by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, October 6, 2009
I arrived in Manila barely a week after the disaster struck, affecting the lives of more nearly 4 million people, devastating more than 700,000 households, creating a public health disaster, destroying the lives of population groups, which were already living well below the poverty line.
During my visit to Manila, I was hosted by the Ibon foundation and the CDRC, one of the main NGOs involved in relief efforts, in close liason with people's organizations in the affected areas.
Under the auspices of CDRC and other NGOs involved in relief work, I visited Marinika, one of the main disaster areas in Metro Manila, where an entire urban area was devastated by the floods, with water levels reaching the second floor of people's homes. There was no government presence, no medical or public health officials on location, no electricity, no drinking water. Toxic waste, garbage, piles of mud have accumulated.
The WHO is present in providing medicine first aid kitsinncluding 10,000 water containers. What we are dealing with is one of south east Asia's a largest natural disasters.
The international media has casually focussed on the climatic event without providing indepth coverage of an impending humanitarian crisis.
In a follow-up report, I hope to provide more information on the disaster. Below is the initial report of the CRDC which hosted me during my stay in Manila.
Global Research has contributed to the appeal for financial support.
We invite our readers to support the CRDC in its endeavors. We hope that in the next week or so we will be able to have an online donation form, wehich will be sent out to our readers and members.
Michel Chossudovsky, Manila, October 7, 2009
* * * * *
CITIZENS’ DISASTER RESPONSE CENTER
72-A Times St., West Triangle Homes, Quezon City, Philippines
Fax: (632) 929-9822
Tel. No. (632) 929-9820
E-mail: cdrc_1984@yahoo.com
Website: www.cdrc-phil.org
Tropical Storm Ondoy (Ketsana), which caused the Philippines' worst flooding in four decades, left Php8.3 Billion worth of damages to infrastructure (P2.7B) and agriculture (P5.5B), the National Disaster Coordinating Council said.
Ondoy battered Metro Manila and parts of Luzon after it made landfall near the boundary of Aurora and Quezon last September 26. Metro Manila, Bulacan, Pampanga, Batangas, Laguna and Rizal were the most affected by the massive floods.
Ondoy also left 797,404 families of 3.8 million people affected. The total number of casualties has already reached 335. Of this number, 288 were killed, 5 injured and 42 missing.
In Metro Manila alone, over 100,000 people from over 900 barangays were evacuated after incessant rains caused heavy flooding in Manila, Marikina, Malabon, Muntinlupa, Makati, Pasay, Pasig, Valenzuela, San Juan and Quezon City. Flood water in some areas have already reached the second and third floors of buildings, forcing residents to seek refuge on the roof of their houses. Other areas such as Pasig and Cainta remain flooded up to this day.
In Bulacan, 113 baranggays in Marilao, Meycuayan, San Miguel and Bocaue Sta Maria, Calumpit, Bustos and Norzagaray were heavily flooded. In Pampanga, 64 barangays in San Simon, Guagua, Masantol, Apalit, Lubao, Porac, Sto Tomas and San Fernando were flooded as well.
In Rizal, several barangays were flooded and 5,000 families were affected by rising floodwater. Many villages were not accessible to the rescue teams, leaving several families trapped on rooftops for hours.
Landslides occurred in Mt Province-Cagayan via Tabuk in CAR; Brgy. San Juan-Banyo, Arayat, Pampanga in Region III; Brgy. Bongalon, Sangay, Camarines Sur in Region V; Tagaytay-Taal Road, and Tagaytay-Talisay Road in Cavite; and Antipolo-Teresa Road and Sumulong Highway in Rizal.
Appeal for assistance
Right after the typhoon, CDRC and its Regional Centers immediately conducted a Damages, Needs and Capacities Assessment (DNCA) in the affected areas.
Of the total number of affected families, the most vulnerable were carefully identified, taking into account the gravity of destruction, their economic capacity to cope, their accessibility to relief services conducted by other agencies, and their willingness to help themselves.
On the basis of these criteria, 100,000 families have been identified as the most vulnerable families from among the total affected. They were among the worst affected by the typhoon and floods. Their houses were destroyed, and many of these areas are still difficult to access and therefore receive very little assistance if any. Immediate needs are food supply augmentation and other essential non-food items.
Needs include:
*
food provisions
*
water supply
*
medicines (for common colds and diarrhea)
*
clothes
*
bedding (mats, blankets, mosquito nets)
*
plastic sheet
*
kitchen utensils
*
sanitary napkins
*
construction materials (plywood, corrugated metal roof, etc)
Donations for the evacuees may be sent through the Citizens’ Disaster Response Center at 72-A Times St., West Triangle Homes, Quezon City. Concerned individuals and donors can easily reach us at (632) 929-9822 / (632) 929-9820. Donations may also be sent through the following bank accounts:
Dollar Account
Account Name: Citizens’ Disaster Response Center
Account Number: 2-63600158-3
Bank: Metrobank, Examiner Branch
Bank Address: Corner Examiner and Quezon Avenue, West Triangle, Quezon City, Philippines
Swift Code: MBTCPHMM
Peso Account
Account Name: Citizens’ Disaster Response Center
Account Number: 3-63600741-3
Bank: Metrobank, Examiner Branch
Bank Address: Corner Examiner and Quezon Avenue, West Triangle, Quezon City, Philippines
References:
NDCC
PAGASA
Reports from:
Community Response for Enlightenment, Service and Transformation (CREST)
Alay Bayan Incorporated (ABI)
Southern Tagalog People's Response Center (STPRC)
Thursday, October 8, 2009
France 'suspects Guinea leader'
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner has accused Guinea's military leader of possibly ordering the shooting of protesters last week.
Mr Kouchner said Capt Moussa Dadis Camara was "strongly suspected... to have participated in the decision" to launch the bloody crackdown in Conakry.
Human rights groups say 157 people were killed in the incident, while the government puts the figure at only 57.
Earlier, Capt Camara said Guinea was "not a district of France".
On Sunday, Mr Kouchner had said France, Guinea's former colonial ruler, could no longer work with the captain and called for the international community to intervene.
'Red berets'
Mr Kouchner's latest comments on Capt Camara's government came after he was asked about the crackdown by the French parliament's foreign affairs committee.
"The least we can say is that we strongly suspect the interim president to have... taken part in the decision," he said.
Human rights groups and witnesses say Guinean soldiers fired on an unarmed crowd that gathered inside a stadium in Conakry to protest against the government. They also say many women demonstrators were raped.
Capt Camara, who came to power in a military coup last year, insists he was not responsible for his troops' actions.
