World’s highest bridge opens to traffic in China

The world’s highest bridge has opened to traffic in China, connecting two provinces in the mountainous southwest and reducing travel times by as much as three-quarters, local authorities said Friday.

The Beipanjiang Bridge soars 565 metres (1,854 feet) above a river and connects the two mountainous provinces of Yunnan and Guizhou, the Guizhou provincial transport department said in a statement on its official website.

The bridge cut travel times between Xuanwei in Yunnan to Shuicheng in Guizhou from more than four hours to around one, a truck driver surnamed Duan was quoted by the official news agency Xinhua as saying after the bridge opened Thursday.

It was “very convenient for people who want to travel between these two places”, he added.

The 1,341-metre span cost over 1 billion yuan ($144 million) to build, according to local newspaper Guizhou Daily.

It overtook the Si Du River Bridge in the central province of Hubei to become the world’s highest bridge, a separate statement by the provincial transport department said earlier.

Several of the world’s highest bridges are in China, although the world’s tallest bridge — measured in terms of the height of its own structure, rather than the distance to the ground — remains France’s Millau viaduct at 343 metres.

After attack, Berlin’s refugee community braces for backlash

BERLIN — After police killed the asylum seeker suspected of the deadly truck rampage here, other migrants expressed relief that a terrorist was caught but also anxiety about a renewed backlash against them.

“We come from another country, so it’s difficult for us to see this happen,” Omrr Mohebzada, 26, who is from Herat, Afghanistan, said Friday after Tunisian national Anis Amri died in a shootout with police in Milan, Italy.
Mohebzada fled Afghanistan 18 months ago because his father’s logistics company works with the U.S. military and radical Taliban insurgents trying to regain control of the U.S.-backed government threatened to kill him. “Germany has been very good to us. We feel bad when we hear this news. We don’t want Germans to turn against us.”

It’s a reasonable concern in a country that accepted approximately 1 million migrants from war-torn countries in the Middle East and elsewhere during the past two years under Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door policy. But her welcoming stance has come under increasing assault from an anti-immigration party that has that has shown surprising strength in local elections this year.

A backlash against the flood of refugees flared a year ago, when gangs of recent arrivals were accused of mass sexual assaults of women during New Year’s eve celebrations in Cologne and other cities. Since then, there have been other attacks by migrants that have put Merkel under pressure to reverse her refugee policy.

Amri, 24, the suspect in Monday’s truck attack at Berlin’s Breitscheidplatz, which killed 12 and injured 48, spent time in jail for theft and vandalism. His German asylum application was rejected because authorities feared he had become radicalized. He avoided deportation because of a bureaucratic mix-up, and he had been under surveillance as a potential terrorist but had not done anything to justify his arrest earlier.

The truck attack occurred five months after a Syrian man killed a woman and wounded five more people with a machette. Also in July, a teenage refugee from Afghanistan injured five tourists from Hong Kong with an ax and knife on a train. In a separate incident, another Syrian blew himself up outside a bar, wounding 15 people.

Because the Berlin attack was the most deadly terror incident, it has heightened concerns among asylum seekers that they will be targeted for even more retribution than already has occurred. There have been more than 1,000 incidents, dozens of them violent, targeting refugee shelters and asylum seekers in Germany since the start of this year, according to the interior ministry.

Odeh Diab, 20, a Syrian refugee, said that in Berlin, the vast majority of his interactions with Germans have been positive and helpful but a backlash is noticeable in small ways. “Often when I get on the subway and sit down, people immediately move away from me because they think I am dangerous,” he said.

He pointed out that there was a far-right, anti-immigration demonstration at the site of the Christmas market attack on Wednesday night, but a simultaneous counter-protest was far larger.

“The idea of a huge ‘backlash’ against the refugees is being pushed by the right-wing political agenda of some of political parties and groups,” said Gregor Wendler, a Berliner with a government-funded organization that helps refugees find work in Germany’s capital. “That only works on people who don’t know how they feel about refugees.”
About two-thirds of Germans approve of Merkel’s decision to stand for a fourth term in next year’s general election, according to a poll published in late November — before the attack — by PoliBarometer.

Still, an earlier survey published by Germany’s Focus magazine found that 60% of Germans want Merkel to put a fixed limit on the number of refugees Germany accepts, a proposal she has repeatedly rebuffed. Meanwhile, the nationalist, anti-immigration Alternative für Deutschland party has seen its popularity soar in recent parliamentary elections, although it has peaked at about 15% nationwide.

“This attack is bad news for all of us refugees who live in Germany,” said Mohammad Soltani, 25, a former bodyguard for a wealthy political family in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Like fellow Afghan Mohebzada, Soltani sought asylum in Germany because the Taliban had made repeated threats to kill him and he saw no other option. “A lot of my friends in Germany are very sad about this attack,” he said. “I hope they captured the right guy. I hope the government does not change its mind about refugees.”

Mohebzada said he hopes the death of the Berlin attack suspect will allow people in Germany and throughout Europe to enjoy Christmas.

Like most asylum seekers in Germany, he and his wife and two small children are Muslim. “Wait, remind me,” he said. “What is the name of the guy with the big, white beard and red clothes?”

Inaugural planners’ biggest concern: Protesters

WASHINGTON, Dec 15 — Presidential candidate Donald Trump was anything but conventional — now military planners for the 58th presidential inauguration are preparing for a day that might not include traditional pomp and circumstance.

“Generally speaking, the inauguration is taking shape as it has in the past, although subject to change, as you know,” said Brig. Gen. George Degnon, the deputy commanding general for the inauguration.

In a news conference Wednesday, Degnon was asked whether military planners anticipated Trump putting his nontraditional signature on an event full of tradition.

“We’re still negotiating with the Presidential Inaugural Committee, as far as the specifics for the parade,” said Degnon. “But, with the city laid out the way it is, the number of people we’re bringing in to the city, there’s only so many ways you can make this thing happen.”

