By Waleed Abulkhair
Waleed Abulkhair is a human rights activist in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Last month, a judge in Saudi Arabia sentenced me to three months in prison simply because I stood with victims of my country’s flawed and discriminatory criminal justice system.Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Sentenced in Saudi Arabia for peaceful activism
By Waleed Abulkhair
Waleed Abulkhair is a human rights activist in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Last month, a judge in Saudi Arabia sentenced me to three months in prison simply because I stood with victims of my country’s flawed and discriminatory criminal justice system.Americans overwhelmingly support Iran nuclear deal - poll
By a margin of 2-to-1, Americans support the nuclear deal struck with Iran over the weekend. In addition, Americans are strongly against using military force should Tehran renege on the agreed terms, a Reuters/Ipsos poll revealed Tuesday.
According to the survey, 44 percent of Americans support the interim deal signed by Iran and the P5+1 powers: US, Russia, UK, France, China, Germany and the European Union. Twenty-two percent oppose the deal.
Under the deal struck on Sunday night, Iran agreed to freeze its nuclear program for the next 6 months and cease construction work on the Arak reactor. In addition, Tehran agreed to stop enriching uranium beyond 5 per cent in a bid to allay fears that it seeks to construct a nuclear weapon. In return, sanctions on Tehran’s economy will be lightened, allowing Iran access to $4.2 billion in funds frozen as part of financial sanctions.
Though Americans didn’t indicate trust in Iranian intentions, the survey showed Americans are not interested in new US military involvement after long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if the deal doesn’t hold, 49 percent said they want the US to increase sanctions on Iran, and 31 percent want further diplomacy. Only 20 percent want to use military force against Iran.
Congress, for its part, has already demonstrated appetite for further sanctions on the country. The House of Representatives has moved forward legislation that would increase pressure on Iran, though Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said the Senate will not take up the issue until after the legislature’s Thanksgiving break.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already condemned the nuclear deal, saying the world has become a more dangerous place.
"What was achieved last night in Geneva is not a historic agreement, it was a historic mistake," Netanyahu told his cabinet Sunday. “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place because the most dangerous regime in the world took a significant step towards obtaining the world's most dangerous weapon.
"Israel is not committed by this agreement,” Netanyahu said. “The regime in Iran is committed to destroying Israel. [But] Israel has the right and obligation to defend itself from any threat, [and] will not allow Iran to develop a military nuclear capability.”
Netanyahu said that the international community had actually “agreed for the first time to uranium enrichment in Iran, while ignoring Security Council resolutions that they themselves promoted.”
US Secretary of State Kerry assured Israel will be safer over the next six months due to the agreement reached in Geneva.
Though “Israel is threatened by what has been going on in Iran,” the deal will keep the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program under supervision and control, said Kerry.
"But I believe that from this day - for the next six months - Israel is in fact safer than it was yesterday because we now have a mechanism by which we are going to expand the amount of time in which they (the Iranians) can break out (toward making a nuclear bomb),” he told CNN Sunday.
The Reuters/Ipsos online poll, conducted from Sunday through Tuesday with 591 respondents, has a credibility interval of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.
Yemen court releases Saudi woman who eloped with her Yemeni boyfriend
A Yemeni court has released a Saudi woman who eloped with her boyfriend, and whose detention for crossing the border illegally became a romantic cause celebre in the traditional Arabian Peninsula society.
The court on Tuesday gave the 22-year-old Huda Abdullah Ali Al Niran three months to seek the help of the United Nations Higher Commissioner for Refugees to settle in Yemen and marry her 25-year-old boyfriend, Arafat Taher al-Qadi.
The couple's story inspired rallies by young Yemeni men and women outside the courtroom, some carrying banners claiming to answer to the "call of love."
Al-Qadi reportedly told investigators that Al Niran's father rejected his marriage proposal, forcing them to elope.
Prosecutors said Al Niran was charged with illegally entering Yemen while al-Qadi was accused of helping her.
In Western swing, Obama goes on offensive over healthcare law
Almost two weeks ago, President Barack Obama, looking down, walked into the White House briefing room and apologized for the flawed rollout of his healthcare reform law.
That picture of a chastened leader now appears to be gone.
During a three-day Western swing through Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, Obama touted the accomplishments of his signature law, popularly known as Obamacare, and promised the glitches were going away.
Although he occasionally referred pejoratively to the "darn" website, HealthCare.gov, he made a point of shifting his message to the positive benefits his law had achieved and piling on Republicans for rooting for its failure.
"Yes, we decided to fix a broken healthcare system," Obama told workers at DreamWorks Animation on Tuesday, the final day of his trip.
"I was talking to some of the studio execs here and I said, 'You know the rollout of the healthcare marketplace was rough' ... and yet here in California and here across this state, there are thousands of people who are getting healthcare for the first time - for the first time - because of this."
The administration has promised the website will be working for the vast majority of Americans by the end of this month, and White House officials continue to express confidence that goal will be achieved.
"The website is continually working better, so check it out," Obama said to laughter from the crowd.
Democrats are suffering in the polls because of the shaky rollout just as they are trying to keep control of the U.S. Senate and recapture the House of Representatives from Republicans in the 2014 elections.
Obama, who has said he feels personally responsible that the law has made things difficult for his fellow Democrats, adopted a more assertive tone when discussing it with donors and supporters - signaling he hoped his fellow party members would follow suit.
"We're going to continue to implement the healthcare law. The product is good, people want it and we should not live in a country where people are going bankrupt just because they get sick," he said.
"And anybody who is going to keep on pushing against that, they will meet my resistance because I am willing to fix any problems that there are, but I am not going to abandon people to make sure that they have got health insurance in this country."
FILM INDUSTRY BRIGHT SPOT
The DreamWorks Animation studio is famous for the "Shrek" animated films and is led by one of Obama's top political donors, Jeffrey Katzenberg.
The White House said DreamWorks was not chosen because of Katzenberg's financial support.
Obama also met with a who's who of film industry leaders, including the chief executives of Lionsgate Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox Film, The Walt Disney Co, and Warner Brothers.
Obama highlighted the entertainment industry as a "bright spot" in the growing U.S. economy. During their meeting, the group also discussed piracy and intellectual property rights, a White House spokesman said.
After arriving, Obama toured parts of the studio, including a visit with actors Steve Martin and Jim Parsons, who are voicing lead characters in an upcoming alien film called "Home."
Obama referred to Martin having played banjo at the White House.
"The fact that I played banjo at the White House for the president of the United States was the biggest thrill of his life," Martin quipped.
