Pakistan stands isolated in Washington

WASHINGTON, May 25: Pakistan stands isolated in the US capital as the Obama administration joins lawmakers in condemning the conviction of a Pakistani doctor who helped the CIA trace Osama bin Laden.

America’s two top foreign policy makers — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator John Kerry — also are denouncing a tribal court’s decision to jail Dr Shakil Afridi for 33 years. Both are considered “Pakistan friendly” in a country where anti-Pakistan feelings run high.

Secretary Clinton called the judgment “unjust and unwarranted” and Senator Kerry said even though he believed in “the importance of the US-Pakistan strategic relationship, realities like these make that effort more difficult”.

Senator Kerry played a key role in the passage of a $7.5 billion, five-year aid package for Pakistan in 2009.

On Thursday, a Senate panel deducted $33 million from a proposed assistance to Pakistan – $1 million for each year Dr Afridi will spend in jail. …

Read more » DAWN.COM

Sindhi Nationalists deplore coach attack

JSQM, SUP and SNM deplore coach attack

By Asghar Azad

Acting Chairman JSQM Dr Niaz Kalani while taking to Daily Times said, “We are the followers of Sain GM Syed and have same respect and love for Khan Ghafar Khan who believed in nonviolence politics.” He said JSQM never supported such activities, which took the lives of innocent people.

KARACHI: Sindhi nationalist parties – Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz (JSQM), Sindh United Party (SUP) and Sindh Nationalist Movement (SNM) – have strongly condemned the firing on a coach near Nawabshah that left eight passengers dead.

Acting Chairman JSQM Dr Niaz Kalani while taking to Daily Times said, “We are the followers of Sain GM Syed and have same respect and love for Khan Ghafar Khan who believed in nonviolence politics.” He said JSQM never supported such activities, which took the lives of innocent people.

JSQM strongly condemns Qazi Ahmad incident and extends deep sympathies to victim families”, Kalani said. He said they condemned violent behavior in politics and never supported such acts at all. He said the violence in politics or in society at any shape or aim is against humanity and JSQM condemned it.

SUP central leader Shah Mohammad Shah said that the firing on the coach was absolutely an inhuman act and they strongly condemned it.

He said, “Some hidden hands do not like to see peaceful atmosphere in Sindh and that incident was part of it.”

He said that it was possibility that third hand might be involved in the firing on the bus in a bid to create differences among Sindhis. ….

Read more » Daily Times

Fascist terrorists’ attack on peaceful Mohabat-e-Sindh rally and the Opinion of Pakistani politicians. (to Keep the record straight). NATION OF SINDH ! DON’T FORGET ( MATTA’AN WISAARIO!)

News – Indiscriminate firing on peaceful Mohabbat-e-Sindh Rally, 12 killed, 30 injured. — MQM Behind Karachi Killings – Karachi Police Chief Akhtar Gorchani Talks to Media

By: Mir Raza

Please find below the opinion of different Pakistani political parties and leaders about Karachi Massacre of Sindhi’s by the fascists of  terror group.

1. PML ( N) LEADER NAWAZ SHAREEF CONDEMNS KARACHI KILLING AND SAYS THAT TERRORISTS ARE SITTING WITH PPP GOVERNMENT.

2. PML( N) SINDH PRESIDENT SYED GHAUS ALI SHAH SAYS THAT THE DIVISION OF SINDH WILL BE DIVISION OF PAKISTAN, MOHAJIR SOOBA WILL BE CREATED ON THE DEAD BODIES OF MILLIONS OF SINDHI’S.

3. ANP PRESIDENT ASFAND YAAR WALI CONDEMNS THE KILLING AND SAYS THAT THESE ARE SAME TERRORISTS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN 12 MAY MASSACRE AND PPP GOVERNMENT IS ALSO RESPONSIBLE GRANTING SHELTER TO TERRORISTS.

4. ANP SENATOR SHAHEE SAYED SAYS THAT ANY ONE WHO DREAM TO DIVIDE SINDH IS A LIVING IN THE WORLD OF STUPITS. MQM LEIS COWARD WHO ARE NOT DEMANDING OPENLY, IF THEY ARE BRAVE, THEY SHOULD COME FORWARD. SINDH WILL BE DIVIDED ON THE DEAD BODIES OF PASHTOUNS, SINDHIS ARE THE SON’S OF SINDH.

