Wednesday, January 2, 2019
Nancy Pelosi, Icon of Female Power, Will Reclaim Role as Speaker and Seal a Place in History
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
There was a brief moment in Nancy Pelosi’s life when she worried she had too much power. She had so many titles in the California Democratic Party, including chairwoman, that she told Lindy Boggs, a Louisiana congresswoman, that she was thinking of giving some up.
That was in 1984, and Ms. Boggs “said, ‘Darlin’, no man would ever think that. Don’t you give anything up,’” Ms. Pelosi said in a recent interview, leaning forward as she mimicked Ms. Boggs’s Southern accent. “And then she said, ‘Know thy power.’”
More than three decades later, Ms. Pelosi is all but assured on Thursday of reclaiming her former title as speaker of the House, the first lawmaker in more than half a century to hold the office twice. With the gavel in hand, she will cement her status as the highest-ranking and most powerful elected woman in American political history.
The story of her rise, from the well-mannered daughter of a Baltimore mayor to a savvy legislator and prolific fund-raiser who is as much feared within her caucus as she is admired, is, in some ways, the story of the women’s movement itself. It is also a comeback story; after losing the speakership eight years ago, she will now usher in a new era of divided government in Washington.
And in the era of #MeToo, Ms. Pelosi, a mother of five and grandmother of nine, will be the public face of the opposition to a president who won the White House after disparaging women, and paying hush money to a Playboy model and a pornographic film actress who said they had extramarital affairs with him.
But Ms. Pelosi, 78, long a target of Republicans who have demonized her as a San Francisco liberal, is also coming to the speakership with self-imposed constraints. To quell an uprising among Democrats who wanted a younger generation of leaders, she has agreed to limit her term to four years. Some say that could weaken her — a notion she dismissed.
“I’m used to, shall we say, enthusiasms from all elements of the party — I can roll with that,” she said.
Republicans do not underestimate her. “She is a skilled adversary and a master at keeping all Democrats in line,” said Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.
Ms. Pelosi knows that this speakership will be defined by how she handles President Trump. The last time she was speaker, from 2007 to 2011, legislative accomplishments made her reputation. She muscled through bills that bailed out Wall Street and helped arrest an economic free-fall, allowed gays to serve in the military, overhauled the nation’s banking laws and expanded access to health care for an estimated 17 million people. Many say passage of the Affordable Care Act is her signature achievement.
But divided government, an unpopular president and wide-ranging, possibly criminal investigations into Mr. Trump, his presidential campaign and his businesses have changed her role drastically.
“This is legacy-building time,” said Jennifer Lawless, an expert on women in politics at the University of Virginia. “If she can be the person who is remembered for holding Trump accountable, or not letting him put forward facts that are not facts, if she can be the one who just calmly sits there and hold his feet to the fire, in a lot of ways, that’s just as important as anything else she does.”
On a recent Saturday morning, Ms. Pelosi ducked into a closet in her office and retrieved a T-shirt that a colleague had given her, bearing the quote that she used to smack down Mr. Trump during a televised Oval Office meeting on his border wall: “Don’t characterize the strength that I bring.”
“You know, it’s really sad. Nothing he said was true — nothing,” Ms. Pelosi said of that December meeting.
Her power stride out of the White House that day, in dark sunglasses and an orange coat, turned Ms. Pelosi into a fashion trendsetter; ever mindful of the messages she sends, she frets that she needs to retire the coat: “If I show up with that coat, doesn’t it look a little like — hey, look at me?”
Ms. Pelosi has long governed with a touch of gender-consciousness. When she became speaker the first time, she surrounded herself with her grandchildren and the children of other lawmakers on the podium inside the House chamber. A woman was in charge.This time Ms. Pelosi seems to be casting off maternal imagery. “I put on a suit of armor, eat nails for breakfast,” CNN quoted her as saying.
One good friend, former Senator Barbara Boxer of California, said Ms. Pelosi seemed “very liberated” after surviving the challenge to her speakership, and coming off the meeting with Mr. Trump. “They tried to kick her down, and I don’t think she ever got down,” Ms. Boxer said.
A generation of young feminists is taking notice.
“She’s unapologetic about her ambition, she’s insulting Trump’s manhood and storming out of the White House in orange coat and sunglasses,” said Amanda Litman, 28, and a founder of Run for Something, which recruits and supports young liberal candidates. “It’s very authentically her in a way that I’m not sure she was able to do in past decades.”
Most accounts of Ms. Pelosi’s rise begin with her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., an old machine politician who doled out favors from their living room in Baltimore’s Little Italy. But her mother, Annunciata, was an equally powerful role model.Ms. Pelosi, left, during a meeting between President John F. Kennedy and her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., the former mayor of Baltimore, in 1961.
Ms. Pelosi, left, during a meeting between President John F. Kennedy and her father, Thomas D’Alesandro Jr., the former mayor of Baltimore, in 1961.CreditWilliam Allen/Associated Press “Big Nancy,” as she was known, was a strategist, an organizer of Democratic women and the keeper of what the family called “the favor file.” From her, Ms. Pelosi learned the power of social networking and the personal approach to give and take in negotiations.
“Nancy knows how to listen; she learned that from her mother,” said former Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, a Baltimore native who was a few years ahead of Ms. Pelosi in their all-girls Catholic high school. Young Nancy D’Alesandro had dreams of becoming a lawyer, but by the time the women’s liberation movement was in full swing, she was married to her husband, Paul, and raising children.
