Posted on

Huge quake jolts north Afghan range

KABUL, Oct 26 — A massive earthquake rocked northeastern Afghanistan on Monday with devastating tremors rippling across the region, leaving more than 145 dead amid collapsed buildings, panicked stampedes and fears of landslides. Officials braced for even more casualties.

The full extent of damage and human toll was not immediately clear as rescue teams tried to assess areas hardest hit by the quake, which had a preliminary magnitude of 7.5 and was centered in a remote area of the Hindu Kush mountains.

Among the victims were 12 students at a girls’ school in northern Afghanistan who died in a frantic dash from shaking buildings.  

“They were not killed by the collapse of the wall or rooms, but died trying to get out under the feet of the others,” said Mohammad Dawood Agha, a senior police official in the Takhar province.

The bulk of the deaths appeared to be in Pakistan, where the army said at least 123 people perished and more than 950 were hurt. Afghanistan officials placed the death tally at about 23 several hours after the temblor.

But the collapse of phone lines and cell phone networks prevented officials from getting details from remote areas under the shadows of summits reaching more than 20,000 feet. Previous major quakes in the region have caused extensive deaths or injuries. The worries include landslides on slopes soaked by recent rains.

“Initial reports, unfortunately, speak of high material and human losses” in northern province and the capital, Kabul, said Afghanistan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, whose position is equivalent to prime minister in the power-sharing government.

In Pakistan’s scenic northern Gilgit-Baltisan area, there were concerns of widespread damage. Residents reported numerous landslides and avalanches during the quake. One man photographed a huge chunk of rock and ice crashing down into the Hunza Valley, which is surrounded on all sides by snow-capped mountains.

TheU.S. Geographical Survey , which monitors earthquake patterns, put the quake’s preliminary magnitude at 7.5 and placed its epicenter in the mountains of Badakhshan Province, about 160 miles northeast of Kabul near the Afghan-Pakistan border. The area, known as Jurm, is believed to be relatively sparsely populated. It’s also a district where the Taliban have a big presence and has engaged in battles with Afghan security forces this year.

“Yes, the Taliban have presence in Jurm,” said Badakhshan’s governor, Shah Waliullah Adeeb. “But I do not think they will deter any emergency work or rescue operation.”

Death toll mounts after Afghanistan earthquake

A massive earthquake in northeastern Afghanistan caused causalities across the southeast Asian region. Reports of injuries and deaths in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are mounting in the aftermath of the 7.5-magnitude quake. (Reuters)

Adeeb said more than 1,400 houses have been partially destroyed in his province, including 70 in one village.

“One of the scariest experiences,” tweeted Bilal Sarwary, a freelance Afghan journalist. “Was stuck inside a building during this massive earthquake.”

Afghanistan has long been prone to earthquakes. The last major one struck the nation in March 2002 in Baghlan Province in the north, where more than 1,500 people died. In remote mountainous areas, such has Badakhshan, most Afghans live in mud houses that easily crumble during large quakes. Landslides are also quite common, and in recent weeks there has been much rainfall in the region, exacerbating the impact of an earthquake.

In a statement, Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, said he had ordered the country’s armed forces to start carrying out rescue operations “without caring or waiting for orders.”

In Islamabad, the earthquake was felt in two sharp, back-to-back jolts that lasted for about 30 seconds each. There were no immediate reports of damage in the Pakistani capital, but terrified residents ran out in the streets when the shaking began.

“The first shock was mild, but then came the big one, and I screamed, ‘God, Help us.’ I thought it was the end of everything. The house was shaking, the trees and even the earth were shaking,” said Zafar Iqbal, who was working as a supervisor at a local restaurant. “I am still terrified.”

Arifullah, a teacher in Islamabad, said he immediately had a flashback to the 7.6 magnitude earthquake that hit northern Pakistan in 2005. That earthquake killed 70,000 to 80,000 people.

“We ran outside, and the students ran, too, and turned pale with fear,” said Arifullah, who has only one name. “We kept reciting the verses of the Holy Koran and asked for God’s help and his forgiveness . . . I heard a loud sound, and then all the earth was shaking.”

The U.S. Geological Survey said seven other quakes of magnitude 7 or greater have occurred within 150 miles of Monday’s epicenter, the most recent in March 2002 just 12 miles west of the latest quake zone. More than 150 people died in the 2002 quake.

One factor that could limit the damage was the relative depth of Tuesday’s quake — estimated at about 125 miles below the surface — that may lessen ground shaking, the U.S. Geological Survey said.

In northern India, tremors were felt throughout the region — most severely in the northern state of Jammu and Kashmir, where widespread power and telephone outages were reported. The national capital region temporarily suspended Metro service in New Delhi as a precaution in the quake’s aftermath.

“I pray for everyone’s safety,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi wrote in a Twitter message.

“I have asked for an urgent assessment and we stand ready for assistance where required, including Afghanistan & Pakistan,” Modi said in his second tweet. The Indian military had responded in force after the Nepal earthquake earlier this year, assisting with helicopter rescue missions and providing humanitarian aid.

In April, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake in Nepal claimed more than 9,000 lives and left some mountain villages cut off from aid for days.

Sayed Salahuddin and Mohammad Sharif in Kabul, Annie Gowen in New Delhi and Brian Murphy in Washington contributed to this report.

Posted on

Powerful Gen Raheel Sharif Eclipses Pakistan’s Prime Minister

Gen Raheel Sharif (Credit: blogs.wsj.com)
Gen Raheel Sharif
(Credit: blogs.wsj.com)

Washington/Islamabad Oct 22 —President Barack Obama met Pakistan’s prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, at the White House on Thursday. But next month, top American officials will hold talks with the man many people say calls the shots on the issues Washington cares most about: Gen. Raheel Sharif.

The chief of Pakistan’s army, Gen. Sharif has eclipsed the authority of the country’s elected leaders on critical security-policy matters, including the fight against Islamic extremists, the Afghan peace process and the country’s nuclear-weapons program, officials and analysts say.

“The civilian entities don’t have the ability to deliver on a few things at this point,” a senior U.S. official said. As for Gen. Sharif, the official said: “He can deliver.”

Gen. Sharif, who isn’t related to the prime minister, has turned himself into a cult hero by battling terrorism and restoring a measure of order in Pakistan’s biggest and most violent city, Karachi. That has bolstered the army’s standing and political power in a country where democracy has struggled to take firm root.

The improvement in Pakistan’s security situation is stark, though attacks continue —including a bombing Thursday in the southwest that killed 11. Still, the number of civilians and soldiers killed in terrorist attacks is on track to be lower this year than at any time since 2006, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, which tracks casualties. That has helped spark an economic rebound.