"Was Captain Dadis responsible or not for this savage intervention by the Guinean army in the stadium where the opposition was protesting?" Mr Kouchner asked.
"It's hard to say, because obviously he and everyone else denies it.
"Nevertheless, it was red berets, the forces that surround the leader of the coup d'etat," he said, noting that the captain still lived "in the military camp and not in the presidential palace".
Mr Kouchner said many of the soldiers responsible were "Foresters" - residents of the Guinee Forestiere region of south-eastern Guinea - and that he had heard they were "recently reinforced by Liberian troops, former mercenaries".
Last week, an opposition leader said some of the troops had been former members of the Liberian paramilitary group, the United Liberation Movement. Liberia is investigating the allegation.
The French foreign minister's comments came amid a wave of international condemnation about the crackdown.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier said Washington was appalled and outraged by the violence and intended "to pursue appropriate actions" against Guinea's military rulers.
The opposition coalition in Guinea meanwhile said it would not participate in talks to resolve the political crisis unless Capt Camara stepped down. He has indicated that he may run in January's elections, having initially ruled himself out.
Mr Kouchner said Capt Moussa Dadis Camara was "strongly suspected... to have participated in the decision" to launch the bloody crackdown in Conakry.
Human rights groups say 157 people were killed in the incident, while the government puts the figure at only 57.
Earlier, Capt Camara said Guinea was "not a district of France".
On Sunday, Mr Kouchner had said France, Guinea's former colonial ruler, could no longer work with the captain and called for the international community to intervene.
'Red berets'
Mr Kouchner's latest comments on Capt Camara's government came after he was asked about the crackdown by the French parliament's foreign affairs committee.
"The least we can say is that we strongly suspect the interim president to have... taken part in the decision," he said.
Human rights groups and witnesses say Guinean soldiers fired on an unarmed crowd that gathered inside a stadium in Conakry to protest against the government. They also say many women demonstrators were raped.
Capt Camara, who came to power in a military coup last year, insists he was not responsible for his troops' actions.
"Was Captain Dadis responsible or not for this savage intervention by the Guinean army in the stadium where the opposition was protesting?" Mr Kouchner asked.
"It's hard to say, because obviously he and everyone else denies it.
"Nevertheless, it was red berets, the forces that surround the leader of the coup d'etat," he said, noting that the captain still lived "in the military camp and not in the presidential palace".
Mr Kouchner said many of the soldiers responsible were "Foresters" - residents of the Guinee Forestiere region of south-eastern Guinea - and that he had heard they were "recently reinforced by Liberian troops, former mercenaries".
Last week, an opposition leader said some of the troops had been former members of the Liberian paramilitary group, the United Liberation Movement. Liberia is investigating the allegation.
The French foreign minister's comments came amid a wave of international condemnation about the crackdown.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton earlier said Washington was appalled and outraged by the violence and intended "to pursue appropriate actions" against Guinea's military rulers.
The opposition coalition in Guinea meanwhile said it would not participate in talks to resolve the political crisis unless Capt Camara stepped down. He has indicated that he may run in January's elections, having initially ruled himself out.
Al-Darb Section Names:
Africa Section,
Europe Section,
Land of the French Oppression
Palestinian U-turn on Gaza report
The Palestinian Authority has backed UN Security Council talks on alleged war crimes in Gaza, days after seeking the deferral of a UN debate on the issue.
The UN Security Council is set to discuss whether to hold an emergency session on the Goldstone report, which accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes.
A senior PA politician has said last week's request to defer discussion of the report was a "mistake".
The PA decision sparked an outcry among Palestinians.
Libya, the only Arab state on the 15-member body, will request the UN session in a closed-door meeting.
Palestinian officials voiced their "full support" for the proposed discussion - after leaders were excoriated for requesting a deferral of a UN debate last week.
PA politician Yasser Abed Rabbo, has said the leadership had erred by seeking the deferral of the debate at the Human Rights Council until next March.
"We must say a mistake has been made. This mistake should not be underestimated or concealed," he said in a radio interview.
Many Palestinians have expressed anger at PA President Mahmoud Abbas for seeming to let Israelis off the hook following Goldstone's trenchant criticism of Israel's blockade of Gaza and attacks on its citizens.
Mr Abbas himself has ordered an "investigation" into how his own government made the decision, in an apparent attempt to head off a wave of criticism.
Academics and rights workers held a street protest on Monday.
The Islamist movement Hamas, which controls Gaza, has lashed out at the decision as "shameful and irresponsible", and posters saying "to the trash heap of history, you traitor, Mahmoud Abbas" have appeared in the Strip.
And an Israeli-Arab political party has called on the PA leader to resign.
The UN panel led by eminent South African judge Richard Goldstone accused Israel of using disproportionate force and deliberately harming civilians.
It urged the UN Security Council to refer allegations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if either side failed to investigate and prosecute suspects.
Israel has rejected the evidence and said it had already investigated its troops' conduct, clearing most of the subjects of wrongdoing.
'Bad for peace'
Palestinian delegates in Geneva reportedly came under intense pressure from the US and Israel to seek the delay of the Human Rights Council debate.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that the report's conclusions would "devastate the peace process", although peace talks are currently stalled anyway over Israeli settlement-building in the occupied West Bank.
Hamas, the militant rival to the Fatah-dominated PA which administers Gaza, is also accused of indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. It too has rejected the Goldstone report.
Any Libyan-proposed resolution at the UN Security Council can be vetoed by the US, which has in the past used its blocking powers dozens of times to prevent action against its closest ally in the Middle East.
A Libyan spokesman at the UN headquarters in New York said the meeting was necessary "because of the seriousness of the report and because we think it's too long to wait until March".
Israeli military action destroyed thousands of homes, hundreds of factories and 80 official buildings.
Palestinians and human rights groups say more than 1,400 people were killed in the violence between 27 December 2008 and 16 January 2009, more than half of them civilians.
Israel puts the number of deaths at 1,166 - fewer than 300 of them civilians. Three Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli soldiers were also killed.
The UN Security Council is set to discuss whether to hold an emergency session on the Goldstone report, which accuses Israel and Hamas of war crimes.
A senior PA politician has said last week's request to defer discussion of the report was a "mistake".
The PA decision sparked an outcry among Palestinians.
Libya, the only Arab state on the 15-member body, will request the UN session in a closed-door meeting.
Palestinian officials voiced their "full support" for the proposed discussion - after leaders were excoriated for requesting a deferral of a UN debate last week.
PA politician Yasser Abed Rabbo, has said the leadership had erred by seeking the deferral of the debate at the Human Rights Council until next March.
