Pakistan in Media

More light is visible behind the looming clouds than was the case during the last decade or so. Perhaps there is scope for hope; we have, at the very least, as a nation, begun to arrest the downslide.

Air Marshal Nur Khan, perhaps the only remaining icon on our horizon, does me the honour of staying in touch. It was he who posed this question to me and expressed his views on it; I thought the subject worth writing about. The views expressed here are our shared views, which I have expanded upon.

For many years now, we have had our doomsday specialists, those who warned the world that religious extremists were on the verge of taking over our nuclear assets and the country. This was pure music to the ears of the Indians and most in the West as well.
more

NEW YORK, Aug 13: Pakistanis see their country in crisis and they give their national government lower ratings than at any time in this decade. And almost no one is satisfied with national conditions, according to a new survey released on Wednesday.

President Asif Zardari’s popularity is at all-time low at 32 per cent while Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Nawaz Sharif has reached a new high at 79 per cent approval ratings.
more

Daily Times, Pakistan, Monday, June 29, 2009
LAHORE: Pakistan, split down the middle with terrorist attacks and facing an economic crisis, remains among the top 10 failed states, according to an index prepared by the Foreign Policy Journal.

Placed ninth among all countries last year in terms of its overall achievement, Pakistan’s position has improved only by one notch - it is placed 10th in the index for 2009 published in the July-August issue of the journal.
More

Mon Jun 15, 2009
YEKATERINBURG, Russia (Reuters) - Russia, Pakistan and Afghanistan called for stronger regional cooperation in fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.

U.S. President Barack Obama has made better international cooperation on Afghanistan an important element of his plan to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan where violence is at its worst level since U.S.-led forces toppled the Islamists in 2001.
Read More

The News International, Pakistan
Tuesday, June 02, 2009

A large delegation of Indian writers, professionals and intellectuals is due in the country soon to resume a process of Track II diplomacy. This is important given that the government-to-government level dialogue has been at a standstill since late last year. The Track II process, peace activists hope, could help push it back onto track again. There has for years been considerable dispute involving Track II diplomacy. It has been argued that it is pointless and in the final run serves no purpose at all. Cynics hold that gatherings such as the one to be held now have continued for years, but had no major impact on altering the broader picture as far as Indo-Pak acrimony goes. They have a point. But the fact is that people-to-people contact is vital to build the foundation of understanding necessary for closer ties. Exchanges between Indo-Pak students in recent years have helped clear misconceptions and in many cases build strong friendships. Pakistani children have benefitted too from Indian health initiatives, at a fraction of what they would cost in the west.

For all these reasons the Track II process should be promoted. This is especially true given that there is a need to sweep away the animosity caused by the process of angry accusations and counter-accusations that followed the Mumbai attacks and various incidents of terrorism in Pakistan. Now that there is talk of resuming the official peace process, anything that can help ease tensions is welcome and the Track II effort is an important step in this direction.

Source

The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: May 24, 2009

CAIRO — Iran hosted its first three-way summit meeting on Sunday with Pakistan and Afghanistan to discuss cooperation on regional issues, the latest sign of Iran’s emergence as the regional power.

With Pakistan and Afghanistan fighting to hold back the rising tide of radical, Islamic insurgencies led by the Taliban, the meeting in Tehran seemed intended by Iran to assure its neighbors that working together the three could solve their problems without having to rely on the West.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran suggested that the United States was the main problem when he described “others who are alien to the nations and culture of our nations.” It was a not-too-subtle swipe, but still one that Washington’s allies from Pakistan and Afghanistan did not rebut. That served as another sign that Iran was increasingly seen as less of a threat to the West, and the region, than the prospect of the Taliban’s controlling Pakistan or Afghanistan.

“If we can save Pakistan and Afghanistan from these problems, from extremism,” President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said in comments broadcast in Iran, “then such trilateral meetings are meaningful.”

Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan signed an agreement — called the Tehran Statement — in which they committed to work together to fight Islamic extremism and stop drug smuggling across their borders. Though the declaration did not outline specific action, it served as a sort of bookend to changes in regional dynamics that began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, with the United States-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 and of Iraq in March 2003.

The summit meeting also served as proof that Western efforts to isolate Iran over its nuclear energy program, through unilateral and United Nations Security Council sanctions, have given way to more pragmatic regional concerns.

Although the presidents of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan had met before in a larger gathering of regional leaders, the summit meeting on Sunday was the first among just the three of them.

Iran’s president, Mr. Ahmadinejad, said he was confident the meeting would “guarantee security and expansion of cooperation in the region,” in remarks reported by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran was once bitter enemies with the Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan before the American-led invasion there. Iran was also once a regional rival of Pakistan. Iran is a Shiite Muslim state. Pakistan is a Sunni Muslim state, and often sided with other Sunni states, like Saudi Arabia, against Iran in political and regional matters.

Now, with the Taliban routed from power but waging an aggressive insurgency in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, the presidents of those two countries have turned to Iran, on their western borders, for help.

“There are many problems along our joint borders,” Mr. Zardari said, in comments reported by the Islamic Republic News Agency. “We cannot underestimate the problems and we should look for solutions to all of them.”

President Obama has also sought to re-engage diplomatically with Iran after three decades of animosity between it and the United States. Iranian officials have given mixed signals, sticking with their death-to-America ideology at home while suggesting that after presidential elections in Iran next month they may be willing to open talks.

Source

May 24, 2009
TEHRAN (APP) -- Leaders of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan will meet today to discuss and hammer out a joint strategy to tackle the issue of terrorism and militancy, confronting the region.


Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari, who reached Tehran on Saturday evening, had proposed this trilateral summit when he met President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and President Hamid Karzai on the sidelines of 10th ECO Summit in Tehran in March.

“The main issues to be discussed in the summit include terrorism -- which has taken grip over the whole region and also the world -- drug trafficking and human trafficking,” Pakistan’s Ambassador to Iran M.B. Abbasi told APP.

He said these issues are confined not only to this region but also have a far-reaching impact on the whole world.

“We are making history, as it is for the first time that Iran is being equally integrated with the issues that Pakistan and Afghanistan are facing”, he said.

“We will come out with solutions for problems that we might perceive in future,” he said.

Ambassador Abbasi termed the holding of Pakistan-Afghan-Iran summit an achievement of Pakistan. He said President Zardari during his visit to Tehran in March proposed that Iran, being an important player of the region, must be included and should be on board to tackle the issues confronting this region.

Besides attending the trilateral summit, President Zardari will also hold bilateral meetings with his Iranian and Afghan counterparts for increased cooperation in trade, economic and other spheres on bilateral front.

President Zardari and the Iranian President during their bilateral meeting are likely to review the whole range of bilateral relations and cooperation in various fields, with particular focus on trade, energy, communication and infrastructure.

With Pakistani Advisor on Petroleum and Natural Resources Dr. Asim Hussain already in Tehran to hold meeting on the multi-billion dollars gas pipeline project, which is currently in the finalization stages, a major headway is expected during President Zardari’s visit.

As Pakistan is facing severe electricity crises, President Zardari is expected to seek Iranian cooperation with particular reference to the proposed 1000 MW power supply from Iran to Pakistan via Balochistan.

President Zardari will also hold bilateral meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai during which the two sides are expected to discuss increased cooperation in various areas.

They are likely to discuss trade and economy and increased cooperation in tackling the challenges of terrorism and militancy.

Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Advisor to PM on Finance Shaukat Tarin and senior officials will assist President Zardari at the summit as well as during his bilateral meetings.

Source

By VOA News
20 May 2009

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the U.S. is losing the media war in Afghanistan and Pakistan - something she said must be reversed.

She told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee Wednesday that militants broadcasting from radio equipment on the backs of pickup trucks are threatening and intimidating people.

