Posted on

Dawn’s senior columnist Cyril Almeida put on Exit Control List for ‘misleading’ story on national security

ISLAMABAD, Oct 11 – Senior columnist of Dawn Cyril Almeida has been put on Exit Control List after his ‘misleading’ story regarding purported deliberations in a meeting on the security issues stirred controversy.

The writer announced Government’s latest move against the controversial story on Twitter.

Dawn’s editor Zaffar Abbas defiantly replied after the Government placed its staffer Cyril Almeida on the Exit Control List.
The writer created a buzz in Pakistan and India by reporting on October 6 that the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had delivered a “blunt” warning to the powerful military that the country facing growing international isolation if it failed to tackle terror.

The ECL is a system of border control maintained by the Government of Pakistan under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance. Persons on the list are prohibited from leaving Pakistan.

The PM Office had strongly rejected the story, terming it not only speculative but misleading and factually incorrect. “The fact that the report itself states that none of the attributed statements were confirmed by the individuals mentioned in the story clearly makes it an example of irresponsible reporting”, he said in a statement issued on Thursday.

Earlier today, the civil-military leadership expressed concern over the publication of a fabricated news story in Daily Dawn pertaining to security issues purportedly discussed in a meeting of National Security Committee in the last week.

Also, the participants of meeting were unanimous that the published story was clearly violative of universally acknowledged principles of reporting on national security issues and has risked the vital state interests through inclusion of inaccurate and misleading contents which had no relevance to actual discussion and facts.

The participants felt that it was imperative that the print and electronic media refrained itself from speculative reporting and issues of national security and interests of the state.

PM Nawaz took serious notice of the violation and directed that those responsible should be identified for stern action.

Posted on

JIT To Investigate Hazaras Murders in Quetta

QUETTA, Oct 9: A day after gunmen shot dead four women from the Shia Hazara community, the Balochistan administration decided to form a joint investigation team to probe into the grisly violence which officials say violates all tribal norms of the province.

A high-level huddle reviewed the security situation following Tuesday’s deadly assault on a bus which was en route to Hazara Town, an overwhelmingly Shia neighbourhood, on the edge of Quetta. Three gunmen riding a bike intercepted the vehicle on Kirani Road in the Podgali area.

Two of them boarded the section reserved for women and shot five women after confirming they were from the Hazara community. Four of them died on the spot while one was injured in the attack which was apparently motivated by sectarian hatred.

Attendees at Wednesday’s conclave included Home Minister Sarfaraz Bugti, Chief Secretary Saif Ullah Chatta, IGP Ahsan Mehboob, DIG Quetta Abdul Razaq Cheema and civil and other military officials. The meeting also decided to improve security arrangements by putting up closed-circuit television cameras in the city. IGP Mehboob updated participants on the investigations.

Meanwhile, Sariab police registered a quadruple murder case against unidentified gunmen. Investigations are under way.

Separately, the Hazara Democratic Party staged a protest outside the Quetta press club against the killing of the women of their community.

HDP Secretary General Ahmed Ali Kuhzad led demonstrators. Participants expressed concern over targeted attacks against their community. Killing women is a violation of tribal and Islamic values which is condemnable, they added.

“We want the government to tell us where did the attackers come from and how did they manage to commit the grisly violence amid heightened security,” Kuhzad said. The Hazara community leaders also criticised the intelligence and security agencies for their sheer failure to preempt the attack.

The protesters called upon the United Nations and rights groups to take notice of the ‘genocide’ of their community in Balochistan.

A top military commander, meanwhile, called for unity among all segments of society to defeat the enemy’s designs.

“We will have to demonstrate unity to defeat our enemy who is hatching conspiracies to divide us,” Lt Gen Aamer Riaz, Commander Southern Command, said during a visit to an Imambargah where he offered Fateha for the victims of Tuesday’s attack on a moving bus.

Lt Gen Riaz visited Nichari Imambargah in Quetta Wednesday to offer condolences to the aggrieved community. He promised that the perpetrators of the cowardly attack would not go unpunished. “They will be brought to justice at any cost,” he added. “Stern action will be taken against those involved in targeted killings of innocent people.”

He called upon all segments of society to maintain unity among their ranks in order to foil the evil designs of the enemy who wanted to divide the society.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 6th, 2016

Posted on

PPP Thunders in Parliament: `Why has the Govt been Unable to Defend Pakistan?’

ISLAMABAD, Oct 7: The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) played the role of a vibrant opposition party today when it asked the government some tough question about its handling of the Kashmir issue.

On the third day of the joint session of Parliament today when a resolution was passed on Kashmir, PPP lawmakers systematically criticised what they said was the government’s inability to make a strong case for Pakistan on the international stage.

“The day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif says the name of Kulbushan Jadhav, I will donate Rs50,000 to the blind association,” said Senator Aitzaz Ahsan. He was referring to PM Nawaz’s UNGA speech, where he failed to mention the Indian spy caught by military officials months earlier.

PPP Senator Sherry Rehman slammed Pakistan’s foreign policy, asking “Why are we not able to mount a serious, sustained, protracted defence of the federation of Pakistan?”

“Kashmir is one of the most important issues for us regarding our foreign policy… You cannot build your foreign policy through one speech,” Rehman said, referring to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s UNGA speech.

Rehman echoed Aitzaz’s address to the joint session a day earlier, during which the premier failed to mention the Indian spy caught by military officials months earlier.

Aitzaz Ahsan also had something to say about Jadhav during today’s session: “The day Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif says the name of Kulbushan Jadhav, I will donate Rs50,000 to the blind association.”

The Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval said if there was another terrorist attack in India, Pakistan would lose Balochistan, Rehman said. “Who is the NSA of India to say this?” she questioned. “How dare any Indian speak about the federation of Pakistan?”

“One-seventh of India is constantly under insurgency. That is their internal matter. Why did you not bring this matter up?” the PPP lawmaker said, addressing the prime minister who was not present at today’s session.

