Global Minorities Alliance condemns twin attacks on Pakistan Churches

Global Minorities Alliance  vehemently condemns the utter negligence of Government and its on-going blatant disregard of the protection of religious minorities in Pakistan, which is a cause of grave concern for people everywhere.

On Sunday March 15 2015, the peaceful worship of the largest Christian community in Punjab was disrupted by atrocious terrorist attacks. The Christian community of Youhanabad, Lahore​ had been the target of two suicide bombings in two churches which killed 15 people and left more than 70 injured.

GMA’s Chief Executive, Manassi Bernard commented: “Pakistan Government has failed on number of occassions to protect religious places inspite of consistent requests from local churches which, has contributed to these fresh violence and the irreplaceable loss of innocent lives.”

Mr Bernard further maintained that: “We can not imagine the trauma of families who lost their loved ones during the recent attack and we extend our condolence to the bereaved families.”
He further said: “It is the fundamental right of every citizen to protest when rights are suppressed but he further urged Christian community in Pakistan to protest without taking law in its own hand.”

Pakistan church bombing protests escalate, 10 more Christians killed

http://www.christiantoday.com/



Carey Lodge

A further 10 Christians have been killed in protests against Sunday's attacks on two churches in Lahore, Christian Today has learned, bringing the total death toll across the two days to more than 25.

Shamim Masih, chief reporter for the British Pakistani Christian Association (BPCA), told Christian Today from Lahore that four Christians had been fatally shot by police and six more killed by Muslims who attacked those protesting in Yohanabad, south Lahore, today.

The Muslims were carrying sticks and beat the Christians with metal bars, he said. One woman also reportedly killed a man by running him over with her car, though it is not known whether the incident was deliberate.

Police intervened with tear gas, Masih said, but "the situation is getting worse and worse". Many Christians are now hiding in their homes behind locked doors, afraid of more attacks. Masih has done the same.

Others have continued to protest, and the demonstrations have spread throughout Pakistan. Masih said that reports of violence perpetrated by Christians today have been fabricated – they are not carrying any weapons, and overall are largely peaceful.

However, those protesting yesterday did turn to violence. Two suspects linked to the church attacks were lynched and their bodies burned. Christian Today was told that those killed were accomplices to one of the church suicide bombers. Protesters from the Christian community also blocked a nearby main road, many of them reportedly carrying clubs, car windows were allegedly smashed and a bus station was attacked.

Christians in Pakistan have been the subject of many attacks in recent years, the most violent of which was the Peshawar church bombing in September 2013 which caused 115 deaths. In the past, protests have usually been peaceful.

"They are angry," Masih said of those demonstrating over the past two days. "I can see the anger on their faces and the aggression as well, but they are helpless."

Chairman of the BPCA, Wilson Chowdhry, said that the organisation does not condone any violence and has called for a peaceful solution to the crisis. But for Pakistani Christians, this latest attack may have proved to be a step too far.

"There is a lot of hurt in the community, a lot of rage. They are still recovering from the incident in Peshawar," Chowdhry said. Christians in Lahore have been attacked before, and have reacted peacefully, but the city "has never seen that many victims before. [Militants] have burned homes but not taken lives, this time they took lives".

The frequency and intensity of attacks against Christians in Pakistan have increased in recent years, Chowdhry said. "Here we had two suicide bombers ready to attack not one, but two churches... the government does not provide the same protections to Christians as it does to other groups in Pakistan."

Sunday's bombings occurred minutes apart in Yohanabad, a majority Christian suburb of Lahore, just after worship services had taken place. St John's Catholic Church and Christ Church were targeted, with reports putting the death toll at 14, and nearly 80 wounded. The Pakistani Taliban splinter group Jamaat-ul-Ahrar has claimed responsibility for the attacks.

Masih said that 17 people were killed, and 82 injured. 35 remain in critical condition. Maryam Bibi, a parishioner at Christ Church, told him: "As soon as the service finished I could hear firing and asked my mother to stay seated at the front of the church. Soon after there was blast at the gate and pieces of flesh and blood had sprayed across all of those in the church.

"Everywhere I looked there was broken window panes, blood, and quite morbidly, shoes were scattered across the blast site."

Masih also said that the two police officials who were supposed to be protecting the churches and worshippers on Sunday were in fact sitting in their car watching the Pakistan-Ireland cricket match on their phones. "Instead of protecting the service they were watching the match," he said. It was the swift action of volunteer security officers Zahid Masih and Akash Bashir that prevented more lives being taken in the attacks.

Hate speeches are now being made from tannoys at mosques across Lahore, inciting Muslims to attack Christians, Chowdhry said. He warned that the situation is at risk of escalating much further.

"Christians are being blamed incorrectly during a relatively peaceful [protest] and we are concerned that the violence will escalate as local mosques are not being prevented from preaching hatred," Chowdhry said. "It is imperative that churches pray for the situation now. We need God's divine intervention if peace is to be restored any time soon."

The BPCA has launched an appeal for the victims of Sunday's attack. 