Maj. Gen. Bradley Becker, commander of the joint task force providing military ceremonial support for the inaugural events, was asked about the biggest threat to a smoothly run operation.

“At this point the biggest concern is the number of potential protesters, and how that impacts the inauguration, especially the parade itself,” Becker said.

Roped areas will be set up along the parade route for protesters, according to Baker, and Col. William Walker, of the D.C. National Guard.

It is unclear whether the new president will walk a portion of the parade route,” Becker said.

“Clearly the Secret Service has talked about it — previous presidents have done it — but at this point we just don’t know what the president-elect plans to do during the parade,” Becker said

CPEC and Russia’s quest for warm water ports

Pakistan’s point-man for China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Ahsan Iqbal, just concluded an exhaustive visit to Moscow. What would have been the point of a sojourn if there was no talk about the corridor and access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea? A fortnight ago, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attended the Global Conference on Sustainable Transport in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan. Islamabad not only offered its land route to landlocked Central Asian states but also extended the olive branch to Russia. Moscow tried a different strategy to reach the warm waters of the Arabian Sea for three decades, but spectacularly failed courtesy the Afghans and Pakistan.

Russian foreign ministry denied any negotiations with Pakistan on joining the China-sponsored corridor to the Arabian Sea via the Gwadar port. The federal minister’s visit 10 days later offered a blunt rejoinder. On its part, the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation member state showed its willingness to work with Russia, thus the meeting with Maksim Sokolov, the Russian transport minister.

Turbulent ties
Islamabad and Moscow first interacted on the fringes of the UN General Assembly meeting on May 1, 1948, when Foreign Minister Sir Zafarullah Khan met his counterpart. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto aspired to create a better bargain for Pakistan by wooing Russia, when he first visited the country in 1960 as Minister of Fuel Power and Natural Resources. Later, he remained actively engaged with Moscow as a foreign minister as well. The engagement eventually led to post-1965 war Tashkent Declaration. Kremlin backed Delhi outrightly as it sponsored Bengali secessionist militancy in 1971. Despite this, the controversial populist leader visited Moscow in 1972 as premier. Later, Russia launched a proxy war against Pakistan after it sided with the Afghan resistance against its military intervention as well as the capitalist bloc.

Moscow not mulling to join CPEC: Russian foreign ministry
Following his father’s footstep, Premier Benazir Bhutto tried to warm relations with Russia in 1994-1995. However, political infighting at home and Moscow’s annoyance over the rise of Taliban factored in adversely. Just months prior to the coup, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited Russia in 1999. But General Musharraf pressed reset on almost everything the Nawaz government was pursuing, and ties with Russia were no exception.

Since Musharraf’s Russia visit in 2003, relations have steadily improved without considerable turbulence. While almost every Pakistan president or premier has visited Moscow since, none were reciprocated at the same level.
In 2015, commandoes from both sides held war-games, while their navies conducted a joint exercise in the northern Arabian Sea. These increasing comfort levels are leading the two nations to previously unchartered waters, the most notable being the sale of MiG-29’s engines, RD-33, for en masse production and likely export of JF-17 Thunder.

The move was preceded by a deal to buy Russian Mil Mi-35 gunships and electronic warfare equipment. Besides inducting initial deliveries of four rotary-wing aircrafts, Islamabad may order another 16 subject to the platform’s performance and budgetary conditions.

Partnership for mutual benefit
Russia’s prime interest in Pakistan has been investment in the energy sector, symbolised by financing of the 850km North-South (Lahore-Karachi) pipeline to securing investment in the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline. And it remains to be seen if Moscow agrees to invest in the Thar coal field.

If the overview of complicated bilateral relations can be any guide, both the countries are steadily developing ties but are still far from becoming strategic and economic partners. Russia’s defense cooperation with India is at a far advanced level, which for now remains un-deterred by Delhi’s advances to Washington.

CPEC’s western route: Protests may erupt over unkept promises
Of late, Moscow has not shared India’s hardened position against Pakistan, may it be the BRICS summit in Goa or Heart of Asia conference in Amritsar. Islamabad’s recent abstention on the UN resolution regarding Syria was also an effort to stay out of the Pandora’s box.

The offer to join CPEC is too enticing for Russia to out-rightly reject. Its energy projects, such as the pipeline network, may eventually culminate in Russian oil being shipped to the east and the west from Gwadar port. Even if Kremlin may not benefit from the CPEC in the short term, it won’t back India’s rhetoric against the logistical corridor.

Naveed Ahmad is a Pakistani investigative journalist and academic with extensive reporting experience in the Middle East and North Africa. He is based in Doha and Istanbul.

Industrial phase of CPEC to kick off soon

FAISALABAD, Dec 11: The industrial phase of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is going to kick off soon under which Chinese investors would be allowed to set up only high tech industries, which would not have any negative impact on Pakistan’s existing industry, said CPEC Acting Project Director Hasan Dawood.

Speaking to a delegation of the Faisalabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry (FCCI), he said that CPEC has three major perspectives including geo strategic, regional integration and industrial cooperation, adding that Chinese investors cannot afford any clash at any stage with Pakistani industrialists; hence, they prefer to concentrate on Gwadar Port.

The delegation, which was headed by FCCI Vice President Ahmed Hasan, met with the director and apprised him about the reservations of the local industrialists.

Three routes have been proposed to link China with Gwadar Port including eastern, western and central routes, which are expected to be completed by the year 2018, informed Dawood.

Talking about the industrial cooperation under CPEC, he said that working groups are being established to determine the needs of both countries. Four meetings between National Development and Reforms Commission of China and Planning Commission of Pakistan have already been held, said the director.

He said that working groups will have representation of all provinces and encouraged FCCI to present its proposal through their related province for discussion in the working group.

He further told that 36 economic zones would be established under CPEC which would not only create thousands of jobs but also gear up the pace of progress and prosperity.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 11th, 2016.

