Malala and her Father an Educationist from Swat

Print this Report

By Andrew North BBC News, Kabul

An article published by BBC proves Fazalullah who ordered shooting of Malala is based in Afghanistan and Karzai’s lip service on Malala tragedy

President Karzai argues that Malala Yousafzai’s shooting heightens the need for Afghanistan and Pakistan to co-operate in the fight against extremism

The Pakistani government says Mullah Fazlullah – leader of the Taliban group which has claimed responsibility for the shooting – is hiding in the mountainous Afghan border regions – and has called for him to be handed over.

Pakistan has been shelling Afghan border villages for months, in response to what it says are cross-border raids by Fazlullah’s men, including an attack in which 17 Pakistani police were beheaded.

Usually, it is the other way round – with Kabul accusing Pakistan of giving sanctuary to Taliban who carry out assaults inside Afghanistan.

Military offensive

But there are suspicions that any action against Fazlullah – the leader of the Swat faction of the Pakistani Taliban – could become entangled in the bitter relationship between the two neighbours.

The shooting has been widely condemned in Pakistan and in Afghanistan

There are even reports Afghanistan is using him as a bargaining tool against Pakistan.

Officially, the Afghan government rejects Pakistani claims that the man also known as Mullah Radio is still on its soil – three years since he fled a Pakistani military offensive that forced him out of Swat, Malala Yousufzai’s home.

But in private, there is no such denial.

An Afghan security source who asked not to be named said that there were “reports that Fazlullah was in Kamdesh or Chapa Dara” – two districts in the border provinces of Nuristan and Kunar.

But the source rejected claims the Afghan intelligence service, the NDS, is backing the Pakistani Taliban leader – who is also known as the FM Mullah for the sometimes lyrical broadcasts he used to make when he was in control of Swat valley.

When asked however if any action against him was likely, the security source answered: “Fazlullah does not attack any Afghan security forces.”

If he is hiding in the mountains of Kunar and Nuristan, they make a perfect hiding place.

Stretching along the ill-defined Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier, they have long been a haven for militants, who move between isolated mountain hamlets and caves that were first used by Mujahideen fighters battling Soviet troops in the 1980s.

Extremism ‘as a tool’

Despite years of US and Afghan military offensives – and just two years before Nato forces are due to pull out from Afghanistan – the two provinces remain largely outside government control.

The Americans have withdrawn from Kunar and Nuristan provinces

The Americans lost dozens of troops in battles with insurgents as they tried to pacify the region, before closing down their bases there two years ago.

There are also reports of Fazlullah being in Nuristan’s Kamdesh district, where one US post was nearly over-run by insurgents in 2009.

At a press conference with the Nato secretary general, President Hamid Karzai was asked about Pakistani claims that Mullah Fazlullah was still in Afghanistan.

But he did not directly answer, saying instead that he hoped the shooting of the schoolgirl would convince Islamabad that using extremism as “a tool against others” was not in its interest.

One of the president’s advisers, who asked not to be named, took a different line saying the Afghan government “does not have the power to use Fazlullah as a tool.”

But he said it was up to the Americans to take action against him.

“They have the technology.”

American special forces still make forays into the lawless north-eastern border region, and are believed to have been involved in a strike in Kunar in August which killed Mullah Dadullah, another Pakistani Taliban leader.

Asked if any action was planned against Fazlullah, the US military in Afghanistan declined to comment.

Print this Report

   Joshua Foust

Joshua Foust is a fellow for Asymmetric Operations at the American Security Project and the author of Afghanistan Journal. He wrote on 19 July 2012 an article originally appeared in PBS Need to Know  and is based on his  report  U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Five Lessons We Should Have Learned. The selection from write up goes like this. This week, my think tank, the American Security Project, is publishing a paper that discusses five of the most important lessons we need to learn from Afghanistan – but haven’t.

The lessons below don’t account for everything that we can learn fromAfghanistan. They are, however, important lessons that simply aren’t being made public:

1. The danger of magical thinking.

Magical thinking is causal reasoning that assumes a correlation between acts or utterances and certain outcomes: think of a rain dance, or an athlete wearing her socks backwards for good luck. For the last ten years, military and civilian leaders have promised that if something was built, or a certain area of the country was “cleared” of militants, or if some other singular event like a presidential election took place, the war would be won. It was the political equivalent of a rain dance – rather than understanding the complex reasons why bad things happened inAfghanistan, policymakers chose to assume that simple fixes could produce victory.

2. The need to understand the environment. 

Counterinsurgency advocates have insisted for years that knowing the enemy as well as the general population where conflict takes place is critical The war inAfghanistanhas been fought largely outside a basic understanding of the country and its culture. As a result, many missteps have been made and billions of dollars wasted on schemes that had little chance of success:Afghan Sesame Street, week-long courses in beekeeping for infantry soldiers, and so on.

3. The war is a political conflict. 

If one thing has been missing from US policy inAfghanistan, it is Afghan politics. The old cliché still holds: war is politics. Understanding whyAfghanistan’s political leaders behave the way they do is critical to creating the policies and plans that will be most effective. But few Americans even know who the major Afghan political leaders are, much less what they do or how they think. As a result, political solutions to the conflict, such as initiating negotiations with the Taliban, are mired in internal dissent and domestic infighting.

4. The consequences of the failure to plan. 

TheUSwar inAfghanistansuffered from a failure to enact plans that make sense to regular Afghans. This failing took many forms: building schools, roads, and hospitals without providing a sustainable way to maintain them; creating a cash economy but not devising a system of accountability to limit corruption; sending outsiders to administer communities they did not understand. Planning for the future is not an impossible challenge but the many agencies of theU.S.government, simply chose not to do it.

5. Real success only matters over the long term. 

If theUSgovernment had planned, in 2001, on staying inAfghanistanthrough 2014, it would have made very different plans. . The old cliché aboutVietnam– it was not a ten-year war but a one-year war fought ten times – applies toAfghanistanas well. Planning cycles rarely accounted for events more than 12 months into the future, which means the long-term consequences of any given policy were largely ignored.

These lessons all overlap. Magical Thinking, the first and arguably most important lesson, underpins the subsequent four lessons. The botched reconstruction projects, the poorly planned militias, the inexplicable assumptions behind creating a children’s television show in a country where most people don’t have electricity – all of it is magical thinking.

There is hope, however. President Obama’s current plan, enshrined in the Strategic Partnership Agreement, actually describes a long term plan forAfghanistan. Only by starting to think aboutAfghanistanin this way – with decades as the measurement of time instead of years or months – can we even hope to make any realistic plans for the future.

Print this Report

We see lots of criticism on Pakistan Army but all concluded without credible evidences for instance recently PPP minister Ayat ullah Durrani said in TV program that “politically we did everything to resolve Balochistan issue but Military has failed to play its role positively.” But “seeing is believing” just follow and Read /See / Watch:

1. Swat Valley was the first success story for the world on war on terror. Now watch this news report on Swat Valley.

Read an article here written in 2011 predicting bright future of Pakistan after achievements in Swat operation in War against Terror. It says”The success of Swat operation and settlement of displaced people of Swat became role model for the society and the environment was shaped in favour of government and the army. The military pressure dislodged the (terror) groups from some of their training areas and kept them on the run. The violence fell by 60 per cent in the second half of 2009, compared with the first half”

EU has also granted $114 million for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Malakand division and Swat region. In the past EU being the largest donor had released 70 per cent of the funds for the purpose of education, vocational skills and other uplift projects and 300 million Euros for the reconstruction of schools and other development projects. It also supported UN refugees programme to help internally displaced people return to their homes in Swat.

Worth mentioning here is the recent Swat Summer Festival 2012.The success of the festival was proven by the crowd of tourists and the revival of tourism and peaceful life in the valley which would help create better employment opportunities for locals and flourish hotel industry. The festival concluded with the notion that Swat is now a peaceful place having fast economic and social developments and much of the credit goes to the dauntless efforts and sacrifices of our valiant military. The festival and the ongoing peaceful initiatives and developments projects by the military, government and foreign community have opened doors for the visitors who can once again cherish the beautiful scenery and worth watching, serene nature sites of Swat Valley. (Read complete article here)

Watch these lates reports

another one here..

2. Balochistan:  Baloch population find army contributing to their daily life and future. Read an article here on the development work in Balochistan.

Watch this report.

Another clip here

4. Siachen…When you sleep some one is awake to protect you. See yourself  ’Exclusive – understanding life on Siachen’  Watch and  Read article here.

another here

4. Rehabilitation and Development work in Waziristan.

Print this Report

          The Perceptors Group got together to discuss reopening of route the main points have been provided to this website for publish. This is by no means a study but discussion points and collection of data as annex which would provide base for study. The reopening of the route has triggered a debate in international as well as the local media.  The media as a whole and experts appreciate the act of reopening as  it carries a win – win situation for Pakistan, Afghanistan, the NATO countries and  Americans. However, the analysts , intellectuals and foreign policy experts who have an experience of negotiating such deals have  shown their reservations on the procedure adopted to come to this decision which may hamper its implementation in coming days. The public perception is more important to stand with correct state decisions as we enter the implementation stage of the decision. The study aims at pointing out shortfalls as assumed by different people and help identify the gaps to provide an opportunity to bridge them. 

