Foreign Secretary-level talks will be held on Jan. 15, Aziz tells Pak Parliament

Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz.

Amidst of uncertainty in the wake of the Pathankot terror attack, Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz has said Foreign Secretary-level talks with India are scheduled to take place on January 15, 2016.

In reply to a question in the National Assembly, Pakistan's Parliament, Mr. Aziz on Friday said Pakistan and India’s Foreign Secretaries are scheduled to meet on January 15.

He said the two Foreign Secretaries will decide the time schedule of various meetings under the newly agreed “Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue”.

Mr. Aziz said Kashmir will be part of the talks between the two countries along with several other issues.

Mr. Aziz’s response came to a query by Pakistan Tekreek-e-Insaf party’s Shireen Mazari, who wanted to know the status of dialogue after India’s outgoing envoy T.C.A. Raghavan’s reported remarks that his country will only discuss PoK in talks.

Putting the ball squarely in Pakistan’s court, India has linked the Foreign Secretary-level talks to Islamabad’s “prompt and decisive” action on the Pathankot terror attack for which it has provided “actionable intelligence”.

Uncertainty prevails on talks scheduled for January 15 in Islamabad between Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar and his Pakistani counterpart Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry following the terror strike on the Pathankot air base which originated from Pakistan.

Amidst of uncertainty in the wake of the Pathankot terror attack, Pakistan Prime Minister’s Advisor on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz has said Foreign Secretary-level talks with India are scheduled to take place on January 15, 2016.

In reply to a question in the National Assembly, Pakistan's Parliament, Mr. Aziz on Friday said Pakistan and India’s Foreign Secretaries are scheduled to meet on January 15.

He said the two Foreign Secretaries will decide the time schedule of various meetings under the newly agreed “Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue”.

Mr. Aziz said Kashmir will be part of the talks between the two countries along with several other issues.

Mr. Aziz’s response came to a query by Pakistan Tekreek-e-Insaf party’s Shireen Mazari, who wanted to know the status of dialogue after India’s outgoing envoy T.C.A. Raghavan’s reported remarks that his country will only discuss PoK in talks.

Putting the ball squarely in Pakistan’s court, India has linked the Foreign Secretary-level talks to Islamabad’s “prompt and decisive” action on the Pathankot terror attack for which it has provided “actionable intelligence”.

Uncertainty prevails on talks scheduled for January 15 in Islamabad between Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar and his Pakistani counterpart Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry following the terror strike on the Pathankot air base which originated from Pakistan.

Seeking support for actions on gun control, Obama tears into gun lobby

Obama’s broadside against the NRA came two days after unveiling a package of executive actions aimed at keeping guns from people who shouldn’t have them.

President Barack Obama tore into the nation’s largest gun lobby on Thursday as he sought support for his actions on gun control, accusing the powerful lobby group of peddling an “imaginary fiction” that he said has distorted the national debate about gun violence.

In a prime—time, televised forum, Mr. Obama dismissed what he called a “conspiracy” alleging that the federal government and Mr. Obama in particular wants to seize all firearms as a precursor to imposing martial law. He blamed that notion on the National Rifle Association and like—minded groups that convince its members that “somebody’s going to come grab your guns.”

“Yes, that is a conspiracy,” Mr.Obama said. “I’m only going to be here for another year. When would I have started on this enterprise?”

Mr. Obama defended his support for the constitutional right to gun ownership while arguing it was consistent with his efforts to curb violence and mass shootings. He said the NRA was refusing to acknowledge the government’s responsibility to make legal products safer, citing seatbelts and child-proof medicine bottles as examples.

Mr. Obama, taking the stage at George Mason University, said he’s always been willing to meet with the NRA if they’re willing to address the facts. He said the NRA was invited to the forum but declined to participate. Several NRA members were in the audience for the forum, which was organised and hosted by CNN.

U.S. President Barack Obama participates in a live town hall event on reducing gun violence hosted by CNN’s Anderson Cooper (R) at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia on Thursday.

“There’s a reason why the NRA’s not here. They’re just down the street,” Mr. Obama said, referring to the group’s nearby headquarters. “Since this is a main reason they exist, you’d think that they’d be prepared to have a debate with the President.”

