UK News

from FaithWorld:

Archbishop of Canterbury voices unease over bin Laden killing

(Britain's Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at Lambeth Palace in London September 17, 2010/Chris Ison)

The Archbishop of Canterbury, the spiritual head of the 80-million strong Anglican Communion, has said the killing of an unarmed Osama bin Laden left a "very uncomfortable feeling." Rowan Williams said the different versions of events coming out of the White House "have not done a great deal to help here."

Bin Laden was killed by U.S. forces early Monday during a raid on his home at Abbottabad, a garrison town near Islamabad in Pakistan.

U.S. accounts of what happened have changed throughout the week, and initial characterisations of a 40-minute gun battle have given way to officials being quoted as saying only one of the five people who were killed had been armed.

Citing U.S. officials, the U.S. television network NBC said four of the five, including bin Laden himself, were unarmed and never fired a shot.

"I think that the killing of an unarmed man is always going to leave a very uncomfortable feeling because it doesn't look as if justice is seen to be done in those circumstances," Williams told reporters in response to a question at a press briefing on Thursday.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Liveblog: What’s next for Pakistan? Ask your questions here

On Tuesday, May 10 at 3 p.m. BST/10 a.m. EST, Reuters is hosting a liveblog about Pakistan and what's next for it after Osama bin Laden's death. Reuters journalist Myra MacDonald, who runs the "Pakistan: Now or Never?" blog on Reuters.com, will answer your queries and respond to your comments so please leave them below in the "comments" section at the bottom of this post.

More specifically, Myra will discuss the role of the military in Pakistan, and its relations with both the United States and India. Her latest piece, "Pakistan's mixed messages on bin Laden sow confusion", tries to get to the bottom of whether Pakistan was involved with the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. For more of her pieces, click here.

Please join us for what is bound to be a riveting discussion on Tuesday.

Photo: A supporter of the Pakistani religious party Jamiat-e-ulema-e-Islam holds an image of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden during an anti-U.S. rally on the outskirts of Quetta May 6, 2011. About 1,500 Pakistani Islamists protested on Friday against the killing of bin Laden, saying more figures like him would arise to wage holy war against the United States. REUTERS/Naseer Ahmed

from Left field:

Cricket World Cup — live

Join us for coverage of the revamped Cricket World Cup on the subcontinent. Follow all the drama here with regular posts and some of the best photographs around. Comments welcome!

from FaithWorld:

Book Talk: UK Muslim author seeks roots of militancy

The prominence of Britain's Muslim minority in the nation's debate about security and social cohesion provides the backdrop to journalist Zaiba Malik's memoir of growing up a British Muslim of Pakistani descent.

"We Are A Muslim, Please" tells how she was raised by first generation immigrant parents in the run-down former industrial center of the northern English city of Bradford in a tradition of conservative piety.

At the same time she was desperate to fit in at school, an overwhelmingly white British institution, an effort that led to years of excruciating anxiety and moments of low comedy.

Malik's story is shaped by her curiosity about the roots of the militancy that has taken hold in some parts of Britain's Muslim communities. She was born in nearby Leeds in 1969, on the same street where, decades later, the bombers who killed 52 people in London in 2005 manufactured their bombs in a rented apartment.

Malik spoke to Reuters about Britain and Muslim communities. Read the interview here.

Follow FaithWorld on Twitter at RTRFaithWorld

from Left field:

Does sporting immortality still beckon for Pietersen?

A casual remark from Pakistan fast bowler Wahab Riaz last week illustrated how swiftly life moves on in elite sport.

Riaz was asked which of the five England wickets he had captured in his test debut at the Oval had given him the most satisfaction.

The answer was not Kevin Pietersen, England's premier batsman with more than 5,000 test runs and 16 centuries. Instead Riaz nominated Eoin Morgan, scorer of 234 runs with one century.

Even six months ago such a statement would have seemed inconceivable.

One transcendent innings at Lord's in the final test against Pakistan this week would silence the doubters but something is clearly something amiss with Pietersen, who has not scored a test century since March last year. He dropped out of the 2009 Ashes series with injury and averages 28 in the current series against Pakistan, including 80 at Edgbaston where he was dropped three times.