“There is God in the sky, and here on the ground there is Raheel Sharif,” said Muhammad Atiq Mir, chairman of All Karachi Tajir Ittehad, an association of small traders. Billboards in the city, paid for by local businesses, proclaim: “Thank you for saving Karachi, Raheel Sharif.”

The civilian government insists it is firmly in charge. “The prime minister is in the driving seat,” said Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif. He said it is Nawaz Sharif who is “managing the balance between institutions.”

Gen. Sharif, who is due to step down in November 2016, declined to comment.

“The army chief identifies security gaps and flags them to the government,” said a senior Pakistani army officer. “Like in any country, the military gives input.”

Pakistani politicians and political analysts, however, say the military’s sway has grown. Earlier this year, military courts were set up to try civilians for terrorism, while the military sits on new “apex committees” that oversee internal security issues across the country.

In June, Asif Zardari, who served as president of Pakistan from 2008 to 2013, gave a speech warning that the army was “stepping out of its domain.” Ayaz Amir, a former lawmaker in the prime minister’s Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party, said: “The army is setting the direction and taking the major decisions.”

On Tuesday, Pakistan’s leading English language newspaper, Dawn, published an editorial about the prime minister’s visit to Washington, saying: “Worryingly, for the civilian dispensation and the democratic project, Mr. Sharif has appeared an increasingly peripheral figure in shaping key national security and foreign policy issues.”

Current and former U.S. officials said they believe the prime minister had ceded control over certain security matters to Gen. Sharif, while the prime minister focused on the economy and other issues. They said the prime minister appeared comfortable with the division of labor and that Gen. Sharif had been “supportive” of civilian institutions.

In a recent meeting in Rawalpindi, Gen. Sharif told a visiting U.S. delegation how important it was to him “not to be seen as the main power” in Pakistan, according to a U.S. official who was present.

The prime minister’s visit comes as the administration moved to finalize a long-standing plan to sell up to eight additional F-16s to Pakistan, aimed at bolstering Pakistan’s counterterrorism campaign against militants..

Officials said Thursday’s meeting between Mr. Obama and the prime minister, in the absence of Gen. Sharif, was meant to highlight the importance the White House places on empowering Pakistan’s civilian government.

After the meeting, a joint statement said that the two leaders “reaffirmed that a mutual commitment to democracy is a key pillar of the U.S.-Pakistan partnership.” But given the country’s history and the role of the armed forces, U.S. officials said a transition to civilian leadership in all matters of state would take time.

In the meantime, “the U.S. can’t want something for the civilians more than they want it for themselves,” a senior administration official said ahead of the meeting.

A 59-year-old infantry officer and former commandant of Pakistan’s military academy, Gen. Sharif has won widespread approval for moving authoritatively where previous Pakistani leaders, military and civilian, have dithered.

The extent of the general’s popularity in Pakistan has prompted intense speculation that his term as army chief could be extended.

Last year, he opened a new front in the fight against extremists with an offensive in North Waziristan, a region along the Afghan border that was a haven for Pakistani Taliban, Afghan insurgents and al Qaeda—a move long advocated by the U.S. and initially opposed by the prime minister.

Army-led forces have also led a bloody fight against jihadists and criminal gangs in the country’s commercial capital, Karachi. The campaign has won Gen. Sharif plaudits, despite its reliance on what human-rights groups say are hundreds of extrajudicial executions.

Gen. Sharif also has a high profile abroad. He met the British prime minister at his official Downing Street residence earlier this year. Last year in the U.S. he met Secretary of State John Kerry and other senior officials and was awarded the U.S. Legion of Merit for his contributions to “peace and security.”

When Afghan President Ashraf Ghani made his first visit to Pakistan after being elected last year, he drove straight from the airport to see Gen. Sharif at his headquarters in Rawalpindi—before going to nearby Islamabad to meet the civilian leadership.

Officials in Washington, Kabul and New Delhi, however, also accuse the defense establishment headed by Gen. Sharif of continuing what they say is Pakistan’s policy of giving haven to the Afghan Taliban and other militant groups, and using them as proxy warriors in Afghanistan and India.

The U.S. has warned Gen. Sharif that it will withhold $300 million in military aid if Pakistan doesn’t do more to curb the Haqqani network, an insurgent group allied with the Taliban that is responsible for a series of recent deadly attacks in Kabul.

The U.S. sees the Haqqanis as an arm of Pakistan’s military intelligence agency. A Haqqani was named as the new deputy chief of the Taliban at a meeting held in Pakistan earlier this year.

The Pakistan army maintains it is taking on all militants.

“We are against use of proxies and won’t allow it on our soil,” Gen. Sharif said this month in London, according to his spokesman.

President Obama said last week that the U.S. is keen for Pakistan to use its influence on the Afghan Taliban to advance peace talks between the militants and the Afghan government.

U.S. and Afghan officials say Gen. Sharif was the force behind a brief breakthrough in the Afghan peace process earlier this year, when a group of senior Taliban were brought to meet Afghan government representatives just outside Islamabad.

In the 90-minute White House meeting President Obama “highlighted the opportunity presented by Pakistan’s willingness to facilitate a reconciliation process that would help end insurgent violence in Afghanistan”, according to the joint statement.

The U.S. has also been engaging in exploratory talks with Pakistan about a possible deal to limit the country’s growing nuclear-weapons program, seen as especially risky because of the country’s history of political instability and jihadist attacks on military installations.

However, after the White House meeting a senior Pakistani official said that Mr. Sharif told the U.S. president that Pakistan would not give up its tactical nuclear weapons —a newly developed addition to the country’s arsenal that is a particular concern for the Wasington—as long as the threat of invasion from India remained.

When Prime Minister Sharif was elected in May 2013, many believed it was a time when civilians could assert themselves and that military leaders, then criticized for inaction against terrorists, would be pushed into the background. In a sign of his intention to run foreign and defense policies, Nawaz Sharif kept both those portfolios for himself after election; he is still has no foreign minister.

The prime minister started peace talks with insurgents in North Waziristan. He also made overtures to India in an effort to ease strained ties. And he moved forward with treason charges against Pervez Musharraf, an army coup leader who also served as president.

By mid-2014, however, the political ground was starting to shift, and the prime minister pushed the military hard on issues it saw as its domain. The prosecution of Mr. Musharraf was derailed after the military stood by its former leader. After an attack on Karachi’s airport, Gen. Sharif, who had promoted counterinsurgency doctrine when he was the army’s training head—focusing the army’s targets toward terrorists rather than its traditional enemy, India—launched military operations against militants in North Waziristan in June 2014.