“We missed the burning bra,” said Rita Meyer, a college roommate and close friend. “We missed the marijuana.”
Even when she was pushing strollers, Ms. Pelosi said, she was active in Democratic politics and pushing her own children to get involved. With her husband growing ever more successful in business, they opened their large home on one of San Francisco’s most exclusive streets for Democratic events.A turning point for Ms. Pelosi came in 1976, when she got behind the presidential campaign of Gov. Jerry Brown of California. She persuaded him to compete in the Maryland Democratic primary, drawing on her ties (her brother Tommy had also been Baltimore mayor) to help engineer his victory, a setback for Jimmy Carter.“I had no direct knowledge of anybody or anything in Maryland,” Mr. Brown, wrapping up his second stint as governor, said in an interview. “It was her idea. Just to think of that is a bold move.”
Ms. Pelosi first ran for her San Francisco congressional seat in 1987. Ms. Pelosi first ran for her San Francisco congressional seat in 1987.CreditPaul Sakuma/Associated Press Ms. Pelosi then was chairwoman of the California Democratic Party and helped organize its 1984 convention. Then, in 1987, Sala Burton, the incumbent congresswoman from San Francisco who was dying of cancer, summoned Ms. Pelosi to her bedside and asked her to run to fill her seat.
There were 23 women in the House — 12 Democrats and 11 Republicans — when Ms. Pelosi arrived. Ms. Boxer, who was then serving in the House, recalled an event where a colleague — she could not recall who — introduced his fellow members.
“He goes through everybody, and then he gets to us and he said, ‘And then there’s Nancy and Barbara,’” Ms. Boxer recalled. “She and I never forgot it.”
Ms. Pelosi carved out a niche as an advocate for human rights, particularly in China, and for AIDS patients, a significant part of her San Francisco constituency. She sought, and eventually landed, a seat on the powerful Appropriations Committee and a national security post on the Intelligence Committee.
She was forceful about her ideas, said George Miller, a retired congressman and close friend, adding, “I don’t know that leadership was all that excited” to hear them. At a Democratic retreat after the party lost the majority in 1994, Ms. Pelosi planned a presentation on how Democrats in California picked up seats. Almost nobody came.
Ms. Pelosi, right, during a House Appropriations Committee meeting in 1995.
Ms. Pelosi, right, during a House Appropriations Committee meeting in 1995.CreditJoe Marquette/Associated Press “She said, ‘These boys just don’t know how to win,’” Mr. Miller remembered.
In 2001, Ms. Pelosi was elected Democratic whip, beating her longtime rival, Representative Steny D. Hoyer of Maryland, to become the first woman to hold that post. The next year she was elected Democratic leader, the first woman to lead a party in Congress. At her swearing in, she distributed buttons that read, “We’ve waited more than 200 years for this day.”Ms. Pelosi was swept into power as speaker in 2007 on a wave of revulsion over President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. But she proved that she could work with Mr. Bush when needed; as the country faced economic collapse in 2008, she delivered the necessary votes to pass a Wall Street bailout plan — after Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., got down on one knee and begged. (“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” she wryly said to him.)She was relentless in gathering votes, even when it put her members in jeopardy. If her own pressure campaigns and horse-trading did not work, she would call in outsiders. Henry A. Waxman, a former California congressman, recalled Ms. Pelosi’s effort to win over a nervous young member, Zack Space, on a climate change bill that had almost no prospects in the Senate. Mr. Space had Greek roots.“She had a woman, a leader in the national Greek community, talk to him,” Mr. Waxman said, “and then this woman came and sat in the front row while the vote was taking place.” Mr. Space got the message, voted yes, then lost his re-election.
But she is most remembered for passage of the Affordable Care Act, without a single Republican vote. Norman J. Ornstein, who has studied Congress for decades at the American Enterprise Institute, called it “as masterful a piece of legislating as I have ever seen.” It may have been matched only by her remarkable talent for raising money. Ms. Pelosi has raised $728.3 million for Democrats since 2002, her office said.
Now, after an election that ushered a record number of women into Congress, Ms. Pelosi is determined not to let another history-making moment pass. She is marking her return to power with a string of events, including a women’s tea, a dinner at the Italian Embassy featuring the singer Tony Bennett and a town hall-style meeting, televised on MSNBC.
Asked if she considers herself Mr. Trump’s equal, she replied, “The Constitution does.” She frowned at the memory of a dinner at the White House last year when men talked over her, and she asked, “Doesn’t anybody listen to a woman in the room?”
“Hopefully that will become a thing of the past now that we have so many women in Congress — and with the gavel,” Ms. Pelosi said. “The gavel makes a big difference.”
74% of blasphemy cases in #Pakistan originate from #Punjab, reveals report
As many as 74% of all cases related to blasphemy in Pakistan are reported from Punjab, according to a report by the Center for Social Justice to the Fides News Agency.
The report by the non-government organisation (NGO) reveals that there has been an “extraordinary increase” in the number of blasphemy cases in Punjab over the last three decades, especially in the district of Lahore.
Stating that 74% of all cases are recorded in Punjab, the Center noted that in Lahore, 173 such cases have been verified. According to the non-profit group, more than 11% of all blasphemy cases in the country originate from Lahore. Out of the 75 people killed in relation to alleged blasphemy until January 2018, 14 murders took place in Lahore, including the murder of retired judge Arif Iqbal Bhatti, the NGO has stated.
