Pakistan welcomes Obama visit

WASHINGTON: Pakistan on Wednesday praised US President Barack Obama for saying he would visit the country next year, calling it a sign of commitment between the troubled war partners.

Obama, meeting with a senior Pakistani delegation, said he would not visit when he travels to neighboring India next month. But he committed to visiting Pakistan in 2011 and invited Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to Washington.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, speaking afterward at the Brookings Institution think-tank, called his meeting with Obama “very satisfying.”

“The fact that he has agreed to visit Pakistan next year, the fact that he has decided to invite the president of Pakistan to the United States of America, that is the level of engagement that is taking place,” Qureshi said.

The United States has played a delicate balancing act, seeking to show

US should resolve Kashmir issue to have peace in region: Qureshi

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that US should resolve the Kashmir issue in order to have peace in the region; where as the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said that democratic institutions in Pakistan are facing problems.
Pakistan on Wednesday praised US President Barack Obama for saying he would visit the country next year, calling it a sign of commitment between the troubled war partners. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, speaking afterward at the Brookings Institution think-tank, called his meeting with Obama very satisfying. The fact that he has agreed to visit Pakistan next year, the fact that he has decided to invite the president of Pakistan to the United States of America, that is the level of engagement that is taking place, Qureshi said. The United States has played a delicate balancing act, seeking to show Pakistan it seeks a relationship beyond cooperation on Afghanistan while also trying to broaden its ties with India, the world’s largest democracy. But Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi acknowledged obviously there are concerns that remain between Pakistan and the United States. Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan said that Pakistan is an important ally in war on terror and Pak-US talks are taking place because of Pakistan and not of Afghanistan. Holbrooke also said that Pakistan experienced extraordinary floods and the flood affected area is as big as whole of Italy. US will continue to provide every possible aid and assistance for the flood affectees, he added.

US should resolve Kashmir issue to have peace in region: Qureshi

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that US should resolve the Kashmir issue in order to have peace in the region; where as the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said that democratic institutions in Pakistan are facing problems.
Pakistan on Wednesday praised US President Barack Obama for saying he would visit the country next year, calling it a sign of commitment between the troubled war partners. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, speaking afterward at the Brookings Institution think-tank, called his meeting with Obama very satisfying. The fact that he has agreed to visit Pakistan next year, the fact that he has decided to invite the president of Pakistan to the United States of America, that is the level of engagement that is taking place, Qureshi said. The United States has played a delicate balancing act, seeking to show Pakistan it seeks a relationship beyond cooperation on Afghanistan while also trying to broaden its ties with India, the world’s largest democracy. But Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi acknowledged obviously there are concerns that remain between Pakistan and the United States. Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan said that Pakistan is an important ally in war on terror and Pak-US talks are taking place because of Pakistan and not of Afghanistan. Holbrooke also said that Pakistan experienced extraordinary floods and the flood affected area is as big as whole of Italy. US will continue to provide every possible aid and assistance for the flood affectees, he added.

US should resolve Kashmir issue to have peace in region: Qureshi

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said that US should resolve the Kashmir issue in order to have peace in the region; where as the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said that democratic institutions in Pakistan are facing problems.
Pakistan on Wednesday praised US President Barack Obama for saying he would visit the country next year, calling it a sign of commitment between the troubled war partners. Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, speaking afterward at the Brookings Institution think-tank, called his meeting with Obama very satisfying. The fact that he has agreed to visit Pakistan next year, the fact that he has decided to invite the president of Pakistan to the United States of America, that is the level of engagement that is taking place, Qureshi said. The United States has played a delicate balancing act, seeking to show Pakistan it seeks a relationship beyond cooperation on Afghanistan while also trying to broaden its ties with India, the world’s largest democracy. But Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi acknowledged obviously there are concerns that remain between Pakistan and the United States. Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan said that Pakistan is an important ally in war on terror and Pak-US talks are taking place because of Pakistan and not of Afghanistan. Holbrooke also said that Pakistan experienced extraordinary floods and the flood affected area is as big as whole of Italy. US will continue to provide every possible aid and assistance for the flood affectees, he added.