Pakistan's Christians Under Attack - Blood In Youhanabad

The enemy is organised, stealthy, and coordinated. There can be no forgetting this, as the Taliban threat inside Pakistan is downplayed beneath the bravado of government and army efforts to unite against militancy following the Dec. 16 attack in Peshawar. The enemy has not been weakened and sectarian attacks have remained constant in scale and frequency. Shias and those of the Christian faith have repeatedly been at the brunt of the killing. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and its more powerful splinter groups remain as brazen as they ever were and the establishment has been at best, unable, or at worst, unwilling, to tackle the problem at the required level; a level that engages with the problem of intolerance, that washes out the narratives of hatred that fuel attacks such as the ones that took the lives of 15 church goers in Youhanabad at two separate locations. How did it happen? Were the two policemen guarding the churches intelligent security for a high risk minority area? How did two coordinated attacks occur when the enemy is apparently pushed against a corner by the load of textual nonsense that is the National Action Plan? Where are the results three months on, dozens of executions and hundreds of raids and arrests later? The country has sacrificed due process of law, and democracy has been put on the back burner, because a state of emergency has been declared and in a state of emergency, we are told, raising hue and cry over insignificant things like democratic rights and habeus corpus is akin to betraying the spirit of the times. However, the path of this government is just not comprehensive enough, or mature enough, to solve a complex problem, a historic web of deceit, lies and logistical inabilities.
Condemnation is not enough. Neither is puny financial compensation to aggrieved families. It is clear to see that the government can no longer buy the silence and compassion of the Christian community using stop gap measures, as the entire country broke out in violent protests following the attacks, with two suspected militants beaten to death and burnt in the streets by an angry mob. When the Chief Minister of the Punjab has been exposed in dirty deal-cutting with the enemy of the state, when law is de-prioritised and the rule of kings prevails, when every government narrative is smoke and mirrors to distract a distressed populace, when the military continues to be involved in dangerous double games, innocent people will play in blood. The brink seems near. Any more pushing might lead to complete collapse.

Pakistan - Attack on churches

THE suicide attacks against two churches in Lahore yesterday could have been just another gruesome incident in the long list of horrors that has been inflicted on this country in recent years.

The reaction by sections of the Christian community in Lahore and other cities of the country — with protesters taking to the streets and some turning to violence that resulted in two deaths — though suggests that the state’s halting response to the terrorism threat is leading to dangerous ruptures in society.

Know more: 15 killed in Taliban attack on Lahore churches

When non-Muslim and sectarian communities take to the streets in protest and turn to mob violence, it surely reflects the acute stress and intolerable strain that they are under. While all mob violence is deplorable, perhaps the lesson for the state here is that endless violence and horrors visited on a population lead to fear taking over and ugliness manifesting itself.

 The state and the security establishment in particular will likely point to the fact that the group which has claimed responsibility, the Jamaatul Ahrar, is under renewed pressure both inside Pakistan and in Afghanistan, at the urging of the state here.

The next phase of Operation Khyber-I does appear to place the militant group in the military’s crosshairs and the announcement of a re-merger between the TTP and the Jamaatul Ahrar over the weekend suggests that the groups are under significant pressure.

As in the past, when hard security targets become more difficult to attack and a militant group is in the throes of being significantly diminished, strikes on soft targets such as places of worship or markets have spikes.

Perhaps, then, that is what the latest attack in Lahore indicates: a desperate effort by the militants to try and stoke a societal backlash and in doing so put pressure on the state to curb its anti-militant operations.

 Even if that were the case, however, there are still some serious questions to be asked. Why, for example, has the production of suicide bombers reached the level where they can be dispatched seemingly to any part of the country on any given day by any one of several militant groups?

Given the young age of many of the bombers used in recent attacks, they have clearly not been indoctrinated in the distant past. So, how, why and where is this almost industrial-scale indoctrination programme continuing without the state being able to find and dismantle it?

Beyond that there is the question of the failure to deal with the more complicated, and even vexing, aspects of the National Action Plan.

Even the military appears to acknowledge that a militarised strategy cannot end militancy and terrorism, but there seems to be no real effort to try and think beyond military operations in Fata and counterterrorism operations in the cities. Will — can — that change?

Video Report - Pakistan: Christians protest after deadly blasts outside churches

Pakistan is a failing state and Christians are paying the ultimate price

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/



by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith

The latest bombings show the Pakistani state to be weak in the face of terror and that the Taliban is still very much in business.

Yet again, churches have been bombed in Pakistan, and though the Pope has spoken of his sadness at the event, on the whole it has passed most of the world by. There are several reasons for this, the most obvious of which is that this is the sort of story that we are accustomed to seeing come out of Pakistan. Fourteen people murdered, scores maimed in a sectarian bombing? In Pakistan that is not news, that is normal. Pakistan, people will say, is on the way to becoming a failed state. After all, if the state exists to protect its citizens, all of them, whatever their religion, the state of Pakistan is failing. Indeed it may have already failed, and our usual diagnosis of it being a failing state may well be hopelessly over-optimistic.

Quite a lot of people who know Pakistan – VS Naipaul comes to mind – see it as a failed state already, an experiment gone terribly wrong; I have heard this view too from several Indian friends of mine. What we see now, they think, is the grim reaping of what was sown when India was partitioned in 1947. They add that the Pakistani Christians are paying the price for not emigrating to India at Partition. The tragedy of modern Pakistan is compounded by the fact that the country has long been a British and American protégé, and a major aid recipient. Are we pouring all that money into the south Asian equivalent of Somalia?

If these bombing show up the Pakistani state as weak and defenceless in the face of terror, they also show us something else, namely that the Taliban has not gone out of business, but are very much still here. Perhaps the Taliban simply want to remind us that ISIS is not the only game in town. Perhaps this is their attempt to try and seize back the standard from the Caliph?

Something else is at work too. The Christians of Pakistan are a tiny minority, but at the same time they are, given the size of the population, quite numerous, estimated at 2.5 million. This makes them a visible minority, an easy target for bombers and of course, let us not forget,thanks to the blasphemy laws, the object of state-sponsored persecution.

One has to ask: why can’t an avowedly Muslim state, founded by Muslims for Muslims, simply leave its Christian population alone? One ought to remember too that Christianity predates Islam in south Asia by many centuries. What is the problem for the Muslims of Pakistan? Have they got a problem with the concept of tolerance?

