Imran Khan praising Ch Parvez Elahi and his performance

Shujaat Hussain and Moonis Elahi meets Musharraf, moots merger of PML groups

Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid leaders Chaudhry Shujaat Husain and Moonis Elahi called on former president and APML chief retired Gen Pervez Musharraf in Dubai on Sun­day and discussed with him matters relating to formation of a new party, to be known as ‘United Muslim League’.

“Chaudhry Shujaat and Moonis Elahi have held an important meeting with Gen Musharraf for bringing all Muslim League factions (minus N) under one umbrella. The Chaudhrys have renewed efforts since they feel this is the right time to enter the political arena with a new party in the presence of the PML-N, PTI and PPP,” a PML-Q leader privy to the development told Dawn.

He said the PML-Q believed that there had been a political vacuum, especially in Punjab, and the new party could make its mark in the run-up to the 2018 elections. “The United Muslim League will not only take on board disgruntled leaders of other parties but will also be in position to make seat-adjustment with like-minded parties in the coming elections,” he said, claiming that the effort this time would succeed.

After having a long discussion with the Chaudhrys, Gen Musharraf held a meeting with PML-Functional chief Pir Sibghatullah Rashdi to explore the idea of a “United Muslim League”, the PML-Q leader said.

“Now the Chaudhrys and Musharraf will have a series of meetings with other PML factions and some disgruntled leaders to finalise the plan,” he said.

However, according to a PML-Q spokesman, Chaudhry Shujaat said at the Dubai meeting the political situation demanded that all opposition parties gather on one platform.

“Pervez Musharraf said his heart beats for Pakistan and he wants to return home at the earliest,” he added.

The Chaudhrys had about one-and-a-half-year ago launched efforts for the United Muslim League under the leadership of Gen Musharraf and Chaudhry Shujaat, but these could not bear fruit because of a lack of consensus over leadership and some other issues.

Imran Masood, a PML-Q leader and former Punjab minister, said his party’s renewed efforts would soon bear fruit. “The PML-Q leadership has started meetings with the heads of other factions of the Muslim League and modalities in this regard will be finalised with them. We are on a mission of strengthening the PML and in the coming elections it will be in a better position to have seat-adjustment with other parties.”

Source: The Dawn News

USA Visa policy for Pakistanis

ISLAMABAD: The United States embassy has clarified its position regarding the permit of visa policy for Pakistanis was not under consideration to be changed and President Donald Trump’s administration has not issued any exclusive instructions regarding the country.

A spokesperson for the embassy said that visa policy for Pakistanis same as it was before Trump took charge.

Trum's executive order has drawn criticism at home and abroad which sets limit for citizens hailing from seven Muslim-majority countries for travelling to the US, as well as barring the refugees. This has led to wide scale protests across US as the travellers are stranded at airports and the public is aware and sensitive to the Syrian conflict.

Despite that Pakistan’s name was not mentioned in the list, there been wide held apprehension that the country might be next on the ban list when it will be reviewed in few months.

The White House Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, had defended Trump’s decision, “You can point to other countries that have similar problems like Pakistan and others – perhaps we need to take it further.”

Source: The Nation

China will intervene if India disrupts Pakistan's western province

ISLAMABAD: India’s opposition to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) stems from its fear of internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute and the growing influence of China in the Indian Ocean, says a new report by one of the most influential global think tanks.

“There is considerable concern within India that China, which has been neutral on Kashmir since 1963, can no longer be so now that its economic and security interests in these territories are growing in stake,” says a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Sipri) — a Sweden-based think tank.

The report — titled “Silk Road Economic Belt – considering security implications and the EU-China cooperation prospects” — argues that India does not want a mediating role for China in these disputes.

It is the first report by any global think tank that has discussed in detail the Indian concerns on CPEC. The report has also shed light on implications of the ‘One Belt One Road’ initiative on security dynamics and its compatibility with the EU interests.

The Sipri report says CPEC has raised political temperatures between India and Pakistan. “India strictly opposes CPEC, and while the Economic Belt is not a harbinger of a new conflict, it has so far intensified historic competition over influence in South Asia,” note authors of the report.