Q&A: 'India warned 26 times' before Mumbai
A recent book, authored by British investigative journalists, offers insight into what led to the deadly Mumbai attacks.India is observing the fifth anniversary of 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which over 160 people were killed by a group of armed men in almost three days of mayhem. Now a recent book, The Siege: The Attack on the Taj, authored by British investigative journalists Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark, offers an insight into what led to the Mumbai attacks, lapses on the Indian side, the role of the CIA’s proxy elements and the Pakistan-based armed group Lashkar-e-Toiba’s (LeT). Both authors specialise in investigative journalism and have previously written a controversial book, The Meadow: Kashmir 1995, a meticulous account of a ruthless kidnapping that paved the way for the 9/11 attacks on the US. In an interview with Al Jazeera’s Baba Umar, Adrian Levy talks about the Mumbai attacks, the Pakistani plot to it, the US role and the credibility of Indian intelligence agencies. Al Jazeera: First The Meadow, now The Siege. These non-fiction thrillers have come back to back in a span of just a few years. Can you tell us about the research process involved in your latest book? Adrian Levy: "It's a laborious process of hanging facts and characters on a giant exoskeleton. We're both on our hands and knees piecing things together when we see each other. The truth, or versions of it, is compelling and addictive. These kinds of stories require you to reach out and not to censor yourself. South Asia is mostly the common denominator and that's where we have spent so many years." Al Jazeera: Can you take us to Pakistan where the attack was planned? Your argument is the attacks were ‘deliberate’ and supported by Pakistan's ISI. Who in ISI planned it? And did the government in Pakistan have any clue about it? Levy: "We spent a good deal of time in Pakistan and there is no evidence that the government there was culpable. In anyway, they were caught out as was everyone else. Lashkar's complex relationship with its mentors in the ISI is more fraught. The outfit is packed with soldiers and spies, but how many are serving and who is influential. Although created as a creature of covert foreign policy, Lashkar was disintegrating after the Lal Masjid raid in 2007, when Pakistani forces stormed a mosque in Islamabad, to end a siege there. A significant section was against the old council, and anti-Pak security establishment. A small section remained loyal. Mumbai was mooted as a band-aid, it seems. It appealed to the old guard as India remained the target, and to the new guard as the West too could be targeted. Jews. Americans. Europeans. "But even though individuals in the ISI seem to have attached themselves to the Mumbai plot, it is less easy to say that the institution was involved." Al Jazeera: You claim India had prior information about the attacks. Who in India knew about it? Levy: "There was a clear trail of warnings. We found 26 in all. They were very detailed. RAW [Research and Analysis Wing, the key external intelligence agency] and the Intelligence Bureau knew Mumbai was being targeted and that Lashkar was the author. They knew which targets were being cased too. And that a seal landing was likely. But then the US knew a good deal about 9/11 and could not prevent it, and several of the 7/7 bombers were on the British watch list but evaded capture." Al Jazeera: The intelligence source inside Lashkar-e-Toiba had given the tip-off. What was the level of this source? Does it mean Lashkar is no longer impenetrable? Levy: "Lashkar has always been a leaky ship. David Headley penetrated LeT and did it for the US, his supposed clients. He also seems to have done it for himself, as he found within himself a hatred of the West as he embraced Islam. "Headley's information was stripped of identifications and dispatched to India. Would these gobbets have been taken more seriously if India had known the source?" Al Jazeera: The book also speaks of the presence of a Lashkar super-agent ‘Honey Bee’ in India? Is ‘Honey Bee’ an agent within India’s RAW, IB or what? Levy: "The ISI claimed to have a super-agent. Was it classic counter espionage? A red herring to make Mumbai appear to come from within and not without? Certainly some training materials found in Karachi seem to have stemmed from India which gave Lashkar an insight into Indian counter hostage strategy. The NSG (Indian National Security Guards) said the same when they confronted the LeT squad in the tower." Al Jazeera: Has India tried hard to expose this mole? Levy: "We don't know. India was warned by a Gulf intelligence agency." Al Jazeera: Hafiz Saeed of Jama'at-ud-Dawa in Pakistan has always denied having any role in the attacks. India blames him directly and wants Pakistan to act? The Pakistani courts have not found anything incriminating against him? Where does he fit in all this? Levy: "Hafiz Saeed is the emir of the spiritual wing in the same way Sinn Fein is the fig leaf for the IRA. He undoubtedly knew, but being the consummate political animal that he is, he was careful to conceal his presence and there is no hard evidence linking him apart from hearsay. However, LeT is a disciplined outfit and it is inconceivable that Hafiz Saeed did not know. But this is not enough to convict him in court." Al Jazeera: The Mumbai attack was meticulously planned; the masterminds mixed technology with terror, reconnaissance was done and what not. What do we know about the nine other attackers who came with Ajmal Kasab? Levy: "Nine of the 10 were similar; peasant boys from dysfunctional families in Eastern and Southern Punjab [in Pakistan]. Some grew up on the Indian border. Others in its shadow. Most of those who made the final team were brought up in areas where Jihad as an aspiration provides the only hope of lifting the populace out of misery." Al Jazeera: Lashkar-e-Toiba fighters have mostly fought in Kashmir. They took the fight to Mumbai in 2008. Are you among those who believe Kashmir and Mumbai is linked? Levy: "Lashkar had split after 9/11 and a splinter was going global, having moved to the UK to secure new funding and cadre. It was doing the same across Europe and had even targeted an Australian nuclear site. This was known and the information passed to the White house in 2007. The Bush Administration rejected the dossier as Lashkar was seen as the creature of the Pakistani military, and to attack it would distance the US from its ally, the Pakistani military. Nothing was done. "The Kashmir campaign represented the interests of only one faction within Lashkar. And so the linkage between Kashmir and Mumbai is that the Mumbai operation was conceived to enable Lashkar to continue and the ISI to wield it as part of its Kashmir policy."
India: Important to bring 26/11 perpetrators to justice: UN official
Pakistan still complacent five years after 26/11
'War against India'Shortly after the attack, Pakistani authorities arrest a number of suspects, seven of whom are still being tried by an anti-terrorism court, according to media reports. In 2013, US citizen David Coleman Headley was sentenced to 35 years by a US federal court in Chicago, Illinois, for helping plot the attacks. Kasab was indicted in India and put on trial for "waging war against India." He was sentenced to death and hanged in November 2012. Five years after the attacks, investigators in India and the US have come a long way in getting behind the motives, thanks to confessions by Headley and Kasab. Both of the confessions blamed Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamist organization which operates from Lahore, Pakistan, and which has close ties to the Pakistani military secret service Inter-Services Intelligence, and which has for many years been carrying out attacks in Indian Kashmir as a non-state actor. The group was declared a terrorist organization as early as 2001 by the US. No interest in investigations Pakistan has so far failed to help with the investigations. Arshad Mahmood, a Pakistani historian, tells DW that Islamabad 's claims that New Delhi hasn't brought forward any hard evidence against the suspects are baseless. "Pakistan clearly doesn't want any investigation linking it to the attacks. This would be a humiliation." But, according to Toqeer Gilani, a political activist in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, there is more behind Islamabad's refusal to cooperate than just an attempt to keep face. "I am convinced that Islamic organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba are supported by Pakistani intelligence agencies. Taking action against the group would be like attacking the components of the state," he said. Five years on, the dialogue process between the two countries is still sluggish. Vinod Sharma, a journalist working for the Indian newspaper Hindustan Times, views the events of November 26, 2008 as a massive setback. "And the mistrust became even greater, as it became clear that Pakistan wouldn't bring those behind the attack to justice." This view is shared by Mahmood, who says it will be very difficult for India to overcome the trauma of Mumbai as long as Pakistan doesn't take action against those responsible. "And this is not to be expected," he adds. A difficult dialogue Sharma is of the opinion that the media in both countries bear some responsibility for the stalemate between the nuclear neighbors. He says it has become common practice in India to attack Pakistan and vice versa. "It helps nobody. Politics must be based on dialogue, but this is something that is ignored by the media in both nations," the journalist criticizes. However, Sharma remains optimistic about the future of bilateral relations. He argues that Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif came into office on the promise of normalizing ties with India, something viewed positively by Indians. "We believe that Sharif's election has been the best opportunity in a long time to improve Indo-Pakistani ties. But a lot depends on whether Sharif will be able to assert himself." Analysts suspect, however, this could be difficult, as extremists can even count on support from members of the Muslim League, Sharif's party. But the improvement of relations also depends on India, which is set to hold parliamentary elections next spring. It remains to be seen, however, whether this will lead to better relations with Pakistan. Polls put the India's ruling Congress party behind the Hindu nationalists of the BJP. In the current situation, the government is unlikely to make Pakistan any offer for talks.
Pakistan: ‘56 women killed in 2013 for giving birth to girls’
The Express TribuneFifty-six women have been killed in Pakistan this year for giving birth to a girl rather than a boy, human rights activist IA Rehman said at a symposium here on Monday. “A country where mothers are killed for giving birth to baby girls can’t be called an ethical society,” Rehman said at the symposium, titled ‘Youth emerging as a force for positive change’, meant to mark the International Day to Eliminate Violence Against Women. The event was arranged by the All Pakistan Women’s Association (APWA). From January 2012 to September 2013, there were also 90 acid attacks on women, 72 cases of burning caused by other means, 491 cases of domestic violence, 344 cases of gang rape and 835 cases of violence, he said. “Young girls are being raped in Pakistan and all we do is shout rather that do anything practical,” he said. Rehman said that giving girls and boys equal access to education and introducing a uniform education system for the rich and the poor would bring about positive changes in Pakistan. “It has taken us 62 years to say that education is a basic right,” he said. Supreme Court Advocate Shamsa Ali said a third of seats in local government should be reserved for women. This would make local bodies a nursery for young female politicians, she said. She added that there should be a zero tolerance policy towards violence against women. She said that Pakistan had ratified the UN Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, but had not fully implemented it. APWA Chairwoman Ruhi Sayid said that the association had taken many initiatives to help victims of violence.