The decline dates back to the start of last year when Pietersen, then the England captain, called for the removal of coach Peter Moores before a series in the Caribbean. Moores did go but Pietersen, misreading the implications of his stance in a highly political role, also lost his job.

Pietersen is currently without a county, finding the demands of playing for Hampshire incompatible with his decision to live in the upmarket west London suburb of Chelsea. It is an instability that has marked his cricket career.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

In Afghanistan: fighting over the terms of a settlement

At last week's London conference, two of the great truisms of warfare punched their way to the surface. The first is that wars are fought as much on the home front as on the battlefield. With public support for the war in Afghanistan ebbing away, the United States and its allies in NATO have shifted from seeking outright victory to looking for an exit strategy that will allow them to start bringing home their troops next year.  Rather as the British did after their two failed invasions of Afghanistan in the 19th century, they are sending in reinforcements in a display of military might which they hope will secure better terms in an eventual settlement.

The other truism is that if you can't win outright victory on the battlefield, then you have to negotiate with your enemies. President Hamid Karzai set the ball rolling by announcing he would hold a peace council to which, according to an Afghan government spokesman, the Taliban leadership would be invited.  Karzai has made such suggestions before, and it is by no means clear the Taliban leadership will send representatives. What was different this time, however, was the context.  Karzai's suggestion no longer met with the same resistance from war-weary governments, who stressed that it was up to the Afghans themselves to lead the process of reconciliation.  He also coupled his call for a peace council with an appeal to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to bring peace to Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia is a trusted interlocutor between the Afghan government and the Taliban leadership; Pakistan is the only country which still has some measure of leverage over them. Thus Karzai's call for a loya jirga, though not dramatic in itself, became emblematic of a broader shift towards seeking a political settlement to end the war.

What happens now is so complicated and so delicate, that no one can predict the outcome. Just as western governments have little clear idea about who might buy into a political settlement and on what terms, nor do the insurgents themselves. Contacts with various insurgent groups are expected to follow many  different tracks,  so that everyone -- on all sides -- is going to be watching what everyone else does to try to maximise their advantage.

The warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whose men play a powerful role in the insurgency in eastern Afghanistan, has shown some signs of flexibility, according to the Wall Street Journal. In a video leaked to the WSJ, he said that "we have no agreement with the Taliban - not for fighting the war, and not for the peace."

"The only thing that unites the Taliban and [us] is the war against the foreigners," the paper quoted him as saying. "Unlike in previous videos, where Mr. Hekmatyar used a Kalashnikov rifle as a prop and expressed support for al Qaeda, in the latest tape, recorded in late December and provided to The Wall Street Journal by his aides in Pakistan, he assumed a professorial tone, wearing glasses and a black turban as he spoke in a quiet, soft voice."

A spokesman for Hekmatyar suggested last week that President Barack Obama's commitment to start drawing down troops in 2011 could be a possible step towards talks. "We do not see a hindrance to the negotiations provided a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces is set," said spokesman Wali Ullah.  "With Mr Karzai and (other) Afghans we have no problems."

The Afghan Taliban in the "Quetta shura" -- named after the Pakistani city where Washington says it is based -- will keep a close eye on any signs that Hekmatyar could switch sides. At the moment they are in a strong position, but this -- argues Ahmed Rashid in The New York Review of Books -- could give them an incentive to negotiate to try to extract concessions before the influx of U.S. troops and any breaking of ranks in the insurgency weakens their hand.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Pakistan and Britain: On exits and entrances

With one million Britons of Pakistani origin, and as the former colonial power, Britain has a unique relationship with Pakistan. But concerns about Britain's vulnerability to bomb attacks planned by Pakistan-based militants -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that three-quarters of the most serious plots investigated by British authorities had links to al Qaeda in Pakistan -- has made for a rocky relationship.

Irfan Husain, a columnist for Dawn newspaper who divides his time between Britain and Pakistan, writes that these tensions are being worsened by the problems Pakistanis have in obtaining visas to visit Britain.