The report argues that there is a factual and conceptual objection to CPEC in India. The factual objection is that India does not want to internationalise the Kashmir dispute it has with Pakistan. Chinese activity in the disputed areas automatically makes it a stakeholder in these disputes.

At the conceptual level, CPEC allows China to gain a toehold in the Indian Ocean through direct access to the Arabian Sea. There remain concerns that this might develop a military dimension at some stage, according to the report.

Since territorial compromise from either India or Pakistan is a political suicide for any of the ruling parties, it remains to be seen whether CPEC will contribute to a resolution of this dispute or further fan the flames. There is also a concern in India that China will use Gwadar port to observe Indian naval activity and possibly even exploit it for an expansion of China’s own naval presence.

There is also concern in India that while CPEC in the short and medium term could be an opportunity to generate jobs and growth in Pakistan, over the longer term its strategic consequences could reshape the regional balance of power in favour of China and limit India’s geopolitical reach.

The assertiveness and swiftness of Chinese actions in the South China Sea have implanted a preoccupation among China’s critics in India that if China gains a foothold in the Arabian Sea and, as an extension, in the Indian Ocean through Gwadar, it might make national interest claims in India’s maritime sphere too. “After all, if Gwadar grows to be the immense port China envisions it to become, China will need to take on a bigger direct or indirect security role,” it says.

The Sipri report noted that unlike in India, CPEC has not raised concerns in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is open to all regional initiatives that could reactivate its ailing formal economy, whether that is by way of CPEC or India-led efforts to connect with the Afghan economy through the Chabahar Port in Iran. Iran has not opposed CPEC and has expressed strong interest in the Belt and Road Initiative.

However, the report argues that Afghanistan is unlikely to benefit from CPEC unless Kabul-Islamabad relations improve. For this to happen, Pakistan’s security concerns with regard to Afghanistan need to be assuaged. The authors note that CPEC has the potential to exacerbate three fault lines in South Asian security.

The first is between China and India themselves. The second is between China-Pakistan on the one side and India on the other. The third is between China and India and its partners – the US, Japan and, to a lesser degree, Vietnam. The region of Balochistan is being geopolitically instrumentalised by these various players, they added.

It says that this is an evidence that CPEC has contributed to political and security bloc formation, but the bloc rivalry between the US-India and China-Pakistan exists regardless of CPEC. CPEC has merely strengthened the strategic Chinese-Pakistani alliance.

China’s reliance on CPEC means that it needs a stable and amicable Pakistan, underlines the report. “The Silk Road Economic Belt initiative may become one of the cornerstones of Asian economic growth and integration, and eventually of closer political and security cooperation among states, but the pathway to this scenario is long and fraught with obstacles,” it says.

Source: The Express Tribune

Iran confirms missile test, denies breach of nuclear deal

TEHRAN: Iran confirmed on Wednesday that it had tested a ballistic missile, but denied that was a breach of its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

The comments from Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan came after the UN Security Council met on Tuesday to discuss the weekend test, which Washington described as “absolutely unacceptable”.

“The action was in line with boosting Iran’s defence power and is not in contradiction with the JCPOA [the nuclear deal] or Resolution 2231,” Dehghan said.

He was referring to a UN Security Council resolution that bans Iran from developing missiles that can carry nuclear warheads.
ADVERTISEMENT


“This test was in line with our ongoing programmes,” Iranian media quoted him as saying. “We have previously announced that we will execute the programmes we have planned in production of defence equipment meant for our national interests and objectives ... We will not allow foreigners to interfere in our defence affairs.”

Iran’s ballistic missile programme has been a bone of contention with the West since the nuclear deal took effect in January last year, triggering the lifting of international sanctions.

Iran says its missiles do not breach United Nations resolutions because they are for defence purposes only and are not designed to carry nuclear warheads.

It has missiles with a range of up to 2,000 kilometres, sufficient to reach Israel as well as US bases in the region.

