Tuesday, August 12, 2014
US sends 130 additional military advisors to Iraq
US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that the United States has sent another 130 “military advisers” to Iraq’s Kurdistan region in an ongoing effort to halt the advance of Islamic State militants.
Hagel made the announcement while speaking to troops in California. In a statement describing the decision, the defense official said the new team would “assess the scope of the humanitarian mission and develop additional humanitarian assistance options beyond the current airdrop effort in support of displaced Iraqi civilians trapped on Sinjar Mountain by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.”
The new “assessment team” reportedly arrived in Erbil on Tuesday, and is comprised of a significant portion of Marines. Officials however emphasized that the new advisers are not combat troops, as President Obama has insisted American troops would not become involved in another ground campaign in Iraq.
The move comes in the wake of several rounds of American airstrikes, carried out with the intention of reversing gains made by the Islamic State in northern Iraq. The US is looking into the results of the airstrikes and continuing to evaluate the kind of assistance needed to ensure the safety of thousands of civilians in the Sinjar area.
While these 130 advisers have arrived in Erbil to further consult with the Kurds, 90 advisers are already in place in Baghdad. Another 160 are cooperating with Iraqi security forces in military operations centers in both Erbil and Baghdad. In addition, AP reports, there are about 455 US security forces and 100 military personnel working in the Office of Security Cooperation in the US Embassy in Baghdad.
Barack Obama Calls Actor Robin Williams 'One of a Kind'
President Barack Obama expressed condolences to the family of comedy legend Robin Williams Monday, calling the actor “one of a kind.”
“Robin Williams was an airman, a doctor, a genie, a nanny, a president, a professor, a bangarang Peter Pan, and everything in between. But he was one of a kind. He arrived in our lives as an alien - but he ended up touching every element of the human spirit,” Obama said in a statement, referring to Williams’ role in “Mork & Mindy.”
“He made us laugh. He made us cry. He gave his immeasurable talent freely and generously to those who needed it most — from our troops stationed abroad to the marginalized on our own streets. The Obama family offers our condolences to Robin's family, his friends, and everyone who found their voice and their verse thanks to Robin Williams.”
Williams, 63, was found dead in his California home Monday morning. Authorities suspect he committed suicide, and his representative said Williams had recently struggled with severe depression.
Afghanistan's marathon presidential election brings country to standstill
May Jeong
Government institutions are feeling strain after 11 months of process, with observers still auditing resultEleven months into Afghanistan's marathon presidential vote, strains are being felt across government institutions. The two candidates, Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, made progress by publicly agreeing to respect the results of the audit, but it will take some time still for observers to go through all 8.1 million votes. Meanwhile, the rest of the country has ground to a halt, and stasis is most keenly felt in government bureaucracies, where senior officials have expressed concern over the potentially damaging effects of a prolonged stalemate. Hakim Mujahed, the deputy chairman of the high peace council, a government body responsible for negotiations with the Taliban, said all meaningful work had stopped in early spring, during the first round of the elections. Now he whiles away his hours crossing off the administrative chores from his to-do list. "The election has become totally frustrating for the people of Afghanistan, including myself," he said. "It is a defamation of democracy." The Taliban has refused to engage with the current government, as they rightly assume that the incoming administration will have different policies from its predecessor. Both the council and the Taliban, he said, are eager for new leadership. "We are very frustrated by the audit process. It is a great impediment and obstacle to our work." The economy minister, Abdul Arghandiwal, said his office was also suffering. "To implement our policies we need planning, and that has been difficult to do," he said. He excoriated the international community for withholding the funding that keeps the Afghan government running. Arghandiwal said donors had said they would wait until the new government signed a security agreement allowing troops to stay in the country beyond 2014 before releasing an estimated $1bn in funding. "Most of our projects are on hold, and if this situation continues it can only mean one thing: economic crisis." The electoral commission believes their observers – spread out at 100 tables in three hangars and working in two six-hour shifts every day – can complete their task in the next two weeks, in time to meet the end of August deadline. There are, however, variables at play beyond the control of the electoral commission. The speed of the audit process may pick up as it gets streamlined, but a likelier scenario is that the factors that have threatened to derail the audit may once again impinge on the process. There is the logistical task of putting together a full audit, the only one of its kind in the world, on a daily basis, not to mention the fact that the candidate observers are each pursuing irreconcilable goals of validating their votes while invalidating the other parties'. The international community hopes that the process will be completed by the end of the month, in time for the newly inaugurated president to attend the Nato summit in September. Fabrizio Foschini of the Afghanistan Analysts Network called this timeline "suspiciously optimistic". "If we can agree that delays, stalemates and obstructionism have been a recurrent theme of this electoral process, it does seem possible that this pattern extends to the political negotiations that will accompany the creation of a new government, whoever the winning candidate will be," he said. "And if that happens, it could be a bad year for all Afghans."
Pakistan: Putting Imran under house arrest would worsen situation
Message of PPP Patron in Chief Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on International Youth Day
http://www.ppp.org.pk/
Pakistan: Polio cases in Peshawar, Punjab linked to Karachi
At least two polio cases from Peshawar, one each from North Karachi, Sindh and Chakwal, Punjab have been genotyped and linked to the poliovirus from Karachi, health officials told The Express Tribune.
Closely associated with the polio programme in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, one official, requesting anonymity, said the number of reported cases in the country is “expected” to cross 200. At the moment, Pakistan has 108 reported cases.
Cases linked to Karachi
The poliovirus in a 10-month-old girl and a 12-month-old girl—both from Peshawar—has been traced back to a virus, said to have originated in Karachi. The same virus has also been linked to the child diagnosed in Chakwal, Punjab. The 35-month-old girl is said to be the first reported diagnosis from the province since the late 90s.
Some of K-P’s health experts and officials have said these cases linked to the virus in Karachi were the last ones to have surfaced in Peshawar. They cited negative environmental sampling in Larama and Shaheen Muslim Town for the first time in two years as evidence of the success of Sehat ka Insaf.
Peshawar’s own virus has ended, one of the experts claimed, requesting anonymity. The last polio victim’s virus originated in Karachi, they reiterated. However, it has not been confirmed if the children in Peshawar had travelled to Karachi or if someone from the city by the sea had carried the poliovirus to Peshawar.
While talking to The Express Tribune, K-P Chief Minister’s Polio Cell Focal Person Dr Imtiyaz Khan said after Sehat Ka Insaf, Peshawar’s poliovirus has been largely eradicated. Khan was hopeful the 241,000 children of North Waziristan Agency (NWA), deprived of polio vaccinations since 2012, could now be reached. Close to 50,000 families were displaced from NWA in the wake of Operation Zarb-e-Azb. “The government hopes Pakistan would be polio free soon,” said Khan.
From 108 to 200?
There were only 38 reported cases in the first eight months of 2013; by November 2014, Pakistan will have around 200 reported cases, asserted health officials.
High-transmission months do fall between April and November, but some of K-P’s health experts claimed the increase in cases can also be blamed on the inefficacy of the polio vaccine in hot weather.
However, UNICEF’s K-P and Fata polio team leader Dr Bilal Ahmed disagreed with this assessment. “Yes, winter is low-transmission. Right now, we are in a high-transmission season and more cases will be reported as the environment is more favourable for the virus,” said Ahmed. “The vaccine is effective in all weather conditions.” Others associated with polio campaigns in the country confirmed the vaccine is indeed effective throughout the year.
As with many other vaccines, maintaining the cold-chain is key, but polio workers across Pakistan are provided with refrigerated units to carry the vials as they go door to door. In fact, the vaccine vials carry a sticker which changes colour to indicate the efficacy of the vaccine—light pink means it’s still effective but any darker or turning red means the polio vaccine is now rendered useless but it still would have no adverse reaction if administered at that point.
Referring to the “200 cases”, Ahmed said, “One cannot make exact estimates.” The UNICEF team leader admitted the situation was pretty bad, looking at the flip side of access to NWA children.
“Now the NWA cases are also moving to the southern districts like Lakki Marwat, Tank and Bannu, so those places are at greater risk.”
Ahmed said, “You can assume there will be more cases but you absolutely cannot make exact estimates. This is all situational; no one can guess how many cases.”
Number of doses needed
There is often confusion surrounding how the vaccine protects a person from the crippling virus; especially when children who have received doses contract the disease.
Ahmed explained each person has a different biology and one dose is never enough. Drawing parallels to how doctors prescribe a basic dose in any ailment and alter it according to progress made, Dr Ahmed said, “There is no exact number of doses [especially in high-risk areas] which will provide foolproof coverage.”
This is why repeated polio campaigns are conducted during outbreaks, said the doctor. Even at the airport, he said, a traveller is required to have had a dose of the vaccine within a month of their journey as the vaccine blocks the poliovirus for roughly 30 days.
“You can give as many doses, there are no side effects. The more the number of campaigns, the safer the area.”
Explaining why some children are safe with fewer doses, Dr Ahmed said, “Everyone has different levels of immunity.” The polio vaccine will be rendered less effective if the child has diarrhoea or vomiting. The nutritional intake of the child also counts, said Ahmed.
“That is why we have repeated campaigns,” reiterated the doctor.
Pakistan: Nawaz would lose government due to his own mistakes
Pakistan Peoples’ Party’s senior member and former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani addressed the lawyers at Karachi Bar Association today (Tuesday). While addressing he stated that protests and rallies cannot put an end to a government. Former PM further advised Nawaz that he must keep his anger and emotions aside and then take decisions. Nawaz Sharif must keep in mind that he would lose his government due to his own mistakes, he added. He further expressed that they support democracy. He suggested that the PM should strengthen the cabinet and keep away from the advisors that give him wrong advices. He furthermore pronounced that if he were the Prime Minister instead of Nawaz Sharif, he would have wholeheartedly welcomed Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri. Gillani said that it was him who restored judiciary, not General Kiyani.http://www.ppp.org.pk/
Nawaz Sharif is unfit to govern Pakistan
by Cyril AlmeidaIT’S happening. It really is. Scorched earth. Pyrrhic victory. Cutting off nose. Shooting in the foot. The custodians of democracy have done what the anti-democrats wanted. Lahore feels like a war zone. Fuel is unavailable. Roads are shut. Folk are scared. Nobody really cares who wins — they just want it to stop. It needs to stop. It will stop. It always does — and in the end, it will be the democrats who will have struck another grievous blow against democracy. Nawaz and co have taken their obsession with Punjab and done to it what any combination of ego, paranoia and obsession will do. The problem with democracy is its fragility — without a population that believes in it, without institutions that believe in it, without politicians who really care about it, it doesn’t survive. Sometimes it limps on, like it did under Zardari and may now under Sharif. But continuity means little when the present is populated by sins egregious and stunning. Qadri will slide back into irrelevance again, but this time he’ll take a fistful of PML-N flesh with him. Who is Qadri? He’s the Mansoor Ijaz who won’t go away. Remember Mansoor Ijaz? Exactly. Qadri would have gone the same way, a speculator always angling for relevance but fundamentally irrelevant. Qadri will slide back into irrelevance again, but this time he’ll take a fistful of PML-N flesh with him. We have to wait and see if the flesh is Nawaz’s scalp. By now we know: Nawaz thinks Qadri is a threat. Let’s drop the pretence — always weak anyway — that the squeeze on Qadri and his supporters was authorised and prosecuted from anywhere but the top. The PML-N is doing silly things to Qadri, and to Punjab’s hapless citizenry, because Nawaz wants dumb things done to Qadri — and Nawaz doesn’t care that Punjab’s hapless citizenry is caught in the middle. But why is Nawaz willing to inflict pain on his beloved Punjab to fight Qadri? He’s fighting for something, this Nawaz is. Understanding it doesn’t mean accepting it. Shutting down Lahore. Closing off that great pride and joy, the motorway. Making Lahoris doubt their affection for Mian Sahib. Denying privileged Lahore its basic services. Surely, all of that is only done by someone sensing a fundamental challenge to their rule. It’s not that the collateral damage is neither perceived nor recognised; it’s that the collateral damage is deemed acceptable, necessary even, to achieve the goal. The goal is first and always — survival. Why is Qadri a threat to Nawaz’s survival? Because he’s rabid, he’s got a base of committed supporters in Punjab and he’s in the boys’ camp. But sometimes the goal is survival plus something else. The victory, pyrrhic or not, sends a message across the land: mess with Nawaz in his Punjab and he will snarl and snap and fight you before you can fight him. That raises the cost for anyone who wants to snatch the throne. For the boys, it means the veneer of deniability, staying tucked away out of direct sight, won’t work. They’ll have to come out into the open, launch a more direct, frontal assault themselves if they want Nawaz out now. That carries its own risks and raises the costs for the boys. For civilian aspirants, facing the brunt of the civilian-run security and administrative apparatus means you’ve got to have enough muscle of your own. Resources, men, women, camps, coordination centres, an A team and a B team. Those kinds of options exist with only a handful of challengers. And anyone among them having the same thoughts as Qadri will have to think twice, and then twice more, if they want to take on Nawaz. And all of this Nawaz is willing to sanction because his greatest asset is also his biggest vulnerability. Having nothing politically — nothing meaningful anyway — outside Punjab means he has to dominate Punjab. Punjab can’t be shared — the middle class, urban, conservative parts of Punjab — because sharing Punjab would mean no route to power, both at the provincial level and, most definitely, in Islamabad. So fight, fight and fight Nawaz will. Any attack that comes from the conservative, establishment sections of Punjab, Nawaz will whack. The problem is, he’ll always lose. Maybe not in the first round or the second this time, but, eventually, he’ll lose. Because he’s playing dirty from the wrong side of the pitch. A general the public knows will do dirty things. A power-hungry civilian outsider the public knows will stop at nothing. But neither of those options needs the public to grab power. They don’t have to go to the public, cap in hand, head bowed and ask for their vote. Nawaz is nothing without electoral legitimacy, without political capital and without the public’s backing. Well, without them he’s just a super-rich guy who was prime minister once. Which is essentially nothing. And yet, here he is, sacrificing his political capital in his hometown to fight an enemy who keeps goading Nawaz into shedding more and more of his democratic armour, leaving him more and more vulnerable to attack in the arena of power politics. Is he really stupid? Is his ego simply too big? Is his paranoia too deep-rooted? Has hubris simply taken over? Or, simply, is Nawaz unfit to govern Pakistan? Walk around Lahore this weekend — driving being difficult even on empty roads because fuel is near impossible to find. There’s police with guns everywhere. Fearful customers are raiding store shelves for basic supplies. A bewildered citizenry is wondering where this political storm came from and why they’re caught in the middle of it. This is Lahore. In 2014. This is the heart of Sharif’s Pakistan. In 2014. Yes, this weekend, it does look like Nawaz is unfit to lead Pakistan. - See more at: http://lubpak.com/archives/319785#sthash.OEhmwVNm.dpuf
Pakistan: Goodbye Saudi Arabia
Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif reportedly enjoyed himself on his recent religious excursion to Saudi Arabia, while Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz assured him that his country would always stand by Pakistan. The PM emphasised that he wants to strengthen ties with Saudi Arabia and the two leaders discussed the challenges facing the Islamic Ummah, calling for unity and solidarity. It is hard to see how that aim is furthered by the ban Saudi Arabia has imposed on marriages between Saudi men and Pakistani women, reported in a Moroccan newspaper this week. The report by Morocco World News regarding further restrictions on liaisons between Saudi men and Moroccan women, mentioned that women from four other countries, Chad, Burma, Pakistan and Bangladesh are persona non grata for marriages to Saudi men. It is safe to say that should any non-Muslim or western country, particularly one with a large Pakistani expatriate community like the UK, make a similar announcement there would be riots in the streets, calls of racism or Islamophobia, and denunciations in international forums. Religious extremists would use it as weaponry for their claim that the west ‘hates Muslims’, Pakistani expats would protest. Of course, the simple fact is that such an action would not be permissible in countries like the UK, the US or elsewhere in the west because human rights laws and institutional prerogatives would nullify the proposal, deeming it contrary to citizens’ civil liberties and international human rights conventions.
