Current Projects
Deporting Sharbat Gula
SHARBAT Gula became the world’s most famous refugee after a photograph of her appeared on the cover of a 1985 issue of the National Geographic. She made headlines again recently when she was arrested by the FIA for living in Pakistan illegally on forged papers. She was charged under Section 14 of the Foreigner’s Act and for violating the Pakistan Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Nadra Ordinance. She was slapped with a fine of Rs110,000 and was ‘fortunate’ enough to be jailed for only 15 days and not for years, as provided for under the law. What is highly disconcerting, however, is that she was deported as soon as she was released. Sharbat Gula suffers from hepatitis C. She is also a widow and a mother of four children; she deserved to remain in Pakistan on health and humanitarian grounds. Desperation, abject poverty and the lack of better opportunities have driven many Afghan refugees to take residence in Pakistan illegally. In other words, they have no other choice, and it goes against the core norms of international human rights for Pakistan to punish these individuals for violating its immigration laws. Amnesty International also recently voiced this sentiment in a press release that further tarnished Pakistan’s reputation for its recent treatment of refugees. Following the APS attacks, Pakistan has hardened its stance on Afghan refugees. Scores have been subjected to harassment and torture in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. These conventions, which Pakistan has ratified, make no distinctions between the treatment of citizens, refugees or those who are illegally present in a country. Pakistan must have a more long-term and inclusive strategy to deal with Afghan refugees. While it is true that Pakistan is not a party to the...
Turning Afghanistan Into a More Modern State
From 2009 through 2012, Washington Post reporter Joshua Partlow covered the war in Afghanistan and the United States’ frustrated efforts to turn a former terrorist haven into a modern state. In his no-nonsense writing style, Partlow explains in “A Kingdom of Their Own” how Washington ended up supporting the extended family of Hamid Karzai, its choice for president in a country that had never held a Western-style election for its highest office. He also tells why, after 15 years and America’s longest war, a well-functioning, modern and responsible government has remained out of reach in the rugged southwest Asian country. A reader may wonder why this country has spent billions of dollars and several thousand lives to bring a sort-of democracy to Afghanistan. The answer is simple: Afghanistan was where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida hatched plans to attack the United States on 9/11. The George W. Bush administration wanted to create a stable government and ally there. The U.S-led NATO alliance in Afghanistan has accomplished several things. Primarily, it has kept the Taliban from re-establishing a national government, though the fighting has been hard and the results tenuous. (The Taliban is what originally allowed al-Qaida to use Afghanistan as a base.) Second, with intense U.S. oversight, NATO allowed an elected president, Karzai, to assume power for the first time in Afghanistan’s history. Yet the tribal nature of Afghan life continues to confound national unity. “President Karzai’s dream throughout his presidency was to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict with the Taliban,” Partlow writes. “He mentioned that goal when he was sworn in for his second term, and he pursued the prospect of peace talks until he left the palace. The record of those efforts has not been written; most of it took place in the shadow worlds where spies and militants intersected.” Karzai’s goals were not what Washington wanted. The Bush and Obama administrations sought to turn the...
“People That Hate Us”: What can Afghans expect from President Trump?
If Hillary Clinton had won Tuesday’s race for the White House, the world would now have a good sense of who her top officials would be and what her foreign policy would look like. With a Secretary of State-turned-president, Afghanistan could have expected business to carry on pretty much as normal. With Donald Trump coming into office in January, however, nothing is certain. The US is Afghanistan’s main backer in terms of funding and foreign troops and also has a substantial continuing influence on government policy. Whatever readers may think about the US role in Afghanistan, any major or sudden shift in US policy would be bound to have huge repercussions. So, despite AAN being the Afghanistan, not the America, Analysts Network, senior analysts Thomas Ruttig and Kate Clark have had a first attempt at working out what the Trump presidency might mean for Afghanistan. Foreign policy was not exactly a key issue in the election campaign and Afghanistan – where America is fighting its longest war ever – barely featured at all. It got one (factual, rather than policy) mention in the first Clinton v Trump televised debate (see video in this article) and failed to make it into the second and third debates at all. Associated Press has tried to find a reason why this happened: The next president will face a new set of tough choices on Afghanistan early in his (…) term, including whether to increase or reduce U.S. troop levels and, more broadly, whether to continue what might be called Obama’s minimalist military strategy. The difficulty of these choices may explain, at least in part, why Trump and Clinton have been largely silent on Afghanistan. The most striking mention of Afghanistan probably came when Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson appeared on CNN in October 2016 and, speaking about 2007, said: “Remember, we weren’t even in Afghanistan by this time. Barack Obama went into Afghanistan.” Perhaps, she mistook the ‘surge’ for the 2001 invasion. During a campaign...