In relation to blasphemy cases, at least four murders took place during police custody or in prison, the report added.
“The stories of men and women of different faiths present shocking accounts of brutality and enormous suffering of helpless victims,” the Director of the NGO noted in his assessment.
“Hundreds of people have been tortured, jailed, and imprisoned. Property worth billions of rupees was destroyed by an angry mob on the Lahore Mall Road in 2006 and at Joseph Colony in 2013,” the Center reported, but “the economic loss is only the tip of the iceberg compared to the social, political and cultural consequences in Lahore”.
Religious hostility, vulnerability of minorities and erosion of cultural ethos, according to the report, are in stark contrast to the known cultural openness, hospitality and intellectual wealth of the metropolis.
“Recent studies by Amnesty International have documented that the blasphemy law is widely abused to perpetrate hate crimes based on religion, regulate personal vendettas and perpetrate economic injustice,” says the Center for Social Justice.
Given that the Lahore district is home to many groups promoting a narrative based on religious intolerance, it is not difficult to understand why Lahore has become an epicenter of the abuse of blasphemy laws, the NGO has highlighted.
The Center recalls the recent case of Patras Masih, accused of blasphemy in the suburb of Shahdara, Lahore, is the story that involved his cousin Sajid Masih, and both were subjected to torture and attempted sexual abuse.
The report has concluded that the circumstances involving these cases deserve a deeper thought from a legal standpoint.
“Members of civil society have not given up despite the difficulties. Lawyers have fought for years in a hostile social environment,” says the non-profit group.
#Me Too: a failed movement in Pakistan?
%20(1).jpg?itok=yN5aZ9dt)
SHABANA MAHFOOZ
Bringing justice to victims of harassment in Pakistan seems further than ever. What's holding up accountability?
It’s been a year since #MeToo. The fact that it progressed beyond accusations and has resulted in arrests, resignations and serious questions over unacceptable behaviour, both past and present, speaks of the volume of change #MeToo has brought and the potential it has for more.
Change in Pakistan, however, is still evolving.
Here, #MeToo seemed to be an answer for women suffering in a taboo-stricken and tradition-bound society. The movement began when famous actress Meesha Shafi accused her fellow colleague Ali Zafar of sexual harassment on multiple occasions. Both had their own supporters who stood by them.
As a result, there are ongoing proceedings in court with Zafar and Shafi still performing, with no clear outcome visible.
In 2018, after a two-year investigation, Professor Sahar Ansari, a famed literary figure in Pakistan, was found guilty of harassing his female colleagues at a top university.
But far from being shunned by society, Ansari continues to garner accolades and reverence, even attending events at the university from which he was barred following harassment allegations.
Female journalist Urooj Zia, in a series of tweets, accused Faisal Edhi, son and heir to Pakistan’s largest philanthropist, of harassment during her interactions with him regarding a welfare project.
The allegations, hardly seconded, received deafening silence and no investigation. Comedian Junaid Akram, who unlike Edhi, faces multiple anonymous accusations, continues to provide comic relief to his undeterred audience.
In local newspaper The Dawn, Xari Jalil, reported on Tanzeela Mazhar, an anchorwoman for state-owned Pakistan Television, writing: “[She] stayed on in PTV for about a decade trying to fight against the sexual harassment she had faced but eventually resigned in 2017. The man [against whom Mazhar had filed a harassment complaint] was still there though, with all his power.”
Jalil cited various incidents in which female journalists –in both print and electronic media– have faced harassment from male colleagues, both young and old, in the form of verbal comments, suggestive messages or even threats.
Speaking out poses a major challenge, simply due to lack of evidence. In many cases, instead of the work organisation involved beginning an investigation, many question the authenticity of an allegation.
Women, especially those belonging to the lower middle class, who work to support their families or their own education expenses, prefer to stay quiet for as long as they can bear it, in order to keep their jobs.
Whether it’s #MeToo or the law -the 'Protection Against Harassment of Women in the Workplace Act' was the first of its kind in South Asia- female employees do not feel confident that their pleas or complaints will be taken seriously and try to maintain their dignity by avoiding troublesome situations or people.
Women who share stories of harassment that happened years ago, are not only snubbed with the question ‘why now?’, but trolled, slut-shamed and accused of attempting to make personal gains, to name a few.
The women still find it difficult to explain that these cases are genuine, and again, stay quiet fearing backlash, loss of their jobs, family upheaval or even social boycott.
The dismal response in Pakistan to even high profile allegations points to an entrenched misogyny as well as the fear of isolation among women, even when they are wronged.
As evident in the cases of Ali Zafar, Professor Ansari, Faisal Edhi and Junaid Akram, in countries like Pakistan, the accused roam free with bared chests and heads held high with impunity due in their knowledge that no serious probe will look into their behaviour.
A lack of camaraderie among women in Pakistan has also put men at an advantage. Women generally either fear lending support to others or deem it wise to stay quiet in order to keep their own jobs or relations intact. Those who suffer believe that it is something shameful and should be hidden from society.
However, a growing number of working women are seeing harassment as a punishable crime, thanks to the awareness brought about by #MeToo. Courage-building may be slow, but it’s evolving and gaining momentum. Women are lending each other support, and newly-established large-scale organisations are trying to take up sexual harassment cases in accordance with the relevant laws.