Changing ties

ONE of Pakistan’s greatest diplomatic achievements during the Cold War was to simultaneously enjoy strong ties with the United States and China. With the end of the Cold War and the retreat of Soviet forces from Afghanistan, this triangular relationship has changed. Pakistan’s ties to Beijing have never been stronger, while ties to Washington are once again troubled. Nothing symbolises this shift more than CPEC.

China has offered Pakistan over $50 billion in investments for critical infrastructure projects as prospects for greater financial and military assistance from Washington dim. Washington has good reasons to be supportive — or at least not negative — about CPEC. If Pakistan can raise its game and make the most of this opportunity, CPEC will not just be one more external lending stream, it can help Pakistan achieve sustainable economic growth, one predicate for national, if not regional stability.

There are, however, challenges to be overcome before extravagant visions of CPEC can be realised. Thriving port cities depend on location and historic patterns of commerce. Habitual Pakistani frictions between provinces and civil-military relations are complicating the takeoff stage. Beijing does not have a track record of philanthropy with respect to foreign investments. CPEC is not a gift; it’s a mutual opportunity, accompanied with interest rates. And Pakistan is in no position to drive hard bargains.

The US may not compete with China for influence in Pakistan.

The upswing in China-Pakistan relations extends well beyond CPEC. Beijing is also helping Pakistan by placing road blocks before India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group and preventing the UN from adding Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar to its listing of terrorists. In contrast, the US Defence Authorisation Act passed by the Congress conditions half of the assistance given to Pakistan on demonstrable steps against terror groups.

Not that long ago, in 2009, Washington decided to make a major effort to improve relations with Pakistan and to bolster a newly elected civilian government. Now it is very hard to envision another major initiative by Washington, which is sceptical of Islamabad’s promissory notes, or by Pakistan, which is accustomed to being on the receiving end of Washington’s initiatives, not the other way around. Absent a source of new propulsion, bilateral ties will continue to lose altitude.

Islamabad, Washington, and even Beijing have something to lose from these dynamics. No matter how generous Chinese infrastructure and military support turn out to be for Pakistan, having one major power benefactor is half as good as having two. Washington will have less influence to change Pakistani choices for the better, and will now need more of Beijing’s help with crisis management. And while Beijing’s gains are likely to be real, so, too, will the responsibilities of being Pakistan’s top benefactor.

Washington is not inclined to compete with China for influence in Pakistan. Nor is the prospect of more Russian engagement with Pakistan likely to alter US calculations. Washington’s current mood is to continue offering assistance to support common interests — while conditioning a growing portion of aid to demonstrable steps that confirm long-promised changes in Pakistan’s national security policies. All this can be upended with another major act of terrorism that can be traced back to Pakistan.

A legitimate question is whether Washington is capable of acknowledging changes for the better in Pakistan’s national security policies after such a long period of complaint. There has been clear acknowledgement of Pakistan’s counterterrorism campaign against the Pakistan Taliban, and the sacrifices this has entailed. But there is deep scepticism that the scope of this campaign will be widened.

Some in the incoming Trump administration might be inclined to pursue the ‘nuclear option’ — declaring Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism. This would be a grave mistake, not just for Pakistan and the United States, but also for India. Severing ties will not improve Pakistan’s choices, nor help the United States to encourage nuclear-armed neighbors to improve ties or defuse tensions. Washington does more of the latter than the former because, when New Delhi occasionally seeks to turn the page, an attack on India by cadres of groups based in Pakistan typically follows.

One challenge for Washington during the Trump administration will be to keep the door open and to recognise changes in policies that have weakened Pakistan’s well-being. A second challenge will be to not fly off the handle in ways that badly affect ties. The challenge for Pakistan is to keep moving forward rather than to fall back on bad habits. And to recognize that standard talking points will fall flat without changes in national security policy. Even in the absence of changes in Pakistani policies, the US continues to have important reasons to remain fully engaged on common interests. That sounds easy enough, but sensible steps cannot be taken for granted in the Trump administration.

The writer is co-founder of the Stimson Centre.

Russia ‘tried to help’ Donald Trump win the election, CIA concludes

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has determined that Russia did in fact try to help Donald Trump win the US presidency rather than work to simply interfere with the election, according to a secret report conducted by the agency.

US intelligence officials from multiple agencies have found connections between the Kremlin and Wikileaks. The former provided the latter with countless hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, and many others, the Washington Post reported.

The spectre of an ongoing email controversy lurked over Ms Clinton’s campaign from the onset of her candidacy. But in the final months, the massive leak of thousands of emails closed the gap between the former Secretary of State and Mr Trump by double digits. Cybersecurity experts, as well as intelligence officials, had found evidence that linked the hacks to Russia.

“It is the assessment of the intelligence community that Russia’s goal here was to favour one candidate over the other, to help Trump get elected,” a senior US intelligence official briefed on information shared with US senators told the Post. “That’s the consensus view.”
Still, there is some disagreement among some of the officials from all 17 intelligence agencies. They lacked evidence that showed a direct connection between Russia and Wikileaks.The actors they found were “one step” removed from the Russian government, the officials said. 

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had said Russia was not the source of the leaks in an interview published on the state-owned broadcaster Russia Today.

“The Clinton camp has been able to project a neo-McCarthyist hysteria that Russia is responsible for everything,” he said. “Hillary Clinton has stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 US intelligence agencies had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications.
“That’s false – we can say that the Russian government is not the source.”

President Trump protests
Earlier in the day, the Obama administration ordered a “full review” of election-related hacking. 

The President’s counterterrorism and homeland security adviser, Lisa Monaco, made the announcement to reporters at an event hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. 

“We may have crossed into a new threshold and it is incumbent up on us to take stock of that, to review, to conduct some after-action, to understand what has happened and to impart some lessons learned,” she said. 

Mr Obama expects a full report before he leaves office on 20 January.

US officials from the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence officially accused Russia of hacking the DNC and other organisations “to interfere with the US election process”.
 
The reiterated their accusations earlier this week.

“The US Intelligence Community is confident that the Russian government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organisations,” officials said in a statement.