"It is true that Pakistan is increasingly viewed as the epicentre of Islamic terrorism. Many plots, real and imaginary, have had their roots in the badlands of Fata (the Federally Administered Tribal Areas)," he writes. "Many young Brits of Pakistani descent have travelled to remote parts of the country to receive training in bomb-making. But the point is that these young men do not need visas to return to Bradford and Wolverhampton. Being born in Britain, they enter their country without let or hindrance."

Among those denied entry were members of the Lahore Pipe Band hoping to take part in a world championship in Scotland, a trade delegation, a well-known columnist, and a guitarist.

It's not entirely clear whether the visa problems are driven more by bureaucratic bungling than fear of terrorism. The Guardian newspaper says that several thousand Pakistani students hoping to start university in Britain are facing delays of three months or more for visas because of a "bureaucratic fiasco" - after a reorganisation, visa applications from Pakistan are now processed in Abu Dhabi.

Husain argues that by denying entry to the likes of writers and musicians, Britain is compounding the very problem it wants to contain - the spread of extremism. These are the kind of people who should be made welcome in the west, he says. "Given the position they enjoy in Pakistan, they can influence many to see that the enemy is not the West, but the forces of darkness that have gained the ascendancy in our own country. By turning them down, the British government only provides ammunition to those who are convinced of the West’s inherent anti-Islam policies."

In any case, most security analysts would argue that the main  concern is not about Pakistanis coming into Britain; it is about Britons of Pakistani origin leaving the country to attend militant training camps based in Pakistan. On this subject, Stephen Tankel has an interesting post about signs of growth in the operations of the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) militant groups. Based in Pakistan's heartland Punjab province, these groups were initially focused on fighting India over Kashmir, but are increasingly seen as a potential or direct threat to the west.

from Pakistan: Now or Never?:

Britain and the Kashmir banana skin

Memories seem to be short in the British government when it comes to Kashmir. Foreign Secretary David Miliband stirred up a diplomatic row over the region during his visit to India earlier this month. As this piece in The Times says, Miliband angered Indian officials by giving what they described as "unsolicited advice" on Kashmir, over which India has three times gone to war with Pakistan since independence from Britain in 1947 and over which it is in no mood to be lectured by outsiders, let alone the former colonial power. It was on a visit to Pakistan and India in 1997 to mark the 50th anniversary of those two countries' independence that the then British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, also got into trouble over Kashmir. Cook, who also served the Labour government, was forced to row back from suggestions that Britain might help resolve the long-running dispute. His intervention cast a serious shadow over the visit by Queen Elizabeth, who was at one point forced to cancel a long-planned speech. The visit, during which the queen was accompanied by Cook, went downhill after that, and at one point a senior British diplomat was seen sitting, head in hands in despair, on the pavement outside Chennai airport. There were even suggestions, denied of course, that the British High Commissioner might be recalled. Tony Blair, then prime minister, had to patch up ties by assuring his Indian counterpart, Inder Kumar Gujral, that London would not meddle in Delhi's dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir. One wonders whether Miliband was reminded of all this before he went to India, and if he was, why did he walk into the Kashmir minefield once again. Or maybe he wasn't, which poses a different set of questions about competence and institutional memory at the Foreign Office.

What should the priority be now for Pakistan?

Pakistani media have welcomed President Pervez Musharraf’s exit and are urging the coalition government to tackle a worsening economy and extremist forces.

Now that Musharraf’s nine-year reign has come to a grinding halt, what do you think the priority for his successor should be?

Should it be containing militant violence or attending to Pakistan’s mounting economic ills of poverty and corruption? And who do you think is up to the task of replacing Musharraf?

Should Pakistan return to the Commonwealth?

Foreign Secretary David Miliband says Pakistan has made democratic progress and should be re-admitted to the Commonwealth.

He has pointed to the extension of press freedoms and the re-establishment of constitutional rules. New Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gillani, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), whose leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December, was sworn in last month.

He has promised to cut back on ministers’ perks and re-establish student and trade unions.

Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth in November 2007 because of President Pervez Musharraf’s imposition of emergency rule. It had previously been suspended in 1999 as well, after Musharraf seized power in a coup.

Do you think the time is right for it to be re-admitted? Could it be that the organisation — and much of the West in general — has failed to appreciate the dangerous security reality in which the country lives, with large areas of its border regions sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda?