Thursday, July 23, 2015
Afghan peace talks: a sure uncertainty
By Dr. Mohammad Taqi
Defections to Islamic State remain a concern but unless IS has or gets a state patron, it will fizzle out or be militarily neutralised by Afghans and the rump international forces.
“Until I know this sure uncertainty I’ll entertain the offered fallacy” - Shakespeare.Peace prospects in landlocked Afghanistan appear to have entered unchartered waters after the recent Afghan government-Taliban powwow in Pakistan’s Murree hills. Both the Afghan president, Dr Ashraf Ghani, and the Taliban seem to have opted to entertain the fallacy offered as talks — courtesy Pakistan — till such time that they surely know more about its uncertainty or veracity. The two sides have used Eid holiday messages as an opportunity to indicate that they are bracing for the second round of talks, which might take place as early as the following weekend. The Taliban went first and issued an Eid message in the name of their one-eyed leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, who has been hidden from the public eye for a good 14 years now. Dr Ghani duly welcomed the proclamation, even calling Mullah Omar “akhund”, an Afghan honorific for holy man.
The statement attributed to Mullah Omar was posted to the Afghan Taliban’s website a day before Eid and, according to the same portal, was circulated to the rank and file Taliban at the time of Eid prayer sermons. The 2,700-word statement makes interesting reading. The nuanced and measured document, which is well referenced to the scriptures, indicates right away that Mullah Omar — a man who was never known for abstract thinking and intellect — did not write or even commission anyone to write it. After the customary Eid greetings the statement gets straight to business and gives a 10-point synopsis of the Taliban position on issues from jihad to the rights of minorities and modern education in Afghanistan. While maintaining that their “holy war” is still “legitimate” the treatise notes, “concurrently with armed jihad, political endeavours and peaceful pathways for achieving these sacred goals is a legitimate Islamic principle”. The statement clearly says, “We have established a ‘political office’ for political affairs, entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring and conducting all political activities.” It also puts some distance between the Taliban and Pakistan/Iran by stating, “Some circles accuse the mujahideen of being agents of Pakistan and Iran. This is an utterly unjust verdict.”
Overall, the Taliban statement issued in Mullah Omar’s name endorses the current peace parleys but raises a flag as to which Taliban group should be considered a bona fide interlocutor by the Afghan government. For all intents and purposes the Taliban Eid statement seems to have originated from their Qatar political commission, which has been leery of Pakistan’s motives and even the Murree talks that did not have their representation. This Taliban chatter suggests that the Quetta Shura did not authorise or send emissaries to the Murree process and they consider it an affront that Pakistan left their key political leaders out with a sleight of hand. An article that was posted on the Taliban website right after the Murree talks and then taken down without an explanation had dissed the Murree talks as Pakistan bringing in a few Taliban “in their personal capacity” to circumvent the Taliban leadership, especially the Qatar office.
This interplay between elements of the Pakistani security establishment and their Taliban protégés suggests that there will be some hiccups before the much-trumpeted second round of talks gets underway. In a hurry to relieve pressure from international powers and, more importantly, from Dr Ashraf Ghani who has been getting increasingly impatient with it, Pakistan might have oversold the Murree talks and the second or third tier Taliban it had induced to show up. Through the statement released in Mullah Omar’s name, the Taliban’s Qatar political office seems to have tried to keep its foot in the talks door and present a unified front but their displeasure at being left in the lurch may be yet another sign of trying to buck Pakistan’s sway over them. Pakistan might now be tapping its Gulf allies to facilitate and probably host that next round. If the upcoming talks indeed do materialise, the composition of the Taliban delegation there may serve as a good indicator of the jihadist group’s cohesiveness and the relationship status of its various factions with Pakistan.
The talks do have the potential to open up rifts not only among the various power centres of the Taliban movement but also with their affiliates such as the Haqqani terrorist network and Pakistan. The complete radio silence from Mullah Omar for years has already created divisions and desperation within his jihadist outfit. Unless Mullah Omar miraculously comes of out of his occultation — my money is on that he is no more — the Taliban hordes may just be heading towards internecine warfare just the way the erstwhile mujahideen of the 1980s and 1990s did. And while that will be a messy and bloody proposition for jihadists it might not be a bad one from the Afghan government’s perspective. Defections to Islamic State (IS), which is trying to establish itself as the alternative jihadist-terrorist franchise in Afghanistan and Pakistan, remain a concern but unless IS has or gets a state patron, it will fizzle out or be militarily neutralised by Afghans and the rump international forces. While IS will find Afghanistan’s culture and history inhospitable to developing roots there, the proposal by Dr Ashraf Ghani to establish a regional hub in his country that could be used by the US and other allies to combat IS is timely and prudent.