5. JAMAT E ISLAMI CONDEMN THE KILLING OF KARACHI AND SAYS THAT THE TERRORISTS ARE NOT HIDDEN, THEY ARE THE SAME WHO KILLED INNOCENTS ON 12 MAY 2007 AND BURNED LAWYERS ALIVE.

6. PIR PAGARO SAYS THAT * HUR’R* JAMAAT WILL COME DIRECTLY TO DEFEND SINDH. NO ONE CAN DIVIDE SINDH BY WALL CHALKING.

7. MEHMOOD ACHAKZAI CONDEMN KARACHI KILLING AND HELD MQM RESPONSIBLE.

8. ALL BALOUCH LEADERS CONDEMN KARACHI KILLING AND PROMISE TO DEFEND THE UNITY OF SINDH PRACTICALLY.

9. PAKISTAN LABOR PARTY AND COMMUNIST MAZDOOR KISAN PARTY HELD A  DEMONSTRATION IN LAHORE AGAINST THE MASSACRE OF SINDHIS AND DEATH OF JSSM LEADER MUZAFAR BHUTTO IN LAHORE.

OTHER SIDE …..

1. PPP LEADER REHMAN MALIK CONDEMN THE PEACEFUL MOHABBAT-E-SINDH RALLY AND HELD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR INNOCENT VICTIMS WHO WERE KILLED BY FASCIST TERRORISTS MAFIA.

2. PTI LEADER IMRAN KHAN SAYS THAT HE DON’T KNOW AWAMI TAHREEK OR RASOOL BUX PALIJO AND CAN’T SAY ANY THING ABOUT KILLING BUT HE REGRET THAT ONE CAMERAMEN IS INJURED.

Courtesy: Sindhi e-lists/ e-groups, May 24, 2012.

An other Mohabat-e-Sindh rally shows love and peace in Larkano – Keeping Sindh intact: People of Sindh will do anything to save their motherland, says Palijo

Keeping the province intact: People of Sindh will do anything to save their motherland, says Palijo

SUKKUR: Thousands of people participated in the Mohabat-e-Sindh rally in Larkano on Friday evening to express their support for the unity of the province.

The president of the Awami Tehreek, Ayaz Latif Palijo, led the rally which started from Shaikh Zayed Morr. It progressed through Rice Canal Road, Lahori Muhalla, Qaim Shah Bukhari Road, Bunder Road and Pakistan Chowk before coming to a halt at Jinnah Bagh Chowk. People chanted slogans in favour of Sindh and lashed out at the people who were conspiring against it.

“Government officials want to know who gave permission to the Awami Tehreek to organise a rally on May 22, but I want to know who is allowing all the demonstrations in favour of a Mohajir Suba,” said Palijo while addressing the rally at Jinnah Bagh Chowk. “They are even marching towards the red zone without any difficulties.” He also responded to the statements made by Interior Minister Rehman Malik that the Awami Tehreek had not sought permission for its Karachi rally. “Rehman Malik is a liar. I wrote to the deputy commissioner and the SSP South to seek permission.” He added that “instead of ordering a probe into the killing of men and women, Malik is busy trying to find ….

Read more» The Express Tribune

All they are saying is, Iran should be replaced by Pakistan in international scare scene

Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?

Americans are wringing their hands about the grave threat that a nuclear Iran would pose to the United States. But the numbers tell a different story.

BY:  VICTOR ASAL AND BRYAN EARLY

As a contentious new round of high-stakes nuclear talks between Iran and world powers wraps up in Baghdad, it is important to think critically about how much of a threat Iran poses to the United States. According to former senator Rick Santorum, for example, a nuclear Iran would have “carte blanche to spread a reign of terror around not just the Middle East, but here in America … [and] across Western civilization.” Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has argued that “if the Iranians are permitted to get the bomb, the consequences will be as uncontrollable as they are horrendous.” Several leading U.S. senators penned an op-ed in March stating that “the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is a threat to the entire world, including particularly the U.S.”

It is not just politicians who hold these views. A recent CNN poll revealed that more than three-quarters of the American public sees Iran and North Korea as “serious” threats while only 44 percent feels the same way about Russia. Indeed, fear of the Iranian threat in the United States is more widespread today than fear of the Soviet threat was in 1985, even though at that time the Soviet Union possessed the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and today Iran doesn’t have a single nuclear weapon.