India has made us appear responsible for terrorism before the whole world, the lawmaker lamented. “The US is already their ally. They have already started making bases there. Afghanistan is already blaming us,” she continued. “You have no interests in common with the super powers,” she said.

“Who is defending Pakistan? Our parliament is doing it. Our Army is fighting the largest inland war against terrorism in the world today and nobody knows about it,” she said. “This is a failure of your diplomacy,” she added to applause from the PPP benches.

“The military should always be the last line of defence. The first line is the foreign ministry, the foreign minister and its ambassadors.

“The military’s job is to be standing there in the trenches. Do not make them do your job for you,” she warned the government, “Because that’s what they are being forced to do.”

“They have to give speeches, they have to take positions, they have to take journalists to the Line of Control for briefings. What have you done?” she asked the government.

“You held a traditional ‘All Parties Conference’. You didn’t even do a DGMO briefing. What are you afraid of? What will happen? Where is a vacuum, someone always fills it,” she warned.

Rehman also touched upon Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to suspend Indus Waters Commission talks after the Uri attack.

“On the Indus Waters Treaty, India touched that which hadn’t been touched in three wars. And this treaty is not a fair or just treaty with Pakistan. India has built dam upon dam.

“India has weaponised water. What answer did you give?” she asked.

Senator Rehman Malik also addressed the session, terming Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi a “chief terrorist”, held India responsible for “exporting terrorism to Pakistan”.

Rehman Malik urged lawmakers not to isolate the Kashmir issue from CPEC. “What is happening right now is because of CPEC ─ certain world powers don’t want it to be successful,” he claimed.

Resolution on Kashmir
Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz presented a resolution on Kashmir in the assembly which was unanimously endorsed by lawmakers in attendance.

The resolution highlighted Indian atrocities in Kashmir, calling for implementation of UNSC resolutions, rejected Indian accusations of Pakistani involvement in the Uri attack and condemned Indian sponsorship of subversive activity in Pakistan. It also took notice of India’s efforts to isolate Pakistan diplomatically.

Senator Taj Haider addressing parliament earlier had said, “We should not move back even one millimetre from our point of view.”

He added, “We have to voice very clearly that plebiscite in Kashmir is the only solution. We have to find a method to hold free and fair plebiscite without any pressure on Kashmir.”

The senator raised concerns of smaller provinces over the CPEC, echoing the stance PPP Senator Aitzaz Ahsan took during yesterday’s joint session.

Fata MNA Dr G.G. Jamal pointed out that a large number of the armed forces were deployed to the western border for Operation Zarb-i-Azb.

“The world should know that India, indirectly, does not want Zarb-i-Azb to finish. Indirectly, they don’t want terrorism to end, they are helping it,” he claimed.

Jamal said that India is diverting the world’s attention towards war so that state terrorism in Kashmir is forgotten.

Senator Kamil Ali Agha, during the session said: “We have to see that the UN resolutions are in place, the Kashmiris are sacrificing so where are we lacking? Why is the world not paying attention?”

Agha also raised questions about CPEC. “Why has Gilgit-Baltistan been left out of CPEC?” and asserted that GB carries the potential to generate electricity.

“The corridor cannot be completed without investment in Gilgit-Baltistan,” he maintained.

During yesterday’s session, PPP and PML-N lawmakers clashed over Panamagate and allegations of corruption in the house just days after political leaders announced they were united on the Kashmir issue following an ‘All Parties Conference’.

The upper and lower houses together also unanimously approved the anti-honour killing and anti-rape bills during Thursday’s session.

Posted on

People outraged as Karachi authorities poison at least 700 stray dogs

Pakistanis are shaming Karachi authorities over their poisoning of at least 700 stray dogs. City officials counter that the canines bite thousands of people yearly, and there is no other way to curb the problem.

The poisoning of dogs got a fierce reaction from social network users, with most of them being outraged at the authorities’ actions.
“Just bloody horrible”, “Spread the word. Shame on Karachi authorities!”, “No more cruelty” were just a few among the angry messages.
Dog corpses were lying along the streets of the 20-million city, and the city employees have been disposing of them.

“At least 700 dogs have been killed only in two areas of Karachi’s south in the last couple of days,” Sattar Javed, a spokesman for the municipal authority, confirmed to Reuters.

Here’s how the authorities kill the strays: they hide poison tablets in chicken meat, and give the meat to the animals.
The Pakistani animal rights activists have spoken out against the practice, but the city authorities said there is no other way to cope with the growing population of dogs, which attack the locals.

According to stats, last year, Karachi’s Jinnah Hospital treated 6,500 people bitten by dogs, and this year saw about 3,700 incidents, according to Dr Seemin Jamali, head of the emergency room, as quoted by Reuters.

Officials don’t have the exact estimates of the total number of strays killed at the moment. However, they say that thousands should be culled in total

Posted on

Aboard the Democracy Train: Make Sure it Runs

I borrowed the first half of topic today from the title of Nafisa Hoodbhoy’s book launched recently in Pakistan. In this nearly biographic work, she narrates her voyage as a journalist and activist in the 80s and 90s which I found particularly valuable for understanding the complexities of a fragile democratic arrangement that emerged after the sudden death of General Ziaul Haq. She extensively records incidents to explain where and how Pakistan started losing out to trends; in violence, especially against the weaker sections of society; and corruption; inefficient political organisation as well as the political intrusions by the establishment.

With vast exposure particularly in Sindh but generally throughout the country, Nafisa presents case studies of several human rights violations including her own case when she became a victim of brazen political violence. She is explicit in naming names and pointing the finger at characters which helps readers understand the nature of challenges that persist today. Alongside her core suggestion about strengthening the democratic order, she is satisfied with the emerging prospects of eliminating extremism. Parallel to forces on the opposite side, yearning for democracy has been a hallmark of Pakistanis. The masses that filled the streets for the restoration of the judiciary during most of the year 2007 were mesmerised by Aitzaz Ahsan’s famous poem Riasat hogi maanke jaisi suggesting that a democratic state will be benevolent like a mother. Besides its idealistic vision, the poem emphasized the justice system and reforms therein which form the basis of a stable democracy.