Later that summer, Pakistani cricket player-turned-politician Imran Khan and his supporters started a sit-in protest against alleged vote-rigging in the election that propelled Mr. Sharif to office. The demonstrations paralyzed the capital, calling for the military to intervene and unseat Mr. Sharif. Some members of Mr. Sharif’s cabinet accused military intelligence agents of fomenting the protests, something the military and Mr. Khan’s party deny.

The army chief backed Prime Minister Sharif. But the price, some senior government officials say, was high: the prime minister agreed to relinquish some powers, letting the military take charge of defense and foreign policy.

 

Posted on

After Obama-Sharif meet, US categorically rules out nuclear deal with Pakistan

Sharif-Obama 2015 meeting (Credit: usnews.com)
Sharif-Obama 2015 meeting
(Credit: usnews.com)

Washington, Oct 23: The US has “categorically ruled out” any kind of negotiations with Pakistan on India-type civil nuclear deal, terming the reports in American media “completely false”.

“Let me state categorically, we have not entered into negotiations on 123 Agreement with Pakistan nor are we seeking an exception for Pakistan within the nuclear supplier group in order to facilitate civil nuclear exports,” a senior Administration official said after US President Barack Obama met Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif here on Thursday.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, was responding to questions on reports appearing in the American media that US was considering a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan.

“There is no such thing as a nuclear deal which has been reported in the media is some short of a civilian nuclear package alleged to be something like that the US concluded with India 10 years ago.

“Let me just assure you categorically that the press allegations of a 123 agreement with Pakistan are completely false,” the official added.

Pakistan has made it clear its interest in civilian nuclear cooperation and it is called socio-economic imperative because of energy shortfalls, the official noted.

Leaders of the two countries, however, did discuss on Pakistan’s nuclear safety and security which is an ongoing discussion.

The 123 Agreement signed between the US and India is known as Indo-US nuclear deal. The framework for this agreement was done in 2005.

“We have a long standing dialogue with Pakistan about its nuclear program, and various developments in this program. We are particularly concerned and have expressed these concerns to Pakistan that there is requirement of all countries possessing nuclear weapon to ensure the safety, security of these weapons and do everything it can to promote strategic stability. So we will continue to engage in dialogues like this with Pakistan,” the official said.

It is the understanding of the US that Pakistan is very well aware of the full range of potential threat to nuclear arsenal including from terrorist groups that operate on its soil. Other Pakistani military facilities have been attacked.

“So they are very well aware of the terrorist threats including to all aspects of their military installations and its our understanding that they have a dedicated security apparatus that understands the importance of nuclear security,” the official said.

In a readout of the Obama-Sharif meeting, the White House said the President stressed the importance of avoiding any developments that might invite increased risk to nuclear safety, security, or strategic stability.

“The leaders pledged to continue their strong cooperation on nuclear security, including at the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit,” the readout said.

According to a joint statement, Obama and Sharif discussed the continuing threat of nuclear terrorism. Obama welcomed Pakistan’s constructive engagement with the Nuclear Security Summit process and its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency and other international forums, it said.

The leaders noted Pakistan’s efforts to improve its strategic trade controls and enhance its engagement with multilateral export control regimes, the joint statement said.

“Recognising the importance of bilateral engagement in the Security, Strategic Stability and Non-Proliferation Working Group, the two leaders noted that both sides will continue to stay engaged to further build on the ongoing discussions in the working group,” the statement added.

“More generally, the US urges all Nuclear Weapons states including Pakistan to exercise restraint in nuclear weapon and missile and capabilities.”

“In particular, we have discussed measures to strengthen safety and security for Pakistan and continue to hold regular discussions on Pakistan on these issues,” the senior administration official added.

 

Posted on

Obama Announces Halt of U.S. Troop Withdrawal in Afghanistan

US announcement on Afghanistan (Credit: thewrap.com)
US announcement on Afghanistan
(Credit: thewrap.com)

WASHINGTON, Oct 15 — The United States will halt its military withdrawal from Afghanistan and instead keep thousands of troops in the country through the end of his term in 2017, President Obama announced on Thursday, prolonging the American role in a war that has now stretched on for 14 years.

In a brief statement from the Roosevelt Room in the White House, Mr. Obama said he did not support the idea of “endless war” but was convinced that a prolonged American presence in Afghanistan was vital to that country’s future and to the national security of the United States.

“While America’s combat mission in Afghanistan may be over, our commitment to Afghanistan and its people endures,” said Mr. Obama, flanked by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his top military leaders. “I will not allow Afghanistan to be used as safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again.”

The current American force in Afghanistan of 9,800 troops will remain in place through most of 2016 under the administration’s revised plans, before dropping to about 5,500 at the end of next year or in early 2017, Mr. Obama said. He called it a “modest but meaningful expansion of our presence” in that country.

The president, who has long sought to end America’s two wars before he leaves office, said he was not disappointed by the decision. He said the administration had always understood the potential for adjustments in troop levels even as the military sought to withdraw troops from battle.

But the announcement underscores the difficulty Mr. Obama has had in achieving one of the central promises of his presidency in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Mr. Obama conceded that despite more than a decade of fighting and training, Afghan forces are not fully up to the task of protecting their country.

The Taliban are now spread through more parts of the country than at any point since 2001, according to the United Nations, and last month they scored their biggest victory of the war, seizing the northern city of Kunduz and holding it for more than two weeks before pulling back on Tuesday.

Mr. Obama noted the dangers, saying, “In key areas of the country, the security situation is still very fragile, and in some areas, there is risk of deterioration.” After 2017, he said, American forces will remain in several bases in the country to “give us the presence and the reach our forces require to achieve their mission.”

He did not specifically mention Iraq, where a full troop withdrawal has been followed by a surge in violence from the Islamic State. But he said the mission in Afghanistan had the benefit of a clear objective, a supportive government and legal agreements that protect American forces — three factors not present in Iraq.

“Every single day, Afghan forces are out there fighting and dying to protect their country. They’re not looking for us to do it for them,” Mr. Obama said. He added, “If they were to fail, it would endanger the security of us all.”

After the president’s remarks, White House officials reiterated to reporters that the missions of American soldiers in Afghanistan would not change. Some of the troops will continue to train and advise Afghan forces, while others will carry on the search for Qaeda fighters, militants from the Islamic State and other groups that have found a haven in Afghanistan.

Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said politics played “absolutely no role” in the president’s decision to extend the American military presence in Afghanistan.

