ISIL blast kills 36 as Afghanistan extends Taliban ceasefire

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group has claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing that killed at least 36 people and wounded 65 others in the eastern Afghan province of Nangarhar.

The group’s Amaq website said the attack on Saturday targeted “a gathering of Afghan forces” in Nangarhar, but gave no details.

According to Attaullah Khogyani, the provincial governor’s spokesman, the attack happened in Rodat district, some 25km from Jalalabad.

Civilians, security forces and Taliban members were among the casualties as people celebrated the second day of Eid al-Fitr, marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Speaking from Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul, Al Jazeera’s Jennifer Glasse described the bombing as a “very devastating blow” for the “unprecedented gathering of the Taliban and Afghan security forces in Jalalabad”.

Extension of government ceasefire
The attack came as Afghan President Ashraf Ghani announced the government’s extension of a ceasefire with the Taliban, without giving a timeframe.

Rare Eid of ‘calm and peace’ as Taliban, government truce holds
In a televised address to the nation, Ghani called for the Taliban to also extend the truce, which is due to expire on Sunday after both sides agreed to halt hostilities for Eid.

Ghani also said that in the spirit of Eid and the ceasefire, the attorney general’s office had released 46 Taliban prisoners.

The Taliban had announced a ceasefire for the first three days of Eid, which started on Friday, promising not to attack Afghan security forces for the first time since the 2001 US invasion.

That came after Ghani said that security forces would temporarily cease operations against the Taliban for eight days, starting last Tuesday – though he warned that operations against other fighters, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group, would continue.

Governors in Helmand, Kandahar and Zabul said both sides had adhered to the ceasefire.

In his speech, Ghani also touched upon the subject of regional influences and international forces in Afghanistan.

“The Afghan government is ready to discuss the roles of neighbouring countries and the presence of international forces, their roles and the future destiny of them,” he said.

Mike Pompeo, the US secretary of state, welcomed Ghani’s remarks.

“We support President Ghani’s offer to extend the ceasefire and begin peace talks,” Pompeo said in a statement.

“As President Ghani emphasised in his statement to the Afghan people, peace talks by necessity would include a discussion of the role of international actors and forces. The United States is prepared to support, facilitate, and participate in these discussions.”

NATO forces also expressed their support for an extension to the ceasefire.
“This is a unique opportunity for the Taliban to show they want the peaceful future that the Afghan people demand and deserve,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said.

“There seems to be some momentum for peace,” Al Jazeera’s Glasse said.

“The government’s gamble to issue a unilateral ceasefire paid off with this Taliban ceasefire, and now everyone is going to wait and see what the Taliban is going to do.”

Omar Samad, a former adviser to the chief executive of Afghanistan, told Al Jazeera that the suicide bombing was a reminder to everyone in the country, including the Taliban, of the “existentialist threat on our doorstep”.

What we saw today is a reminder that ISK (the Islamic State branch in Afghanistan) is a potent threat, that something needs to be done about it,” Samad said, speaking from Washington DC.

“Maybe the Taliban and the Afghan government can come to terms on how to deal with the Islamic State,” he added.

“That could be a historic point for maybe a dialogue between the two sides. If that happens then I think that Afghanistan has better days ahead. ”

SOURCE: Al Jazeera and news agencies

American embassy shift

THE Trump administration’s decision to shift the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem last month could not have come at a worse time for the Arab-Israeli conflict. In retrospect, even some Israeli politicians have said that the US should not have shifted their embassy on the anniversary of the ‘Nakba’ — the period the Palestinians allege their land was forcibly annexed by Israel 70 years ago.

Coming just before the holy month of Ramazan, President Donald Trump’s symbolic move triggered massive violence in the overcrowded Gaza Strip — leading Israeli troops to shoot and kill 62 Palestinians, and wound thousands of other demonstrators.

But while the bloodshed in Gaza grabbed world headlines, the images of stone-throwing Palestinians being shot by armed Israelis barely made it on US television.

Zahid Bukhari, who heads the Centre for Islam and Public Policy in Washington D.C., criticises the “power of big money” for the “virtual media blackout”, and the ensuing silence in American public opinion.