           The focus of criticism is word SORRY,  before time announcement by USA when the DCC meeting was still on, No economic benefit despite damage to infrastructure and  Non implementation of recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee including understanding on drones and all Agreements/MoU’s to be in writing and circulated to the Parliamentary Committee. An extract from media is annexed as ‘A’, Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister ‘B’ ,Recommendations of Parliamentary Committee at ‘C’ and press briefing by MOFA on issue as ‘D’ under the report. The main issues are discussed under , however the annex will provide a platform to further study and find answers in best National interest:-

1. Before time announcement by USA when the DCC meeting was still on and announcement of details like Pak has decided not to charge anything has marginalized  DCC decision.
2. Diplomatically regret, sympathy, apology, and sorry are four words that involve different connotations. Replacement of apology as listed in Parliamentary Committee recommendations by sorry has not been explained.
3. Payments/reimbursements with regard to CSF seem to have got some attention in the statements issued in line with committee recommendations other points are not visible.
4. Pakistan’s FM stance that reopening will set good ground for held up negotiations. US, Pakistan and Afghanistan should make strategic and operational decisions by avoiding blame game to avoid incidents like 100 terrorists from Afgn martyred 17 Army personnel. Articles indicating Abu Jandal arrest  in India due to USA’s pressure on KSA being perceived as pressures on Pakistan to take this longer pace which has left space to be filled. This has been commented by a critics  as rout instead of retreat.  Will cross border incursion not be used for action against  Haqani Network? 
5. It is being debated that USA has many leverages  but Pakistan’s main lever on negotiating table was supply route and should not have been used to start negotiations. NDN route is not only expensive but has technical and political impediments.  

The above may have following implications, if not handled as we move towards implementation.:-

-       National Morale

-       Economically

-       Negotiations in coming days for post exit Afghanistan

To conclude this critical issue demands further and continuous improvement to fill in the gaps.  ADOPT    from the new realities, ADAPT   to  the new environment and IMPROVE in the best national interests.

Annex ‘A’

Media Extracts

Pakistan is spinning the deal with the U.S. to reopen NATO supply routes to Afghanistan as a triumph of its diplomacy. But it was Islamabad that climbed down from its extortionate demands and accepted the status quo ante. That’s a big change from previous situations when it was able to extort more aid out of Washington.WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506381260142136.html?KEYWORDS=pakistan

In conveying the apology, Clinton and her top aides worked closely with senior White House and Pentagon officials and carefully calibrated what she would say in her phone call to Khar to avoid an explicit mention of what one top State Department official called “the A-word” ” “apology.” First Post

http://www.firstpost.com/world/hillary-took-khars-help-in-drafting-apology-statement-366471.html

According to officials, Pakistani army’s chief of staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani pressed his government to resolve the issue, which had put Pakistan at odds with the more than 40 countries with troops in Afghanistan whose supplies were affected. First Post

US, Pakistan and Afghanistan should make strategic and operational conversation to avoid blame game, like 100 mtts from Afgn martyred our 17 Army personnel, so joint cooperation is req to avoid such things(Hinna Rabbani Khar interview to Nasim Zahra)

Annex ‘B’

Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar

Press Statement

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

July 3, 2012

This morning, I spoke by telephone with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

I once again reiterated our deepest regrets for the tragic incident in Salala last November. I offered our sincere condolences to the families of the Pakistani soldiers who lost their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.

As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

In today’s phone call, Foreign Minister Khar and I talked about the importance of taking coordinated action against terrorists who threaten Pakistan, the United States, and the region; of supporting Afghanistan’s security, stability, and efforts towards reconciliation; and of continuing to work together to advance the many other shared interests we have, from increasing trade and investment to strengthening our people-to-people ties. Our countries should have a relationship that is enduring, strategic, and carefully defined, and that enhances the security and prosperity of both our nations and the region.

The Foreign Minister and I were reminded that our troops – Pakistani and American – are in a fight against a common enemy. We are both sorry for losses suffered by both our countries in this fight against terrorists. We have enhanced our counter-terrorism cooperation against terrorists that threaten Pakistan and the United States, with the goal of defeating Al-Qaida in the region.

In addition, I am pleased that Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that the ground supply lines (GLOC) into Afghanistan are opening. Pakistan will continue not to charge any transit fee in the larger interest of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region. This is a tangible demonstration of Pakistan’s support for a secure, peaceful, and prosperous Afghanistan and our shared objectives in the region. This will also help the United States and ISAF conduct the planned drawdown at a much lower cost. This is critically important to the men and women who are fighting terrorism and extremism in Afghanistan. Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that, consistent with current practice, no lethal equipment will transit the GLOC into Afghanistan except for equipping the ANSF. In concluding the call, I reiterated our deep appreciation to the Government and the people of Pakistan for their many sacrifices and their critical contribution to the ongoing fight against terrorism and extremism.
PRN: 2012/1084

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/07/194502.htm

Annex ‘C’

Recommendations that the Committee has made.

1. Pakistan’s sovereignty shall not be compromised. The gap between assertion and facts on the ground needs to be qualitatively bridged through effective steps. The relationship with USA should be based on mutual respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each other.
2. The Government needs to ensure that the principles of an independent foreign policy must be grounded in strict adherence to the Principles of Policy as stated in Article 40 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the UN charter and observance of international law. The US must review its footsteps in Pakistan.

This means (i) the cessation of drone attacks inside the territorial borders of Pakistan, (ii) No hot pursuit or boots on Pakistani territory and (iii) the activity of foreign private security contractors must be transparent and subject to Pakistani law. It needs to be realized that drone attacks are counter productive, cause loss of valuable lives and property, radicalize the local population, create support for terrorists and fuel anti American sentiments.

1. Pakistan’s nuclear programme and assets including its safety and security cannot be compromised. The US-Indo civil nuclear agreement has significantly altered the strategic balance in the region. Therefore Pakistan should seek from the US and others a similar treatment/facility. The strategic position of Pakistan vis-à-vis India on the subject of FMCT must not be compromised and this principle be kept in view in negotiations on this matter.
2. Pakistan reaffirms its commitment to the elimination of terrorism and combating extremism in pursuance of its national interest.
3. The condemnable and unprovoked NATO/ISAF attack resulting in the martyrdom (Shahadat) of 24 Pakistani soldiers, represents a breach of international law and constitutes a blatant violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Government of Pakistan should seek an unconditional apology from the US for the unprovoked incident dated 25th – 26th November, 2011, in Mohmand Agency. And in addition the following measures be taken:

i)             Those held responsible for the Mohmand Agency attack should be brought to justice.

ii)            Pakistan should be given assurances that such attacks or any other acts impinging on Pakistan’s sovereignty, will not recur and that NATO/ISAF/US will take effective measures to avoid any such violations.

iii)           Any use of Pakistani bases or airspace by foreign forces would require Parliamentary approval.

iv)           Ministry of Defence/PAF and ISAF/US/NATO should draft new flying rules for areas contiguous to the border.

1. Any consideration regarding the reopening of NATO/ISAF/US supply routes must be contingent upon a thorough revision of the terms and conditions of the arrangement, including regulation and control of movement of goods and personnel which shall be subject to strict monitoring within Pakistan, on entry, transit and exit points.

(a)  No verbal Agreement regarding national security shall be entered into by the government, its Ministries, Divisions, Departments, attached Departments, Autonomous Bodies or other Organizations with any foreign Government or

authority. And if any such Agreement exists, it should be reduced to writing immediately, failing which it shall cease to have effect within three months of the approval of these recommendations.

(b)  Pakistan’s territory has been used by US/NATO/ISAF for logistic recommendations are made:

purposes. In this context, the following

i)             The Government of Pakistan should revisit the MOU, dated 19th June, 2011 between the Ministry of Defence of Pakistan, and the Ministry of Defence, of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland acting as lead Nation for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

ii)            Acquisition and Cross-servicing Agreement (US-PK-01) between the Department of Defence of the United States of America and the Ministry of Defence of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, dated 9th February, 2002, lapsing in February, 2012.

This agreement and any implementing Agreements there under may only be renewed if required on new terms and conditions for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan and ensures the national interests that should include respect. Provided in case of renegotiation of the said Agreement/MoU it should, inter alia, provide a clause on immediate suspension of transit facility through the territory of Pakistan if US/NATO/ISAF Forces violate in any manner the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan.

1. No covert or overt operations inside Pakistan shall be tolerated.
2. That for negotiating or re-negotiating Agreements/MoU’s pertaining to or dealing procedure shall be adopted:

i)              with matters of national security, the following logistics, will be circulated to the Foreign Ministry concerned Ministries, attached or affiliated Departments for the views; All Agreements/MoU’s, including military cooperation and Organizations and

ii)            Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs. All Agreements/MoU’s will be vetted by the Ministry

iii)           All Agreements/MoU’s will be circulated to the Parliamentary Committee on National Security. The shall vet and make recommendations in consultation with the stakeholders and forward the same to the Federal Cabinet for approval under the Committee

Rules of Business of the Federal Government.

iv)           Agreements/MoU’s in both Houses of The Minister concerned will make a policy statement on the Parliament.

1. There should be prior permission and transparency on the number and presence of foreign intelligence operatives in Pakistan.

10. Fifty percent of US/ISAF/NATO containers may be handled through Pakistan Railways.

11. Taxes and other charges must be levied on all goods imported in or transiting through Pakistan, for use of infrastructure and to compensate for its deterioration. Such charges shall be inter alia used mainly to Karachi-Torkham and Karachi-Chaman roads

12. The international community should recognize Pakistan’s colossal human and economic losses and continued suffering due to the war on terror. In the  inimum, greater market access of

Pakistan’s exports to markets should be actively pursued.

the US, NATO countries and global

13. In the battle for the hearts and minds an inclusive process based on primacy of dialogue and reconciliation should be adopted. Such process must respect local customs, traditions, values and religious beliefs.