But Mr. Earnest acknowledged the 2016 presidential election, saying that the next president — Democrat or Republican — will inherit a situation in the country that is a “dramatically improved one when compared to the situation that President Obama inherited.”

Some critics of the administration, who have long urged the president to leave more troops in Afghanistan, said Mr. Obama’s actions did not go far enough to confront Al Qaeda and other threats there.

“While this new plan avoids a disaster, it is certainly not a plan for success,” Representative Mac Thornberry, a Texas Republican and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

House Speaker John A. Boehner said in a separate statement that he was “glad the administration finally admits President Obama’s arbitrary political deadlines are ‘self-defeating.’ ” He added: “The president’s half-measures and failed leadership have emboldened our enemies and allowed for ISIL’s rise. It’s time for a change.”

Even before Kunduz fell to the Taliban, the administration had been under growing pressure from the military and others in Washington, including Congress, to abandon plans that would have cut by about half the number of troops in Afghanistan next year, and then drop the American force to about 1,000 troops based only at the embassy in Kabul by the start of 2017.

Obama’s Evolving Stance on Afghanistan

Important speeches illustrate President Obama’s shifting stance on keeping troops in Afghanistan, beginning with his days as a senator.

Now, instead of falling back to the American Embassy — a heavily fortified compound in the center of Kabul — Mr. Obama said that the military would be able to maintain its operations at Bagram Air Field to the north of Kabul, the main American hub in Afghanistan, and at bases outside Kandahar in the country’s south and Jalalabad in the east.

All three bases are crucial for counterterrorism operations and for flying drones that are used by the military and the C.I.A., which had also argued for keeping troops in Afghanistan to help protect its own assets.

There was no set date for the military to decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan to 5,500. The pace of that troop reduction would be determined largely by commanders on the ground, and the timing would also most likely provide flexibility to whoever succeeds Mr. Obama.

President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan had also pressed for Mr. Obama to keep more troops, and many in Washington who have worked closely with the Afghans over the past several years were loath for the United States to pull back just when it had an Afghan leader who has proved to be a willing partner, unlike his predecessor, Hamid Karzai.

Mr. Ghani is acutely aware of his country’s need for help from the United States and its NATO allies. The American military has repeatedly stepped in this year to aid Afghan forces battling the Taliban, launching airstrikes and at times sending Special Operations troops to join the fight, despite Mr. Obama’s declaration that the American war in Afghanistan had ended.

But the recent fighting in Kunduz also exposed the limits of foreign forces now in Afghanistan, which total 17,000, including American and NATO troops. It took only a few hundred Taliban members to chase thousands of Afghan soldiers and police officers from Kunduz, and the Afghans struggled to take back the city even with help from American airstrikes and Special Operations forces.

During the fighting, an American AC-130 gunship badly damaged a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders, killing at least 22 patients and staff members — and not a single insurgent.

Mr. Obama apologized for the attack, which may have violated guidelines laid down by the administration for the use of force by the military after the American combat mission ended last year. Under the rules, airstrikes are authorized to kill terrorists, protect American troops and help Afghans who request support in battles — like those in Kunduz, recently taken over by the Taliban — that can change the military landscape.

The idea behind the guidelines was to give troops leeway and to keep Americans out of daily, open-ended combat. But how much latitude Mr. Obama would allow the military moving forward was unclear.

It is not the first time the administration has revised the withdrawal plans. During Mr. Ghani’s visit in March, Mr. Obama announced that the United States would keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan through 2015, instead of cutting the force in half, as had been originally planned. At the time, the White House still maintained that almost all the troops would be pulled out by 2017.

But with the situation in Afghanistan continuing to deteriorate, the military presented the administration with new options this summer. The plan that has been decided on for 2017 and beyond hewed closely to a proposal made by Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. Obama said that 5,500 troops, along with contributions from NATO allies, which have yet to be agreed upon, would provide enough power to protect the force and continue the advisory and counterterrorism missions.

His announcement will allow the military to continue carrying out secret operations against suspected militant leaders focused primarily in eastern Afghanistan. In recent years, the United States shifted away from counterinsurgency operations that involved tens of thousands of troops patrolling the countryside and toward a so-called “lighter footprint” model of targeted strikes.

New details about such operations were disclosed on Thursday in classified documents published by The Intercept, a national security news website. The documents – part of a larger group of military files providing details about the Pentagon’s drone war from 2011 to early 2013 – included a set of briefing slides assessing Operation Haymaker, an effort to hunt down Taliban and Qaeda militants in Afghanistan from January 2012 to February 2013.

During that period, there were 56 airstrikes that killed 35 suspected militants who the military had been tracking. Those strikes also killed 219 other people who do not appear to have been specifically targeted but were labeled “enemy killed in action,” the documents showed.

 

Posted on

Nawaz heads to White House to discuss Afghan reconciliation

WASHINGTON, Oct 15: US President Barack Obama on Thursday, in an address to his nation from the White House, said he would meet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on October 22 to discuss his plan for peace in the Pak-Afghan region.

Obama also announced a plan to keep 5,500 American troops in Afghanistan into 2017, cancelling his earlier plan to bring home most of the troops before he leaves office.

The US president said he held extensive consultations with his commanders in Afghanistan, the US national security team, international partners and Afghan leaders before making the announcement.

Obama also spoke with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Wednesday to discuss this plan and also discussed with him the Afghan-led reconciliation process.

The US troops will operate from three bases in Bagram, Jalalabad and Qandahar and will be able to operate quickly when needed.

He also slowed the pace of the reduction of American forces and plans to maintain the current US force of 9,800 through most of 2016.

Obama called the new war plan a “modest but meaningful” extension of the US military mission in Afghanistan, which he originally planned to end next year.

The US president acknowledged his country’s weariness of the lengthy conflict but said he was “firmly convinced we should make this extra effort.”

Military leaders have argued for months that the Afghans needed additional assistance and support from the US to beat back a resurgent Taliban and hold onto gains made over the past 14 years of American bloodshed and billions of dollars in aid.

It will be up to Obama’s successor — the third US commander in chief to oversee the war — to decide how to proceed from there.

“I suspect that we will continue to evaluate this going forward, as will the next president,” Obama said, standing alongside Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford as he announced the plan.

Posted on

When Taliban proved fiercer than the crocodiles of Mangophir

Crocodiles in Mangophir (Credit: blogs.reuters.com)
Crocodiles in Mangophir
(Credit: blogs.reuters.com)

KARACHI, Oct 15: The lean days appear to be over for Mor Sahib, an 87-year-old crocodile venerated by Pakistan’s tiny Sheedi community, as pilgrims once again flock to a shrine in Karachi that has been shunned for years amid fears of Taliban attacks.