Bukhari said that with growing Jewish settlements and Israeli check posts, the ‘two-state solution’ no longer seems viable. Instead, he finds Palestinian Muslims rethinking that ‘one state’ may be the way forward, “to challenge Israel the way South Africans contested apartheid”.

Some Palestinians think that ‘one state’ may be the way forward.
Jewish-American Professor Marc Gopin, who heads the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in Washington D.C., has found similar thinking among moderate Jews.

He says that with 20 per cent Israelis being of Arab descent, “good Jews” are talking about a “shared democratic state” that could redistribute the ethnic and religious population and “still accommodate the Jewish and Zionist dream”.

But having worked with Jews and Palestinians in Jerusalem for over 30 years — where bloodshed has plagued generations — Gopin cautions that the state can be viable “only if the ethnic populations guarantee each other’s security”.

The Arab-Israeli security debate was rekindled in December 2017, when Trump announced he would move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — holy to Muslims, Christians and Jews alike.

US presidents have for decades deflected their closest ally Israel’s request to move the embassy to Jerusalem by signing a waiver every six months citing ‘security concerns’.

That changed when Donald Trump got elected president. Middle East observers trace his controversial decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem to his base of “extremist Jews and Christian Evangelicals”.

Their presence was evident at the embassy shifting ceremony in Israel. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Jewish son-in-law Jared Kushner were special guests at the ceremony, as was Jewish-American casino owner and billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
Remarkably, Adelson became the president’s biggest donor after candidate Trump pledged to move the embassy in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful Israeli lobby group in Washington.

Trump’s approval ratings have also shot up among Evangelical Christians who believe Israel was created as the result of a ‘biblical prophecy’. Some 80pc of Evangelicals supported Trump’s bid for election in 2016, with their support being critical for his party’s re-election in this November’s mid-term polls.

Republican Party office-bearer in Chicago Talat Rasheed says that the president’s fulfilment of his bold campaign promises, demonstrates his “true leadership qualities”.

Rasheed says that if Muslim nations are so distressed by the Trump administration’s decision, they need to come up with a solution. He questions why the Muslim world, including feuding Saudi Arabia and Iran, has failed to resolve the 70-year-old Palestinian problem.

International observers believe that the OIC meeting hosted by Turkey — coming on the heels of the violence the same week in Gaza — gave a ‘psychological boost’ to Palestinians.

The final communiqué by presidents and prime ministers from 57 Muslim countries declared “East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine”. They also invited the US to rescind its “unlawful decision”, because of the chaos it could ignite in the region.

But as the US presses its thumb on the scale in favour of Israel, Iran intensifies support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria. Iran’s potential to enrich uranium after Trump broke off the Iran nuclear deal is raising alarm in Israel. Palestinians still back Hamas whose designation as a ‘terrorist group’ may split the international community, but also preps the region for war.

Foreign policy observers say that for the US to be a broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict, whether it is for a two-state or a one-state solution, it will have to take a more even-handed position. Absent that, it is feared that the US will lose its leverage on an issue that is at the heart of the Middle East conflict.

The writer is a journalist based in Washington D.C. and author of Aboard the Democracy Train, Pakistan Tracks the Threat Within.
Published in Dawn, June 12th, 2018

History beckons for Trump and Kim

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un are the unlikeliest of statesmen, but fate has thrown the US President and the North Korean tyrant an opportunity granted to few historic figures — together they can change the world.

Their summit in Singapore on Tuesday — which will begin with a one-on-one meeting, alongside translators — represents an opening awaited for 70 years but that was unthinkable just months ago as they traded insults that sparked fears of a slide into nuclear war.

It could launch a process that could open the world’s last Cold War frontier, finally usher in a permanent peace to end the 1950-53 Korean war, reshape the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region and bring millions of North Koreans out of famine and isolation.

Trump arrived in Singapore following a bitter showdown with US allies over his trade tariffs that caused the G7 summit in Canada to break up in acrimony.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo acknowledged on Monday there are strains in relations between the US and its closest allies but was optimistic the relationships would survive.

“There are always irritants in relationships. I am very confident the relationships between our countries — the United States and the G7 countries — will continue to move forward on a strong basis,” Pompeo said while briefing the press in Singapore.

Nonetheless, the meltdown potentially raised political pressure on the President to come home from his summit with Kim with some genuine progress.