(a)  There is no military solution to the Afghan conflict and efforts must be undertaken to promote a genuine national reconciliation in an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process.

(b)  To strengthen security along the Pakistan-Afghan border, including the cross border flow of criminal elements, narcotics and weapons, the feasibility of additional measures including electronic surveillance may be evaluated and the process of local joint Jirgas should be encouraged according to local customs and traditions.

14. That Pakistani territory shall not be used for any kind of attacks on other countries and all foreign fighters, if found, shall be expelled from our soil. Likewise, Pakistan does not expect the soil of other countries to be used against it.

15. A payments/reimbursements with regard to CSF and other leviable charges should be adopted.

16. The Government needs to review the present focus of foreign policy keeping in view the aspirations of the people of Pakistan. It needs to establish a balance by emphasizing links with our traditional allies and building new relationships for diversifying the sources of economic military and political new fast track process of billings support. In this regard it may take the following amongst other steps:

(i)            Pakistan’s foreign policy must continue to focus on creating a peaceful environment in the region to pursue the goals of economic development and social progress.

(ii)          The dialogue process with India should be continued in a purposeful and result oriented manner on the basis of mutual respect and mutual interest, including efforts for the solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Resolutions.

(iii)         Special attention must continue to be paid to developing neighbours.

(iv)         The strategic partnership with China must be deepened in all its dimensions.

(v)          Relationship with the Russian Federation should be further strengthened.

(vi)         Pakistan’s support for promotion of peace and stability in Afghanistan remains the cornerstone of its foreign policy.

(vii)        Pakistan’s special relationship with the Islamic World should be reinforced Close cooperative relations.

(viii)      ‫‪Pakistan’s full membership of SCO should be actively ‪pursued

(ix)         Pakistan’s bilateral relationships in the region and its

(x)          ‫‪institutional partnership with ASEAN must be upgraded.‪and strengthened ‫‪Pakistan should actively pursue the gas pipeline ‫.‪project with Iran

Annex ‘D’

Press briefing held on 05 July 2012

Opening Remarks

Bismillah -e- Rehman Rahim

Aslam o Alaikum,

 Ladies and Gentlemen,

I have a small announcement to make, the Foreign Minister will be visiting Japan to attend the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan on the 08^th of July. The conference will focus on sustainable development strategy of Afghanistan and discuss coordination of international economic assistance, governance and regional economic cooperation. The participants would have a look at a National Priority Programme presented by the Afghan Government. If you have any question, you can ask please.

Question

Sir, can you show us copy of the transcript about the conversation which took place between Foreign Minister and Secretary Clinton and which provided the alleged reopening of the NATO supply routes?

 Answer

We have not issued the transcript but I understand that the State Department and the American Embassy in Islamabad have issued the transcript of the discussions that took place between the two. And it is the true reflection of the conversation that took place and we have nothing to add to it.

Question

Diplomatically we believe that regret, sympathy, apology, and sorry are four words that involve different connotations and we actually want to know that what state of word and its connotation are which Madam Clinton said or expressed?

Answer

As I have said whatever is in that statement, which has been issued by the State Department, is a true reflection of what actually was said and discussed during that call. So I don’t really have anything to add.

 Question

It took around seven months to reopen NATO supplies and around six weeks on technical talks here in Islamabad would you kindly enlighten us what have been precisely salient features of the agreement between the United States and Pakistan during the technical talks resulting in these activities of normalizing the relations and reopening of NATO supplies?

 Answer

We are not really talking about one particular agreement here as there were several issues involved and discussions took place on all those issues. As you remember, there were technical level talks on various issues and of course various proposals were exchanged and discussed. We discussed the opening of GLOCs (Ground Lines of Communication), we also discussed border coordination. We also discussed drone attacks, so there were various issues discussed at various levels. The statement issued by the State Department and the press release issued by the DCC give you a very clear idea as to what was discussed and the understanding reached between the two sides.

 Question

Sir, coming to a more specific aspect of this discussion. We were told by the US officials that about 1.2 billion dollars CSF funds are going to be released. These are arrears that Pakistan has a bill for the past. What kind of arrangement has been worked out for any future costs Pakistan is going to incur in the war against militancy and can you give us any figure on the schedule of these payments?

Answer

I can’t give you the figures at the moment but I can tell you that it would be a substantial amount, which will hopefully be released soon. If you look at the American system, it involves congressional approval and a lot of administrative processes. So, we are hoping that a substantial amount will be released soon and beyond that, I am not in a position to say anything in particular.

 Question

Sir, I am grateful that you accepted the transcript issued by the US State Department so I will base my question on that. The second para of the transcript states that Hina Rabbani Khar alongwith Secretary Clinton accepted the mistakes which led to the deaths of 24 soldiers. Was there any fresh evidence that negated our earlier assessment of attacks being deliberate and secondly Hina Rabbi Khar also expressed sorry over the losses US has incurred in war against terror. We have also been accused of patronizing Taliban who have been attacking the US forces so why we are expressing sorry for that?

 Answer

First of all, I think the para does not say that they “accepted”. It says they “acknowledged”. And as far as my understanding of this para is concerned, Foreign Minister Khar did not say that she accepted or acknowledge that mistakes were made on our part. I think, we should read it the way it is and it says very clearly that the two sides acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives. Regarding your second question, I think loss of lives is always regrettable and of course you feel sorry for that. I think what we need to do is to see it in a larger context as to what we are trying to do. I also think that the sentiments expressed by the US side give a very fair assessment of what US feelings are about the incident, and it says very clearly that they are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military.

 Question

My question is that would Pakistan sign an agreement with the United States once the supply lines are formally reopened and would a separate agreement will be signed with NATO and ISAF countries or there is only going to be one agreement with US and NATO countries.

 Answer

I am not really in a position to give you a very specific answer on that.

 Question

My first question is that during the suspension of NATO supplies, the US supply continued through the Pakistani air space. Do the US supplies are continuing through the Pakistani air space, and secondly, there is an impression that the top parliamentary recommendation was to seek US apology in very categorical terms from the US on Salala incident. But in the transcript of conversation between Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Khar the word sorry has been used from the US side. Does it substantiate apology or not. Because previously the top US officials including President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Defence Secretary Panetta have expressed their deepest regrets on Salala incident to the Government of Pakistan and the military of Pakistan, so what is the difference, why did not we accept these words before?

 Answer

Regarding your first question, my understanding is that yes, several flights were allowed to overfly Pakistan but they cannot be regarded as military flights as they were not carrying any lethal equipment or military equipment. As to your second question, let me again say that instead of getting into semantics, we should try to see this development in the context of larger objective of peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region and the cooperative relationship that we have with the 50 member states of NATO and ISAF. Let me also assure you that the decision has been made in the larger national interest, and in the light of parliamentary recommendations.

Question

Is it a true assumption based on what we have said that uptil now there is no agreement between the two sides. On the basis of the parliamentary recommendations but there will be an agreement which will be signed?

Answer

I am not in a position to say something with certainty. I will check and get back to you on this issue.

 Question

Pakistan has fulfilled American demands regarding resumption of NATO supplies, what about the Pakistani demands? And secondly, what is Pakistan’s reaction on the recent statement by Indian Foreign Minister who has urged Pakistan to do more?

 Answer

Regarding your first question, the decision to block NATO supplies was made to ensure that our sovereignty is not violated again and our red lines are respected, and of course, we would not take the losses of our forces lightly. The statement by Secretary Clinton clearly indicates that they understand our sensitivities and respect our sovereignty. On drones, our policy is very clear and has been very clearly expressed by DCC. Drones are counterproductive, they violate our sovereignty and territorial integrity and are against international laws. Both sides will continue discussing this issue with a view to reach an agreement which is mutually acceptable. Regarding your second question, in a Joint Press Conference in Delhi today, Foreign Secretary Jilani has explicitly said that Pakistan attaches great importance to the ongoing cooperation in the field of counter terrorism. It is in the mutual interest of both the countries, and we have been saying to the Indian side that if they have any evidence about any person or incident, they are most welcome to share it with us. We will of course investigate it thoroughly and we are always ready to cooperate.

 Question

Would Pakistan allow continuing NATO supplies after 2014?

 Answer

Our position is self-explanatory and very clear.

Question

Are we ready to investigate any state element as mentioned by Indian side in Abu Jindal’s case?

 Answer

We totally reject any allegation of involvement of any of our state elements. Terrorism is a common enemy and both countries have an ongoing cooperation in this field and we are willing to cooperate and help in any possible manner in this regard. If they have any information or evidence to share with us, they are welcome to do so.

 Question

Can you give us any figure, how many agreements so far Foreign Office has tabled or presented before the National Security Committee because it was mentioned in the recommendations that all strategic agreements would be routed through Parliamentary Committee on National Security. My second is on the agreement between Pakistan and the United States, have you taken Parliamentary National Security Committee into confidence or the committee has been bypassed?

 Answer

I don’t have any figure, but I can check it for you. Regarding your second question, let me tell you that the whole process would be undertaken in a very transparent manner.

 Question

My question is regarding ongoing Pak-India dialogues in New Delhi, has Pakistan raised the issue of spying of Surjeet Singh? And have the two sides checked that how many Pakistani prisoners have completed their sentences in the Indian jails and vice versa?

 Answer

I have not seen the minutes of the meeting yet. Therefore, I am not in a position to comment on the details of the meeting. Regarding information about Pakistani prisoners, I am afraid I’ll have to check on that and then get back to you.