The ageing reptile, his leathery skin fissured by time, waddled out of the murky water towards a crowd of visitors wearing garlands, all hoping to lure him with handfuls of sweets and choice pieces of goat neck.

The pilgrims are Sheedis, whose ancestors came from Africa and are drawn from different sects, making them a potential target for hardline militants.

Their new-found confidence coincides with a major crackdown on crime and militancy by paramilitary Rangers in the port city of 20 million people where the shrine is located, which has seen murder levels drop sharply.

The military has also been carrying out a major offensive against the Taliban movement in the northwest of the country since June, 2014, and its pursuit of militants gathered pace following the massacre of 134 school pupils in December.

“Three, four years back, armed Taliban had become so influential that police were afraid of them … at the nearby police station they killed 18 policemen,” said shrine caretaker Mohammed Yaseen, light glinting off tiny mirrors stitched into his traditional cap.

“Since the Rangers and police operation (in Karachi), people have started to return.”

Yaseen recalls when displaced ethnic Pashtuns fleeing fighting in northern Pakistan began flooding into Karachi after 2008.

Among them were Taliban sympathisers whose interpretation of Islam had no place for crocodiles, around 100 of which inhabit the shrine’s pond. The site closed for 10 months in 2010 and a charity fed the crocodiles in secret.

The shrine quietly reopened in 2011, but only a handful of worshippers dared to come. Gradually, improving security meant 100 people might turn up on a busy day last year. Now crowds of more than 1,000 flock to the shrine several days each week.

The drop in violence has also raised Sheedi hopes that they might hold their annual four-day festival before the end of the year. It has been cancelled for the last five years for fear of attack.

At the autumn celebration, four Sheedi communities slaughter goats and dance to a drum beat before the crocodiles, who are showered with rose petals and anointed with perfume and saffron.

“This year we are planning to hold the festival, so our young generation comes to know about our traditions,” said Yaqoob Qambrani, chairman of the Pakistan Sheedi Alliance.

While there is no reliable data available, estimates of the number of Sheedis in Pakistan vary widely from tens of thousands to a few million.

The community believes the crocodiles living in the shrine’s pond are the disciples of saints. A wrinkled man at a wooden kiosk sells worshippers rose petals and other offerings.

At the inner entrance to the shrine hall, a bearded man in a small black cap blessed pilgrims by patting their heads and shoulders with peacock feather quills.

Among them was driver Mohammed Arif, 30, and his three children, whose bright, freshly starched clothes shone in the gloom.

“My father used to bring me to this shrine, now I am bringing my children,” he said happily.

Posted on

Ten years on…

Balakot after quake (Credit: globalsecurity.org)
Balakot after quake
(Credit: globalsecurity.org)
October 8, 2005 evokes poignant memories of a devastating earthquake that jolted northern parts of the country early morning. Ten years on, thoughts of that day continue to shake millions of hearts of those who lost their loved ones in the tragic incident.

The jolt measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale catapulted the Himalayan region of northern Pakistan and Kashmir. The area was also hit by more than 1000 aftershocks of varying intensity. Its epicenter was located approximately 19 km north-northeast of the city of Muzaffarabad. The heavily shaken areas include Muzaffarabad, Neelum, Bagh, Poonch, Shangla, Abbottabad, Mansehra, Batagram, Balakot, Allai, Besham and Kohistan. The official death toll stood at 73,350 whereas approximately 138,000 were injured and over 3.5 million were affected, including 2.8 million rendered homeless.

According to official figures, 19,000 children died when school buildings collapsed. The earthquake affected more than 500,000 families. The total area affected was 30,000 km, including a range of unprecedented damage and destruction, including half a million houses, 782 health facilities and more than 6,298 schools and colleges. Approximately 90 per cent of the destroyed or damaged housing were located in rural areas. The total estimated cost of losses was around US$ 5.2 billion, including immediate relief, death and injury compensation, emergency medical care, reconstruction and restoration of livelihoods.

Although a range of variables determine the scale of destruction, colossal losses inflicted on life and property cannot be simply attributed to a natural phenomenon. A deeper analysis of death and destruction caused by this earthquake unmasks human factors responsible for the intensity of the disaster.

Numerous incidents have proved that actually human factors convert a natural hazard into a disaster.

Several studies conducted after the disaster examined the failed buildings and other public structures. All these studies verified that substandard and seismically insensitive construction resulted in the massive catastrophe. Most of the buildings were built in contravention to basic prerequisites of a seismically active zone.

The area has a history of earthquakes and vulnerability of such structures was glaringly obvious. Over the time, indigenous lighter weight, timber-laced structures were replaced by heavier masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. These structures though provide better insulation against harsh weather, they make the people more vulnerable to earthquakes, if built recklessly.

Most of the so-called modern structures failed miserably whereas traditional local structures like dhajji-dewari, beetar and batar performed far better and suffered far less damage. Modern RCC structures, if not built diligently prove to be more lethal than traditional structures. Lack of affordability and knowledge, terrain-bound limitations of transporting material from other areas and modern construction methods sans seismic-sensitive treatment result in hazardous construction practices.

Dry stone masonry and mud mortar is more common in rural areas. Since kiln backed ‘A’ class bricks are not available, locally found polygonal semi-dressed stones with pebbles as cavity-fill material are widely used as building material in rural areas of the affected region. Even in the case of reinforced concrete structures in urban areas, fine details of reinforcement were generally ignored.

Apart from construction practices and quality, location of structures on precarious slopes also caused severe damages due to land sliding, rock sliding and subsidence.

In Muzaffarabad, major concentrations of damage were noticed in the areas of deeper alluvial deposits along rivers Jhelum and Neelum. In Balakot and some other towns, the damage was directly related to fault rupture. Reasons of damage varied with the location (slopes, valleys), construction methods and use of material.

In the post-earthquake reconstruction, Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) preferred embedding risk reduction techniques with local construction methods and materials rather than introducing completely alien structures. Local labour was trained to mesh risk reduction techniques with traditional structures and it worked well. Post-earthquake construction merits a comprehensive research to assess the efficacy of the approach and construction techniques. This learning can be useful for future incidents of similar nature.

A comprehensive research paper “General observations of building behaviour during the 8th October 2005 Pakistan earthquake” authored by Jitendra K Bothara and Kubilây MO Hiçyılmaz provides copious evidences of building failure ascribed to flagrant violation of construction standards.

