Posts Tagged ‘Pakistani government’

10 Killed in US Drone Strikes Against North Waziristan

September 9, 2009

Three More Killed in Second Strike of the Past Two Days

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com,  September 08, 2009

Three more people were killed today in Pakistan’s North Waziristan Agency when a US drone attacked their house just outside the major town of Miramshah. The attack was the second in as many days and brought the overall toll of the two attacks to at least 10 killed and an unknown number of others wounded.

Yesterday a drone attacked a car outside another house in the region, destroying the car and damaging the house and a nearby religious school. At least seven people were killed in the strike, and at least five of them had been identified as suspected militants by local security officials.

Today’s attack targeted the home of a local named Ismail Khan. There was no immediate comment from anyone linking him to militant activity nor was there any indication why his house was a target. The US seldom even confirms its attacks into Pakistan, except when they believe that they killed someone important.

Such attacks are considered a sensitive subject for the Pakistani government, which publicly denounces but privately supports them. The recent spate of attacks will likely further add to the growing unrest across the country over US interference.

US drone attacks in Pakistan

May 24, 2009

By Ian Sinclair | ZNet, May 23, 2009
Source: Morning Star

Two weeks after Barack Obama was elected the 44th President of the United States, former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf made the shrewd observation that the new leader’s cabinet choices adhered closely to “the violin model: you hold power with the left hand and you play the music with the right.”

This musical analogy is also useful in analysing Obama’s foreign policies – presented to the public as progressive and benign, but in reality often adhering closely to the disastrous approach of his hugely unpopular and much derided predecessor. So while the first Black occupant of the White House asked the Muslim world to “unclench” its fist in his widely praised inauguration speech, in early April the New York Times quoted senior US administration officials as saying Obama “intended to step up its use of drones to strike militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas and might extend them to a different sanctuary deeper inside the country.”

For those who thought drones were something only seen in sc-fi movies, think again. Since October 2001 the US military has been using drones – unmanned, remotely-controlled aircraft –  to gather intelligence and bomb targets in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. With the first operations undertaken by the smaller Predator drones, today the US is increasingly using the huge Reaper drones – “hunter-killers” with a 25-metre wingspan and up to 3000lbs of bombs that can be kept in the air for more than 40 hours by pilots working shifts at Creech airbase in Nevada. “The Reaper is a bomber in all but name”, says Paul Rodgers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University.

According to the US Government the drones are an extremely effective tool in targeting Al-Qaeda leaders and its supporters in the semi-autonomous tribal area of north-west Pakistan. To back up this claim US officials recently leaked to the press information showing the drone strikes had killed 9 of the 20 top Al Qaeda leaders.

However, in response to the US Government’s figures the Pakistani Government leaked data of its own to The News International, the second-largest English language newspaper in the country. These records revealed that out of the 60 US drone strikes that had been carried out in Pakistan since January 2006 only 10 hit their actual targets, killing 14 Al-Qaeda leaders.  Meanwhile these attacks have killed 687 Pakistani civilians (about 160 of which have been killed since Obama took office according to the Los Angeles Times).

This shocking number of civilian fatalities and disgraceful targeting history has produced some unsurprising results, with the Times newspaper reporting last month that the drone attacks are “causing a massive humanitarian emergency” with “as many as 1m people” fleeing their homes “to escape attacks by the unmanned spy planes as well as bombings by the Pakistani army.”

David Kilcullen, the top counter-insurgency advisor to General Petraeus, told the House Armed Service Committee in the US that the drones attacks are “highly unpopular” in Pakistan and have “given rise to feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism”. One such “spike” was the March terrorist attack on the police academy in Lahore, which the Pakistani Taliban said was in revenge for the remotely-controlled air strikes. Returning from a fact-finding trip to the region, the UK’s social cohesion minister Saddiq Khan backed up Kilcullen’s testimony, noting “the anger at the drone attacks was huge.  The view they [the students he met] had was the UK was somehow responsible for this… They lumped us together with the US, which to me is a poison.”