Nevertheless, the undemocratic rules left our institutions and systems ineffective, unable to deliver on the promises made by the elected governments or the expectations of the people. Today, we find institutions to be in a virtual dysfunction in major sectors like health, education and the justice system. On the other hand, the political stakeholders have been unwilling to allow some of the essentials of democracy; for instance, holding census and establishing local government. The elected governments achieved incremental progress on structural reforms through the 18th constitutional amendment, etc. However there was dismal progress regarding institutional and sectoral reforms. The failures in the structural reforms were attributable to the latter.

An interaction with different ministries and line department brings home a stark realisation that the implementers and decision makers are suffering from inaptitude and indifference towards their responsibilities. The actors move only when there is a threat of losing their perks and privileges. The other tasks at hand can linger on for ages if the officers have an excuse to delay, defer or deny. Therefore, the objectors keep emphasising an improvement in governance.

One solution was seen in building public-private partnership, which has worked only partially due to constraints on both sides, though notably because the bureaucracy accustomed to serving undemocratic regimes is failing to appreciate the nuance of a participatory democracy. Even able and well meaning officials are found nursing their demotivation and disillusionment. Some of them are even attracted to some kind of revolution. A section of politicians and bureaucracy are busy ensuring the third sector, or the NGOs are effectively alienated. Hence their expertise gained during decades in service delivery, development, disaster management and human rights advocacy is being under-utilised and wasted. Given the commendable achievements and sacrifices made for democracy throughout the history of Pakistan, these undesirable outcomes should make the stakeholders ponder over the details of the democracy project. We cannot afford to stay aboard a train that needs repairs.

People at the helm need to capitalise on the wide consensus on democracy to expand the meaning and function of democracy from a majoritarian and functional democracy to an inclusive participatory and delivering democracy. The ongoing crackdown on civil society organisations, especially the smear campaign against NGOs, is a step in the opposite direction. While everyone should be accountable organisations, especially the smear campaign against NGOs, is a step in the opposite direction. While everyone should be accountable before the law, no one should be subjected to arbitrary actions without proof beyond doubt and due process of law. The people of Pakistan have paid a huge price to uncanny policies, indifference to people’s rights and lack of good governance. It is time to reverse the process, which is possible by allowing more civil rights, not the other way round. Subject to needs of lawful and reasonable scrutiny, a reduced civil space for NGOs is a space reduced for democracy in Pakistan.

May the idealism for a better Pakistan featured in the works of Nafisa Hoodbhoy and Aitzaz Ahsan live on.

Published in the Express Tribune, September 21, 2016

Posted on

Ahmad Khan Rahami spent time at Pakistan seminary tied to Taliban

Suspect in New York and New Jersey bombings spent three weeks in 2011 at Kaan Kuwa Naqshbandi madrassa, source says, amid questions of terrorism links. Ahmad Khan Rahami, the man suspected of placing bombs in New York and New Jersey last weekend, spent time in a religious seminary in Pakistan closely associated with the Afghan Taliban, according to a government official.

The 28-year-old, who was born in Afghanistan but became a US citizen, spent time at the Kaan Kuwa Naqshbandi madrassa on his two visits to Pakistan, a security official working for the government of Balochistan province told the Guardian.

Rahami spent three weeks in 2011 receiving “lectures and Islamic education” at the school in Kuchlak, a dusty cluster of villages 20km north of Quetta, the provincial capital of Balochistan, he said.

Kuchlak is a well-known hub for the Taliban, the Islamist movement that has waged a 15-year insurgency against local and Nato forces in nearby Afghanistan. It is home to many madrassas, the seminaries intimately linked with the Taliban, originally a movement of religious students.

US officials have revealed basic details about Rahami’s two visits to Pakistan, the first in 2011 when he spent a couple of months in Quetta and got married and almost a year in 2013 when he also made a car journey to Afghanistan.

But very little information has emerged from inside Pakistan about what Rahami did during his visits.

The government official, who did not wish to be named because he was speaking about a highly sensitive subject, said Pakistani security agencies have tried to “hide all the details of his visits to Quetta” and keep as much information as possible out of the media.

Rahami, he said, also visited other sensitive areas in the province, including Surkhab and Nushki, where former Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansoor was killed by a US drone in May.

Pakistan has long been accused of playing a “double game” with the US, both supporting the Nato counterinsurgency in Afghanistan but also allowing the Taliban to use its territory a vital rear base.

A western expert on the Taliban said Abdul Samad, the Afghan owner of the Kuchlack madrassa, was an important local figure.

“The madrassa is a place where you have multiple Afghan Taliban going there and hanging out in [Samad’s] court, as well as active ISI officers,” he said, referring to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, an army-run spy agency.

“Samad is the kind of person who should have been shut down long ago but enjoys a high degree of protection,” he said.

Despite being part of the mystical, Sufi strain of Islam which many hardliners abhor, Samad is highly respected by the movement, he said.

A Karachi-based cleric told the Guardian the school is a sizeable operation, with more than 200 students.

Despite several attempts to reach Samad for comment, the Guardian was unable to make contact with the madrassa.

Although the Taliban’s leadership is often described as the “Quetta Shura” many analysts consider Kuchlak to be the actual command centre for many senior members of the movement.

The Taliban’s white flags have been reportedly seen flying in the town’s graveyards and Shahbaz Taseer, a Pakistani kidnapped by militants in Lahore in 2011 and held for more than four years, was released in Kuchlak in March by the Taliban.

Rahami’s father Mohammad Rahami has said his son had grown increasingly interested in Islamist movements, watching Taliban and al-Qaida videos, and listening to their poetry. Rahami had also showed sympathy towards the Taliban, a former employer said.

Given the Taliban has long avoided entanglement in international jihad, insisting it is only interested in forcing foreign troops out of Afghanistan, it is unlikely Rahami was operating under instruction when he planted his bombs. A notebook found on Rahami when he was captured after a shootout on Monday suggests he may have been inspired by the Islamic State group.

