqqani network, Pakistani officials think they could broker a deal to reduce Afghan President Hamid Karzai to a figurehead leader and divide power between the Pashtun Taliban and Afghanistan's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities.
U.S. and some Pakistani officials, however, are skeptical, arguing that the Taliban have little incentive to negotiate when their strength and sway in Afghanistan is growing and public and international support for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is waning.
Najmuddin Shaikh , formerly the top bureaucrat in the Pakistani Foreign Ministry , said the Taliban could be brought to the negotiating table if they saw a greater American military commitment and more investments in the Afghan countryside.
"It's a little premature for talks (with the Taliban )," Shaikh said. "There has to be a change in the ground situation, things happening in the next six to eight months that shows the 'ink spots' strategy (McChrystal's idea of protecting Afghan population centers) is taking hold, that some foot soldiers are being weaned away, then talks become possible."
Nevertheless, behind the scenes talks with mid-level Taliban officials already have begun, and Pakistani officials think they could rapidly accelerate now that Karzai has begun his second term.
"We've already been talking to them (the Taliban )," said a senior Pakistani official in Islamabad , who couldn't be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. "If the U.S. helps the process, some arrangements can be worked out for political reconciliation. I'm not for a moment suggesting that it's an easy task, but otherwise you will be fighting these people for the next hundred years."
The United States and other NATO forces also favor talking to some Taliban , but they focus on "non-ideological" insurgents who can be peeled away, partly through bribery. Retired British general Graeme Lamb was appointed for this task in August, but so far the effort has produced little success.
"The Americans have wasted a lot of time over this 'moderate Taliban ' idea. It is never going to pan out. It misunderstands the Taliban phenomenon," said Simbal Khan, an analyst at Institute of Strategic Studies , a policy institute funded by the Pakistani government. "If you try to break off elements with cash, they'll take your money and still fight you."
The Pakistani military and ISI still consider archrival India , not militant Islam, the main threat, and unlike U.S. officials, Pakistani officials distinguish between the Taliban and other militant groups whose target is Afghanistan and groups that are seeking to impose their extreme brand of Islam on Pakistan .
Pakistan has for eight years declined to mount any serious pursuit of bin Laden and the other top al Qaida leaders who sought shelter in Pakistan after the 2001 U.S. invasion drove them out of Afghanistan .
Pakistan also has quietly tolerated the presence of Mullah Omar, who U.S. officials said is based near the Baluchistan city of Quetta and shuttling between there and Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and a key financial and logistics center for Islamic militants. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because intelligence on terrorist groups is classified. Officially, Pakistan denies that bin Laden and Omar are in the country.
Pakistan's laissez-faire attitude toward al Qaida , Omar and Afghan militants such as Haqqani doesn't appear likely to change in the face of stepped-up American pressure.
U.S. national security adviser James Jones last week delivered a message to Gilani and other Pakistani officials from President Barack Obama , who urged Pakistan to take action against Afghan militant groups operating from Pakistani soil.
The Pakistanis politely told Jones that Pakistan is doing all it can, and that it must concentrate on groups that are attacking Pakistan , rather than those that are a threat in Afghanistan . Gilani's office said he told Jones that Pakistan's "forces were over-stretched because of continuous tension on the eastern border" with India .
Gilani's office said Friday that, "The new Afghan policy of the U.S. government should not disturb the regional balance in South Asia ."
Pakistani officials say that relations with India remain dangerously strained, requiring military resources on Pakistan's eastern border. Pakistan is also concerned about India's growing influence in Afghanistan , which Islamabad fears is part of a move to encircle Pakistan .
With Pakistani forces already fighting the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan , the country fears opening too many battlefronts and furiously rejects Washington's constant mantra of "do more."
U.S. officials say the Pakistani military is obsessed with the Indian border, where they say there's no active threat, and reluctant to address the threats that are a product of Pakistan's refusal to quash the insurgency on Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan .
"When we get into the position of stabilizing, then we can help the other side (the U.S.)," said a senior Pakistani military officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue publicly. "There are limits of our power. You cannot be expected to use your force against all (militant) groups because then your power will be diluted. That's exactly what's happening on the other side (to the U.S. in Afghanistan ), they're all over the place and virtually in control of nothing."
Pakistan embraces U.S. efforts to stabilize the region and worries that a hasty U.S. withdrawal would create chaos, but Pakistani officials worry that thousands of additional American soldiers and Marines would send Taliban forces retreating into Pakistan , where they're not welcome.
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's office said Friday that he told visiting CIA Director Leon Panetta of " Pakistan's concerns relating to the possible surge of the U.S. and ISAF forces in Afghanistan which may entail negative implications for the situation in Baluchistan," the Pakistani province that borders Afghanistan to the south.
The Pakistanis' advice is almost diametrically opposed the strategy outlined by Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal , the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan : Don't send additional forces to protect Afghan cities, but send them to outposts along the Pakistani border — where McChrystal has withdrawn troops.
It's just one example of how Pakistan , a critical U.S. ally in the struggle against Islamist extremists and a major recipient of American military aid, continues to deal differently with the violence that threatens not only the U.S.-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai , but also impoverished, nuclear-armed Pakistan .
The two countries' divergent views of the threat posed by Islamist extremists, and the Obama administration's efforts to press Pakistan to move against groups that menace Afghanistan have produced strains between the two countries and between Pakistan's civilian government and its powerful military and Inter Services Intelligence agency — and a growing drumbeat of Pakistani allegations about alleged nefarious CIA activities in Pakistan .
"The Pakistanis say some things in public — often for reasons related to internal politics, it seems — that they don't focus on in private," said a senior U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified. "That's not to say that we see eye-to-eye on everything behind closed doors, but both sides realize that — whatever the disagreements of the moment might be — the long-term partnership is essential. After all, Pakistani contributions to counterterrorism since 9/11 have been decisive, and our government recognizes that."
Instead of escalating the war in Afghanistan , however, top Pakistani officials are pressing the administration to try to negotiate a political settlement with top Taliban commanders that would allow the U.S. to exit Afghanistan .
Pakistani officials argue that that such a negotiating strategy can't work unless the rebel leadership is involved, right up to Jalaluddin Haqqani , the head of the most dangerous insurgent faction, and Mullah Mohammed Omar, the one-eyed founder of the Afghan Taliban and Osama bin Laden's ally and host.
Because Pakistan is a longtime patron of the Taliban and of the Haqqani network, Pakistani officials think they could broker a deal to reduce Afghan President Hamid Karzai to a figurehead leader and divide power between the Pashtun Taliban and Afghanistan's Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara minorities.
U.S. and some Pakistani officials, however, are skeptical, arguing that the Taliban have little incentive to negotiate when their strength and sway in Afghanistan is growing and public and international support for the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is waning.
Najmuddin Shaikh , formerly the top bureaucrat in the Pakistani Foreign Ministry , said the Taliban could be brought to the negotiating table if they saw a greater American military commitment and more investments in the Afghan countryside.
"It's a little premature for talks (with the Taliban )," Shaikh said. "There has to be a change in the ground situation, things happening in the next six to eight months that shows the 'ink spots' strategy (McChrystal's idea of protecting Afghan population centers) is taking hold, that some foot soldiers are being weaned away, then talks become possible."
Nevertheless, behind the scenes talks with mid-level Taliban officials already have begun, and Pakistani officials think they could rapidly accelerate now that Karzai has begun his second term.
"We've already been talking to them (the Taliban )," said a senior Pakistani official in Islamabad , who couldn't be named because of the sensitivity of the issue. "If the U.S. helps the process, some arrangements can be worked out for political reconciliation. I'm not for a moment suggesting that it's an easy task, but otherwise you will be fighting these people for the next hundred years."
The United States and other NATO forces also favor talking to some Taliban , but they focus on "non-ideological" insurgents who can be peeled away, partly through bribery. Retired British general Graeme Lamb was appointed for this task in August, but so far the effort has produced little success.
"The Americans have wasted a lot of time over this 'moderate Taliban ' idea. It is never going to pan out. It misunderstands the Taliban phenomenon," said Simbal Khan, an analyst at Institute of Strategic Studies , a policy institute funded by the Pakistani government. "If you try to break off elements with cash, they'll take your money and still fight you."
The Pakistani military and ISI still consider archrival India , not militant Islam, the main threat, and unlike U.S. officials, Pakistani officials distinguish between the Taliban and other militant groups whose target is Afghanistan and groups that are seeking to impose their extreme brand of Islam on Pakistan .
Pakistan has for eight years declined to mount any serious pursuit of bin Laden and the other top al Qaida leaders who sought shelter in Pakistan after the 2001 U.S. invasion drove them out of Afghanistan .
Pakistan also has quietly tolerated the presence of Mullah Omar, who U.S. officials said is based near the Baluchistan city of Quetta and shuttling between there and Karachi, Pakistan's largest city and a key financial and logistics center for Islamic militants. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because intelligence on terrorist groups is classified. Officially, Pakistan denies that bin Laden and Omar are in the country.
Pakistan's laissez-faire attitude toward al Qaida , Omar and Afghan militants such as Haqqani doesn't appear likely to change in the face of stepped-up American pressure.
U.S. national security adviser James Jones last week delivered a message to Gilani and other Pakistani officials from President Barack Obama , who urged Pakistan to take action against Afghan militant groups operating from Pakistani soil.
The Pakistanis politely told Jones that Pakistan is doing all it can, and that it must concentrate on groups that are attacking Pakistan , rather than those that are a threat in Afghanistan . Gilani's office said he told Jones that Pakistan's "forces were over-stretched because of continuous tension on the eastern border" with India .
Gilani's office said Friday that, "The new Afghan policy of the U.S. government should not disturb the regional balance in South Asia ."
Pakistani officials say that relations with India remain dangerously strained, requiring military resources on Pakistan's eastern border. Pakistan is also concerned about India's growing influence in Afghanistan , which Islamabad fears is part of a move to encircle Pakistan .
With Pakistani forces already fighting the Pakistani Taliban in South Waziristan , the country fears opening too many battlefronts and furiously rejects Washington's constant mantra of "do more."
U.S. officials say the Pakistani military is obsessed with the Indian border, where they say there's no active threat, and reluctant to address the threats that are a product of Pakistan's refusal to quash the insurgency on Pakistan's western border with Afghanistan .
"When we get into the position of stabilizing, then we can help the other side (the U.S.)," said a senior Pakistani military officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue publicly. "There are limits of our power. You cannot be expected to use your force against all (militant) groups because then your power will be diluted. That's exactly what's happening on the other side (to the U.S. in Afghanistan ), they're all over the place and virtually in control of nothing."
Monday, November 16, 2009
ISI used CIA money to build new Islamabad headquarters
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)