She says while they are spreading what she called the "worst kind of disinformation" they have been more effective than the U.S. when it comes to strategic communications.

Secretary Clinton says as a result, the Obama administration is revamping its communications strategy - looking at new ways to directly reach people in areas where militants are active - including on their cell phones.

Clinton says the U.S. must not lose the "information war" in the region, and much do a better job at communicating its values and ideals to Afghans and Pakistanis.

She is seeking $48.6 billion in State Department funding for 2010, a seven percent increase over 2009 funding levels. Clinton also says the State Department will work side-by-side with the Defense Department to promote U.S. interests and security in the region.

Source

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Columnist says Pakistan and Afghanistan could turn into our next Vietnam
[Global News: Comment]

Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001 attacks in America, the United and States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001.

The two countries dubbed this invasion "Operation Enduring Freedom." President George W. Bush told the American people that the US strikes were, "designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime…we will make it more difficult for the terror network to train new recruits and coordinate their evil plans. Initially, the terrorists may burrow deeper into caves and other entrenched hiding places…At the same time, the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies. As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan… "

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. "It’s time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan," he said.

I believe that this approach was taken by the Obama team in order to placate the anti-Iraq contingent in the American electorate while not leaving himself vulnerable to the "soft on defense" hawkish critics on the other side.

As a campaign tactic this approach proved to be successful. In reality, this may prove to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama could make. After his historic election, many historians and others placed this event in the context of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s "Dream".

Some mistakenly saw this election as "the fulfillment of that Dream"; others mistakenly compared candidate Obama’s "race neutral" approach with Dr. King’s vision. Some even likened Obama’s oratory skills with that of Dr. King’s.

Today critics are asking the question: "Is the Obama Administration’s approach to the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan going to be its Vietnam?"

As America faces its most difficult economic challenges in recent history, compare President Obama’s Afghanistan and Pakistan approach with President Johnson’s Vietnam. Is the Obama Administration making the same mistakes based on arrogance, hubris, and a misplaced sense of empire that led us into Vietnam?

Here’s what the Rev. Dr. King had to say about US involvement in Vietnam in his speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence."

He said: "There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor-- both black and white -- through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such."

Today, President Obama is planning to send an additional 4,000 troops and other support personnel into Afghanistan. Like his predecessor, President Obama says, "If the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban or allows al-Qaida to go unchallenged, that country will again be a base for terrorists."

The additional 4,000 troops will bring the total US force up to 30,000 by the end of 2009. President Obama is also ratcheting up the rhetoric and activity in Pakistan. There’s a significant increase in ground forces, Predator drones and air attacks.

In his announcement on March 27th, President Obama referred to the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan as, "the most dangerous place in the world." He added: "This is not simply an American problem - far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al-Qaida and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake."

President Obama and his advisors should learn from history, some ancient some modern, and not repeat it. This is a region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die.

The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British, and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan but never succeeded. According to historians, Alexander the Great in 330 B.C. lost more men and more animals crossing the Hindu Kush than all his subsequent campaigns in central Asia.

In 1839 the British invaded Afghanistan; in 1841 after an Afghan revolt, 4,500 British troops withdrew. According to a description published in the North American Review in 1842, On the 6th of January, 1842, the Caboul forces commenced their retreat through the dismal pass, destined to be their grave.

On the third day they were attacked by the mountaineers from all points, and a fearful slaughter ensued.

In more recent history, the Russians invaded Afghanistan. The initial deployment of the Soviet 40th Army began in Afghanistan on August 7, 1978. After nine years of fighting a US, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistani backed mujahedeen resistance, the Soviet troop withdrawal began on May 15, 1988 and ended on February 15, 1989.

Since 2001, in spite of President Bush and now President Obama’s noble speeches and military tactics, the US and its allies have not disrupted the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations.

The US has not been able to successfully "attack the military capability of the Taliban regime". What the US has done is lose 1,147 coalition forces; US Air Force data shows that munitions dropped in Afghanistan have risen 1,100 percent, from 2004 to 2007; and, tonnage figures jumped from 163 tons to 1,956 tons.