"We must say a mistake has been made. This mistake should not be underestimated or concealed," he said in a radio interview.
Many Palestinians have expressed anger at PA President Mahmoud Abbas for seeming to let Israelis off the hook following Goldstone's trenchant criticism of Israel's blockade of Gaza and attacks on its citizens.
Mr Abbas himself has ordered an "investigation" into how his own government made the decision, in an apparent attempt to head off a wave of criticism.
Academics and rights workers held a street protest on Monday.
The Islamist movement Hamas, which controls Gaza, has lashed out at the decision as "shameful and irresponsible", and posters saying "to the trash heap of history, you traitor, Mahmoud Abbas" have appeared in the Strip.
And an Israeli-Arab political party has called on the PA leader to resign.
The UN panel led by eminent South African judge Richard Goldstone accused Israel of using disproportionate force and deliberately harming civilians.
It urged the UN Security Council to refer allegations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if either side failed to investigate and prosecute suspects.
Israel has rejected the evidence and said it had already investigated its troops' conduct, clearing most of the subjects of wrongdoing.
'Bad for peace'
Palestinian delegates in Geneva reportedly came under intense pressure from the US and Israel to seek the delay of the Human Rights Council debate.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that the report's conclusions would "devastate the peace process", although peace talks are currently stalled anyway over Israeli settlement-building in the occupied West Bank.
Hamas, the militant rival to the Fatah-dominated PA which administers Gaza, is also accused of indiscriminately targeting Israeli civilians. It too has rejected the Goldstone report.
Any Libyan-proposed resolution at the UN Security Council can be vetoed by the US, which has in the past used its blocking powers dozens of times to prevent action against its closest ally in the Middle East.
A Libyan spokesman at the UN headquarters in New York said the meeting was necessary "because of the seriousness of the report and because we think it's too long to wait until March".
Israeli military action destroyed thousands of homes, hundreds of factories and 80 official buildings.
Palestinians and human rights groups say more than 1,400 people were killed in the violence between 27 December 2008 and 16 January 2009, more than half of them civilians.
Israel puts the number of deaths at 1,166 - fewer than 300 of them civilians. Three Israeli civilians and 10 Israeli soldiers were also killed.
Al-Darb Section Names:
Levant Section
Car bomb kills at least 12 in Afghan capital
By RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press Writer
KABUL – A powerful car bomb exploded outside the Indian Embassy in the busy center of Afghanistan's capital early Thursday, killing at least 12 civilians, destroying vehicles and blowing off the walls of shops, officials said.
At least 84 people, including members of Afghan security forces, were wounded in the attack, which struck a shop-lined road between the Indian Embassy and the Interior Ministry, said Health Ministry spokesman Ahmad Farid Raaid, spokesman for the Health Ministry.
The blast hit shortly after 8:30 a.m., just as residents were arriving to work. It shattered glass and rattled buildings more than a mile (kilometer) away. A huge brown plume of smoke was visible in the air as ambulances raced to the scene and carried away the wounded.
In New Delhi, India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the Indian embassy was the target.
"I believe the suicide bomb was directed at the embassy since the suicide bomber came up to the outer perimeter wall of the embassy in a car loaded with explosives," Rao told reporters.
Three Indian paramilitary soldiers on guard duty at the embassy's watchtower were wounded by shrapnel, Rao said.
She said the intensity of the blast was similar to the one that occurred outside the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008 which killed dozens of civilians. The road in front of the embassy has been barricaded since then. The Afghan Interior Ministry is just across from Indian Embassy.
The explosion hit a day after the Afghanistan war reached its eighth anniversary and as President Barack Obama considered a request for between 10,000 and 40,000 additional troops prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
The Afghan capital has been hit numerous times by suicide bombers and roadside bombs, several since the run-up to the country's disputed Aug. 20 election. The attacks usually target international military forces or government installations, but Afghan businesses and civilians are also often killed or injured.
In the most recent attack in mid-September, a suicide car bomber rammed into an Italian military convoy on a road leading to the airport. That blast killed six Italian soldiers and 10 Afghan civilians.
Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said Thursday's explosion was also a suicide car bomb, but he had no details and there was no immediate claim of responsibility.
The Indian news channel CNN-IBN cited Jayant Prasad, Indian ambassador in Kabul, as saying there has been "extensive damage to the chancery." He said that the vehicle-borne bomb was so powerful that it blew off the some doors and windows of the embassy.
President Hamid Karzai's office condemned the attack.
AP Television News footage from Kabul on Thursday showed local residents and soldiers pulling a charred, severed leg out of a destroyed vehicle. Others carried an apparently lifeless body on a stretcher to an ambulance.
On another stretcher, a man lay face down, one arm hanging downward, his back left leg covered in blood.
One 21-year-old man named Najibullah said he had just opened his shop when the explosion went off, knocking him unconscious.
When he awoke, he said, he couldn't see anything.
"Dust was everywhere. People were shouting," said Najibullah, who like many Afghans uses only one name. "You couldn't see their faces because there was so much dust."
His white clothes were covered in blood after helping load four injured onto ambulances.
Two sport utility vehicles nearby were badly damaged, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene. One of them had U.N. markings on its side.
U.N. spokesman Dan McNorton confirmed two of the world body's vehicles were near the blast and one was damaged. Both vehicles had only a driver inside, and neither was wounded. The United Nations typically uses armored vehicles in Kabul that are designed to withstand such attacks.
The blast could be heard miles away. Windows in dozens of surrounding shops at the scene of the blast were shattered, and walls of buildings were badly damaged in the blast, though none of the multistory buildings along the commercial thoroughfare had collapsed.
One injured man said the force of the explosion threw him into the air. Mohammad Arif said he was leaving the Indian Embassy when the blast tossed him against a concrete barrier. The left side of his head was bleeding as he spoke.
KABUL – A powerful car bomb exploded outside the Indian Embassy in the busy center of Afghanistan's capital early Thursday, killing at least 12 civilians, destroying vehicles and blowing off the walls of shops, officials said.
At least 84 people, including members of Afghan security forces, were wounded in the attack, which struck a shop-lined road between the Indian Embassy and the Interior Ministry, said Health Ministry spokesman Ahmad Farid Raaid, spokesman for the Health Ministry.
The blast hit shortly after 8:30 a.m., just as residents were arriving to work. It shattered glass and rattled buildings more than a mile (kilometer) away. A huge brown plume of smoke was visible in the air as ambulances raced to the scene and carried away the wounded.
In New Delhi, India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the Indian embassy was the target.