“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorised these activities.”

In a perplexing response, the Trump transition team outright dismissed the validity of the report and the intelligence committee they will soon be running.

“These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction,” the team incorrectly said in a statement. “The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again’.”

Officials held a secret briefing with congressional leaders in September, but House Majority Leader Mitch McConnell doubted the legitimacy of the assessment.

Additionally, the Post says Mr McConnell made his opposition to such intelligence clear, and if the White House spoke publicly about the Russians’ role in the hacks, he would simply consider it a partisan political stunt.

Trump’s Breezy Calls to World Leaders Leave Diplomats Aghast

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald J. Trump inherited a complicated world when he won the election last month. And that was before a series of freewheeling phone calls with foreign leaders that has unnerved diplomats at home and abroad.
In the calls, he voiced admiration for one of the world’s most durable despots, the president of Kazakhstan, and said he hoped to visit a country, Pakistan, that President Obama has steered clear of during nearly eight years in office.

Mr. Trump told the British prime minister, Theresa May, “If you travel to the U.S., you should let me know,” an offhand invitation that came only after he spoke to nine other leaders. He later compounded it by saying on Twitter that Britain should name the anti-immigrant leader Nigel Farage its ambassador to Washington, a startling break with diplomatic protocol.

Mr. Trump’s unfiltered exchanges have drawn international attention since the election, most notably when he met Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan with only one other American in the room, his daughter Ivanka Trump — dispensing with the usual practice of using State Department-approved talking points.

“President Obama benefited enormously from the advice and expertise that’s been shared by those who serve at the State Department,” Mr. Earnest said. “I’m confident that as President-elect Trump takes office, those same State Department employees will stand ready to offer him advice as he conducts the business of the United States overseas.”
“Hopefully he’ll take it,” he added.

A spokesman for the State Department, John Kirby, said the department was “helping facilitate and support calls as requested.” But he declined to give details, and it was not clear to what extent Mr. Trump was availing himself of the nation’s diplomats.

Mr. Trump’s conversation with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan has generated the most angst, because, as Mr. Earnest put it, the relationship between Mr. Sharif’s country and the United States is “quite complicated,” with disputes over issues ranging from counterterrorism to nuclear proliferation.

In a remarkably candid readout of the phone call, the Pakistani government said Mr. Trump had told Mr. Sharif that he was “a terrific guy” who made him feel as though “I’m talking to a person I have known for long.” He described Pakistanis as “one of the most intelligent people.” When Mr. Sharif invited him to visit Pakistan, the president-elect replied that he would “love to come to a fantastic country, fantastic place of fantastic people.”

The Trump transition office, in its more circumspect readout, said only that Mr. Trump and Mr. Sharif “had a productive conversation about how the United States and Pakistan will have a strong working relationship in the future.” It did not confirm or deny the Pakistani account of Mr. Trump’s remarks.

The breezy tone of the readout left diplomats in Washington slack-jawed, with some initially assuming it was a parody. In particular, they zeroed in on Mr. Trump’s offer to Mr. Sharif “to play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country’s problems.”

That was interpreted by some in India as an offer by the United States to mediate Pakistan’s border dispute with India in Kashmir, something that the Pakistanis have long sought and that India has long resisted.

“By taking such a cavalier attitude to these calls, he’s encouraging people not to take him seriously,” said Daniel F. Feldman, a former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “He’s made himself not only a bull in a china shop, but a bull in a nuclear china shop.”

Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to Washington, said his government’s decision to release a rough transcript of Mr. Trump’s remarks was a breach of protocol that demonstrated how easily Pakistani leaders misread signals from their American counterparts.

“Pakistan is one country where knowing history and details matters most,” Mr. Haqqani said, “and where the U.S. cannot afford to give wrong signals, given the history of misunderstandings.”

At one level, Mr. Trump’s warm sentiments were surprising, given that during the campaign, he called for temporarily barring Muslims from entering the United States to avoid importing would-be terrorists.

His conversation with Mr. Sharif also came a day after an attack at Ohio State University in which a Somali-born student, Abdul Razak Ali Artan, rammed a car into a group of pedestrians and slashed several people with a knife before being shot and killed by the police. Law enforcement officials said Mr. Artan, whom the Islamic State has claimed as a “soldier,” had lived in Pakistan for seven years before coming to the United States in 2014.

Mr. Obama never visited Pakistan as president, even though he had a circle of Pakistani friends in college and spoke fondly of the country. The White House weighed a visit at various times but always decided against it, according to officials, because of security concerns or because it would be perceived as rewarding Pakistani leaders for what many American officials said was their lack of help in fighting terrorism.

“It sends a powerful message to the people of a country when the president of the United States goes to visit,” Mr. Earnest said. “That’s true whether it’s some of our closest allies, or that’s also true if it’s a country like Pakistan, with whom our relationship is somewhat more complicated.”

Mr. Trump’s call with President Nursultan A. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan raised similar questions.

Mr. Nazarbayev has ruled his country with an iron hand since 1989, first as head of the Communist Party and later as president after Kazakhstan won its independence from the Soviet Union. In April 2015, he won a fifth term, winning 97.7 percent of the vote and raising suspicions of fraud.

The Kazakh government, in its account of Mr. Trump’s conversation, said he had lavished praise on the president for his leadership of the country over the last 25 years. “D. Trump stressed that under the leadership of Nursultan Nazarbayev, our country over the years of independence had achieved fantastic success that can be called a ‘miracle,’” it said.

The statement went on to say that Mr. Trump had shown solidarity with the Kazakh government over its decision to voluntarily surrender the nuclear arsenal it inherited from the Soviets. “There is no more important issue than the nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, which must be addressed in a global context,” it quoted Mr. Trump as saying.
Mr. Trump’s statement said that Mr. Nazarbayev had congratulated him on his victory, and that Mr. Trump had reciprocated by congratulating him on the 25th anniversary of his country. Beyond that, it said only that the two leaders had “addressed the importance of strengthening regional partnerships.”