Another awful fact is that there are several pro-Taliban groups active in Britain today and quite a few Taliban apologists; nor are the Taliban a small or isolated group. They are well funded, and have widespread support. They represent a significant strand of opinion in the Muslim world, inside Pakistan and outside it too. The usual platitudes are demonstrably false: this is the work of a small group who represent no one, blah blah blah. We need to take this seriously. After all the Taliban would blow up churches all over the world, if they could. They can’t, of course, but that should not make us complacent.

Video - Kerry calls for US updated war powers to strike IS

First Lady Michelle Obama Celebrates Nowruz at the White House

U.S. - Republican Idiocy on Iran

After helping to ignite a firestorm over a possible nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator John McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate, is now sort of acknowledging his error. “Maybe that wasn’t exactly the best way to do that,” he said on Fox News on Tuesday.

He was referring to the disgraceful and irresponsible letter that he and 46 Senate colleagues sent to Iran’s leaders this week that generated outrage from Democrats and even some conservatives.

The letter was an attempt to scare the Iranians from making a deal that would limit their nuclear program for at least a decade by issuing a warning that the next president could simply reverse any agreement. It was a blatant, dangerous effort to undercut the president on a grave national security issue by communicating directly with a foreign government.

Maybe Mr. McCain, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, should have thought about the consequences before he signed the letter, which was drafted by Tom Cotton, a Republican of Arkansas, a junior senator with no foreign policy credentials. Instead of trying to be leaders and statesmen, the Republicans in Congress seem to think their role is outside the American government, divorced from constitutional principles, tradition and the security interests of the American people.

The letter was the latest shot to blow up the negotiations with Iran. Earlier this month, House Republicans invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel to denounce a pact in a speech to Congress, and a group of senators is pushing legislation that could set new conditions on a deal and force a congressional vote.

Besides being willing to sabotage any deal with Iran (before they know the final details), these Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.

Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was blistering in his condemnation, saying, “This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our commander in chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments — a message that is as false as it is dangerous.” But perhaps President Obama described this bizarre reality best. “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” he said. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

So far, the Iranians have largely dismissed the bumbling threat, with their foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, describing the letter as “propaganda.” But there are fears it could embolden hard-liners in Iran who, like the Republicans and some of the Democrats in Congress, oppose any nuclear agreement between Iran, the United States and its major allies.

The Republican efforts have so infuriated Democrats that even those who might have supported legislation that would have given Congress leverage over an Iranian pact are having second thoughts. Before this, the thinking was that the two bills most in play — one that would increase sanctions on Iran and another that would force the administration to bring any agreement to Congress for a review — might draw enough Democratic support to override a veto by President Obama. Both measures would surely scuttle a deal, but the Republicans’ actions may have set back their senseless cause.

The best and only practical way to restrain Iran from developing a bomb is through negotiating a strict agreement with tough monitoring. In rejecting diplomacy, the Republicans make an Iranian bomb and military conflict more likely.

Pakistan - No discussion on blood money, says Salmaan Taseer's family

In response to blood money offered by religious parties to the Taseer family, eldest son, Shaan Taseer, said on Tuesday that there will be no negotiations on the matter.

“There shall be no discussion on the topic of blood money with me or any member of my family,” Shaan said in a statement.

He further requested any parties to withhold any such offers which would “be taken as an affront to the memory of my father.”

Shaan welcomed the offers of a ‘healthy debate’ on the assumption that talks will focus on the Blasphemy law and not blood money.

The released statement by the family has made its way to social media, with several people Tweeting a copy of the statement.

A couple of days after the Islamabad High Court (IHC) upheld Mumtaz Qadri’s death sentence under Section-302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, religious parties representing the Barelvi school of thought offered blood money to the family of slain Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer to pardon Qadri.

Qadri, a former police bodyguard who shot dead Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer in Islamabad in 2011 admitted him, saying he objected to the politician’s calls to reform Pakistan’s strict blasphemy laws.

Read: Taseer murder case: IHC upholds Mumtaz Qadri’s death sentence

The blood money was offered after IHC on Monday rejected Qadri’s appeal against conviction and upheld his death penalty but struck out a terrorism conviction, according to Economic Times.

On Tuesday, leaders of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan (JUP), the Jamaat Ahle Sunnat, the Pakistan Sunni Tehreek and the Pakistan Sunni Alliance offered blood money to his family.

“We are ready to pay much more Khoonbaha (blood money) to the family of Salmaan Taseer (for Qadri’s release),” said Shabbir Abu Talib of the JUP.

To support his beliefs, Talib cited the case of Raymond Allen Davis, who was accused of being a CIA contractor and charged with killing two Pakistanis in a busy Lahore street in January 2011. Davis who was released by a Lahore sessions court after paying Rs200 million as ‘blood money’ to the legal heirs of the deceased.

Read: Diplomat or not, Davis departs

According to Islamic jurisprudence, a killer can be pardoned by the legal heirs of the victim with or without taking blood money.

Earlier, the legal heirs of Salmaan Taseer had filed an application before the IHC requesting it to reject Qadri’s murder appeal.

Read: Mumtaz Qadri does not deserve mercy, Taseer’s family appeals to court

Qadri has been hailed as a hero by many conservatives eager to drown out any calls to soften blasphemy legislation. The killing highlighted a growing gulf between conservatives and more liberal elements in society.

At his original trial, Qadri was showered with rose petals by some lawyers. His current appeal team features two judges, including the former chief justice of Lahore High Court.

The judge who convicted Qadri was forced to flee the country after death threats.

Have Bangladeshis overtaken Pakistanis in Britain?

MURTAZA HAIDER 

At home and in diaspora, Bangladeshis are leaving Pakistanis behind in human development and prosperity.