The authors very succinctly narrate the cause of devastation by concluding that “the root causes of the disaster were a failure to appreciate the earthquake hazard in the area, the techno-legal regime, lack of dissemination of earthquake-resistant knowledge, poor quality control mechanisms, and blind trust in certain construction materials and structural systems. Often, there was no real understanding of the sensitiveness to quality for the various construction methods (and, in particular, for the more recent methods of construction), nor was there any real evidence of an understanding of how structures behave during earthquakes. Socio-cultural and economic reasons further exacerbated the problem. It was a classic/tragic case of total failure of knowledge dissemination on earthquake-resistant construction through virtually all levels of society and, in particular, the engineering community.”
In Pakistan, construction industry in rural areas is generally bereft of any regulation. Whereas in urban areas building standards are sufficiently delineated yet are conveniently evaded by individuals as well as construction contractors. Negligence, corruption, cost saving and profit maximisation mania have allowed the risky structures to proliferate.

Sprawling slum areas in urban centres are controlled by an array of mafia that enjoys complete impunity. Prohibitively expensive land is a major cause of rampant vertical growth in urban areas. These tall structures with sheer imbalance of height-width ratio are often erected without proper examination of soil behaviour coupled by a foundation incommensurate with live and dead load of structures.

Building control authorities in cahoots with builders wring every inch of a structure to extract money. This unscrupulous business is the hallmark of urban construction industry in the country. Experience has abundantly proved that neither building codes nor capacity of engineers and masons but refractory corruption is the principle cause behind failure of modern reinforced concrete structures in the country.

Governance in an ever growing construction sector is almost non-existent.
Islamabad, the federal capital, is no less victim of this menace. In 2005, famous Margalla tower caved in due to the earthquake that originated 100kms away from the site. A dream housing tower, one of the most expensive in the city, proved to be a brazen failure of construction standards. Evidences are in abundance that the main culprit — the builder — was able to manipulate everything while working inside the development agency responsible for the capital territory. The reprehensible deed was exposed only after the earthquake shook the ground. Had the epicentre been closer, disaster could have been manifold in the illusory safe city.

In cities like Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, Quetta, Multan and Hyderabad such deadly towers pervade the skyline. Similarly unsafe medium and low rise structures are a norm dotting every city map in the country. All these badly engineered structures can become a potential source of havoc in case of any earthquake or other hazard. Cities like Karachi and Quetta located in the proximity of fault lines are exposed to a perennial risk of earthquake. Karachi is additionally vulnerable to tsunami and cyclones as well.

The fatal earthquake exhorted authorities to revisit the building codes in vogue. A major learning ushered in the revision of seismic zoning of country and supplanting building codes with seismic provisions. The erstwhile seismic risk map of Pakistan divided the whole country into four zones (Zone-1 to Zone-4, representing low to high seismicity). However, most of the areas obliterated by earthquake were marked in Zone-3. ERRA revised risk zoning in accordance with new seismic grid for the country.
Concomitantly the Pakistan Building Code (PBC, 2007) was also improvised to feature seismic factors.

Bespoke seismic zones and building codes will serve the purpose only if regulatory regime is made stringent. Building standards cannot be improved only by introducing laws and codes unless the same are practiced with perfection and diligently monitored by the concerned authorities.

Pakistan has a pathetic track record of land use planning and quality of public and private housing. Corrupt regulatory bodies are not only incapable of executing their functions, they are also rendered paraplegic by debilitating external interference. Regulating land and builder mafia is not just a matter of institutional capacity but more of a conspicuously absent political will. If past cannot be corrected, future can at least be prudently adjusted for posterity

Posted on

Spying Case Against U.S. Envoy Is Falling Apart, and Following a Pattern

Robin Raphael (Credit: abcnews.com)
Robin Raphael
(Credit: abcnews.com)
WASHINGTON, Oct 10 — Last fall, federal agents raided the home and office of Robin L. Raphel in search of proof that she, a seasoned member of America’s diplomatic corps, was spying for Pakistan. But officials now say the spying investigation has all but fizzled, leaving the Justice Department to decide whether to prosecute Ms. Raphel for the far less serious charge of keeping classified information in her home.
The fallout from the investigation has in the meantime seriously damaged Ms. Raphel’s reputation, built over decades in some of the world’s most volatile countries.

If the Justice Department declines to file spying charges, as several officials said they expected, it will be the latest example of American law enforcement agencies bringing an espionage investigation into the public eye, only to see it dissipate under further scrutiny. Last month, the Justice Department dropped charges against a Temple University physicist who had been accused of sharing sensitive information with China. In May, prosecutors dropped all charges against a government hydrologist who had been under investigation for espionage.

Ms. Raphel, in negotiations with the government, has rejected plea deals and has been adamant that she face no charges, according to current and former government officials, particularly because the Justice Department has been criticized in recent years for handing out inconsistent punishments to American officials who mishandle classified information.

Both the Justice Department and a lawyer for Ms. Raphel, Amy Jeffress, declined to comment.

The Raphel case has also been caught in the crosswinds of America’s tempestuous relationship with Pakistan, a strong Cold War alliance that has frayed since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks amid recriminations between Washington and Islamabad. Ms. Raphel has for decades been at the center of shaping American policy toward Pakistan, and she has maintained close ties to Pakistani officials even as many of her colleagues became disenchanted with what they saw as Islamabad’s duplicity in the fight against terrorism.

Against that backdrop, the federal investigation has delved into the murky world of international statecraft, where diplomats exert influence through a careful dance of trading, sharing and eliciting information. Some American investigators viewed Ms. Raphel’s relationships with deep suspicion.

Those suspicions became a federal investigation last year when American officials, while eavesdropping on a Pakistani government official, intercepted a conversation that seemed to suggest that Ms. Raphel, an adviser at the State Department, was passing American secrets to Pakistan. The reason for the eavesdropping is unclear, but the government routinely listens to the phone calls and reads the emails of foreign officials.

After months of secret surveillance, the investigation into Ms. Raphel spilled into the public when agents searched her home and her State Department office last October. She was quickly stripped of her security clearances and left in the dark about the precise origins of the federal investigation. Her friends said that the investigation had taken a deep emotional toll.

“Sometimes the whiff of scandal can be worse than any actual scandal,” said Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to Washington who has known Ms. Raphel for years. “More people hear that you were investigated than care to know you were cleared or never actually charged.”

American officials will not discuss what classified information the investigators found in Ms. Raphel’s home. The current and former American officials who discussed the case did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about it publicly.
Over the years, the stories of American officials mishandling classified information have at times seemed as peculiar as they were serious. John P. O’Neill, a counterterrorism specialist for the F.B.I., once lost a briefcase full of government secrets in a Florida hotel. Samuel R. Berger, the national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, stole classified documents from the National Archives and hid them under a construction trailer. As attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales took material about the nation’s warrantless wiretapping program home with him.