It is when allegations are not taken seriously, such as the case of Edhi, or when professional excellence is given priority, in the case of Ansari, that the movement suffers a blow.
Moreover, in small-scale companies, where there may be no checks and balances by any authority, men have historically been able to take advantage of the subordination of women, lurking behind ever-newer victims, confident they will never be threatened.
Society in Pakistan, although very receptive to technological and occupational advancements, is still bound by tradition and taboos.
Any change which attempts to shake up the patriarchal structure is almost immediately shunned as a Western or even un-Islamic agenda.
Change however, eventually does come, particularly when it is a matter of prestige and honour.
In today’s awakening of Pakistani women, a change, even if it is late, is bound to come.
IP gas project in limbo: #Pakistan wants #Iran to interpret sanctions
Khalid Hasnain
Pakistan has urged Iran to explain in-writing its interpretation of sanctions that resulted in a massive delay in completion of the mega Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project.
“The government has taken up the issue in a recent meeting with the Iranian petroleum ministry’s advisers held in Islamabad. During the meeting, we have asked them to give us a detailed clarity over their interpretation of the sanctions under which they claim that the restrictions don’t affect completion of the project,” Inter State Gas System (ISGS) Managing Director Mr Mobeen Saulat told Dawn on Tuesday.
For the last four years, the IP gas project, under which Pakistan was reportedly supposed to receive as many as 750MMCF of natural gas from Iran daily through an agreement, is off the table due to international sanctions - both multilateral imposed by the United Nations and the unilateral clamped by the United States, Canada, United Kingdom and the European Union.
The unilateral sanctions imposed by the US were the most severe amongst all international restrictions — Iran Sanctions Act 1996, Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act 2010 and National Defence Authorisation Act-2012. The construction work on the Pakistani section of the pipeline had been inaugurated in March, 2013 and it was planned to be completed within 22 months.
“As far as we understand, we cannot move ahead on the project due to sanctions imposed on Iran. But they (Iranian petroleum ministry advisers) have their own interpretation of the sanctions. So we have engaged them in the process to understand the [sanctions] interpretation of each other,” the ISGS official said.
“That is why we have told them that we need a detailed clarity in writing from them in this regard, as we cannot go ahead with the project with their verbal interpretation. They have agreed to provide us a detailed reply,” the MD added.The official said as soon as the government received explanation from Iran [over sanctions’ regime] it would study and evaluate the same in depth. And if it finds the same justified, it may be in a position to resolve the issue.
“Since it is a very important project in view of 750MMCFD natural gas provision to Pakistan, the government wants to resolve this issue by understanding interpretation of the sanctions,” he said.
It will take a lot of time for Pakistan to mend its ways, says Modi
SNEHESH ALEX PHILIP
Prime Minister asserts that India has always been in favour of dialogue, but it cannot be heard amid noise of bombs and guns.
New Delhi: It will be a huge mistake to believe that Pakistan will mend its ways soon, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Tuesday, even as he asserted that his government was open to dialogue with Islamabad but that it cannot be done “amid the noise of bombs and guns”.
“Whatever strategy is to be adopted, how to do, is ongoing at appropriate levels, has been happening (sic). 1965 war, war during partition… Ek ladai se Pakistan sudhar jayega, yeh sochne mein bahut badi galti hogi. Pakistan ko sudharne mein abhi aur samay lagega (It will be a huge mistake to believe that Pakistan will mend its ways after a war. It will take a lot of time for it to do that),” Modi said in an interview to ANI.
The Prime Minister was replying to a question on why cross-border terrorism has not stopped since the surgical strikes, carried out by the Indian Army in September 2016 across the Line of Control.
‘Talks, terror don’t go together’
Asked if India was open to dialogue as sought by Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, Modi said that India had never opposed dialogue, either under the UPA or the NDA government.
“It is our consistent policy that we are in favour of dialogue. It is the consistent policy of the country, not Modi government or Manmohan Singh government. It is our consistent policy that we are ready to talk on all issues, not this issue or that issue,” he said.
Asked if he would go to Pakistan if invited by Khan, Modi replied, “We will cross the bridge when we reach there.”
The Prime Minister added that India has always argued that talks and terror cannot go together.
“We only say one thing, that amid the noise of bombs and guns, the dialogue cannot be heard. Cross-border terrorism must end. And we are persistently maintaining pressure on this,” the PM said.
Modi also criticised the politicisation of the strikes, something which his own government has been accused of by opposition parties.
“I personally believe that surgical strikes should not be politicised… On the surgical strikes, there are some political parties who began to speak the same language as Pakistan. These parties were demeaning our armed forces. They politicised such an issue,” he said.
On China and Doklam
During the interview, Modi also touched upon the issue of China and said India should be judged by what it did in Doklam.
Troops of India and China were locked in a 73-day-long standoff in Doklam from 16 June in 2017 after the Indian side stopped the building of a road in the disputed tri-junction by the Chinese Army.
The faceoff ended on 28 August after hectic diplomatic and back-channel talks. By that time, both India and China had mobilised and deployed large number of men and artillery on their respective sides.
Modi asserted that nothing has happened with India since then that can be considered as deceit.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Britain continued seeking arms deals with Saudi Arabia in weeks after Khashoggi was murdered
By Richard Hall
It is not the first time UK trade policy has been criticized for putting deals ahead of human rights .
The British government pursued arms deals with Saudi Arabia in the weeks after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, even as it publicly condemned the murder.
