Global News Journal

Beyond the World news headlines

from Afghan Journal:

In the U.S.-Pakistan fight, India an anxious spectator

Pakistan and the United States are in the middle of such a public and bruising fight that Islamabad's other pet hate, India, has receded into the background.  A Pakistani banker friend, only half in jest, said his country had bigger fish to fry than to worry about India, now that it had locked horns with the superpower.

But more seriously, India itself has kept a low profile, resisting the temptation to twist the knife deeper into its neighbour when it faces the risk of isolation. Much of what Pakistan stands accused of, including the main charge of  using violent extremism as an instrument of foreign policy, is an echo of what New Delhi has been blaming Pakistan for, for two decades now.  Even the language that America's military officials led by Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and diplomats  have employed such as "proxy wars" , "cross border raids"   or terrorism central to describe Pakistan is a throwback to the 1990s and later when India and Pakistan were dueling over  Kashmir.

"What  Mullen has said with regard to the role of certain forces in Pakistan, is also something which is nothing new to us. In fact when we were the first to flag this issue earlier, the world didn't believe us," the Press Trust of India quoted Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as telling reporters on board his plane on the way home from the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. 

But the tone and tenor of the Indian response to Pakistan's predicament, including on the Hindu right, has been remarkably restrained. This, as former Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran wrote in The Indian Express on Thursday, is hardly the time to gloat over Pakistan's situation.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Pakistan’s China Syndrome

At the height of Pakistan's crisis in relations with the United States, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani reminded his Chinese guest of the words he had used to describe its relationship with China. "Pak-China friendship is higher than mountains, deeper than oceans, stronger than steel and sweeter than honey."  In a press release issued by the prime minister's office during a visit to Islamabad by Chinese Public Security Minister Meng Jianzhu, Gilani also promised China that "'your friends are our friends, your enemies are our enemies and your security is our security."

It was language designed to show that even after Admiral Mike Mullen's assertion that the Afghan militant Haqqani network was effectively a   proxy of the Pakistan army, China - Pakistan's "all weather friend" - stood at its side. The Pakistan media enthusiastically played up Meng's visit, jumping on a relatively small offer of financial help and a dreamed-of defence pact with China to build up hopes of Chinese support.

Reserved for Press



President Rafael Correa, the leftist leader of Ecuador, took on the media on Friday at the home of one of journalism’s pinnacles, Columbia University in New York.
The school awards the Cabot Prizes, journalism’s oldest, which honor the best and most courageous reporters covering the Americas. Oh, and let’s not forget the Pulitizer Prizes.
Correa has come under fire from media watchdogs and human rights groups who say he has limited press freedom since coming to power in 2007. But the president rarely shies away from a fight, whether it is with international bondholders, oil companies or critics of his policies.
For over 45 minutes, he lambasted the press, verbally jousted with journalists and students, and even drew some applause during his speech titled: “Vulnerable Societies: Media and Democracy in Latin America”.
Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University and a legal expert on freedom of speech issues, drew some laughter himself, even if unintentional, with his welcoming remarks that highlighted the controversy over the media in Ecuador.
Noting some of Correa’s achievements, Bollinger mentioned the president’s reelection and said: “And today Ecuador, in Ecuador, he remains a popular and widely admired leader,” to which the audience burst into laughter.
He continued and was interrupted by more laughter in mid-sentence when he said: “President Correa has also endured widespread criticism for his treatment of Ecuador’s print and broadcast media and for policies antagonistic to freedom of speech and press, it is said.”
Bollinger said he was eager to hear Correa’s account of the serious concerns.
“Students of the jurisprudence of free expression will recognize Ecuador’s laws as another form of seditious libel. Such laws which make criticisms of government officials a crime, typically have been adopted by emerging democracies or other societies seeking to extinguish threats to a fragile political structure,” Bollinger said.
He explained how even the United States had used similar tactics, citing the Seditious Libel act of 1798 and the World War I espionage act.
“But over time we have come to see the wisdom of repudiating this course of action. Through this experience a lesson we have learned is that the impulse to forbid government criticism has always later been understood to be an epic abdication of our society’s pledge to live by reason, to confront dissent with courage and to be temperate with dealing with misbehavior,” Bollinger said.
Correa spoke in English and told the audience: “We live in a world where the media, with its media power, has tried to replace the Rule of Law with the Rule of Opinion.”
At the same time, he defended freedom of expression and faced questions from students who asked how he could rationalize the apparent contradictions in his policies. He replied that these were complex issues worthy of discussion.
Correa has a dim view of the media structure in Ecuador, and the region overall.
“In Latin America … it seems very strange that there is no jail sentence for damaging a human being’s honor, although there is jail for those who are charged with mistreating a dog,” he said.
He has sued and won a case in the local courts against an outspoken critic and three board members of the opposition El Universo newspaper.
The paper’s former op-ed editor, Emilio Palacio, has since fled to Miami saying he feared he would not get a fair hearing from the judiciary at home. He and the board members were sentenced to three years in prison and ordered to pay a $40 million fine over a column that criticized how Correa handled a police mutiny in Sept. 2010.
Ecuador’s penal code punishes anyone who “falsely accuses” a public official of a crime.
Carlos Lauria, senior program coordinator for the Americas at the Committee to Protect Journalists, took direct aim at the president’s policies, saying he had urged the courts to imprison journalists just because he didn’t like their opinions.
Correa’s response: “Sir, you are lying and you are a liar.”
Click here for an audio clip of the exchange