US ambassador Nikki Haley told Tuesday’s Security Council meeting that Washington would not stand idly by while Tehran pursued its missile programme. “The United States is not naive. We are not going to stand by. You will see us call them out,” she said.

Tehran warned Washington against using the issue to fuel tensions. “We hope that Iran’s defence programme is not used by the new US administration ... as a pretext to create new tensions,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said ahead of the meeting.

The row comes against a backdrop of already strained relations between Washington and Tehran over US President Donald Trump’s travel ban on citizens from Iran and six other Muslim-majority countries.

Some 220 Iranian lawmakers signed a motion on Wednesday endorsing the boosting of Iran’s defence capabilities, the Fars news agency reported.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran’s only way to deter the enemy’s aggression is its missile power,” the motion said, calling the programme “an unavoidable necessity” for protecting national security.

The European Union, which helped broker the nuclear deal, had appealed to Tehran to refrain from activities such as the missile tests, “which deepen mistrust”.

But Moscow, which is fighting alongside Tehran’s forces in Syria, leapt to its ally’s defence. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Iran’s missile test did not breach Resolution 2231 and accused Washington of “heating up the situation”.

Source: The Dawn News

Source: The Dawn News

To ban or not to ban?

HERE we go again. This story is getting a little old now, so let’s hope there is a different ending this time round. Hafiz Saeed has been placed under house arrest, and there are indications that the two groups he leads — the Jamaatud Dawa (JuD) and the Falah-i-Insaniyat (FiF) Foundation — may be listed as “banned organisations” in the near future. This may or may not be a significant step, but the law mandates it upon the government considering both groups are listed under UN Security Council Resolution 1267.

Now we have reports that pressure is mounting on the government from the Asia Pacific Group, which works with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), to ensure that individual countries have enough safeguards in place to prevent their financial system from being used for the purposes of terror financing. If this group officially determines that Pakistan does not have enough safeguards in place, and that its financial system poses the risk that funds connected with a terrorist group could pass through it into the international financial system, it can place the country on a black list that would so raise the costs of interacting with the global financial system that our trade, remittances, bilateral and multilateral aid and loan disbursements would all be significantly affected.

Meaning, if the reports are true, we are currently running the risk of substantial disconnection with the global economy.

This issue has been running for at least six years now. The presence in the country and the open large-scale operations of groups listed as terrorist outfits by the United States was one. The other was that the FATF wanted tax evasion listed as a money-laundering offence in the country’s code to certify that its financial system was in compliance with international best practices.

In 2011 and 2012, Pakistan briefly flirted with being blacklisted by the FATF, leading to some concern in financial circles about the ramifications. A few steps were taken in light of that threat, and the country graduated up to the ‘grey list’, meaning its financial system might pose a threat to the international financial system if certain remedial steps were not taken. The measure to bring tax evasion under the Anti Money Laundering Act found resistance in parliament, but the FATF was willing to negotiate on that since the demand was being resisted in many other countries of the world as well.
On the matter of terror financing and shutting down the operations of listed terror groups, the demand was non-negotiable.

But on the matter of terror financing, and shutting down the operations of listed terror groups and all individuals known (and named in the UN Resolution), the demand was non-negotiable. We emerged from the grey list in February 2015, but only against a commitment that action would be taken under UNSCR 1267. The matter was announced with some pride by the finance minister.

That episode had come at the end of a period of serious wrangling within the country. In late December 2014, Nacta released an amended list of banned organisations in the country, in which the JuD was “Enlisted under observation Second Schedule” since 2007. A few days later, then secretary of state John Kerry arrived in the country and, amongst other things, asked after the enforcement of UNSCR 1267 as part of the cooperation in the war on terror. Only a few days later, an amended list of banned groups was released by the interior ministry, in which a total of 11 organisations were “Enlisted under UNSCR 1267”, including FiF and JuD. They were shown as proscribed since March 2012 and Dec 2008 respectively. It appears that some earlier notifications to the effect were being acknowledged officially.

Then the list disappeared and, a few days later, Nacta’s website was taken down comprehensively. Later, a series of contradictory statements belied the fact that a tussle was under way behind the scenes around the issue. The minister of defence went on record to say that there was “no reason to ban JuD” because it was a charity group, and a few days later the Foreign Office officially confirmed that the group had been banned. Then came a series of contradictory statements from unnamed officials in the interior ministry and intelligence agencies, some claiming there was a ban while others denied it.

Days later, the JuD held a large rally in Karachi, which was addressed by Hafiz Saeed himself, where he mocked the idea of a ban on his group and announced the commencement of an ambulance service for the city.

That was the background to the removal of Pakistan from the FATF’s ‘grey list’ that came the following month. And the matter went to the back burner for a few months.

Later in 2016, we began hearing reports of renewed pressure coming on Pakistan to move against the groups and individuals listed in UN Resolution 1267. Once again, the open mention of this controversy in a report carried by this paper sparked a furore and angry denials from all. But now, we’re seeing more reports, anonymously sourced for the moment, about renewed pressure to act against these groups followed by the move to place Hafiz Saeed under house arrest.

So what exactly is going on? Clearly this is one of the several proverbial ‘third rails’ of Pakistani politics. The stakes on either side are extremely high. On more than one occasion since 2010, the country has come to the very brink of a potential rupture with the international financial system on account of its failure to come into compliance with UNSCR 1267. In each case, a few partial steps have sufficed to pull things back from the brink.

But this time, reports are saying that the new presidential administration in Washington, DC may see things differently. How far does Pakistan really want to go in allowing groups and individuals listed as terrorists by the United States to roam and operate freely and organise rallies on its soil?

Source: The Dawn News

Only Prema Milk is fit for consumption in Pakistan

ISLAMABAD: After conducting tests on 16 brands of packaged milk given Ultra High Temperature (UHT) and pasteurisation treatment, the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR) has found that only prema milk is safe for consumption, the National Assembly was told on Monday.

Dairy companies use UHT treatment to increase the shelf life of packaged milk. For UHT treatment, milk is heated to above 135 degrees Celsius to kill harmful bacteria. Pasteurisation is a similar process, but involves lower temperatures and seeks to preserve microbes that are good for human consumption while eliminating harmful ones.

During a question-answer session in the National Assembly, the Minister of Science and Technology, Rana Tanveer Hussein told the house in a written reply that the PCSIR had conducted tests on 16 brands of packaged and liquid milk on the directives of the Supreme Court.

He said six brands in the UHT category were tested, including Olper's, Nestle, Milk Pak, Day Fresh, Good Milk, Nurpur Original and Haleeb Full Cream.



“All the UHT milk brands’ samples were found safe except Haleeb Milk, which contains formalin and cane sugar,” the minister said.

The minister said samples from 10 brands of pasteurised milk were also examined, including Anhar Milk, Daily Dairy, Doce Milk, Gourmet Milk, Nurpur, Nutrivi, Al-Fajar, Accha Milk, Prema Milk and Adams.

“Of these, only Prema Milk was found safe for consumption,” he said.

The above findings were also included in a report on the quality of milk submitted to the Supreme Court in Dec 2016 by the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The Supreme Court has been hearing a petition filed by Barrister Zafarullah Khan against the sale of substandard milk and drinking water in the country.

Barrister Zafarullah Khan had claimed in his petition that Pakistani citizens have been consuming milk adulterated with different chemicals, including detergent powder. He said the use of contaminated and substandard milk has been leading to serious diseases such as cancer and hepatitis-C in humans, and asked the court to ban the use of contaminated and adulterated milk and water.

The apex court had on September 16, 2016 ordered the University of Agriculture Faisalabad, the University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Lahore and the PCSIR to conduct a chemical examination of all domestic and international brands of packed milk available in the market.

Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar — who has been hearing the case since it was taken up — had instructed representatives of the three institutions to conduct a thorough analysis of the milk samples without any fear and leniency as the matter involved the lives of children.

Source: The Dawn News