Donald Trump’s fawning conversation with Pakistan’s Nawaz Sharif is widely mocked

Donald Trump has never met Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. But he knows he has a “very good reputation”, and understands he is a “terrific guy”. In fact, Mr Trump feels such a connection with the Pakistani leader, whom he hopes to visit soon, that he feels like he is “talking to a person I have known for a long time”.

Mr Trump has never, apparently, visited Pakistan either, and he spoke out during this campaign about the threat of Muslims. Yet he knows the country is rich with “tremendous opportunities”. Furthermore, said Mr Trump: “Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people(s).”

It cannot be easy for any US president-elect, receiving calls of congratulations from leaders from around the world. Some of the people and places you may know, others you may not.

Some of the conversations are no doubt warm. Others may be more cool.
Yet the transcript of a telephone conversation between Mr Trump and fellow businessman Mr Sharif, released by the Pakistan leader’s office on Wednesday, suggested a conversation nothing less than remarkable. Indeed, if the transcript is true, it maybe the starting of a beautiful new bromance.

The foreign ministry’s press release said that the conversation between Mr Sharif – who, like Mr Trump is a businessman – and the next US president, was initiated the head of the Pakistan Muslim League-N. It said that he “felicitated” Mr Trump on his victory and invited the New York tycoon to visit the overwhelmingly Muslim South Asian country.

“On being invited to Pakistan by the prime minister, Mr Trump said he would love to to come to a fantastic country…fantastic place of fantastic people,” it said.

It said that Mr Trump added: “Please convey to the Pakistani people that they are amazing and all Pakistanis I have known are exceptional people.”

Fidel Castro Dies Aged 90

HAVANA, Nov 26 (Reuters) – Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary leader who built a communist state on the doorstep of the United States and for five decades defied U.S. efforts to topple him, died on Friday. He was 90.

A towering figure of the second half of the 20th Century, Castro stuck to his ideology beyond the collapse of Soviet communism and remained widely respected in parts of the world that had struggled against colonial rule.

He had been in poor health since an intestinal ailment nearly killed him in 2006. He formally ceded power to his younger brother Raul Castro two years later.

Wearing a green military uniform, a somber Raul Castro, 85, appeared on state television on Friday night to announce his brother’s death.

“At 10.29 at night, the chief commander of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz, died,” he said, without giving a cause of death.

“Ever onward, to victory,” he said, using the slogan of the Cuban revolution.

Tributes came in from allies, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Venezuela’s socialist President Nicolas Maduro, who said “revolutionaries of the world must follow his legacy.”

Although Raul Castro always glorified his older brother, he has changed Cuba since taking over by introducing market-style economic reforms and agreeing with the United States in December 2014 to re-establish diplomatic ties and end decades of hostility.

Fidel Castro offered only lukewarm support for the deal, raising questions about whether he approved of ending hostilities with his longtime enemy. Some analysts believed his mere presence kept Raul from moving further and faster, while others saw him as either quietly supportive or increasingly irrelevant.

He did not meet Barack Obama when he visited Havana earlier this year, the first time a U.S. president had stepped foot on Cuban soil since 1928.

Days later, Castro wrote a scathing newspaper column condemning Obama’s “honey-coated” words and reminding Cubans of the many U.S. efforts to overthrow and weaken the Communist government.

The news of Castro’s death spread slowly among Friday night revelers on the streets of Havana. One famous club that was still open when word came in quickly closed.

Some residents reacted with sadness to the news.

“I’m very upset. Whatever you want to say, he is a public figure that the whole world respected and loved,” said Havana student Sariel Valdespino.

But in Miami, where many exiles from Castro’s Communist government live, a large crowd waving Cuban flags cheered, danced and banged on pots and pans.

Castro’s body will be cremated, according to his wishes. Cuba declared nine days of mourning, during which time the ashes will be taken to different parts of the country. A burial ceremony will be held on Dec. 4.

The bearded Fidel Castro took power in a 1959 revolution and ruled Cuba for 49 years with a mix of charisma and iron will, creating a one-party state and becoming a central figure in the Cold War.

He was demonized by the United States and its allies but admired by many leftists around the world, especially socialist revolutionaries in Latin America and Africa.

Nelson Mandela, once freed from prison in 1990, repeatedly thanked Castro for his firm efforts in helping to weaken apartheid.

The father of communist Cuba, Fidel Castro, died on Nov. 25, 2016, at the age of 90. The controversial and divisive world figure received several international awards and is recognized as a champion of socialism, anti-imperialism, and humanitarianism. Let’s take a look at the life of the revolutionary who ruled Cuba for almost five decades.

1945: Early Life
Castro was born in Cuba in 1926, the illegitimate son of Ángel Castro, a rich farmer. At school, he was an intelligent but not exceptional student — although his main passion was for sport, at which he excelled. But it was when he went to study law at the University of Havana that Castro began to develop his political awareness, becoming involved with a variety of left-wing activist groups. In 1947, he joined a military expedition to try and overthrow the right-wing dictator of the Dominican Republic but when that failed, he returned to Cuba. In 1948, Castro married Mirta Díaz Balart, who came from a wealthy Cuban family. One of the wedding gifts he received was $1,000 from Cuban general Fulgencio Batista, a friend of Balart’s family. (Pictured) Castro after he was chosen as the best athlete of Belen High School in 1945.

1952: Batista coup
Castro was working as a lawyer in 1952 when Batista — who had already served once as a left-leaning president of Cuba — staged a military coup three months before the elections were due. Unlike his legitimate first term as president, the U.S.-backed Batista (C) ruled as a dictator in the interests of the wealthy, with both American business and American organized crime enriching themselves while ordinary Cubans became increasingly impoverished.