"I believe the suicide bomb was directed at the embassy since the suicide bomber came up to the outer perimeter wall of the embassy in a car loaded with explosives," Rao told reporters.
Three Indian paramilitary soldiers on guard duty at the embassy's watchtower were wounded by shrapnel, Rao said.
She said the intensity of the blast was similar to the one that occurred outside the Indian embassy in Kabul on July 7, 2008 which killed dozens of civilians. The road in front of the embassy has been barricaded since then. The Afghan Interior Ministry is just across from Indian Embassy.
The explosion hit a day after the Afghanistan war reached its eighth anniversary and as President Barack Obama considered a request for between 10,000 and 40,000 additional troops prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal.
The Afghan capital has been hit numerous times by suicide bombers and roadside bombs, several since the run-up to the country's disputed Aug. 20 election. The attacks usually target international military forces or government installations, but Afghan businesses and civilians are also often killed or injured.
In the most recent attack in mid-September, a suicide car bomber rammed into an Italian military convoy on a road leading to the airport. That blast killed six Italian soldiers and 10 Afghan civilians.
Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary said Thursday's explosion was also a suicide car bomb, but he had no details and there was no immediate claim of responsibility.
The Indian news channel CNN-IBN cited Jayant Prasad, Indian ambassador in Kabul, as saying there has been "extensive damage to the chancery." He said that the vehicle-borne bomb was so powerful that it blew off the some doors and windows of the embassy.
President Hamid Karzai's office condemned the attack.
AP Television News footage from Kabul on Thursday showed local residents and soldiers pulling a charred, severed leg out of a destroyed vehicle. Others carried an apparently lifeless body on a stretcher to an ambulance.
On another stretcher, a man lay face down, one arm hanging downward, his back left leg covered in blood.
One 21-year-old man named Najibullah said he had just opened his shop when the explosion went off, knocking him unconscious.
When he awoke, he said, he couldn't see anything.
"Dust was everywhere. People were shouting," said Najibullah, who like many Afghans uses only one name. "You couldn't see their faces because there was so much dust."
His white clothes were covered in blood after helping load four injured onto ambulances.
Two sport utility vehicles nearby were badly damaged, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene. One of them had U.N. markings on its side.
U.N. spokesman Dan McNorton confirmed two of the world body's vehicles were near the blast and one was damaged. Both vehicles had only a driver inside, and neither was wounded. The United Nations typically uses armored vehicles in Kabul that are designed to withstand such attacks.
The blast could be heard miles away. Windows in dozens of surrounding shops at the scene of the blast were shattered, and walls of buildings were badly damaged in the blast, though none of the multistory buildings along the commercial thoroughfare had collapsed.
One injured man said the force of the explosion threw him into the air. Mohammad Arif said he was leaving the Indian Embassy when the blast tossed him against a concrete barrier. The left side of his head was bleeding as he spoke.
Al-Darb Section Names:
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,
Islamic Umma,
Struggling Islamic Emirates
Obama, advisers weigh Afghanistan shift, Pakistan
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent
WASHINGTON – The Afghanistan war reached its once-unthinkable eighth anniversary Wednesday as President Barack Obama, seeking a revamped strategy for the increasingly unpopular conflict, focused more closely with his war council on neighboring Pakistan's role in the fight against al-Qaida.
The White House also revealed that Obama has in hand — and has for nearly a week — the troop request prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. It is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 additional combat troops to — McChrystal's strong preference — as many as 40,000.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama asked for McChrystal's request last Thursday, before he flew to Copenhagen where he lobbied for Chicago's bid to host the Olympics and met with the general on the sidelines. The numbers could become the focus of concentrated White House attention as soon as Friday, Gibbs said.
When former President George W. Bush launched the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan less than a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the country's Taliban government was providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorists. Eight years later, the Taliban regime is no more and al-Qaida is scattered and weakened. But the Afghan government is considered corrupt and ineffective, Taliban insurgents hoping to retake control are gaining strength and terrorists continue to plan attacks.
This uncertain progress has come at a cost of nearly 800 U.S. lives.
With this and Americans' dwindling patience in mind, Obama is engaged in a methodical review of how to overhaul the war.
Wednesday's nearly three-hour meeting in the Situation Room between Obama and more than a dozen of his top advisers on the war was the third of five currently scheduled. The next is Friday, concentrating on Afghanistan — though it could also include McChrystal's report. The final discussion is slated for next week, though aides have said more could come.
Gibbs said Obama's decision is still weeks away.
Wednesday's focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president's leanings.
Obama and some of his key aides are increasingly pointing to recent successes against al-Qaida through targeted missile strikes and raids in Pakistan but also in Somalia and elsewhere. Obama said Tuesday that al-Qaida has "lost operational capacity" as a result.
Also, serious doubts about the Afghan government that only deepened with the questionable Aug. 20 presidential election make a true counterinsurgency mission there difficult. Intense poverty and other troubles in the "graveyard of empires" make it an even more complicated pursuit.
In Pakistan, though, the government has shown new willingness to battle extremists, with most believed to be operating from the largely ungoverned terrain along the border with Afghanistan. But these operations, as well as the strikes by unmanned U.S. aircraft, continue to stoke fiery controversy throughout the country — causing problems for the already weak U.S.-backed civilian government.
Further, the vast majority of the U.S. aid to Pakistan is believed to be diverted from its intended purpose of battling militants. A bill awaiting Obama's signature would triple U.S. aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year while attaching conditions aimed at stopping that diversion. Those protections, however, have prompted fresh complaints in Pakistan about Washington meddling — including a rejection by the country's powerful military of links between aid and increased monitoring.
All this makes the U.S.-Pakistan relationship fraught, and asking for additional cooperation extraordinarily delicate. Regardless, U.S. officials believe they can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against al-Qaida without it.
Wednesday's White House meeting began with intelligence and political assessments from key players. The ensuing discussion focused on possible ways to gain additional help from Pakistan, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal details. That includes efforts on diplomatic and civilian fronts, as well as military.
A senior government official, also talking on condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the talks, said the discussion continued a genuine debate among advisers in which Obama remains undecided.
McChrystal's recommended approach calls for additional troops in Afghanistan for a counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban, build up the central government and deny al-Qaida safe haven. McChrystal, whose plan is somewhat reminiscent of Bush's Iraq troop "surge" in 2008, says extra troops — preferably at the higher end of his option range — are crucial to turn around a war that will probably be won or lost over the next 12 months.
On roughly the opposite end of the spectrum, an alternative favored most prominently by Vice President Joe Biden would keep the American force in Afghanistan at around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 more troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but increase the use of surgical strikes with Predator drones and special forces.
Shrinking the number of troops in Afghanistan and turning the effort into a narrow counterterror campaign is not on the table, and neither is drastically ballooning the footprint.
In weighing whether to follow McChrystal or Biden or land somewhere in between, Obama faces a stern test and difficult politics.
Many lawmakers from his own Democratic Party, aware of rising anti-war sentiment in their ranks and the war protests that have dotted Washington this week, do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.
Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders' calls soon or risk failure.
In giving McChrystal's request to Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates bypassed the commander's direct bosses in the military chain of command who would ordinarily have a chance to add their own comments first.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell denied the unorthodox move provides evidence of a divide between the uniformed military and its civilian bosses over management of the war. He said Gates and Obama wanted to prevent a leak to the news media, as McChrystal's underlying war assessment was last month.
And though Gibbs had said previously that Obama didn't want to see the request until he had decided strategy, aides said the president decided it had simply become absurd to wait to read it.
Attending the White House meeting Wednesday was a now-familiar cast of characters including Biden; Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Afghanistan/Pakistan special envoy Richard Holbrooke; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the region including Iraq and Afghanistan, and McChrystal by videoconference.
WASHINGTON – The Afghanistan war reached its once-unthinkable eighth anniversary Wednesday as President Barack Obama, seeking a revamped strategy for the increasingly unpopular conflict, focused more closely with his war council on neighboring Pakistan's role in the fight against al-Qaida.
The White House also revealed that Obama has in hand — and has for nearly a week — the troop request prepared by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. It is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 additional combat troops to — McChrystal's strong preference — as many as 40,000.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Obama asked for McChrystal's request last Thursday, before he flew to Copenhagen where he lobbied for Chicago's bid to host the Olympics and met with the general on the sidelines. The numbers could become the focus of concentrated White House attention as soon as Friday, Gibbs said.
When former President George W. Bush launched the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan less than a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the country's Taliban government was providing safe haven for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorists. Eight years later, the Taliban regime is no more and al-Qaida is scattered and weakened. But the Afghan government is considered corrupt and ineffective, Taliban insurgents hoping to retake control are gaining strength and terrorists continue to plan attacks.
This uncertain progress has come at a cost of nearly 800 U.S. lives.
With this and Americans' dwindling patience in mind, Obama is engaged in a methodical review of how to overhaul the war.
Wednesday's nearly three-hour meeting in the Situation Room between Obama and more than a dozen of his top advisers on the war was the third of five currently scheduled. The next is Friday, concentrating on Afghanistan — though it could also include McChrystal's report. The final discussion is slated for next week, though aides have said more could come.
Gibbs said Obama's decision is still weeks away.
Wednesday's focus on Pakistan, the suspected hiding place of bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists as well as Taliban leaders, could provide a hint into the president's leanings.
Obama and some of his key aides are increasingly pointing to recent successes against al-Qaida through targeted missile strikes and raids in Pakistan but also in Somalia and elsewhere. Obama said Tuesday that al-Qaida has "lost operational capacity" as a result.
Also, serious doubts about the Afghan government that only deepened with the questionable Aug. 20 presidential election make a true counterinsurgency mission there difficult. Intense poverty and other troubles in the "graveyard of empires" make it an even more complicated pursuit.
In Pakistan, though, the government has shown new willingness to battle extremists, with most believed to be operating from the largely ungoverned terrain along the border with Afghanistan. But these operations, as well as the strikes by unmanned U.S. aircraft, continue to stoke fiery controversy throughout the country — causing problems for the already weak U.S.-backed civilian government.
Further, the vast majority of the U.S. aid to Pakistan is believed to be diverted from its intended purpose of battling militants. A bill awaiting Obama's signature would triple U.S. aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year while attaching conditions aimed at stopping that diversion. Those protections, however, have prompted fresh complaints in Pakistan about Washington meddling — including a rejection by the country's powerful military of links between aid and increased monitoring.
All this makes the U.S.-Pakistan relationship fraught, and asking for additional cooperation extraordinarily delicate. Regardless, U.S. officials believe they can neither win in Afghanistan nor succeed more broadly against al-Qaida without it.
Wednesday's White House meeting began with intelligence and political assessments from key players. The ensuing discussion focused on possible ways to gain additional help from Pakistan, said a senior administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to reveal details. That includes efforts on diplomatic and civilian fronts, as well as military.
A senior government official, also talking on condition of anonymity because of the private nature of the talks, said the discussion continued a genuine debate among advisers in which Obama remains undecided.
McChrystal's recommended approach calls for additional troops in Afghanistan for a counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban, build up the central government and deny al-Qaida safe haven. McChrystal, whose plan is somewhat reminiscent of Bush's Iraq troop "surge" in 2008, says extra troops — preferably at the higher end of his option range — are crucial to turn around a war that will probably be won or lost over the next 12 months.
On roughly the opposite end of the spectrum, an alternative favored most prominently by Vice President Joe Biden would keep the American force in Afghanistan at around the 68,000 already authorized, including the 21,000 more troops Obama ordered earlier this year, but increase the use of surgical strikes with Predator drones and special forces.
Shrinking the number of troops in Afghanistan and turning the effort into a narrow counterterror campaign is not on the table, and neither is drastically ballooning the footprint.
In weighing whether to follow McChrystal or Biden or land somewhere in between, Obama faces a stern test and difficult politics.
Many lawmakers from his own Democratic Party, aware of rising anti-war sentiment in their ranks and the war protests that have dotted Washington this week, do not want to see additional U.S. troops sent to Afghanistan. According to a new Associated Press-GfK poll, public support for the war has dropped to 40 percent from 44 percent in July.
Republicans, meanwhile, are urging Obama to heed the military commanders' calls soon or risk failure.
In giving McChrystal's request to Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates bypassed the commander's direct bosses in the military chain of command who would ordinarily have a chance to add their own comments first.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell denied the unorthodox move provides evidence of a divide between the uniformed military and its civilian bosses over management of the war. He said Gates and Obama wanted to prevent a leak to the news media, as McChrystal's underlying war assessment was last month.
And though Gibbs had said previously that Obama didn't want to see the request until he had decided strategy, aides said the president decided it had simply become absurd to wait to read it.
Attending the White House meeting Wednesday was a now-familiar cast of characters including Biden; Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; Afghanistan/Pakistan special envoy Richard Holbrooke; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the region including Iraq and Afghanistan, and McChrystal by videoconference.
Al-Darb Section Names:
Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,
Islamic Umma,
Neo-Colonialists,
New World Order,
President Barack Obama,
Struggling Islamic Emirates
Top court overturns Italian premier's immunity
By ALESSANDRA RIZZO and ARIEL DAVID, Associated Press Writers
ROME – Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi vowed to stay on and "go forward" Wednesday after an Italian court struck down a law granting him immunity from prosecution and allowed trials for corruption and tax fraud to resume in Milan. There were immediate calls for his resignation.
The decision by the Constitutional Court dealt Berlusconi one of the most serious blows in his 15-year-long battle with the Italian judiciary. It handed prosecutors another chance to ask for his conviction and added to a list of problems that already includes a headline-grabbing sex scandal.
The billionaire businessman-turned-politician dismissed any suggestion of resignation, and his conservative allies, who dominate parliament, quickly rallied to his support.
"Nothing will happen, we will go forward," the premier told reporters in front of his residence in Rome.
"The trials they will hurl at me in Milan are real farces," he said. "I will detract some hours from taking care of the government to go there and show them to be liars."
The ever-combative premier said he felt "invigorated" by the challenge and ended his brief statement by shouting "Long live Italy! Long live Berlusconi!"
Berlusconi, 73, continues to be widely popular in Italy, despite accusations from his wife that he has had inappropriate relationships with far younger women and allegations from a self-described call girl that he spent a night with her. The scandal erupted in the spring after his wife announced she was divorcing him.
Berlusconi says he is "no saint" but has denied ever paying anyone for sex or having any improper relationships.
The law overturned Wednesday was pushed through by Berlusconi's conservative coalition in 2008 when he faced separate trials in Milan for corruption and tax fraud tied to his Mediaset broadcasting empire. It granted immunity from prosecution while in office to the country's four top office holders — the premier, the president of the republic and the two parliament speakers.
The proceedings against Berlusconi were suspended as a result of the law, drawing accusations that it was tailor-made for the premier.
The corruption trial is particularly threatening because, in the meantime, the premier's co-defendant has been convicted of accepting a bribe to lie in court to protect Berlusconi in another case.
Still, even if convicted, the premier would not be obliged to resign and could simply appeal, as sentences in Italy are usually not served until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.
Berlusconi has denied all charges, and his lawyers had argued in court on Tuesday that he could not be a defendant and at the same time serve as premier.
But the 15-judge Constitutional Court, which deals with all matters regarding the constitutionality of Italian law, said that after two days of deliberations it had found the legislation violated the principle that all are equal before the law.
It also rejected the measure on formal grounds because it was not passed with the lengthy procedure that must be used for any legislation concerning the constitution.
The breakdown of the vote is not made public in Italy, but state and private Italian media reported, without citing sources, that the judges split nine to six.
"I hope that today, in light of the court's decision, the premier will stop making laws for his own use, resign from his job and be what he has resisted being for the past 15 years: the defendant," said Antonio di Pietro, a member of the opposition and a former prosecutor.
Berlusconi has a history of legal troubles stemming from his private interests, but he has been either acquitted or cleared because the statute of limitations had expired.
"If the law must be equal for all, then it should be equal also for those who represent us," said Claudio Paolini, a 34-year-old letter carrier in Rome. "The ruling followed Italy's principles of democracy."
Others sided with the premier, saying the decision was politically motivated and that leaders should have immunity while they are in office.
"The people elected Berlusconi and he should be left to govern in peace," said Brigitte Ipoletto, a 72-year-old retired woman.
In the Milan corruption trial, Berlusconi was accused of ordering the 1997 payment of at least $600,000 to British lawyer David Mills in exchange for the lawyer's false testimony at two hearings in other corruption cases in the 1990s.
Berlusconi's portion of the trial was frozen when the immunity bill was passed, but the proceedings continued for Mills. In February, he was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison. Mills, the estranged husband of Britain's Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, has maintained his innocence and said he would appeal.
Berlusconi faces the tax fraud charge in a trial over Mediaset's purchase of TV rights.
Just a few days ago, a judge in a different case handed down a devastating ruling against Berlusconi's holding company Fininvest.
The court ordered Fininvest to pay euro750 million ($1 billion) to a rival for its 1990s takeover of the Mondadori publishing house. Fininvest said the ruling is unjust and it will seek to suspend the judgment pending an appeal.
The civil damage award stems from a case in which three Berlusconi associates were convicted of corrupting a judge so he would overturn a ruling that had gone in favor of industrialist Carlo De Benedetti and against Berlusconi for control of Mondadori.
Through Fininvest, Berlusconi controls a vast media empire that includes Mediaset and Mondadori. As premier he also has influence on state broadcaster RAI — a fact that has spawned conflict of interest accusations for years.
ROME – Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi vowed to stay on and "go forward" Wednesday after an Italian court struck down a law granting him immunity from prosecution and allowed trials for corruption and tax fraud to resume in Milan. There were immediate calls for his resignation.
The decision by the Constitutional Court dealt Berlusconi one of the most serious blows in his 15-year-long battle with the Italian judiciary. It handed prosecutors another chance to ask for his conviction and added to a list of problems that already includes a headline-grabbing sex scandal.
The billionaire businessman-turned-politician dismissed any suggestion of resignation, and his conservative allies, who dominate parliament, quickly rallied to his support.
"Nothing will happen, we will go forward," the premier told reporters in front of his residence in Rome.
"The trials they will hurl at me in Milan are real farces," he said. "I will detract some hours from taking care of the government to go there and show them to be liars."
The ever-combative premier said he felt "invigorated" by the challenge and ended his brief statement by shouting "Long live Italy! Long live Berlusconi!"
Berlusconi, 73, continues to be widely popular in Italy, despite accusations from his wife that he has had inappropriate relationships with far younger women and allegations from a self-described call girl that he spent a night with her. The scandal erupted in the spring after his wife announced she was divorcing him.
Berlusconi says he is "no saint" but has denied ever paying anyone for sex or having any improper relationships.
The law overturned Wednesday was pushed through by Berlusconi's conservative coalition in 2008 when he faced separate trials in Milan for corruption and tax fraud tied to his Mediaset broadcasting empire. It granted immunity from prosecution while in office to the country's four top office holders — the premier, the president of the republic and the two parliament speakers.
The proceedings against Berlusconi were suspended as a result of the law, drawing accusations that it was tailor-made for the premier.
The corruption trial is particularly threatening because, in the meantime, the premier's co-defendant has been convicted of accepting a bribe to lie in court to protect Berlusconi in another case.
Still, even if convicted, the premier would not be obliged to resign and could simply appeal, as sentences in Italy are usually not served until all avenues of appeal are exhausted.
Berlusconi has denied all charges, and his lawyers had argued in court on Tuesday that he could not be a defendant and at the same time serve as premier.
But the 15-judge Constitutional Court, which deals with all matters regarding the constitutionality of Italian law, said that after two days of deliberations it had found the legislation violated the principle that all are equal before the law.
It also rejected the measure on formal grounds because it was not passed with the lengthy procedure that must be used for any legislation concerning the constitution.
The breakdown of the vote is not made public in Italy, but state and private Italian media reported, without citing sources, that the judges split nine to six.
"I hope that today, in light of the court's decision, the premier will stop making laws for his own use, resign from his job and be what he has resisted being for the past 15 years: the defendant," said Antonio di Pietro, a member of the opposition and a former prosecutor.
Berlusconi has a history of legal troubles stemming from his private interests, but he has been either acquitted or cleared because the statute of limitations had expired.
"If the law must be equal for all, then it should be equal also for those who represent us," said Claudio Paolini, a 34-year-old letter carrier in Rome. "The ruling followed Italy's principles of democracy."
Others sided with the premier, saying the decision was politically motivated and that leaders should have immunity while they are in office.
"The people elected Berlusconi and he should be left to govern in peace," said Brigitte Ipoletto, a 72-year-old retired woman.
In the Milan corruption trial, Berlusconi was accused of ordering the 1997 payment of at least $600,000 to British lawyer David Mills in exchange for the lawyer's false testimony at two hearings in other corruption cases in the 1990s.
Berlusconi's portion of the trial was frozen when the immunity bill was passed, but the proceedings continued for Mills. In February, he was convicted of corruption and sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison. Mills, the estranged husband of Britain's Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell, has maintained his innocence and said he would appeal.
Berlusconi faces the tax fraud charge in a trial over Mediaset's purchase of TV rights.
Just a few days ago, a judge in a different case handed down a devastating ruling against Berlusconi's holding company Fininvest.
The court ordered Fininvest to pay euro750 million ($1 billion) to a rival for its 1990s takeover of the Mondadori publishing house. Fininvest said the ruling is unjust and it will seek to suspend the judgment pending an appeal.
The civil damage award stems from a case in which three Berlusconi associates were convicted of corrupting a judge so he would overturn a ruling that had gone in favor of industrialist Carlo De Benedetti and against Berlusconi for control of Mondadori.
Through Fininvest, Berlusconi controls a vast media empire that includes Mediaset and Mondadori. As premier he also has influence on state broadcaster RAI — a fact that has spawned conflict of interest accusations for years.
Al-Darb Section Names:
Neo-Colonialists
Pakistan's military rejects US aid bill
By NAHAL TOOSI, Associated Press Writer
ISLAMABAD – Pakistan's powerful military rejected U.S. attempts to link billions of dollars in foreign aid to increased monitoring of its anti-terror efforts, complicating American attempts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan border.
Although the U.S.-backed government of President Asif Ali Zardari has the final say on whether to accept the money, the unusual public criticism threatens to force its hand and undermine military cooperation with the Americans just as the Pakistani army prepares for what could be its most important offensive against extremists since the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign began exactly eight years ago.
Any breakdown in intelligence sharing and other types of cooperation would hurt the American fight against a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO commanders say the war there cannot be won unless Islamabad does more to tackle extremists on its side of the border.
In Washington, President Barack Obama met with his national security team for a strategy session on Afghanistan after signaling that he was not considering a troop withdrawal. The session came amid new polls showing waning support for the war in the United States.
The military's criticism of the bill came in a brief written statement that said senior commanders, including the army chief, "expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security."
Among other strings, the bill conditions U.S. aid on whether Pakistan government maintains effective control over the military, including its budgets, the chain of command and top promotions.
Some analysts said the military's statement had little to do with genuine dislike of a bill that stands to help crumbling schools, roads and hospitals. They said the army was sending a message to the Pakistani and U.S. governments about the limits of civilian control in a country that's been subject to military rule for about half of its 62-year history.
"Clearly the government is under direct pressure from the army," said Cyril Almeida, a columnist for Dawn newspaper. "The army's public statement indicates that it is sending a message that says look, we are in charge of security issues."
The military is believed to have increased its cooperation with U.S. forces over the past year, shared intelligence for numbers of U.S. missile strikes on militant targets — most notably the one which killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. The U.S. military clearly hopes for more Pakistani cooperation in hunting down other targets as well, including al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban leaders who are less of a priority for the Pakistanis.
Political tension in Islamabad would pose another obstacle to U.S. war goals. The debate comes as the army stepped up preparations for a new offensive in South Waziristan, an operation that would face steep challenges, ranging from harsh terrain to well dug-in militants. An estimated 10,000 well-armed militants, including foreign fighters, are believed to be in the region.
Opposition lawmakers jumped at the opportunity to weaken a president widely viewed as a U.S. puppet, calling on the government to reject the legislation as an unacceptable intrusion into Pakistan's internal affairs. A recent poll by the International Republican Institute found that 80 percent of Pakistanis surveyed said they did not want the country to assist the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.
The aid bill, which Obama is expected to sign, would triple U.S. nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, providing $1.5 billion a year over the next five years. U.S. officials say the goal is to alleviate widespread poverty, lessening the allure of Islamist extremists and supporting the country's transition to democracy.
Zardari has championed the legislation as a break from past U.S. aid packages, which he says came with more strings. He says the bill is proof that Washington is committed to helping the country long-term.
But to many here, it is sign of growing — and unwanted — U.S. influence. In addition to civilian aid, the legislation authorizes "such sums as are necessary" for counterterrorism assistance — but only on several conditions.
Those include yearly certification that Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups, cooperating in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that its security forces are not subverting the country's political or judicial processes. Failure to do those things would mean the aid stops flowing.
The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Dick Lugar of Indiana, also calls for strict monitoring of how all the funds are spent. Much of past American assistance to Pakistan has fallen into the wrong hands. Between 2002 and 2008, as al-Qaida regrouped in the country after fleeing Afghanistan, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two Pakistani army generals told The Associated Press recently.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly tried to ease Pakistani concerns.
"Since we are stewards of U.S. taxpayer funds, we have to build in certain consultation mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms," Kelly said. "These are in no way intended to impinge on Pakistan's sovereignty."
The Pakistani military's statement referred to the parliament's deliberation on the subject, which it said would allow "the government to develop a national response."