While the IS spectre looms over Afghanistan, talks with the Taliban have opened up a window of opportunity to not only negotiate peace but also pry away the reconcilable jihadists from their longstanding patron(s). The Qatar political office’s haughtiness nothwithstanding, it is, however, unlikely that without Pakistan’s patronage the Taliban can survive on the battlefield and that window of opportunity can snap shut as quickly as it has opened up. Pakistan retains tremendous leverage — if not outright control — over the most lethal Taliban affiliate, i.e. the Haqqani network and various other field commanders. Controlling the jihadist kitty, weapons flow and limiting access to the Taliban leadership are other levers that Pakistan has used with success over the years. Pakistan’s security calculus vis-à-vis India has not changed one bit with the corollary that its interest and most likely the tactics in Afghanistan have not changed either. It is hard to see Pakistan reversing over 40 years of its Afghan policy just because the Taliban’s Qatar office might want out now. The prospects of a deadly rest of the summer in Afghanistan are much more tangible than that of the elusive peace offered in Murree. Dr Ashraf Ghani’s negotiating team led by his brilliant young deputy foreign minister, Mr Hekmat Khalil Karzai, has its work cut out for it if they want to turn an uncertainty into a surety.
US Urges Pakistan To Cooperate In Battle Against ISIS
US Senator has urged Pakistan to continue cooperation against the militant group ISIS.
According to details, on Wednesday July 22, US Senator Dianne Feinstein has laid emphasis on the need for constant cooperation between Pakistan and the US in the battle against the Islamic State (IS).
During meetings held between Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Syed Tariq Fatemi and US Senators in Capitol Hill, US issued a statement urging Pakistan to continue cooperation.
During these meetings, Syed Tariq Fatemi highlighted current achievements regarding Pakistan’s fight against terrorism. He briefed them about Pakistan Army’s in progress military offensive in FATA.
Fatemi also informed the US Senators about the arrangements that were being made to totally secure Pakistani territory from militants. At this occasion, Senator Feinstein appreciated Pakistan’s efforts to get rid of terrorism and stabilise the region. US support for enhancing Pakistan’s counter-terrorism capabilities was assured.
Senator Casey, welcomed efforts of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to reach out to its neighbours. He praised the commitment made by the Pakistani government and the Pakistani nation to purge terrorism.
The US Senators assured Fatemi that the US would work closely with Pakistan to extend the economic and trade relations between the two countries so as to build a equally beneficial partnership.
Pakistan - Amnesty for Baloch militants — will it work?
The recent announcement of an official pardon to be offered to armed Baloch militants is nothing new. The same formula was tried, without success, during the Nawab Raisani-led government. Such statements are essentially public relations ploys, designed to reassure citizens. Similar efforts in the past have been ineffective, with even more armed groups emerging in their aftermath.
At a recent meeting of the Apex Committee, it was announced that money would be paid to those currently waging war against the state from mountain hideouts on the condition that they surrender their arms. The announcement came on the heels of the increasingly frequent attacks, which have claimed more than 50 lives. In an earlier statement, Chief Minister Dr Abdul Malik Baloch had said that, apart from the districts of Turbat, Panjgur and Awaran, the province was relatively peaceful. However, the sharp rise in incidents of violence in Quetta, Mastung and other parts of the province has compelled the political leadership to admit the ground reality and redouble its efforts to weaken militancy. The resurrection of the old strategy of giving incentives to militants is a part of these efforts. To date, however, the only big-name militant known to have laid down arms and surrendered is Kalati Marri, the commander of the banned United Baloch Army.
