Posted on

Missing activist: Samar Abbas’ family petitions IHC

ISLAMABAD, Feb 12: Over a month after he went missing from the capital, the family of a Karachi-based social activist approached the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Saturday, urging the court to recover him.

The family has also urged the court to protect the missing activist from harassment and torture.

Samar Abbas, a resident of Gulshan-e-Iqbal neighbourhood in Karachi, had reportedly gone missing during a business trip to the capital last month, around the same time four other bloggers and activists went missing from the capital and in different parts of Punjab.

His family said Samar had travelled to Islamabad on January 3 and they last had contact with him on January 7, when he was in Sector G-11.

A few days after his disappearance, Ramna police registered a case of kidnapping against unidentified people on the complaint of Abbas’ brother Syed Ashar Abbas.

On Saturday, Ashar filed a writ petition in the IHC. In the petition, they maintained that police had failed to adequately probe the case and recover his brother.

“The petitioner’s brother is a law abiding citizen of Pakistan and has never committed any irregularity and he is not nominated in any criminal case in Pakistan. That the petitioner’s brother’s safety and security is the primary responsibility of the defendants, but unfortunately the defendants have failed to perform their duties within the parameters of law,” the petition reads.

Ashar listed the inspector general of Islamabad Police, Islamabad SSP, Ramna Police Station SHO, head of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), secretary Ministry of Interior, as well as chiefs of the civil and military intelligence agencies such as the army’s Inter-Services Intelligence, the civil Intelligence Bureau, as respondents in the case.

The petitioner maintained that fundamental rights of his brother, including freedom of movement, of expression and to profess any religion were being violated.

The petitioner urged the court to direct the respondents to recover Samar, provide him protection, and “to refrain from harassing, threatening or torturing” him.

Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani of the IHC is expected to take up the petition on Monday.

Posted on

Blogger Goraya breaks silence on abduction but refuses to identify his kidnappers

An activist abducted last month has broken his silence on his weeks-long disappearance, but is refusing to point fingers at who his abductors were.

Ahmad Waqas Goraya was among five activists who vanished in Pakistan in early January.

Human Rights Watch, opposition lawmakers and activists have said their near simultaneous abductions pointed to government involvement in a country with a history of enforced disappearances.

Goraya was freed at the end of January along with at least three others and swiftly fled back to the Netherlands, where he has lived for the last decade.

“I felt I would never come back, I would never see my son and family,” the 34-year-old told AFP during a phone interview in which he frequently became agitated.

Goraya, who like the other activists criticised religious extremism and the military establishment, refused to say anything about his captors or describe what happened during his ordeal.

But he angrily rejected accusations that he was a traitor for daring to be vocal about alleged abuses of power in Pakistan, insisting he was a true patriot.

“Nothing was against Pakistan, nothing was against Islam, I was critical of policies because I want to see a better Pakistan,” he said, adding in a later message:”We want a Pakistan with rule of law.”

Goraya also said he fears a virulent ultra right-wing campaign to paint him as a blasphemer while he was missing has followed him to Europe.

The charge, which engulfed Pakistani social media and was repeated by mainstream television hosts, is an incendiary one that can carry the death penalty. Even unproven allegations have caused mob lynchings and violence.
At least 65 people including lawyers, judges and activists have been murdered by vigilantes over blasphemy allegations since 1990, according to the Center for Research and Security Studies

Posted on

Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss

WASHINGTON, Feb 9 — A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trump’s bid to reinstate his ban on travel into the United States from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administration’s claim that the courts have no role as a check on the president.

The three-judge panel, suggesting that the ban did not advance national security, said the administration had shown “no evidence” that anyone from the seven nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — had committed terrorist acts in the United States.

The ruling also rejected Mr. Trump’s claim that courts are powerless to review a president’s national security assessments. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, the court said.

“It is beyond question,” the decision said, “that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.”

The decision was handed down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco. It upheld a ruling last Friday by a federal district judge, James L. Robart, who blocked key parts of the travel ban, allowing thousands of foreigners to enter the country.

The appeals court acknowledged that Mr. Trump was owed deference on his immigration and national security policies. But it said he was claiming something more — that “national security concerns are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.”

Within minutes of the ruling, Mr. Trump angrily vowed to fight it, presumably in an appeal to the Supreme Court.
“SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter.

At the White House, the president told reporters that the ruling was “a political decision” and predicted that his administration would win an appeal “in my opinion, very easily.” He said he had not yet conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter.

The Supreme Court remains short-handed and could deadlock. A 4-to-4 tie there would leave the appeals court’s ruling in place. The administration has moved fast in the case so far, and it is likely to file an emergency application to the Supreme Court in a day or two. The court typically asks for a prompt response from the other side, and it could rule soon after it received one. A decision next week, either to reinstate the ban or to continue to block it, is possible.

The travel ban, one of the first executive orders Mr. Trump issued after taking office, suspended worldwide refugee entry into the United States. It also barred visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations for up to 90 days to give federal security agencies time to impose stricter vetting processes.

Immediately after it was issued, the ban spurred chaos at airports and protests nationwide as foreign travelers found themselves stranded at immigration checkpoints by a policy that critics derided as un-American. The State Department said up to 60,000 foreigners’ visas were canceled in the days immediately after the ban was imposed.

The World Relief Corporation, one of the agencies that resettles refugees in the United States, called the ruling “fabulous news” for 275 newcomers who are scheduled to arrive in the next week, many of whom will be reunited with family.

“We have families that have been separated for years by terror, war and persecution,” said Scott Arbeiter, the president of the organization, which will arrange for housing and jobs for the refugees in cities including Seattle; Spokane, Wash.; and Sacramento.

“Some family members had already been vetted and cleared and were standing with tickets, and were then told they couldn’t travel,” Mr. Arbeiter said. “So the hope of reunification was crushed, and now they will be admitted.”
Several Democrats said they hoped the appeals court ruling would cow Mr. Trump into rescinding the ban.

Representative Karen Bass, Democrat of California, said in a statement that the ban “is rooted in bigotry and, most importantly, it’s illegal.”

“We will not stop,” Ms. Bass said.

But some Republicans cast aspersions on the Ninth Circuit’s decision and predicted that it would not withstand a challenge in the Supreme Court.

“Courts ought not second-guess sensitive national security decisions of the president,” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, said in a statement.

“This misguided ruling is from the Ninth Circuit, the most notoriously left-wing court in America, and the most-reversed court at the Supreme Court,” he said. “I’m confident the administration’s position will ultimately prevail.”

Trial judges nationwide have blocked aspects of Mr. Trump’s executive order, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court. The case in front of Judge Robart, in Seattle, was filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota and is still at an early stage. The appeals court order issued Thursday ruled only on the narrow question of whether to stay a lower court’s temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban.

The appeals court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. “The government has pointed to no evidence,” the decision said, “that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.”

The three members of the panel were Judge Michelle T. Friedland, appointed by President Barack Obama; Judge William C. Canby Jr., appointed by President Jimmy Carter; and Judge Richard R. Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

They said the states were likely to succeed at the end of the day because Mr. Trump’s order appeared to violate the due process rights of lawful permanent residents, people holding visas and refugees.

The court said the administration’s legal position in the case had been a moving target. It noted that Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, had issued “authoritative guidance” several days after the executive order came out, saying it did not apply to lawful permanent residents. But the court said that “we cannot rely” on that statement.

“The White House counsel is not the president,” the decision said, “and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments.” It also mentioned “the government’s shifting interpretations” of the executive order.

In its briefs and in the arguments before the panel on Tuesday, the Justice Department’s position evolved. As the case progressed, the administration offered a backup plea for at least a partial victory.

At most, a Justice Department brief said, “previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future” should be allowed to enter the country despite the ban.

The appeals court ultimately rejected that request, however, saying that people in the United States without authorization have due process rights, as do citizens with relatives who wish to travel to the United States.
The court discussed, but did not decide, whether the executive order violated the First Amendment’s ban on government establishment of religion by disfavoring Muslims.

It noted that the states challenging the executive order “have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a ‘Muslim ban.’” And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions.
But the court said it would defer a decision on the question of religious discrimination.

“The political branches are far better equipped to make appropriate distinctions,” the decision said. “For now, it is enough for us to conclude that the government has failed to establish that it will likely succeed on its due process argument in this appeal.”

The court also acknowledged “the massive attention this case has garnered at even the most preliminary stages.”
“On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies,” the decision said. “And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”

“These competing public interests,” the court said, “do not justify a stay.”

The court ruling did not affect one part of the executive order: the cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the 2017 fiscal year. That is down from the 110,000 ceiling put in place under President Barack Obama. The order also directed the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted members of religious minorities.

As of Thursday, that means the United States will be allowed to accept only about 16,000 more refugees this fiscal year. Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, 33,929 refugees have been admitted, 5,179 of them Syrians.

Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting from Washington, Katharine Q. Seelye from Boston, and Liz Robbins and Caitlin Dickerson from New York

Posted on

Drink to death – By: Naseer Memon (The News, 5th Feb 2017)

Only two days after the Chief Minister Sindh, sitting inside a cozy drawing room near Manchar Lake, rhetorically claimed that supply of safe drinking water to the people of Sindh is being ensured, a flabbergasted head of the judicial commission on drinking water wondered how people of Sindh are alive after drinking sewage every day.

The Supreme Court constituted one-member judicial commission in December 2016 to investigate the causes of poor sanitary conditions and the shortage of potable water in Sindh. While hearing a petition at its Karachi registry, a two-judge bench mandated the commission to find faults within the system leading to the lack of a safe drinking water supply, and sewerage and solid waste management services, and to recommend remedies.

The SC constituted this commission while hearing a constitutional petition filed by Advocate Shahab Usto seeking directives to the authorities to provide safe drinking water and a clean environment to the people. Advocate Usto belongs to once known as Paris of Sindh, Shikarpur town. He also writes in Sindhi and English newspapers. He filed this public interest petition on this much neglected aspect of governance as a gesture of his responsibility and service to the people of Sindh.

Advocate Usto, in his petition, submitted that the Sindh government had established the North Sindh Urban Services Corporation (NSUSC) in 2009-10 for delivering clean water supply, and sewerage and solid waste management services in eight districts of upper Sindh including Sukkur, New Sukkur, Rohri, Khairpur, Larkana, Shikarpur, Jacobabad and Ghotki but the same has not benefited the public at large in these districts.

He submitted that the organisation was established by obtaining a loan of 500 million dollars from the Asian Development Bank. The provincial government failed to provide safe drinking water to the public. Instead, subsoil water, which the locals of these districts had to consume, is contaminated and not fit for human consumption.
Successive governments obsessed with erecting monuments of roads, flyovers, buildings and modern transportation have flippantly ignored safe drinking water as a worthwhile political priority. A service that is globally considered a fundamental right has been converted into a luxury for millions of impoverished citizens of the country.

The Supreme Court observed that the issue raised was directly concerned with the provision of fundamental rights of the people living not only in the eight mentioned districts but also in lower Sindh. The apex court directed the chief justice of the Sindh High Court to nominate a sitting judge to head the commission. The commission has been tasked to complete its proceedings and submit its findings within six weeks. Subsequently, the commission, headed by Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, issued notices to the various provincial authorities and also visited several cities and towns of Sindh to witness an awful state of the water supply and sanitation system in the province.

Without any strenuous mental effort, a lay person knows two things that the right to life is inalienable and water is life. Nexus between the two is glaringly obvious and does not require much of a cerebral exercise. Pitiably, this universally recognised supreme human right is flagrantly trampled in numerous ways and with complete impunity in our country.

Denial to safe drinking water is perhaps the most insidious manifestation of asphyxiation of millions of compatriots on a daily basis. Slow poisoning of people through supplying contaminated water is ubiquitous and indiscriminate in Pakistan, not even sparing those who procure exorbitant bottled water. A slouchy regulation has allowed substandard bottled water brands to flourish and swindle citizens unimpeded. Even in the capital city of Islamabad, public taps of drinking water installed by the Capital Development Authority are found gushing polluted water. The water quality control cell of the civic agency in its report submitted to the city Mayor in August 2016 conceded that 53 per cent of the samples of water collected from various parts of the city were found unfit for human consumption.

Pakistan Council for Research on Water Resources (PCRWR) has also been frequently releasing reports of substandard bottled water brands doing roaring business unfettered. An official of PCRWR, while speaking at a seminar in October 2015, admitted that 80 per cent of the drinking water samples across the country were found microbiologically contaminated.

Successive governments obsessed with erecting monuments of roads, flyovers, buildings and modern transportation have flippantly ignored safe drinking water as a worthwhile political priority. A service that is globally considered a fundamental right has been converted into a luxury for millions of impoverished citizens of the country.

Sindh is perhaps the most excruciatingly governed province these days, where a meritless society is thriving on cronyism leading to a complete collapse of public service structure. The commission received shocking information in Sukkur when the NSUSC senior officials informed it that out of the 29 water treatment plants installed in the city, 26 were lying out of order. The officials also admitted that the hazardous water being discharged from hospitals, high-rises, households and factories was not treated before its ultimate disposal into the river. They further admitted that the civic agency could not efficiently fulfil its responsibilities over the last seven years.

During its visit, the commission witnessed that barring few exceptions in Karachi, no filter treatment or chlorination plant is working in Sindh and people are consuming water heavily contaminated with industrial, municipal and hospital waste. Most of the river inlets, canals and distributaries are being used as sewage conduits rendering water injurious for the downstream consumers.

This is, however, not a surprising information for people of Sindh who have become immune to such pervasive callous treatment by successive governments. PCRWR conducted a technical assessment of water supply schemes in Sindh in 2010. The research report made startling revelations unmasking the poor condition of water supply schemes in Sindh.

The assessment team examined water supply schemes in 22 districts of the province. The results revealed that out of a total of 1247 water supply schemes, 718 (i.e. 58 per cent) were non-functional and every fourth non-functional scheme was permanently closed. Some of the key reason attributable to the non-functioning of the water supply schemes included paucity of funds, mechanical and electrical faults, missing/damaged links between the source and mainline of water, incomplete/inadequate pipe fittings causing leaks etc.

The rickety water supply network was also found ageing. Some 25 per cent of the schemes were 20 to 25 years old. Another 28 per cent schemes were 15 –20 years old.

Analysis of water samples revealed that 95 per cent of the total collected samples were unsafe for drinking purpose mainly because of microbiological contamination. Shockingly no water treatment was being practiced in 408 (i.e. 77 per cent) functional schemes and raw water was being supplied to communities. The analysis of water samples collected from the houses of consumers of the functional water supply schemes reveals that 98 per cent of the total collected samples were unsafe for drinking purposes.

The alarming quality of drinking water is a silent havoc in the country. According to a civil society organization, Water Aid-Pakistan, some 16 million people are using drinking water from unsafe sources and around 39,000 children under five die every year from diarrhea caused by unsafe water.

According to a report, about seven million cases of Hepatitis B and C were registered in Pakistan during 2004. Sindh province is the most affected by this chronic disease while Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab provinces rank second and third respectively (Jang, July, 2004).

In Karachi, more than 10,000 people die every year because of renal infection caused by contaminated water (Dawn, April, 2004). UNICEF (2004) has reported that in Pakistan 20 to 40 per cent of the beds in hospitals are occupied by patients suffering from water related diseases. Diseases such as cholera, typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis and guinea worm infection are about 80 per cent of all diseases and cause 33 per cent of deaths (Tahir et al, 1994).

Not only that the Sindh government has failed to supply potable water to consumers, it has also turned blind eyes to a widespread criminal act of releasing highly contaminated effluent into freshwater bodies. A chronic example is Phuleli canal in Hyderabad. According to a study conducted by Dr. Muhammad Saleh Soomro and Muhammad Ismail Kumbhar, around 0.53 million cubic meters of sewage per day is being discharge into the canal. The effluent is a mix of industrial effluents, municipal wastes, cattle farm wastes, slaughterhouses wastes and hospital wastes.

Disaster unleashed at Manchar Lake is a classic study of how freshwater lakes are devastated by callous policies of decision makers. Once a source of livelihood for several hundred thousand people, the lake has been degenerated into a toxic water bowl by the Right Bank Outfall Drain (RBOD) project of WAPDA.

The judicial commission’s fiat is expected soon. It is, however, difficult to speculate if the Supreme Court would be able to enforce some credible mechanisms to ensure supply of safe drinking water to millions of residents of Sindh.

Posted on

Scores dead in heavy snowfall in Afghanistan, Pakistan

Scores of people have been killed in Afghanistan and Pakistan by heavy snow and avalanches that hit mountainous areas in the region, officials said.

More than 100 people have been killed across Afghanistan, including 50 in Nuristan province, officials said Sunday, warning the death toll could rise still further.

At least 54 people were killed in northern and central Afghan provinces, officials told AFP news agency, with massive avalanches destroying 168 houses and killing hundreds of cattle.

Dozens more remain missing, provincial governor Hafiz Abdul Qayum told Al Jazeera on Sunday.

“Most affected are women and children,” he said, adding that many houses collapsed, killing at least five people and leaving many families without shelter.

“The area is completely blocked because of snow so it is very difficult for us to send support, but we are trying our best.”

Qayum said local rescue operations continued at the site, adding the death toll might increase.

The government declared Sunday, a normal working day in Afghanistan, to be a public holiday to deter non-essential travel and ensure schools were closed.

Avalanches in Pakistan’s Chitral
In neighbouring Pakistan, at least 13 people, including three children, were killed early on Sunday morning when an avalanche in the northwestern Chitral district destroyed 22 houses, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) said in a statement.

“Rescue operations at the site have finished for now,” Gul Hammad Farooqi, a local journalist in Chitral, told Al Jazeera.

“They were carried out by the local population, because no one was able to reach the site, even by helicopter.”

Roads to the remote Shershal village, where the avalanche occurred, remained blocked due to the snowfall, and rescue crews were forced to rush to the surrounding areas by helicopter, the NDMA said.

In a separate incident in the Chitral region, a paramilitary soldier was killed and six others were injured when their post collapsed under an avalanche in the Pisotan area, Pakistan’s military said in a statement.

The surviving soldiers had been rescued, it added.

Parts of the Chitral valley received more than five feet of snow in the previous 24 hours, Pakistan’s Meteorological Department said in a statement on Sunday, with scattered snowfall forecast for Monday.

Transport networks affected
The snow also wreaked havoc on major roads in Afghanistan, including the main Kabul-Kandahar highway, where police and soldiers rescued passengers in about 250 vehicles trapped by the storm, said Jawed Salangi, a spokesman for Ghazni province.

The Salang pass, north of Kabul, was also closed under as much as two and a half metres of snow, officials said.
In Pakistan, all inter-district roads in Chitral were closed, while a major highway linking Chitral to the Dir district, and another linking parts of the upper Swat valley were only open to traffic under restrictions, NDMA said.

With additional reporting by Al Jazeera’s Asad Hashim in Islamabad

Posted on

Seattle judge blocks Trump immigration order

SEATTLE/BOSTON – A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge’s order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately.

The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The Seattle judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

“It’s a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country,” said Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell.

The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump’s executive order. Trump’s administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labeled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston on Friday declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from certain countries despite being barred by U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent executive order.

Also on Friday in Virginia, a federal judge ordered the White House to provide a list of all people stopped from entering the United States by the travel ban.

The State Department said on Friday that fewer than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had been invalidated as a result of the order. That disclosure followed media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000.

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of “all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States.”

The state of Hawaii on Friday joined the challenge to the order, filing a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

The new Republican president’s order signed on Jan. 27 triggered chaos at U.S. airports last weekend. Some travelers abroad were turned back from flights into the United States, crowds of hundreds of people packed into arrival areas to protest and legal objections were filed across the country.

The order also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees.

On Friday the Department of Homeland Security issued additional clarification of the order, stating that there were no plans to extend it beyond the seven countries. The DHS also reiterated that the ban did not apply to permanent residents, or green card holders, and some others, such as those who have helped the U.S. military.

In the Boston case, U.S. District Judge Nathan Gorton denied the request, after expressing skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group’s claim that Trump’s order represented religious discrimination.

(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg in New York, Brian Snyder in Boston and Lawrence Hurley, Lesley Wroughton and Susan Heavey in Washington; Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Bill Rigby)

Posted on

Chinese, Pakistani businesses build ties as Beijing splurges on ‘Silk Road’

Chinese companies are in talks to snap up more businesses and land in Pakistan after sealing two major deals in recent months, a sign of deepening ties after Beijing vowed to plough $57 billion into a new trade route across the South Asian nation.

A dozen executives from some of Pakistan’s biggest firms told Reuters that Chinese companies were looking mainly at the cement, steel, energy and textile sectors, the backbone of Pakistan’s $270b economy.

Analysts say the interest shows Chinese firms are using Beijing’s “One Belt, One Road” project ─ a global trade network of which Pakistan is a key part ─ to help expand abroad at a time when growth has slowed at home.

A Chinese-led consortium recently took a strategic stake in the Pakistan Stock Exchange, and Shanghai Electric Power acquired one of Pakistan’s biggest energy producers, K-Electric, for $1.8b.

“The Chinese have got deep pockets and they are looking for major investment in Pakistan,” said Muhammad Ali Tabba, chief executive of two companies in the Yunus Brothers Group cement-to-chemicals conglomerate.

Tabba said Yunus Brothers, partnering with a Chinese company, lost out in the battle for K-Electric, but the group is eyeing up other joint ventures as part of a $2b expansion plan over the coming years.

Sindh Governor Mohammad Zubair, who until recently was the privatization minister, told Reuters China’s steel giant Baosteel Group is in talks over a 30-year lease for state-run Pakistan Steel Mills. Baosteel did not respond to a request for comment.

The negotiations come as Pakistani business sentiment turns, with companies betting that Beijing’s splurge on road, rail and energy infrastructure under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) will boost the economy.