Print this Report

Qais Usyan/AFP/Getty Images

A truck drives down a highway on Salang Pass in Afghanistan’s Parwan province in December. The Salang Tunnel, which crosses under the pass, provides a vital link between Central Asia and northern Afghanistan to Kabul.

EXTRACTS FROM PREVIOUS STUDY

(http://www.mediapoint.pk/study-nato-supply-routes-in-aftermath-of-chicago-summit/)

U.S. embassy officials in Tashkent, the Uzbek capital, were warned by a confidential source that the tracks were brittle and at risk of fracturing if trains carried more than half their usual loads. On top of that, the Soviet-era locomotives carrying U.S. cargo were not designed to cross steep mountains; engineers had to apply the brakes almost constantly as they moved downhill. “By the time the trains have descended from the mountains, the wheels are glowing red hot,” the embassy reported in a diplomatic cable. The source, an engineer, said he was “appalled by how long it takes to transport anything by rail in Uzbekistan” and that he refused to take the train for fear of a crash. The cable, titled “Uzbek Rail: Red Hot Wheels to Afghanistan” and obtained by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, concluded that “a train wreck is possible in the literal sense.”

 

Description of NATO Supply Routes through Central Asia

• The routes known as Northern Distribution Network  (NDN)contains several different routes. The most commonly used route, though also one of the longest, starts at the port of Riga, Latvia on the Baltic Sea, and continues for 3,212 miles (5,169 km) by train southwards through Russia, using railroads built by Russia in the 1980s for the Soviet war in Afghanistan. The supplies then pass through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan before reaching Afghanistan’s northern border at Termez. To get to the south of the country, the supplies must be loaded onto trucks and transported through the mountainous Hindu Kush by means of the Salang Tunnel. The Salang Tunnel, which is the main connection between northern and southern Afghanistan, is 1.5 miles long and situated at an altitude of 11,100 feet. It is prone to avalanches and quite dangerous.

 

What NPR Says 

The U.S. military says it’s spending an extra $100 million a month on the war in Afghanistan since Pakistan closed its border to NATO supply convoys. Now, NATO is using a route thousands of miles longer through Russia and Central Asia.

That route passes through Afghanistan’s perilous Salang Tunnel, 11,000 feet up in the Hindu Kush mountains. The Soviet-built tunnel was heralded as a marvel of engineering when completed in 1964.

 

Credit: Kevin Uhrmacher/NPR

 

 

But years of war, neglect and geology have turned it into a dangerous bottleneck.

Driving through the Salang Tunnel is a pretty harrowing experience. Water pours in through holes in the wall. Whatever pavement might once have existed has long since deteriorated into an extremely rough, bumpy, dirt, and in some places, mud road.

The tunnel is barely wide enough for two lanes of traffic, and the uneven road surface means trucks often tilt over at precarious angles.

Major Choke Point

Even though the tunnel is only 1.6 miles long, a recent drive through it took more than 20 minutes because it’s jammed with massive trucks inching along the cratered road.

The diesel fumes were dizzying. At one point, the dust was so thick you could barely see five feet in front of you. It’s no wonder the tunnel has become known as a choke point.

“It takes us 10 to 12 days to get from the [Afghan] border through the Salang Tunnel,” says Najibullah — Afghans typically go by a single name — a truck driver sitting on the southbound side of the road. The distance covered in this journey? About 200 miles.

EnlargeSean Carberry/NPRA truck carrying food for NATO troops drives into the northern entrance of the Salang Tunnel. This truck waited several days to be able to enter the tunnel.

 

 

Sean Carberry/NPRA truck carrying food for NATO troops drives into the northern entrance of the Salang Tunnel. This truck waited several days to be able to enter the tunnel.

 

Lines of trucks waiting to pass through the tunnel often stretch up to 10 miles on either side. That’s because truck traffic is restricted to one direction at a time. Every 12 hours, the traffic alternates directions.

Najibullah is hauling food for NATO troops that he picked up at Afghanistan’s border crossing with Uzbekistan.

“A year ago, it used to take us one to two nights” to make the approximately 265-mile journey from Uzbekistan to Kabul, he says.

A year ago, 1,000 to 2,000 vehicles passed through the tunnel each day. But since the Pakistanis stopped allowing NATO to use their roads last November, traffic through the Salang has soared. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 vehicles are now passing through daily, and it’s getting more complicated with the drawdown of U.S. forces.

U.S. Pullout Creating Extra Strain

Stephen Biddle, an Afghanistan expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, sums it up this way: “The issue is the mathematics of the stuff you need to move, the size of the pipe through which you’re moving it, and how much time you’re willing to take.”

He says that the troops will fly out on schedule, but their equipment might take a bit longer. And, hauling armored trucks and generators out via Salang could cost five times more than going through Pakistan. It’s putting even more strain on a situation that’s already dangerous.

EnlargeSean Carberry/NPRVehicles drive one of the many switchbacks as the Salang Highway climbs from just over 5,000 feet at the valley floor to the Salang Tunnel, 11,000 feet up in the Hindu Kush range.

 

 

Sean Carberry/NPRVehicles drive one of the many switchbacks as the Salang Highway climbs from just over 5,000 feet at the valley floor to the Salang Tunnel, 11,000 feet up in the Hindu Kush range.

 

Setting aside questions of avalanches, washed-out roads and asphalt collapsing under the weight of heavy trucks, Biddle says, “simply getting through the Salang Tunnel itself is a dangerous undertaking that could very easily yield a catastrophe with a significant loss of life.”

Mahmoud is another trucker waiting to pass through the tunnel. He’s been driving this route for 30 years, and he says the problems are growing day by day.

“They are not giving us extra money. Because of the bumpy roads, we are getting flat tires. When we spend 10 to 15 days here, we are spending our own money to refuel the truck and also to refuel the freezer,” he says.

In negotiations with the U.S., Pakistan has demanded significantly more money to reopen its land routes to NATO convoys. Pakistan also wants a formal apology for errant NATO airstrikes last November that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Biddle says the U.S. would rather take its chances with the Salang Tunnel.

“It increases our cost,” he says, “but we’re already spending an enormous amount of money.”

Fears Of Disaster

On a recent day, a convoy of SUVs pulls up at the Salang Tunnel’s northern entrance, and Afghan Gen. Mohammed Rajab stepped out. He’s been the chief of maintenance for the Salang highway for 10 years. He looked at the crumbling concrete on the opening jutting out from a snowcapped mountain peak. He’s worried about a disaster — like the 1982 fuel truck fire that killed hundreds of Soviet troops and Afghans.

Related NPR Stories

The Two-Way

High Up In Afghanistan, A ‘Ghostly’ Ride Through The Salang Tunnel

 

“Our big concern is from the ventilation,” he says. “When there is an accident inside the tunnel, possibly the pollution will kill all the people who are stuck inside.”

Rajab has been pushing for NATO to fund renovations. He says it would take at least four months with the tunnel completely closed to make needed repairs. That’s not an option given NATO’s demand for supplies.

Last summer, USAID spent $5 million repaving the tunnel, sealing leaks and repairing the lights. But that pavement is already gone, water is pouring in, and the lights barely illuminate part of the tunnel.

A trip back through the tunnel, on the return to Kabul, is another anxiety-inducing experience. To top it off, traffic coming the other direction is blocked because a truck has wedged itself against the inside wall.

Print this Report

Study:Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012

It is a matter  of satisfaction and pride for the ‘mediapoint.pk’ to have received a study from Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department Lahore on ‘”Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012″ . We are pleased not only to accept the study for publish but also congratulate the institution and the course instructor for guiding the young generation towards research work which is almost fading away in this part of the world. We also thank the Course Instructor for appreciating the research base which we are trying to provide to our readers. The remarks of course instructor and the important portion of the study are as below and the complete study has been placed on the link.

Course Instructor‘s Remarks

Dear …….(mediapoint.pk),

MA Part II, of Beacon House National University, Mass Communications Department ,did a research study on ‘”Western & Local Media Coverage on Closure of NATO supply lines :Nov 2011-May 2012″ as their Final Exam Project for the subject of Media Laws under the supervision of Course Instructor Yasmeen Aftab Ali. The research study is being offered to be used,or part thereof, to Media Point.

Yasmeen Ali

The students doing the 4 segments is as follows:

M.A 1

Group Leader: Syed Ali Raza Hassan(Part 2 & 4)

Group Members

Yasir Sharif (Part 1)

Muneeb Sheikh(Part 3)

Rhansha Hassan(Part 3)

Conclusions of the Study

Data Analysis and Conclusion

PAK-US Relations:

The relations between both the countries were remained critical since the start. The reason behind it was that both of the nation always remained firm in their attitudes and benefits. The relations were totally selfish for own benefits. According to former Ambassador Bilminar, “I think Pak-US relations are somewhat rocky but both nations have always processed the benefits instead of friendship.”

…When the war between Pakistan and India were started, it was shocking for Pakistanis that Americans did not help us in this situation. Yet again, in 1971 and 1999, the U.S did not help us in the war against India. But Zia got a chance when Soviet Union attacked the Afghanistan and to defeat the super power the Americans needed someone in that region to help her to defeat that time’s super power in the Afghan war. After a long fight, the Soviet Union was defeated and this was the time when Taliban came into existence.

These are the few examples which depict that Pak-US relations were always used for their own benefits.

NATO Attack on Pakistani Check post:

On 26 November 2011, the NATO planes bombarded the Salala Check Post near the Mahmund Agency in which 26 soldiers were martyred. It was not the first time that such incident took place but the martyrs were greater in number this time that the Pakistani Government had to take action due the Pak army’s involvement and pressure. Pakistani official condemned this US drone attack and they demanded immediate action called inquiry of this incident. After sometime; the United States claimed that the incident has come into their notice; they offered their condolence to Government of Pakistan and they assured for timely inquiries.