The recent surrenders and the question of who can claim credit for them, has become a hot-button issue in the run-up to the election of a new chief executive of Balochistan, a position likely to become vacant in the next couple of months under a pact agreed to by all major political parties. Two heavyweight figures, PML-N leader Nawab Sanaullah Zehri and Nawab Jangez Marri, have emerged as strong candidates but, given Balochistan’s unpredictable political climate, the eventual outcome remains uncertain. Kalati’s surrender was facilitated by Jangez Marri whereas Nawab Sanaullah Zehri is making every effort to bring the Khan of Kalat, Prince Agha Suleman Dawood, back from self-imposed exile in London.
Currently, there are three key Baloch leaders living in self-imposed exile — Baloch Republican Party chief Nawabzada Bramdagh Bugti, alleged BLA chief Nawabzada Harbyar Marri, and alleged head of the Lashkar-e-Balochistan Javed Mengal. Their influence is primarily felt in Khuzdar, Dera Bugti, Kohlu, Makran and Nasirabad divisions, but it also extends to Quetta and other parts of the province. So far, there has been no attempt to reach these leaders. Another key player — and the only militant leader currently in Balochistan — is Dr Allah Nazir, head of the banned Baloch Liberation Front, the organisation responsible for attacking security forces and construction sites in Makran division. So far, he has refused to talk to the government. The only leader at all likely to be persuaded to return is the Khan of Kalat. However, his potential usefulness to the National Party in putting an end to militancy is limited, given his lack of involvement in the armed struggle.
A senior military official has stated that the proposed pardon and rehabilitation policy should be announced with immediate effect and that a committee charged with making contact with leaders living in self-imposed exile in the West should be established. In the event that the proposed negotiations fail, the likelihood that security forces will get involved is high. However, the success of any military action cannot be guaranteed given that these actions in the past have had a negative impact on the political environment.
Why does the armed struggle continue to enjoy some support among certain sections of the population? The answer to this question is apparent to anyone visiting Balochistan. Vast areas of the province have very little in the way of infrastructure, healthcare or educational facilities. Those who contend that tribal chieftains are to blame for this backwardness should ask themselves why there is no development in areas under the control of the pro-government sardars, since they have always enjoyed the backing of the establishment. It is high time the federal government paid more than lip service to the needs of the province. The people of Balochistan complain, and rightly so, that they have a very limited stake in the election of their representatives. These ‘elected representatives’ do little more than serve their own interests. The government must stop repeating the mistakes of past decades. Balochistan, with its vast areas of harsh, mountainous terrain so suited to harbouring militants, has been in a state of almost relentless conflict for the past three centuries. Its people need more than temporary relief. They need a permanent cure to their woes.
Pakistan - PPP slates Sharif for London stay in ‘flood situation’
The PPP has criticised Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif for extending his stay in London at a time when a large number of people of south Punjab are getting affected by the flood.
“The Sharif brothers who used to target their political opponents in the past for being out of the country during calamities are doing the same thing now themselves. What is Shahbaz Sharif doing in London while there is a flood in south Punjab?” PPP Secretary General Sardar Latif Khosa said.
Talking to Dawn here on Tuesday, Mr Khosa said Shahbaz was only good at ‘political gimmicks’ and not at delivering practically.
He said that instead of extending his stay in London for no ‘solid reason’, Shahbaz should return home and supervise the relief operation in flood-hit areas of the province.
“Massive corruption has been committed in Metro Bus projects. And today (Tuesday) rainwater has completely exposed the quality of work at the Lahore Metro Bus project,” he said.
“Shahbaz used to claim that he would end loadshedding in six months after coming to power but two years have passed and the PML-N government is still struggling to control it. Similarly, Shahbaz has been in power in Punjab for the last seven or so years but he failed to take measures to deal with floods,” he said.
Mr Khosa further said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should have also spent Eid either among the internally displaced persons (IDPs) of North Waziristan or terrorism victims but he chose to stay in Saudi Arabia. He said the people could not be fooled any more as they wanted relief which this government was not offering them.
https://ppppunjab.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/ppp-slates-sharif-for-london-stay-in-flood-situation/
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
New York moves to raise state minimum wage to $15 for fast-food workers
New York moved on Wednesday to raise the minimum wage for fast-food workers to $15 an hour by the end of 2018 in New York City and by mid-2021 in the rest of the state.
The New York Wage Board voted unanimously for the increase, which would cover some 180,000 workers statewide and affect fast-food chains with 30 locations or more in the United States.
The three-member board was formed at the behest of Governor Andrew Cuomo in May after the state legislature turned down his proposals for minimum wage increases for most workers.