According to the United Nations, bombs have killed over 2000 Afghan civilians in 2008, up 40% from 2007. The Associated Press reports the direct correlation between the rise in Afghan civilian deaths and anti-American sentiment.

In terms of dollars, according to recently released pentagon reports, the price tag for running the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan will outstrip the cost of the conflict in Iraq next year. America cannot afford this folly.

To paraphrase the Rev. Dr. King would say: "Then came the buildup in Afghanistan and Pakistan and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war."

The US and its allies could "disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime" if more of this effort and money were spent on winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan and Pakistani people through real humanitarian assistance such as water, food, medicine, blankets, and building supplies.

The problem with this solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war.

This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan and Pakistan will once again be where empires go to die.

Source

Editorial, Dawn, Pakistan
By Anwar Syed
Sunday, 17 May, 2009

PRESIDENT Asif Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently visited President Obama in Washington. Their conversations focused on the threat the Taliban pose to the good order of their countries.

President Obama is convinced that the threat is grave enough to imperil the very existence of the two neighbours and destabilise many others. He has declared his administration’s resolve to destroy the Taliban resisting or hiding in parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan and wherever else they might go.

That the Taliban are a menace may be granted. Many in the US are apprehensive that if the Taliban do succeed in overthrowing and replacing the current political order in Pakistan, they would take possession and control of its nuclear weapons. These weapons in the hands of such fanatics could unleash unspeakable horrors.

American officials and other observers feel also that the Pakistani and Afghan governments are not strong enough to deal with the Taliban threat effectively, and that they must move to energise themselves, possibly with American help

The Taliban have their own version of Islam, which they wish to impose on others by force if verbal instruction will not work. They are extremist and militant enough to place those who do not agree with them outside the pale of Islam and hold that they deserve to be killed. They have no interest in the preservation of Pakistan, indeed they intend to undo it, if it chooses to stick to its own ways. President Obama is thus entirely correct when he says that the Taliban pose a threat to Pakistan’s very existence.

One must however understand that the Taliban are very difficult to eradicate. They are well equipped with modern weapons and they know how to use them. They are firm believers in their faith, firmer, it appears, than the Christian knights who came to Palestine as crusaders nearly 1,000 years ago. They have the will to kill and die for their cause. Before the launch of the current operation, the Pakistan Army went to throw them out of Swat but was unable to do so.

American army units and drones have been bombing the Taliban’s suspected hideouts in and around Pakistan’s tribal area. In each such attack a few of the Taliban and many more non-combatant civilians are reported killed and wounded. The Taliban are hard to catch: they are mobile, and, in addition, many of them have set up homes in villages and towns in the area where they can go and become indistinguishable from the rest of the local population.

If the Taliban are to be contained, if not eradicated, the governments concerned have to be strong enough to do it. President Obama says they are weak, and that they have to be strengthened. The government in Afghanistan is believed to be unrepresentative, corrupt, and incompetent. Its writ does not travel much beyond the city of Kabul, It does not represent the will of the Afghan people or or even that of the provincial governors and other power centres in the country. It was put in place largely by external forces. It summoned a grand jirga some years ago to get its endorsement but many influential tribal chiefs stayed away.

One may say that it is corrupt because it is unrepresentative; it has to bribe the various political notables to stay in power. They are willing to let President Karzai remain at the “helm” because he does not interfere with their administration of local affairs. Mr Karzai, on his part, is content with this state of affairs. The outside world recognises him as president of Afghanistan and there is no active opposition to him at home. He is entitled to all the prerogatives and privileges that go with his position as the head of a state and government. He has neither the incentive nor the capacity to further strengthen his government. President Obama will have to settle for the Afghanistan government as it is.

Certain western commentators have routinely and unthinkingly been saying that Pakistan is a failed state. This is nonsense. For one thing there is no generally accepted description of a failed state, no prototype to which one may refer for assessing the adequacy of a state. Pakistan is indeed afflicted with a certain amount of internal conflict and it faces problems that are hard to meet. But that is nothing novel: many other states are in similar situations.