The White House has sought to portray the NRA, the nation’s largest gun group, as possessing a disproportionate influence over lawmakers that has prevented new gun laws despite polls that show broad U.S. support for measures like universal background checks. Last year, following a series of mass shootings, Mr. Obama pledged to “politicize” the issue in an attempt to level the playing field for gun control supporters.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said ahead of the event that the group saw “no reason to participate in a public relations spectacle orchestrated by the White House.” Still, the group pushed back on Mr. Obama in real time on Twitter, noting in one tweet that “none of the President’s orders would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings.”

The American Firearms Retailers Association, another lobby group that represents gun dealers, did participate. Asked how business had been since Mr. Obama took office, Kris Jacob replied- “It’s been busy.”

“There’s a very serious concern in this country about personal security,” he added.

Mr. Obama’s actions on guns have drawn major attention in the presidential campaign, with the Democratic candidates backing Mr. Obama and the Republicans unanimously voicing opposition. Donald Trump, addressing a rally in Vermont just as Mr. Obama was holding the town hall, said he would eliminate gun-free zones in schools on his first day if elected to the White House.

“You know what a gun—free zone is for a sicko? That’s bait,” Mr. Trump told the crowd.

Mr. Obama’s broadside against the NRA came two days after unveiling a package of executive actions aimed at keeping guns from people who shouldn’t have them. The centerpiece is new federal guidance that seeks to clarify who is “in the business” of selling firearms, triggering a requirement to get a license and conduct background checks on all prospective buyers.

The plan has drawn intense criticism from gun rights groups that have accused the President of trampling on the Second Amendment and railroading Congress by taking action on his own without new laws. Just after his 2012 re-election, Mr. Obama pushed hard for a bipartisan gun control bill that collapsed in the Senate, ending any realistic prospects for a legislative solution in the near term.

Part of a concerted White House push to promote the effort, the forum attracted a number of high-profile figured in the gun debate, including former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in 2011. Mr. Obama took questions from Taya Kyle, whose late husband was depicted in the film “American Sniper,” and Cleo Pendleton, whose daughter was shot and killed near Mr. Obama’s Chicago home.

Ahead of the forum, Mr. Obama put political candidates on notice that he would refuse to support or campaign for anyone who “does not support common-sense gun reform” including Democrats.

All the candidates running for the Democratic presidential nomination support stricter gun laws, so Mr. Obama’s declaration in a New York Times op-ed isn’t likely to have an impact on the race to replace him. Instead, it appeared aimed at Democratic congressional candidates from competitive districts who might want Mr. Obama’s support on the campaign trail this year.

North will pay for H-bomb test: S Korea

North Korea said it successfully tested a miniaturised hydrogen nuclear device on Wednesday , claiming a significant advance in its strike capability and setting off alarm bells in Japan and South Korea. The test, the fourth time the isolated state has exploded a nuclear device, was ordered by supreme leader Kim Jongun and successfully conducted at 10am local time, North Korea's official KCNA news agency said. “Let the world look up to the strong, self-reliant nuclear-armed state,“ Kim said in what North Korean state TV showed as a handwritten note.
The test drew condemnation abroad, including from China and Russia, North Korea's two allies. The White House said it could not confirm Pyongyang's claims but added that the US would respond appropriately to provocations. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Japan would make a firm response to North Korea's challenge aga inst nuclear non-prolifera tion. “North Korea's nuclear test is a serious threat to our nation's security and we can not tolerate it,“ Abe said. “We strongly denounce it.“
South Korea said it would take all possible measures, including possible UN sanc tions, to ensure Pyongyang paid the price after its fourth nuclear test. China expressed “resolute opposition“ and sa id it would lodge a protest with Pyongyang.
While a fourth nuclear test had been long expected, the claim that it was a hydro gen device, much more po werful than an atomic bomb, came as a surprise, as did the timing.
It ensures that North Ko rea will be a key topic during the US presidential campa ign. North Korea has long coveted diplomatic recogni tion from Washington but se es its nuclear deterrent as crucial to ensuring the survi val of its third-generation dictatorship.
“With Iran being off the table, the North Koreans have placed themselves at the top of the foreign policy agenda as far as nation-states who present a threat to the US,“ sa id Michael Madden, an expert on the country's secretive lea dership. South Korean intel ligence officials and several analysts, however, questio ned whether Wednesday's ex plosion was indeed a full-fled ged test of a hydrogen device.
The device had a yield of about 6 kilotons, according to the office of a South Korean lawmaker on the parliamen tary intelligence committee -roughly the same size as the North's last test, which was equivalent to 6-7 kilotons of TNT.
“Given the scale, it is hard to believe this is a real hydro gen bomb,“ said Yang Uk, a se nior research fellow at the Ko rea Defence and Security Fo rum. “They could have tested some middle stage kind (of device) between an A-bomb and H-bomb, but unless they come up with any clear evi dence, it is difficult to trust their claim.“
Joe Cirincione, a nuclear expert and president of Plo ughshares Fund, a global se curity organisation, said North Korea may have mixed a hydrogen isotope in a nor mal atomic fission bomb.
“Because it is, in fact, hyd rogen, they could claim it is a hydrogen bomb,“ he said.
“But it is not a true fusion bomb capable of the massive multi-megaton yields these bombs produce.“
The US Geological Survey reported a 5.1magnitude qua ke that South Korea said was 49 km from the Punggye-ri si te where the North has con ducted nuclear tests in the past. North Korea's last test of an atomic device, in 2013, also registered at 5.1 on the USGS scale.
The test nevertheless may mark an advance of North Korea's nuclear technology .
The claim of miniaturising, which would allow the device to be adapted as a weapon and placed on a missile, would al so pose a new threat to the US and its regional allies, Japan and South Korea.