But the claim Rahami attended an important Taliban-sympathising madrassa could be embarrassing for Pakistan at a time the country is under intense international criticism, not least from India which accused Pakistan this week of hosting “the Ivy League of terrorism”.

Anwar-ul-Haq Kakar, a spokesman for the Balochistan government, said that because more than 1 million Afghan refugees live in the province it is “difficult to know what sort of activity is being conducted by some individuals”.

“Filtering out the terrorist influences in such a huge community is a very difficult task,” he said.

Nor could the government be expected to be aware of a US traveller like Rahami who has “deep links in the host community”.

“If he was not spotted by the CIA and FBI or Homeland Security, then this shows that it is really global problem,” he said.

Posted on

Three mysterious incidents in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota raise fears of terrorism

NEW YORK, Sept 18 — Authorities are investigating three incidents — explosions in New York and New Jersey and a stabbing attack in Minnesota — that took place within a 12-hour period on Saturday and sowed fears of terrorism.

Officials said they could identify no definitive links between the disturbances — a bombing that hurt 29 in Chelsea, an explosion along the route of a scheduled race in Seaside Park, N.J., and a stabbing that wounded nine in a St. Cloud, Minn., mall.

But each incident in its own right raised the possibility of terrorist connections, prompting federal and local law enforcement to pour major resources into determining exactly what happened and why.

A news agency linked to the Islamic State claimed Sunday that the suspect in Minnesota, who was fatally shot by an off-duty police officer, was “a soldier” of the militant group, though there was no confirmation of what connection the man may have had.

A claim of responsibility is no guarantee that the terrorist group directed or even inspired the attack, and authorities said they were still exploring a precise motive. The terrorist group made no similar claims about the New York and New Jersey incidents.

In New York, authorities said there was no evidence that the mysterious Saturday-night explosion was motivated by international terrorism, though they confirmed that the bombing was intentional.

“This is the nightmare scenario,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) said.

The governor said nearly 1,000 police officers and National Guard troops would be sent to bus stops, train stations and airports, as investigators with the New York Police Department, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives worked to identify the person or people responsible for the explosion.

A federal law enforcement official said investigators were still aggressively probing if the New York and New Jersey incidents were related, though the official cautioned that as of Sunday afternoon they had not tied them together definitively.

Those injured in the Saturday-night blast in Chelsea had been released from hospitals by Sunday.
The Manhattan explosion occurred about 8:30 p.m. Saturday in the area of West 23rd Street between Sixth and Seventh avenues, injuring 29 people as it hurled glass and debris into the air, officials said. Surveillance video showed passersby running to get away from the blast, and investigators said they would comb through that and older footage to try to identify those responsible.

Authorities said the explosion was produced by some type of bomb, and they posted on Twitter a photo of what appeared to be a mangled Dumpster or garbage container. Masum Chaudry, who manages a Domino’s Pizza near the scene, said the explosion “shook the whole building” and caused “total chaos.”

Cuomo said, “When you see the amount of damage, we really were very lucky there were no fatalities.”
A short time after the explosion, just a few blocks away, police found another potentially explosive device, which looked like a pressure cooker with wiring, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation. Both that device and the remnants of that which exploded will be sent to the FBI’s lab in Quantico, Va., for analysis, authorities said. Pressure cookers were used in the two bombs detonated at the Boston Marathon in 2013.

Sara Miller, who was at a restaurant two blocks from the site of explosion, said she heard the blast, then saw people scrambling to get away. “I was here on September 11th so I thought, maybe, you know, I was being paranoid … but then I saw people running,” said Miller, 42. “It is a scary time because you never know when it will happen again.”

Officials differed on whether to call the Saturday night explosion an act of terrorism. Cuomo said: “It depends on your definition of terrorism. A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism, but it’s not linked to international terrorism.”

City, police and FBI officials said it was too early to determine any type of motivation, though they insisted they would not shy from labeling the crime an act of terror if it became appropriate to do so.

“We do not know the motivation. We do not know the nature of it. That’s what we have to do more work on,” said New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, who shied away from labeling the attack as terrorism.

The incident comes as foreign leaders, including many heads of state, are heading to Manhattan for the United Nations General Assembly. Secretary of State John F. Kerry arrived Saturday, while Obama is scheduled to head to the city on Monday.

This annual meeting — held more than two miles from the site of the explosion in Chelsea — is traditionally a challenging time for New York, as many roads are shut down and the heavy security leads to traffic jams.

Officials said they had already prepared to beef up security, and now they would intensify those efforts.
On the campaign trail, the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates offered varied reactions to news of the incident. As early reports circulated Saturday night, Donald Trump declared that a “bomb went off” in New York City and said: “We better get very, very tough. We’ll find out. It’s a terrible thing that’s going on in our world, in our country and we are going to get tough and smart and vigilant. … We’ll see what it is. We’ll see what it is.”

Hillary Clinton condemned what she characterized as the “apparent terrorist attacks” in Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.

“This should steel our resolve to protect our country and defeat ISIS and other terrorist groups,” Clinton said, using an acronym for the Islamic State. She added, “I have laid out a comprehensive plan to do that.”

Moyed Abu, 28, a manager of OMG, a jeans store on 7th Avenue, said he and two employees were in the store at the time of the blast. Abu said they assumed initially it was construction noise — but immediately saw dozens of people, though not everyone, running in both directions, Abu said.

“I saw that some people started to take pictures,” he said. “In this situation, it’s better to just leave! It’s not safe!”

The Chelsea explosion occurred about 11 hours after a pipe bomb exploded in a Jersey Shore garbage can, shortly before a scheduled charity 5K race to benefit Marines and Navy sailors. No one was hurt.

Officials said that device, too, would be sent to the FBI lab in Quantico, though Cuomo noted the pipe bombs used in New Jersey “appear to be different” than those in New York.