Pakistan closed these supplies after the attack of NATO on Pakistani check post as a protest against this accident. Its Pakistan’s right!Pakistan reaction; stopping NATO supply Pakistani Government demanded U.S troops to vacate the Shamsi Air Base within 15 days. According to the inquiry report given by U.S that was released; it was mentioned that NATO had made a drone attack as a self defense from Pakistani troop’ firing. This increased the relationship barrier between the two countries. It is proving that Pakistan is guilty of everything because they fired first and NATO did was in defense. The most important point discussed in this article confuses the reader by saying that American officials did not trust their Pakistani counterparts enough to give them detailed information about American troop locations in Afghanistan. The reality is that there is no border clearly defined on the incident place where NATO killed 24 soldiers.

Collateral Interest:

1. 1.    United States:

The interest for U.S is as follows:

• Pakistan was charging negligible fee of transit which was just US$250 per truck.
• The price for the same trucks would have cost double; if the transportation route would have been Russia and Central Asia. In addition, if America would adopt Russia’s route, she would have to change her policies. In that case, Russia might put forth several conditions before U.S.

·         Other route is costly than the Pakistani government has demanded US$5000 transit fee for each NATO container and also said that we know that US is using far longer transport routes through Central Asia, is paying at least double the amount they have requested from them.

1. 2.    Pakistan:

The interest for Pakistan is as follows:

• Pakistan gets aid of billions of dollars.
• Pakistan is given ammunition from America as exchange deals.
• It remains convenient for Pakistan to continue its nuclear programs since no sanctions are imposed by U.S.

Mutual Interest:

It tells us how the NATO supplies benefits the people in different ways. An ordinary person tells that get quality things with reasonable prices by smuggling, the government of Pakistan gets an aid from US, for US this route is cheaper than western Asia and Russia and also Taliban gets weapons and ammunition when they attack the containers.

The option is giving to Pakistan that its presence is important because they will help striking a peace deal with the Taliban for US. Also HinaRabbani interview is actually clear diagnosis of what will happen? Chicago meeting is about forthcoming of Afghanistan once the withdrawal of Americans and also NATO in 2014.Apart from these issues like drones and also the apology, the two countries targeted four targeted things of energy cooperation: counterterrorism, the NATO provide lines, military help payments and also the Taliban serenity process are yet to be solved.

 Threat to Pakistan:

In any case the sufferer is Pakistan; if it keeps the NATO supply block U.S would block Pakistan’s aid and on the contrary if Pakistan opens the NATO supply, it might suffer future repercussions from the Taliban’s side since U.S is expected to call back its troops in 2014. Now it is up to Pakistan to make the decision whether it need short term or long term advantage.

Media Coverage Analysis:

This scenario reached its critical situation when as a time of Chicago Summit; U.S imposed a condition on Pakistan that she would be allowed to attend the Summit when the NATO supply would be restored. So it’s obvious that Pakistan was invited in Chicago after giving a clue to re-open the NATO supplies.The deal was expected between both sides after getting invitation of Chicago Summit. But the results of the summit were not so fruitful since Pakistan had charged a new price of rupees US$5000 per truck and the US expectations were not met. US still wants the NATO supply to be restored because this route is actually the key for them as it costs much less. The reason given by Pakistan for charging high prices were that NATO trucks are quite heavy and they cause a significance damage to the roads thus for maintaining the infrastructure Pakistan added the cost for the infrastructure maintenance. In addition to that Pakistan included the cost for scanning and road taxes. Pakistan held the stance that it needs to boost up its economy; this included the expenditures in upcoming elections and the budget. Regardless to interest to any specific country U.S has either ways to pay for the NATO trucks.

 The US believes that the supply issue will be solved because this route is critical for them because it costs less and it is much important for both sides.

It is clear that western media is hoping that Pakistan is interested in opening NATO supplies that’s why Pakistani president is going to attend summit in Chicago because he has plans to end its six-month blockade of the NATO supplies. It is pointing on the military establishment that they are forcing the government to open supplies because the US has frozen the flow of aid which is rated over $1 billionby U.S.

The western media has shown biased attitude by putting the examples that Pakistani Islamic parties are the biggest hurdle in the opening of supplies since Pakistan is under the influence of Taliban.

The second point tells us that this summit is important for Pakistan because it will decide the future of Pakistan when the Americans will withdraw in 2014. It is obvious that when the US and its allies will leave Afghanistan then in my point of view, the Taliban will come back because Karzai will also flow back but future will answer this question better.

It’s evident that the restoration of the NATO supplies hold the mutual interest for both the countries.

But it tells us that the refusal of apology by U.S would bring a domestic outcry in Pakistan which indicates that it will affect the US repute in the eyes of the people. Pakistan is divided into different thoughts and cultures which is ruling by an opinion leaders which will bring different thoughts for US in front of their followers so dual minded set will form after that refusal.

The facilitation is needed from both sides to reach the solution but the major issue still present of rampant of aid by US after blockage of routes.

The US and Pakistan talks have been failed due to the demand of the apology from Pakistan side and in return the Americans are withholding the promised military aid.

Political Interests:

The both sides are firm in their demands because if anyone step back/ showed any bent then it would not be good for its future in upcoming election. Obama if apologies with Pakistan then its competitor will raise a question that Obama spend all his era apologizing with other nations. Similarly, if Pakistan ruling alliances will open NATO supplies without apology then same thing would happen during elections.

Our unity is looked upon as a question mark in the whole world. Moreover, this step was considered to be a source for the government to negotiate with the U.S. the important point discussed was that all political parties wanted to have good relations with the United States but that “it cannot be an imbalanced relationship.” In short, the peace road and relation is open between Pakistan and U.S but the step has to be taken from both sides.

Propaganda of West:

The west is continually doing a propaganda against Pakistan by giving their biased option and telecasting the biased articles.

Our local channels are just reproducing the west propaganda because they work for money and majority of them only spreads distress and worry in society.

Data Analysis:

The questionnaire was given to 100 sample spaces. After collection of data we got following results which are as follows:

Do NATO Supply be opened?

Educational Level Awareness:

Transit Fee:

Media Coverage:

Do you like American policies?

Do Drone kill terroists:-

Complete:   Final Project NATO Supply Route

Print this Report

At times its better not to speak but only remind of what world thinks of you. With muscles you can brutalize or vulgarize society if you desire so but to win hearts and minds you require logics, value, peace and love for law and equality . All extracts for the readers to make their own opinion.

US and CIA linkage with Dr. Afridi

In an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes”, in Jan 2012, Panetta acknowledged that Afridi, a doctor in Abbottabad, the town where Bin Laden was found, had in fact been working for US intelligence, collecting DNA to verify the 9/11 mastermind’s presence. He said, “I’m very concerned about what the Pakistanis did with this individual … who in fact helped provide intelligence that was very helpful with regards to this operation,” Panetta said, according to excerpts of the interview. Read here

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that Pakistan has no justification for holding Dr Shakil Afridi, who had a role in the CIA operation to hunt down Osama bin Laden in Abbotabad.

This she said while addressing US Congress Committee. Hillary Clinton said Dr Shakil Afridi provided key information to US before the Abbotabad operation, adding that he served for the interest of both Pakistan and the US. Clinton said Pakistan has no basis for detaining Dr Shakil. Read here

Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher’s remarks came in the wake of Pakistani media reports that the government has sealed all of Dr Shakil Afridi’s bank accounts and property, including his house.  “Afridi’s daring act to help bring Osama bin Laden to justice deserves proper recognition. He should not to be abandoned by the White House. President Obama should personally intercede,” Rohrabacher said in a statement.  Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Rohrabacher recently introduced a Congressional resolution to award Afridi the Congressional Gold Medal for his bravery and sacrifice for helping the United States locate and identify bin Laden.  “Pakistan’s leaders continue to show the US they are a hard-core, two-faced enemy not worthy of the $ 2.2 billion in foreign assistance the Obama Administration plans to give them next year,” he said. Read here

Levin and McCain said what Afridi did was “the furthest thing from treason. It was a courageous, heroic, and patriotic act, which helped to locate the most wanted terrorist in the world — a mass murderer who had the blood of many innocent Pakistanis on his hands. “Dr. Afridi set an example that we wish others in Pakistan had followed long ago. He should be praised and rewarded for his actions, not punished and slandered. “At a time when the United States and Pakistan need more than ever to work constructively together, Dr. Afridi’s continuing imprisonment and treatment as a criminal will only do further harm to US-Pakistani relations, including diminishing Congress’ willingness to provide financial assistance to Pakistan.” Read here

Mona Afridi, the jailed doctor’s wife, accused America of abandoning her husaband, adding: “They have used him like a piece of tissue paper and thrown him in the bin.”

Pakistan jails doctor who helped find bin Laden: why the US may not intervene…Today, it’s hard to see how the relationship can be repaired. In the end, the US can console itself that if Afridi had been tried under Pakistani national law – not a tribal court – he could have faced the death penalty.(CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR of 24 May)

Who is Dr. Shakeel Afridi

Dr.Shakeel Afridi is a Pakistani physician who allegedly helped the CIA run a fake vaccine program in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in order to confirm Osama bin Laden’s presence in the city by obtaining DNA samples. Details of the doctor’s activities emerged during the Pakistani investigation of the raid on Bin Laden’s residence, Operation Neptune Spear. He was arrested from Torkham border while trying to escape the country days after the raid that killed bin Laden. On 23 May 2012, Shakeel Afridi was sentenced to 33 years imprisonment for treason. He is father of three and his wife is an American citizen.