U.S. report ties militancy to Pakistan school woes

WASHINGTON: Pakistan”s poor public education system helps stoke militancy, while the religious schools, often cited as a cause of extremism, appear not to be a major risk factor, says a report by a Washington think tank.

The report, set to be released by the Brookings Institution on Wednesday, examined a raft of studies to assess links between militancy and education, a priority area for the Obama administration as it boosts development aid to Islamabad.

The researchers said low enrollment rates were a risk factor for violence and demand for education inside Pakistan far exceeded the government”s ability to provide it.

In addition, Pakistan”s public school system was highly corrupt with positions handed out for political favors and teachers paid whether they turned up for class or not.

“The way the education system is set up is contributing to support militancy,” said Rebecca Winthrop, with the Center for Universal Education at Brookings.

“Historically education in Pakistan has been used as a tool by successive regimes in pursuing narrow political ends,” she added.

The curriculum and teaching methods in public schools helped create intolerant views and also did little to prepare students for the labor market, frustrating youngsters and increasing the pool of militant recruits, the report said.

Winthrop and fellow conflict specialist Corinne Graff said the religious schools, or madrasas, that were frequently cited by the West as causing Islamist militancy, were not as numerous as suspected. Far less than 10 percent of the full-time, school-going population went to them.

“Madrasas account for a tiny fraction of student enrollment and they can hardly be cast as the main obstacle to high quality education and stability,” they wrote.

“The almost exclusive focus on madrasas as a security challenge — which is especially prevalent in the West — needs to be corrected,” the researchers added.

Education statistics in Pakistan are “sobering”, they said — just 54 percent of the population is able to read and 6.8 million children between the ages of 5 and 9 are not in school.

Less than a quarter of girls complete elementary school and only one-third of Pakistani children get a secondary education, with many dropping out.

“The data shows that lack of access to schooling is a risk factor for conflict or militancy. We know that Pakistan has extremely limited access (to education),” said Graff.

The Obama administration has promised to put more money into improving education in Pakistan and has made it a focus of the $1.5 billion in nonmilitary aid allocated annually by Congress for Pakistan over the next five years.

“Undoubtedly, a high-quality education system prepares its students to participate in and contribute to economic growth, which leads toward security and stability,” said Rajiv Shah, who heads the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“Improvements in education are critical to reducing violence,” he said in an email response to questions.

USAID”s total education budget in Pakistan for fiscal year 2010 is $335 million — with $265 million for basic education and the remainder for higher education. Since 2002, USAID has invested $682 million for education projects in Pakistan.

One way in which the money is being used is to offer stipends to families as a temporary measure to offset the cost of education for the poor.

The Brookings researchers cited problems with the curriculum in many schools, with historical facts altered and hatred toward archrival India and Hindus prominent in texts.

Shah encouraged Pakistan”s government to implement a new curriculum announced in 2007, which he said addressed many problems with previous content but had not been put in place.

For example, with the new curriculum, science and math were treated as secular subjects and Islamic studies was a stand-alone topic, he said.

US delivers evidence on Faisal’s Taliban links

WASHINGTON: Senior U.S. officials used an urgent meeting with Pakistan”s president to present a dossier on terrorism suspect Faisal Shahzad, including a detailed chart describing his contacts with the Pakistani Taliban before his attempt to detonate an explosives-laden vehicle in New York City”s Times Square, officials said.

The evidence was part of an emphatic American warning that there would be “inevitable pressure” on the United States to take action if there was an attack traceable to Pakistan that resulted in U.S. casualties, officials familiar with the talks said.

The warning was delivered last week in a visit to Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, by White House National Security Advisor James L. Jones and CIA Director Leon E. Panetta, who said Pakistan needed to intensify its crackdown on the Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban, or TTP, and other militant groups.

Originally, officials in Islamabad denied that the Pakistani Taliban, a militant group based in the country”s tribal regions, was involved in the May 1 bombing attempt. But in the days since Jones and Panetta met with President Asif Ali Zardari and other leaders, Pakistani officials have begun to acknowledge that the group provided support to Shahzad.

The Taliban initially claimed responsibility for the attempted attack, though it later backed away from the claim and denied even knowing Shahzad.

U.S. officials have become convinced that the TTP, after primarily focusing on attacks against the Pakistani government, is increasingly seeking ways to strike U.S. targets. The group has formed closer links with Al Qaeda and has seemed to adopt the terrorist network”s goal of striking the United States on its own territory.

“We have been lucky in the past, but our luck will run out and in the future, we are likely to face successful attacks,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official, who, like several others, was not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The evidence, which included photographs of militants suspected of assisting Shahzad, was shown to Zardari and Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, the army chief of staff, along with other Pakistani officials, U.S. officials said.

Jones and Panetta were attempting to convince the Pakistanis that the U.S. had hard evidence that Shahzad had received support from the Pakistani Taliban, the officials said.

The chart, which was assembled by U.S. intelligence agencies, “showed who all he had contacts with,” one official said, and drew “clear links between Faisal Shahzad and the TTP leaders in Pakistan.”

Jones and Panetta did not spell out action the United States might take, the official said. The delegation did not rule out military action, for example, but it didn”t talk about it specifically, he said.

Whether the U.S. would respond militarily or with lesser steps would depend on the circumstances of an attack and the strength of the evidence implicating militants in Pakistan, several officials said.

The White House originally considered warning Pakistan about the consequences of another attack in a confidential letter from President Obama to Zardari, but it decided to dispatch Jones and Panetta to deliver the message in person.

In addition to that visit, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned publicly in the days after the Times Square attempt that Pakistan faced “very severe consequences” in the event of another plot originating in Pakistan. Her comment provoked a strong backlash in Pakistan.

The Obama administration has been pleased with recent Pakistani military offensives undertaken in the tribal areas. U.S. officials want Islamabad to do more, especially in North Waziristan, but they acknowledge that Pakistan”s military already is stretched.

A U.S. campaign of attacks launched by unmanned aircraft in Pakistan”s tribal belt has been intensified since Obama took office. Pakistan is highly resistant to more than a token U.S. military presence on its territory, and American officials say there are few additional options for unilateral action against militant groups in Pakistan.

But if a terrorist attack launched from the Pakistani tribal belt did result in U.S. casualties, the pressure on the White House to act could be overwhelming, said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official and a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution.

“Professions by the Pakistanis that they are trying hard won”t cut it anymore,” Riedel said.

Drones kill nearly 500 militants: US officials

WASHINGTON: U.S. estimates show CIA drone strikes in Pakistan”s tribal areas over the last two years have killed more than 500 militants — a fraction of whom are considered top-tier leaders — and fewer than 30 civilians, officials said on Monday.

The number of so-called combatant and noncombatant casualties in the U.S. government tally is sharply lower than some Pakistani press accounts, which have estimated civilian deaths alone at more than 600.

Disclosing a partial tally of drone strikes since the summer of 2008, when the program was ramped up under then-President George W. Bush, could help the U.S. intelligence community counter protests from Pakistan and human rights groups about the civilian death toll.

But the numbers also show that the vast majority of the 500 killed — more than 90 percent by some measure — are lower-level fighters, raising questions about how much the CIA knows about each individual before they are killed, experts said.

Analysts said the truth about civilian casualties was difficult to ascertain because the region is largely inaccessible to outsiders and it is unclear what criteria the CIA uses to pick its targets and to determine who constitutes a combatant.