The UK is not – yet – conducting air strikes in Pakistan, but the students confusion is understandable. Not only is the UK the US’s main ally in Afghanistan and Iraq, but John Hutton, the British Defence Secretary, recently told Channel Four‘s Despatches “we’ve got to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan”. In fact, the Ministry of Defence’s own website notes that British drones used in Afghanistan “operate from Nevada in the USA as part of the USAF 432nd Wing” – the same airbase the US uses to fly their own drones. A very cosy relationship then, and hardly one that suggests opposition to the US attacks in Pakistan.

Putting mainstream journalists to shame, the activist-run Peace News newspaper accurately described the – presumably illegal – US drone attacks against Pakistan as “state terrorism”.  However, with minimal coverage in the British media, public awareness about this important issue is unfortunately, but not surprisingly, very low. But what about the poor response from the anti-war movement?  What is their excuse? Where are the voices raised in protest against these murderous and counterproductive air strikes which kill large numbers of civilians, produce thousands of refugees, destablise the entire region and increase the terrorist threat to the UK?

* An edited version of this article recently appeared in the Morning Star newspaper.  ian_js@hotmail.com

Obama’s AfPak war engulfs Pakistan’s Swat Valley

May 23, 2009
By James Cogan |wsws.org,  May23,  2009

A humanitarian catastrophe is taking place in areas of Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP), as a result of the Obama administration’s expansion of the occupation of Afghanistan into the so-called “AfPak war”.

Over the past seven years, ethnic Pashtun Islamist movements in NWFP and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) have lent assistance to the resistance being waged against the American-led forces in Afghanistan by the Pashtun-based Taliban, including by disrupting US and NATO supply routes through Pakistan.

On Washington’s insistence, the Pakistani government of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has ordered the military to embark on operations to crush the militants. In late April, Pakistani forces deployed into the Lower Dir and Buner districts of NWFP to drive out a small number who had moved into the area from their strongholds to the north, in the Swat Valley district.

Since May 8, the operation, which now involves up to 18,000 Pakistani troops, backed by air support and heavy artillery, has extended deep inside the Swat Valley. Over the past two weeks they have engaged in a series of battles against the vastly outnumbered and outgunned Islamist fighters.

There is virtually no independent reporting from the conflict zone. Most information coming out of Swat is sourced directly from the military, making its accuracy questionable.

What is clear, however, is that the assault into Buner, Lower Dir and the Swat Valley has rapidly degenerated into the savage collective punishment of entire Pashtun communities. Hundreds of thousands of terrified civilians have taken to the roads to get out of the conflict zone. By the beginning of this week, the United Nations had registered 1.45 million internally displaced persons.

The exodus from just these three districts is becoming the greatest displacement of civilians on the Indian subcontinent since the 1947 partition of the British Raj into India and Pakistan. Tens of thousands of people have found themselves in squalid refugee camps, without adequate food, water and sanitation. Peasant farmers have had to flee right at the time when they need to harvest their crops, setting the stage for severe food shortages and malnutrition later in the year.

A factor in the mass evacuation is the sheer brutality with which the Pakistani military waged an offensive in the nearby tribal agencies of Bajaur and Mohmand last year. Scores of towns and villages, including the major town of Loe Sam, were indiscriminately reduced to rubble in order to dislodge Taliban fighters. The government claims that over 1,500 militants were killed, while relief agencies estimate that over 500,000 people were forced from their homes. There is no estimate on the number of civilian deaths.

The depopulation of the Swat Valley is a conscious policy aimed at creating the best conditions for the military to slaughter the anti-government guerrillas there as well.

Reports indicate that a three-pronged offensive is underway to trap as many militants as possible in the central Swat city of Mingora. Army columns have pushed through Buner and Lower Dir and entered Swat from the south. Another column is moving through Swat from the north, while special forces units were dropped deep in the mountains to force Islamists out of the western Peochar Valley. In one bloody two-week battle for control of a mountain ridge known as Biny Baba Ziarat, the military claims to have slaughtered 150 Taliban, including boys no older than 14.

While the details are sketchy, the military has also waged significant battles to take control of a number of Swat towns, as well as the strategic bridges and roads linking Mingora with the outside world. It is already claiming that it has killed over 1,100 militants, at the cost of some 60 soldiers. Over recent days, troops have been fighting street-to-street battles in the town of Kanju, on the outskirts of Mingora proper.

An Al Jazeerah video shot on May 16 near Mingora showed helicopter gunships attacking highways and other targets; children playing among partially demolished homes; and the potholes caused by the controlled explosion of mines placed by militants on the roads.