Jamal Khashoggi was killed by Saudi officials inside the country’s consulate in Istanbul on 2 October, prompting global condemnation and calls for a re-evaluation of ties with the Kingdom.
As the UK government called for answers over the dissident’s death, British trade officials responsible for arms sales continued to hold high-level meetings with their Saudi counterparts.
A delegation from the Defence and Security Organisation – an office within the Department for International Trade that promotes arms exports for UK companies – travelled to Riyadh on 14 and 22 October, according to a Freedom of Information request obtained by the Mirror newspaper.
The latter of those meetings came on the same day as the foreign secretary, Jeremy Hunt, condemned Khashoggi’s killing “in the strongest possible terms” in a speech to parliament.
“Whilst we will be thoughtful and considered in our response, I have also been clear that if the appalling stories we are reading turn out to be true, they are fundamentally incompatible with our values and we will act accordingly,” Mr Hunt said on 22 October.The foreign secretary made a point of announcing the cancellation of a planned visit to Riyadh by the trade secretary, Liam Fox. However, he did not disclose that meetings over arms sales were still taking place.
Even before the murder of Khashoggi, the UK government had been under pressure to halt arms exports to Saudi Arabia over alleged war crimes and rising civilian casualties in Yemen.
Riyadh intervened in Yemen’s civil war in 2015 to reinstate the internationally recognised government of Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, who was ousted by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.The fighting has killed at least 10,000 civilians – most of whom were victims of airstrikes carried out by the Saudi-led coalition – and left nearly 16 million people on the brink of famine.The coalition has admitted causing civilian casualties, but attributes the deaths to “unintentional mistakes”, and says it is committed to upholding international law. The Houthis have also targeted civilians throughout the conflict, according to the UN.
Since the war began, the UK has licensed £4.7bn worth of weapons to Saudi forces, making it by far the largest buyer of UK arms. Khashoggi’s killing brought new pressure on the British government to reassess its ties to Saudi Arabia, after Germany and Norway halted all future arms sales to Riyadh. “Jeremy Hunt was quick to join the condemnations of the killing, but he has done nothing to stop the arms sales. How many more atrocities and abuses would it take for him to act?” said Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade.
“The regime has used these weapons to devastating effect in Yemen, where the Saudi-led coalition have inflicted the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. The murder of Jamal Khashoggi was yet another appalling crime by the Saudi authorities.”
Even as more evidence has emerged pointing to the culpability of the Saudi government in Khashoggi’s killing, the UK appears to have made no substantial change to its relationship.
Prime minister Theresa May held face-to-face talks last month with Mohammed Bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader whose close aides carried out the killing and subsequently attempted to cover it up.Ms May said she stressed “the importance of a full, transparent and credible investigation into the terrible murder” during her meeting with the crown prince at the G20 summit in Argentina. But Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn accused her of not following through with action.“Rather than be robust, as she promised, we learned the prime minister told the dictator ‘please don’t use the weapons we are selling you in the war you’re waging’ and asked him nicely to investigate the murder he allegedly ordered,” Mr Corbyn said last month.“Leaders should not just offer warm words against human rights atrocities but back up their words with action,” he added.
Mr Hunt has defended arms sales to Saudi Arabia, citing Britain’s “important strategic partnership” with the country “which has saved lives on the streets of Britain”.
The Saudi meetings are not the first time that Britain has been criticised for putting trade before human rights concerns. British academic Matthew Hedges was detained for months in the United Arab Emirates and accused of spying on behalf of the UK.
During the five months Mr Hedges was held in solitary confinement, Mr Hunt called the arrest “appalling” and criticised the UAE publicly. Behind the scenes, however, high-level trade meetings continued apace. Liam Fox, the trade secretary, Baroness Rona Fairhead, the minister of state for trade and export promotion, and Alistair Burt, the minister for the Middle East, all met with UAE officials to drum up trade between the two countries.
Polly Truscott, Amnesty International UK’s foreign affairs expert, told The Independent in November that the UK has “long given the impression that security and trade interests trump human rights concerns in the UAE”.“With Matthew Hedges’ case, it almost seems to have come as a surprise to the government that the UAE actually locks up people after deeply unfair trials,” she said.The Freedom of Information request by the Mirror found that the 14 October talks focused on “Riyadh Operations Centre requirements”, which is likely a reference to the operations centre where Saudi strikes against Yemen are coordinated. Commenting on the meetings with Saudi officials, a government spokesperson told The Independent: “The government takes its export responsibilities very seriously, operating one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. Risks around human rights abuses are a key part of any licensing assessment.
“Visits by officials from the UK will continue to play a role in maintaining our relationship with Saudi Arabia including in how we work together to tackle regional threats, and support mutual national security and prosperity interests.”
Saudi Arabia is reportedly outsourcing its war in #Yemen to child soldiers
By
Some Sudanese families are reportedly so desperate for money, they bribe militia officers to take their children to war zones.
Saudi Arabia is reportedly outsourcing its war in Yemen to be fought by child soldiers from Sudan.
According to a bombshell investigation from the New York Times’ David Kirkpatrick, the Saudis are dipping into their deep pockets to bankroll a militia of Sudanese fighters — many of them children — to fight on the frontlines against Yemen’s Houthi rebels, insulating the Kingdom from casualties and the political blowback they could cause. Many of the Sudanese fighters come from the region of Darfur, where violent conflict consumed the countryside for more than a decade. Across the Red Sea in Yemen, they face a steep risk of death again:
The conditions inside Yemen were already bleak. The war there, led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has by some estimates claimed the lives of nearly 50,000 people. The conflict has spurred a massive humanitarian crisis, leaving more than 12 million people on the brink of starvation and in desperate need of assistance.