Source:- Times Of India, 07-Jan-2016





Whistleblowers must be protected: Apex court

Observing that whistleblowers exposing corruption is a global phenomenon and a reality in the country , the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Centre to put in place an administrative mechanism for their protection as they face threats and harassment for bringing to light irregularities in government departments. With Whistleblowers Protection law still pending in Parliament for years and in the absence of any effective administrative set-up to deal with the issue, a bench of Chief Justice T S Thakur and Justices A K Sikri and R Banumathi said there was “absolute vacuum“ which could not be allowed to go on.
Hailing the role played by whistleblowers in exposing corruption, the bench said the government could not turn a blind eye to the need for their protection and directed the Centre to spell out within a week the steps it intended to take for their protection.
“Take a firm stand on the time-frame within which you will bring administrative set up to protect whistleblowers.This is part of the evolution of system to meet the need of people. The concept of whistleblower is a global phenomenon and has become a reality. They will be there and the government cannot wish it away ,“ the bench said.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi told the bench that the bill has been passed in Lok Sabha and is pending in Rajya Sabha. But the bench reminded the Centre that the court had earlier directed it to set up administrative mechanism for whistleblowers' protection, which must be complied with.
It granted a week's time to the AG to take instructions from the Centre on the timeframe within which the government would put in place the mechanism.





Source:- Times Of India, 07-Jan-2016

Top US expert: ISI planned attack on Pathankot base

The assessment in India that the Pathankot terrorist attack was initiated by the Pakistani military (PakMil) establishment was endorsed on Tuesday by Bruce Riedel, a top US author ity on counter-terrorism, who was an analyst with the CIA and has advised several presi dents on security issues in the region. He said the ISI was be hind the attack, aimed at sab otaging the peace process.

“The attack is designed to prevent any detente between India and Pakistan after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's surprise Christmas Day visit to Pakistan,“ Riedel a Washington insider who is familiar with the workings of the Pakistani establishment going back to the Kargil invasion, wrote in the Daily Beast, while suggesting that PakMil had used the proscribed and revived Jaish-e-Muhammed (JeM) for the attack.

Riedel told TOI, “The history of Jaish-e-Muhammed is very clear. It was created by the ISI and its activities are protected by them as well.That was true in 2001 and remains so today“. Riedel attributed his assessment to “knowledgeable sources“.

Riedel has warned that the “Pakistani intelligence service has the capability to launch more attacks with little notice, at some point prompting a vigorous Indian response“. JEM founder Maulana Ma sood Azhar kept a low pro file for several years after LET's 2008 attack on Mumbai, but he reappeared publicly in 2014, giving fiery calls for more attacks on India and the United States. His group is technically illegal in Pakistan but enjoys the continuing patronage of the ISI,“ former White House official Bruce Riedel has revealed in an article in the Daily Beast.

The reason for PakMil's continued show of hostility against India is well-known and well-chronicled ­ the posture allows it to loot billions of dollars even from the depleted national treasury , leaving the occasional civilian government to carry the can, begging and borrowing from rest of the world.