New York Police Commissioner James O’Neill said officials would explore a possible connection between the two cases but noted, “At this point, there doesn’t appear to be one.”

Two law enforcement officials said residue of tannerite — used primarily for making exploding targets for firearms practice — was found in material that had detonated in New York. The officials said a cellphone was used in both the New York and the New Jersey cases.

In another incident Saturday night in Minnesota, a man who made reference to Allah and asked at least one person whether he or she were Muslim stabbed and wounded nine people inside a Minnesota mall. He was shot to death by an off-duty police officer. On Sunday, the Islamic State claimed that the attacker was “a soldier of the Islamic State” and “carried out the operation in response to calls to target the citizens of countries belonging to the crusader coalition.”

A law enforcement official said Sunday that officials were examining all the devices, reviewing surveillance footage and combing through social media. Another official said that there was no clear suspect as of Sunday afternoon but that the investigation was in its very early stages.

“Whoever placed these bombs, we will find, and they will be brought to justice,” Cuomo said.

Some New Yorkers, though, said they felt uneasy waiting. Leonard Glass, 55, who walked 20 blocks from the upper West Side of Manhattan to the site of the explosion early Sunday afternoon, said that no one had taken responsibility for the explosion made it worse.

“I hope this is something else,” he said. “Not terrorism.”

Zapotosky and Wang reported from Washington. Renae Merle in New York and Mark Berman, Ellen Nakashima, Kristine Guerra, Sari Horwitz, Sean Sullivan, Steven Overly, John Wagner and Julie Tate contributed to this report, which has been updated.

Posted on

The Afghan War Quagmire

Eight years ago, President Obama pledged to wind down the war in Iraq and redouble efforts to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. “As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be,” he said during a campaign speech. “This is a war that we have to win.”

Lasting peace, Mr. Obama said, would depend on not only defeating the Taliban but helping “Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up.” He added, “We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism.”

Now, at the twilight of his presidency, these goals are receding further into the distance as America’s longest war deteriorates into a slow, messy slog. Yet despite this grim reality, there has been no substantive debate about Afghanistan policy on the campaign trail this year. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton has outlined a vision to turn around, or withdraw from, a flailing military campaign.

The war in Afghanistan has cost American taxpayers in excess of $800 billion — including $115 billion for a reconstruction effort, more than the inflation-adjusted amount the United States spent on the Marshall Plan. The Afghan government remains weak, corrupt and roiled by internal rivalries. The casualty rate for Afghan troops is unsustainable. The economy is in shambles. Resurgent Taliban forces are gaining ground in rural areas and are carrying out barbaric attacks in the heart of Kabul, the capital. Despite an international investment of several billion dollars in counternarcotics initiatives, the opium trade remains a pillar of the economy and a key source of revenue for the insurgency.

“It does not appear that the Afghan forces in the near future will be able to defeat the Taliban,” said a senior administration official who spoke about the White House’s appraisal of the campaign on the condition of anonymity. “Nor is it clear that the Taliban will make any significant strategic gains or be able to take and hold on to strategic terrain. It’s a very ugly, very costly stalemate.”

The administration’s current strategy commits the United States to keeping roughly 8,400 troops in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future and spending several billion dollars each year subsidizing the Afghan security forces. The goal has been to coax the Taliban to the negotiating table by beating them on the battlefield, a prospect that now seems remote.

The next American president may be tempted to adopt the Obama policy and hope for the best. That would be a mistake. At the very least, the next administration needs to carry out a top-to-bottom review of the war, one that unflinchingly addresses fundamental questions.

One such question is whether the Afghan Taliban — an insurgency that has never had aspirations to operate outside the region — is an enemy Washington should continue to fight. American forces started battling the Taliban in 2001 because the group had provided safe haven for Al Qaeda, which was based there when it planned the Sept. 11 attacks. While Al Qaeda has largely been defeated, the Taliban has proved to be extraordinarily resilient.

Another question is what it would take to bring the conflict to an end — either by enabling Afghan forces to defeat the Taliban or by bringing them into the political fold — and whether that is something the United States is realistically capable of achieving.

This will not be an easy discussion. A precipitous drawdown from Afghanistan may well have calamitous consequences in the short run, exacerbating the exodus of refugees and expanding the area of ungoverned territory in which extremist groups could once again subject Afghans to despotism and plot attacks on the West.
But American taxpayers and Afghans, who have endured decades of war, need a plan better than the current policy, which offers good intentions, wishful thinking and ever-worsening results.

Posted on

Public Slaughter of Animals Gives Rise to Deadly Viral Infections

In most Western (and, in fact, Muslim) countries, it is unlawful to slaughter animals in homes, on roads, in public spaces or residential areas. This can be done only in designated areas approved as slaughterhouses and located well away from human dwellings. These purpose-built premises include facilities for the housing and movement of the animals; veterinary care; professional slaughtering equipment and methods; and the segregation and disposal of waste and body parts such as blood, hides, hooves, heads, horns, offal and other inedible parts. Many of these are sold and recycled.

Slaughter in places other than approved and licensed locations carries many hygiene and public health risks. Recently gaining prominence is Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever (CCHF), having hit the headlines due to the growing incidence of this highly fatal disease. It is caused by a virus that is carried inside the Hyalomma tick, which lives on the skin of farm animals. Nonetheless, awareness of this risk has only reached a fraction of the people who are likely to acquire the infection. Thus, the vast number of adults and children who are in contact with cattle know or understand little — or wish not to know, trusting their lives to fate.

CCHF is just one of the many zoonotic diseases (infectious diseases transmitted from animal to man) commonly known to most lay persons or practising doctors. There are at least several dozen viral, bacterial, fungal and protozoal infections that are responsible for serious infections in humans. These infections are difficult to diagnose and even more difficult to treat. Unrecognised and misdiagnosed illnesses lead to mistreatment, complications, and prolonged chronic illness.