The government of Pakistan is admittedly weak. There is no good reason why it should be that way. The ruling coalition at the centre, led by the PPP, has a solid majority in the National Assembly. There is nothing to stop its government, from being energetic. In fact it is neither. The reason has to be that Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his colleagues do not wish to be dynamic. They are content with the prerogatives and perquisites that come with the offices they hold.

This government is in place for the next four years unless the president chooses to dissolve the National Assembly, and with it the present government, under Article 58-2(b) of the constitution. President Zardari, who is concurrently co-chairman of the ruling party, will not want to exercise this option. President Obama will have to settle for a weak government in Pakistan that has no desire to strengthen itself.

Bur it is to be noted also that it is the Pakistan Army, more than the government’s political managers, that President Obama has to work with in combating the Taliban. The army chief, Gen Kayani, has recently declared that impressions of any of his officers and men being ambivalent with regard to the Taliban are incorrect and that the army fully intends to defeat them, How the army’s ongoing encounter with the Taliban continues remains to be seen.

Normally the world changes only gradually, almost imperceptibly, in small measure. Planned change on a large scale does not always work. For the most part, we have to learn to live with the ground realities as they are. The Taliban have become one of these realities. President Obama and all the rest of us will have to coexist with them even if it is in contestation. The conflict between them and us is not coming to an end in the foreseeable future.

Editorial, The News International, Pakistan
Sunday, May 17, 2009

Our president ended his marathon round of overseas visits with a meeting with President Sarkozy of France. France and Pakistan have enjoyed good relations for many years. The French wave no big sticks in our direction and tread a very independent line diplomatically – occasionally to the discomfort of their European allies and America. The meeting between the two leaders seemed productive – with the principal product being a 'civilian nuclear deal'. Or is it? There is some confusion about the precise nature of the 'deal' with our own diplomats saying that Mr Sarkozy has undertaken to supply Pakistan with "civilian nuclear technology" – which is not what the French diplomats in the Elysee Palace are saying. Their understanding is that the French have agreed to cooperate with Pakistan only in the field of 'nuclear safety' – which could mean any one of several things. Our usually sure-footed foreign minister speaking after the meeting talked of a 'significant development' and went on to say something that bears very close scrutiny indeed – "France has agreed to transfer civilian nuclear technology to Pakistan." The transfer of nuclear technology from country to country be it civilian or military is very tightly regulated; and we are eyed with considerable suspicion over nuclear matters by the wider world. The brakes were further applied when the French spokesperson said…"France was ready, within the framework of its international agreements, to co-operate with Pakistan in the field of nuclear safety. This is so the Pakistani programme can develop in the best conditions of safety and security." Which is some distance from transferring civilian nuclear technology.

The fact of the matter is that France cannot unilaterally transfer nuclear technology to Pakistan because we are not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and are therefore subject to a boycott of technology transfer by other powers. France is not going to breach an international treaty merely to give Pakistan a helping-hand – no matter how supportive of us they are. India was, until last year, in a similar position – but negotiated its way out of it to do a deal with the Americans. Pakistan would very much like to do the same, and doing a deal with France along the lines of that negotiated with India is an attractive prospect – if highly controversial for France. We need more power and we need it fast. Nuclear power stations take years to build and are hugely expensive and are not a fast solution, and there are other power-generating sources that we could develop before we went down the nuclear road – coal for instance, of which we have an under-exploited plenitude. Nobody in the world is going to get edgy about us developing coal-fired power generators unlike nuclear – which set alarm bells ringing all over the place. France may well help us to develop our nuclear resources and we welcome that – but the transfer of new nuclear technologies is a distant dream and our foreign minister needs to be a little more careful with his public utterances on the matter.