Photo: Rafael Correa, President of Ecuador speaking to students, faculty and the media at Columbia University, Friday September 23, 2011. By Daniel Bases

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

The “end game” is in Pakistan

The United States has turned on Pakistan with such dizzying speed over the past few weeks that it is difficult to keep pace. Yet what is clear after Admiral Mike Mullen's extraordinarily blunt statement that the Haqqani militant network is a "veritable arm" of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency is that it now has the Pakistan army very firmly in its sights.

Mullen accused the ISI, which is effectively a wing of the Pakistan army, of supporting the Haqqani network in a truck bomb attack on a U.S. base in Afghanistan and an assault on the U.S. embassy in Kabul which led to a 20-hour siege. "We also have credible intelligence that they (the Haqqani network) were behind the June 28 attack against the Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul and a host of other smaller but effective operations," he said.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

After Kabul attack, pressure remains on Pakistan

That the situation is bad in Afghanistan is obvious. Quite how bad is open to debate following the 20-hour attack by insurgents on Kabul, though former Indian intelligence chief B. Raman put it rather succinctly on his Twitter feed @SORBONNE75. "If one considers totality of picture---anti-terror, anti-insurgency---- US far from prevailing in Afghanistan. US troops after 10 yrs in same position as Soviet troops after 8 yrs were in 1987---victory increasingly elusive."

Yet as has been the case for years, the United States has few good options in Afghanistan. Pulling out altogether would not only leave Afghanistan dealing with a bitter civil war but could further destabilise Pakistan.  Staying runs the risk of testing the patience not just of western public opinion but also of Afghans, who as the Afghanistan Analysts Network said, could come to see foreign forces as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.  "The possible perception among Afghan residents that the presence of foreigners is a catalyst for attacks may lead to a growing conclusion that the problems related to their presence far outweigh the benefits," it said. In the meantime, talks with the Afghan Taliban in order to try to reach a political settlement  appear to be going nowhere and are unlikely to become any easier after the attack on Kabul.

The 9/11 decade


On September 11, 2001 nearly 3000 people were killed in the worst attack on U.S. soil. We look back on how the last decade was shaped by the dramatic events of that day.

Reuters Video & Photography
Multimedia Production by Magda Mis
Creative Direction by Natasha Elkington
Music by Kevin Macleod

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Pakistan’s Afghan policy: is that depth strategic or senseless?

At a conference earlier this year, someone made an argument, convincingly I thought, against the use of the expression "the end-game in Afghanistan".  Afghanistan as a country and the people in it will not come to an end when western forces leave, and nor is their future a game.  I was reminded of that comment reading a report published at the end of last month called "Pakistan, the United States , and the End Game in Afghanistan; Perceptions of Pakistan's Foreign Policy Elite." 

The report, produced jointly by the Jinnah Institute and the United States Institute of Peace, summarises in one place what has until now been largely the subject of background briefings about what Pakistan wants in Afghanistan. The report's authors, who have also written a shorter summary of its findings, identify three main objectives which the "elite" considered necessary in Afghanistan:

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Taliban talks and Mullah Omar’s Eid message

Since reading Mullah Omar's lengthy Eid message on his view of Afghanistan's future, I have been trying to work out, without success, what it means for prospects of talks with the Taliban. It is a piece of evidence without context, available to anyone to bolster whatever argument they care to submit.

Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid described the message from the Afghan Taliban leader as "the longest and by far the most forward-looking political message he has ever sent".