Jawab-e-Shikwa - Terrorism: Imran Khan is not confused, apologetic or complacent

By 
Shah Zalmay Khan

I have always wondered why Imran Khan is such a soft target for bashing?
What makes journos & intellect-chawals single out IK for bashing?
Why they rid themselves of all sense & logic (even plain facts at times) when bashing IK?
Is it because of the shot-at-cheap-fame mentality? What goes inside the mind of an IK-basher at THAT moment?
Why objectivity loses to point-scoring when it comes to maligning IK?
Why 90% articles, op-eds & blogs directed at Imran Khan (35 MNAs + coalition govt in one province) and only 5-10% directed at Nawaz Sharif (200+ MNAs + federal govt + 2 provincial govts)?
Why the disproportionate bashing reserved for Imran Khan?
Well the answer to these questions is that "IK-bashing sells".
Yes, IK-bashing sells & let me tell you folks, it sells more than Veena Malik’s sizzling ISI-tattooed figure; much more than Bilawal’s cow-girlish speech+shake moves; even more than the best-of-best ‘imported’ bashing product in store – Pakistan-bashing.
I wrote ‘Shikwa’ yesterday, with the mind of an IK-basher. It was an executive summary of IK-bashing op-eds, blogs, editorials, twitter exchanges & TV shows. The bashing has an almost universally distinct (??) pattern:
-    The pre-bashing part (generally praising IK for his cricket & philanthropy and condemning PTI ‘trolls’)
-    The meaty bashing part (in tip-top English using outlandish jargon) to prove IK is everything from naïve to coward or even complacent when it comes to terrorism.
-    The post-bashing part i.e. the almost universal conclusion (that though IK is a good man, he will be more dangerous for Pakistan than Zardari/Nawaz/Altaf/Asfandyar simply because youth follows him blindly in his naivete).

     TALIBAN KHAN:

Shikwa: He thinks Taliban militants are engaged in a Jehad in Pakistan and Afghanistan. How?
Jawab-e-Shikwa: Imran Khan does not think the Taliban are engaged in a Jehad in Pakistan. All he says is that the war started at the behest of USA in tribal areas has caused so much collateral damage that many tribesmen have taken up arms against the state. As for Afghanistan, what IK thinks & says openly is that Afghanistan is an occupied country since 2001 (what else is occupation if not 100,000+ foreign troops on Afghan soil since a decade, causing deaths of a 100,000 Afghans?). So if someone is fighting the occupation forces, it is for the Afghans to decide (not USA/NATO/Pakistan) whether it should be deemed as Jehad or otherwise.

2)       TERROR APOLOGIST:

Shikwa: He justifies the killings by militants by linking them to drone attacks. How can attacks on mosques, churches or civilians & security forces be linked to drones?
Jawab-e-Shikwa: To suggest that Imran Khan justifies attacks on mosques, churches, civilians & security forces is plain absurd. He does not ‘justify’ the killings by militants at all. What he does actually is to condemn the whole violence cycle in its entirety (not in bits of choice). Not only that, he also suggests a solution to the violence – negotiations. He logically ‘explains' the situation on ground in full perspective (explaining something is not the same as justifying it; is it?)

3)       COWARD:

Shikwa: He never condemns terrorism & terrorist attacks. Also he never sympathizes with victims of such attacks e.g. Malala Yousafzai, Shia Hazaras & Christians etc. Why?
Jawab-e-Shikwa: Imran Khan unequivocally condemns terrorism & terrorist attacks. It is simply malicious to say he never sympathizes with victims of such attacks. Imran Khan was the 1^st national leader to visit Malala Yousafzai at CMH Peshawar on 10^th Oct 2012 (next day after attack on her). Also Imran Khan was the only national leader to visit Quetta Hazara Town as well as Gilgit Baltistan to express solidarity with Shia victims of sectarian terrorism. Similarly Imran Khan reached Peshawar church blast site (from Islamabad) within hours to sympathize with the Christian victims & went there again the next day, for same purpose.
As for the cowardice part, IK is the only national leader who ventured into Waziristan for peace march & held jalsas in almost every nook & corner of the country; even in places which other BRAVE leaders can’t imagine visiting even on GOOGLE EARTH J.