Saudi Arabia is not concerned about human rights; it is even less concerned about women’s rights. Women in Saudi Arabia are seen as property and are genuinely believed to be inferior to men by most Saudis, including many women who are brainwashed by a theological state education system. Should Pakistani women, despite the restrictions and hostility of religious fundamentalists they face at home, even consider spending their lives in such a hellhole? The ban is actually a boon. It should show Pakistanis that Islam only receives lip service in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government earns billions promoting religious tourism while destroying and defacing Islam’s most cherished and unique historical and religious sites. The Prophet’s (PBUH) house was razed by the government, as were the homes of all his companions. There was recently discussion about razing the Prophet’s (PBUH) tomb in Medina along with the ancient part of Masjid al Nabwi that houses it. Saudis view the 1.5 million Pakistani expatriates there as parasites because many are employed in low-paying jobs considered too menial for Saudi nationals. While we complain about racism in the west, the worst racism against Pakistanis exists in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries we eagerly woo. The ban should wake Pakistanis up to this fact. There is no need for Pakistan’s strong and resilient women to subject themselves to such treatment. Rather we should encourage Saudi women to escape their lives of deprivation and come to Pakistan, where despite all the problems women face, they still have some rights.
An open letter to Quaid-e-Azam, on Minorities Day
Tahir Mehdi
Respected sir,I am a citizen of the country you founded 67 years ago. I understand that you did not live long enough to see the shape your dream took on after you left for the hereafter. Sixty-seven years is a long time; the youth today is the third generation of the one that had thronged your jalsas and served as the main force that converted the demand of a homeland into a successful movement. A lot has happened since then and I have so many things to share with you but I will limit myself to one question. What kind of a country did you want to create? Naive as it may be, sir, let me assure you that it is the very question that I face every single morning. I am severely troubled by it and I assume many of my compatriots are too. Please, sir, let me explain. I studied in a public school and learned all my lessons in history, called Pakistan Studies, very well. I learned that the country was created in the name of Islam as the Muslims of the subcontinent did not want to live with Hindus and other non-Muslims. They wanted to create a new state built on the principles of Islam. I can pick many quotes from your various addresses that conform to this assertion, and most of my friends also believe it to be true. A country for Muslims built on Islamic principles ostensibly meant that the non-Muslims would have no, or at best, secondary roles in matters of the state and also in the society at large. Sir, exactly the same has happened. We have been successful in driving out the Hindus and Sikhs from this, our holy land. That turned out to be the best way to solve the ‘minority problem’ that you delved into so passionately. Some in Sindh, however, have been very stubborn and refuse to leave their ancestral land. Rest assured, a lot of patriotic people are working on this, with a success story making headlines in newspapers every other day. Only a handful of Sikhs are left in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as they too have been conquered completely. Just days ago, a Sikh boy in Peshawar who was a threat to Pakistan’s ideology was done away with. Similarly, an Ahmadi woman and her two grandchildren in Gujranwala were removed from our road to progress just weeks ago. You must be wondering how Ahmadis have become a threat for the Islamic state, as you kept good company with them and even appointed one as your Foreign Minister. Let me brief you that it was discovered later in 1974 that Ahmadis were not only non-Muslims but that they were a big threat to the ideological moorings of the nation. Subsequent governments have been taking adequate steps to keep this menace in check and the entire society too, has now volunteered itself to stand guard against any and all violations. And yes, about the Christians. You might have known some Anglo-Indians practicing this faith. But as the majority of them in Pakistan now consist of Dalits, who have taken refuge in churches, we don’t have to worry much about them. They mostly engage in lowly jobs; we have not been complacent on this front and have ensured that the Christians will not sneak their way into the higher ranks of society. There are many laws and social norms firmly in place to ensure that they don’t dare think beyond what is prescribed for them. All of these achievements make a lot of my compatriots happy about Pakistan largely achieving what it was meant to. Though, there are still some items on the agenda left unchecked, like converting the various sects to a purer form of Islam and thus ensuring a more cohesive society. I do think it will not be long before this is achieved soon. But, then I read your address to the inaugural session of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan held on 11 August 1947, though it was not part of my Pakistan Studies courses. I am sure you remember it well and fully as it was supposed to lay the basis of the constitution of Pakistan. Sir, this address of yours is the main source of my confusion. You have said here in very clear words that the state of Pakistan will have nothing to do with the religion of its citizens. Did you really think that was possible in a country made in the name of a religion? Isn’t it natural for such a state to be concerned and watchful of the faith of its citizens? I know of a few westernised friends who think it wasn’t your idea to build the state on the basis of religion. But then there are so many others who have strong arguments proving that since the entire movement was driven by a strong passion for religion, it was but natural to build a faith-oriented state upon its conclusion. Some unscrupulous elements try to explain away your August 11 address by claiming it to be fake or even delivered to appease some foreign powers. However, knowing you to be an astute, upright, man of principles and great integrity, I cannot imagine you being expedient, that too at the historic moment of the inauguration of the new country’s first parliament. So, sir, instead of falling for one or the other theory, I decided to ask you the question directly. What kind of state did you want to create? Should I take your August 11 speech in letter and spirit, or shall I be happy with whatever Pakistan has achieved so far on this front? Sincerely yours, Tahir Mehdi August 11, 2014
Pakistan: CM Sindh directs IG Sindh Police to prepare fool proof security plan to protect the lives/prosperities of minorities.
The Chief Minister Sindh Syed Qaim Ali Shah has directed the Inspector General of Sindh Police to prepare fool proof security plan to protect the lives and prosperities of minorities. The Chief Minister Sindh constituted a high profile investigation team headed by DIG Hyderabad Sanaullah Abbasi with SSP Matiari, Badin and other efficient Police officer and directed for arrest of the culprits involved into the murder of two Hindu brothers without further delay. The Chief Minister Sindh said that likewise past years, substantial development funds have been earmarked this year specially for minorities communities and asked the minorities MPAs to submit their schemes to the Deputy Commissioners concerned without further delay. This he observed while presiding over a high level meeting regarding resolving the problems of minorities and mark the World Minorities Day at CM House Karachi today. The MNA and Head of PPP Women Wing Madam Faryal Talpur, Provincial Ministers including Mukesh Kumar Chawala, Gyan Chand, Daya Ram, Syed Ali Mardan Shah, Senator Hari Ram, Surendar Valasi Advisor to Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, all MNAs and MPAs, Deputy Commissioners, Suprirentendents of Police belong to District Mirpurkhas, Umarkot and Tharparkar, Provincial Home Secretary Dr. Niaz Abbasi, Acting IG Sindh Police Ghulam Hyder Jamali and DIG Mirpurkhas attended the meeting. After the thread bare discussion it was decided in the meeting that Federal Government would be approached to transfer of the enemy property mostly fallen in the district Tharparkar to the Provincial Government so that same can be distributed among the occupant farmers, having their names in the Khasra (record of cultivation). It was decided that a bill will be tabled in the Sindh Assembly to pass an act to replace the word of scheduled cast in to Non- Muslims in the official correspondence to avoid sense of deprivations from minorities. It was decided that 05% minorities quota for the Government job would be implemented letter & spirit. And minority’s youth would be recruited in the Police force. Addressing the meeting the Chief Minister Sindh said that soon after the incident of two murders of Hindu Community, he ordered IG Sindh Police for early arrest of the culprits, and they took action but still yet they are not came on conclusion. He said that he has constituted a high power investigation team headed by DIG Hyderabad with strict directive to put the killers behind the bar and warned the officers that in-case of failure in the task, they would be taken to task. The MNA Madam Faryal Talpur directed that a delegation comprising on PPP Public Representatives should visit the victim family of two Hindu brothers to consol and assured that PPP to provide justice to them. The Chief Minister Sindh said that PPP is representing all minority communities in Pakistan and Sindh especially who according to him have always voted to PPP despite of various difficulties. He said that PPP to reciprocate the minorities and to protect their constitutional rights, lives and prosperities and to work for their social as well as cultural promotion. He said that security to minority was most important factor at present, as such; he has approved a schemes for installation of CCTV Cameras at all important worship places at its estimated cost of Rs. 220 million and has directed for recruitment of minority youths into Sindh Police so that these communities and their worship should be protected without any embracement to them. The Chief Minister Sindh while briefing the meeting said that as many as Rs. 423 million were utilized by the minorities for their development activates last financial year and substantial amount has also been earmarked this year as well. Besides, the development schemes recommended by the minorities Public Representatives are also being carried out from the regular budget. The Chief Minister Sindh said that at least 20 million would be made available to each division for development of minority’s schemes and asked the minority MPA to submit their schemes to their concerned Deputy Commissioner very soon. He said that in addition to that district development committees have also been formed to identify the development schemes without any discrimination and to implement same from the total District Development Outlay of Rs. 25 billion. He said that development schemes benefiting to the minorities can also be included in this portfolio of the development. He said that in addition to development budget of minorities an amount of Rs. 100 million has also been provided for the medical aid, scholarship, financial aid for dowary to the deserving person of the minorities. Endorsing, the demand of the minorities, the MNA Faryal Talpur recommended for the providing 02 Ambulances to the Ministry of Minorities affairs for transporting the patients and dead bodies from Karachi/ Hyderabad to the for flung areas of Tharparkar/ Umarkot and vise varsa. The MNA Faryal Talpur directed the Authority concerned to start the installation of CCTV Cameras at the minorities worship place from District Tharparkar under the supervision of committee comprising on MPAs and MNA and Minorities Representatives, SSP and DC of concerned districts. The Acting I G Sindh Police informed the meeting the investigation into the murders of two Hindu brothers was in-progress and 13 Suspected people have been arrested he said that some clue have been identified and very soon culprits put behind the bar. Later on, all the participants of meeting cut the cake to celebrate the World Minority Day
Monday, August 11, 2014
Prepare for a long war against the Islamic State
The hawks (including me) were wrong about a lot, but some got one thing right. It's going to be a long war.Jonah Goldberg
In the early days after 9/11, there was a lot of talk about a "clash of civilizations" and a long "existential struggle" facing the West. I once asked the late Christopher Hitchens what he felt on that terrible day and he said he felt no small amount of joy. Not for the suffering and death, but for the fact that the West finally had been awakened to the terrible but necessary struggle before us.And for a time, many liberals bought into the idea that America was heading into a generational struggle with jihadism. There were a slew of books on the subject. Peter Beinart, for instance, wrote "The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again." As the subtitle suggests, there was a lot of partisan mischief in his argument, but it rested on the premise that liberals must accept that "Islamic totalitarianism" — his phrase — has replaced communism as our enemy. On this, at least, Beinart and company briefly agreed with George W. Bush that the war against "Islamic fascists" — Bush's term — was the "decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century."
That consensus evaporated in the hot rage ignited by the Iraq war. By the time President Obama was elected, even the war in Afghanistan — once the good war according to most Iraq war critics — had become an emotional albatross. Tellingly, Obama's first executive order was to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as quickly as possible.
This was a triumph for the new enlightened consensus that the war on terror wasn't really a war at all. In 2007, retired Gen. Wesley Clark co-wrote an op-ed for the New York Times ridiculing the idea that Al Qaeda was a military enemy. "Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status," he argued. The "more appropriate designation for terrorists is not 'unlawful combatant' but the one long used by the United States: criminal."Although Obama has tried to move captured terrorists into the domestic criminal justice system, to his credit, he never fully bought into this argument. Still, he cast terrorism as a manageable problem for the experts, not a civilizational struggle. Zeus-like, he personally went over his kill lists, selecting which enemies should be dispatched with a drone strike or, in the case of Osama bin Laden, the furies of SEAL Team Six. When new threats emerged, the White House dismissed them with the whitewash that "core Al Qaeda" was "on the run." All pretenders to Al Qaeda's mantle were little more than a "jayvee" squad, as Obama put it. It's OK to slumber again was the message.
One jayvee squad — the self-styled Islamic State, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — now controls the territorial equivalent of Britain and is one of the best-equipped and motivated military forces in the Middle East. Everyday jihadists — many with Western passports — enlist in the struggle to create a global caliphate while the "Muslim street" from Turkey to Saudi Arabia follows the Islamic State like a sports team.The Islamic State's atrocities are too numerous and too horrible to list here. It includes rape and slavery, religious cleansing, mass murder, public crucifixions and beheadings. Over the weekend, an Iraqi official said that the Islamic State had killed at least 500 Iraqi Yazidis, burying some alive, including women and children. The group is only too happy to tweet about all of it. Watch Vice TV's reports from Islamic State-controlled parts of Syria and you will quickly see how the word "criminal" is morally, logically and strategically inadequate. They indoctrinate children to become jihadists and suicide bombers. They vow to fly their black flag over the White House. No one in the West wants a generational struggle with jihadism anymore than Israel wants perpetual war with Hamas in Gaza. The problem is the enemy always gets a vote. And it just may be that the Middle East will become the West's Gaza. And so far, nobody has a good answer for what to do about it.
Mugged by reality in the Middle East
So ends a foreign policy experiment that began with two choices in 2011. In that hinge year, President Obama decided to stay out of the Syrian conflict and to passively accept the withdrawal of all U.S. ground forces from Iraq (which he later claimed as a personal achievement during his reelection campaign). I’m not sure the motivation behind these acts can be termed a strategy. They seemed rooted in a perception of the public’s war-weariness (which Obama fed through his own rhetoric), a firm determination to be the anti-Bush and a vague belief that a U.S. presence in the Middle East creates more problems than it solves. Not coincidentally, according to political scientist Colin Dueck, “elite, trans-Atlantic liberal opinion” viewed Obama’s approach as “the height of sophistication, regardless of its practical failures.” Those failures are now massive, undeniable and unfolding: Atrocities in Syria (including the death of more than 10,000 children); an endless Syrian civil war in which the threat of the Islamic State gathered strength; the victory of the Islamic State against a hollowed-out Iraqi military; the massacre of religious minorities; the establishment of a terrorist safe haven the size of New England, controlled by well-armed, expansionist, messianic militants; the attraction of more than 10,000 global jihadists to the conflict, including thousands with Western passports; and now the forced return of U.S. attention to the region under dramatically less-favorable circumstances. This is what the complete collapse of a foreign policy doctrine looks like. In the absence of stabilizing U.S. leadership, the Middle East has become a regional Sunni-Shiite proxy war in which the most radical and ruthless thrive. The Obama administration seems gobsmacked by the speed and extent of this unraveling. The possible collapse of Kurdistan (one of our most reliable friends in the region) was something that even the worst-case American analyses during the grimmest days of the Iraq War did not contemplate. This is what shocked the administration into (limited) action and accelerated the rethinking of U.S. policy. The options are few. The administration could seek the eventual destruction of the Islamic State safe haven. This would involve encouraging a political accommodation to increase the legitimacy of Iraq’s central government; stabilizing the defense of Irbil and Baghdad with immediate military aid (which the administration has tentatively begun); targeting the extremists on both sides of the (nonexistent) Iraq/Syria border; attempting to peel off support among Sunni tribes sickened by the Islamic State’s brutality; and dramatically strengthening the Iraqi government and the Kurds so they can regain the offensive over time. Thousands of U.S. troops would be necessary to advise Iraqi units, collect intelligence, conduct airstrikes and carry out special operations raids. This approach would require presidential leadership to mobilize American national will for a difficult fight against a determined enemy. An alternative option might be the long-term containment of the Islamic State threat. This would also involve stabilizing the military situation in Iraq’s north and south but leaving Islamic State militants in control of large sections of Syria and Iraq — trying to degrade their ability to strike globally and making clear that attacks on Western targets would bring massive retribution. This assumes a level of rationality (Western, secular rationality) on the part of Islamic State leaders that can only be called laughable. It is also the strategy most likely — after, say, a large-scale attack traced to the Islamic State on a U.S. city — to result in U.S. divisions back in Mosul. Or the Obama administration could continue to make a series of tactical adjustments to avoid further disaster while avoiding setting out any definition of victory, which might become a standard against which it is judged. This might (with luck) run out the second-term clock; it would also leave a toxic mess for the next president. Clearly, the Obama administration is undergoing an internal struggle to define its ultimate policy goal. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey talks of a strategy to “initially contain, eventually disrupt and finally defeat [the Islamic State] over time.” Meanwhile, unnamed White House officials consistently downplay the ambition of U.S. goals in Iraq. And the president himself is a model of ambiguity, leaving the world to wonder if any of his various lines have a hint of red. Is it even possible for Obama to make the psychological adjustment from “the ender of wars” to “the sworn enemy of the Islamic State”? His record offers no reason for encouragement. But on this unlikely transformation now depends the future of the Middle East and the security of the United States.By Michael Gerson
The case for doing nothing in the Middle East
By Stephen M. Walt
Every time the U.S. touches the region, it makes things worse. It's time to walk away and not look back.In case you hadn't noticed, the Middle East is going from bad to worse these days. The Syrian civil war grinds on. Israel and the Palestinians spent the last month in another pointless bloodletting (most of the blood being Palestinian). ISIS keeps expanding its control in parts of Iraq, placing thousands of members of the Yazidi religious sect in peril and leading the Obama administration to launch airstrikes and deliver airborne humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, officials back in Baghdad snipe mostly at each other. Libya continues to unravel, belying the high-fives that liberal hawks gave themselves back when Qaddafi fell. A U.S. general was shot and killed in Afghanistan, and another disputed election threatens democracy there and may give the Taliban new opportunities to make gains at Kabul's expense. Turkey's Prime Minister Recip Erdogan has been calling Egyptian President Abdul Fattah al-Sisi a "tyrant," an irony given Erdogan's own authoritarian tendencies. A diplomatic spat between Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar remains unsettled. Nature even seems to be against us: the MERS virus on the Arabian Peninsula may be transmissible by airborne contact. I'm sure you could find some good news if you tried, but you'd have to squint pretty hard. A string of events like this attracts critics and Cassandras like yellow jackets to a backyard picnic. In The Washington Post, neoconservative Eliot Cohen laments the "wreckage" of U.S. Middle East policy, blaming everything on Barack Obama's failure to recognize "war is war" and his reluctance to rally the nation to wage more of them. (Never mind that the last war Cohen helped get the United States into — the invasion of Iraq in 2003 — did far more damage than anything Obama has done.) A far more convincing perspective comes from former Ambassador Chas Freeman who surveys several decades of America's meddling in the region and comes to a depressing conclusion: "It's hard to think of any American project in the Middle East that is not now at or near a dead end." Is there a silver lining in this disheartening tableaux? Perhaps. After all, when things are this bad, the need to rethink the entire U.S. approach to the region is hard to escape. If we cast aside familiar shibboleths and taboos and took a fresh look, what might we see? Since World War II, the meddling that Freeman recounts has been conducted in partnership with various regional allies. These alignments may have been a strategic necessity during the Cold War (though even that could be debated), but the sad fact is that the United States has no appealing partners left today. Egypt is a corrupt military dictatorship with grim prospects, and Erdogan's AKP regime in Turkey is trending toward one-party rule, while its ambitious "zero problems" foreign policy has gone badly off the rails. Working with the Assad regime in Syria is out of the question — for good reason — but most of Bashar al-Assad's opponents are no prize either. Saudi Arabia is a geriatric, theocratic monarchy that treats half its population — i.e., its women — like second-class citizens (at best). Iran is a different sort of theocratic state: it has some quasi-democratic features, but also an abysmal human rights record and worrisome regional ambitions. The view doesn't get much better no matter where one looks. The Hashemite monarchy in Jordan has been an ally for decades, but it remains heavily dependent on outside support and is too weak and fragile to be the linchpin of U.S. engagement. The same is true for Lebanon. Libya doesn't even have a government, let alone one the United States would want to be close to. Israel is wrapping up its latest outrage against the Palestinians-to no lasting strategic purpose — and its march to the right now includes open advocacy of eliminationist policies by prominent political figures. The "special relationship" with Israel also fuels anti-Americanism and makes Washington look both hypocritical and ineffectual in the eyes of much of the world. But Palestinian political groups are no more appealing: the Palestinian Authority is corrupt and ineffectual and elements of Hamas still proclaim the worst sort of toxic anti-Semitism. States like Qatar and Bahrain do provide valuable real estate for U.S. bases, and many of these governments cooperate with the United States out of their own self-interest, but it's hard to find anyone in the region that looks like a genuine strategic or moral asset these days. Faced with this unpromising environment, what would be the sensible — or dare I say realistic — thing for the United States to do? The familiar answer is to say that it's an imperfect world and that we have no choice but to work with what we've got. We hold our noses, and cut deals with the least objectionable parties in the region. As Michael Corleone would say, it's not personal; it's strictly business. But this view assumes that deep engagement with this troubled area is still critical to U.S. national interests, and further assumes the United States reaps net benefits from its recurrent meddling on behalf of its less-than-loyal partners. In other words, it assumes that these partnerships and deep U.S. engagement make Americans safer and more prosperous here at home. But given the current state of the region and the condition of most of our putative allies, that assumption is increasingly questionable. In fact, most of the disputes and divisions that are currently roiling the region do not pose direct and mortal threats to vital U.S. interests. It is admittedly wrenching to watch what is happening in Syria or Gaza, or to Israel's democracy, but these events affect the lives of very few Americans directly. Unless, of course, we are foolish enough to throw ourselves back into the middle of the maelstrom. Moreover, the Middle East today is riven by a series of overlapping conflicts along multiple fault lines, driven in good part by protracted government failures and exacerbated by misguided outside meddling. There's the division between Sunni and Shiite, of course, and between Islamists (of many different stripes) and traditional authoritarians (also of several different types). Add to that mix the conflicts along sectarian lines (as in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and elsewhere), and the recurring suspicions between Arabs and Persians. And don't forget the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs, which still reverberates throughout the Arab and Islamic world. Here's where Americans need to remember the United States may have permanent interests in the Middle East, but not necessarily permanent friends. In terms of its strategic interests, the central U.S. goal since World War II has been to prevent any single power from dominating the oil rich Persian Gulf. However troubled we may be by all the divisions and quarrels in the region, those conflicts also make the possibility that one power will dominate the region more remote than ever. Does anyone seriously think Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Islamic State (formerly known as ISIS), the Kurds, Russia, Turkey, China or anyone else is going to take over and manage this vast and turbulent area, and smooth out all these rifts and feuds? Of course not. And if that is the case, then America's primary strategic goal will be met whether Washington lifts a finger or not. Some will argue that we have a moral responsibility to try to end the obvious suffering in different places, and a strategic imperative to eradicate terrorists and prevent the spread of WMD. These are laudable goals, but if the history of the past 20 years teaches us anything, it is that forceful American interference of this sort just makes these problems worse. The Islamic State wouldn't exist if the neocons hadn't led us blindly into Iraq, and Iran would have less reason to contemplate getting nuclear weapons if it hadn't watched the United States throw its weight around in the region and threaten it directly with regime change. So instead of acting like a hyperactive juggler dashing between a dozen spinning plates, maybe the best course is to step back even more than we have already. No, I don't mean isolationism: What I mean is taking seriously the idea of strategic disengagement and putting the whole region further down on America's list of foreign policy priorities. Instead of constantly cajoling these states to do what we think is best — and mostly getting ignored or rebuked by them — maybe we should let them sort out these problems themselves for awhile. And if any of them eventually want American help, it should come at a steep price. Among other things, the policy I'm suggesting would mean the United States would stop its futile efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I've argued against such a course in the past, but it is now obvious to me that no president is willing to challenge Israel's backers here in the United States and make U.S. support for Israel conditional on an end to the occupation. Until that happens, even well-intentioned efforts to broker a peace will keep failing. Instead of continuing to squander valuable time and prestige on a fruitless endeavor, the U.S. government should disengage from this thankless task until it is ready to do more than just palaver and plead. If Israel's leaders want to risk their own future by creating a "greater Israel," so be it. It would be regrettable if Israel ended up an apartheid state and an international pariah, but preventing that tragedy is not a vital U.S. interest. (If it really were, U.S. policy since Oslo might have been rather different.) To be consistent, of course, the United States would also end its military and economic aid to Egypt, Israel, and perhaps a few others. I don't expect Congress to suddenly grow a backbone and do the right thing here, but even a realist can dream, can't he? But even if the "special relationship" remains more-or-less intact, at least U.S. diplomats wouldn't be wasting more time and energy trying to do the impossible. To be sure, the course of action I'm sketching here is likely to leave the Middle East in a pretty messy condition for some time to come. But that is going to be the case no matter what Washington decides to do. So the question is: should the United States squander more blood and treasure on a series of futile tasks, and in ways that will make plenty of people in the region angry and encourage a few of them look for ways to deliver some payback? Or should the United States distance itself from everyonein the region, and prepare to intervene only when a substantial number of American lives are at risk or in the unlikely event that there is a genuine and imminent threat of regional domination? The latter course would be a real departure for U.S. policy, and I can see the potential downside risks. Some local governments might be less willing to share intelligence with us, or to collaborate on counter-terrorism. That would be unfortunate, but on the other hand, because anti-American terrorism emanating from the region is mostly a violent reaction to past U.S. policies, a less engaged policy would almost certainly make that problem less severe. In any case, the results of a different approach could hardly be worse than what the United States has managed to achieve over the past 20-plus years. Unless Americans have a masochistic addiction to disappointment, this seems like an ideal time for a more fundamental rethink. One final thought: this argument would not preclude limited U.S. action for purely humanitarian purposes — such as humanitarian airdrops for the beleaguered religious minorities now threatened with starvation in Iraq. That's not "deep engagement"; that's merely trying to help people threatened with imminent death. But I would not send U.S. forces — including drones or aircraft — out to win a battle that the Iraqi government or the Kurds cannot win for themselves. The United States spent the better part of a decade chasing that elusive Grail, and the end result was precisely the sort of chaos and sectarian rivalry that has produced this latest crisis. We may be able to do some limited good for the endangered minorities, but above all, let's do no further harm: not to the region, and not to ourselves.
http://theweek.com/article/index/266111/the-case-for-doing-nothing-in-the-middle-east
Obama applauds nomination of new Iraqi PM as "step forward"
Speaking to reporters in the Massachusetts island of Martha's Vineyard, where he is vacationing with his family, Obama said Iraq had made important strides toward rebuffing fighters from the Islamic State, an al-Qaeda offshoot, since the United States authorized air strikes last week.
He urged the quick formation of an inclusive government to address the needs of all Iraqis.
"Today Iraq took a promising step forward in this critical effort," Obama said in brief remarks.
Obama's comments and a congratulatory telephone call he made to Iraqi Prime Minister-designate Haider al-Abadi signal the administration's expectation, or hope, that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's 8-year-rule is all but over, even as Maliki shows no sign of relinquishing power.
"They’re treating him like he’s the prime minister already,” Michael Knights, a Boston-based fellow and Iraq scholar at the Washington Institute, said of Abadi."Now the U.S. can press on with its offer of enhanced security cooperation with Iraq."
Maliki, a Shi'ite Muslim Islamist blamed by Washington for driving the alienated Sunni minority into a revolt that is fueling the Islamic State's brutal insurgency, deployed militias and special forces on the streets on Monday in a potentially dangerous political showdown.
Obama urged Abadi to quickly form a new cabinet that represents Iraq's different ethnic and religious communities. "This new Iraqi leadership has a difficult task," Obama said. "It has to regain the confidence of its citizens by governing inclusively and by taking steps to demonstrate its resolve."
Abadi, a deputy speaker and veteran of Maliki's Dawa Party, was named by President Fouad Masoum on Monday to replace Maliki.
"PARTNER IN BAGHDAD"Obama's comments underline what one former U.S. official described as a potential "sea change" in Washington's ties with Baghdad if Abadi forms a government following increasing U.S. disenchantment with Maliki, who Washington backed as prime minister in 2006 when a Sunni insurgency raged and again in 2010 for a second term. "The U.S. will finally have a partner in Baghdad," said Wayne White, a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington and a former senior State Department intelligence official. Born in Baghdad in 1952, Abadi was a trained electrical engineer before entering Iraq's government after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. He was part of the political opposition to late dictator Saddam Hussein's Baathist regime and lived in Britain for many years. Two of his siblings were executed in 1982 for their membership in the then-outlawed Dawa party. James Jeffrey, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2010 to 2012, said he had met Abadi in Baghdad and believed he was "someone the United States could work with." He said that Abadi's main strength was that "he's not Maliki" and has not alienated groups across the Iraqi political spectrum. He predicted that Maliki would resist but not be able to hold onto power. Too many forces inside Iraq, including the country's Shia establishment in the city of Najaf, have turned against Maliki, he added. Jeffrey said that while some Iraqi army units remain personally loyal to Maliki, the presence of 600 American advisers make it difficult for Maliki to get all of Iraq's security forces to act on his behalf. "He's really trapped." A U.S. official said that to his knowledge the United States had not played a role in the selection of Abadi. "We were sufficiently burned by the interference and choice of Maliki that people around here are not into king-making," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "In this case, he was pretty much chosen by the (Iraqi) process and everybody is pretty relieved that they have chosen somebody and that it was not Maliki." Obama late last week authorized air strikes in Iraq to protect U.S. personnel in Arbil from the Islamic State, a Sunni fundamentalist militant group that has swept through northern Iraq, and to ensure that members of the Yazidi sect were not subject to systematic violence at the hands of the militants. The air strikes carried out so far are the first direct U.S. military action in Iraq since the Obama administration completed its withdrawal of U.S. troops at the end of 2011.
'Heroic' mission rescues desperate Yazidis from ISIS
The Iraqi air force and fighters with the Kurdish peshmerga carried out a dramatic rescue mission Monday at Mount Sinjar, taking supplies to desperate Yazidis and bringing some on board the helicopter to make it safely out. A CNN crew was on the flight that took diapers, milk, water and food to the site where thousands of people have been driven by ISIS, which calls itself the Islamic State. CNN's Ivan Watson, who was on the chopper, described the mission as "heroic." Teams hurled out bags and boxes of food from as high as 50 feet before approaching the ground. "We landed on several short occasions, and that's where -- amid this explosion of dust and chaos -- these desperate civilians came racing towards the helicopter, throwing their children on board the aircraft. The crew was just trying to pull up as many people as possible," Watson said. Soon, some of the trapped families -- including babies and the elderly -- were packed into the flight.By Josh Levs and Dana Ford
"It was chaotic. It was crazy, but we were able to then lift off with about 20 civilians," Watson said. Yazidis, among Iraq's smallest minorities, are of Kurdish descent, and their religion is considered a pre-Islamic sect that draws from Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism.
One of the oldest religious communities in the world, they have long suffered persecution, with many Muslims referring to them as devil worshippers. More than a week ago, they fled into the surrounding mountains when ISIS fighters stormed the town of Sinjar. Now, trapped without food, water or medical care in the summer heat, thousands of families are in desperate need of help.
It's already too late to save dozens of children who've died of thirst. But for the 20 or so people rescued Monday, the relief was palpable. The crowd on board the helicopter burst into tears as it took off. Gunners had to open fire at the ground in order to make it away from ISIS. "They flew in shooting; they flew out shooting," Watson reported. "There was not a dry eye on the aircraft."
Controlling the Ebola Epidemic
Many drug companies have little interest in devising treatments or vaccines for Ebola because the potential for profit is small. Much of the research has been financed by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense and carried out by small start-ups, but some experts believe the federal government has not shown enough urgency to push these programs ahead.
Traditional public health measures, like finding and isolating patients who become sick, tracing their contacts and using stringent infection control procedures in hospitals, remain the best bet for containing the epidemic in West Africa.
The C.D.C. has elevated its response to the highest possible level and is sending 50 more health care professionals to the area, backed by hundreds more professionals in this country. Sierra Leone, which has the highest number of cases, is planning to deploy hundreds of troops and police officers to enforce isolation measures that its residents have so far ignored, and Liberia, with the second largest number, has declared a 90-day state of emergency that allows it to suspend civil liberties and impose quarantines. Nigeria has also declared a state of emergency. Such public health measures should ultimately, although perhaps not quickly, bring the outbreaks under control.
Turkey lets Frankensteins loose in ME: Analyst
The Turkish government has been unleashing Frankenstein monsters across the Middle East region by supporting the Takfiri ISIL militants operating in Syria and Iraq, an analyst tells Press TV.“You (Turkey) are letting Frankensteins loose all over the region, which is the last thing the region needs, because no matter what happens in Syria, all of these people with all of these fighting experience, they are going to be looking for another fight to get into,” Jim Dean told Press TV in an interview. He added that the Middle East region now has to live for decades with Turkey’s “horrible mistake,” emphasizing that Turkey is “siding with the West” in its “destabilization program” for the region. Dean said Turkey is currently helping the ISIL militants operating in Iraq by buying the oil they have been stealing from Iraq. “We are tracking now ISIL and other jihadists that are taking over the oil areas; most of that oil they are selling it, transporting it to Turkey,” he said, adding, “So, Turkey is actually helping them fund themselves, which is making them independent even from the [Persian] Gulf states.” The crisis in Iraq escalated after the ISIL Takfiri militants took control of Mosul, in a lightning advance on June 10. More than a million people have been displaced in Iraq so far this year, according to the United Nations. The ISIL has vowed to continue its raid towards Baghdad. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said that the country’s security forces would confront the terrorists, calling the seizure of Mosul a “conspiracy."
Pakistan: No political representation of Ahmadis
Bilawal Bhutto reiterates commitment to protect minorities
pakobserver.net
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said it was imperative to follow the foot-steps and vision of Quaid-e-Azam, Quaid-e-Awam Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, the PPP continues to struggle the for rights and protection of Minorities amid A rise in bigotry and extremism. “PPP gave representation to the Minorities in the Senate in 2012 for the first time in the history,” he added. He said the PPP and its leadership has an unshakable commitment to the protection and safeguard of the minorities as equal citizens with the same rights as that of the majority. It is with this commitment and pledge that the Party is fighting against the forces and elements who are bent upon targeting the innocent people of minorities. He said his Party is concerned at the wave of violence against minorities in Punjab, Sindh and KPK where families and homes minority communities were burnt in Gujranwala, Gojra and Hindu traders were killed in Umerkot while Sikh traders were attacked and gunned down in Peshawar. PPP condemned these incidents in unequivocal terms and stands by the bruised communities for justice. PPP Patron-In-Chief further said PPP always stood in the frontlines to safeguard minority communities and the places of worships.