Editorial, Dawn, Pakistan
Saturday, 16 May, 2009
PAKISTAN’S request for its own drones fleet appears to have been rejected by Washington but a compromise may be in the offing. The details of the new formula — which “marks a significant departure from how the war against Taliban insurgents has been fought”, according to the Los Angles Times — remain unclear however. For instance, the LA Times reports that drone attacks inside Pakistan will henceforth take place under the direction of Pakistani military officials coordinating with their US counterparts operating out of a command centre in the Afghan city of Jalalabad. But the US Central Command rubbishes such claims, calling them “grossly inaccurate”. A senior US defence official told this paper on Thursday that the new understanding calls for sharing data collected by drone recce missions, not joint strikes. It is too early to say exactly how the new understanding between Islamabad and Washington will pan out in the days to come. Both this government and that of Gen Musharraf have come in for considerable flak from various quarters for not doing enough to stop US drone attacks in Pakistan. These strikes, seen by many in the country as brazen violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty, may have taken out some top militants but have also killed a large number of civilians. They have added fuel to the fire of those trying to inflame anti-US sentiment in Pakistan and have led to demands for halting these. Will the public reaction be any different if — and that’s a very big if — ownership of these strikes is transferred to Pakistani authorities? Even though the Taliban have fewer admirers now than they did earlier, American attack aircraft operating in Pakistani air space will most likely remain unacceptable to many in the country, regardless of who is authorising the strikes.

Still, the new ‘plan’ signals a further thaw in US-Pakistan relations, which have improved considerably since Islamabad decided to take the Malakand militants head-on. There have been calls in America for enhancing the limited counter-insurgency capabilities of Pakistan’s armed forces which are trained primarily to counter conventional armies. Washington’s ‘do more’ refrain has, for good reason, given way to an appreciation of Islamabad’s com- mitment to the battle against militancy. On Thursday the US Senate Appropriations Committee approved some $900m in economic and security aid for Pakistan. A pending House of Representatives bill, meanwhile, calls for about a billion dollars in emergency aid. The need for close cooperation, it seems, has become clear to all.

Editorial, Dawn, Pakistan
Saturday, 16 May, 2009

ELECTRICITY consumers have been facing tough times for more than three years now. The increasing duration of loadshedding, coupled with inflated power bills, have done little to bolster the people’s faith in official claims that the government has taken steps to eliminate loadshedding before the end of 2009. A report carried by this newspaper on Friday said the power supply situation in the country was worsening with the rising temperatures. Loadshedding has suddenly jumped to seven to eight hours with daily demand peaking at 14,300 megawatts as air-conditioners are switched on. Compare this demand to the total generation of 11,400 megawatts. Though the current demand–supply gap of 2,900 megawatts remains much below last year’s deficit of 4,400 megawatts because of improved hydel generation, it is feared that the situation could worsen in the coming days and weeks with a further rise in temperatures.

Read more

Editorial, Daily Times, Pakistan
May 16, 2009

On Monday, the government will try to persuade the opposition inside and outside parliament that the military action in Malakand Division should be allowed to go on. Before that our army chief General Ashfaq Kayani would have given them an in-camera briefing on how the military operations in FATA and Malakand are faring, after the army’s earlier declaration that the Taliban no longer control any area.

The APC has been convened after a strident demand made “in retrospect” by the opposition inside a parliament that has apparently changed its mind for the third time. The APC call was ignored when the parliament supported the military operation last week. But after the refugees started pouring out of Swat and other places, the mood changed back to the APC. So what will be the intent behind the APC?

Normally a government risks an APC when it knows that it will obtain a policy consensus out of it. If this consensus is not obtained, what are the options open to the government? It can either ignore the APC and go against the “nay-sayers” in it, relying more on its own popularity than on an all-parties support, or call off the operation. Will the APC be any help on Monday?