This year’s Eidul Azha has come and gone. The rivers of blood have been washed away or, rather, may have been absorbed by the earth. Stray cats and dogs, crows and kites will scavenge the leftover flesh, and one may get accustomed to the city’s perpetual stink. Days, weeks, even months later, diseases will begin to surface. Unreported by the press, many adults and children will enter hospitals’ and clinics’ outpatient facilities with fever and body pain, perhaps bleeding from internal organs. Others may suffer from fever and liver disease due to parasitic hydatid disease; prolonged, indolent fever from brucella; pneumonia from Coxiella; bovine tuberculosis; chronic intestinal infections from parasitic worms; and skin infections from anthrax.

In Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia — where animals are sacrificed on a massive scale, particularly after Haj — roadside slaughter is unheard of. Gulf countries do not have CCHF or zoonotic infections because they handle animal slaughter in a coordinated and hygienic manner. Pakistan, too, could learn from their examples.

Keeping, breeding, even entry, let alone slaughter, of farm animals in or around residential areas, roadsides or public spaces ought to be declared unlawful. This would, however, call for establishing organised, scientific, lice¬nsed and hygienic abattoirs in all cities and urban centres. If our government is prudent regarding the health and hygiene of its citizens it could build abattoirs close to all urban residential areas in a manner that caters to both public health and convenience.

Naseem Salahuddin is a specialist in infectious diseases. Naeem Sadiq is a freelance writer on social issues.

Posted on

‘Pakistan Has Never Had a Functioning Democracy’

Nafisa Hoodbhoy, the first female reporter in Pakistan, talks about the country’s ties with China, civil-military relations, terrorism and much more.

Nafisa Hoodbhoy is a senior Pakistani journalist and author based in the US. She recently authored Aboard the Democracy Train: Pakistan Tracks the Threat Within, a book about politics and journalism in Pakistan. As the only female reporter working for Dawn during Gen Zia ul Haq’s rule, she wrote news reports and articles that coincided with the transition from military to civilian rule.

What do you mean by Aboard the Democracy Train?

Well, I thought that this would be a captivating title because of the fact that when I came back (to Pakistan in 1984), [I] was appointed given the fact that I was the only women reporter. So, my editor asked me to accompany Benazir Bhutto when she made a bid to become Pakistan’s first and only female prime minister. That is why I travelled with her on the train.

When we passed through different cities and towns in the interior Sindh, I thought that the people were deprived of food, clothing and shelter. And the way they responded to Benazir Bhutto gave me the idea that Pakistan was waiting for true and representative democracy. Later on, that idea or image was so powerful in my mind because, of course, the history of Pakistan has been the history of deprivation of the rights of people.

Consequently, I made it the cover of my book.

What is the prime objective of your book?

I think that I have had a great opportunity not only as a reporter in Pakistan, but also having gone to the United States and doing radio programmes from there after 9/11. I have been able to see how the United States interacts with Pakistan; Pakistan’s foreign policy plays a huge role in the way that the transformation has occurred in the last few years.

Being given this unique opportunity to observe things at a very close level, I thought that I should share my experiences and observations, and turn them into readable accounts which is what inspired me to write this book.

In your book, you write that in Pakistan “the military establishment has infiltrated ethnic, religious and political parties to bend the situation in their favor”. Could you please explain this?

Anybody who has lived through the history of Pakistan will tell you that we have never had a functioning democracy in this country. As a reporter who covered elections regularly, I had the opportunity not only to be closed to politicians, but also to observe how elections were rigged. It is not something that one arrives in one day; it is rather through consistent reporting and observation I was, for example, able to see that how the Muttahida Quami Movment (MQM) was created.

In those days, MQM was infiltrated by the military which wanted to see the Mahajirs (refugees) channel there in such a way that it could be used by the military to prevent the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) from grabbing the power at the Centre.

I was witness in those days that not only the military, but also Nawaz Sharif, as he was a businessman and chosen by the military. In many cases, the combined opposition to former Benazir Bhutto was headed by Nawaz Sharif, too. That is why I got a very close look the way the military manipulated ethnic, religious and political parties in order to prevent people’s rule in the country.

In your estimate, what are the motives behind military coups in Pakistan?

It is an extremely complex situation but the fact is that the politicians are unable to deliver. And why are politicians unable to deliver? In my opinion, one of the reasons behind is this that the military does not allow freedom for institutions to develop. For example, in Pakistan, the judiciary has been curbed; the media has been curbed. These are cornerstones of any functioning democracy.

The present reform system has been controlled. However, we need to have a better education system; we need to allow institutions to grow. So, when this does not happen, and the politicians who are ruling the country during the same time, they fail. Because there is not enough planning at all levels. In this context, when politicians fail, the military takes over the control by saying that the political establishment is unable to bring about democracy in the country.

What has been the US’s role in undermining democracy in Pakistan?

I have to explain this one thing, which is that the United States does not go around trying to destabilise the nations around the world. What it does is it follows its own national interests because countries do not have emotions. They neither have friends nor enemies. In fact, they have only interests. For example, America’s interest was to get Pakistan as an ally in order to crush the Taliban and other militant forces, like al-Qaeda there. They did so to ensure that the people like Osama Bin Ladin never find sanctuaries.

It is not right to say that America is out to sabotage democracy around the world. However, it is too easy for us to say that America is against democracy and looks only for its own interests. As for interests, there is no doubt that every nation looks for its own interests. But the only difference they have the power and we do not have the power.

On the other hand, I would say that the foreign interventions in these regions are also important. Ever since the 9/11, America intervened. It opened a Pandora’s box in this country. Two things went out of control because of Pakistan’s history of shielding the Taliban. The fact is that if Pakistan wanted to get US aid and, of course, Pakistan does want to continue the US assistance. That is why it had to say yes to the United States. But implicitly it went against a policy of no interference in Afghanistan, which complicated things and brought terrorism to a boiling point in this country.

When the US interferes, there is often no understanding of how this can open up sectarian class and all types of differences which exist in lawless society like Pakistan.

What challenges did you face as the first female reporter during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime?