Its decision does not need legislative approval, but requires approval by the state labor commissioner, which is expected.
“This is going to help hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, but this is going to do something else," said a beaming Cuomo at a jubilant rally in New York City celebrating the vote. "Because when New York acts, the rest of the states follow."
With the federal minimum wage at $7.25 an hour since 2009, labor and religious groups have pressed state and local governments to enact pay raises as their hopes dim for an increase by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress.
Last month, Los Angeles set its minimum wage to rise from $9 an hour to $15 by 2020, affecting some 600,000 workers.
Seattle and San Francisco also have increased minimum wages in recent years.
A statewide wage increase for fast-food workers as opposed to city-based would be a first, said the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit advocacy group.
The rise to $15 an hour marks a major step from New York's current minimum wage of $8.75.
"I feel fabulous," said Harley Perez, 19, who work 30 hours a week at a fast-food restaurant but depends on food stamps to get by.
"I won't have this chokehold with bills, and I won't need to depend so much on the government for help," she said.
Sixty percent of New York's fast-food workers rely on some form of public benefit to supplement their earnings, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute.
The increase would be phased in, taking effect by the end of 2018 in New York City and by July 1, 2021, in the rest of the state.
Business groups and other critics slammed the decision as discriminatory because it singles out one industry, and legal challenges are expected.
Balochistan - Too Little Too Late
A delegation comprising of National Party (NP) leaders met Khan of Kalat in London last week. Khan of Kalat, Prince Suleman Dawood, heard them and politely refused to return to Balochistan on their request. This latest move by Dr. Malik Baloch and his party members is too little too late for solving the Balochistan conflict.
When Dr. Malik Baloch took power as Chief Minister (CM) of Balochistan in June 2013, people had hopes that he would start dialogue with Baloch insurgents on emergency basis. Dr. Malik Baloch was considered a last hope for resolution of Balochistan problem. Apart from few rhetorical statements initially, Dr. Malik Baloch didn’t bother to take any practical steps to make any progress towards solving the Balochistan conflict.
There are several problems with the latest desperate move of NP-led government to bring Khan of Kalat to solve Balochistan conflict. First problem is that Khan of Kalat, despite his official position, doesn’t hold much power or influence among the Baloch insurgents who call the shots on ground. Position of Khan of Kalat since 1948 has only been a symbolic figurehead for erstwhile Kalat state. Therefore, believing that Khan of Kalat’s return to Balochistan will miraculously solve all problems of Balochistan is naïve.
Second problem is that so-called Baloch Jirga (delegation) that went to meet Khan of Kalat only comprised of NP Leaders namely; Nawab Mohammad Shahwani, Khalid Langau, Kabir Muhammad Shahi and Sardar Kamal Bangulzai. This changed the outlook of this delegation from representatives of Baloch to representatives of National Party. Ideally, tribal leaders from all political parties should have been made a part of this delegation. Alas, making ideal and wise decisions is not something that National Party is comfortable with.
Third issue is related to division in current government over how to approach this issue. NP delegation made one effort and Nawab Sanaullah Zehri, senior minister, made another parallel government. Due to their vested interests both NP and PML-N couldn’t even make a joint effort to persuade Khan of Kalat to return. That proves that both these parties prefer their petty political interests over the core issue of Balochistan.
Moreover, coming to the point that why NP did conducted this futile exercise? The only fathomable reason is that they want to use it to create a reason to remain in office after December this year. As per Murree accord signed between NP, PML-N and Pashtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PKMAP) Dr. Malik Baloch will quit office of CM in favor of PML-N. By bringing Khan of Kalat back to Pakistan, NP desperately wanted to create a reason that it should continue to rule in Balochistan. Unfortunately, this move didn’t work and NP doesn’t have the excuse to remain in office even after December 2015.
Balochistan conflict is too complex to be solved by the return of a head of a former state of British era. Current Balochistan problems are a complicated mix of deprivation of last 68 years, role of tribal chieftains and allegedly involvement by foreign countries. In order to solve these problems, they need to be endorsed and accepted first.