Kirkpatrick reports that some families in Sudan are so desperate for money from Riyadh, they bribe militia officers to allow their children to fight, some as young as 14 years old. While estimates vary and Saudi Arabia denied employing child soldiers, the Times reports that minors make up anywhere from 20 percent to 40 percent of the Sudanese fighters in a unit:
Congress has made a half-hearted attempt to curtail the violence in Yemen
The US government as a whole — from Congress to President Donald Trump — so far has done little to meaningfully put an end to hostilities in Yemen. The US currently sells weapons to the Saudi-backed coalition in Yemen, and provides them with some intelligence support. And while the US indicated in November it will stop refueling the coalition’s aircraft used in the conflict, which potentially limits the Saudi’s ability to carry out bombing campaigns, calls are growing for Congress to do more.
When Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in October, momentum built — briefly. Lawmakers made preliminary moves to cut America’s ties to the three-year conflict, with the Senate passing a historic resolution to cut military aid to Saudi Arabia related to the war in Yemen.
But as Vox’s Tara Golshan explains, the resolution was thrown back to square one after House Democrats helped Republicans stall any action on Yemen until at least the new Congress comes into session.
Meanwhile, the White House has pushed back against efforts to end aid, and done little more than turn a blind eye to Riyadh’s range of troubling actions — including the crown prince’s likely involvement in Khashoggi’s murder.
But as new harrowing stories come to light detailing the atrocities being carried out in Yemen, the conflict — and the US’s complicity in the violence — may become harder to ignore.
Protecting the #Kalash: The #EU Must Hold #Pakistan Accountable
Written by on 3 December 2018
As a prominent trade partner of Pakistan, the EU has a duty to hold Pakistan accountable for its apathy regarding the indigenous Kalash community, argues Nicolas Bay.
In the Chitral District of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, live the little-known indigenous people of the Kalash community.
Now totalling only 3000 people, they have lived and preserved their way of life for centuries. They speak the Kalash language and considered to be Pakistan's smallest ethnoreligious community. The protection of this minority, including its culture, religion and language, is essential.
However, like many other minority communities in Pakistan, the Kalash are increasingly facing threats by Pakistani and Taliban authorities to convert to Islam and renounce their traditional way of life.
Kalash youth have recently been targeted and are now converting to Islam due to outside pressure. Some convert of their own free will, but local journalists claim that some Kalash youth convert because of the economic incentives offered, as the community struggles financially.
"[Pakistan] insists that it values the preservation of the Kalash culture. But these claims are simply a backdrop to increased conversion, deterioration of the Kalash community's economic conditions, a lack of cultural education and the loss of ancestral lands"
Children are required to take courses on Islam but are not permitted to receive education on their own religion or traditions.
This educational requirement is a violation of Article 30 of the UN Convention on Rights of the Child (UNCRC), a Convention ratified by Pakistan, which ensures "the right to learn about and practice one's own culture, language and religion."
For women, the lure of conversion is more pronounced. Despite Kalash women having more freedom in marriage and divorce within their culture, the declining socio-economic conditions of the community is prompting many young women to marry Muslim men and convert to Islam.
Although some convert by choice, reports by the National Commission on Human Rights ascribe much of the reduction in Kalash population to forced conversion.
The local Pakistani government claims to seek protection for the Kalash, insisting that it values the preservation of the Kalash culture.
But these claims are simply a backdrop to increased conversion, deterioration of the Kalash community's economic conditions, a lack of cultural education and the loss of ancestral lands. In 2017, the Kalash religion was not included in the national census and the community is not included on birth certificates or passport forms, unlike other minority groups in Pakistan.
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been a beneficiary of the European Union's GSP+ scheme since 2014, a program designed to assist developing nations by providing them with preferential trade subsidies. In exchange for these trade preferences, participating countries must "implement 27 core international conventions on human and labour rights, environmental protection and good governance" (European Commission).
As part of this agreement, Pakistan can be held accountable for any violation of human rights including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
Without proper recognition of the Kalash, it will be impossible for the community to obtain its necessary rights. Pakistan must recognise the community and the culture on official forms, return their ancestral lands (Silver Oak Forests) for the community's economic use, and provide protection from forced conversion and attacks from the Taliban.
Europe must ensure these safeguards for the Kalasha people as part of the GSP+ agreement and insist that the Government of Pakistan preserves this unique and historical culture.
As a prominent trade partner of Pakistan, the EU has a duty to hold Pakistan accountable for its apathy regarding the Kalash community.
Pakistan Army’s Day of Infamy, December 16, 1971: Time To Ponder – OpEd
By Dr Subhash Kapila
Pakistan’s annals of history in the decades to come will carry rankling of December 16 1971 as “Pakistan Army’s Day of Infamy” when General Niazi of the Pakistan Army and 93,000 of his soldiers surrendered at Dhaka to the Indian Army which had to intervene to put an end to the genocidal slaughter of millions of East Pakistani Bengali Muslims and flow of millions of Muslim Bengalis to India for refuge.