Asif Ali Zardari - Champion of the politics of reconciliation
Zulfikar Shaheed laid the foundation of a people-friendly politics which put the country and the nation as his top-most priority and sacrificed his life for this mission. His great daughter Mohtarama Benazir Bhutto Shaheed whole-heartedly followed in the footsteps of her great father in politics and proved herself to be a true leader of the nation. Benazir Shaheed literally became the binding force between all the four provinces, but the enemy of the people of Pakistan could not bear this and brutally murdered her in a cowardly terrorist attack to pave way for their nefarious agenda. After the demise of Ouaid-e-Awam (People's Leader) and Shaheed-e- Jamhooriat (Martyr of Democracy), it was Asif Ali Zardari who took the responsibility at this critical time to shoulder the burden of the leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the only party which represents all the four provinces with an ideology deeply rooted in the hearts of almost all Pakistanis. At a time when the martyrdom of Mohtarma Benazir brought grief and rage among the masses and inter-provincial harmony was at stake, it was Asif Ali Zardari who not only kept the party united by raising the slogan of Pakistan Khappay' (Long Live Pakistan) but also brought harmony among a grieved nation. Being a man of vision, he has bravely faced all the challenges that came his way and fought his political rivals with such a sagacity, deep insight, broad vision and unwavering resolve that even his opponents are forced to admit that he is the true successor of Shaheed Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the best politician of Pakistan. Pakistan Peoples Party registered huge victory in 2008 elections and it brought a new and fresh change in Pakistani politics, as Asif Zardari kept all the political differences aside for the greater good. The most effective weapon through which he has conquered his political opponents is his politics of reconciliation. It was first time in the history of Pakistan politics that a winning party shared the power with all major political stakeholders. It was the result of this politics of reconciliation that democracy has got a chance to strengthen its roots after a long period of dictatorship. Pakistan Peoples Party's five years in the central government is a bright example of this reconciliation policy. The democracy is strengthening in Pakistan today and it is only due to Asif Zardari, who not only consolidated the base of democracy during his five years in power but also handed over the power to next government in a peaceful manner which has guaranteed the country a bright and democratic political future. In Sindh Province too, the people's government of the PPP is following this golden principle of political reconciliation under the leadership of Asif Ali Zardari, as per his vision. Despite having a majority in the provincial assembly, Sindh government has shared power with the MOM, which has a large representation of the people of Urban Sindh, just to respect the people's mandate and paving way for development and prosperity of the province. One year of Pakistan Peoples Party in Sindh is a golden period for the development of the province and is also an example to follow for the other provinces. Sindh's people's government is leaving no stone unturned to bring prosperity and progress to the masses of the province and it is working day and night to achieve this goal under the able leadership of true political heir of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Shaheed and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed, Asif Ali Zardari. And this journey towards a bright future will remain continue. After the demise of Quaid-e-Awam and Shaheed-e-Jamhooriat, the burden of the leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party, the only Party which represents all the four Provinces, fell on the shoulders of Asif Ali Zardari. Pakistan Peoples Party registered huge victory in 2008 elections, bringing a new turn to the Pakistani politics, when Asif Zardari introduced his policy of political reconciliation by keeping all the political differences aside.
'India under polio threat from Pakistan'
India may be gearing up against Ebola but a more serious threat is at hand.
One of 21st century's greatest public health achievements - India wiping out polio, is now under serious threat from across its borders.
The 10th meeting of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) held in London recently has concluded that the goal of stopping global polio transmission by the end of 2014 will be missed because of the worrying transmission in Pakistan and active export of the virus to other countries.
The World Health Organisation has confirmed that poliovirus from Pakistan has spread to Israel, West Bank and Gaza, and Iraq.
In 2012, there were 223 cases of polio in five countries. In 2013, there were 407 cases in eight countries.
IMB confirmed that it "cannot conclude that the grip on polio control is yet sufficiently strong. This is particularly because with just four months remaining until the 2014 deadline for stopping polio transmission, Pakistan has little hope of meeting this deadline, and Nigeria, with impending elections, is at real risk of losing the vital opportunity".
WHO says "Pakistan's situation is particularly problematic. Its polio control programme is years behind that in the other endemic countries. As currently constituted, the structure of the Prime Minister's Polio Monitoring Cell does not allow effective action against polio. A much stronger form of management and co-ordination is required".
WHO admitted that currently Pakistan appears likely to become the last polio endemic country in the world. This poses a serious threat to neighbours India which was in March 2014 declared polio free.
"It is an indictment of this country's programme that even in the easier eradication context of the low season, Pakistan has almost as many cases in the first 4 months of 2014 as in the whole of 2012 - and 9 times as many as in the same period in 2013. While some progress has been made in Peshawar, Karachi and Quetta, this is not sufficient to stop poliovirus transmission. It is vital that the prime minister and president urgently activate an emergency body with the resources, power and capability to transform this grave situation," WHO has said.
The deadline for global polio eradication has been repeatedly postponed and each time missed: the deadline years of 2000, 2004 and 2012 have all passed without the ultimate goal being reached.
IMB which is meeting against in London in October says that as the end-2014 deadline fast approaches, Nigeria and Pakistan are both at risk of failing to stop transmission in time (with greatest risk in Pakistan).
"There is a significant risk of one or more of the current outbreaks becoming prolonged. There is serious risk of failure to anticipate and prevent an outbreak elsewhere. Given these factors, the IMB's considered analysis is that the latest strategic plan goal of interrupting transmission by the end of 2014 is at extreme risk," WHO says.
The World Health Assembly recently declared polio eradication a programmatic emergency for global public health. WHO has called the spread of polio a public health emergency of international concern.
WHO says the last 1% cannot be allowed to persist any longer.
The IMB says that in late 2012, there was considerable optimism regarding the achievement of the polio free goal. Polio transmission in India had been interrupted and the three remaining endemic countries (Afghanistan, Nigeria, Pakistan) had made significant programmatic improvements. However, within a few months, events made the achievement of this goal appear less likely - targeted killing of polio vaccinators in Pakistan, polio virus entered Waziristan, a part of Pakistan in which polio vaccination had been - and remains - banned by Taliban commanders.
Poliovirus also spread from Pakistan to Syria, causing a major outbreak during the country's civil war. The IMB meanwhile has made several recommendations starting with the "establishment of an Emergency Operations Centre (EOC) in Pakistan, building upon Pakistan's recent experiences in responding to natural disasters. Top-level civil servants, senior representatives of national, regional and local government, religious leaders as well as military leaders should be a key part of this process".
It also recommends that "the heads of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative core partner agencies should meet urgently with the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan to support their essential leadership of the Pakistan polio eradication programme, and to offer every possible assistance".
The next meeting of the IMB will be held in London on September 30-October 2, 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)