The description of the situation in Mingora is reminiscent of Fallujah in November 2004, prior to the murderous US assault that destroyed the Iraqi city and left thousands dead.

Mingora previously had a population of some 250,000. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has been told that as few as 10,000 people remain. The Pakistani government has provided a similar estimate, but declared those remaining are all “Taliban sympathisers,” in order to justify a massacre in advance.

HRW reported that Mingora has not had electricity since the offensive began, and hospitals and health facilities are not operating. Now, the army is cutting off food supplies. The city is believed to be defended by several thousand fighters, who have few heavy weapons and are being repeatedly pounded by air strikes and artillery bombardments.

Spelling out the intentions of the military, Major General Sajad Ghani told the Associated Press: “The noose is tightening around them. Their routes of escape have been cut off. It’s just a question of time before they are eliminated.”

The militants in Swat are followers of the Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM), or the Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Law. While TNSM has ideological affinities with both the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban led by Baitullah Mehsud, it is a local organisation. It gained support in the district as a backlash against both Islamabad’s support for the US invasion of Afghanistan and anger over the endemic poverty that faces the majority of people in what was once one of the country’s premier tourist locations and playgrounds for Pakistan’s rich.

TNSM’s leaders, cleric Sufi Mohammad and his son-in-law Maulana Fazlullah, used a network of FM radio stations to combine Islamist preaching with populist calls for wealth redistribution and denunciations of the Pakistani government’s neglect of the poor. After several years of fighting, the Pakistani government agreed to a ceasefire with TNSM in February which accepted that its version of Islamic law could be imposed in the Swat Valley.

Over the following weeks, the TNSM sought to expand its influence to the neighbouring district of Buner, which is located only 100 kilometres to the north of Islamabad. This led to exaggerated claims by the Obama administration and in Western newspapers that the Pakistani government had allowed the “Taliban” to grow so strong that they were threatening to take over the country’s capital. The purpose of the accusation was to pressure Zardari and Gilani into unleashing the military to crush the spread of Islamist influence.

The government has made clear that the offensive to destroy TNSM is only the first stage of a campaign of military violence on behalf of the Obama administration. The Pakistani ruling elite fears being denied the international financial assistance they need to stave off economic collapse. At present, the Pakistani state is being kept afloat by loans from the International Monetary Fund and aid from the US and Japan.

Zardari told the British Sunday Times on May 17: “We’re going to go into Waziristan, all these regions, with army operations. Swat is just the start. It’s a larger war to fight.” He went on to appeal for $1 billion in emergency assistance aid. Thus far, the US and other powers have agreed to provide just $224 million.

The Pakistani Taliban strongholds in North and South Waziristan are of the greatest strategic concern to US occupation forces fighting in Afghanistan. Afghan fighters are known to use these tribal agencies, which are virtually outside the control of the Pakistani government, as safe havens and supply points.

The US military has launched repeated missile attacks on targets inside Waziristan using unmanned Predator drones. Illegal under international law, the strikes have resulted in the deaths of over 700 civilians but have only killed a handful of alleged Taliban leaders and had little impact on the cross-border movements of anti-occupation fighters.

A ground assault into Waziristan will see the Pakistani military in battle against the large Pashtun tribal forces loyal to Baitullah Mehsud and the Afghan Haqqani network. Periodic fighting since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan has resulted in the deaths of over 1,000 troops and unknown numbers of militants.

The Pakistani Taliban has responded to the threatened offensive with an ultimatum to the government that it has until May 25 to withdraw its troops from South Waziristan, end the Predator attacks and allow traffic in and out unchecked. Reports suggest Islamist fighters are strengthening defensive positions in anticipation of a military attack.

Fear of an offensive has triggered the beginnings of another mass civilian exodus. Several thousand Pashtun tribal families have arrived over recent days to take refuge in NWFP towns such as Tank, to the south of Waziristan. Officials cited by the Dawn newspaper on May 20 reported that 5,000 tents have been sent to the area in preparation for the influx of over 200,000 civilians.

US Military Starts ‘Limited’ Drone Partnership With Pakistan

May 14, 2009

Pakistani Military Will Have “Significant Control” Over Targets

by Jason Ditz, Antiwar.com, May 13, 2009

The controversial issue of US drone strikes in Pakistan is about to get a lot more complicated. The long standing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, under which the US did not publicly acknowledge their attacks, which were being carried out principally by the CIA and the Pakistani government would continue to publicly complain about them has given way to a new agreement, wherein the US military says it has begun to launch its own drone attacks into Pakistani territory.

According to officials, the military’s strikes will be coordinated under the direction of the Pakistani military, with Pakistani officers having “significant control” over the targets and the decision to launch attacks. The US will also provide surveillance information, with some limits.

President Asif Ali Zardari says his government is presently negotiating over the drones, and is demanding that the Pakistani government be given “ownership” over the drones. Pakistan has a drone program of its own, but has used them exclusively for surveillance.

The US drone attacks have been almost exclusively in the North and South Waziristan Agencies of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The Pakistani army is reportedly planning a massive offensive into Waziristan next month. Whether this means an impending increase in US strikes or simply more direct Pakistani control over them remains to be seen.

Related Stories

Obama Escalates Drone Strikes Inside Pakistan

February 21, 2009

Strikes Increase in Number, Severity in Recent Weeks

Antiwar.com

Posted February 20, 2009

President Barack Obama made clear his desire to launch attacks onto Pakistani soil early in the campaign, and in his first month since taking office it has become evident that is escalating the number and severity of the attacks using drone aircraft well beyond what the Bush Administration’s attacks in its final several months in office.

Two major strikes have been launch in the past week, in the South Waziristan and Kurram Agencies of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The attacks killed 30 and 31, respectively, and both appeared to target militants affiliated with Baitullah Mehsud.

The escalation has come as the Pakistani government has struggled to battle claims that they are “privately” backing the attacks while offering public condemnations. This battle has been hampered by a growing number of officials on both sides admitting to the agreement and photographic evidence that they have indeed been hosting US Predator drones at one of their air bases.

The drone strikes have been wildly unpopular in the Pakistani tribal areas, sparking massive protests as they kill civilians with impunity. With Pakistan struggling to maintain control over the area against a growing insurgency, the escalation of the attacks is liable to exacerbate the credibility problems faced by the Pakistani government among the tribes.

Related Stories

compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

Pakistan Government ‘Privately’ Backing US Drone Attacks Inside Pakistan

February 19, 2009

Public Condemnations Carry Little Weight as Proof Grows of Complicity in Strikes

Antiwar.com

Posted February 18, 2009

There has been plenty of talk over the past several months that the Pakistani government had come to some sort of secret understanding with the United States about its continued use of Predator drones to launch attacks on Pakistani soil. But with the Pakistani government publicly denying it and the United States refusing to even officially confirm that it had launched most of the strikes, concrete evidence was elusive. That is no longer the case.

The Wall Street Journal cites several unnamed officials on both sides confirming that Pakistan’s military is giving “significant support” to the US attacks. The Times of London has published aerial photos from 2006 of a Pakistani airbase in Balochistan that also shows three Predator drones on the runway: seemly confirming last week’s comments by Senator Dianne Feinstein claiming that the United States had been using a Pakistani base for their drone attacks.

Predator DroneThe stakes are high for the already floundering coalition government of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari. If the formal protests and summoning of the US Ambassador is all really, as one Pakistani official put it “for the sake of public opinion,” the Zardari government has been openly lying to its citizenry about one of the most controversial domestic issues it faces. If it is possible for the already skeptical population of Pakistan’s tribal areas to lose more faith in the government, this would certainly be the issue for it.

The United States has been launching a growing number of drone strikes in North and South Waziristan since mid-2008, killing a large number of civilians as well as the militants it has targeted. President Obama made advocating the strikes a centerpiece of his Pakistan policy, and the attacks have continued since he took office last month.

Related Stories

compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

CIA secretly using Pakistan base for drone raids

February 18, 2009

February 17, 2009

Secrecy and denial as Pakistan lets CIA use airbase to strike militants

A Veronique De Viguerie drone in Afhganistan

The Pakistani Government has also repeatedly demanded that the US halt drone attacks

The CIA is secretly using an airbase in southern Pakistan to launch the Predator drones that observe and attack al-Qaeda and Taleban militants on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan, a Times investigation has found.