Recent research from Britain revealed that children born to Bangladeshi parents achieve higher grades than those born to Pakistani parents. Furthermore, the average household income of Bangladeshis in Britain is now higher than that of Pakistanis.

In a short span of four decades, Bangladeshis have not only caught up to Pakistan in development and prosperity (both at home and in diaspora), they are also likely to achieve greater prosperity in the future than Pakistanis are.

Pakistan’s development professionals and political leadership need to acknowledge that the nation is now losing out to countries it once dominated in human development.

Four decades earlier, many African and Asian countries lagged behind Pakistan in socio-economic indicators of development. While Pakistan has been embracing religiously-inspired militancy and conservatism since the mid-70s, others pursued liberal policies for higher education and free market economy.

A U-turn in economic and social priorities is in order in Pakistan to prevent the nation from falling further behind its peers.

A recent article in The Economist exposed the growing disparities between Pakistanis and Bangladeshi immigrants in Britain. Not only did the children born to Bangladeshi parents score better grades in standardised tests than those born to Pakistani parents, they also outscored white British children.

Recent data revealed that 61 per cent of Bangladeshis in Britain obtained five good GCSEs, a certification for 16-year old students.

In comparison, only 51 per cent of Pakistanis achieved the same. White British students at 56 per cent also lagged behind the Bangladeshis.

The Economist further reported that the average household income of Bangladeshi households in Britain is now higher than that of their Pakistani counterparts. Research by Professor Yaojun Li at Manchester University, quoted in The Economist, provides evidence for the growing income disparities between Bangladeshis and Pakistanis.

In 2012, I reported for Dawn.com about Pakistani Canadians falling behind the rest. Census data revealed that Pakistani Canadians constituted one of the largest cohort of low-income households. Research from the UK also shows that Pakistanis are losing out to the rest in competitive labour markets.

It is important to explore the reasons behind the declining competitiveness of Pakistanis at home and abroad.

Also read: Being a Pakistani abroad

Bangladeshis and Pakistanis have sizeable communities in Britain. The 2011 Census reports 447,201 Bangladeshis and 1,125 million Pakistanis. The communities share some traits, but differ in others.

Both are primarily concentrated in one particular industry; Pakistanis are concentrated in taxicabs and Bangladeshis in restaurants. The immigrants from both communities originated in rural or small town settings. The dominant cohort among Pakistani immigrants originated in rural Mirpur. Similarly, most Bangladeshis arrived from Sylhet.

Pakistani immigrants arrived in the '60s and settled all across Britain as they pursued jobs in the textile sector. In the 1980s, when the Bangladeshi immigrants started to arrive in droves, the textile sector was already in decline.

This proved to be a blessing in disguise for the Bangladeshi immigrants. They ended up settling primarily in and around London where school and teacher quality is reportedly better than the rusting towns in the North, where Pakistanis had settled.

The concentration of Bangladeshis in the Brick Lanes of London facilitated peer networks to develop and the community gained strength in numbers. The same was not true for Pakistanis, whose communities were dispersed all over.

This is not to argue that Bangladeshis have already ‘made it’ in Britain. Unlike Pakistanis in Britain who own their homes, the same is not true for Bangladeshis. Almost one-third of Bangladeshis live in social (subsidised) housing. In comparison, only 18 per cent of the British live in social housing. Similar to Pakistanis, a large number of Bangladeshi women do not join the labour force, which limits the household’s earning potential.

Also read: Dollars and sense of American desis

However, by making education a priority for their future generations, Bangladeshi immigrants in Britain have made the right choice. Bangladeshis have also fared better than Pakistanis did in growing their networks beyond the immediate ethnic enclaves. Research has shown that unlike Pakistanis, Bangladeshis are more likely to strike friendships with other ethnicities. Furthermore, a smaller proportion of Bangladeshis report lack of close friendships than do Pakistanis in Britain.

Pakistani diaspora in Britain is not conforming to the changing times.

A large number of Pakistanis continue to bring spouses from back home. In Bradford, for instance, a large number of Pakistanis continue to be first generation immigrants.

A community of over 1.1 million individuals, which has been in Britain for over five decades, should now be working with second- and third-generation immigrants. Instead, waves of fresh migrants continue to arrive from Pakistan, which prevents the diaspora from developing educated, experienced, and networked communities.

Bangladeshis in Britain have strategised to partake in the networked knowledge economies. Their communities are strategically concentrated in and around modern economic hubs and they are investing in their children’s education. Pakistanis at home and abroad must take note.

Pakistan - India - Toilets Or Nuclear Weapons

BY MASOOD KHAN

The day Pakistan test fired the Shaheen-III ballistic missile, capable to carry nuclear and conventional warheads to a range of 2750 KM, another news item caught my sight. 41 million people in Pakistan have no access to toilets and have to defecate in open spaces. Statistics from across the border are not much different: in India more than 630 million people face the same agony – no closed toilets. As both countries take pride in showing off their nuclear arsenal; I wonder what our political leadership’s real priorities are. As per infographic created by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists; Pakistan has 120 nuclear weapons while its arch rival, India, is not far behind with 110 such weapons.

Why is it so that the people who vote and install their rulers in Islamabad and Delhi, are the one to be always at the receiving end without any hope of improvement in their lives? It doesn’t matter if it’s BJP, Congress, Peoples Party, Muslim League, or army (in Pakistan’s perspective) are at the helm of affairs in these countries, the end result remains the same – both the general public and its rulers live in separate worlds. What sort of harms and diseases are associated with public defecating need not much elaboration. Many rapes and sexual harassment related incidents were reported in India due to vulnerability of women folk while going out, especially in the rural areas. Democracy shall mean a governing system by the people, for the people but perhaps ruling class doesn’t fall under ‘people’ category.