Pakistan: PTI indulging in non-issues
Daily TimesQaumi Watan Party (QWP) provincial chairman Sikandar Hayat Khan Sherpao said on Monday that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-led coalition government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) was indulging in non-issues as it had failed to deliver on its pledges. “The PTI government has totally failed to deliver,” he told a press conference at Watan Kor, the party’s central secretariat in Hayatabad. On the occasion, PTI leader in Nowshera district Malik Fayazur Rehman announced joining QWP along with his dozens of his supporters and workers. Sikandar Sherpao said the issue of law and order in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was worsening day by day, which has slowed down the economic development of the province. “The deteriorating law and order has caused great concern and unrest among people as they feel insecure in the prevailing circumstances,” he maintained. The QWP leader said the provincial government should have solved the problems being faced by people instead of indulging in non-issues. He said the rulers have overlooked the problems, which needed to be addressed on a priority basis. He said the provincial government had miserably failed to play a proactive role in safeguarding the interests of the province. He said the rulers had taken no step to put pressure on the federal government to pay the arrears of the net hydel profit to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which was its due right. Sikandar Sherpao said that next year the yield of wheat crop would not be up to the mark due to wrong policies of the provincial government. He said farmers had not been given good quality of wheat seed as flour shortage would hit the province in the next season if corrective steps were not taken forthwith. He said that unannounced and unscheduled power and gas outages had made life miserable for people. He said housewives found it difficult to cook food for their families as the gas supply remains suspended for long hours. staff report
Pakistan: KP’s real issues succumb to PTI’s populist approach
Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf has not yet come out of its pre-election populist approach and as a result Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s pressing socio-economic issues have suffered oversight by the provincial ruling coalition, according to political analysts.
Political scientists and activists, when contacted separately, said that PTI’s extreme position over a foreign policy issue had pushed to oblivion Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s actual issues, including rising unemployment, deteriorating law and order situation, growing price hike, dilapidated infrastructure, and failing social services delivery system.
“Pakistan’s politics has always been issue based and political parties always try to make gains, and as a result real issues mostly go unnoticed,” said Dr AZ Hilali, chairman of the Department of Political Science, University of Peshawar. He said no one ever talked about unemployment, crimes, and socio-economic problems. PTI was not any different than others, he added.
“I have sympathies with Imran Khan, but his approach is benefiting a particular social class at the cost of people belonging to low income groups,” said the academician.
Aren’t American drone strikes and Nato supplies real issues of the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? Addressing his party’s protest demonstration at Peshawar on Saturday, PTI chief Imran Khan said peace could not be restored in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa without stopping American drone strikes. He said 70 per cent industrial units in the province were non-functional because of the security crisis resulted by drone strikes.
Many think Mr Khan’s attempt to link the closure of industrial units with drone strikes is factually incorrect. The province has been struggling with a large number of sick industrial units since early 1990s after the federal government withdrew industrial incentive packages, rendering closure of units in Gadoon Amazai industrial estate.
Dr Ijaz Khan Khattak, a faculty member of the International Relations Department, UoP, does not agree with the PTI’s position on drone attacks.
“There does not seem to have gone some real thinking behind PTI’s slogans and its populist approach,” said Dr Khattak, adding “slogans do carry strong imprints, but compromises cannot be concealed.”
PTI, he said, had realised that it was not easy for its provincial coalition government to deliver, as the province had peculiar issues and little resource base.
The party, he said, knew well that Nato supplies and drone strikes were international issues that did not come under the domain of the provincial government. “PTI knows disrupting Nato supplies involves implications; Pakistan is legally bound to ensure the supplies to Afghanistan,” said the academician.
He said the party had come into power on slogans of ending corruption, improving social services, and restoring peace. “Perhaps, they have realised that they have not been able to deliver on any of the front so they have taken extreme positions on issues that do not come under the purview of a provincial government,” said Dr Khattak.
The Awami National Party, too, holds the opinion that PTI has lost the sense of direction, failing to overcome governance issues in the province.
“This is petty politics,” said Bushra Gohar, ANP’s ex-MPA. She said: “Governance has not been their strong point, the promises they made in the elections remain unfulfilled, and instead of getting serious about actual things they are holding music shows in the name of protest demos.”
She said PTI should tell the nation why did not provincial police cordon off the American drone strike scene in Hangu, who removed the bodies from the scene, and why had not the local police registered a case against the US ambassador to Islamabad after the Hangu drone strike?
Instead of blocking trade route that would create problems for people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, she said, the PTI should strive to change the country’s Afghan policy. “If they are sincere to what they are saying then they should hold a KP’s real issues succumb to PTI’s populist approach sit-in in front of the General Headquarters to press for changing the country’s policy,” said Ms Gohar.
She has reasons to believe that the PTI-led government was lacking in ensuring good governance.
She said the provincial government had not produced a fact-finding report about the Dera Ismail Khan jailbreak incident. Its two members of the provincial assembly, she added, were killed in terrorist attacks and the government had not produced any report about their killing as well. The provincial police, she said, could not go near to the Hangu drone strike site either. “They are trying to divert people’s attention,” said Ms Gohar.
Dr Hilali said PTI’s position had grave implications and political repercussions for the province in particular and the country in general. He said PTI’s stand against drone strikes was an old demand by Taliban. PTI, he added, had reconciled with the militants’ position.
“It is legitimising Taliban’s stand,” he said. “TTP chief and a killer of thousands of Pakistanis, Hakimullah, is being regarded as a martyr and those who lost lives to protect this country their sacrifices are being brought under question, this is hooliganism,” said Dr Hilali.
He said PTI and its allies were silent about the Kashmir issue and they had also ignored Pakistan’s demand for transferring the drone technology.
According to Dr Khattak, PTI is risking to slip to the right extreme position. “In view of the increasing political polarisation in Pakistan, PTI is pushing itself to the extreme right where it is likely to replace Jamaat-i-Islami,” said Dr Khattak.
11 kidnapped private school teachers freed in Khyber Agency
The terrorists on Tuesday here have released the eleven private school teachers who were earlier kidnapped by them, Geo News reported.
These teachers were kidnapped by the terrorists for allowing their school students to work as volunteers for dispensing polio drops to the children living in the surroundings.
Sources said that the extremists had kidnapped eleven private school teachers two days ago at a place called Sipah in Tehsil Bara for co-operating in anti-polio campaign and allowing their students to take part in polio drops dispensation.
The principal of the school has confirmed that all the abducted teachers have by now been released, sources said.
Pakistan: Rimsha’s Neighbors Remain Homeless, Plead Government For Help
The fearful residents of Rimsha Masih’s neighborhood still living homeless even after a non-violent settlement of Rimsha’s case. - See more at: http://www.christiansinpakistan.com/rimshas-neighbours-remain-homeless-plead-government-for-help/#sthash.LLFqUcWt.dpufThe Christian residents of Mehrabad were forced to flee from their homes during the Rimsha Masih blasphemy row and are still homeless; getting ever more desperate. In access of 800 to 1,000 Christian families residents of Mehrabad are still living in tents or temporary shelters as they fear a violent welcome upon return to their homes in the area. It has been more than a year since they fled their homes anticipating the grave circumstances amid blasphemy accusation on Rimsha Masih a 14 year old Christian resident of the same locality. The escapees to a large extent lack even basic needs for instance clean water for drinking moreover they fear officials may sooner or latter compel them to move on from their present makeshift shelters. Some sources say, ”The Christians still fear retaliatory attacks from Islamist extremists enraged by the blasphemy accusations made against Rimsha, a teenager with learning difficulties, in August 2012.” Rimsha Masih was arrested in August 2012 in Islamabad after a Muslim cleric accused her of burning pages of the Qur’an. She was therefore held in jail for three weeks before she finally was released on bail, however the complainant cleric was later accused of manufacturing fake evidence against her and consequently, the case against the girl was dropped. Rimsha however, could have faced life in prison if found guilty over allegations. This case drew extensive international condemnation. After the case against her was quashed in November, Rimsha Masih and her family were also forced into hiding nonetheless they took refuge under government security the family feared of their lives. After Rimsha was acquitted of blasphemy in November 2012 and she was later granted asylum, with her family, in Canada. At the same time, Christians in her area were reportedly attacked and were forced to flee amid death threats. Some residents however, tried to return but were ostracised and not allowed to buy food. They’re now seeking government support to find permanent homes. Even if the case against her was thrown out, people accused of blasphemy in Pakistan are often subjected to vigilante justice. Furious mobs have been witnessed attacking and killing people accused of blasphemy notwithstanding two prominent Pakistani politicians who have stood their ground against these acts of vandalism and misuse of blasphemy laws have been killed. An international organization urges all to: Pray for a safe and permanent home for the many Christians from Mehrabad who are still living in fear. Pray that officials will act quickly now to ensure their safety and well-being. Continue to pray for God’s protection and favour over Rimsha and her family. - See more at: http://www.christiansinpakistan.com/rimshas-neighbours-remain-homeless-plead-government-for-help/#sthash.LLFqUcWt.dpuf
Pakistan's Shia Genocide: Yazidi terrorists shot martyred mourning procession’s incharge, wife
https://www.shiitenews.comNotorious Yazidi nasbi terrorists ferociously shot martyred a mourning procession’s incharge and his wife in Karachi on Monday. Shiite News Correspondent reported here that Muneer Hussain and his wife Razia Begum were on way to their offices when terrorists hit them near Sanubar Cottage. The ferocious and merciless terrorists fired more than a dozen bullets upon Muneer Hussain and fired shots at the face of his wife. They embraced martyrdom for the fact that they were Shiites. Muneer Hussain was incharge of an azadari procession in Khuda Ki Basti Surjani Town and that procession was attacked earlier this month. Outlawed Sipah-e-Sahaba that has renamed it as Ahl-e-Sunnat wal Jamaat, detest the azadari of Imam Hussain (AS) and martyrs of Karbala and its offshoot outlawed Lashkar-e-Jhangvi publicly claimed responsibility for the genocide of Shia Muslims. Shia parties have condemned the targeted murders of Shia notable saying that women and children are not spared that reflected the fact that the Yazidis are not Muslims. They said that enemies of Ahl-e-Bait (AS) have left six children orphans. They demanded of the government to pay compensation and employment to the heirs of the Shia martyrs. They demanded public hangings of the terrorists.