4)       CONFUSED:

Shikwa: While militants kill our soldiers (like General Sanaullah Shaheed), flout our state’s writ and denounce our constitution, Imran Khan still calls for talks with them. Why?
Jawab-e-Shikwa: It is not confusion but absolute clarity on part of Imran Khan (it is the IK-bashers who are confused on this count). How? Because talks are not the ultimate goal; the goal is peace, for which talks is the way. If talks are not held, attacks are going to continue as such (no peace or hope thereof). However, once talks start (not started yet), one can demand halt to attacks (hope for peace). Until then this is a war & both sides will use all possible avenues to attack each other. This is no rocket science, is it? Plainly put, IK calls for talks with militants despite attacks because he wants to stop the perpetual cycle of violence; so Pakistan doesn't lose any more sons like General Sanaullah Shaheed and to ensure that the ultimate goal i.e. peace is achieved. Writ of the state will be a logical by product.

5)       NAÏVE:

Shikwa: Militants are savages – they slit throats of our soldiers and kill innocent civilians. However, Imran Khan thinks they are ‘own people’ anguished by drones & operations; that they can somehow be tamed. How naïve?
Jawab-e-Shikwa: It is easy to say militants are savages, without getting into details or background of the problem. A pertinent question often ignored (maliciously) in this argument is how the peaceful FATA turned into hell after 2001 and who turned the common tribesmen into blood-seeking savages? Without addressing the root cause, throwing the ‘savage’ argument is just a point-scoring move at best. Imran Khan rightly thinks most of the militants are ‘own people’ anguished by collateral damage in drones & operation (many misguided by Mullahs too). Question is: can they be tamed somehow? Well we have seen examples of hundreds of militants tamed & made normal citizens through sincere & rigorous re-integration programs in Swat, Bajaur and other areas. If the method can be successfully applied in some places, why not elsewhere too?
As for the hardcore terrorist or criminal element within the militant ranks (may be 10-20%), Imran Khan has never ruled out the use of force to strike out such incurable ones. All he says is to isolate them from the mainstream via talks and pacify elements that are more open to conflict resolution. The remaining can be dealt with rather easily through the use of tribal lashkars in combo with a strengthened Levies force and FC.

6)       TALIBAN SPOKESMAN:

Shikwa: While militants attempt to take over our state, Imran Khan wants to legalize their position & give them official recognition by asking for opening of Taliban office.
Jawab-e-Shikwa: It is a highly malicious notion that Imran Khan’s suggestion for a TTP negotiations office amounts to legalizing them. No way. All it means is that the now faceless TTP will have a face which can be negotiated with & held accountable for any mishaps or violations during the course of negotiations. Being in the open will keep TTP on toes & they will have to defend their actions threatening peace (just like they disowned some recent Peshawar bombings). It will also help expose any elements that are averse to negotiations & the whole nation will be able to identify those who don’t want peace – be it foreign powers, establishment, politicians or the militants. The biggest benefit will be that if (God forbid) talks fail due to militants’ stubbornness, the whole nation will be on same page for a decisive muscular move against them. It is no use running after faceless shadows; bring them into the limelight & let all moves be threadbare – war or peace – whatever the result.
7)       NONSENSICAL:
Shikwa: Imran Khan wants peace talks with militants while ignoring the fact that militants are not made for peace deals & all such previous attempts failed due to them.
Jawab-e-Shikwa: Frankly on peace deals, both sides have a history of violations & none of the sides can be absolved of the blame.

For instance, in Bajaur a peace deal was to be signed on 30 October 2006, in presence of Governor Aurakzai. All preparations had been made for the All-Bajaur-Jirga of hundreds of elders when US drone struck Cheenagai madressa at dawn the same day. 80+ kids were killed in the attack that plunged Bajaur Agency into a fire which has yet to be extinguished.
It was not the militants who caused the deal to collapse; it was our own $$$-hungry puppet govt that owned the devastating drone strike back then. Also the notion that all peace deals have failed is not true either. One peace deal struck in Ahmadzai Wazir belt of South Waziristan (with Mullah Nazir group) is effective since many years. Though there have been sporadic incidents of violence, the region is largely peaceful since the deal. Point to make is that neither all peace deals are ineffective, nor all deals are broken due to militants solely. Such deals have worked in the past (even if not everywhere) and may work again.