More Carnage in Balochistan
THE blight in Balochistan continues. This time a shrine in a remote, mountainous region of Khuzdar has been attacked and the death toll and number of casualties are devastating. It was the third monstrous attack in the span of three months – lawyers killed by the dozen in August; policemen killed by the dozen in October; and, now, members of the public killed by the dozen. The numbing scale of the disasters is difficult to process even in terms of a province that has been in the throes of every possible kind of violence for over a decade. Perhaps one day the people of Balochistan will be able to ask why they were cursed to suffer the violence of state and non-state actors alike, a macabre circularity that has seen them experience bloodshed in the name of security and insecurity. Then post-attack rituals too are wearyingly familiar. In the immediate aftermath, the state stands exposed. Neither is the state able to deliver an acceptable level of security that prevents such devastating attacks nor is it able to quickly arrange for the kind of medical attention the victims require and material attention for the victims’ families. It usually takes the extraordinary intervention of senior government or military leaders for medical care to be made available. Afterwards, it does not seem to occur to that very same leadership that what is really needed are stronger institutions and better service delivery so that if — when — another attack occurs, medical care automatically swings into action. Difficult as it may be to strengthen institutions in the midst of long-term conflict, actual performance is so dismal as to call into question the very competence and priorities of the country’s leaders. As ever, it is the citizenry that has to suffer because of the leadership’s failings. A day later, the devastation at the Shah Noorani shrine was already receding and a congratulatory narrative taking its place because of the Gwadar port inauguration. To be sure, the potential for...
Dealing with Trump’s America
At about one on the morning of November 9, Hillary Clinton conceded the election to her Republican Party rival, Donald Trump. This was an utterly unexpected turn in events. Before the results started to come in on the evening of the day before, no serious political analyst had predicted a Trump victory. The real-estate’s supporters had either not been covered by the experts or had kept their views to themselves until they entered the voting booth. They turned out massively to vote for their hero. A vast majority of them were the country’s white citizens. Now that the voters in the US have cast their votes and elected a new president to succeed Obama, the question remains as to how will the elections affect the evolution of the US political system? One of the more important consequences of the way the election was fought was to remove the veneer of respectability from public discourse. Trump scoffed at this tendency to be polite as “political correctness.” Certain things were not to be said openly; they may have been acceptable in the “locker room” but not in the public space. But that was not the right approach. People should express themselves openly. Only then they will get some response from the policymakers. This attitude gave latitude that was quickly exploited by the “angry white men” who are Trump’s largest support group. But this loss of inhibition was not confined to the political right. It also affected the left, it crept even into the commentary in newspapers and magazines of repute. To take just one example from the many that are available. It is hard to find so many pejoratives in one sentence written by a highly respectable columnist. This is what Roger Cohen had to say about Trump: “The campaign, thanks to Trump, has involved a kind of magical mystery tour of all that is vile, vulgar, repugnant, primal, violent, bullying, petulant, hateful, dishonest, superficial and lazy in human nature.” Trump’s behaviour “has offered a primer in how democratic...
Through Aide, Pakistan Reaches Out to Trump
Pakistan has approached US president-elect Donald Trump through one of his close aides, seeking to develop an ‘understanding’ with the new administration on issues ranging from war on terror to the complex nature of geopolitics in South Asia. The development came just days after Trump’s stunning victory in the US presidential election shook the entire world, including Pakistan, where policymakers are now discussing options on how to deal with the enigmatic leader given his radical stance on international and regional issues. Since Trump being the next president of the US is now a reality, Pakistan has decided to follow a ‘proactive’ approach to reach out to the Republican leader. A senior official with the knowledge of that ‘proactive’ approach told The Express Tribune that Pakistan’s Ambassador in Washington Jalil Abbas Jilani wrote a letter to Trump on behalf of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to congratulate him on his victory, as well as his government’s desire to work with his administration. But, apart from these diplomatic manoeuvres, the government is also relying on ‘unconventional’ approaches, such as reaching out to the Trump administration through his advisers. One of his advisers that have been approached by Pakistan is Sajid Tarar, a Pakistani-American, who came to the limelight after he founded a movement in the US seeking support of Muslims for Trump in the run up to the race for the White House. It was a bold and to some extent unpopular move on his part due to the fact that the majority of American Muslims as well as those of Pakistani origins supported Trump’s rival Hilary Clinton. With Trump’s unexpected victory, Tarar has now emerged as the most sought after person in the US. He was one of the 36 advisers appointed by the Republican candidate for the hard fought election campaign. Tarar, who originally hails from Mandi Bahuddin, is expected to be given a key role in the Trump Administration. On Sunday, in an exclusive interview by phone from...
Da’ish Forms Nexus with Other Groups
The deadly suicide bombing at the Shah Noorani shrine in Khudzar, which has been claimed by the Islamic State, also known by its Arabic acronym Da’ish, shows the threat is not perceived, it’s very much real. Former interior minister Rehman Malik said on Sunday that he had spoken about the presence of Da’ish in Pakistan based on documentary evidence. “Instead of taking action to stop the cancer from metastasizing, the government remained in denial mode,” Malik told journalists in Islamabad. “Today, we are shocked to know that Da’ish has claimed credit for the carnage at the shrine in Khuzdar.” Law enforcers in Peshawar lend credence to what Malik says. They believe that Da’ish has formed a nexus with other terrorist groups, TTP-Jamaatul Ahrar in particular, to carry out terrorist attacks in the city. In background interviews, senior officials of law enforcement agencies told Daily Express that three terrorist groups TTP-Jamaatul Ahrar, TTP Tariq Afridi group and Da’ish have contracted a sort of marriage of convenience, wherein Da’ish carries out attacks and TTP-Jamaatul Ahrar claims responsibility for it. “Most recent attacks, including targeted killings taking place in Peshawar, have been carried out by Dai’sh,” said a senior counterterrorism official. “Under an arrangement among these groups, TTP-Jamaatul Ahrar has claimed credit for all these attacks,” he added. In the past, the group’s spokesperson, Ehsanullah Ehsan, had repeatedly denied affiliation with Da’ish. The official admitted that in the past everybody denied Da’ish’s footprint in the country. “But now the situation has changed, especially after the law enforcement agencies, including Intelligence Bureau and Counterterrorism Department, managed to arrest dozens of facilitators and local leaders of the group,” he added. According to information gleaned from these detainees during interrogation, the Da’ish’s local leader belonged to Mattani, a village located about 20 kilometres south of Peshawar near...
Is The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor a 21st Century East India Company?
A closer look at the hidden dangers CPEC could bring for Pakistan. When a Pakistani lawmaker recently warned in Parliament that “another East India Company is in the offing” in the form of China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, he certainly raised some eyebrows. This view came from Senator Tahir Mashhadi, chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Development, who specifically voiced concerns about the exorbitant loans Pakistan will need to pay back to China for CPEC. Mashhadi also objected to China’s demands regarding power tariffs on projects according to Chinese interests. Since the official discourse in Pakistan has presented CPEC in very rosy terms (often calling it a “game-changer”), the “East India Company” analogy merits a proper analysis. To compare China’s role, within the context of CPEC project, with that of the British East India Company would be hyperbole, though not a totally discreditable argument. There cannot be exact parallels between both the cases. First of all, the method used by the East India Company (EIC) was entirely different. The EIC came to the subcontinent primarily with the intention of doing trade but usurped power through the brutal use of force, which the renowned British historian William Dalrymple described as “probably the most bloody episode in the entire history of British colonialism.” By contrast, China and Pakistan enjoy an exemplary friendship based on mutual trust and respect. Second, the EIC was enticed by the fabled riches, wealth, and resources of this region. In other words, the subcontinent was by far more prosperous than the EIC. In case of China and Pakistan, the story is the other way around. As an economic power, China is second only to the United States and sits on the largest foreign exchange reserves in the world ($3.20 trillion). With Beijing’s deep pockets and passion for spending, economic ties with China are even prized by the wealthy countries of the West like Britain and Germany. On the other...