“The ISI is under the generals' command and is composed of army officers, so the spies are controlled by the Pakistani army , which justifies its large budget and nuclear weapons program by citing the Indian menace,“ Riedel wrote. “Any diminution in tensions with India might risk the army's lock on its control of Pakistan's national security policy .“

The army continues to distinguish between ''good'' terrorists like JEM and LET and ''bad'' terrorists like the Pakistani Taliban, despite decades of lectures from American leaders.

But the same duplicitous Pakistani policy has also made suckers of Americans, Riedel acknowledged, saying although Washington put JEM on the terrorist sanctions list years ago, ''it continues to coddle the Pakistani army .'' He also pointed out how General Raheel Sharif got a warm embrace from Pentagon last fall ''despite the ISI's support for the Afghan Taliban's offensive against the Kabul government and despite the Pakistani military's backing of terror groups like JEM.'' To put it bluntly , the United States backs a terrorist entity , but few people in Washington say it directly or publicly . Georgetown University scholar C Christine Fair came closest over the weekend, tweeting, ''I don't understand why my country keeps coddling this terrorist state.'' 

Source:- Times Of India, 07-Jan-2016

The way forward in Nepal

While media attention has been focussed on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise Christmas rendezvous in Lahore with Nawaz Sharif and the terrorist attack at the Pathankot airbase, significant developments on the Nepal front have been taking place. Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Oli telephoned Mr. Modi on New Year’s Eve to convey his greetings for 2016 and informed him about his government’s plans to move forward with the three-point package while undertaking negotiations with the agitating Madhesi leaders of the Samyukta Loktantrik Madhesi Morcha (SLMM). In response, Mr. Modi reiterated the need to find durable solutions to Nepal’s political problems on the basis of “consensus” and conveyed his greetings to the Nepali people for 2016.

Shift or drift?

However, there are subtle changes of position underway. The first sign came on December 21 following the decisions taken by the Nepali cabinet to address the demands of the SLMM. The three-point package consists of constitutional amendments on participation in the state organs on the basis of “proportionate inclusiveness” and delineation of electoral constituencies on the basis of population. Demarcation of provinces was to be undertaken in a three-month period through a political mechanism on the basis of consensus, and other demands — including those pertaining to “citizenship” — are to be resolved through negotiation and appropriate notification. Nepal’s Deputy PM and Foreign Minister Kamal Thapa had already briefed External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj about this road map during his visit to Delhi last month.

In an official statement, India’s Ministry of External Affairs welcomed these developments as “positive steps that help create the basis for a resolution of the current impasse in Nepal”. The statement further urged “all Nepali political forces to now demonstrate the necessary maturity and flexibility” so that a resolution to the current crisis could be found. The formal Indian statement has been followed by an informal easing of supplies, particularly fuel and LPG, by using border-crossing points other than the Raxaul-Birgunj crossing which remains blocked.

According to the Nepal Oil Corporation, the sole petroleum importing agency, its monthly imports were usually in the order of NPR 7 billion; these went down to NPR 1.5 billion during October-November but have picked up again and could reach NPR 4.5 billion during December-January. This would imply that more than 50 per cent of the fuel supplies are now going through legally, in addition to the cross-border smuggling activity which has also picked up.

Growing list of demands

However, the SLMM rejected the Oli government’s three-point package as “inadequate” and declared that it fell far short of their 11-point charter of demands. Originally, there were four principal demands — demarcation of provinces which related to five districts, Sunsari, Jhapa and Morang in the east and Kanchanpur and Kailali in the west; restoring population as the primary criteria for electoral constituency delimitation; proportional representation in government jobs; and issues relating to citizenship. With rising political polarisation over recent months and the inflexible approach adopted by the three principal parties — Nepali Congress, Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist) or UML and the Maoists — the list of demands has grown. It now includes democratisation of the army and other security agencies; restructuring of the judiciary; declaring Nepal a multi-national state; equal status to other languages like Hindi and Bhojpuri; a reference to the principle of “proportional representation” in the section on Fundamental Rights and the establishment of a constitutionally empowered Inclusion Commission to monitor implementation of the proportional representation principle.