Education and Life

Dr Afridi graduated from the Khyber Medical College, Peshawar in 1990 and was working as the doctor in-charge of Khyber Agency of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. He is a native of Khyber Agency.

Abbotabad Commision

On 6 October 2011, the Pakistani commission investigating Bin Laden’s death recommended that he be charged with “conspiracy against the state of Pakistan and high treason” on the basis of available evidence. The 15 female health workers, that assisted Dr Afridi in the fake vaccination program, were also declared not fit for any future employment. Read here  . Getting Osama

Protest by Humanitarian and Aid groups

Médecins Sans Frontières has lashed out at the CIA for using a fake vaccination programme as a cover to spy on Osama bin Ladenon, saying it threatened life-saving immunisation work around the world. The international medical aid charity said the ploy used by US intelligence, revealed this week in the Guardian, was a “grave manipulation of the medical act”. Read here

A leading coalition of American humanitarian aid groups has written to the CIA chief to protest the agency’s use of a Pakistani doctor to help track Osama bin Laden, linking the ploy to a worsening polio crisis in Pakistan. “The CIA’s use of the cover of humanitarian activity for this purpose casts doubt on the intentions and integrity of all humanitarian actors in Pakistan, thereby undermining the international humanitarian community’s efforts to eradicate polio, provide critical health services and extend life-saving assistance during times of crisis, like the floods seen in Pakistan over the last two years,” the coalition of aid agencies, InterAction, wrote in its letter to CIA director David Petraeus. Read here letter to Gen. Petraeus

Treason and similar cases in US

Jonathan Pollard

Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954, Galveston, Texas) worked as an American civilian intelligence analyst before being convicted of spying for Israel. He received a life sentence in 1987. Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, but denied until 1998 that they had bought classified information from him. Israeli activist groups, as well as high-profile Israeli politicians, have lobbied for his release. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has voiced particularly strong support for Pollard, visiting the convicted spy in prison in 2002. Read more about Pollard here

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai

The arrest of Executive Director of the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, a US citizen of Kashmir descent, by Washington came as a surprise to many including US officials. Lobbying in America is a recognised political activity and profession operating within the law. The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in the US requires those who receive funding or lobby on behalf of a foreign government to register as foreign agent. Thus Fai’s mistake was that he did not file the correct paperwork declaring that he was working with a foreign government. The US Indian Political Action Committee (USINP AC) and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AlPAC) are not, however, held to the same standards. They are not registered under FARA because USTNPAC claims it focuses only on the Indian American community, whereas AIPAC states that it does not receive funding from Israel. However, it is difficult to separate the policies of these two groups from those of India and Israel. India-friendly policies proposed by USINPAC promote India’s national interest as well. For instance, USINPAC played a role in pushing the US-India nuclear deal through the US Congress. Meanwhile, AIP AC lobbies for financial aid to Israel, securing up to $3 billion annually, making Israel the largest collective recipient of US aid over the past 60 years.

Dr. Fai’s arrest, and Indian media carried features and articles on the subject. Read more here

US on NATO Supply

US Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, the chair and ranking members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said US must not pay $5000 per truck as demanded by Pakistan, for supplies to troops in Afghanistan, which McCain called extortion.

Extortion, dear McCain, is defined as, the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority’. He also stated, while talking to ‘The Cable’ “We can’t look at aid in that light. It’s now becoming a matter of principle”.

Talking of principles is not very pretty when one has been on a killing spree, killing children, civilians and older people-the more the merrier. Talking of principles is not pretty when you invade one country after the other. Talking of principles is not very pretty when an American citizen goes trigger happy causing deaths and when his hide is saved on basis of the very Shariah Laws US curses. Talking of principles is not very pretty when US decides to unilaterally attack Abottabad for Osama Bin Laden. And in case you missed my dear McCain, we are not the only ones pointing out your ’lack of  principles here’. Amnesty International has, in it’s recent report criticized the USA for it’s use of lethal force, particularly for the ‘unlawful’ killing of Osama Bin Laden in a clandestine US commando raid in Pakistan last May. LINK: http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-50663-Amnesty-says-OBL-raid-unlawful  ).

LINK:  http://pakpotpourri2.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/proud-to-be-an-extortionist/

NPR

Treason Trial Complicates U.S.-Pakistani Relations

By Julie McCarthy on 26 May 2012

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST: It’s been another rough week diplomatically for the U.S. and Pakistan. It started with Pakistan’s president traveling to the NATO summit in Chicago. There, he was nearly snubbed by President Obama, because Pakistan did not – as expected – reopen critical NATO supply routes to Afghanistan. Then Pakistani officials announced that a doctor who had helped the U.S. find Osama bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in prison. All of this has fueled outrage in both countries. NPR’s Julie McCarthy reports from Islamabad.

JULIE MCCARTHY, BYLINE: Dr. Shakil Afridi has done what few others have managed: unite Washington. On Capitol Hill, outraged members of the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday voted unanimously to slash Pakistan’s aid by a symbolic $33 million – one million for every year of Afridi’s sentence. At the State Department, Secretary Hillary Clinton called the conviction unjust and unwarranted.

SECRETARY HILLARY CLINTON: The United States does not believe there is any basis for holding Dr. Afridi. His help, after all, was instrumental in taking down one of the world’s most notorious murders. That was clearly in Pakistan’s interests, as well as ours and the rest of the world.

MCCARTHY: The CIA hired Afridi to run a phony vaccination program in a bid to collect blood and DNA samples at bin Laden’s compound to verify his presence. But Robert Grenier, a former CIA station chief in Islamabad, says it’s unlikely that Afridi even knew that his CIA handlers were closing in on bin Laden.

ROBERT GRENIER: I could imagine that they might have told him that they were seeking information concerning militants in the area, including some who might be enemies of Pakistan, but certainly without having told him who it was exactly that they were trying to track down.

MCCARTHY: The proceedings against Afridi were held far from public view. A powerful political agent convened a jirga of elders to hear the evidence in Khyber Agency, where Afridi had worked. The tribal area is beyond Pakistan’s judicial reach. Experts say the doctor had no lawyer. Constitutional law expert Salman Raja suspects the authorities sought to avoid a detail proper trial in a court.

SALMAN RAJA: In a court, there might be, you know, arguments and counterarguments and evidence, and so on. So they were probably not, you know, as sure as they would have liked to be of getting a swift conviction before the courts.

MCCARTHY: Mehdi Hassan, the former chairman of Pakistan’s Human Rights Commission, says the prosecution was for the benefit of public opinion that had been whipped into an anti-American froth. Hassan also says Afridi’s work for the United States could not have undermined the national security of long-time ally Pakistan.

MEHDI HASSAN: United States is a Pakistani ally for the last 64 years. So how can a person be a traitor working for an ally?

MCCARTHY: But the bogus vaccination campaign would seem to have breached all medical ethics, and reports about payments from the CIA suggest Afridi may have been motivated by money. Whatever the motive, the former chief of Pakistan’s premier intelligence service, the ISI, says Afridi got what he deserved. Javed Ashraf Qazi says his crime was that he kept hidden from Pakistan what he was doing for the Americans.

JAVED ASHRAF QAZI: Then it is espionage. It is betraying your country. It is working on the quiet for a foreign intelligence agency. This would be a crime in any country of the world.

MCCARTHY: Robert Grenier notes that Jonathan Pollard, an American who spied for Israel against the United States, was sentenced to life in prison in the U.S. He says senior American officials pressing loudly for Afridi’s release are, quote, “tone deaf.” One former senior intelligence official asked: What did we think would happen to the doctor? Julie McCarthy, NPR News, Islamabad.

Must Read This One  (This is a cross post from salon.com)

American rage at Pakistan over the punishment of a CIA-cooperating Pakistani doctor is quite revealing

BY GLENN GREENWALD

Americans of all types — Democrats and Republicans, even some Good Progressives — are just livid that a Pakistani tribal court (reportedly in consultation with Pakistani officials) has imposed a 33-year prison sentence on Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who secretly worked with the CIA to find Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil. Their fury tracks the standard American media narrative: by punishing Dr. Afridi for the “crime” of helping the U.S. find bin Laden, Pakistan has revealed that it sympathizes with Al Qaeda and is hostile to the U.S. (NPR headline: “33 Years In Prison For Pakistani Doctor Who Aided Hunt For Bin Laden”; NYT headline: “Prison Term for Helping C.I.A. Find Bin Laden”). Except that’s a woefully incomplete narrative: incomplete to the point of being quite misleading.

What Dr. Afridi actually did was concoct a pretextual vaccination program, whereby Pakistani children would be injected with a single Hepatitis B vaccine, with the hope of gaining access to the Abbottabad house where the CIA believed bin Laden was located. The plan was that, under the ruse of vaccinating the children in that province, he would obtain DNA samples that could confirm the presence in the suspected house of the bin Laden family. But the vaccine program he was administering was fake: as Wired‘s public health reporter Maryn McKenna detailed, “since only one of three doses was delivered, the vaccination was effectively useless.” An on-the-ground Guardian investigation documented that ”while the vaccine doses themselves were genuine, the medical professionals involved were not following procedures. In an area called Nawa Sher, they did not return a month after the first dose to provide the required second batch. Instead, according to local officials and residents, the team moved on.”