I came at a time when women had actually disappeared from public view and the concept of chadar aur chardivari (the veil and the four walls) was very strong. Women who had protested against laws of evidence had been tear-gassed in 1981. So, I came only a few years later.

Interestingly, when I would go to public functions, the male reporters would start looking at me as though I was doing something wrong. Also, when I would go to events, I would even be asked whether I would be feeling strange because I was the first female reporter in Pakistan’s traditionally patriarchal society.

Besides myself working as a journalist, it was interesting that in 1981 Women Action Forum was formed and it was actually formed as a reaction to General Zia-ul-Haq’s rule, because he had enacted laws against women, including the Hudood ordinance, laws of evidence, etc. These laws were enacted in order to push the women back to their homes.

How did Pakistan transform politically and religiously under Zia?

It was [a] very, very transformational period for Pakistan. The major reason was the guns were coming in for the Afghan war. Karachi, the former capital of Pakistan, was transformed into the centre – guns would be sent from there to Peshawar for Mujahideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Zia had also banned the political parties. Consequently, the people were splitting up into ethnic groups. One of its examples is the MQM, which rose during Zia’s time. On the other hand, the religious parties also started gaining power. This is what happens when you do not have democracy.

In a nutshell, there were no ideological parties. Following Zia, there were also not ideological parties and democracy in true sense, including Benazir Bhutto’s PPP.

However, the religious and political transformation during Zia’s time was very deep, as well as it went on at every level in the society.

How do you view the current civil-military relations in Pakistan?

In the last 70 years, so much has happened in Pakistan. I think now the military has started to recognise that the people are fed up of martial laws. So there is no longer the acceptance of military rule, because we have already had two long military rules by General Zia and General Parvez Musharraf.

Even if former President Asif Ali Zardari was not a competent ruler, the military allowed him to continue his rule because they realised there was no appetite of democracy for dictatorship. But I would say that when elections were held in 2013, there was an understanding by military that it could not be business as usual.

As I write in the last chapter of my book, the way this present government came in, then Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan came in a very curious way in the sense that the establishment used the Taliban to attack the parties which were secular, including: ANP, MQM and PPP. Therefore, the two parties Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) were facilitated by them.

I think Imran Khan rode the wave because he understood that the Taliban were a big force at the time. He showed closeness to the Taliban, while the army decided to use him. So he was allowed to gain power by stopping them from attacking his rallies, etc.

In a very devious way, Imran Khan and Nawaz, both of them, I would say, are parties of the establishment, which were ushered by the Taliban.

Even now there are many, many games being played. It is not like establishment or military’s sympathies toward any groups. Its primary goal is to control them or use political parties.

In Pakistan, politicians are nothing. In fact, they are people to be dispensed with. Remember, political parties are a creation of the establishment. For example, we do not have a defence minister in the country right now because the army makes all the decisions. There is no pretense of having a political figure or defence secretary or defence minister because there is no need for all that stuff. Everybody knows that the army makes all the decisions.

It is not just foreign affairs; the army is now making decisions in every, every aspect of life.

Why is ideological politics non-existent in Pakistan?

Because the political space has not been provided to them, and it should be provided to political parties to groom and train younger people. If there is no history of democracy, what is the role model? What can you look to the past, if all the politicians are mere creations of the establishment? Then, there is not much scope for grooming political parties, is there?

Following the attack on the Army Public School, what change do you perceive in Pakistan’s internal and external policies?

In 2014, the operation Zarb-i-Azb was launched. Already, the military had started clamping down, and before that the Karachi operation was launched. But the APC was another big jolt for them, and the people with whom the army had had contacts, in the past, like Fazlullah. It is my belief that they let Fazlullah escape from Swat by letting him go to Afghanistan. In fact, there is quite evidence on that discourse.

When those people returned to kill innocent children, it shook things up in this country. As a result, the army did react very promptly by intensifying Zarb-i-Azb. After that, there is specific targeting of militant[s] across the country, where they knew they were hiding in Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Kyber Pakhtunkhwa.

In a nutshell, it renewed the anger in the army that these people are still present despite frequent bombardments in the aforementioned areas.

Following the attack, the army has been able to raise its head little bit. The reason is: Pakistan had been consumed by terrorism prior to that. Therefore, they managed to clean up quite a bit Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where there used to be routine bomb attacks in the past. For example, before 2014, there were usual bomb attacks there.

As for Balochistan, hundreds of Hazaras would be slaughtered at one time. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), which is active in Mastung, Balochistan, they were chased out. Malik Ishaque, the head of LeJ, was killed in an encounter. Besides him, some of his finances were killed.

After these all, the military used intelligence; it tracked all the political and sectarian groups that had been committing terrorist acts. In this regard, Altaf Hussian himself was tracked. Also, for the first time, the army said a very interesting thing that MQM is basically a terrorist organisation with a political mandate instead of the other way around. It redefined MQM. So, having treated it as terrorist then, of course, what follows after that. And it is continued to follow after that.

Yes. There have been major changes in internal policies.

Externally, what they did: it raised Pakistan’s profile in the outside world. I think that Pakistan army’s capability has been recognised in the outside world. It has allowed Pakistan’s status in that sense to be lifted a little bit higher that it was able to control terrorism.

Of course, terrorism has not ended now, and we do not know what the future of terrorism is in the country. Certainly, I believe that not unless you bring sweeping changes, giving the people the right to understand that what the hell is going on inside the country. Just, blindly accepting military rule is not a cure. And military courts can never be a substitute for the rule of law; the way the state narrative continues can never be a substitute for real debate and understanding for critical analysis, for which we really need to project what is going on and understand things better. So, I think that is the way our country is headed right now.

Is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif creating a space for the military establishment?

I think that he has a better understanding of the military establishment than the other parties or chairpersons. In history, he came at a time when the military was much more in a position to recognize that unless it combated the enemy within, nothing could be done.

In 2013, it was a turning point for Pakistan, and the military recognised that the businessman who they turned into a politician was perhaps the only one who could have the smartness to work with them in such a way that he keeps his mouth shut, he often does not speak the truth when he goes out of the country. So, they need a man like that because they do not need a man who is rabble-rouser, and who gathers crowd. They need someone who can toe the line, and I think he is delivering very well for that.