In December, the four SLMM leaders — Mahant Thakur, Rajendra Mahato, Upendra Yadav and Mahendra Rai Yadav — visited Delhi and cautioned that the agitation was taking the shape of a movement. Unless their demands were addressed in a timely manner, the movement could take a violent turn and the demand for separatism would grow. Their feeling was that the Oli government was not serious about reaching out and was keen to push through the amendments and postpone resolution of other issues. The import of this message was not lost on Delhi. The SLMM thought that this would make Delhi tighten the screws and push the Nepali government towards a comprehensive settlement; instead, worried about greater violence in the Terai with an 1,800-km-long open border, Delhi reacted differently, and as a result, differences have now emerged within the SLMM. Mr. Mahato would like to continue with the agitation while others are uncertain.

Division in the ranks

On December 26, Mr. Mahato decided to do a dharna at the Jogbani-Biratnagar crossing where truck movement had picked up and was badly beaten up by the Nepal police. He is currently convalescing at Medanta Hospital in Gurgaon. The other three did not join the dharna and Mr. Mahato’s supporters are miffed that a condemnation of the attack on their leader took so long coming.

Sensing an opportunity, the Oli government reached out to the SLMM leadership for a meeting in Kathmandu on January 3. Mr. Thakur, accompanied by relatively junior leaders, attended. On his side, Mr. Oli was accompanied by Nepali Congress president and former PM Sushil Koirala, Maoist leader and former PM Pushpa Kamal Dahal ‘Prachanda’ and others. Upendra Yadav and Mahendra Rai Yadav happened to be out of town. A week earlier, the Oli government had set the wheels in motion for the constitutional amendment process by formally tabling it in the Assembly. At this stage, no dialogue was underway with the SLMM to get them on board and in the debates that followed, Madhesi parties boycotted the proceedings. On January 4, the Assembly concluded its deliberations and after the mandated period of 72 hours for amendments to be tabled, will begin voting on the amendments. PM Oli has proposed the setting up of a task force to arrive at an agreed language for the amendments. Defence Minister Bhim Rawal (UML), K.B. Mahara of the Maoists and Mahesh Acharya (Nepali Congress) have been nominated by the three main parties; with the clock ticking, the SLMM may fracture if individual leaders try to go it alone in the task force.

Mending fences

PM Oli has been adept at flaunting the China card. In October last year, there was much fanfare about China supplying 1,000 metric tonnes of petroleum products to alleviate the shortage. Considering that the annual requirement is closer to a million tonnes, this is a tiny amount. Also the infrastructure in terms of roads and bridges to the Tibet border does not permit movement of heavy tankers and LPG bullets. Nepal’s attempts at negotiating long-term agreements with China have not gone very far. However, Nepali media had carried stories that Mr. Oli, in a departure from past practice, would undertake his first foreign trip to China instead of India. The only Nepali prime minister to have done so was Mr. Prachanda in 2008. He, however, insisted that it was not a bilateral visit as he was going to attend the closing ceremony of the Beijing Olympics and his first official bilateral visit would be to India. Apparently, in the telephone conversation on December 31, Mr. Modi reiterated his invitation to Mr. Oli to visit India and the missions have been directed to work out mutually convenient dates at the earliest. However, Mr. Oli will find it difficult to visit Delhi unless the border situation has returned to normal and movement of goods and supplies has been restored. If the SLMM agitation is called off, he can then claim with some justification that his nationalistic posture, together with the anti-India rhetoric, has paid off. Given the strain Mr. Modi’s “neighbourhood first” policy is under on the Pakistan front, it is understandable that he would like Mr. Oli to stick to tradition.

How did things reach such an impasse? The fact is that nobody thought that the Madhesi agitation and the consequent restrictions on cross-border movement of goods would last this long. As a result, nobody had a Plan B and rhetoric replaced communication. With the key players losing control, the situation went into a tailspin. The Oli government found it convenient to stoke Nepali nationalism and deflect attention away from its own incompetence by blaming India. The SLMM’s demands continued to grow with no negotiations in sight and rising anti-Indianism hardly sat well with Mr. Modi’s “neighbourhood first” diplomacy.

The supply situation has now eased but the Oli government needs to offer a healing hand to the Madhesis to get them on board. If he fails, he may find it difficult to deal with the ensuing instability. The Madhesis need to reach out to the Tharus and Janajatis, the other marginalised groups. For India, the challenge is to give greater political content to its engagement, rebuild trust with the Oli government, and revive the positive sentiments generated by Prime Minister Modi’s visits in 2014.

Source:-The Hindu, 07-Jan-2016