The Pakistan Army undoubtedly contributed directly to the breakup of Pakistan on December 16 1971. It was traumatic for the remaining people of West Pakistan to witness the breakup of their State as they had been wrongly led to believe that the Pakistan Army of ‘Ghazis’ (Holy Warriors) was invincible and was emerging victorious in East Pakistan against the Indian Army.
Excerpted from the writings of Shuja Nawaz whose celebrated book “Crossed Swords” on the Pakistan Army has stood well received, and besides being a brother of one of Pakistan Army’s Chief wrote that it was a corrupt military’s “wishful thinking”, a military which had become used to the “culture of entitlement”, “clouded by blissful ignorance and liberal doses of alcohol” which led to Pakistan’s debacle. A severe indictment of the Pakistan Army by one of its own.
The United States was in a position to restrain the Pakistani Generals from their genocidal instincts with its tremendous leverage that it had over them but did not move. US President Nixon and his Secretary of State Kissinger were heavily biased against India. In this connection, a Western observer Christopher Hitchin has commented that “Bangladesh….. In 1971….. Kissinger overrode all advice in order to support the Pakistani Generals in both the civilians’ massacre policy in East Bengal and their armed attack on India from West Pakistan. This led to a moral and political catastrophe, the effects of which are still severely felt.”
The Pakistan Army may have succeeded in suppressing the truth that its surrender at Dhaka was for reasons beyond its control. But what the Pakistan Army could not conceal on December 16 1971 was the breakup of Pakistan irretrievably. People of Pakistan on that day were horrified with the breakup of Pakistan and violent disturbances could not breakout against the Pakistan Army because of the iron grip that the Army exercised.
Pakistan Army wrongly maintains that it was India which engineered the break-up of Pakistan in 1971? The stark reality that Pakistan Army and all Pakistanis must face is that it was the entire Pakistani population of East Pakistan comprising Bengali Muslims who rose in revolt to liberate themselves from the colonial rule of Pakistan Army. If India was interested in break-up of Pakistan it could have done that earlier. East Pakistan from simmering in the period 1947-1970 went into a pressure cooker- burst in 1971 precisely arising from the large scale pogroms inflicted by Pakistan Army in 1970-71.
The younger generations of Pakistani born after 1971 may not even be conscious of the contributory role of the Pakistan Army in the breakup of Pakistan as Pakistani history stands tutored for decades by the Pakistan Army. It is this younger generation of Pakistanis whose future is at stake by the ‘Garrison State’ mindsets propagated by the Pakistan Army for retaining its political hold on Pakistan, who must research and study the reasons for the ‘Day of Infamy’.
Pakistan’s younger generation stands challenged in 2018 a as to what form and contours Pakistan must adopt to emerge as a modern, moderate Islamic democracy to befit it to emerge as a responsible stakeholder in the region. Here I would like to borrow the observations of a Pakistani noted Columnist Ghazi Salahauddin in one of his topical pieces on the subject. He observes that “In any case, Pakistan has traversed almost an era in our history since 1971, and one can easily demonstrate that we have not yet understood what that time meant and whether we have to re-invent or re-imagine the country that we have now”.
Quoting him in the same context but in a much earlier Column, he so accurately observed that “Besides, because of our pathological disdain for history, we do not much care about the choices that we have made as a nation”. Who in Pakistan have fostered this disdain for Pakistan’s history? Obviously, the Pakistan Army because if the younger generation of right-thinking Pakistanis delve into history, the narrative of Pakistan Army for its hold on Pakistan would undeniably be questioned and go horribly wrong.
Historically, December 16 1971 was not only a “Day of Infamy” for Pakistan Army but also a “Day of Infamy for Pakistan” as on that day Jinnah’s concept of a separate Homeland for Indian Muslims stood devastatingly negated and buried as debris in the annals of Pakistan’s history. Reflecting this, the DAWN Editorial on December 18 2018 stated “On this day the dream of Pakistan was violently broken’”
Borrowing Jinnah’s concept, the East Pakistani Muslims liberated themselves from Pakistan’s and Pakistan Army’s colonial yoke of decades of political and economic neglect and established the independent Nation State of Bangladesh—a term for ‘Bengali Muslims Homeland’. Bangladesh’ ‘War of Liberation’ witnessed the loss of millions of lives due to genocidal slaughter by the Pakistan Army, loot and rapine. The Pakistan Army extracted a heavy price from Bangladesh ‘War of Liberation’ by wiping out an entire generation of Bengali intellectuals, both old and young, with targeted killings.
The Hitlerian instincts of the Pakistan Army manifested in 1971 in East Pakistan became etched in global memory. The Pakistan Army’s propensity for slaughtering Pakistani citizens did not cease in 1971 and in recent times the same continues in Baluchistan, in Frontier Tracts of Pakistan’s Western Frontiers and Gilgit-Baltistan. The Pakistan Army displayed the same instincts abroad when Pakistan’s later military dictator on General Zia on an assignment in Jordan with a Pakistan Army Brigade massacred Palestinians in refugee camps.
The ‘Land of the Pure’ —a theological State founded with Islam as the State religion could not hold together its Bengali Muslim citizens and emerged in 1971 as the ‘Land of the Impure’ where millions of East Pakistani Bengali Muslims were butchered by the Pakistan Army forgetting that the Bengali Muslims were their Islamic co-religionists. What an irony for Bengali Muslims as it was they who initially founded the Muslim League at Dacca in 1906—the political party that Jinnah adopted to pursue his Pakistan Dream.