One C.I.A. director, John M. Deutch, stored classified information on his home computer. Another C.I.A. director, David H. Petraeus, shared his highly classified journals with his mistress, then lied to the F.B.I. about it. Hillary Rodham Clinton used a private email system when she was secretary of state that investigators say contained classified information, although Mrs. Clinton and the State Department say the information was not marked as classified.

The punishment for mishandling classified information has varied wildly. Mrs. Clinton has not been charged with wrongdoing. Mr. Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor. Mr. Deutch received a pardon from Mr. Clinton and was never charged. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. O’Neill were not charged. In the most recent case, the Justice Department allowed Mr. Petraeus to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, despite strong objections from investigators. That deal was so contentious that the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, personally appealed to the attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., and said that Mr. Petraeus’s crimes warranted felony charges, according to two government officials involved in the case. F.B.I. agents are still angry about that decision and say it set a standard that will make it harder to bring cases in the future.

In discussions with prosecutors, according to several government officials, Ms. Raphel and her lawyer have cited the Petraeus case as the vital precedent. If passing secrets — including notes on war strategy and the names of covert officers, which Mr. Petraeus shared — and lying about it amount to a misdemeanor, then, Ms. Raphel says, she should not face any charges.

Some American investigators remain suspicious of Ms. Raphel and are loath to abandon the case entirely. Even if the government cannot mount a case for outright spying, they are pushing for a felony charge related to the classified information in her home. Several officials acknowledged, however, that the case would be difficult to prosecute because it would require intelligence agencies to declassify information and would probably reveal secrets about American surveillance of foreign officials.

Felony charges for improperly taking and storing classified information, while not espionage in the common sense of the word, would be filed under the Espionage Act and could expose Ms. Raphel to years in prison — a far stiffer penalty than Mr. Petraeus and others received.

The news of the investigation has shaken policy circles in Washington, where Ms. Raphel has been a fixture as a diplomat, a South Asia expert in the private sector, and a lobbyist. She began her career as a C.I.A. analyst but moved quickly to the State Department, which sent her to Islamabad in the mid-1970s. It was during this posting that she met and married Arnold L. Raphel, another foreign service officer. In 1988, while he was America’s ambassador to Pakistan and after he and Ms. Raphel had divorced, Mr. Raphel was killed in a plane crash with the Pakistani president, Mohammed Zia ul-Haq.

During the Clinton administration, Ms. Raphel served as the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, and then ambassador to Tunisia. In the George W. Bush administration, she was the State Department’s coordinator for reconstruction in Iraq, where she tried to guide the war-torn country toward a stable government and economy. After retiring from the government in 2005, she joined Cassidy & Associates, a Washington lobbying firm that represents the Pakistani government, among other clients.

At the start of the Obama administration, Richard C. Holbrooke, the State Department’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, reached out to Ms. Raphel to work with him. She quit her lobbying job and was sent as a State Department contractor to the American Embassy in Islamabad, where she helped disburse American aid to Pakistan. Until the F.B.I. investigation, she continued to work on contract as an adviser on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

During her long career working on Pakistan issues, Ms. Raphel has seen the country go from being one of America’s most steadfast Cold War allies — and a partner in the 1980s effort to train Afghan fighters to expel Soviet troops from Afghanistan — to being something of a pariah to Washington. Although Pakistan pledged support for the campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks, senior members of both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations became convinced that Pakistani soldiers and spies were aiding the Taliban and other militant groups by attacking American troops in Afghanistan.

For their part, Pakistani officials stoked fury in the country about the C.I.A.’s campaign of drone strikes and what they came to see as the agency’s expansion operations in Pakistan.

As relations between the two countries deteriorated, Ms. Raphel was considered one of Pakistan’s few remaining supporters in the top echelon of American government. This earned her enemies among government officials in India, Pakistan’s archrival, but also among colleagues who considered her too sympathetic toward an unreliable ally.

“I don’t think it was very fashionable to say, ‘I think the Pakistanis have a point,’ but Robin did that,” said Cameron Munter, the former American ambassador to Pakistan who oversaw Ms. Raphel’s work in Islamabad

Posted on

Putin’s Boldness, Syria’s Misery

The Russian intervention in Syria begins a new and even more dangerous phase in the continuing nightmare of the Syrian civil war. Obama administration critics often portray the incident as a test in comparative presidential masculinity. As The New York Post would have it, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia wants to “humiliate” President Obama or, as Senator John McCain informed us, Mr. Putin has exploited Mr. Obama’s “weakness.”

Clearly, this sort of policy by machismo is good politics in both the United States and in Russia. American presidents like to look tough, and the Russian president has demonstrated that riding around bare-chested on horses and tagging tigers on camera can improve one’s domestic approval rating.

But foreign policy rarely favors the bold, even if headline writers do. The Russian move into Syria is indeed daring, but it will not end the Syrian civil war or counter the threat of terrorism and extremism. The various militias on the ground in Syria and their supporters abroad don’t care how Mr. Putin looks on a horse. They will plot a response and kill Russians.

Over all, the Russian efforts will worsen the violence, inflame terrorism and risk dragging the Russians into a quagmire. The consequences are likely to be bad for Russia, for the United States and, worst of all, for Syria and its neighbors.

It would be the height of folly for the United States to respond to Russia’s foray into Syria with a similarly bold but unwise countermove. The many proposals coming from the presidential candidates, from imposing no-fly zones to sending in United States forces to fight the regime of President Bashar al-Assad directly, all have the virtue of appearing strong and responsive to the Russian challenge. But they all lack an even vaguely plausible theory of how they would actually improve the situation on the ground in Syria. The basic concept is to do something bold and decisive, and then peace and democracy will simply follow. Unfortunately, the George W. Bush administration already tested that idea in Iraq.

Instead, Western policy makers should pause, exercise some unpopular caution, and reflect on what fuels the violence in Syria and why the Russians felt the need to engage in such a potentially costly escalation. Both the Assad regime and the various factions of the opposition have survived this long in the civil war because of substantial external assistance. When one faction suffers setbacks, its external supporters reliably rush in to prop it back up. This is a familiar pattern from the bad old days of the Cold War, when proxy civil wars in such diverse locations as Angola, Guatemala and Vietnam thrived for decades on United States-Soviet escalation and counterescalation.