But if successful, the summit will be mentioned in the same breath as President Richard Nixon’s journey to meet Chinese patriarch Mao Zedong and the superpower talks between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev that precipitated the end of the Soviet Union.

But it also represents a massive risk, since a failed summit could short-circuit diplomacy and bring the two countries closer to a disastrous military conflict.
Each side enters the talks in a plush resort on Singapore’s Sentosa island expressing optimism.

The official North Korean news agency said Sunday that Kim was ready to talk about “denuclearization” and a “durable peace” at a summit held “for the first time in history under the great attention and expectation of the whole world.”

Trump said Saturday that Kim has a “one-time shot” to make history.

“I feel that Kim Jong Un wants to do something great for his people,” he said.

The first face-to-face meeting between the leaders of the US and North Korea is the culmination of years of tension, North Korean nuclear and missile tests, and thwarted diplomacy involving the US, South Korea, Japan and China to try to contain the North Korean threat.

It brings together a former real estate magnate and reality television star with a ruthless dictator half his age who was once seen as a precocious madman but who has emerged as a shrewd diplomatic operator.

The meeting comes at an auspicious moment: with the US President who says he’s the world’s best dealmaker but seeks a legacy-defining achievement, a popular South Korean President Moon Jae-in who has made dialogue across the DMZ his life’s work, and Kim, who hopes to avoid the grizzly fate of toppled autocrats and to enshrine his rule for decades.

The situation is so urgent now because a blitz of nuclear and missile tests that last year brought the North Koreans close or past the point of capping an intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the US mainland with a nuclear bomb.

That new reality left Trump facing a fateful choice of taking military action against the rogue nation that could spark a war that could kill thousands, or even millions of people, on the Korean Peninsula, or to launch a daring diplomatic bid to negotiate away the nuclear threat.

Has anything changed?

Trump’s history of dealmaking guides his quest for the biggest deal of his life
The long history of failed diplomacy between US administrations and North Korea has many skeptics wondering if anything has changed.

Pompeo noted the checkered history Monday, saying the US “has been fooled before” but the two countries must come together and have “sufficient trust in each other,” to get a deal done.

“The United States has been fooled before. There’s no doubt about it. Many presidents previously have signed off on pieces of paper only to find that the North Koreans either didn’t promise what we thought they had or actually reneged on their promises,” Pompeo said.

“We’ll each have to ensure that we do the things, we take the actions necessary to follow through on those commitments and when we do we’ll have a verified deal and if we can get that far we will have a historic change,” he added.

In the short-term, the summit offers Kim the prospect of easing biting sanctions.

Longer term, it’s possible he could lure US investment to chart a way to greater prosperity for the hermit state while keeping his oppressive rule intact — perhaps on the model of China or Vietnam.

Trump faces the grave responsibility of dealing with a national security threat that could put the lives of tens of millions of Americans at risk. And the summit could be a rare unifying moment in a presidency that is certain to be remembered as one of the most divisive in history.

The President has already mused about his chances of winning a Nobel Peace Prize. Eradicating the North Korean nuclear threat would indisputably rank among America’s top diplomatic wins since World War II.

Success in Singapore, twinned with the booming US economy, would also give Trump a strong argument in tough midterm elections. Supporters would cite it as another reason why Robert Mueller’s Russia probe is a massive distraction.

The fact the summit is happening at all is a win for Trump, though it likely has more to do with the severe sanctions imposed on North Korea by the administration with buy-in from China than his threats last year to rain “fire and fury” on “Little Rocket Man.”

But Kim is also reaping rewards.

His meeting with the US President fulfills one of North Korea’s premier goals — sharing a stage with the world’s top superpower. Such recognition is in itself a de-facto admission that by the United States that Pyongyang merits respect as it is now effectively a nuclear power.

And apart from releasing a trio of US prisoners and staging what most experts believe is a public relations stunt by dismantling a nuclear test site, Kim has offered no meaningful concessions.

No one who understands North Korea believes Kim will easily cede his nuclear weapons.
“My own sense is that he would only be ready to (totally disarm) at the end of a very long process and that his goal at the present time is to remain a de facto nuclear power while reducing the sense of worry and threat about that so he can begin to develop the economy,” said Kathleen Stephens, a former US ambassador to South Korea.