The Partition of Pakistan in 1971 brought about by Pakistan Army’s arrogant high-handedness against their fellow Pakistanis—the Muslim Bengalis of East Pakistan should have forced Pakistan, the Pakistan Army and all right thinking Pakistanis to indulge in some scorching soul-searching. But it did not happen for the simple reason that the Pakistan Army has continued to be in a state of denial on its atrocities in East Pakistan.
The Pakistan Army suppressed the Hamidoor Rahman Commission Report headed by then Pakistan’s Supreme Court Chief Justice to investigate the events leading up to the dismemberment of Pakistan. The Report stands buried in Pakistan Army GHQ in Rawalpindi as severe strictures stood passed on Pakistan Army’s military hierarchy.
Pakistan’s reputed columnist Ayaz Amir, himself a former Pakistan Army officer asserted righty in the DAWN OF December 16 2005 that “If we had drawn any lessons from the events of 1971 we would have foresworn military rule for ever, indeed consigned the very memory of coups d’état to a never-to-be opened hall of national shame.”
“Pakistan is Pakistan Army and Pakistan Army is Pakistan”. This self-delusionary charade continues because the Pakistan Army has hidden the truth from Pakistan citizenry of its crimes against humanity on a genocidal scale. Pakistan Army has gotten away with this charade by propaganda to Pakistan citizenry that it was an Indian conspiracy to dismember Pakistan with the help of treacherous Bengali Muslims so perceived.
Has the Pakistan Army learnt any lessons from the ignominy it heaped on Pakistan as a Nation-state? Does not seem so as even in 2018 the Pakistan Army refuses to give up its grip on the Praetorian State that it has created and impedes Pakistan’s notional civilian governments to exercise full control on the foreign and security policies of Pakistan as per the norms of civil-military relations templates in normal modern democracies
Pakistan indeed also had its own ‘Two Nations’—the predominant West Punjabis and the numerical more larger Bengali Muslim population of East Pakistan which after liberation on December 16 1971 emerged as a separate nation of Bangladesh.
The Pakistan Army under the guise of Martial Law unleashed a merciless ethnic genocide on the Bengali Muslims of East Pakistan beside widespread rape and plunder. This prompted an exodus of millions of Pakistani Bengali Muslims into India. Thus was prompted India’s military intervention against the Pakistan Army ethnic genocide and the support to the Mukti Bahini or ‘Liberation Army’ of the Bengal Muslims. It finally culminated in the fall of Dhaka on December 16 1971 and the liberation of Bangladesh as the Islamic Republic of Bangladesh.
Pakistan Army’s rapacious record along with ethnic genocide of their co-religionists Bengali Muslims stands widely recorded in Indian and Western military literature but hardly discussed within Pakistan for obvious reasons. Pakistan Army and its then many Western supporters had stoutly maintained that the Pakistan Army was the ‘Glue that held Pakistan together’. If that had been the truth then how come Pakistan Army glue could not hold East Pakistan together as an integral part of Pakistan in the form that it had emerged in 1947?
The Pakistan Army was defeated on the vicious battlefields of East Pakistan as evident from the fact that 93,000 Pakistan Army soldiers had to surrender to the Indian Army. These Pakistani Army Prisoners of War continued in Indian captivity for nearly a year until Bhutto who had emerged to head Pakistan after Pakistan’s military defeat begged Indian PM Indira Gandhi at the Simla Conference for their release.
Pakistan in the wake of December 16 1971 ‘Day of Infamy ‘went through a traumatic military and political suffering. Its proud Pakistan Army touted as the most powerful Army in the Muslim World stood vanquished on the battlefield.
Obviously, because Pakistan’s failure to hold East Pakistan and its more populous Bengali Muslim East Pakistan was not a ‘political failure ‘but an outright ‘failure of the Pakistan Army’. India was held up from repeating its success in East Pakistan on West Pakistan under pressure from the United States and Britain. Both of them feared that this would lead to a complete dismemberment of Pakistan as a Nation State which at that time was not desirable in their strategic calculus.
As the year 2018 passes into history and Pakistan is beset with far more political and military turbulence arising from Pakistan Army’s acts of commission and omission generated by Pakistan Army’s unquestioned hold over Pakistan’s political dynamics, it is high time for all right thinking patriotic Pakistanis to force a ‘National Debate’ to ponder how the Pakistan Army could go wayward in hurtling Pakistan into a second Partition and pre-empt any further disintegration within Pakistan.
Contextually, in 2018, Pakistan has yet another Prime Minister who is in outright collusion with the Pakistan Army and as its creation furthering Pakistan Army’s corporate political narrative. Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan was instrumental in bringing down from office the former PM Nawaz Sharif without completing his five year term. Is it not paradoxical that PM Imran Khan’s every political statement is followed by the qualifying additive that ‘This has the support of the Pakistan Army?
Concluding, one has to emphatically observe that even after 47 years after Pakistan’s ‘Day of Infamy’ on December 16 1971 Pakistan as a Nation State has not learnt the lessons that it should have. The Pakistan Army which brought about the dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 continues unchallenged in not submitting to civilian political control. On the contrary it continues to foist its own choice of Prime Ministers on Pakistan and when a Prime Minister attempted to bring it under civilian political control, the Pakistan Amy stage managed in what I then for the first time termed as a “Judicial Coup”. Pakistan must reinvent itself and that onerous task has to be shouldered by Pakistan’s young generation emerging from the masses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)