After passing of 18th amendment of constitution of Pakistan and 7th NFC award, Balochistan has got substantial provincial autonomy although a lot is to be done. This means that the recently acquired provincial autonomy needs to be exercises in improving living standards of people of Balochistan. After 7th NFC, Balochistan has got 885 billion from federal receipts in last 6 years but it has failed to benefit common people. Bad governance, corruption and misplaced priorities of current NP government and former Raisani government have compounded sense of deprivation in Balochistan.
What needs to be done is that a multi-pronged strategy put in place to solve Balochistan issue. There are four parties to this conflict; Balochistan government, federal government, Baloch insurgents and security establishment. Until and unless all four of these parties show willingness to solve this problem on negotiation table there will not any solution.
Certain decisions in context of Balochistan are really difficult to take which are related to security matters. However, the easiest decisions in this context are under the provincial ambit. Provincial government of Balochistan needs to bring its house in order and do all that it’s necessary to improve living standards of common people of Balochistan. In first step rampant corruption prevalent at government and bureaucratic level needs to be completely eradicated.
Failed attempt by NP-delegation to persuade Khan of Kalat to return to Pakistan was nothing more than a face-saving tactic. This exercise baldy failed and further exposed the inability of Dr. Malik Baloch and his allies to tackle any issue successfully. In future, NP or any successive governments should avoid childish antics such as sending ministerial delegations to Khan of Kalat. Steps like these are only aimed at fooling people and not achieving any concrete results.
Islamic State could trip up U.S. plans to leave Afghanistan
Islamic State has provided new ammunition to Pentagon and Afghan officials seeking to persuade the White House to reverse its decision to pull out U.S. troops. Their argument, in effect, is that Islamic State could grow and the same security collapse that occurred in Iraq could happen in Afghanistan if the U.S. removes its troops as planned.Gen. John Campbell, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said Sunday that President Obama’s pledge to withdraw most of the 9,800 troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2016 was made before the appearance of Islamic State. He said the militant group has contributed to a worsening overall security situation in the country this year.
How Do the Republican Candidates Stack Up on Afghanistan?
BY
Donald Trump recently failed the “commander-in-chief” test. At an event with pollster Frank Luntz on Saturday, Trump ignited a firestorm by mocking Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former prisoner of war, for being captured. “I like people that weren’t captured, OK? I hate to tell you. He is a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said, almost immediately earning the derision of everyone who has ever served in the military or benefited from their service (read: every single American ever).
No other candidate has so bombastically failed, or passed, the test, but there is another fair measure by which we might grade them: their comments on America’s only current shooting war. (That would be Afghanistan, for those who need a refresher, where there are almost 10,000 U.S. troops who are scheduled to withdraw by the end of 2016.) I find this a convenient litmus test to see if a candidate is paying attention, aware of basic facts, supportive of American leadership, tough on terrorism, willing to lead and speak out on an unpopular topic, and understands the connection between the war in Afghanistan and America’s broader role in the world.
Astonishingly, not a single candidate has a position on Afghanistan listed on their campaign website (Marco Rubio’s is the most user friendly, by the way). Less astonishingly, none responded to my series of tweets asking their positions. It is entirely possible I’ve missed statements or speeches by some of the candidates (there are 16 of them, after all); please feel free to flag updates and omissions in the comments section below. Candidates are listed in alphabetical order.
Jeb Bush. In February Bush said he would not second-guess his brother’s decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan because “I won’t talk about the past.” He soon found it necessary to talk about Iraq; talking about Afghanistan will be even more important because that war, and America’s role in it, is still ongoing. Grade: I, for incomplete.
Ben Carson. In 2013 Carson said he opposed the war in Afghanistan — not the 2009 surge there, mind you, but the initial invasion in 2001. Instead, he would have used unspecified other means to go after al-Qaida that didn’t involve military forces in Afghanistan (where al-Qaida was headquartered). Grade: F.
Chris Christie. In 2011 Christie bobbed and weaved, saying he would withdraw troops from Afghanistan based on conditions on the ground, but he also said that killing Osama bin Laden substantially achieved U.S. goals in that country and that he wasn’t “a nation-building kind of guy,” suggesting Christie does not endorse counterinsurgency, reconstruction, or stabilization, and believes we can kill our way out of the war with al-Qaida—which we can’t. Grade: C-
Ted Cruz. In April Cruz outlined criteria for American intervention abroad. Among them, he said that after employing overwhelming force, “we should get the heck out.” He continued: “It is not the job of the U.S. military to engage in nation building to turn foreign countries into democratic utopias.” This wasn’t explicitly in reference to Afghanistan — nor is it a very accurate rebuttal of what U.S. policy has actually been there — but I think it’s fair to infer that Cruz believes the United States should not have tried to support democracy or reconstruction and stabilization operations in Afghanistan. Grade: F.