Iranian forces attacked a house in Pakistan's Balochistan, 1 killed 7 injured
http://balochwarna.com/A three year-old girl was killed and seven others injured in a missile attack on a house in Kech district of Balochistan on Monday. According to local sources at least three missiles landed on the house of Mullah Umar Baloch in Kolaho near in Thump on early Monday morning. Independent sources reported that the missiles have been fired by Iranian forces from across the artificial border. As a result of the attack the house was destroyed completely resulting in death of three years-old daughter of Umer Baloch and leaving seven others injured. The killed minor has been named has Zalekha and injured were identified as Qayum, his two sons Hassan, Shahid and four women. Umer was not inside the house at the time of attack. Two houses of Umer and his brother Qayum have been completely destroyed whereas their neighbour Arif Salim’s house has also been partially damaged. It is pertinent to mention that on 14 November the Iranian chopper had entered Pakistani Balochistan airspace from western Balochistan’s Saravan [Iranian occupied] region into Mashkhail area of Washuk district in Balochistan near the border. The Iranian bombed several houses in mashkhail but no one was hurt. A senior Pakistani government official had confirmed that the Iranian helicopter infiltrated into the Pakistani Balochistan’s airspace at around 1:30 pm returned after flying around for several minutes. Pakistan has not yet raised the issue with Iran. Iranian officials had threatened that it might even cross the international border into Pakistan to chase what it calls ‘extremist elements’ engaged in anti-state activities in Iran.
Mexico says will award Malala with equality prize
Mexico says it will award its 2013 International Prize for Equality and Non-Discrimination to young Pakistani activist Malala Yousafzai, who was shot in the head by the Taliban last year for promoting education for girls and women.
The award seeks to recognize Malala's efforts for "the protection of human rights" and particularly her struggle to protect the right to education without discrimination on "grounds of age, gender, sex and religion," Mexico's official National Council to Prevent Discrimination said in a statement issued on Sunday.
The award ceremony is scheduled to take place in early 2014.
On July 12, Malala celebrated her 16th birthday with a passionate speech at the United Nations headquarters in New York, in which she said education can change the world.
"Let us pick up our books and pens. They are our most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one pen and one book can change the world. Education is the only solution," she told UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and about 1,000 youth leaders from over 100 countries attending an international Youth Assembly at the UN.
Malala, who was also nominated for this year's Nobel Peace Prize, was given the European Union's Sakharov human rights prize at a ceremony held on World Children's Day last week.
On October 9, 2012, Malala was shot by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan militants in the town of Mingora for speaking out against the fanatics and promoting education for girls and women in her home region, the Swat Valley of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
The UN speech was her first public address since the incident. She has been credited with bringing the issue of women's education to global attention.
"They shot my friends too. They thought that the bullets would silence us. But they failed and out of that silence came thousands of voices," Malala said.
"The terrorists thought they would change my aims and stop my ambitions, but nothing changed in my life except this: weakness, fear and hopelessness died. Strength, power and courage was born," she stated.
A day after she was shot, a bullet which hit Malala’s skull was removed by surgeons in Peshawar. She was later transferred to a military hospital in Rawalpindi for more specialist treatment.
She is currently living in Britain, where she underwent successful surgery on her skull and ear. Surgeons replaced part of Malala’s skull with a titanium plate and inserted a cochlear implant in her left ear to restore her hearing.
In December 2012, Pakistan and UNESCO unveiled the Malala Plan, which aims to get all the girls in the world into school by the end of 2015.
After Afghanistan, what next for world's biggest military alliance?
What does the world's most powerful military alliance do once the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan winds up next year?
That is a question worrying military commanders at the SHAPE (Supreme headquarters allied powers Europe) Europe in Mons, southern Belgium, and diplomats at the 28-member North Atlantic Council in Brussels.
With one or two exceptions, military budgets – in the US as well as Europe – are being cut while Russia, China, and other Asian countries, are increasing theirs. Judging by the polls in Nato countries, there is little appetite for another military intervention.
Germany did not take part in Nato's bombing of Libya, nor in the more recent French-led intervention in Mali.
Future military operations are likely to depend increasingly on smaller and smaller "coalitions of the willing". Fewer and fewer Nato members are likely to show willing.
US General Philip Breedlove, Saceur (supreme allied commander Europe) recognises the uncertainties facing the Nato alliance and the danger of apathy leading to atrophy.
"Our training, our exercises will have to be the glue that holds us together", he said on the sidelines of a meeting of Nato maritime commanders in London last week.
Breedlove referred to "Steadfast Jazz", a recent Baltic exercise to which Poland, a Nato country which has actually increased its defence budget, was by far the biggest contributor.
The exercise was designed to show the Russians and others that after years bogged down in counter insurgency efforts in Afghanistan, Nato forces are still willing and able to conduct more conventional "high end" military operations.
Nato military chiefs place more credible emphasis on what they call "out of area" operations against less conventional enemies. They point to "Ocean Shield", the name of Nato's counter piracy operations in the Indian ocean.
But this is not in any way a controversial military operation – even the EU has managed to agree on a joint naval force there called Operation Atalanta. Russia is cooperating with Nato ships there, as it has done in the Medierranean.
The "North Atlantic" alliance is becoming more and more a misnomer.
Australia has long been one of the more enthusiatic military interveners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nato commanders refer even to New Zealand, and operations in defence of "global" interests, such as securing trade routes.
The next Nato summit will be held in Newport, south Wales in early September next year. During a recent visit to Cardiff, David Cameron, the British prime minister, said: "It's the end of Afghan mission and important to reflect on the future of Nato."
That, prime minister, is certainly true.
Afghan accord near collapse due to new demands
Karzai told Rice that he would sign only after the United States helps his government begin peace talks with the Taliban and agrees to release all 17 Afghan citizens being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, according to Afghan and U.S. officials. In addition to those new demands, the Afghan leader reiterated that he will not sign if “another [U.S.] soldier steps foot into an Afghan home,” Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi said. The United States has already promised to show “restraint” in “home entries” by U.S. troops and to carry them out only in conjunction with Afghan troops, but the tactic remains a principal part of U.S. operations against insurgents here.If Rice’s unannounced visit to Afghanistan, her first solo trip abroad in office, was designed to convince Karzai that the Obama administration was not bluffing about a complete withdrawal, it did not appear to work. Instead, Karzai doubled down on the position he staked out Thursday, when he shocked both U.S. officials and an assembly of Afghan elders called to approve the deal by saying that he would not sign it until his growing list of demands was met. The agreement, completed last week after year-long negotiations, outlines the conditions for a follow-on presence of U.S. troops to train and advise the Afghan military and to conduct counterterrorism operations after the Americans and their NATO partners withdraw all combat troops by the end of next year. The administration has said it must be signed before the end of this year if U.S. and NATO planning for post-2014 deployments are to be completed.