Hours later, lawmakers began a debate over whether to accept the aid. They are empowered only with making a recommendation to Zardari's government.
"Each and every page of the bill is reflective of the insulting attitude towards Pakistan," said opposition leader Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, part of a chorus of politicians and columnists that have criticized it in recent days. "It seeks to safeguard the interests of the United States."
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was more conciliatory, telling parliament the government would look into the concerns of the military, and had not yet agreed to accept the money.
"We have not done anything so far without consensus and we will develop consensus on this, too," he said.
On a trip to Washington, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi played down the military's statement, calling the aid package the "first, very strong signal of a long-term commitment with the people of Pakistan."
But opposition leaders objected to demands that the country dismantle "terrorists bases" in the southwestern city of Quetta — where U.S. officials say Afghan Taliban leaders are based — and the eastern town of Muridke, the home of an Islamist group implicated in attacks on India.
Another potential sore point is language on nuclear proliferation that calls on Pakistan to provide "direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks." That appears to allude to nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is alleged to have spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
The outcry over the bill follows a backlash over U.S. plans to add hundreds more embassy staff in Islamabad.
Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.
"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money," Almeida said. "But we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest."
ISLAMABAD – Pakistan's powerful military rejected U.S. attempts to link billions of dollars in foreign aid to increased monitoring of its anti-terror efforts, complicating American attempts to strike al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan border.
Although the U.S.-backed government of President Asif Ali Zardari has the final say on whether to accept the money, the unusual public criticism threatens to force its hand and undermine military cooperation with the Americans just as the Pakistani army prepares for what could be its most important offensive against extremists since the U.S.-led anti-terror campaign began exactly eight years ago.
Any breakdown in intelligence sharing and other types of cooperation would hurt the American fight against a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S. and NATO commanders say the war there cannot be won unless Islamabad does more to tackle extremists on its side of the border.
In Washington, President Barack Obama met with his national security team for a strategy session on Afghanistan after signaling that he was not considering a troop withdrawal. The session came amid new polls showing waning support for the war in the United States.
The military's criticism of the bill came in a brief written statement that said senior commanders, including the army chief, "expressed serious concern regarding clauses impacting on national security."
Among other strings, the bill conditions U.S. aid on whether Pakistan government maintains effective control over the military, including its budgets, the chain of command and top promotions.
Some analysts said the military's statement had little to do with genuine dislike of a bill that stands to help crumbling schools, roads and hospitals. They said the army was sending a message to the Pakistani and U.S. governments about the limits of civilian control in a country that's been subject to military rule for about half of its 62-year history.
"Clearly the government is under direct pressure from the army," said Cyril Almeida, a columnist for Dawn newspaper. "The army's public statement indicates that it is sending a message that says look, we are in charge of security issues."
The military is believed to have increased its cooperation with U.S. forces over the past year, shared intelligence for numbers of U.S. missile strikes on militant targets — most notably the one which killed Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. The U.S. military clearly hopes for more Pakistani cooperation in hunting down other targets as well, including al-Qaida and Afghan Taliban leaders who are less of a priority for the Pakistanis.
Political tension in Islamabad would pose another obstacle to U.S. war goals. The debate comes as the army stepped up preparations for a new offensive in South Waziristan, an operation that would face steep challenges, ranging from harsh terrain to well dug-in militants. An estimated 10,000 well-armed militants, including foreign fighters, are believed to be in the region.
Opposition lawmakers jumped at the opportunity to weaken a president widely viewed as a U.S. puppet, calling on the government to reject the legislation as an unacceptable intrusion into Pakistan's internal affairs. A recent poll by the International Republican Institute found that 80 percent of Pakistanis surveyed said they did not want the country to assist the U.S. in the fight against terrorism.
The aid bill, which Obama is expected to sign, would triple U.S. nonmilitary assistance to Pakistan, providing $1.5 billion a year over the next five years. U.S. officials say the goal is to alleviate widespread poverty, lessening the allure of Islamist extremists and supporting the country's transition to democracy.
Zardari has championed the legislation as a break from past U.S. aid packages, which he says came with more strings. He says the bill is proof that Washington is committed to helping the country long-term.
But to many here, it is sign of growing — and unwanted — U.S. influence. In addition to civilian aid, the legislation authorizes "such sums as are necessary" for counterterrorism assistance — but only on several conditions.
Those include yearly certification that Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups, cooperating in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and that its security forces are not subverting the country's political or judicial processes. Failure to do those things would mean the aid stops flowing.
The bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Dick Lugar of Indiana, also calls for strict monitoring of how all the funds are spent. Much of past American assistance to Pakistan has fallen into the wrong hands. Between 2002 and 2008, as al-Qaida regrouped in the country after fleeing Afghanistan, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two Pakistani army generals told The Associated Press recently.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly tried to ease Pakistani concerns.
"Since we are stewards of U.S. taxpayer funds, we have to build in certain consultation mechanisms, monitoring mechanisms," Kelly said. "These are in no way intended to impinge on Pakistan's sovereignty."
The Pakistani military's statement referred to the parliament's deliberation on the subject, which it said would allow "the government to develop a national response."
Hours later, lawmakers began a debate over whether to accept the aid. They are empowered only with making a recommendation to Zardari's government.
"Each and every page of the bill is reflective of the insulting attitude towards Pakistan," said opposition leader Ch. Nisar Ali Khan, part of a chorus of politicians and columnists that have criticized it in recent days. "It seeks to safeguard the interests of the United States."
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was more conciliatory, telling parliament the government would look into the concerns of the military, and had not yet agreed to accept the money.
"We have not done anything so far without consensus and we will develop consensus on this, too," he said.
On a trip to Washington, Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi played down the military's statement, calling the aid package the "first, very strong signal of a long-term commitment with the people of Pakistan."
But opposition leaders objected to demands that the country dismantle "terrorists bases" in the southwestern city of Quetta — where U.S. officials say Afghan Taliban leaders are based — and the eastern town of Muridke, the home of an Islamist group implicated in attacks on India.
Another potential sore point is language on nuclear proliferation that calls on Pakistan to provide "direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks." That appears to allude to nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is alleged to have spread nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
The outcry over the bill follows a backlash over U.S. plans to add hundreds more embassy staff in Islamabad.
Almeida and other analysts said that in the end Pakistan was unlikely to reject the aid.
"There'll be a lot of noise, but at the end of the day the bill is about giving Pakistan money, and we need money and we're probably going to take the money," Almeida said. "But we're going to do in a way which suggests that we're taking it under protest."
Al-Darb Section Names:
Islamic Umma,
Struggling Islamic Emirates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