Carly Fiorina. In 2010 Fiorina apparently expressed opposition to a fixed timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, but I’ve been unable to find any other comment from her on the issue. Grade: C.
Lindsey Graham. Graham served in Afghanistan briefly in 2009 as an Army reservist and co-authored an excellent op-ed in the Washington Post with John McCain and Joe Lieberman in 2012 that hit all the right notes: Afghanistan is important, we’ve made progress which is in danger of unraveling, premature withdrawal would be foolish, and Obama has undermined his own policy with too little commitment to the war. He reiterated the points in a press release in March. Grade: A.
Mike Huckabee. In 2011 and 2012 Huckabee gave mixed signals. He opposed a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, but also seemed to express doubt that the United States had made progress or was capable of securing its interests in Afghanistan. I’ve been unable to find any more recent statements. Grade: C.
Bobby Jindal. Last October Jindal gave a major speech on U.S. defense policy, but managed not to comment on the war in Afghanistan. On the other hand, in December he warned against withdrawing from Afghanistan, saying a precipitous withdrawal would replicate the same mistake Obama made in Iraq, with similar consequences. Grade: B+.
John Kasich. In April, Kasich rambled that he supported the war in Afghanistan and did not think we should “run out of Afghanistan,” but he also disparaged “nation building” and listed a bunch of interventions he opposed, including Bosnia. He’s trying to have it both ways. Grade: B-.
George Pataki. Pataki’s son served in Afghanistan. Despite that, I found no statements by him about the war one way or the other. Grade: I, for incomplete.
Rand Paul. Rand Paul’s reputation as an anti-interventionist precedes him. To be fair, he supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, which is more than Ben Carson. But he has made his opposition to “interventionism” central to his pitch, and I’ve written elsewhere about what is so wrong with it. Grade: F.
Rick Perry. In 2011 Perry appeared to endorse calls for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan. “It’s time to bring our young men and women home as soon, and obviously as safely, as we can,” he said. Later, he walked back those comments. Last fall he gave a foreign policy speech big on American leadership and hawkish rhetoric but with no mention of Afghanistan. More recently, he disparaged the idea of spreading democracy as a component of U.S. foreign policy. Frankly, it’s hard to tell where he stands. Grade: Do over.
Marco Rubio. In 2011 Rubio published an excellent op-ed in National Reviewthat, like Graham’s, hits all the right points. “Afghanistan’s security is critical to our own security,” he said, and “We should reject artificial timelines for troop withdrawals.” Rubio generally pays more attention to foreign policy than most of the candidates and is more outspoken about American leadership — but he missed an opportunity in his most recent foreign policyspeech to address the war in Afghanistan. Grade: A-.
Rick Santorum. In 2011 Santorum criticized Obama’s withdrawal plans and in 2012 warned that premature withdrawal would repeat the same mistake Obama made in Iraq. He also suggested “We have to either make the decision to make a full commitment, which this president has not done, or we have to decide to get out, and probably get out sooner,” though it was pretty clear which option he preferred. I was unable to find more recent statements than this. Grade: B-.
Donald Trump. In 2012 Trump apparently criticized Obama’s withdrawal plans, but also argued the United States should withdraw immediately. Seeing as incoherence is standard for Trump, this shouldn’t surprise. Grade: F.
Scott Walker. I found no comments from Walker on Afghanistan. Grade: I.
For now, it’s Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio for the win — but stay tuned.
Surveillance in Pakistan exceeds legal capacity: report
A report published by London-based advocacy group Privacy International claims that the practical surveillance capacity of the Pakistani government and Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI) has exceeded local and international regulation laws for surveillance.
The report released on Tuesday claims that mass network surveillance has been taking place in Pakistan since at least 2005. Pakistani intelligence agencies have allegedly abused their communications surveillance powers by spying on politicians and apex court judges. It further adds that internet censorship and widespread monitoring has been employed to target activists, lawyers and journalists.
The government obtained technology for surveillance from local as well as some foreign companies such as Ericsson, Alcatel, Huawei, SS8 and Utimaco.
Furthermore, the condition of communications surveillance in Pakistan has also been outlined in the report, and the vague laws that supervise it have been compared to international human rights law standards.
The report also claims that Pakistan participated in international intelligence operations by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ). Meanwhile, Pakistan has allegedly been subject to those operations as well.
In 2013, the ISI allegedly called for the commissioning of a mass surveillance system to tap international undersea fibre optic cables, the report said. However, it was not mentioned whether Pakistan went ahead with this new surveillance system in recent times.
Surveillance in Pakistan
More than 70 per cent of the country's population has mobile phone subscriptions, and an estimated 11 per cent of the population uses the internet, the report said. This makes surveillance in Pakistan advanced and comprehensive as there are currently 50 operational internet providers and five mobile phone operators.
Some of the interception of Pakistani phone networks has been unlawful, the report claims. A case at the Supreme Court pertaining to phone tapping showed that the ISI allegedly tapped 6,523 phones in February, 6,819 in March and 6,742 in April this year.
The Pakistani military and intelligence have allegedly received high levels of funding from governments abroad in order to develop an advanced surveillance infrastructure due to the country's role in countering insurgents and Islamist groups. The report claims that agencies within the government went forward with mass storage and capture of communications of ordinary citizens. On the other hand, in the past they had mainly referred to tactical military surveillance tools.
The report also claims that the Peshawar school attack in 2014, which claimed 150 lives, has been cited as a reason to increase surveillance of communications in the country and popular support for it is high.
The report stated that Pakistan Telecommunications Authority (PTA) requires all Internet Service Providers (ISP) to provide the authority with information on their clients. As an anti-terrorism measure, PTA allegedly ordered all phone service providers and ISP to ban virtual private networks (VPN) and encryption. Banning their use has a negative impact on, journalists and sources for instance, to safely communicate information pertaining to public interest, the report elaborates.
The report claims that the PTA's licensing requires all phone service providers to make their networks ‘lawful interception-compliant’. This allows them to have access to their data.
Pakistan's cooperation in international surveillance
The government of Pakistan is known to be the largest recipient of funds from the NSA and it is allegedly involved in surveillance against its own citizens, the report claims. Pakistan is also NSA's third party partner, which means that the relationship between the two is considered to be long-term, involving “higher degrees of trust” and “greater levels of cooperation”.
The report adds that the NSA would “willing to share advanced techniques…in return for that partner’s willingness to do something politically risky”.
Pakistan's relationship with the NSA is valued to the extent that the US agency allegedly maintains a ‘special collection service’ at its embassy and consulates in Pakistan, the report claims.
Pakistani phone service providers such as Telenor, Warid, Ufone, Mobilink and Pakistan Telecommunications Limited (PTCL) have allegedly provided legal interception access and monitoring centres over the years.
Recommendations to defence committee, foreign companies and governments
The report also contains recommendations on how Pakistan may be able to shift from its current surveillance model to one that is not a threat to democracy and complies with human rights laws.
It recommends the senate committee on defence to carry out an investigation into NSA's surveillance in Pakistan and the legality of their actions, as well as the extent of arrangements made between the country's intelligence agencies and the NSA. Furthermore, it recommends that the committee should also conduct an investigation into GCHQ's alleged access to the Pakistan Internet Exchange.
To foreign companies the report recommends periodic reviews of the government's use of technology sold to them and decline further maintenance or updates if ultimately the use is not in accordance to contractual obligations. It further says that usage should be made clear in contractual agreements which include human rights safeguards and safety against unlawful usage.
The report also recommends that foreign governments and export control authorities conduct detailed audits of security cooperation provided by law enforcement, military or intelligence agencies in Pakistan since 2000, in order to deduce if such cooperation led to human rights violations.
Furthermore, it recommends ensuring human rights criteria are added to the export control provisions for surveillance technologies. The report adds that the provisions should also consider national legal frameworks and records of electronic surveillance usage.
The report concludes that laws in Pakistan should be updated in accordance with international legal standards. This includes the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, it adds that the government must also seek reforms from international bodies such as the UN Human Rights Committee in regard to interference with rights through communications surveillance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)