1953: Attempted uprising and jail
In response to the Batista coup, a number of revolutionary organisations in Cuba were formed with the intention of opposing the regime — one of which, known simply as “The Movement,” was formed by Castro. In 1953, Castro led a group of over 100 rebels — including his brother Raúl — in an attack on a military garrison, the Moncada Barracks. Despite careful planning, the attempt to start an uprising was a disaster as the rebels were heavily outnumbered, and were quickly forced to retreat, with many of them captured or killed. Castro retreated to the mountains but over the next few days, the remaining rebels were rounded up and either executed or, like Castro, put on trial. Castro is pictured on the left, giving his deposition to military and police chiefs at the Vivac in Santiago de Cuba in July 1953. On Oct. 16, Castro was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment; although in the end, he would serve less than two years. At his trial, he said: “Condemn me. It does not matter. History will absolve me.”

1956: Mexico and Che
Despite being sentenced for 15 years, Castro was released in 1955 as the newly confident Batista regime — bolstered by support from the U.S. — believed the rebels to be no threat to them. During his time in jail, Castro and his wife began divorce proceedings after she began working for Batista’s Ministry of the Interior. A few months after his release, in July 1955, Fidel followed his brother Raúl to Mexico, where the latter introduced him to a young Argentinian doctor called Ernesto Guevara, commonly known as Che. Guevara was committed to helping spread revolutionary activities and fighting the U.S. influence across Latin America. (Pictured) Fidel (L) and Che are seen in jail in Mexico City after being arrested in June 1956, quite possibly the first picture of them together.

1956: Revolutionaries
Guevara (R) and Castro (L) would become profoundly influential in each other’s lives, as the Argentinian joined Fidel in his fight against the Batista regime. In December 1956, a group of revolutionaries — including Fidel and Raúl Castro, and Che Guevara — traveled back to Cuba, where they set up a camp in the Sierra Maestra mountains, and began a grueling, years-long campaign of guerrilla warfare.

1957: Guerrilla warfare
Throughout 1957, Castro and his allies led repeated attacks on military outposts of the Batista regime across the Sierra Maestra region while building support among locals and attracting new recruits from the cities. By 1958, the attacks had proven so successful that the Batista government withdrew its forces from the mountain area entirely, giving Castro’s rebels control of virtually all of Oriente Province. Seeing the tide turning against Batista, the U.S. withdrew its support for Batista and hoped to replace him with a right-wing, military-led regime better placed to thwart Castro. Out of allies, Batista resigned on the New Year’s Eve of 1958, and subsequently fled the country, taking a fortune estimated to be at $300 million with him.

1959: Revolution achieved
After Batista’s resignation, the U.S.-backed military — led by General Eulogio Cantillo — attempted to take control of the country. But the massive swell of support behind Castro was too great. On Jan. 1, Castro supporters took to the streets of the capital Havana to celebrate Batista’s fall, burning casinos and other symbols of the old regime’s power (pictured). On Jan. 2, Guevara-led revolutionary forces entered Havana, while Castro’s forces took the second city of Santiago. A week later, on Jan. 8, Castro finally entered Havana to a hero’s welcome.

1959: Becomes prime minister
With the fall of the Batista regime and the arrest of General Cantillo, a liberal lawyer named Manuel Urrutia Lleó — who had defended rebels in trials established by the Batista regime, and had been strongly backed by Castro — was declared president. But Castro and Urrutia quickly fell out; Urrutia and his prime minister José Miró wanted to establish democratic elections and restore the rule of law. Castro, however, opposed elections and was quick to oversee the execution of former Batista regime officials without proper trials. In mid-February, Miró unexpectedly resigned — leading to Castro being sworn in as prime minister, and leaving Urrutia isolated. A few months later, in July, Castro briefly resigned as prime minister and denounced Urrutia — who, out of allies, offered his resignation. Castro then resumed his duties as prime minister having appointed a replacement president of his own choosing.

1960: Nationalization and purges
Unlike Che Guevara and his brother Raúl, during his time as a revolutionary, Castro had always refused to identify himself as a communist, in the hope of building a broader coalition. But once in power, he began a widespread program of nationalization of property and business, socialization of healthcare and collectivization of agriculture and other means of production — winning him widespread support among the country’s poor. Simultaneously, he also set about purging Cuban society of opponents — not just backers of the Batista regime, but moderates and liberals as well. Opposition newspapers were closed, a surveillance network (the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution) was established to report on counter-revolutionary activities, and many opponents of his rule were arrested and imprisoned. Other groups who Castro disliked were also targeted — notably homosexuals, who were imprisoned on a large scale.

1960 onwards: Embrace of communism and US embargo
In 1961, Castro officially announced that Cuba was a socialist state, and formally allied the country with the Soviet Union, which in return established new trade deals and provided arms. Castro embraced the Soviet Union partly in response to a growing trade war with the U.S.; when the Cuban government had nationalized the properties of the U.S. companies, the U.S. imposed a tight quota on its sugar imports from Cuba, something that could severely damage the island’s economy. Castro is pictured here greeting the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev at the UN General Assembly in New York, U.S., in September 1960. Over the following years, the U.S. trade restrictions were tightened to a full-on embargo, preventing any trade with and travel to Cuba on the part of Americans, and even attempting to prevent any firm that did business with Cuba also doing business with the U.S. Shortly before President Kennedy formalized the trade embargo in 1962, he reportedly asked that 1,000 Cuban cigars be bought for him for his future enjoyment.

1961: Bay of Pigs
In addition to the trade war, since 1960 the U.S. had been actively trying to undermine and disrupt the new Cuban regime. This culminated in the disastrous April 1961 attempt by CIA-organised Cuban exiles to invade the island. On April 17, 1961, around 1,400 Cuban exiles, under the command of U.S. soldiers and CIA operatives, landed at the Bay of Pigs on Cuba’s south coast. But Castro’s government — which knew they were coming thanks to its intelligence network — easily defeated the invaders after three days of fighting. Castro himself was present at the battleground to oversee the military operations (pictured). The botched invasion was a huge embarrassment to the new Kennedy administration.