Even without a Cold War, the pattern of proxy wars holds. The Assad regime, in fact, has suffered several setbacks in recent months, including the Islamic State’s advance through central Syria and opposition victories in Idlib Province. These setbacks resulted in part from increased and improved foreign assistance from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, and even to some extent the United States.
Russia noticed, and escalated in Syria so that it could, in the classic formulation, negotiate with the United States and its allies from “a position of strength.” This means shoring up the shaky Assad regime.

This strategy is a mirror image of the equally flawed American plan for Syria. American policy similarly holds that ending the Syrian civil war requires changing the balance of power sufficiently to convince Mr. Assad’s external supporters that his regime has no future and to enter into a negotiation on opposition terms.

And so external supporters on both sides have simply doubled down in an attempt to create their own facts on the ground. But the result is a seesaw effect in which no side will ever keep its position of strength for long or produce its desired negotiation. To the contrary, the likely consequence of Russia’s escalation is that supporters of the Syrian opposition — not just the United States, but even more Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey — are more likely to counterescalate.
Both the United States and the Syrian people would be better off if we simply skipped the next step in Syria and instead looked for a way to break out of the destructive cycle.

The necessary compromise to ending the cycle is not that far from the one stated in the Geneva Communiqué that the United States and Russia signed in 2012. It would involve real concessions, particularly from the United States and its partners, on Mr. Assad, in which they would support a political transition that contained no guarantee that Mr. Assad would leave power, while the regime and its supporters agreed to share power in Damascus.

The recent Russian escalation and American posturing have made that compromise even more difficult to achieve. The regional powers, particularly Iran and Saudi Arabia, seem even further away from compromise than the United States and Russia. At the moment, the regional powers still hope for victory and would prefer to fight the war to the last Syrian.

In the meantime, American efforts should focus on the vast suffering that is overflowing into neighboring countries and into Europe. The refugee crisis, as many have noted, is a symptom of the disease that is the Syrian civil war.

The United States, and the international community as a whole, have often seemed so focused on curing an incurable disease that they have given the symptoms — which in this case are refugees — short shrift.
We can provide greater assistance to the refugees, and we can make greater efforts to integrate them into the neighboring countries. That’s not a solution to the civil war, but sometimes the boldest thing to do is recognize the limits of your power.

Jeremy Shapiro is a fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution

Posted on

Pakistan’s top court upholds death sentence in blasphemy murder case

Qadri in prison van (Credit: geotv)
Qadri in prison van
(Credit: geotv)
Islamabad, Oct 7 – A former police bodyguard revered as a hero by Pakistani conservatives for killing a politician who criticised the country’s blasphemy laws has had his death sentence upheld.

In ordinary circumstances there would never be any doubt about which way the supreme court decision would go: Mumtaz Qadri is unrepentent at having shot dead Salmaan Taseer, then governor of Punjar, as he left a restaurant in a busy Islamabad market in January 2011. But moderates have claimed the ruling is a sign of a change in official attitudes towards religious extremism.

Salmaan Taseer murder case harks back to 1929 killing of Hindu publisher
Many Pakistanis argue Mumtaz Qadri should be regarded as a national hero like Ilm-Deen, who knifed the publisher of a commentary on the prophet Muhammad’s life
Read more

In the months before his murder, Taseer had sparked anger among religious conservatives by taking up the cause of Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman who had been sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.

Saroop Ijaz, a lawyer and head of Human Rights Watch in Pakistan, hailed the upholding of Qadri’s conviction for murder as a “brave decision” and “the first step in introducing some rational discourse on blasphemy”.

The only thing now standing between Qadri and execution is an appeal for a presidential pardon, which few expect to be granted.

Qadri’s execution will likely be seen as a key moment in the dramatic hardening of the state’s attitude towards extremists following the Taliban massacre of more than 130 schoolboys in Peshawar last year, which prompted the government to scrap an informal moratorium on the death penalty.

Public support for Qadri was so great that the army chief at the time of the murder, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, reportedly told western ambassadors he could not publicly condemn Qadri because too many of his soldiers sympathised with the killer.

Such was the controversy around Taseer that his family struggled to find a mullah to officiate at his funeral. Qadri on the other hand was greeted by lawyers at his first court hearing with a shower of rose petals.

As with other cases involving Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws, Bibi was convicted on the basis of allegations made by women in her village with whom she had been involved in a dispute.

Taseer, a liberal-minded business tycoon from Lahore, visited her in prison, campaigned for a presidential pardon and called the country’s hardline blasphemy legislation – which dates from the 1980s Islamist military dictatorship of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq – a “black law”..
Qadri enjoys special prison perks and has recorded best-selling albums of devotional songs. Last year he was found to have incited a prison guard into attempting to kill an elderly British citizen held in the same building for alleged blasphemy.

His appeal hearings at the Islamabad high court attracted large crowds of banner-waving supporters from the country’s majority Barelvis, a community that prior to Taseer’s killing was seen by many western analysts as a bulwark against religious extremism.

Qadri also attracted some of the country’s most senior lawyers to his defence team, including two former judges. But three chief justices this week rejected arguments that Qadri had the right to take the law into his own hands, or that merely criticising blasphemy laws constitutes an insult against Islam.

Legal analysts said it was significant that the supreme court rejected the lower court’s decision to overturn Qadri’s conviction under the country’s terrorism legislation, which would have reduced the matter to regular statute law.

That would have relieved the state of the final decision on whether to execute Qadri and led to Taseer’s family being pressured to forgive Qadri under controversial “blood money” provisions.

Taseer’s daughter Sanam said she was against the death penalty in principle but that she would welcome the death of Qadri because of the cult-like power he enjoys from his prison cell. “He is treated like a king in prison,” she said. “Women bring him their children for him to teach.”

She said the verdict was “wonderful for the country because it shows there is rule of law”.

Zahid ur Rashidi, a religious scholar and supporter of Qadri, said the government should immediately release “our national hero” and introduce strict religious law.

“Because the legal system is un-Islamic, young people become desperate and take the law into their own hands,” he said.

In a country where Islamic extremists once operated with near impunity, in recent months the state’s attitude towards them has hardened dramatically.

In July Malik Ishaq, former leader of one of Pakistan’s most lethal anti-Shia terror groups, was killed in an apparently stage-managed police shootout. Several notorious clerics have also been arrested.
Mosharraf Zaidi, an analyst who has written angst-laden newspaper columns arguing that the Qadri-Taseer case showed the country was failing to confront its demons, said “Pakistan in 2015 now feels dramatically different”.

“We are not out of the woods yet, but the supreme court decision is a very strong sign the state is trying to recover the space it ceded to violent extremists,” he said.