That means that numerous Pakistani children who thought they were being vaccinated against Hepatitis B were in fact left exposed to the virus. Worse, international health workers have long faced serious problems in many parts of the world — including remote Muslim areas — in convincing people that the vaccines they want to give to their children are genuine rather than Western plots to harm them. These suspicions have prevented the eradication of polio and the containment of other preventable diseases in many areas, including in parts of Pakistan. This faux CIA vaccination program will, for obvious and entirely foreseeable reasons, significantly exacerbate that problem.

As McKenna wrote this week, this fake CIA vaccination program was “a cynical attempt to hijack the credibility that public health workers have built up over decades with local populations” and thus “endangered the status of the fraught polio-eradication campaign, which over the past decade has been challenged in majority-Muslim areas in Africa and South Asia over beliefs that polio vaccination is actually a covert campaign to harm Muslim children.” She further notes that while this suspicion “seems fantastic” to oh-so-sophisticated Western ears — what kind of primitive people would harbor suspicions about Western vaccine programs? – there are actually “perfectly good reasons to distrust vaccination campaigns” from the West (in 1996, for instance, 11 children died in Nigeria when Pfizer, ostensibly to combat a meningitis outbreak, conducted drug trials — experiments — on Nigerian children that did not comport with binding safety standards in the U.S.).

When this fake CIA vaccination program was revealed last year, Doctors Without Borders harshly denounced the CIA and Dr. Afridi for their “grave manipulation of the medical act” that will cause “vulnerable communities – anywhere – needing access to essential health services [to] understandably question the true motivation of medical workers and humanitarian aid.” The group’s President pointed out the obvious: “The potential consequence is that even basic healthcare, including vaccination, does not reach those who need it most.” That is now clearly happening, as the CIA program “is casting its shadow over campaigns to vaccinate Pakistanis against polio.” Gulrez Khan, a Peshawar-based anti-polio worker, recently said that tribesman in the area now consider public health workers to be CIA agents and are more reluctant than ever to accept vaccines and other treatments for their children.

For the moment, leave to the side the question of whether knowingly administering ineffective vaccines to Pakistani children is a justified ruse to find bin Laden (just by the way, it didn’t work, as none of the health workers actually were able to access the bin Laden house, though CIA officials claim the program did help obtain other useful information). In light of all the righteous American outrage over this prison sentence, let’s consider what the U.S. Government would do if the situation were reversed: namely, if an American citizen secretly cooperated with a foreign intelligence service to conduct clandestine operations on U.S. soil, all without the knowledge or consent of the U.S. Government, and let’s further consider what would happen if the American citizen’s role in those operations involved administering a fake vaccine program to unwitting American children. Might any serious punishment ensue? Does anyone view that as anything more than an obvious rhetorical question?

There are numerous examples that make the point. As’ad AbuKhalilposes this one: “Imagine if China were to hire an American physician who would innocently inject unsuspecting Americans with a chemical to obtain information for China.  I am sure that his prison term would be even longer.” Or what if an American doctor of Iranian descent had done this on behalf of the Quds Force, in order to find a member of the designated Iranian Terror group MeK who was living in the United States (one who, say, has been working with Israel to help assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists and wound their wives, or one who was trained by the U.S.), after which Iranian agents invaded his American home, pumped bullets in his skull and shot a few others (his wife and a child) and then dumped his corpse into the Atlantic Ocean? Or take the case of Orlando Bosch, the CIA-backed anti-Cuban Terrorist long harbored by the U.S.; suppose a Cuban-American doctor sympathetic to Castro had injected American children as part of a fake vaccination program in order to help Cuba find and kill Bosch on U.S. soil; he’d be lucky to get 33 years in prison.

In fact, the U.S. Government tries to impose the harshest possible sentences on Americans who do far less than Dr. Afridi did in Pakistan. The Obama administration charged former NSA official Thomas Drake with espionage and tried to imprison him fordecades merely because he exposed serious waste, corruption and illegality in surveillance programs — without the slightest indication of any harm to national security. Right now, they’re charging Bradley Manning with “aiding the enemy” — Al Qaeda — and attempting to impose life imprisonment on the 23-year-old Army Private, merely because he leaked information to the world showing serious war crimes and other government deceit (something The New York Times does frequently) which nobody suggests was done in collaboration with or even with any intent to help Al Qaeda or any other foreign entity. Given all that, just imagine how harshly they’d try to punish an American who secretly collaborated with a foreign intelligence service — who created a fake vaccine program for American kids — to enable secret military action on U.S. soil without their knowledge.

But of course none of these comparisons is equivalent. It’s all different when it’s done to America rather than by America. That’s the great prize for being the world’s imperial power: the rules you impose on others don’t bind you at all. I’m quite certain that none of the people voicing such intense rage over Pakistan’s punishment of Dr. Afridi would voice anything similar if the situation were reversed in any of the ways I’ve just outlined. Can you even imagine any of them saying something like: yes, this American doctor injected American kids with ruse vaccines in order to help the intelligence service of Iran/Pakistan/China/Cuba conduct clandestine operations on U.S. soil without the knowledge of the U.S. Government, but I think that’s justified and he shouldn’t be punished.

If you read or watch any accounts of life in the Roman empire, what you will frequently witness is someone being severely punished for an act against a Roman citizen. That was the most severe crime and the one most harshly punished: one could do any manner of bad things to non-citizens, but not so much as raise a hand to a Roman citizen.

Watch how often that formulation is used in our political discourse: he tried to kill Americans, people will emphasize when justifying all sorts of U.S. government actions. In other words, there are ordinary, pedestrian crimes (like this one, from today: “An American drone fired two missiles at a bakery in northwest Pakistan Saturday and killed four suspected militants, officials said, as the U.S. pushed on with its drone campaign despite Pakistani demands to stop. This was the third such strike in the country in less than a week”). But then there is the supreme crime: he tried to kill Americans! It’d be one thing if this outrage were honestly expressed as self-interest (we give massive aid to Pakistan so they should do our bidding), but instead, it is, as usual, couched in moral terms.

That is the imperial mind at work. Its premises are often embraced implicitly rather than knowingly: American lives are inherently more valuable; foreign lives are expendable in pursuit of American interests; the U.S. has the inalienable right to take action in other countries that nobody is allowed to take in the U.S. (just imagine: “An Iranian drone fired two missiles at a bakery in the northwest U.S. Saturday and killed four suspected militants, Iranian officials said, as Iran pushed on with its drone campaign despite American demands to stop. This was the third such strike in the country in less than a week” or “Thirty five women and children were killed by a Yemeni cruise missile armed with cluster bombs which struck an alleged Marine training camp in Texas”).

These self-venerating imperial prerogatives are the premises driving the vast bulk of American foreign policy and military discourse. It is certainly what’s driving the spectacle of so many people pretending that the punishment of Dr. Afridi is some sort of aberrational act which the U.S. and other Decent, Civilized Countries would never do.

* * * * *

Two related points:

(1) NPR emphasizes what appear to be the genuine due process deficiencies in the punishment imposed on Dr. Afridi, though he certainly is receiving more due process than those informally and secretly accused of Treason by the U.S. Government and given the Anwar Awlaki treatment, or accused of Terrorism and targeted with a U.S. drone or locked for a decade or so in a cage without charges of any kind.

(2) Zaid Jilani, formerly of Think Progress, asks a really good question about the Hollywood Election Year film depicting the bin Laden raid being produced by Sony Pictures with the help of the Obama administration: “Will the movie feature Pakistani kids tricked into getting fake vaccines? Probably not.” If the film does mention this, I’d bet it will be to marvel at and celebrate the James-Bond-like ingenuity of the CIA.

JUNE 1, 2012, New York Times

The Doctor Who Wouldn’t Vaccinate

Print this Report

“Analysis: Why we must name all drone attack victims”

        An article, “Analysis: Why we must name all drone attack victims”, published in Bureau of Investigative Journalism (UK), by Chris Woods on 10 May 2012 highlights that the Bureau recently presented at a Washington DC drone summit – which reveal some startling truths about the US drone campaign. This has drawn attention of The Perceptor Group for study as the group noticed that this analysis fails to cover the Legal aspect of Extra judicial killings and innocent deaths due to drone attacks.

What About The Hundreds Of Innocent People WE Are

Killing With OUR Drone Strikes In Pakistan!”Watch

Freedom of expression in America(Here)

The Important points covered in the analysis are:-

a.    To date in Pak, we have been able to identify 170 named mtts killed by the CIA in more than 300 drone strikes. Among them are many snr figures, incl Baitullah Mehsud, ldr of the Pak Tbn; Ilyas Kashmiri, an ALQ linked strategist; and Nek Mohammed, once a mtt thorn in Pak side.

b.    Certainly these drone strikes have severely affected the ability of mtts to op openly in Pak tribal areas. The recently-declassified ‘bin Laden papers’ talk of the impact of the CIA’s attks, with the Tbn ‘frankly exhausted from the en air bombardments.’

c.    The CIA’s own human int-gathering abilities are so poor in Pak that it can no longer identify civ killed on the gr. Perhaps the Agency has been misleading Congress and the President about the true extent of civ deaths.

d.    The covert drone war appears to be entering a new phase. Until recently, strikes were carried out with the tacit co-op of host govts. But now Isb is saying no. Recent CIA strikes in Pak have been pub condemned by the govt as being ‘in total contravention of intl law.’ The strikes are carrying on regardless.

e.    By showing only one side of the coin, we risk presenting a distorted picture of this new form of warfare. There is an obligation to identify all of those killed – not just the bad guys.