The Pakistani and US governments have repeatedly denied that Washington is running military operations, covert or otherwise, on Pakistani territory — a hugely sensitive issue in the predominantly Muslim country.

The Pakistani Government has also repeatedly demanded that the US halt drone attacks on northern tribal areas that it says have caused hundreds of civilian casualties and fuelled anti-American sentiment.

But The Times has discovered that the CIA has been using the Shamsi airfield — originally built by Arab sheikhs for falconry expeditions in the southwestern province of Baluchistan — for at least a year. The strip, which is about 30 miles from the Afghan border, allows US forces to launch a Drone within minutes of receiving actionable intelligence as well as allowing them to attack targets further afield.

It was known that US special forces used Shamsi during the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but the Pakistani Government declared publicly in 2006 that the Americans had left it and two other airbases.

Key to the Times investigation is the unexplained delivery of 730,000 gallons of F34 aviation fuel to Shamsi. Details were found on the website of the Pentagon’s fuel procurement agency.

The Defence Energy Support Centre site shows that a civilian company, Nordic Camp Supply (NCS), was contracted to deliver the fuel, worth $3.2 million, from Pakistan Refineries near Karachi.

It also shows the fuel was delivered last year, when the United States escalated drone attacks on Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas, allegedly killing several top Taleban and al-Qaeda targets, but also many civilians.

A source at NCS, which is based in Denmark, confirmed that the company had been awarded the contract and had supplied the fuel to Shamsi, but declined to give further details.

A spokesman for the US embassy in Pakistan told The Times: “Shamsi is not the final destination.” However, he declined to elaborate and denied that the US was using it as a base.

“No. No. No. No. No. We unequivocally and emphatically can tell you that there is no basing of US troops in Pakistan,” he said. “There is no basing of US Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, none, on the record and emphatically. I want that to be very clear. And that is the answer any way you want to put it. There is no base here, no troops billeted. We do not operate here.”

He said that he could not comment on CIA operations.

The CIA declined to comment, as did the Pentagon. But one senior Western source familiar with US operations in Pakistan and Afghanistan told The Times that the CIA “runs Predator flights routinely” from Shamsi.

“We can see the planes flying from the base,” said Safar Khan, a local journalist. “The area around the base is a high-security zone and no one is allowed there.”

He said that the outer perimeter of Shamsi was guarded by Pakistani military, but the airfield itself was under the control of American forces.

Shamsi lies in a sparsely populated area about 190 miles southwest of the city of Quetta, which US intelligence officials believe is used as a staging post by senior Taleban leaders, including Mullah Omar. It is also 100 miles south of the border with Afghanistan’s southern province of Helmand and about 100 miles east of the border with Iran.

That would put the Predators, which have a range of more than 2,000 miles and can fly for 29 hours, within reach of militants in Baluchistan, southern Afghanistan and in Pakistan’s northern tribal areas.

Paul Smyth, head of operational studies at the Royal United Services Institute, said that 730,000 gallons of F34, also known as JP8, was not enough to supply regular Hercules tanker flights but was sufficient to sustain drones or helicopters.

Other experts said that Shamsi’s airstrip was too short for most aircraft, but was big enough for Predators and ideally located as there were few civilians in the surrounding area to witness the drones coming and going.

Farhatullah Babar, a spokesman for the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, said that he did not know anything about the airfield. However, Major General Athar Abbas, the chief military spokesman, confirmed that US forces were using Shamsi. “The airfield is being used only for logistics,” he said, without elaborating.

He added that the Americans were also using another airbase near Jacobabad, 300 miles northeast of Karachi, for logistics and military operations.

Pakistan gave America permission to use Shamsi, Jacobabad and two other bases — Pasni and Dalbadin — for the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. US Marine Special Forces were based at Shamsi and, in January 2002, a US Marine KC130 tanker aircraft crashed close to its runway, killing seven Marines on board.

Jacobabad became the main US airbase until Bagram, near Kabul, was repaired, while Pasni, on the coast, was used for helicopters and Dalbadin as a refueling post for special forces’ helicopters. However, in December 2001, Pakistan began sharing Jacobabad and Pasni with US forces as India and Pakistan began massing troops on their border. In July 2006 the Pakistani Government declared that America was no longer using Shamsi, Pasni and Jacobabad, although they were at its disposal in an emergency.

The subject has become particularly sensitive in the past few weeks as President Obama has made it clear that he will continue the strikes while reviewing overall US strategy in the region.

The latest strike on Monday — the fourth since Mr Obama took office — killed 31 people in the tribal agency of Kurram, and another on Saturday killed 25 people in South Waziristan, according to Pakistani officials.

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, responded on Sunday by categorically denying that Pakistani bases were used for US drone attacks.

Aerial assault

— Armed predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been in use since 1999

— The aircraft is controlled from the ground using satellite systems and onboard cameras

— The MQ9 craft, which is used in Afghanistan, is 11m long, has a 20m wing span and a cruise speed of up to 230mph. Each can carry four Hellfire missiles and two bombs

— Three systems were bought by the RAF last year for £500m

Sources: Jane’s Information, US Airforce, RAF, Times archives

At Least 31 Killed as US Drones Attack Kurram

February 17, 2009

Taliban Commander Reported Killed in Latest Attacks

Antiwar.com

Posted February 16, 2009

Three US Predator drones attacked a building in the Kurram Agency of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) today, killing at least 31 people. The site was reportedly being used by the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the militant faction with whom the Pakistani government has recently been coming to terms in the Swat Valley. A commander named Bahram Khan Kochi was reportedly killed in the strike.

This is the second major US air strike against Pakistani targets in the past three days, and the fourth since President Obama took office. It is also the first strike in Kurram: so far the attacks have centered almost exclusively around neighboring North and South Waziristan.

The Pakistani government has not yet commented on the latest attack, but Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi denied claims made by Senator Feinstein last week that the US drones were using Pakistani bases for the attacks. Qureshi also denied that any understanding exists regarding the repeated US attacks.

Related Stories

compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author]

Pakistani government must protect Swat valley civilians

February 16, 2009

Amnesty International, 12 February 2009

According to official estimates, over the past year more than 1,200 people have been killed and between 200,000 and 500,000 have been displaced in the Swat valley as a result of fighting between Pakistani Taleban groups and the military.

The Pakistani government is being urged to act immediately to protect hundreds of thousands of people from insurgents in the Swat valley and elsewhere in the country.

“For the past five years the government’s response to the rise of insurgents in Swat and the Tribal Areas has vacillated between launching often indiscriminate and disproportionate military operations that mostly harm civilians and abandoning Pakistani citizens to abusive insurgent groups,” said Sam Zarifi, Amnesty International’s Asia-Pacific director.

Since 2007, a local armed group ideologically affiliated with Afghanistan’s Taleban movement has managed to take effective control of nearly 80 percent of the Swat valley territory. The area was once a tourist destination just 100 miles from Islamabad and is normally home to around 1.5 million people.

Over the past two years, radical cleric Maulana Fazlullah and his followers have increasingly established control over the Swat Valley, imposing a de-facto administration. The group has consolidated its control by setting up a parallel justice system with over 70 “courts” to administer “speedy and easy justice”. This means meting out punishments that amount to cruel, degrading, or inhumane treatment. The Pakistani Taleban recently threatened to kill all lawyers and judges if they failed to stop working with the state judicial system.

In Swat, the Pakistani Taleban have committed serious human rights abuses, including the unlawful killing of scores of government workers as well as those whom they view as violating their edicts. The Taleban have publicly whipped men for shaving their beards, destroyed shops for selling music and forcibly prohibited women from leaving their houses unless escorted by a male relative.

The main square of Mingora, the area’s largest city, has been locally dubbed Khooni Chowk, or “bloody square”, in reference to the more than two dozen bodies the Pakistani Taleban have publicly displayed there.

“The Pakistani Taleban have shown their contempt for the lives and rights of the people of the Swat valley, whilst Pakistani military forces have often violated the human rights and safety of the people that they are ostensibly trying to protect,” said Sam Zarifi.

There are an estimated 3,000 Taleban insurgents located in the Swat Valley. They often endanger civilians by seeking shelter in villages, knowing that this might provoke military reaction.

Up to 15,000 government troops are deployed in Swat to root out insurgents. They have used helicopter gunships and heavy artillery in their operations, often in an indiscriminate way, harming civilians as they do so. Tens of thousands of people who have fled the area have cited their fear of government military operations, rather than the Taleban.