8)       IGNORANT OR HYPOCRITE:

Shikwa: Imran Khan tells us military operations are not a solution to the militancy problem and that operations will never succeed. He forgets that Swat was cleared & peace restored through an operation. Similarly Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Tirah, Orakzai, Kurram & South Waziristan have all been cleared through military operations.
Imran Khan also conveniently forgets that Sri Lanka ended terrorism on its soil through war, not peace talks.
Jawab-e-Shikwa: Those who quote Swat as an example of success of the military option forget that Swat has no border with Afghanistan (unlike 1000-km long FATA-Afghanistan border). So Pak army encircled Swat from all sides; SSGs were para-dropped at Peochar while military columns moved in from all sides – Malakand, Buner, Shangla. Even then hundreds of TTP-Swat militants & almost entire leadership including Fazlullah sneaked out through the narrow uncovered corridor on Dir side and fled safely to Afghanistan. They have, since then, become a nuisance for army in the whole Kunar-Nooristan border belt adjoining Bajaur, Dir & Chitral. It is these renegades who attacked army’s countless border posts, shot Malala Yousafzai & martyred General Sanaullah Niazi Shaheed.
As for operations in Bajaur, Mohmand, Khyber, Tirah, Kurram and South Waziristan and the myth of ‘clearing’ these regions, there is more to it than meets the eye. If these areas are indeed ‘clear’, why many of their inhabitants are living as IDPs in camps in Peshawar, Nowshehra, Kohat, Hangu, Tank & D.I Khan? Why many have permanently shifted to Peshawar, Rawalpindi, Karachi or elsewhere in Pakistan? Just ask a Mehsud IDP in Tank / DIK why he won’t return to his homeland when it is ‘clear’? J His smile & casual non-revealing comment will tell you the reality. As for the worth of these operations, most militants simply fled to Afghanistan from where they launch attacks inside Pakistan.
Finally, those who compare situation of FATA to Sri Lanka actually love comparing apples to oranges perhaps. LTTE fighters had no sanctuaries in a neighboring country like TTP finds comfortably in Afghanistan (the lone neighbor India also restricted its involvement after Rajiv Gandhi was killed by a Tamil bomber). Even then it took the Sri Lankan army almost 30 years to eliminate the LTTE leadership – only because they were physically cornered at the edge of the Lankan peninsula (with nowhere to escape to). Pakistan has no such cornering space available, with a 1000 km long FATA-Affghanistan border (which Afghanistan/NATO/USA would never allow us to fence or permanently restrict, due to the Durand issue).

9)       BRUTAL & INHUMANE:

Shikwa: Imran Khan doesn’t feel the pain of Pakistanis who die at the hands of terrorists.
Jawab-e-Shikwa: It is simply moronic to say Imran Khan doesn’t feel the pain of Pakistanis killed in this war. This is the worst sort of propaganda against the man who built a one-of-its-kind hospital to reduce the suffering of humans who don’t want to lose to death but can’t afford to buy new lives either. This man – Imran Khan – gives life to these people and some moron haters tell us he doesn’t know the value of human life? Shame on you if you think so.

10)     POLITICAL DISASTER:

Shikwa: Imran Khan wants Pakistan to shoot down drones & thus go into war against the Americans, all this while forgetting that USA can send us to stone age, militarily as well as economically.
Jawab-e-Shikwa: Imran Khan doesn’t ask for shooting down drones. All he asks for is to withdraw the tacit approval / permission given by Pakistani govt / establishment for drone strikes. There is no question of going to war with Americans over this issue as most countries (& even the UN) have endorsed Pakistan’s position on drones. As far as economic stranglehold is concerned (in case Pakistan leaves the US war), we have to assess the direct & indirect effects of terrorism on our economy first. If the cost of being part of the US war is more (which is the case indeed), there is no point ruining ourselves for some aid $$$ that mostly land in the pockets of corrupt rulers anyway.
.
So dear friends (& IK-bashers), Imran Khan is not confused at all, let alone apologetic. He says what he believes & has stuck to his stance ever since this insane war was imposed on us by $$$-hungry rulers a decade back. Yes a large section of youth follow Imran Khan – not blindly – but because they see with open eyes who sincerely wishes to see Pakistan prosper & who all are just in politics for capital gains. Imran Khan is not confusing the future of Pakistan rather he is making the youth actual stakeholders to Pakistan’s future. He wants to take Pakistan into a modern world with respect, dignity & peace. He is a beacon of hope for the educated but disgruntled youth, the patriotic but cornered tribesmen and the downtrodden oppressed classes. The question he asks is a question every Pakistani asks (whether IK-bashers like it or not):
If this is ‘our war’, why USA is paying for it (with CSF)?
And if the war is not ours, why we are paying for it (with our lives)?