1962: Cuban missile crisis
Following the Bay of Pigs invasion attempt, Castro moved to strengthen Cuba’s military ties to the Soviet Union — including secretly agreeing to build bases that would hold Soviet R-12 MRBM nuclear missiles, enabling the Soviets to target the U.S. in the same way American nuclear bases in Europe could target the USSR. In October 1962, a U.S. surveillance flight obtained photographic proof of the missile bases (pictured), sparking an international incident that brought the world the closest it has ever been to a nuclear war. After 13 incredibly tense days in which it looked likely that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would go to war, the stand-off was resolved when Soviet Premier Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the Cuban bases and withdraw its missiles. In return, the U.S. secretly agreed to do the same with its Italian and Turkish missile bases, and publicly pledged never to invade Cuba.

1960s: Assassination attempts
Since before the Bay of Pigs incident and for many years following it, in addition to invasion attempts, the CIA had repeatedly plotted to assassinate Castro — at least eight separate plots are known of, while Cuban sources estimate they made hundreds of attempts. Notoriously, one of the reported assassination methods supposedly would have involved an exploding cigar — although it’s not clear if this was ever seriously considered by the agency. What is known that several real plots did involve attempts to poison Castro, including one that recruited his ex-lover and another ongoing collaboration between the CIA and American gangsters from Al Capone’s former criminal gang. Needless to say, all the assassination attempts failed.

1970s and 1980s: Decades of rule
With Cuba sat in the middle of the Cold War’s stand-off between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., Castro continued to rule for decades with little change. Cuba was cut off from much of the world by the U.S. embargo, severely limiting the civil rights of its citizens at home but supported economically thanks to trade with the Soviet Union. During this time, Castro supported other Marxist revolutionary movements across both Latin America and parts of Africa, such as Angola and Ethiopia — the former winning him the admiration of the then-jailed Nelson Mandela (L).

1991: Fall of Soviet Union
Cuba’s decades of relative — if tense — stability started to change at the end of the 1980s, as Castro grew disillusioned with Mikhail Gorbachev’s (R) reformist leadership of the Soviet Union and the decline of communism across Eastern Europe. In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union proved a devastating blow for Castro’s Cuba. Losing its major trading partner, responsible for 80 percent of its imports and exports, while still being under economic embargo from its superpower neighbor, saw the country plunged into an economic crisis.

1989-1994: Economic collapse
The economic crisis, which had started in 1989, was exacerbated following the collapse of the Soviet Union. By 1992, the country’s GDP had shrunk by over 40%. Castro declared sweeping austerity measures known as the ‘Special Period in Time of Peace,’ closing all non-essential factories, rationing petrol and electricity and even using oxen to replace tractors on some farms. In 1994, Castro lifted restrictions on Cubans wishing to leave the country. The number of Cubans fleeing the country to seek refuge in the U.S., often on ramshackle rafts, grew significantly — around 30,000 made for the Florida coast. Faced with a wave of immigration, the U.S. Government of Bill Clinton stopped accepting the refugees, returning them to Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba. (Pictured) Cuban refugees stranded in the open sea halfway between Key West and Cuba in August 1994.

2001: Hurricane Michelle
In 2001, the category 4 Hurricane Michelle struck Cuba. Thanks to an efficient evacuation process, only four people died but it caused an estimated US $1.8 billion of damage, severely hurting the country’s recovering-but-still-fragile economy. Castro is seen here as he inspects a citrus grove damaged by the hurricane. Although Castro refused the offer of aid from the U.S., he did agree to a one-off purchase of food from the latter, the first shipment of food since the embargo was imposed.
2001 onwards: Health rumors
In 2001, Castro fainted in public while in the middle of giving a seven-hour-long speech in the hot sun (above). It sparked rumors about the leader’s failing health and speculation about who would succeed him if he became too ill to govern.

2006: Handover to Raúl
At the end of July 2006, after undergoing a major surgery, Castro officially handed over his presidential duties to his brother Raúl (R), marking the end of over 45 years as Cuba’s de facto leader, both as prime minister and president (although he retained his official position). Over the following years, he was rarely seen in public, and rumors about his ill health continued to circulate.

2008: Retirement
Almost two years after handing over his duties, in February 2008, Castro officially retired as Cuban president, with Raúl taking over the role — although he remained as the leader of the Communist Party until 2011. In his retirement, and with his health apparently improved, Castro remained active in Cuban political life — writing a weekly column for the official Communist Party newspaper Granma and giving interviews with foreign journalists. He also spoke of some of the mistakes and regrets over his decades of rule — admitting economic blunders during the “special period,” and (among other things) describing his regime’s persecution of homosexuals as a “great injustice” for which he took responsibility.

2009 onwards: Legacy
Castro’s influence can still be seen across the island, including in the many pictures and murals of him still publicly displayed. In December 2014, U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, ending 50 years of hostility. Rumors had again begun to swirl about the former Cuban leader’s health as he hadn’t appeared in public since January. In March 2016, Obama and his family made a historic trip to the island nation, though there was no meeting between the two.

2016: Death
On Nov. 25, Raúl announced Castro’s death to the public and said: “The commander in chief of the Cuban revolution died at 22:29 hours this evening.” Before his 90th birthday in August, he had told his supporters that he didn’t expect to live long.

In April, in a rare public appearance at the Communist Party conference, Fidel Castro shocked party apparatchiks by referring to his own imminent mortality.

“Soon I will be like all the rest. Our turn comes to all of us, but the ideas of the Cuban communists will remain,” he said.

Castro was last seen by ordinary Cubans in photos showing him engaged in conversation with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang earlier this month.

Transforming Cuba from a playground for rich Americans into a symbol of resistance to Washington, Castro crossed swords with 10 U.S. presidents while in power, and outlasted nine of them.

He fended off a CIA-backed invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1961 as well as countless assassination attempts.
His alliance with Moscow helped trigger the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, a 13-day showdown with the United States that brought the world the closest it has been to nuclear war.

Wearing green military fatigues and chomping on cigars for many of his years in power, Castro was famous for long, fist-pounding speeches filled with blistering rhetoric, often aimed at the United States.