The Chinese charge is in contrast to Western investors, who have largely avoided Pakistan in recent years despite fewer militant attacks and economic growth near 5 per cent.
It is welcomed by many in Pakistan: foreign direct investment was $1.9b in 2015/2016, far below the 2007/2008 peak of $5.4b.

At the stock exchange signing ceremony, Sun Weidong, China’s ambassador to Pakistan, said the deal “embodies the ongoing financial integration” between Chinese and Pakistani markets.

“This will facilitate more financial support for our enterprises,” Sun said.

Reservations
CPEC will connect China’s Western region with Pakistan’s Arabian Sea port of Gwadar through a network of rail, road and pipeline projects.

That will be funded by loans from China, and much of the business will go to Chinese enterprises.

The scale of Chinese corporate interest beyond that is difficult to gauge, but in Karachi, Pakistan’s financial center, sharply-dressed Chinese appear to outnumber Westerners in hotels, restaurants and the city’s airport.

Rising skyscrapers testify to a construction boom in the city, businesses are printing Chinese-language brochures and salaries demanded by Pakistanis who speak Chinese have shot up.

Miftah Ismail, chairman of Pakistan’s Board of Investment, said Chinese companies were interested in investing in the telecoms and auto sectors, with FAW Group and Foton Motor Group planning to enter Pakistan.

FAW said the Pakistan “project is going through internal approvals”, but did not offer more details. Foton declined to comment.

But not everyone is excited by China’s growing role in the Pakistan economy, including trade unions, who said Chinese companies’ alleged mistreatment of local workers in Africa in the past had alarmed them.

“We have concern and reservations that the Chinese might use the same methods in Pakistan,” said Nasir Mansoor, deputy general secretary of National Trade Union Federation, Pakistan, the national trade union body.

The Chinese government and Chinese companies have dismissed such accusations in the past.

And doing business may not be easy for newcomers. Security remains a concern despite a drop in Islamist militant violence, and in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index, Pakistan ranks 144 out of 190 countries.

Next phase
The Chinese interest comes as Islamabad and Beijing discuss the next phase of CPEC: how to build Pakistan’s industry with the help of Chinese state-owned industrial giants.

Pakistani officials are drafting plans for special economic zones which would offer tax breaks and other benefits to Chinese businesses.

But even before zones are established, Chinese investors are scoping out land deals.

“A lot of companies … don’t care about CPEC. They just want 500 acres of land to set up shop,” said Naheed Memon, head of the Sindh province’s Board of Investment.

Faisal Aftab, manager of private investment firm Oxon Partners, said Oxon was in talks with two state-run Chinese companies and a wealthy Chinese businessman to purchase and develop land for high-end residential and commercial properties.

Posted on

China, not America, likely behind Hafiz Saeed’s house arrest

The biggest question about Hafiz Saeed’s house arrest isn’t why, but why now?

After all, we’ve been here before.

He was placed under house arrest in December 2008, just days after the Mumbai terror attacks that New Delhi and Washington believe he helped orchestrate. He was detained again in September 2009. In both cases, he was released in relatively short order.

In more recent years, he has essentially lived free in Lahore, holding rallies and hosting journalists, including those from the West.

So why did Pakistani authorities decide to once again place him under house arrest on Monday?

One Pakistani media report points to US pressure, contending that in the last days of the Obama administration, American officials warned Pakistan to rein in Saeed or risk sanctions.

Saeed himself, in a video released shortly after his detention, bizarrely claimed that Pakistan was obliged to act because of US President Donald Trump’s warm relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. A Saeed spokesman made a similar claim.

Washington, of course, has pushed Pakistan to crack down on Saeed for years, and unsuccessfully so. So it beggars belief to assume that US pressure would suddenly and magically prompt Pakistan to detain Saeed—and particularly at a time when the US-Pakistan relationship appears to be entering a period of drift. Washington is shifting its engagement with New Delhi into overdrive, while Islamabad is cementing its failsafe partnership with Beijing.

It’s also folly to assume the Trump administration was actively pushing Pakistan to move on Saeed. Trump has been in office for less than two weeks, and beyond his rapid-fire issuance of executive orders, his presidency appears frenzied and disorganised—not to mention hamstrung by numerous unfilled senior diplomatic and national security posts.

Bottom line? The Trump administration has too much on its plate to be focusing laser-like on Pakistan.

________________________________________
If any external pressure compelled Pakistan to place Saeed under house arrest, it’s more likely to have come from Beijing than Washington.
________________________________________

In a telling yet underreported development several weeks ago, China’s former consul general in Kolkata published a blog post calling on Beijing to rethink its default policy of blocking Indian attempts to have JM leader Masood Azhar sanctioned by the UN.

This all makes good sense when we think about the high stakes of CPEC. For Beijing (as for Islamabad), rapid and sustained progress on this project is a core strategic imperative.

Hafiz Saeed doesn’t pose a direct threat to China, but so long as he walks free he poses a direct threat to India-Pakistan relations.

The last thing China wants as it pushes forward with CPEC is an India-Pakistan relationship on tenterhooks — not to mention on a war footing, as was the case for several weeks last year.
________________________________________
China has long leaned on Pakistan to tackle terror more robustly — and it’s arguably gotten results. Some have speculated that Beijing’s prodding played a role in Pakistan’s decision to launch the Zarb-i-Azb operation.
________________________________________

The anti-state militants targeted in that offensive had not only terrorised Pakistan; they’d also posed a threat to Chinese investments and workers in Pakistan. Chinese pressure may also have helped prompt Pakistan’s Red Mosque offensive.

In short, we should never underestimate China’s leverage in Pakistan, including its ability to get Pakistan to do things it often resists.

And yet the question still remains: Why now? If we assume China influenced Pakistan’s decision to detain Saeed, why didn’t Pakistan act weeks or months ago?

Enter President Trump’s executive order on immigration.

It’s doubtful Trump actively pressured Pakistan to rein in Hafiz Saeed, but it’s likely Pakistan’s detention of Saeed was done with Trump in mind.

We can read the house arrest, at least in part, as an effort by Pakistan to showcase its counterterrorism bonafides to the new US administration, and to dissuade Trump from adding Pakistan to the list of countries that can’t send their citizens to the United States for 90 days. Trump’s chief of staff has suggested Pakistan could be added to the list.

Of course, all this speculating could ultimately be immaterial and Saeed may be released relatively soon.

Unless, that is, China has the ability to get Pakistan to go beyond token gestures when it comes to addressing anti-India militancy, and unless Pakistan chooses to do some big-time signaling to Washington by keeping Saeed in detention for an extended period.

Alas, given Pakistan’s core strategic interests and the value the authorities seem to accord to Saeed as a key asset, I wouldn’t count on either scenario materialising anytime soon.

Posted on

Barack Obama ‘heartened’ by scale of protests against Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban

In a blasting criticism of Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban, former president Barack Obama has said he “fundamentally disagrees” with discrimination that targets people based on their religion and was “heartened” by the protests that have been sparked across the country.

“President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country,” said a statement issued by his spokesman Kevin Lewis.

“In his final official speech as president, he spoke about the important role of citizens and how all Americans have a responsibility to be the guardians of our democracy – not just during an election but every day.”

Mr Obama has not weighed in on a political issue since leaving office on January 20 and making way for his successor – something that is usual for most presidents.

He has said he plans to give Mr Trump room to govern but has also said he would speak out if the New York tycoon’s actions violated basic US values. Thousands of protests across the country have taken part in demonstrations against the order, insisting that his Muslim travel ban does breach fundamental US values.

In the statement, Mr Obama said was pleased with those citizens who are exercising constitutional rights to assemble and “have their voices heard.” He also drew a distinction between his policies and those of Mr Trump.

“With regard to comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions, as we’ve heard before, the president fundamentally disagrees with the notion of discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion,” it said.

On Monday, it had emerged that dozens of US envoys located around the world had prepared a “dissent memo”.

This ban … will not achieve its stated aim to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States,” says the draft, obtained by lawfareblog.com.

It also said that Mr Trump’s “knee jerk” executive order was based on misguided notions about terrorism in the United States.

“Despite the order’s focus on them, a vanishingly small number of terror attacks on US soil have been committed by foreign nationals who recently entered the US on immigrant or non-immigrant visa,” it says. “Rather, the overwhelmingly majority of attacks have been committed by native-born or naturalised US citizens – individuals who have been living in the US for decades, if not since birth.”

It adds: “In the isolated incidents of foreign nationals entering the US on a visa to commit acts of terror, the nationals have come from a range of countries, (such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia), which are not covered by the order.”

Posted on

Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says — and ordered a commission to do it ‘legally’

Former New York mayor Rudy W. Giuliani said President Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

Giuliani, an early Trump supporter who once had been rumored for a cabinet position in the new administration, appeared on Fox News late Saturday night to describe how Trump’s executive order temporarily banning refugees came together.