What should our priorities be: increasing the stockpiles of already overflowing nuclear and conventional weapons and keep spending billions on motorways, or should we be providing health care, education, clean water, sanitation, food security, law and order? As in personal life rulers don’t have to worry about these ‘poor-public’ type issues, therefore, they enjoy doing big things which can make headlines.

Who says democracy is by the people, for the people?

Pakistan - Nuclear Reactors - Worst Case Scenario

Pakistan’s electricity shortfall is a dire crisis, but is the resolution of that crisis worth jeopardizing the lives of 20 million people? Pakistan is set to build two large nuclear reactors near energy-starved Karachi, with the help of the Chinese government. The harrowing scenes that followed the Chernobyl disaster are still etched in people’s memories; empty classrooms, abandoned towns, and the Fukishima disaster happened only a few years ago. It is inevitable that alarm bells start to ring when Pakistan builds two reactors less than 30 kilometres away from one of the world’s most populated metropolis.
There are several concerns, the foremost being the safety standards of the ACP-1000 type nuclear reactors being built; this indigenous Chinese design is not operational anywhere else in the world. Yet most objections based on this are little more than speculation, a fact the International Atomic Energy Commission’s Generic Reactor Safety Review (GRSR) endorses. The recently completed survey has cleared the reactor for construction, assuaging fears of a design flaw. Yet most industrial accidents are not caused by design flaw, but by human negligence and ill intent, both of which can be found in Karachi aplenty. The Taliban have shown an aptitude for mounting sophisticated attacks on sensitive installations, hijacking a naval vessel, infiltrating a naval airbase and later, the international airport. An attack, even a botched attack, could threaten the lives of Karachi’s residents, and the following shutdown of Karachi will shut down the rest of the country. The government’s desire to utilise the support structure of the existing, smaller power plant is understandable, as is the need for Karachi to have a power source in its proximity, but the worst case scenario – a distant possibility, for sure – is so catastrophic, it would be wise to relocate the power plant. The government will face large expenditure; relocation of the site, building infrastructure and support buildings, but the end result would be a disaster proof set-up, making sure that the plant will stop being an enticing target for extremists.

Pakistan - The new Senate

The 2015 Senate elections did not result in a clear majority for any of the political parties. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) were able to gather the most votes, gaining 27 and 26 seats respectively. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) came in third with six seats. The strongest parties in the Senate began vying for control of the body by attempting to gather support for potential chairperson and deputy chairperson nominees from amongst their own members. PPP was able to get the support of MQM, the Awami National Party (ANP), the F and Q factions of PML and the Jamiat-i-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI-F) in their bid for Raza Rabbani as Senate chairman. MQM has attached a condition to their support for Rabbani: they have instructed their members to “abstain” from voting for the Senate leaders in case all their demands are not met by the PPP and PML-N. Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif backed the consensus on Rabbani and stated that PML-N would not be putting up any candidates for the positions of Senate chairperson and deputy chairperson. The PM highlighted his drive to resolve all major political issues through consensus with the other parties and commented that Raza Rabbani was a good choice for chairman since he has always been a decent politician.

These Senate elections saw a flurry of political activity and controversy amid allegations of horse-trading and the PML-N government resorting to last minute efforts to pass a 22nd amendment for fear of the defection of members of their own party. Upon not being able to garner enough support for this amendment, particularly from PPP and to a lesser degree JUI-F, the government let the elections go through as they were scheduled and via secret ballots. Despite the hype created by PTI and further “rigging” allegations after the elections, there has not been rampant vote trading in the Senate elections. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) asked PTI to come forward with “hard evidence” if they wanted an investigation regarding malfeasance in the Senate elections, yet such evidence has not surfaced so far. PTI Chairman Imran Khan has also pledged to boycott the vote for chairperson and deputy chairperson, claiming that the “nation does not want the politics of settlement anymore”.

Nevertheless, PML-N deserves credit for accepting Raza Rabbani as the joint candidate of the other parties for the chairmanship of the Senate. Despite its shortfalls, the PML-N government has worked on strengthening intra-party cooperation and attempted to gain consensus on all crucial issues through talks and All Parties Conferences (APCs). Even the bid to change the Senate electoral process to open ballots was put before an APC and since it was not a viable option, a consensus was not reached and the 22nd Amendment was not brought to parliament. Party cooperation and the test of intra-party talks are essential to determine which political move is the best for the country as a whole in the long term. “The politics of settlement,” as Imran Khan calls it, is necessary to ensure compromise and cooperation in a democracy and to focus on the needs of the people rather than those of the parties alone. The PPP has suggested that the deputy chairman be elected from Balochistan. This move, if it pans out, will help politically empower the province, which has been disgruntled and disenfranchised for long. In order to strengthen parliament, it is necessary to incorporate as much political and regional diversity as possible in its representation. What Pakistan needs, to crawl out of the shadows of its history of dictatorship, is the division of power, decentralised control and a strong parliament, which represents the interests of all demographics of people. 

Music Video - Kelly Clarkson - Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)

NATO naval drills start in Black Sea

Thousands rally in Kuwait as opposition vows 'new phase of protests'

Opposition activists rally for the release of former MP Mussallam al-Barrak, call for democratic reforms in Kuwait

Thousands of Kuwaiti opposition activists rallied in the capital Monday demanding the release of a prominent leader and calling for democratic reforms in the Gulf state.

The demonstrators called for the release of Mussallam al-Barrak, a former MP who last week started serving a two-year jail term on charges of insulting the ruler.

Several former opposition lawmakers led some 3,000 people, including women, who gathered outside parliament in the largest opposition rally in about nine months.

The gathering passed off peacefully, which was the intended aim, according to former MP Falah al-Sawwagh.

Recordings of previous speeches by Barrak were played during the rally, where he stressed the need for protests to remain peaceful.

"This is the beginning of a new phase of protests. The opposition plans to stage a similar gathering every Monday," former opposition MP Bader al-Dahoum told AFP. 

"Our demands are the release of Barrak and other jailed activists, dissolving parliament and the government, scrapping the electoral law and holding fresh polls," Dahoum said.

Youth activists sang national songs calling for constitutional reforms and describing parliament as a "puppet assembly."

Protesters carried a large banner with portraits of Barrak and several other jailed activists that read: "We will not let you down."

The supreme court on Monday began to study an appeal by Barrak but delayed a decision on whether to release him on bail until next week, his lawyer Thamer al-Jadaei told AFP.

The charges against Barrak relate to a speech he gave to tens of thousands of demonstrators at the same venue in October 2012 against changes to the electoral law that he said would allow the ruling Al-Sabah family to manipulate the outcome of elections.

Barrak was a member of parliament at the time but his nationalist Popular Action Movement (PAM) boycotted December 2012 and July 2013 polls held under the new electoral law.

In July last year, street protests broke out when Barrak was detained for five days on separate charges of insulting the judiciary.

Since the mass demonstrations of 2012 by tens of thousands of people, Kuwaiti authorities have cracked down on the opposition. Dozens have been tried and handed heavy jail terms.

The government revoked the citizenship of several opposition figures including PAM spokesman Saad al-Ajmi last September.

The crackdown has been condemned by human rights groups, who have called for changes to the law to prevent people being jailed for exercising free speech.

- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/kuwaiti-opposition-vows-new-phase-protests-1713037605#sthash.z3nNWg9K.dpuf

EU criticises Saudi silencing of Swedish minister speech

http://www.yourmiddleeast.com/

The European Union expressed regret Tuesday after the Swedish foreign minister accused Saudi Arabia of blocking her speech at an Arab League meeting.
Foreign Minister Margot Wallstroem said Riyadh had stopped her from making her opening address to the meeting on Monday due to her stance on human rights.

"We regret that the Swedish foreign minister was not able to deliver her speech," European Commission spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic told a briefing.

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini will speak to Wallstroem and Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi "to understand this situation", she added.

Wallstroem had been invited as an honorary guest to the Arab ministers' meeting in praise of her government's decision to recognise Palestine in October.

Her cancelled opening speech -- published by the Swedish foreign ministry -- mentioned neither Saudi Arabia nor Wallstroem's feminist foreign policy agenda but stressed women's and human rights.

On Monday Wallstroem said it was a "shame" that she had been blocked from speaking.

"The explanation we have been given is that Sweden has highlighted the situation for democracy and human rights and that is why they do not want me to speak," she told news agency TT in Cairo.

An Arab diplomat confirmed to AFP that Riyadh had stopped the Swede from making her opening speech.

Wallstroem has rarely commented on Saudi Arabia but in January she slammed the kingdom's treatment of blogger Raef Badawi, who had been sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for insulting Islam.

Video - Biden, Clinton weigh in on GOP letter to Iran

Video - President Obama Announces the Student Aid Bill of Rights

President Obama Signs a Presidential Memorandum on College Opportunity

Hillary Clinton blasts U.S. Republicans over Iran nuclear letter

By Will Dunham

47 signatories 'were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy,' says Clinton.

 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday excoriated Republican senators for their letter warning Iran against a nuclear deal with U.S. President Barack Obama, saying they either were trying to help Tehran or harm the U.S. commander-in-chief.

Monday's open letter to Iran's leaders, signed by 47 Republican senators, sparked a political firestorm.

Vice President Joe Biden also sharply criticized the lawmakers while three potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, former Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, threw their support behind the letter.

Clinton, a likely Democratic presidential candidate, said the Obama administration is in the midst of intense negotiations for a diplomatic solution to close off Iran's pathway to a nuclear bomb and provide unprecedented access to its nuclear program.

"And one has to ask, what was the purpose of this letter?" Clinton said in an appearance at the United Nations.

"There appear to be two logical answers. Either these senators were trying to be helpful to the Iranians or harmful to the commander-in-chief in the midst of high-stakes international diplomacy. Either answer does discredit to the letters' signatories," Clinton added.

Biden said in a statement on Monday night the letter was "expressly designed to undercut a sitting president in the midst of sensitive international negotiations" and was "beneath the dignity" of the Senate.

"This letter, in the guise of a constitutional lesson, ignores two centuries of precedent and threatens to undermine the ability of any future American president, whether Democrat or Republican, to negotiate with other nations on behalf of the United States," Biden wrote.

Biden said he could not recall another instance in which senators wrote such a letter to advise another country, much less a longtime adversary.

In the letter, the Republicans told Iran's leaders any nuclear deal with Obama could last only while he remains in office.

Senator Tom Cotton, who spearheaded the letter, on Tuesday defended it and questioned Biden's foreign policy wisdom.

"The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear weapons deal with the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism without seeking congressional approval at the end of that deal," Cotton told CNN.

Jindal said on Twitter that anyone thinking of running for president from either party should sign the letter to make clear Iran is negotiating with a "lame duck" president.

Jindal said Biden owes an apology to Cotton, a first-term senator from Arkansas who served in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan. "He wore the boots in Iraq. He's earned our attention, not your insults," Jindal said.

Many Republicans contend Obama is so eager for a nuclear deal that he would sign off on an agreement leaving Iran able to easily make a nuclear weapon.

World powers and Iran are trying to reach a framework agreement this month and a final deal by June to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing sanctions. Iran says the program is for peaceful purposes only.

Hillary Clinton details her use of private email account

By Peter Foster

After the press conference, Mrs Clinton's office released a seven-page statement detailing her email habits while in office.

According to the statement, during her four years as America's top diplomat Mrs Clinton only communicated with a single, unnamed official from a foreign government - from the UK - otherwise communicating "in person, through correspondence, and by telephone".

The note also described the method by which Mrs Clinton's lawyers searched all 62,320 emails in her inbox to sift out "anything that might potentially be a federal record" or that could have had a government or work-related connection.

Searches for a ".gov" suffix threw up 27,500 emails, supplemented by searches for a range of officials including her deputies, ambassadors, advisers, aides and personal staff to bring the total to 30,490 emails - or 55,000 printed pages - that were provided to the State Department.

Mrs Clinton, who is the subject of a Republican-led enquiry into her role in the 2012 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, also specified that "a number of terms were specifically searched for, including: 'Benghazi' and 'Libya'."

In the long note, Mrs Clinton said that her practice of forwarding emails to the "state.gov" accounts ensured that the "vast majority" of the 55,000 pages of emails she provided was "simply duplicating what was already captured in the Department’s record-keeping system in real time."

Mrs Clinton said that the state department has already provided 300 Libya-related emails to the Select Committee investigating Benghazi, all of which had already been captured by her habit of forwarding them to "state.gov" addresses.

As to the remaining 30,000 or so emails, the statement says that "after her work-related emails were identified and preserved" Mrs Clinton "chose not to keep her private, personal emails that were not federal records".

Her statement in full:

Like Secretaries of State before her, Secretary Clinton used her own email account when engaging with State Department officials. For work, it was her practice to email them on their “.gov” accounts, with every expectation those emails would be captured and preserved immediately in the Department's system. When the Department asked former Secretaries last year for help ensuring that their work emails were in fact retained, she said yes and provided printed copies of all of her work-related emails.

She has since asked the Department to make the emails she provided available to the public. She is proud of the work that she and the public servants at the Department did during her four years as Secretary of State and looks forward to people being able to see that for themselves.

Why did she use her own email account?

As the Secretary has said publicly, when she got to the Department, she wanted the simplicity of using one device. She opted to use her personal email account as a matter of convenience; it enabled her to reach people quickly and keep in regular touch with her family and friends more easily given her travel schedule. That is the only reason she used her own account. Her usage was widely known to the over 100 Department and U.S. government colleagues she emailed, as her address was visible on every email she sent.

To address requirements to keep records of her work emails, it was her practice to email government officials on their “.gov” accounts. That way, they would be immediately captured and preserved in the Department's system.

Was this allowed?

Yes. The laws and regulations allowed her to use her own email for work. Under the Federal Records Act, records are defined as recorded information, regardless of its form or characteristics, “made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business.”

In 2009, the National Archives and Record Administration issued guidance reaffirming a prior regulation on the need to preserve work emails. In meeting the record-keeping obligations, it was Secretary Clinton’s practice to email government officials on their “.gov” accounts, so her work emails were immediately captured and preserved.

Was she ever provided guidance about her use of a non-“.gov” email account?

The Department has and did provide guidance regarding the need to preserve federal records, which included her work emails. To address requirements to keep records of her work emails, it was her practice to email government employees on their “.gov” email address. That way, work emails would be immediately captured and preserved in government record-keeping systems.

What did Secretary Clinton provide to the Department?

On December 5, 2014, 30,490 printed copies of work-related emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton from March 18, 2009 to February 1, 2013 were provided to the Department.

This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. About 90% of these emails were already in the Department’s record-keeping system because they were sent to or received by “state.gov” accounts [Before March 18, 2009, Secretary Clinton continued using the email account she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the Department's record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.]

Why did the Select Committee announce that she used multiple email addresses during her tenure?

In fairness to the Committee, this was an honest misunderstanding. Secretary Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her first weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account. At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department last year, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary.

In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.

Why did the Department ask for assistance? Why did the Department need assistance in further meeting its requirements under the Federal Records Act?

The Department formally requested the assistance of the four previous former Secretaries in a letter to their representatives dated October 28, 2014 to help in furtherance of meeting the Department’s requirements under the Federal Records Act. The letter stated that in September 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) issued new guidance clarifying records management responsibilities regarding the use of personal email accounts for government business.

While this guidance was issued after all four former Secretaries had departed office, the Department decided to ensure its records were as complete as possible and sought copies of work emails sent or received by the Secretaries on their own accounts.

Why was the Department given printed copies?

That is the requirement. The instructions regarding electronic mail in the Foreign Affairs Manual require that “until technology allowing archival capabilities for long-term electronic storage and retrieval of E-mail messages is available and installed, those messages warranting preservation as records (for periods longer than current E-mail systems routinely maintain them) must be printed out and filed with related records.”

Were any work items deleted in the course of producing the printed copies? No. How many emails were in her account? And how many of those were provided to the Department?

Her email account contained a total of 62,320 sent and received emails from March 2009 to February 2013. Based on the review process described below, 30,490 of these emails were provided to the Department, and the remaining 31,830 were private, personal records.

How and who decided what should be printed and provided to the Department?

The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official to determine what is and is not a federal record.

The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance “designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials.” Following conversations with Department officials and in response to the Department’s October 28, 2014 letter to former Secretaries requesting assistance in meeting the Department’s record-keeping requirements,

Secretary Clinton directed her attorneys to assist by identifying and preserving all emails that could potentially be federal records. This entailed a multi-step process to provide printed copies of the Secretary’s work-related emails to the Department, erring on the side 5 of including anything that might potentially be a federal record.

As the State Department has said, Secretary Clinton was the first to respond to this letter. A search was conducted on Secretary Clinton’s email account for all emails sent and received from 2009 to her last day in office, February 1, 2013. After this universe was determined, a search was conducted for a “.gov” (not just state.gov) in any address field in an email. This produced over 27,500 emails, representing more than 90% of the 30,490 printed copies that were provided to the Department.