“I do think he is very serious about wanting to make North Korea a more normal country, looking more like its neighbors, more like a successful Asian economy,” said Stephens, now with the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University.

Kim’s strategic choice
Much will rest on whether Kim has made a strategic choice to use his nuclear arsenal as leverage in return for security guarantees and investment from the United States or whether North Korea is playing a familiar game of demanding concessions for pseudo disarmament.

Many analysts point out that nukes are Kim’s ultimate safety net and any deal with the US would require intrusive inspections by foreign assessment teams over a period of years that he may find impossible to accept.

“Every statement, every utterance from Kim Jong Un has not even conveyed a hint of his inclination to denuclearize,” said Evans Revere, a former senior State Department official with long experience of negotiating with North Korea.

But Revere added that there was some reason for hope.

“The North Koreans, for various reasons, are closer to being willing to freeze or even give up their program than they have ever been, and that is not a bad thing,” he said.
Huge gaps remain between the sides, however.

North Korea sees denuclearization as entailing the exit of US troops from the peninsula and the withdrawal of the US nuclear umbrella for South Korea and Japan.
Kim has also called for a “phased and synchronous” approach to disarmament — code for financial concessions from the US and its allies for reciprocal steps from the North.

The Trump administration initially opposed that approach, which failed for previous White Houses and demanded swift, comprehensive and irreversible denuclearization.

But after meeting North Korea’s senior envoy Kim Yong Chol at the White House earlier this month, Trump showed signs of flexibility.

“We’re not going to go in and sign something on June 12 and we never were. We’re going to start a process,” Trump said.

The worst-case scenario is that the summit becomes little more than a photo-op that fails to kickstart a viable diplomatic process. The best outcome may be a joint statement that calls for denuclearization and future US security guarantees for North Korea and the eventual normalization of relations.

Both sides could offer to take confidence-building steps as signs of good faith. Trump has said he could possibly invite Kim to the US, and it’s also possible Kim could invite the US President to make a historic journey to Pyongyang.

But it will be impossible to truly evaluate the success of the summit for months or years to come.

CNN’s Kevin Liptak, Allie Malloy Jeremy Diamond contributed to this report from Singapore.

UK ‘deeply concerned’ by brief abduction of British Pakistani journalist and establishment critic

The UK has expressed deep concern after a British Pakistani journalist was abducted by unnamed men in the latest seizure of a media critic of the military establishment.
Gul Bukhari was driving to a television studio late on Tuesday when her car was intercepted by pick-up trucks in the city of Lahore.

Her plainclothes abductors were overseen by men wearing military uniforms according to her driver. A mask was placed over her face and she was driven off.
Ms Bukhari, a dual British national, was later released to her family who said she was well and requested privacy.

But the British High Commission said it was giving her consular assistance and said it was “very concerned at reports of Gul Bukhari’s abduction”.

Ms Bukhari has been an outspoken critic of the military in advance of what is expected to be a tense general election scheduled for July 25.

She has also defended ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who clashed with the defence establishment before the Supreme Court forced him from office last year over an undeclared source of income.

A string of social media activists have been kidnapped in the past year in what rights’ groups say is a campaign to intimidate and silence critics of the powerful security establishment.

Five bloggers disappeared for several weeks last year before four of them were released. All four sought refuge abroad, with at least two since saying they had been tortured by a state intelligence agency while in captivity.

A leading English language newspaper last month complained it was being blocked from sale in large parts of the country after it published an interview with Mr Sharif that angered the army.

The military has denied any role in previous disappearances and did not immediately comment on Ms Bukhari’s seizure.

But the incident was seized on by activists as further evidence of a concerted effort to stifle dissent and scare off critics.

“If true, this would be a most audacious attempt to silence a known critic. Is this Pakistan or Kim’s North Korea or Sisi’s Egypt?” Syed Talat Hussain, a prominent journalist, said.

Bomber attacks meeting of Islamic scholars in Afghanistan

At least seven people were Monday killed by a suicide attack on a meeting of several thousand Islamic scholars in Afghanistan who were discussing issuing a fatwa, or religious ruling, against such attacks.

The bomber, who was on foot, detonated the explosives at around 11:30 a.m. local time near the Loya Jorga hall at the Kabul Polytechnic University, Interior Ministry spokesman Najib Danish told CNN. At least nine more people were injured in the blast, which targeted Afghanistan’s Ullema Council.

It is not yet known who was behind the attack.

Security officers secure the road leading to the venue of the scholars’ meeting in Kabul on Monday.

Terrorists have killed dozens of people in Kabul in recent months, including 10 journalists in April.

On May 30, it was the turn of the Interior Ministry to be targeted. A policeman was killed along with a suicide bomber and all seven gunmen.

Both attacks were claimed by the Islamic State.

Meanwhile, the Taliban has also increased attacks across the country. The US-backed government in Kabul has been found itself increasingly struggling against terrorist assaults since the withdrawal of the majority of NATO troops in 2014.

SECURITY INTELLIGENCE BOOK REVIEW The Spy Chronicles: RAW, ISI and the Illusion of Peace

The book The Spy Chronicles: RAW, ISI and the Illusion of Peace, co-authored by the former chief of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), General Asad Durrani, and A S Dulat, the former chief of India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), has created a buzz around South Asia.

Former counterparts from the rival countries’ intelligence services coming together to produce a book on sensitive issues related to back-door diplomacy and the events related to security and foreign-policy matters is a unique venture. The book is narrated in a conversational style, with journalist Aditya Sinha initiating the dialogue between Durrani and Dulat.

Quite interestingly, Durrani is the one who occupies most of the pages of the book, while Dulat remains a bit conservative in his approach and only repeats the same mantra of India being a target of ISI and Pakistani non-state actors.

The first chapter is all about setting the stage for the beginning of the conservation between Durrani and Dulat, and it gives readers a chance to become familiar with the backgrounds of the spymasters penning their experiences.

After engaging the reader, the book opens with Pakistan’s ISI-vs-RAW war. It is the third chapter that actually looks behind the channels of diplomacy and the activities of both spy agencies in Kashmir.

While Durrani states that India has a status-quo power edge over Kashmir and that the only solution to the problem is a composite dialogue, Dulat is of the view that there is no benefit for India in burning resources in Kashmir.

Durrani’s admission about Pakistan not understanding Amanullah Khan, the president of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, is interesting. JKLK wanted a free Kashmir independent of any influence from either Pakistan or India. Durrani is of the view that Pakistan should have backed Amanullah Khan instead of backing Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Having had the chance to meet Amanullah Khan personally on few occasions, I in my early youth was convinced that his formula was the only way forward for both India and Pakistan, so one wonders why it took three decades for Durrani and his colleagues to understand this very simple point.

The book gives a detailed Indo-Pakistani perspective on Afghanistan and the proxy wars between the two countries, but the controversial point that generated the backlash is about Osama bin Laden. Durrani maintains in the book that Pakistan came to be aware of bin Laden’s presence at some stage and used him as a bargaining chip.

His revelations about the Abbottabad operation are nothing new, as every knowledgeable person in Pakistan is aware that the operation was conducted mutually and that Pakistan agreed to show ignorance about it to avoid the wrath of hyper-nationalist organizations. Durrani also states that hyper-nationalism is the obstacle in the way of Pakistan’s peace and progress.

Dulat and Durrani both also agreed to pay money to separatists and non-state actors in Kashmir and Baluchistan, which are proxy battlefields for Pakistan and India.

There are different aspects and interesting points in the book for intellectual consumption, but at the same time, it focuses more on Pakistan than India. That raises the question of whether it is a deliberate effort by a third party to exploit the weak links in Pakistan’s narrative and get them endorsed by an ex-ISI chief. For example, the statement from Durrani that both India and Pakistan should reunite again seems like an endorsement of the Akhand Bharat ideology. Durrani is of the view that Pakistan and India should one day be reunited, and likely will be. For this to happen he proposes different steps to be taken, and a detailed outline of how this can be achieved can be found in the book.

While for the establishment it is high time to think about their narrative as the Bin Laden operation details given by Durrani raise some serious questions. If the Abbottabad operation was mutually agreed, then why was the nation’s money and time wasted by the Pakistani establishment by forming a commision on the Abbottabad incident, the report on which has still not been made public.

Durrani’s statement regarding the Kargil War is a confession that Nawaz Sharif saved the day for the establishment in that conflict. Durrani’s statement is highly disliked by the establishment in Pakistan as he states in the book that the prime minister was not briefed properly and that this misadventure was initiated by then army chief Pervez Musharraf.

Durrani’s revelations are not appreciated by the establishment in Pakistan; he is already the focus of a military inquiry into the leaking of national secrets and his name is on the exit control list so he cannot flee the country.

Durrani’s point in the book regarding the establishment disliking Sharif because of his soft stance regarding India and his participation in Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s oath-taking ceremony also reflects the fact that there are double standards as far as foreign policy is concerned. If a dictator in uniform such as Musharraf pleads to Atal Bihari Vajpayee to make a deal on Kashmir and shows a soft approach towards India, it is considered patriotism and a good diplomatic approach, while the same stance from an elected prime minister is termed as a security risk influenced by the Indian lobby.

Durrani’s statement regarding the military establishment camp disapproving of Sharif also validated the former prime minister’s point that he was ousted by the invisible forces for asserting his authority on foreign policies.

For policymakers, it seems like the right time to step back from the hegemonistic foreign-policy narratives, and they should leave some space for elected representatives to work as well.

The propaganda drive against Durrani concerning leaked national secrets is baseless, as he did not disclose any secrets; in fact, he has pointed out the Pakistan’s Army’s vulnerabilities, and he identified senior officers involved in corruption.

Durrani’s revelations are not appreciated by the establishment in Pakistan; he is already the focus of a military inquiry into the leaking of national secrets and his name is on the exit control list so he cannot flee the country.

One wonders why instead of suppressing facts, the Pakistani military establishment has started an inquiry into the questionable policies and narratives of the last 70 years. Instead of dragging Durrani into an inquiry, a commission should be formed to investigate who hijacked Muhammad Ali Jinnah‘s vision of a welfare state and turned it into a security state. Who was responsible for foreign-policy failures, the Kargil blunder, the fall of Dhaka, the incidents at Ojhri camp in Rawalpindi, Who created non-state actors, and who pushed the country first into a dollar-sponsored Afghan war and then into to the great game of occupying Afghan territory in the early 2000s?

Who controls the policies and narratives of the state, and why should they not be brought to justice?

The only way forward for Pakistan is to establish a truth and reconciliation commission and to accept the mistakes and blunders of the past 70 years. Probably Durrani has provided the military establishment in Pakistan with an opportunity to come forward and accept their failures in shaping rotten and unsuccessful narratives.
It is high time for the establishment step back and let state affairs and narratives be controlled and shaped by elected governments.

Interview on Freedom of Media in Pakistan

In this interview with Rehman Bunairee of Deewa (Pushtu) television, the author is asked about why the Pushtun Tahafuz Movement has been censored in Pakistan despite holding big rallies across the country.

Her answer, translated on the spot in Pushtu, states that the size of the rallies has brought newspaper outlets to cover the event. According to her, the PTM’s push for democratic rights including the right to be brought to trial instead of being “disappeared,” has raised public awareness. At the same time, the censorship of their rallies is a mark of the authoritarian style of governance in Pakistan that does not like to be criticized.

The author speaks about her presentation of the expanded edition of her book, `Aboard the Democracy Train,’ before the intelligentsia in Peshawar University in 2016. That event, she says, helped to expound on the events that occurred after the military operation of 2014, and which fueled suspicion about the relationship of the military with extremist elements.

When asked about the division of the media on ethnic lines, she says that journalists are also human beings and therefore personally influenced by the events around them.

However, she says that a good journalist needs to rise above personal biases to present the situation with clarity.

Pakistan authorities block distribution of oldest newspaper

Distribution of the English-language daily Dawn, Pakistan’s oldest newspaper, is being disrupted in much of the country since it published an interview with former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns this latest attack on media freedom.

The interview, which reportedly displeased the Pakistani military, appeared in the 12 May (Saturday) issue and the blocking began on 15 May. According to RSF’s information, distribution is being disrupted in most of Baluchistan province, in many cities in Sindh province and in all military cantonments.

The Press Council of Pakistan has notified Dawn’s editor that the newspaper breached the ethical code of practice by publishing content that “may bring into contempt Pakistan or its people or tends to undermine its sovereignty or integrity as an independent country.”

“The unwarranted blocking of the distribution of one of the main independent newspapers has yet again shown that the military are determined to maintain their grip on access to news and information in Pakistan,” RSF said.

“It is clear that the military high command does not want to allow a democratic debate in the months preceding a general election. We call on the authorities to stop interfering in the dissemination of independent media and to restore distribution of Dawn throughout Pakistan.”

Last month, the military were said to have given unofficial instructions to cable TV operators to stop carrying the Geo TV network’s channels, including Geo News, in most of the country. One of the reasons was the airtime that the network had dedicated to Sharif, who was removed as prime minister by the supreme court in July 2017 in connection with a corruption case.

Pakistani ethnic rights group stages first rally in Karachi

KARACHI (Reuters) – A Pakistani ethnic Pashtun rights group on Sunday staged its first rally in the southern city of Karachi, the site of a killing in January that sparked the movement and led to nationwide protests and rallies.

The Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) emerged after the January killing by police of Pashtun youth Naqibullah Mehsud in Karachi.

A crowd of several thousand people gathered for the rally on Sunday in Karachi’s outlying Sohrab Goth suburb.
The PTM has said several thousand such killings have been carried out since Pakistan joined the U.S.-led war on terror and launched major military operations in 2009 and 2014 targeting Pakistani Taliban strongholds in the Pashtun majority Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) areas bordering Afghanistan.

Hundreds of thousands migrated to Karachi after the military operations, where the largest population of Pashtuns in Pakistan lives.

Among the crowd of protesters were families of missing persons, holding pictures of their loved ones who they say were taken by security officials.

The families say they have not received any information since the disappearances, some of them more than a decade ago.

The PTM estimates there are over 5,000 such cases.

“PTM was born out of the incident that happened in Karachi,” Mohsin Dawar, one of the group’s founders, told Reuters.

“The trauma and pain the Pashtuns of the FATA have experienced, the Pashtuns of Karachi have gone through a similar experience,” he said.

Officials from Pakistan’s paramilitary Rangers, which are part of the security forces, did not respond to request for comment.

The PTM leader Manzoor Pashteen’s popularity has surged amongst Pashtun youth. Some of the protesters wore the red and black patterned hat, which has become Pashteen’s trademark, as they waited for him to arrive at the rally.

But Pashteen did not board his flight from Islamabad to Karachi on Saturday morning and a representatives of local airline Serene Air said his booking had been canceled, Dawar said.

A Serene Air representative was not immediately available for comment.

Dawar said Pashteen and three other PTM leaders had started on the more than 20-hour drive from Islamabad to Karachi but they were stopped several times along the way.

“He has been stopped and detained for hours several times,” Dawar said.

Speakers at the rally said they would not leave until Pashteen arrived.

“We demand that security officials themselves bring Manzoor Pashteen here before our rally ends,” PTM member Sana Ejaz said.

After sunset, the protesters held up cellphone flashlights, refusing to move until Pashteen turned up.
Writing by Saad Sayeed. Editing by Jane Merriman

Plane returns from Rawalpindi leaving US diplomat in lurch

ISLAMABAD: An aircraft that arrived at the PAF’s Nur Khan Airbase in Rawalpindi to reportedly fly out Colonel Joseph Emanuel Hall of the United States’ embassy has returned after the diplomat failed to obtain clearance from pertinent authorities.

Sources told The Express Tribune that officials at the airbase reached the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to determine if the diplomat was allowed to leave the country. Hall, the defense and air attache at the US embassy, was jumping traffic lights when he hit a motorcyclist on April 7. 22-year-old Ateeq Baig died on the spot. Another was injured in the Margalla Road traffic accident.

US envoy placed on ‘blacklist’ for killing biker

The Ministry of Interior later placed Hall’s on a ‘blacklist’, prohibiting him from leaving the country without prior permission. FIA officials told The Express Tribune the prospects of Hall leaving Pakistan were remote. “His name is on the blacklist. He won’t be allowed to fly out,” an FIA official said.

Motorcyclist responsible for accident with US Embassy car: police
Muhammad Idrees, the father of the deceased motorcyclist, had earlier moved the Islamabad High Court in connection with the episode. Idrees petitioned the court to have Hall’s name placed on the ECL and a police probe conducted.

The IHC on Friday gave the Interior Ministry two weeks to reach a decision on placing the diplomat’s name on the ECL. The court also observed that Hall did not enjoy full diplomatic immunity.