Which raises an obvious question: Does the dominant perception of the Iranian threat actually square with reality? To answer that question, we designed the Nuclear Annihilation Threat (NAT) Index — a way of systematically and empirically assessing the existential threat that nuclear-weapon states (NWSs), and potential nuclear-weapon states, pose to one another. What we found is striking: Although Israel is right to see Iran as an existential danger, the United States has blown the Iranian threat to itself all out of proportion — and Iran is unlikely to find existential security in a nuclear weapon. In addition, both Israel and the United States should be focusing much more aggressively on the threat posed by Pakistan.

Unlike any other weapon, nuclear weapons can jeopardize a nation’s very existence. We use the term “existential threat” to denote the capability of one state to completely annihilate another. In concrete terms, a nuclear attack on one U.S. city would be catastrophic, but it would not destroy the United States. A similar nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, on the other hand, would potentially kill 42 percent of the Israeli population and most likely spell the end of the Jewish state. By focusing exclusively on existential dangers, we seek to understand how nuclear weapons affect the core survival motivations that drive states’ behavior. While this may be a narrow perspective, we think that isolating this unique characteristic of nuclear weapons yields important insights.

Our NAT Index is a relational metric that draws on four factors in determining the existential threats that nuclear-armed countries pose to one another: 1) the potential damage a country’s nuclear arsenal could cause to a target’s population; 2) the ability of a country to strike a target with ballistic missiles; 3) the presence of a strategic rivalry between the two countries; and 4) the risk of state failure in the country that is hypothetically attacking a target. The NAT Index can also be used to identify which nuclear-armed countries pose the greatest existential threats overall and which are the most vulnerable.

Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, for example, is capable of inflicting higher levels of proportional damage to a country the size of Israel than a country the size of China because of geographic and demographic differences. Countries that are rivals of North Korea and are within range of its ballistic missiles face a greater existential threat from Pyongyang than those that are not. We factor in the risk of state failure because an unstable country’s leaders and governmental policies can change on a dime and destabilized regimes can lose command and control of their nuclear weapons, exposing the arms to theft or unauthorized use.

While our index accounts for the heightened existential risks created by rivalries, we do not assume that nuclear-armed allies pose no risks to one another. From a realist perspective, the military power of other states can never be safely ignored — especially with respect to weapons that possess such uniquely destructive power. Beyond realism’s admonishment that today’s allies could become tomorrow’s rivals, the risks of nuclear weapons accidents and misuse exist between both rivals and allies. While it may appear odd to consider Britain as a potential nuclear threat to the United States, remember that Pakistan is also a U.S. ally. In accounting for the threats that even allies’ nuclear weapons pose, our analysis reflects the view that all nuclear weapons — no matter who possesses them — present a grave international security threat.

We coded our NAT Index using the most recent publicly available data. To account for the potential nuclear destruction a country could inflict on a target, we compared the number of nuclear weapons the state possesses to the number of population centers over one million people in the target country. Assuming that it would take four nuclear weapons to ensure destruction of a population center, we noted whether a state could destroy less than 25 percent of a target’s urban centers, 25 to 75 percent of them, or more than 75 percent of them. We classified a country as being able to strike a target with its ballistic missiles if it possesses known ballistic missile capabilities that would allow it to strike any part of a target’s territory. States engaged in strategic rivalries were identified via a highly regarded international relations data set on the subject. Lastly, we coded the country as constituting a state failure threat if it was identified as being at critical risk in Foreign Policy’s 2011 Failed States Index. Like any effort to systematically analyze nuclear threats, the results of our analysis are shaped by the assumptions we make and the data we use. We thus encourage readers to learn more about our methodology we use in the appendix we have provided.

Using the method of aggregation displayed below, our NAT Index produces a measure of the existential threat a state poses to a target state on a scale from .05 (minimal threat) to 9 (maximal threat). ….

Read more » Foreign Policy (FP)

Via – Twitter

Why Pakistan interferes in Afghanistan

By: Nitin Pai

A strong, independent Afghanistan is perceived as an existential threat to Pakistan

Just why is Pakistan interested in installing a friendly regime in Afghanistan? If you read books and articles written over the last couple of decades, you will come across arguments such as the need for “strategic depth” to counter India, to prevent a pro-India regime in Kabul that will result in the Indian encircling of Pakistan and, even more grandly, to create an Islamic centre of power that stretches from the shores of the Arabian Sea to the Caucasus mountains. Going by the statements of members of the Pakistani establishment and some of its commentators, these are indeed the reasons why Pakistan wants to dominate Afghanistan.

Continue reading Why Pakistan interferes in Afghanistan