“The Pakistani government needs to implement a strategy that focuses on respecting the rights and the well-being of its citizens and refrains from heavy-handed military operations which put civilians at risk. The government should also ensure it does not leave its citizens at the mercy of the Taleban.”

Amnesty International has condemned the Pakistani Taleban’s campaign against education, especially for girls. Over the past 18 months, the Taleban have destroyed more than 170 schools in Swat, including more than 100 girls’ schools. These attacks have disrupted the education of more than 50,000 pupils, from primary to college level, according to official estimates.

The organization urged the government to take protective measures to guarantee that pupils of both genders, including those who have fled their homes, have access to education when schools reopen on 1 March.

Obama airstrikes kill 22 in Pakistan

January 25, 2009

January 25, 2009

Islamabad is the first to get a taste of the president’s ‘tough love’ policy

PAKISTAN received an early warning of what the era of “smart power” under President Barack Obama will look like after two remote-controlled US airstrikes killed 22 people at suspected terrorist hideouts in the border area of Waziristan.

There will be no let-up in the military pressure on terrorist groups, US officials warned, as Obama prepares to launch a surge of 30,000 troops in neighbouring Afghanistan. It is part of a “tough love” policy combining a military crack-down with diplomatic initiatives.

The Pakistani government, which received a visit from General David Petraeus, the chief of US Central Command, on the day of Obama’s inauguration, has been warned that it must step up its efforts against militants if it is to continue to receive substantial military aid from America.

The airstrikes were authorised under a covert programme approved by Obama, according to a senior US official. It was a dramatic signal in the president’s first week of office that there will be no respite in the hunt for Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

However, Obama aims to win hearts and minds in the region by tripling the nonmilitary aid budget to Pakistan and encouraging reconciliation and reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan as a component of the surge.

Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, said during her Senate confirmation hearing: “We will use all the elements in our power – diplomacy, development and defence – to work with those . . . who want to root out Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and other violent extremists.”

Clinton pledged that a mix of active diplomacy and strong defence, which she described as “smart power”, would help to restore US leadership in foreign policy.

The airstrikes are deeply resented in Pakistan, where enthusiasm for Obama is said to be lower than in any other Muslim country.

Shuja Nawaz, a Pakistani who runs the South Asia centre of the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank, said Obama had to do more than lob missiles at Pakistan.

“He can’t just focus on military achievements; he has to win over the people.” Nawaz added that it was important to set conditions in return for aid because “people are more cognisant of the need for accountability – for ‘tough love’ ”.

Increased military cooperation from Pakistan is a vital part of the surge, according to diplomatic sources who fear the efforts in Afghanistan will be wasted if terrorists can operate with relative ease from bases across the border.

Obama is also ramping up the pressure on Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, who is increasingly viewed as an obstacle to progress and faces reelection this year.

“We’re going to need more effective government and a more effective drive against corruption coming from the leadership in Kabul if the Nato effort is to be sustainable,” said a senior British official.

Richard Holbrooke, 67, a veteran diplomat known as “the bulldozer”, was appointed as a special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan last week.

“Nobody can say the war in Afghanistan has gone well,” Holbrooke said when his appointment was announced.

Obama last week delivered the warning that Afghanistan and Pakistan were the “central front” in the war on terror.

“There is no answer in Afghanistan that does not confront the Al-Qaeda and Taliban bases along the border,” he said, “and there will be no lasting peace unless we expand spheres of opportunity for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

The Pentagon has acknowledged that it needs to define its strategy in the region.

Robert Gates, who has retained his job as defence secretary, said last week: “One of the points where I suspect both administrations come to the same conclusion is that the goals we did have for Afghanistan are too broad and too far into the future.”

Gates said America needed to set more “concrete goals” for Afghanistan that could “be achieved realistically within three to five years”.

He described these goals as reestablishing Afghan government control in the south and east of the country, and delivering better services to its people.

In a sign that there may be turf wars to come between the State Department and the Pentagon, Clinton said she wanted diplomats rather than military officers to hand out aid, set up schools and encourage political reconciliation – a break from the counter-insurgency strategy pursued in Iraq under Petraeus.