TAIL PIECE:

 As I was writing these lines, the international human rights watchdog ‘Amnesty International’ has released its eye-opening report on the frightening facts of US drone strikes in FATA. Read it IK-haters – may also touch your hearts (if not dead already).
.  
The writer is a tribesman from Bajaur Agency (FATA) and tweets at @PTI_FATA .
(No official association with PTI)
.
....................
Disclaimer: This blog is not an official PTI webpage and is run by a group of volunteers having no official position in PTI. All posts are personal opinions of the bloggers and should, in no way, be taken as official PTI word.
With Regards,
"Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf FATA Volunteers" Team.
So that was all about ‘Shikwa’ (canbe read on this link). Here goes ‘Jawab-e-Shikwa’ to the Shikwa directed at Imran Khan (point by point):

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits,

human rights groups say

• Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare.
• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack.
• Graphic
• 
• 
• Explore documented drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia
• In Pakistan, Amnesty International investigated nine suspected U.S. drone strikes that occurred between May 2012 and July 2013 in the territory of North Waziristan. The group said it found strong evidence that more than 30 civilians were killed in four of the attacks.
• The basic circumstances of each of the drone strikes had been previously reported by local and international news outlets. But the human rights groups said they were able to shed further light on the incidents by interviewing survivors, other witnesses and government officials in both countries.
• Most drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen occur in remote areas that are often hostile to outsiders, making independent assessments difficult.
• The groups’ findings coincide with a report released Friday by a U.N. human rights investigator, who estimated that 2,200 people have been killed in drone strikes over the past decade in Pakistan.
• Of those casualties, at least 400 were civilians and 200 others were “probable noncombatants,” according to the U.N. official, Ben Emmerson. He said the statistics were provided by Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
• The U.S. government almost never publicly acknowledges its role in individual drone strikes, and its legal justifications for targeting specific people are shrouded in secrecy.
• Partly as a result, estimates of drone-related casualties vary wildly. Sorting out how many people were legitimate targets under the laws of war and how many were bystanders is an even greater challenge.
• In their reports, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International called on the Obama administration to make its drone-targeting policies more transparent and to publicly investigate reports of civilian casualties.
• “The full picture will only come to light when U.S. authorities fully disclose the facts, circumstances and legal basis for each of its drone strikes,” Amnesty International concluded in its report, titled “Will I Be Next? U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan.”
• Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokeswoman, declined to comment on the reports. But shecited a speech by President Obama in May in which he announced narrower guidelines for drone attacks. Obama said drones would be used only against people who pose a “continuing, imminent threat” to the United States and only in cases in which the avoidance of civilian casualties would be “a near-certainty.”
• “As the President emphasized, the use of lethal force, including from remotely piloted aircraft, commands the highest level of attention and care,” Hayden said in an e-mail.
• Drone strikes in Pakistan are carried out by the CIA under a covert program. In Yemen, the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command conduct drone attacks. Spokesmen for the CIA and the Pentagon declined to comment. In each country, the number of U.S. drone strikes has dropped in the past year.
• Amnesty International highlighted a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians — including a 14-year-old boy — were killed.
• In that case, a group of male laborers had gathered in a tent for dinner when a missile blast killed 10 of them. A few minutes later, as rescuers arrived at the scene to treat the wounded, another round of missiles killed eight more people, according to Amnesty.
• In Yemen, Human Rights Watch singled out a Sept. 2, 2012, airstrike in the village of Sarar that blew up a minibus, killing 12 passengers, including three children and a pregnant woman. The group said the Yemeni government, which works closely with U.S. counterterrorism forces, later admitted that the attack had been a mistake and compensated families of the victims.
• In most of the other drone strikes cited in the reports, the human rights groups admitted that the scenarios were much less clear-cut. They acknowledged that many of those who died were suspected to be al-Qaeda or Taliban members. In other instances, civilians died alongside armed combatants.
• But in virtually all cases, the groups said, it was impossible to know whether the targets had met Obama’s threshold of posing an imminent threat to the United States, because U.S. officials have kept that information a secret.

Amnesty International: Civilian deaths in drone attacks akin to war crimes

Rights group catalogues many unaccounted casualties in North Waziristan.

KARACHI: 

“I wasn’t scared of drones before, but now when they fly overhead I wonder, will I be next?” Eight-year-old Nabeela witnessed the death of her grandmother, Mamana Bibi, by a drone strike in Ghundi Kala village, North Waziristan. She asks the quintessential question surrounding the debate on drones.

Therefore, Amnesty International’s report on US drone strikes in Pakistan is duly titled “Will I Be Next?” The report, to be released today (Tuesday), does not claim to be a comprehensive report; but it is a qualitative assessment based on detailed field research into nine of the 45 reported strikes in North Waziristan between January 2012 and August 2013.

The report focuses on the arbitrary deprivation of life, categorically stating – and proving with its case studies, survey and fact-finding – that the “United States has carried out unlawful killing in Pakistan through drone attacks, some of which could even amount to war crimes.”