To help identify any potential non-“.gov “correspondence that should be included, a search of first and last names of more than 100 State Department and other US government officials was performed. This included all Deputy Secretaries, Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, Ambassadors-at-Large, Special Representatives and Envoys, members of the Secretary’s Foreign Policy Advisory Board, and other senior officials to the Secretary, including close aides and staff. Next, to account for non-obvious or non-recognizable email addresses or misspellings or other idiosyncrasies, the emails were sorted and reviewed both by sender and recipient.

Lastly, a number of terms were specifically searched for, including: “Benghazi” and “Libya.” These additional three steps yielded just over another 2,900 emails, including emails from former Administration officials and long-time friends that may not be deemed by the Department to be federal records. And hundreds of these emails actually had already been forwarded onto the state.gov system and captured in realtime.

With respect to materials that the Select Committee has requested, the Department has stated that just under 300 emails related to Libya were provided by the Department to the Select Committee in response to a November 2014 letter, which contained a broader request for materials than prior requests from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Given Secretary Clinton’s practice of emailing Department officials on their state.gov addresses, the Department already had, and had already provided, the Select Committee with emails from Secretary Clinton in August 2014 – prior to requesting and receiving printed copies of her emails.

The review process described above confirmed Secretary Clinton’s practice of emailing Department officials on their .gov address, with the vast majority of the printed copies of work-related emails Secretary Clinton provided to the Department simply duplicating what was already captured in the Department’s record-keeping system in real time.

When the emails provided to the Department are made available, what is an example of what we will see?

You will see everything from the work of government, to emails with State and other Administration colleagues, to LinkedIn invites, to talk about the weather -- essentially what anyone would see in their own email account. Did Secretary Clinton use this account to communicate with foreign officials? During her time at State, she communicated with foreign officials in person, through correspondence, and by telephone. The review of all of her emails revealed only one email with a foreign (UK) official.

Do you think a third party should be allowed to review what was turned over to the Department, as well as the remainder that was not?

The Federal Records Act puts the obligation on the government official, not the agency or a third party, to determine what is and is not a federal record. The State Department Foreign Affairs Manual outlines guidance “designed to help employees determine which of their e-mail messages must be preserved as federal records and which may be deleted without further authorization because they are not Federal record materials.”

Secretary Clinton responded to the Department’s request by providing approximately 55,000 pages of her work-related emails. She has also taken the unprecedented step of asking that those emails be made public.

In doing so, she has sought to support the Department's efforts, fulfill her responsibility of recordkeeping and provide the chance for the public to assess the work she and officials at the Department did during her tenure.

After her work-related emails were identified and preserved, Secretary Clinton chose not to keep her private, personal emails that were not federal records. These were private, personal messages, including emails about her daughter’s wedding plans, her mother’s funeral services, and condolence notes, as well as emails on family vacations, yoga routines, and other items one would typically find in their own email account, such as offers from retailers, spam, etc.

Government officials are granted the privacy of their personal, non-work related emails, including personal emails on .gov accounts. Secretary Clinton exercised her privilege to ensure the continued privacy of her personal, non-work related emails.

Can’t she release the emails she provided to the Department herself?

Because the printed copies of work-related emails she provided to the Department include federal records of the Department, the Department needs to review these emails before they can be made public. She wants them to be made available as soon as possible.

Was classified material sent or received by Secretary Clinton on this email address? No. A separate, closed system was used by the Department for the sole purpose of handling classified communications which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system, including to outside email accounts.

How did Secretary Clinton receive and consume classified information?

The Secretary’s office is located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by the Secretary while in the office. While on travel, the Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types. Where was the server for her email located? The server for her email was physically located on her property, which is protected by U.S. Secret Service.

What level of encryption was employed? Who was the service provider, etc?

The security and integrity of her family’s electronic communications was taken seriously from the onset when it was first set up for President Clinton’s team. While the curiosity in the specifics of this set up is understandable, given what people with ill-intentions can do with such information in this day and age, there are concerns about broadcasting specific technical details about past and current practices. However, suffice it to say, robust protections were put in place and additional upgrades and techniques employed over time as they became available, including consulting and employing third party experts.

Was the server ever hacked? No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.

Was there ever an unauthorised intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it? No. What was done after her email was exposed in February 2013 after the hacker known as “Guccifer” hacked Sid Blumenthal’s account? While this was not a breach of Secretary Clinton’s account, because her email address was exposed, steps were taken at that time to ensure the security and integrity of her electronic communications.

Was the Department able to respond to requests related to FOIA or Congressional requests before they received printed copies of her workrelated emails?

Yes. As the Select Committee has said, the Department provided the Committee with relevant emails it already had on the state.gov system before the Department requested any printed copies from former Secretaries, and four months before the Department received the printed copies. For example, in the well-publicized hack of Sid Blumenthal’s email account, a note he sent Secretary Clinton on September 12, 2012 was posted online. At first blush, one might not think this exchange would be captured on the state.gov system. But in fact, Secretary Clinton forwarded the email, that very same day, onto the state.gov system. And the email was produced by the Department to the Select Committee, and acknowledged by the Select Committee, in August 2014.

This example illustrates: 1) when an email from a non-“.gov” sender had some connection to work or might add to the understanding of Department officials, it was Secretary Clinton’s practice to forward it to officials at their “state.gov” address; and 2) the Department was able to search and produce Secretary Clinton’s emails when needed long before, and unrelated to, receiving the printed copies as they were already captured on state.gov accounts.

When will the emails be released to the public?

Secretary Clinton has asked the Department to make her emails available as soon as possible. She is proud of the work that she and the public servants at the Department did during her four years as Secretary of State and is looking forward to people having the chance to see that for themselves.