On Sunday — despite endorsement of the deal by the assembly, called a loya jirga — Karzai repeated his refusal to sign until after the presidential election here in April. U.S. officials have said they believed that Karzai was bluffing. But “the president said, ‘Madame Rice, the ball is in your court,’ ” Faizi said. “The president said, ‘If you are under the impression the [agreement] will be signed without a peace process, and without a total ban on raids of Afghan homes, this is a serious miscalculation.’ ” Although couched in far more diplomatic language, the National Security Council statement was equally tough, saying that Rice “stressed that we have concluded negotiations and that deferring the signature of the agreement until after next year’s elections is not viable.” It said she “reiterated that, without a prompt signature, the U.S. would have no choice but to initiate planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan.”
Failure to sign, Rice told Karzai, would jeopardize not only the $4 billion in international pledges to fund the Afghan military after 2014, but also an additional $4 billion that has been promised for Afghan economic development. A senior U.S. official in Washington, who was not authorized to discuss the sensitive matter on the record, said the Obama administration was deeply frustrated by Karzai’s new demands. “We can continue to disagree, but at the end of the day, we are the ones who have the troops,” the official said.
“He can insist he has new conditions. But we’ve got a plan,” the official said, referring to the agreement. In his Sunday speech to the loya jirga, Karzai also accused the U.S. government of seeking to undermine him and the election, and he said he needed additional assurances. Faizi said that Rice stressed during the meeting that the administration has “no favored candidate in that election” and is “strongly committed to not interfering with it.” “That was a commitment that was made in very strong terms and very strong words, and that clearly satisfied the president,” Faizi said. But when the conversation shifted to other matters, he said, it became more tense. Gen. Joseph F. Dunford, the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, and James B. Cunningham, the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, accompanied Rice to the meeting. According to Faizi, Dunford said he has instructed all U.S. commanders in Afghanistan to take “all necessary measures” to try to avoid civilian casualties in military missions. Karzai plans to closely scrutinize U.S. military behavior over the coming weeks, Faizi said. “We need a change in U.S. behavior, so [Karzai] said, ‘Give us Afghans time to see a change in behavior,’ ” Faizi said. Faizi said Cunningham strongly objected to Karzai’s demand for the release of Afghan prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. But Karzai noted that the members of the loya jirga had also called for such a release, the spokesman said. The spokesman said the release of the Afghan prisoners is a vital step toward launching a peace process with Taliban militants. Karzai is also expecting the U.S. government to work with Pakistan’s government to start those talks, the spokesman said. “He strongly believes Afghan peace is firmly in the hands of the United States first, and secondly in the hands of Pakistan,” Faizi said. Some militants who launch attacks in Afghanistan are thought to be based in Pakistan. Over the summer, U.S. officials worked with Pakistani leaders to try to arrange peace talks between Karzai’s government and Taliban leaders in Qatar. After the Taliban leaders hoisted their group’s banner at their hotel in Doha, Karzai vowed not to attend.
Monday, November 25, 2013
Obama Signals a Shift From Military Might to Diplomacy
By MARK LANDLER
The weekend ended with the first tangible sign of a nuclear deal with Iran, after more than three decades of hostility. Then on Monday came the announcement that a conference will convene in January to try to broker an end to the civil war in Syria.
The success of either negotiation, both long sought by President Obama, is hardly assured — in fact the odds may be against them. But the two nearly simultaneous developments were vivid statements that diplomacy, the venerable but often-unsatisfying art of compromise, has once again become the centerpiece of American foreign policy.
At one level, the flurry of diplomatic activity reflects the definitive end of the post-Sept. 11 world, dominated by two major wars and a battle against Islamic terrorism that drew the United States into Afghanistan and still keeps its Predator drones flying over Pakistan and Yemen.
But it also reflects a broader scaling-back of the use of American muscle, not least in the Middle East, as well as a willingness to deal with foreign governments as they are rather than to push for new leaders that better embody American values. “Regime change,” in Iran or even Syria, is out; cutting deals with former adversaries is in.
For Mr. Obama, the shift to diplomacy fulfills a campaign pledge from 2008 that he would stretch out a hand to America’s enemies and speak to any foreign leader without preconditions. But it will also subject him to considerable political risks, as the protests about the Iran deal from Capitol Hill and allies in the Middle East attest.
“We’re testing diplomacy; we’re not resorting immediately to military conflict,” Mr. Obama said, defending the Iran deal on Monday in San Francisco. “Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically,” he said earlier that day, “but it’s not the right thing for our security.”
Still, diplomacy is a protracted, messy business with often inconclusive results. It is harder for a president to rally the American public behind a multilateral negotiation than a missile strike, though the deep war weariness of Americans has reinforced Mr. Obama’s instinct for negotiated settlements over unilateral action.
White House officials suggest that the president always planned to arrive at this moment, and that everything that came before it — from the troop surge in Afghanistan to the commando raid that killed Osama bin Laden — was cleaning up after his predecessor.
“In 2009, we had 180,000 troops in two wars and a ton of legacy issues surrounding terrorism,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “So much that was done out of the box was winding down those wars. We’ve shifted from a very military face on our foreign policy to a very diplomatic face on our foreign policy.”
Much of that diplomacy has been on public display in the hypercaffeinated travels of Secretary of State John Kerry, who, in addition to his work on Iran and Syria, has persuaded the Israelis and Palestinians to resume peace negotiations. A few hours after sealing the nuclear deal in Geneva, he flew to London for talks on the Syria conference.
But some of the crucial dealings have occurred in the shadows. In March, administration officials said, Mr. Obama authorized a small team of senior officials from the White House and the State Department to travel secretly to Oman, the Arab sultanate, where they met face to face with Iranian officials to explore the possibility of a nuclear deal.
The cloak-and-dagger was necessary, the officials said, because it allowed the United States and Iran to discuss the outlines of a nuclear deal without fear that details would leak out. Cutting out others eliminated the competing agendas that come with the six negotiating partners engaged in the formal Geneva talks.
But the disclosure that the United States and Iran had been talking privately angered France, which registered its displeasure two weeks ago by warning that the proposal then being discussed was too lenient and that it would not accept a “sucker’s deal.”
For all of Mr. Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy, analysts noted that the United States often depends on others to take the initiative. In the case of Iran, it was the election of Hassan Rouhani as president, with his mandate to seek a relaxation of punishing sanctions.
In the case of Syria, it was a Russian proposal for President Bashar al-Assad to turn over and destroy his chemical weapons stockpiles, an option the White House seized on as a way of averting a military strike that Mr. Obama first threatened and then backed off from.
“The C.W. deal made the Iran diplomacy much more viable and attractive to the administration,” said Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a former Obama administration official. But he added, “Neither in Syria or Iran is there an ambition for something larger.”
Mr. Obama has called for Mr. Assad to give up power. But his diplomatic efforts on Syria have done little to bring that about, and next month’s conference in Geneva is likely to demonstrate that far from negotiating his departure, Mr. Assad is digging in.
Similarly with Iran, the administration is adamant that it is negotiating what amounts to an arms-control agreement in response to a specific security threat. A broader opening to Iran — one that could make it a partner on regional issues like Syria or Afghanistan, or even open its political system — seems far-off.
In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, Mr. Obama listed his priorities in the Middle East as Iran, Syria and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Promoting democratic principles, while still important, was no longer an overriding interest.
That more pragmatic approach was on display this month when Mr. Kerry visited Egypt, where the military-backed government is prosecuting its ousted president, Mohamed Morsi, and cracking down on his Muslim Brotherhood supporters. Mr. Kerry emphasized continuity with Egypt’s generals and said little about their brutal tactics.
For Mr. Obama, all of this may matter less than resolving the nuclear threat from Iran, an achievement that would allow him to reduce America’s preoccupation with the Middle East and turn to another of his foreign-policy priorities, Asia.
“This was a president who was elected on the promise to wind down two wars responsibly,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former administration official who is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “He can now also say he has avoided a third war.”
Before he can be sure of that, though, Mr. Obama faces the treacherous task of negotiating a final agreement. This time, the administration will have to do the bargaining with its partners, and it faces vocal skepticism from Israel and members of Congress.
“The Iran talks are a four-ring circus,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a former under secretary of state who coordinated Iran policy during the Bush administration. “This is going to be among the most complex and difficult diplomatic cases ever.”
“We’re trying to deal with very difficult, cynical countries through different means,” said Mr. Burns, who now teaches at Harvard, where he has started the Future of Diplomacy Project. “But the public is weary; they want us to work things out without fighting.”