A U.S. counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the estimate was compiled using available intelligence as well as visual images — presumably from the unmanned aerial drones which can circle overhead for hours after they strike to assess the damage.

There has been little independent verification of casualties in the tribal areas as reporters are generally not allowed to travel there except on occasional trips chaperoned by the Pakistani military.

Tallies by Reuters and other organizations suggest the death toll since mid-2008 was significantly higher than 500. A Reuters count showed nearly 850 people killed in at least 110 strikes since 2008.

Of those killed by the drones, roughly 14 are considered by experts to be top-tier leaders of al Qaeda, the Taliban or other militant groups, while another two dozen are deemed high-to-mid level leaders.

“Just because they”re not big names doesn”t mean they don”t kill. They do,” the U.S. counterterrorism official said. “Their facilities — where they prepare, rest and ready weapons — are legitimate targets, too.”

The official said the CIA strikes were not “random” and are based on “information and observation, gathered over time.”

Officials said U.S. civilian death toll estimates included some people who were traveling with or living with wanted militants, such as the second wife of the Pakistani Taliban”s top leader. Both were killed in August by a CIA drone.

Analysts said accurately estimating civilian deaths was difficult, if not impossible, in these circumstances.

“It is unclear how you define who is a militant and who is a militant leader,” Daniel Byman, a counterterrorism expert at the Brookings Institution”s Saban Center for Middle East Policy, said, referring to those who associate with U.S. targets. “Do you count the driver? There are a lot of areas where people are what you might call ”half pregnant”.”

G20’s New Lead Role In Global Economic

PITTSBURGH: The Group of 20 rich and developing nations promised to give rising powers such as China more say in rebuilding and guiding the global economy, and declared their crisis-fighting efforts a success on Friday.

Leaders pledged to keep emergency economic supports in place until sustainable recovery is assured, launch a framework for acting together to rebalance economic growth, and implement tougher rules governing banks by 2012.

“Here in Pittsburgh, leaders representing two thirds of the planet’s population have agreed to a global plan for jobs, growth and a sustained economic recovery,” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said after a two-day summit.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s first turn hosting a major summit ended on an upbeat note, with leaders claiming victory in stopping the recession from turning into a depression.

“It worked,” they said in the final communique. “Our forceful response helped stop the dangerous, sharp decline in global activity and stabilize financial markets.”

Obama said, “We cannot tolerate the same old boom-and-bust economy of the past. We can’t wait for a crisis to cooperate. That’s why our new framework will allow each of us to assess the other’s policies, to build consensus on reform, and to ensure that global demand supports growth for all.”

The Pittsburgh gathering was the third summit in a year for the G20, which said it would now be the “premier forum” for economic cooperation, supplanting the Western-dominated G7 and G8 that were the primary international forums for decades.

“This is a symbolic act of inclusion of immense importance to international politics,” said Colin Bradford, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington. “There is tremendous significance to the history being made today that this decision does not enlarge the G7 but replaces it.”

Others were more skeptical. “I think the G7 is something of a zombie — very hard to kill,” said Simon Johnson, a former IMF chief economist. “They have a lot of inter-connections … but obviously at the summit level, they are gone.”

The move was a clear acknowledgment that fast-growing countries such as China and India now play a much more important part in world growth.

“This movement to the G20 and away from the G7 is recognizing economic realities. You can’t talk about the global economy without having the major dynamic emerging economies at the table,” John Lipsky, the deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, told Reuters Television.

Disclosure of a second Iranian uranium enrichment plant gave Obama, with the leaders of Britain and France at his side, an opportunity to press for united action against Tehran over its disputed nuclear program.

Obama said Iran was “on notice” that it must choose when it meets with world powers in Geneva on Oct. 1 whether it would “continue down a path that is going to lead to confrontation”.

---

G20’s New Lead Role In Global Economic was first posted on September 26, 2009 at 1:25 pm.
©2009 “News Trends“.