At home, he swept away capitalism and won support for bringing schools and hospitals to the poor. But he also created legions of enemies and critics, concentrated among the exiles in Miami who fled his rule and saw him as a ruthless tyrant.

“With Castro’s passing, some of the heat may go out of the antagonism between Cuba and the United States, and between Cuba and Miami, which would be good for everyone,” said William M. LeoGrande, co-author of a book on U.S.-Cuba relations.

However, it is not clear if U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump will continue to normalize relations with Cuba or revive tensions and fulfill a campaign promise to close the U.S. embassy in Havana once again.
Castro’s death – which would once have thrown a question mark over Cuba’s future – seems unlikely to trigger a crisis as Raul Castro is firmly ensconced in power.

In his final years, Fidel Castro no longer held leadership posts. He wrote newspaper commentaries on world affairs and occasionally met with foreign leaders but he lived in semi-seclusion.

Still, the passing of the man known to most Cubans as “El Comandante” – the commander – or simply “Fidel” leaves a huge void in the country he dominated for so long. It also underlines the generational change in Cuba’s communist leadership.

Raul Castro vows to step down when his term ends in 2018 and the Communist Party has elevated younger leaders to its Politburo, including 56-year-old Miguel Diaz-Canel, who is first vice-president and the heir apparent.
Others in their 50s include Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez and economic reform czar Marino Murillo.
The reforms have led to more private enterprise and the lifting of some restrictions on personal freedoms but they aim to strengthen Communist Party rule, not weaken it.

REVOLUTIONARY ICON
A Jesuit-educated lawyer, Fidel Castro led the revolution that ousted U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista on Jan 1, 1959. Aged 32, he quickly took control of Cuba and sought to transform it into an egalitarian society.
His government improved the living conditions of the very poor, achieved health and literacy levels on a par with rich countries and rid Cuba of a powerful Mafia presence.

But he also tolerated little dissent, jailed opponents, seized private businesses and monopolized the media.
Castro’s opponents labeled him a dictator and hundreds of thousands fled the island.

“The dictator Fidel Castro has died, the cause of many deaths in Cuba, Latin American and Africa,” Jose Daniel Ferrer, leader of the island’s largest dissident group, the Patriotic Union of Cuba, said on Twitter.

Many dissidents settled in Florida, influencing U.S. policy toward Cuba and plotting Castro’s demise. Some even trained in the Florida swamps for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion.

But they could never dislodge him.

Castro claimed he survived or evaded hundreds of assassination attempts, including some conjured up by the CIA.
In 1962, the United States imposed a damaging trade embargo that Castro blamed for most of Cuba’s ills, using it to his advantage to rally patriotic fury.

Over the years, he expanded his influence by sending Cuban troops into far-away wars, including 350,000 to fight in Africa. They provided critical support to a left-wing government in Angola and contributed to the independence of Namibia in a war that helped end apartheid in South Africa.

He also won friends by sending tens of thousands of Cuban doctors abroad to treat the poor and bringing young people from developing countries to train them as physicians

‘HISTORY WILL ABSOLVE ME’

Born on August 13, 1926, in Biran in eastern Cuba, Castro was the son of a Spanish immigrant who became a wealthy landowner.

Angry at social conditions and Batista’s dictatorship, Castro launched his revolution on July 26, 1953, with a failed assault on the Moncada barracks in the eastern city of Santiago.

“History will absolve me,” he declared during his trial for the attack.

He was sentenced to 15 years in prison but was released in 1955 after a pardon that would come back to haunt Batista.

Castro went into exile in Mexico and prepared a small rebel army to fight Batista. It included Argentine revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, who became his comrade-in-arms.

In December 1956, Castro and a rag-tag band of 81 followers sailed to Cuba aboard a badly overloaded yacht called “Granma.”

Only 12, including him, his brother and Guevara, escaped a government ambush when they landed in eastern Cuba.
Taking refuge in the rugged Sierra Maestra mountains, they built a guerrilla force of several thousand fighters who, along with urban rebel groups, defeated Batista’s military in just over two years.

Early in his rule, at the height of the Cold War, Castro allied Cuba to the Soviet Union, which protected the Caribbean island and was its principal benefactor for three decades.

The alliance brought in $4 billion worth of aid annually, including everything from oil to guns, but also provoked the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when the United States discovered Soviet missiles on the island.
Convinced that the United States was about to invade Cuba, Castro urged the Soviets to launch a nuclear attack.
Cooler heads prevailed. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and U.S. President John F. Kennedy agreed the Soviets would withdraw the missiles in return for a U.S. promise never to invade Cuba. The United States also secretly agreed to remove its nuclear missiles from Turkey.

‘SPECIAL PERIOD’
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, an isolated Cuba fell into an economic crisis that lasted for years and was known as the “special period.” Food, transport and basics such as soap were scarce and energy shortages led to frequent and long blackouts.

Castro undertook a series of tentative economic reforms to get through the crisis, including opening up to foreign tourism.

The economy improved when Venezuela’s late socialist leader Hugo Chavez, who looked up to Castro as a hero, came to the rescue with cheap oil. Aid from communist-run China also helped, but Venezuelan support for Cuba has been scaled down since Chavez’s death in 2013.

Plagued by chronic economic problems, Cuba’s population of 11 million has endured years of hardship, although not the deep poverty, violent crime and government neglect of many other developing countries.

Cubans earn on average the equivalent of $20 a month and struggle to make ends meet even in an economy where education and health care are free and many basic goods and services are heavily subsidized.

For most Cubans, Castro has been the ubiquitous figure of their entire life.

Many still love him and share his faith in a communist future, and even some who abandoned their political belief still view him with respect.

“For everyone in Cuba and outside his death is very sad,” said Havana resident Luis Martinez. “It is very painful news.”
(Reporting by Daniel Trotta and Marc Frank; Editing by Frank Jack Daniel, Kieran Murray and Hugh Lawson)