Perceptor’s Research

•     The study rightly brings out that by showing one side of the coin they are risking a distorted picture of new warfare by only naming the bad guys and not talking about the “Good Guys/Innocents” being killed in these operations on one hand and on the other hand ignoring “legality of extrajudicial killing of even the bad guys”.
•     A research was carried out to address the above two issues. The outcome is as under:-

a.    Fallout of drone attacks against Pakistan is continued. Conflict Monitoring Center gives following       figures:-

• Attacks since 2004 till now - 318, Human Beings Killed Since 2004 till now - 2769
• Drone Attacks in 2011 – 75, Human Beings Killed in 2011 - 609
• Drone Attacks in 2012 – 15 , Human Beings killed in 2012 – 108

http://cmcpk.wordpress.com/

b.    The Year of the Drone- An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2012 published on Wikipedia highlights that US Drone Strike statistic based on months of research by a team of journalists of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism gives following figures:-

• Total reported killed: 2,433 – 3,093
• Civilians reported killed: 467 – 815
• Children reported killed: 178
• Total reported injured: 1,163 -1,268
• Strikes under the Bush Administration: 52
• Strikes under the Obama Administration: 267
• Total strikes: 319

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

• A study called ‘The Year of the Drone” published in February 2010 by the New America Foundation found that from a total of 114 drone strikes in Pak between 2004 and early 2010, approximately between 834and 1,216 individuals had been killed. About two thirds of whom were thought to be militants and one third were civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

c.    An  article “Civilian death by drone attacks is high: but US sidesteps the issue arguing legality” by Daya Gamage on 09 May 2012 highlights that UK-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism the group that keeps the best count of casualties from U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. According to its figures, since 2004, U.S. has killed between about 2,500-3,000 people in Pakistan. Of those, between 479 and 811 were civilians, 174 of them children. Here are the statistics that the mainstream media in the United States has not disclosed, and what Mr. Brennan endeavors to side step documented by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004 – 2012

• Total US strikes: 321
• Obama strikes: 269
• Total reported killed: 2,429 – 3,097
• Civilians reported killed: 479 – 811
• Children reported killed: 174
• Total reported injured: 1,169-1,281

US Covert Action in Yemen 2002 – 2012

• Total US strikes : 41 – 128
• Total US drone strikes: 31 – 67
• Total reported killed: 294 – 651
• Civilians reported killed: 55 – 105
• Children reported killed: 24

US Covert Action in Somalia 2007 – 2012

• Total US strikes: 10 – 21
• Total US drone strikes: 3 – 9
• Total reported killed: 58 – 169
• Civilians reported killed: 11 – 57
• Children reported killed: 1 – 3

The US counterterrorism adviser reassured: “As the President and others have acknowledged, there have indeed been instances when—despite the extraordinary precautions we take—civilians have been accidently injured, or worse, killed in these strikes. It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened.” Nevertheless, the account of civilian death registered by credible international organizations gives a different story as mentioned before.

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/05/09/civilian-death-drone-attacks-high-us-sidesteps-issue-arguing-legality

Are Drone Strikes Legal? Koh Offers Assurances, Not Answers

Following years of official silence, State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh’s statements on the legality of drone strikes last week were welcomed by many.

But Koh failed to address serious concerns over the U.S.’s use of drones to kill al-Qaeda and Taliban militants, and in particular the debate over strikes in Pakistan and other areas outside Afghanistan. Hopefully Koh’s remarks indicate that a fuller account of the U.S.’s legal position is forthcoming. But for now, the program remains shrouded in secrecy and Koh’s mere assertions of the program’s legality fail to provide the kind of accountability

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rogers/are-drone-strikes-legal-k_b_524115.html

By Yvonne Ridley 

May 11, 2012 “Information Clearing House” — Kuala Lumpur — IT’S OFFICIAL – George W Bush is a war criminal.

In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were today (Friday) found guilty of war crimes.

Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia.

The trial held in Kuala Lumpur heard harrowing witness accounts from victims of torture who suffered at the hands of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They included testimony from British man Moazzam Begg, an ex-Guantanamo detainee and Iraqi woman Jameelah Abbas Hameedi who was tortured in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

At the end of the week-long hearing, the five-panel tribunal unanimously delivered guilty verdicts against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their key legal advisors who were all convicted as war criminals for torture and cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.

Full transcripts of the charges, witness statements and other relevant material will now be sent to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, as well as the United Nations and the Security Council.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission is also asking that the names of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington and Haynes be entered and included in the Commission’s Register of War Criminals for public record.

The tribunal is the initiative of Malaysia’s retired Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who staunchly opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

This is a cross post from International Clearing House

Print this Report

1.          “The Report on Progress toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan“(142 pages)in Apr, 2012. The progress of the civil-military COIN campaign has severely degraded the Taliban-led insurgency, limiting their operational capacity and undermining their popular support. The decline in insurgent capability, coupled with improvements in the operational effectiveness of the ANSF and a resilient ANSF-ISAF partnership, has enabled the security transition process to expand. The transition of security responsibility to the Afghans by the end of 2014, as agreed at Lisbon, remains on schedule. The mission in Afghanistan, however, faces long-term challenges. The insurgency draws strength from safe haven and support from within Pakistan and garners popular support by exploiting areas where the Afghan Government has failed to provide sufficient governance, rule of law, and economic opportunities. Afghan Government progress toward key governance and development initiatives remains critical for the sustainability of security gains. Nevertheless, the mission in Afghanistan remains integral to U.S. national security objectives, and the strategy is sound. The United States and its coalition partners are committed to achieving long-term stability and security in Afghanistan to ensure that the country never again becomes a safe haven for al Qaeda or its affiliates.

2.              The report is consists of 8 Sections:-

a.              Strategy:-The goal of the United States is to disrupt, dismantle, and eventually defeat al Qaeda, and to prevent its return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.

b.              Afghan national security forces growth, development, and operations: Afghan National Security Forces continued to make substantial progress during the reporting period, gradually building a force that will eventually be capable of assuming full responsibility for security throughout Afghanistan.

c.              Transition:-The security Transition process was jointly conceived and developed by the Afghan Government, the United States, the NATO, and ISAF nations at a variety of international fora, beginning with the 2010 London Conference and culminating in the NATO Summit in Lisbon in November 2010. Transition to Afghan security lead began in July 2011 and transition to full Afghan security responsibility will be complete country-wide by the end of 2014.

d.              Security:-The Afghan insurgency is composed of a syndicate of semi-autonomous groups, including the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin. The insurgency is also supported by various transnational terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, as well as Pakistan-based militant groups such as Tehrik-i Taliban Pakistan and the Commander Nazir Group. The primary actor within the insurgency is the Taliban, led by the Senior Shura22 in Quetta, Pakistan, and the spiritual leader Mullah Omar. Overall, these groups maintain functional and symbolic relationships in pursuit of overlapping interests.

e.              Governance:-The Afghan Government is gradually developing the capacity to provide stable, effective, and responsive governance to the Afghan population. However, the government’s long-term sustainability is jeopardized by multiple factors, including widespread corruption, dependence on international aid and mentoring support, and an imbalance of power that favors the executive branch over the legislative and judicial branches. Limited human capacity with appropriate formal training or civilian education within the civil service sector also impedes the development of stable and sustainable government across Afghanistan.

f.                Reconstruction and Development:-.. Since 2002, donor funding has helped create national health and education systems; built extensive transportation, power, water, communications, and border infrastructure; and strengthened economic governance. Significant long-term assistance will continue to be required, however, to create conditions for sustainable economic growth. Short-term development initiatives will focus on what is realistically achievable by the end of 2014 to stabilize the economy and ensure that the Afghan Government can deliver basic social and development services to the Afghan populace. Development during transition will be executed against a backdrop of declining donor funding, drawdown of coalition forces, a rapid decline in ISAF spending, growing unemployment, and likely economic recession.

g.              Counternarcotics:-.. The Afghan Government is the lead for all counternarcotics (CN) operations. The Afghan Government regularly partners with the U.S. and international organizations to target narcotics traffickers and facilities. As part of the COIN strategy, DoD coordinates with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and other U.S. Government departments and agencies to support the overall CN strategy for Afghanistan. The main goal of this strategy is to reduce the ability of the insurgency to draw support from the narcotics industry. RC-S and RC-SW remained priority areas for military and law enforcement CN efforts during the reporting period.

h.              Regional Engagement:-

(1)     Pakistan:-The United States continues to seek a relationship with Pakistan that is constructive and mutually beneficial, and that advances both U.S. and Pakistani interests. Pakistan has publicly committed to playing a positive role in a genuine national reconciliation that is Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. However, Pakistan’s selective counterinsurgency operations, passive acceptance – and in some cases, provision – of insurgent safe havens, and unwillingness to interdict material such as IED components, continue to undermine security in Afghanistan and threaten ISAF’s campaign. Pakistan continues to seek a stable, secure Afghanistan, an Afghan government with primacy for Pashtuns, and limited Indian influence. To this end, Pakistan has allowed an insurgent sanctuary in its border areas to persist, offering a safe haven to Afghan Taliban and associated militant groups including the Haqqani Taliban Network in North Waziristan Agency. Pakistani leaders have tolerated this due to their concerns that Pakistan will be left alone to confront an unstable, an unfriendly, or an Indian-influenced Afghanistan on its borders. Accordingly, Pakistan seeks to play a key role in the peace and reconciliation process to advance a political settlement that considers Pakistani interests.

(2)    India:- India continues to show interest in Afghan security assistance through strengthening ANSF capabilities, although activities in this area have been limited to date. India currently provides scholarships for ANSF personnel to study in India, and the Indian Government also is exploring options to train female Afghan police in India.

Complete Report : Report_Final_SecDef_04_27_12 

Print this Report