Obama pushes back against critics of Iran deal
Pushing back hard against critics, President Barack Obama forcefully defended the temporary agreement to freeze Iran’s disputed nuclear program on Monday, declaring that the United States “cannot close the door on diplomacy.”Without naming names, Obama swiped at those who have questioned the wisdom of engaging with Iran. “Tough talk and bluster may be the easy thing to do politically, but it’s not the right thing to do for our security,” he said during an event in San Francisco. The president’s remarks followed skepticism of the historic accord expressed by some US allies abroad as well as by members of Congress at home, including fellow Democrats. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the fiercest opponents of the six-month deal, called it a “historic mistake” and announced he would be dispatching a top envoy to Washington to try to toughen the final agreement negotiators will soon begin hammering out. “I spoke last night with President Obama. We agreed that in the coming days an Israeli team led by the national security adviser, Yossi Cohen, will go out to discuss with the United States the permanent accord with Iran,” Netanyahu told members of his Likud party Monday. The weekend agreement between Iran and the P5+1 countries — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — is to temporarily halt parts of Tehran’s disputed nuclear program and allow for more intrusive international monitoring of its facilities. In exchange, Iran gets some modest sanctions relief and a promise from Obama that no new economic penalties will be levied during the terms of the six-month deal. The groundwork for the accord was laid during four clandestine meetings between US and Iranian officials throughout the summer and fall. An earlier meeting took place in March, before Iranians elected their new, more moderate-sounding President Hassan Rouhani. Details of the secret talks were confirmed to The Associated Press by three senior administration officials. The temporary accord with Tehran is historic in its own right, marking the most substantial agreement between Iran and the West in more than three decades. The consequences of a permanent deal could be far more significant, lowering the prospects of a nuclear arms race in the volatile Middle East and perhaps opening the door to wider relations between the US and Iran, which broke off diplomatic ties following the 1979 Islamic revolution. However, Obama and his advisers know the nuclear negotiations are rife with risk. If Obama has miscalculated Iran’s intentions, it will vindicate critics who say his willingness to negotiate with Tehran is naive and could inadvertently hasten the Islamic republic’s march toward a nuclear weapon. Obama also runs the risk of exacerbating tensions with key Middle Eastern allies, as well as members of Congress who want to deepen, not ease, economic penalties on Iran. Even some members of Obama’s own party say they’re wary of the deal struck in Geneva. “I am disappointed by the terms of the agreement between Iran and the P5+1 nations because it does not seem proportional,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a close ally of the White House. “Iran simply freezes its nuclear capabilities while we reduce the sanctions.” Despite Obama’s assurances that no new sanctions will be levied on Iran while the interim agreement is in effect, some lawmakers want to push ahead with additional penalties. A new sanctions bill has already passed the House, and if it passes the Senate, Obama could have to wield his veto power in order to keep his promise to Tehran. Some lawmakers are also concerned about concessions the world powers made to Iran on its planned heavy water reactor in Arak, southwest of Tehran. Two congressional aides said that under the terms of the agreement, international monitors will not being able to watch live feeds of any activity at Arak and will instead retrieve a recording from the preceding day during each daily inspection. The aides were not authorized to provide details of the agreement and demanded anonymity. Despite the weekend fanfare, administration officials said key technical details on the inspections and sanctions relief must still be worked out before the agreement formally takes effect. Officials said they expect to finalize those details in the coming weeks. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said he expects the deal to be fully implemented by the end of January. European Union officials said their sanctions could be eased as soon as December. Those restrictions affect numerous areas including trade in petrochemicals, gold and other precious metals, financial transfers to purchase food and medicine, and the ability of third countries to use EU-based firms to insure shipments of Iranian oil again. With a short-term pact in place, world powers will now set about trying to negotiate a broader agreement with Iran to permanently neutralize the nuclear program and assuage international concerns. Those talks will tackle the toughest issues that have long divided Iran and the West, including whether Tehran will be allowed to enrich uranium at a low level. Iran insists it has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and many nuclear analysts say a final deal will almost certainly leave Iran with some right to enrich. However, that’s sure to spark more discord with Israel and many lawmakers who insist Tehran be stripped of all enrichment capabilities.
China: TIP jihadi video ‘proves group’s terrorist nature’
Claims of responsibility for last month's deadly Tiananmen Square suicide attacks by the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) in a video shows the organization's fundamental terrorist nature, the Chinese government said Monday, as it vowed to keep fighting strenuously against terrorism.
"The Turkistan Islamic Party is actually the terrorist group East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM)," Qin Gang, foreign ministry spokesman, said during a regular press meeting. "The video has revealed the group to be terrorists and revealed the truth to people who questioned it a while ago."
The TIP recently released a video describing the car crash on Tiananmen Square on October 28 as a "jihadi operation by holy warriors" and threatened more attacks, according to US-based monitoring service SITE Intelligence Group last Friday.
On October 28, a jeep drove through the crowds close to Tiananmen rostrum in central Beijing, killing five and injuring another 40 before crashing and bursting into flames. Beijing police described it as a terrorist attack and arrested five suspects.
The eight-minute video is in the Uyghur language and includes a speech by the TIP leader Abdullah Mansour, according to a Reuters report. In the video, Mansour said such operations were "only the beginning of attacks on Chinese authorities."
Mansour said that future targets would include the Great Hall of the People, where legislative meetings and ceremonial activities are usually held in China, according to SITE.
Spokesman Qin Gang said the ETIM is a terrorist group proscribed by the United Nations and has performed many terrorist activities inside and outside China, causing a lot of casualties and damaging properties.
The ETIM has also been recognized as a terrorist organization by the US government.
Qin added that there should be no double standards in the fight against terrorism.
In the wake of the deadly car crash, foreign media have carried reports questioning Beijing's terming of it as a terrorist attack.
Some experts believe the ETIM reformed under the name of TIP, which is behind some of the terrorist attacks and threats to China, including releasing video warnings of attacks on the Olympics in China in 2008, said Li Wei, an anti-terrorism expert with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.
"The TIP has absorbed some mid-Asian terrorist group members, as well as some Uyghurs who escaped China from Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region," he said. "But it often sends people inside China to cultivate more members and organize group terror attacks."
The attacks organized by the TIP are usually group activities, sometimes from one family, Li said. The car involved in the Tiananmen suicide attack was driven by Usmen Hasan and contained his mother Kuwanhan Reyim and wife Gulkiz Gini. The reason for these family attacks is because the attacks are clouded in religious reasons, like the name "holy war" mentioned in the video, Li said.
However, the religious names do not change the fact that these are terrorist attacks, Li said, and the TIP, or the ETIM, has always been branded as a terrorist group in China.
Following an increasing number of terrorist attacks in Xinjiang, China has increased anti-terrorist efforts. Security also topped the agenda for Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Central Asia in early September.
Qin said the foreign ministry recognizes the security threat made by the terrorist group.
"There needs to be international cooperation in striking against terrorism. Fighting against the ETIM is an important part of counter terrorism. We hope there can be strengthened communication and cooperation internationally in the field to keep peace and stability," Qin said.
Li said such threatening videos might have stimulating effects on the terrorist groups in China and might activate them for more attacks. The key to increasing defense against such attacks is strengthening the ability to collect intelligence, he said.
"It's difficult to defend against this type of terrorist activities without knowing their plans of attacks. It's rather important to strengthen the ability to gather information," he said.
Terrorism in Xinjiang
According to police statistics, more than 100 violent crimes by terrorist groups have occurred each year since 2009 in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. In 2012, more than 190 terrorist cases were reported, a large increase compared with the previous year. Most of the participants were young people born in the 1980s or 1990s, and 95 percent of them have only a junior high school or lower education background.
Terrorists have also been spreading religious extremism online, disseminating rumors and provoking violent crimes.
Areas in southern Xinjiang, including Aqsu, Hotan and Kashi, are major spots where members of the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) infiltrate and spread from.
In the two months after the June 26 terrorist attack on police in Shanshan county, which left 27 dead, police arrested hundreds of people spreading rumors or even advocating "jihad."
In the past few years, international forces advocating religious extremism, separatism and terrorism have been making use of the religious and ethnic identification from Muslims in Xinjiang, instigating ethnic hatred and promoting religious extremism.