Trump on Friday signed orders not only to suspend admission of all refugees into the United States for 120 days but also to implement “new vetting measures” to screen out “radical Islamic terrorists.” Refugee entry from Syria, however, would be suspended indefinitely, and all travel from Syria and six other nations — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — are suspended for 90 days. Trump also said he would give priority to Christian refugees over those of other religions, according to the Christian Broadcasting Network.

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani if the ban had anything to do with religion.

“How did the president decide the seven countries?” she asked. “Okay, talk to me.”

“I’ll tell you the whole history of it,” Giuliani responded eagerly. “So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, ‘Muslim ban.’ He called me up. He said, ‘Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'”

Giuliani continued, saying he assembled a “whole group of other very expert lawyers on this,” including former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Pete King (R-NY).

“And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us,” Giuliani told Pirro. “Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that’s what the ban is based on. It’s not based on religion. It’s based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country.”

It was unclear when the above-mentioned phone call took place and when the commission began working. An email to the White House press office was not immediately returned Sunday.

Clips of the exchange between Giuliani and Pirro quickly went viral Saturday night, with some claiming that Giuliani’s statement amounted to admitting Trump’s intent had been to institute a ban based on religion.

Others, including Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway and White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus have insisted it is not a ban on Muslims, but rather one based on countries from which travel was already restricted under the Obama administration.

Priebus appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” Sunday morning to say it was possible Trump would expand the list of countries included in the travel ban.

“You can point to other countries that have similar problems, like Pakistan and others,” Priebus told host John Dickerson. “Perhaps we need to take it further.”

Priebus also said there had been weeks of work and “plenty of communication” between the White House, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security regarding the ban.

“We didn’t just type this thing up in an office and sign up,” he told Dickerson.

Later on the same program, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) called out Giuliani’s interview with Pirro from the night before.

“They can’t deny that this is a Muslim ban,” Ellison told Dickerson. “On the campaign trail, [Trump] said he wanted a Muslim ban. … Rudy Giuliani who helped him write it said that they started out with the intention of a Muslim ban and then they sort of ‘languaged’ it up so to try to avoid that label, but it is a religiously based ban.”

Senate Democrats vowed to draft legislation to block the travel ban.

“We’re demanding the president reverse these executive orders that go against what we are, everything we have always stood for,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a news conference Sunday morning, noting later that his middle name, Ellis, was originally inspired by Ellis Island.

“It was implemented in a way that created chaos and confusion across the country, and it will only serve to embolden and inspire those around the globe those that will do us harm,” Schumer added. “It must be reversed immediately.”

Trump’s executive order caused mayhem and sparked massive protests at airports around the country Friday and Saturday, as reports surfaced that dozens of travelers from the affected countries, including green-card holders, were being detained.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Saturday morning challenging Trump’s order after two Iraqi men with immigrant visas were barred from entering the United States at John F. Kennedy International Airport.

As Giuliani was speaking, Fox News simultaneously aired an alert that noted federal judge Ann M. Donnelly had issued a stay to stop the deportations nationwide.

Donnelly wrote that there was a strong likelihood the order had violated the petitioners’ rights to due process and equal protection by the Constitution.

“There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order,” Donnelly wrote.

The ACLU hailed the victory.

“Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country,” ACLU executive director Anthony D. Romero said in a statement. “Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.”

On Sunday, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying it did not plan to back off enforcing Trump’s orders.

“President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place—prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the U.S. government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety,” the statement read. “President Trump’s Executive Order affects a minor portion of international travelers, and is a first step towards reestablishing control over America’s borders and national security.”

The department said that less than one percent of daily international air travelers to the United States had been “inconvenienced” on Saturday.

Matthew Kolken, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo said there has been “a systemic bias against individuals from Muslim countries in the U.S. immigration departments” for years, including under the Obama administration.
“This isn’t unprecedented,” Kolken told The Washington Post by phone Sunday. “The unfortunate reality is the executive branch does have vast discretionary authority to determine who they are going [allow in or not].”

That said, Kolken believes “Trump has gone a step further without a doubt” in including even people who are lawful permanent residents and suspending all immigration applications from people from the seven countries on the banned list.

If there was evidence of disparate treatment of individuals from the same country — if there were anecdotal evidence of, for example, a Syrian family of one religious background allowed to enter over that of another religious background — then that is where lawsuits could “come to play,” he said.

“The question becomes whether they’re trying to do an end-around by couching the ban as a country-specific ban based on a security-related issues when in reality it’s a religious ban,” Kolken said.