How has militancy strained Pakistan’s ties with its neighboring countries?

This is true that even at a time in Pakistan’s history when it has succeeded fighting militancy. It’s past history with its neighbours, and I will not go beyond 2011, has made it extremely unpopular. Today, we are at a very low point in our relationship with our neighbours. For example, Afghanistan is blaming us for supporting the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network in order to destabilise the Afghan government. India is convinced that we are still sheltering Kashmiri separatists, and militant groups, like JuD [Jamaat-ud-Dawa] which openly has processions and shuts down roads and markets. In this context, the people like Hafiz Saeed, etc, are roaming free. That is why they are very vocal about Pakistan’s support toward terrorism.

As far as China is concerned, she is looking the other way because she needs Pakistan for its economic interests.

Between Iran and Pakistan, on the other hand, are also problems due to Sunni elements who use Balochistan border to inflict attacks on Iran. Anyway, that is a separate issue.

On the other hand, Pakistan is close to Saudi Arabia also makes more tense the relations with Iran.

What about the US?

With the United States, I would say that relationship is still uneasy one. Right now, the US itself is in a state of transition due to elections. And the Congress has a lot of people who say that Pakistan should be cut off, so much so, sometimes they are very loud by saying that 15 years on Pakistan refuses to stop supporting the Haqqani network.

Worryingly, Mullah Akhtar Mansour was killed in a drone attack in Balochistan. In fact, Balochistan still continues to be the hub of Quetta Shura. Therefore, these things are making Pakistan’s relations unpopular with America and rest of the world.

Is China still complainant about Uighurs’ safe sanctuaries on Pakistan’s soil?

To my knowledge and understanding, Pakistan has done a wonderful job to rid of foreign militants, like Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens and Uighurs. It’s Taliban that creates problem.

With Uighurs, in recent times, there are no complaints from China.

Does Pakistan still differentiate between the good and bad Taliban?

Well, Pakistan keeps saying, especially from 2014, that it does not differentiate any more between the good and bad Taliban. But if you talk to senior government officials inside Afghanistan, they will say that Pakistan still differentiates between good and bad Taliban.

The only thing which I think has happened is that the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan has gone to Afghanistan and many of its leaders, who are disillusioned with Pakistan, are now joining the Islamic State. That is why Afghanistan is accusing Pakistan of supporting IS inside Afghanistan.

We know for the fact that the great game is going on and Pakistan does need a strategy for pursuing its policies of strategic depth inside Afghanistan. So, as long as that happens, it will continue to differentiate between the good and bad Taliban.

What are your thoughts on the Gwadar port project and security situation in Balochistan?

If the Gwadar port project is going to be a project of the federal government without input from the Balochistan government, then it is headed for a major showdown. In this context, the questions arise: How can you come as a foreign invader in your own country? How can you support the interests of a foreign country in your own country and support your own military restrict without recognising that this is in a province where people have suffered from generations of neglect? So, if they are committing this blunder, then they will have to pay for it because this is an opportunity for Pakistan to enhance itself in order to enrich itself by bringing people to mainstream, educational opportunities.

I still think that the control over the Gwadar port project is so strong that even the officials of Gwadar recognise that their jobs are very precarious that if they detract from the policies of the federal government, then they can lose their jobs.

However, it is very significant now for the democratic forces in Balochistan in particular and in Pakistan in general to demand that to be given a say in the Gawadar port. Otherwise, this is also going out of their hands.

The federal government and the military have provided something like 10,000 security personnel to secure Chinese nationals, who will be coming in. And they are treating the Baloch as a problem, instead of taking them along with themselves.

As long as they continue to treat them as a problem rather than the people of the soil, the security situation will never improve. However, the people are people, and they feel affronted by these people coming in and behaving like foreign powers by simply enriching themselves only.

So, that is my prognosis that until people, intellectuals, different people who have a vested interest in seeing the economic situation improve and the participation of the people, I think they really need to speak out and write to have an impact. If you do not speak up, then you are dead meat.

Is CPEC [China–Pakistan Economic Corridor] really a game changer for Pakistan in general and Balochistan in particular?

Supposedly, China is now really rushing and their officials are coming to Islamabad. In a nutshell, they are very anxious to build this project because China is an emerging power. But politics inside Pakistan keeps postponing, which prevents things from happening. However, in my estimate, Chinese are pushing for greater economic transformation. The reason is: they have their own interest. But politics in Pakistan is getting in the way.

As for the question, it can be a game changer but it depends on how it is approached.

The government of Pakistan has lots of work on its hands. It really needs to get its house in order, and yes of course promote industry and also promote power by allowing your good to start competing. Once Chinese goods reach Pakistan and they are sold at cheaper rate than Pakistani goods. Then, I can see the problems growing for Pakistan.

Once non-Baloch are inducted into Gwadar port, and they start working in Gwadar. Then, I can also see problems growing for the local people.

So, there is a need to make provisions to plan, plan, and plan. Unless you do that it cannot be a game changer.

How much is Pakistan benefiting from its all-weather friend China?

China is now quite involved in Pakistan; as much as I know, it is giving much more assistance than America to Pakistan. China, on the other hand, is in Pakistan’s neighborhood, and it unlike America leaving Pakistan. Remember, if America is eight thousand miles away and can get involved in Pakistan primarily due to Afghanistan. So, why not China?

China has quite invested in Pakistan’s infrastructure, which is a good thing. And I do think that China tends to support Pakistan at international levels and issues. So, many things for which there are objections, for example, India is getting into the nuclear club and if Pakistan wishes to do the same it has few friends other than China that will support it at a UN level. For that, I think China is a very good partner for Pakistan at the international level.

On the other hand, they are willing to negotiate in Afghanistan, and that is a plus for Pakistan. As a neutral country, they are willing to sit and negotiate a deal between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Liked the story? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.