World powers to Israel: Stop griping, work with us toward final Iran deal
Many of the world powers that took part in the negotiations with Iran have sent communiques to the Israeli government over the last two days, both publicly and through back channels, all conveying the same message: The interim agreement with Iran is a fait accompli. Western diplomats stated that it was made clear to Israel that instead of complaining about what was, Jerusalem should instead focus its efforts on what will be, by beginning to work with the powers over the next six months, in advance of the negotiations with Iran over a final agreement. This message was one of the central points during a 30-minute talk between U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday afternoon. Obama told Netanyahu that the United States is interested in hearing Israel’s position regarding the final agreement with Iran as soon as possible. It was also the bottom line of the telephone call held on Monday between Strategic and Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius. The minister told Steinitz that he is interested in continuing to cooperate closely with Israel with regard to Iran, and urged Israel’s government to focus on the future.British Foreign Secretary William Hague publiclypublicly called on Israel not to try and sabotage the interim agreement with Iran. “We would discourage anybody in the world, including Israel, from taking any steps that would undermine this agreement and we will make that very clear to all concerned,” Hague told parliament. Representatives of the world powers have told Israel during the last 48 hours that they themselves will not allow the interim agreement to become a permanent arrangement. The powers believe that since Iran seeks the removal of the most damaging sanctions – the oil embargo and the limitations on Iranian banking – even Tehran will not be satisfied with an interim deal. “The goal of a permanent agreement will be to dismantle significant portions of the Iranian nuclear program,” said one Western diplomat. “We would’ve been glad to do all this with the interim agreement, but that was unrealistic." The Prime Minister’s Office, as well as the rest of Israel’s defense establishment, is beginning to realize that it must face reality. To borrow from the Kübler-Ross model of grieving, the Israeli government on Saturday and Sunday underwent the stages of anger, bargaining, and depression. In Washington, London, and Paris, they hope that Israel will reach the acceptance stage as soon as possible, and focus on the future. During a Likud faction meeting on Monday, Netanyahu softened his tone, and was able to admit that the interim agreement also had some positive implications for Israel. “It’s true that the pressure we exerted bore some fruit, and brought about a better result than what was previously planned, but it’s still a bad deal,” said Netanyahu. Israel has begun to accept the interim deal between Iran and the world powers, albeit slowly and uncomfortably. Take for example yesterday's briefing that Steinitz gave to European Union diplomats in Israel, which focused on the shortcomings of the interim deal and on protesting the conduct of the world powers. Also, the memorandums that Israel sent on Sunday and Monday to Israeli embassies around the world from the PMO's national hasbara council and from the Foreign Ministry's department of strategic affairs, consisted mainly of complaints about the interim agreement, without any official Israeli position regarding the continuing negotiations toward a permanent agreement with Iran. Netanyahu stated yesterday that in the coming days a delegation headed by national security adviser Yossi Cohen will depart for Washington, to hold talks with senior American officials regarding the deal with Iran. Similar meetings will take place in the coming weeks with Britain, France, and Germany. At this time, however, the Israeli stance on a possible permanent agreement with Iran is not yet sufficiently consolidated, detailed, or creative. Israel is continuing to publicly express a maximalist goal that has little chance of being achieved. Netanyahu said on Monday during the Likud meeting that “the permanent agreement must have one result: the destruction of Iran’s military nuclear capabilities.” Netanyahu is demanding that the permanent agreement not allow Iran to enrich uranium on its soil, not even to 3.5 percent. The interim agreement, however, has already determined that the final agreement will allow for a uranium enrichment program, with the level of enrichment to be decided between Iran and the world powers.Hague asks Jerusalem not to sabotage agreement; 'Focus efforts on shaping final agreement,' Western diplomats tell Jerusalem.
PAKISTAN AMONG WORST OFFENDERS FOR CENSORSHIP
http://newsweekpakistan.com/The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is ranked among the worst offenders for censoring politically-sensitive content on the Internet and having inadequate safeguards against government surveillance, according to the 2013 Web Index Report released on Friday. The World Wide Web Foundation of Internet inventor Tim Berners-Lee says its index is “the world’s first multidimensional measure of the Web’s growth, utility, and impact on people and nations.” This year’s report covers 81 countries and places Pakistan at a lowly No. 77. Pakistan has been categorized as an “underperformer,” an assessment made from comparing the country’s composite Web Index rank to its wealth level—Pakistan is at No. 62 on the income rank, but at No. 77 overall. It also ranks poorly for “universal access” (No. 68), “freedom and openness” (No. 76), “relevant content” (No. 69), and “empowerment” (No. 67). “In the developing world, only a minority of mobile phone owners uses their phones to get online; the proportion ranges from a low of only 6 percent in Pakistan to a high of 37 percent in China,” says the report. “The most powerful information technology—the Internet—is still out of reach for three in five of the world’s people.” The report also says that political parties in 60 percent of the countries surveyed used the Web to publish manifestoes or political analysis. It notes that in “newer democracies or countries facing political upheaval, like Pakistan, parties may have active Facebook pages but are not using online tools to recruit and register new members.” It notes that “online platforms are beginning to play a significant role in shaping opinions on political issues” in countries like Pakistan “where Web use is growing but still sparse.” But it warns that “government efforts to control, monitor or subvert electronic communications are [also] on the increase.” Speaking at the report’s launch, Berners-Lee said this growing surveillance and censorship of the Internet “threatens the future of democracy.” “One of the most encouraging findings of this year’s Web Index is how the [Internet] and social media are increasingly spurring people to organize, take action, and try to expose wrongdoing in every region of the world,” said Berners-Lee. “But some governments are threatened by this, and a growing tide of surveillance and censorship now threatens the future of democracy … Bold steps are needed now to protect our fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of opinion and association online.” Developing countries are most likely to block and filter online communications, but leaks from fugitive U.S. analyst Edward Snowden revealed that developed countries are more likely to spy on the Web, the report said. Sweden topped the overall Web Index for developed countries for the second year running, followed by Norway, Britain, the U.S., and New Zealand. Mexico topped the list of emerging market countries, while the Philippines came in at No. 1 among developing nations.
Get BSA signed in short order, says Kerry
“The critical next step must be to get the BSA signed in short order, and put into motion an agreement which will lay a firm foundation for our two countries to continue working together toward a more secure and prosperous future for Afghanistan,” Kerry said.
Afghans were rightly taking the lead in providing for their own peace and security, as the US remained committed to supporting those efforts and looked forward to signing an agreement that would enable them to do so, the secretary said in a statement.
Kerry added the Loya Jirga, a gathering of thousands of representatives of the Afghan people, in accordance with a proud tradition, had powerfully backed the BSA which the two countries had been negotiating for quite some time.
“Very significantly, the Loya Jirga also urged that the BSA should be signed before the end of the year. I can't imagine a more compelling affirmation from the Afghan people themselves of their commitment to a long term partnership with the United States and our international partners,” Kerry concluded.
Also on Sunday, President Hamid Karzai on Sunday said he would consult with jirga and US leaders on amendments to the BSA before signing the vital security pact. “We want the US to be sincere in implementing this important deal,” the president told the concluding session of the tribal assembly in Kabul.
He identified peace and transparent elections as the main objectives behind the accord. “Can we achieve this (goal) in a month’s time? If I sign this agreement and peace continues to elude the country, who will be held responsible?” Karzai asked after most of the 50 committees supported inking of the BSA before the April elections.