Read more

Editorial, The News International, Pakistan
Saturday, May 16, 2009
A proposal is on to make the port city of Gwadar on the Makran Coast Balochistan's winter capital. The plan could bring big economic gains for the area, currently one of the least developed in Pakistan, and for the province as a whole. For these reasons the plan should be encouraged. Using two centres as administrative capitals is after all not unique, and was the established practice in colonial times when the entire administrative apparatus shifted with the first heat-laden winds of summer from New Delhi to Simla. The governments in Punjab and other regions made a similar shift. Balochistan at present badly needs innovative plans for development. In this context it is worth noting that one of the ideas that went down well during President Zardari's recent visit to the US was a suggestion from an official making up the Pakistan team for a road working its way from the Balochistan coast to Afghanistan and beyond as a means to promote trade and uplift. US officials are said to see the suggestion as a rare concrete plan from Pakistan on how to better the plight of its people, rather than the waffling which seems to have dominated far too many of the meetings

Improving the lot of the people of Balochistan is of course especially significant. Indeed there is a vital need to do so in order to strengthen our fragile federation. We must therefore hope that the Gwadar plan goes through and that other, innovative measures can be put in place to achieve the same for other parts of the country badly in need of development

New America Media, Commentary, Hamid Mir, Posted: May 08, 2009

Editor's Note: Anti-Taliban sentiments are growing in Pakistan, but this doesn't necessarily push the country into the arms of the United States. Most Pakistanis view the United States as an even bigger threat, writes NAM contributor Hamid Mir. Mir is best known as the only journalist to have interviewed Osama bin Laden before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He is a terrorism expert and security analyst based in Pakistan.

The leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan met with Pres. Barack Obama in Washington, D.C., this week. The three agreed to come up with a joint strategy against the Taliban and al Qaeda. But there is still a major problem.

The majority of Pakistanis does not see Washington as part of the solution. In fact, many Pakistani newspapers, TV channels and political pundits view Washington as part of the problem. They think that the growing militancy in Pakistan is a result of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan

Read more

Members of banned group help Pakistan war refugees
By RIAZ KHAN – 1 day ago

MARDAN, Pakistan (AP) — Members of a charity banned for its alleged links to the Mumbai terror attack have resurfaced in northwestern Pakistan under a new name, distributing food and medicine Thursday among thousands of refugees from the government's bloody fight against the Taliban.

The makeover of Jamaat-ud-Dawa raises awkward questions for the embattled government, which has been trying hard to convince its skeptical Western sponsors that it is serious about taming Islamist extremism.

...

"We have sent 2,000 of our members to help our brothers and sisters," Mian Adil, deputy chairman of Falah and a former member of Jamaat, told The Associated Press. "We are silently helping the homeless, hungry and needy people, and let us do our work without maligning us."

The U.S. and the U.N. say Jamaat-ud-Dawa is a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the militant group accused of planning and carrying out last year's attacks in India's financial hub, Mumbai, which left 166 people dead and hundreds more wounded

Read more

Voice of America
By Ravi Khanna
Washington
15 May 2009

President Obama's new strategy on Pakistan and Afghanistan is coming under greater scrutiny in the U.S. Congress as lawmakers consider more military and development aid for the two countries. The lawmakers want more accountability and some are questioning whether providing more aid is the answer. Analysts at Washington's think tanks are also weighing in with opinions on the new strategy.

Taliban insurgents this week carried out attacks on both sides of Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. They staged suicide bombings near Afghan government buildings and a U.S. military base in Afghanistan's Khost province. They also targeted trucks carrying NATO supplies near Peshawar in Pakistan.

Read more

Blogger' Comments:
Surprisingly, there is no metion of the current Pakistan Army Operation against Taliban in Swat.

Editorial, Dawn, Pakistan
Dr Tariq Rahman
Thursday, 14 May, 2009
NOW that a military operation is going on in the Malakand Division it is imperative that it should be supported by the people and that the IDPs should be looked after with all resources at hand and be treated with compassion and respect.

Unfortunately, we have many myths and conspiracy theories which prevent clear thinking and that need to be debunked.

Myth 1: America wants our nuclear weapons and is destabilising Pakistan through the Taliban.