October Deadliest Month in Past Two Years: Study
According to figures presented by security departments, more than 6,000 insurgents, nearly 500 security forces and more than 700 civilians were killed or wounded in October. The report says that insurgents' movements increased in October against September and that security forces mostly carried out offensives in response to insurgent activities. TOLOnews has recorded 1,164 security incidents in the month of October that shows an increase of 21 percent compared to September. Security forces conducted 662 ground operations. Military operations carried out by security forces increased by 26 percent in the month of October. October was a busy month for the insurgents and they increased their activities by 18 percent. In addition to bombings, kidnappings and rocket attacks, they carried out 143 group attacks. "The insurgents' movements reduced in the month of September and the security forces have had a chance to prevent their activities in the month of October. But it did not happen and insurgents' movements increased in October," said Sayed Abbas Hussaini, TOLOnews researcher. Nearly 4,153 insurgents were killed and 2,000 others wounded in October - the casualty toll among them increasing by 23 percent. The casualty toll among security forces also increased by 24 percent in October. In this month around 397 soldiers were killed and 83 others wounded. Civilians also bore the brunt of violence in October with casualties up 55 percent against September. Around 125 civilians including women and children lost their lives due to violence and 617 others were wounded in October. "The insurgents through the increase of their attacks tried to show they are powerful. But recently their attacks have been reduced and it is because they had lots of casualties," said Dawlat Waziri, spokesman of ministry of defense. In the month of October, Nangarhar, with 125 security incidents, Helmand with 96 incidents, Farah with 95 incidents and Kunduz with 74 were the most insecure provinces...
Afghan Weekly (Nov 6 – Nov 11, 2016)
As militant attacks by Daesh and Taliban have intensified in recent months, the Afghan government has come under criticism for failing to formulate a coherent strategy against the growing threats. Such views were shared on the floor of Afghanistan's Wolesi Jirga in a debate on Monday among members.[1] However, several militants belonging to Daesh and Taliban factions were also killed during clashes with Afghan security forces this week.[2] The election of the United States’ new President was another major event for Afghanistan on Wednesday. President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah both congratulated the new US President on his win and stressed that the US was an important strategic partner to Afghanistan in the development of the country and in fighting terrorism. The Taliban also issued a statement directed at the new US President in which they urged Donald Trump to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, claiming that the Taliban had achieved victory in the ongoing war.[3] More updates on Afghanistan’s security, politics, governance, international engagements and socio-economic developments from last week are as follow. A Security Overview: Daesh, Taliban and Afghanistan Security Forces & Security Operations Daesh Poses Serious Threat to National Security: Ibrahimi - November 7, 2016 Abdul Rauf Ibrahimi, speaker of the Wolesi Jirga (Lower House of Parliament), on November 7 said Daesh still remains a serious threat to Afghanistan's security and that government has failed to define a strong security policy to tackle the problem. "We persistently remind the president and the chief executive officer (Abdullah Abdullah). Threats emerging from Daesh and Taliban are on the rise, this has created serious concerns among the people, the government has also failed to define a coherent strategy to maintain security in the country," said Ibrahimi. MPs also criticized the U.S for ignoring threats emerging from al-Qaeda, Taliban and Daesh in...
TOP STORIES
TESTIMONIALS
“
I am also a member of National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting. Recently, we held a meeting with the Director General of Radio Pakistan and we told them to initiate such local programs (like Constituency Hour) in regional languages to educate and inform people. Even Indian Radio can be heard in FATA which is being used for propaganda purposes and must be closed. Therefore, we should launch some standard and quality programs like CRSS that will change the taste of the listeners.