Economic Implications of the U.S. Afghanistan Withdrawal
By Farooq Yousaf
The departure of coalition forces from Afghanistan will have a large impact, especially on Pakistan.With September 2014 fast approaching, all eyes are fixed on Afghanistan and the announced withdrawal of the U.S.-led coalition forces. Although the Afghan Loya Jirga is still debating a limited presence of the coalition forces, a majority of the contingents are scheduled to leave by the end of 2014. This mass military exodus from Afghanistan will shift the burden of security responsibility onto the Afghan Army and police. It is hard to predict whether the Afghan forces will able to cope with the post-withdrawal security situation or not. Yet the withdrawal will surely have a negative economic impact – not only on Afghanistan, but also Pakistan. According to Pakistan’s Post Crisis Needs Assessment (PCNA) 2010 for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would have major economic implications for Pakistan, especially the FATA. Irrespective of the security implications, the Pakistani economy would witness some contraction given that NATO cargo and supply is a major source of U.S. currency. Clearly, the impact would be greater in Afghanistan, yet considering the number of livelihoods dependent on the transit cargo and ISAF forces, Pakistan is already preparing to provide alternatives for those who will be out of work after 2014. Not only the government, but also major international donors, such as the World Bank, have formed special funds for the region in order to neutralize the negative economic impact. The NATO cargo influx has created a transport sector boom over the past decade, with contractors and workforce earning three times what they used to make with commercial or national trade. This cargo accounts for a significant 25 percent of the total transit trade taking place from Pakistan into Afghanistan, meaning any halt or drastic decline in the NATO cargo would represent a major loss of revenue for Pakistan. Numerous businesses have flourished in Pakistan with the influx of NATO cargo since 2001, with transport and logistics firms the biggest winners. Although the accumulation of wealth and contracts has remained in relatively few hands, a large portion of the workforce from the underdeveloped FATA region gained from the overall movement. Khyber and Mohmand agencies (two FATA regions) were two of the main beneficiaries, as their drivers, helpers and security personnel were preferred because of their knowledge of the treacherous terrain. According to estimates taken from the All Pakistan Traders association, some 20,000 truck drivers are associated with the NATO transit and cargo. Most are from the FATA region. With NATO gone, these drivers will have difficulty finding alternative employment given the very limited opportunities in the tribal areas. In fact, one of the best paying options in these areas is working for banned militant groups. These groups are not only involved in violent attacks, but also provide security on informal trade routes for illegal cargo in return for money. The amorphous, 2640 kilometer-long Pakistan-Afghanistan border is a hotbed of informal trade. According to the Pakistan Afghanistan Joint Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PAJCCI), two-way illegal trade crossing the border is worth $1 billion. If transit and commercial trade declines, transport outfits could be motivated to invest in informal trade, more commonly known as smuggling. In addition to the NATO transit, bilateral/commercial trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan has surged in recent years. Afghanistan is now Pakistan’s third-largest trading partner, importing a number of important goods from Pakistan. According to the PAJCCI, Pakistan exports to Afghanistan in the 2010-2011 fiscal year were an impressive $2.3 billion. The number could plummet in a volatile security situation post 2014, badly hurting Pakistan’s economy. But even with a stable outlook, there are fears of foreign capital flight from Kabul that could weaken Afghanistan’s economy, reducing purchasing power, which in turn would affect imports from Pakistan. The World Bank has estimated that Afghanistan’s average economic growth will shrink from 10 percent in the first decade of this century to 6 percent over the coming few years. Afghanistan also hosts a large Pakistani workforce, especially in the nonprofit and reconstruction sectors. A weaker Afghan economy may mean that these workers will have to return to Pakistan, where their prospects are decidedly uncertain. Security concerns may also force many Afghans to emigrate to neighboring countries, especially Pakistan, adding further economic strain. All this suggests that Afghanistan’s security and stability should be a top priority, particularly for Pakistan. The Afghanistan security landscape is not only the concern of the U.S. and its partners, but also of neighboring countries such as Iran, India and, most importantly, Pakistan. These three neighbors need to realize that a stable Afghanistan is needed for regional prosperity. While interference in Afghanistan’s fate would be unwise, a limited international security presence could be helpful in providing support for the nascent Afghan forces.
What future does security pact give Afghanistan?
Afghanistan's Loya Jirga - grand traditional assembly - of 2,500 delegates on Sunday endorsed a crucial security agreement with the US and urged President Hamid Karzai to sign it by the end of this year.
The bilateral security agreement between the US and Afghanistan is one of the most important decisions in Afghanistan's recent history with far-reaching implications not only for the national security and politics of Afghanistan but also for the geopolitics of the whole region.
According to the UN Security Council's mandate, the US-led international military force in Afghanistan is scheduled to hand over all security duties to Afghan forces before its full withdrawal by the end of 2014.
But a signed "Security and Defence Co-operation Agreement" means that around 10,000 US troops could stay in Afghanistan for another 10 years.
The main role of foreign forces will be to train and assist the Afghan military and police. But some US Special Forces will continue to hunt the al-Qaeda network and its affiliates as part of their "counter-terrorism operations".
Afghanistan has had "limited sovereignty" since the US-led invasion under a 2001 UN Security Council resolution.
With this agreement, which comes into force on 1 January 2015, Afghanistan will reclaim control and "full sovereignty" over its airspace, territory and waters.
The deal means that the US forces will be based in nine strategically important "facilities and areas" across Afghanistan including provinces that border Iran and Pakistan.
Tough deal
The two countries have been bargaining over this agreement for more than a year.
After approval by the Loya Jirga, the security pact will now be discussed in both houses of the country's parliament where it is also likely to receive overwhelming support.
Finally, President Karzai has to sign it into effect. But he is reluctant, saying he needs more time to see it is being implemented by the US.
This means he will continue negotiations with the US over the next few weeks and months before making a final decision.
Mr Karzai fears that the US might not keep its promises to respect Afghan sovereignty and not interfere in domestic issues, especially with presidential elections due in April next year.
He might also be hoping that the Jirga's decision will result in a last-minute change of heart by the Taliban to stop fighting and join the political process.
They and their backers were apparently hoping to have a free ride after the withdrawal of all foreign forces after 2014. But this agreement will prove them wrong.
Mr Karzai is also concerned about his legacy. He is asking for guarantees so as not to appear responsible for an agreement that might be seen in the future as selling out to foreign interests.
Although this was a "consultative" Loya Jirga whose decisions are not binding, its verdict will make it more difficult for the government to ignore its judgment and advice.
The US is also increasing pressure on Mr Karzai to sign the pact immediately.
The war in Afghanistan is becoming increasingly unpopular in the US, as the longest and costliest war in its history.
US officials insist the deal must be concluded by the end of 2013, saying any further delay will jeopardise the "financial and practical help" offered by the US and make the plan for its post-2014 presence "impossible".
The Obama administration has warned that it will pull out all of its forces as it did in Iraq unless the Afghan government signs the deal.
The Loya Jirga members say that the deal will contribute to the country's reconstruction.
They are worried that the exit of all foreign forces could put at risk the $8bn that has been pledged annually to fund Afghan security forces and developmental projects.
Military support
Western military officials say that the nearly 350,000-member Afghan National Security Forces are not yet ready to secure the country and fight the militants on their own.
Most Loya Jirga members say that Afghanistan's strategic location necessitated the country entering into a pact to protect itself against interference by neighbours.
According to the draft agreement, the US will help Afghanistan in countering "external aggression", taking "political, diplomatic, military and economic measures".
It gives the US full legal jurisdiction over troops and Defense Department civilians, despite deep divisions in Afghanistan over whether the Americans should have immunity from Afghan courts.
It also addresses the contentious issue of night raids, saying: "US forces can only enter Afghan homes in extraordinary circumstances when the life or limb of Americans is at stake.''
The agreement will "remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless terminated "by mutual written agreement or by either party upon two years' written notice".
The Taliban have rejected the Afghan-US security agreement from the outset, calling the presence of US forces in Afghanistan "the prime reason for instability", and threatened to continue armed resistance.
Their main condition for a ceasefire is the "full withdrawal" of foreign forces, which they consider an infringement of Afghan independence, and against Islam and Afghan culture.
According to a senior Taliban commander, the security agreement will endanger peace talks and diminish the possibility of any political settlement in Afghanistan.
Regional anxieties
The two countries that seem unhappy with this security pact are Iran and Pakistan - neighbours blamed for most of the interference in Afghanistan.
Iran has openly objected to both the pact and the presence of Western forces in Afghanistan, arguing that a foreign military presence will have a negative impact on Afghanistan as well as the region. Iran's main concerns are about possible interference by Western forces based in Afghanistan, and encirclement.
Although Pakistan has been seen as the main backer of the Afghan Taliban, Pakistani officials have generally blamed the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan for rising militancy inside Pakistan.
It has concerns about the activities of US forces in Afghanistan and the possible presence of foreign forces hostile to Pakistan. It thinks that the US drone attacks on Pakistani territory will continue as long as US forces are in Afghanistan.
Pakistan also fears that the stability brought to Afghanistan by the continued presence of US forces will further increase the influence of its arch rival, India. In addition, many in the Pakistani security establishment also view the US presence next door as a threat to their nuclear arsenal.
But all other neighbours and regional players in Afghanistan - China, India, Russia and the Central Asian countries as well as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates - all of whom either face or fear Islamic militancy, seem to be in favour of this deal.
None of these countries apparently wants the permanent presence of US forces in the region. But they have accepted the short-term presence of US forces in Afghanistan as a "lesser evil", hoping it will work as a stabilising force that could keep militancy confined within Afghan borders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)