No matter which international law regime is applicable – be it international human rights law or international humanitarian law (the laws of war) – it is obligatory for United States to ensure thorough, impartial and independent investigations are conducted into the killings.

The United States refuses to make public even basic information about the drone programme and does not release legal or factual information about specific strikes, the report points out. “None of the US authorities contacted by Amnesty International (AI) were willing to provide information regarding the specific cases documented in this report or the legal and policy basis for the drone programme in Pakistan.” It doesn’t stop there. The report also envelopes in other states as well, pinning responsibility on them of upholding international law. The United States and other countries, including Australia, Germany and the UK, that are “providing assistance must act in full conformity with their obligations”.

Location of nine US drone strikes in North Waziristan investigated in detail by Amnesty International. *Names and boundary representations do not necessarily constitute endorsement by Amnesty International. MAPS AND IMAGES COPYRIGHT CREDIT: © AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Pakistan: not exactly a victim?

Moreover, Amnesty International does not absolve Islamabad of a role in the drone operations either. AI expresses concern in the report about the “failure of the Pakistani authorities to protect and enforce the rights of victims of drone strikes”.

According to the publication, Pakistan stands accused of a range of human rights failings: from the possible complicity of some organs or officials of the Pakistan state in unlawful killings resulting from the US drones programme, to the failure to protect people in Fata from unlawful drone strikes or to assist victims.

Although the writers of the report thank the government of Pakistan for their support and cooperation, they do mention, “None of the authorities answered questions regarding specific drone strikes or the possible role of some Pakistani officials or private citizens in the US drone programme”.

Precision weapons: not precise enough?

At the centrepiece of the report is the unlawful and unexplained killing of non-combatants. Clearly, the drones are missing ‘targets’ and there is no proof or identification of whether the people who are hit are genuine militant targets or not.

“We cannot find any justification for these killings. There are genuine threats to the US and its allies in the region, and drone strikes may be lawful in some circumstances. But it is hard to believe that a group of labourers, or an elderly woman surrounded by her grandchildren, were endangering anyone at all,” said Mustafa Qadri, an AI Pakistan researcher.

And there is no explanation or remorse either. Who is killed and why are unknowns. This secrecy has enabled the United States to act with impunity and block victims from receiving justice, the report claims.

Through this publication, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch jointly call on the US Congress to investigate the cases documented and other unlawful deaths and to disclose evidence of human rights violations to the public.

Elderly woman killed, grandson hurt

Labelled imagery of US drone strike on Ghundi Kala, North Waziristan, Pakistan. IMAGES COPYRIGHT CREDIT: © AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

Mamana Bibi, 68, was tending her crops in Ghundi Kala village on the afternoon of October 24 last year when she was killed by two Hellfire missiles fired from a drone. Her three granddaughters saw the blast, the killing, the destruction, as they were in the field, 119 feet away.

However, a few minutes later, another Hellfire missile struck, hitting a vacant area, 9 feet away from where Mamana Bibi was killed. Kaleem, who had rushed to check on his now late grandmother after the first strike, was hit by shrapnel in the second. He broke his left leg and suffered a large, deep gash in his thigh.

Granddaughter of Mamana Bibi, was killed in a US drone strike on 24 October 2012 in the village of Ghundi Kala, North Waziristan, Pakistan. IMAGES COPYRIGHT CREDIT: © AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

AI terms these strikes “rescuer attacks”, as those who run to the aid of the victims of an initial drone strike are targeted in a rapid follow-on attack. Pakistani intelligence officials told Amnesty that a local Taliban fighter had used a satellite phone on a road close to where Mamana Bibi was killed about 10 minutes before the strike and then drove away. They were unaware of why Mamana Bibi’s was killed but they assumed that it was related to the Taliban fighter’s proximity to her.

However, witnesses and family members denied the presence of militants anywhere near Mamana Bibi at the time of the attack. In addition, AI’s investigation found no evidence of military or armed group installations, hideouts or fighters.

The family has not been able to recover from the loss. Mamana Bibi’s son told AI that his father is grief stricken and his children are living in constant fear. “My daughter [Asma] suddenly gets scared and tells me she is going to be killed. She is living in constant fear. My children are worried even to just gather outside.”

18 labourers ‘gone’, child injured

Picture taken by a Zowi Sidgi resident reportedly of missile debris from the drone strike on July 6, 2012 that killed 18 people and injured at least 22. IMAGES COPYRIGHT CREDIT: © AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

On July 6 last year, a group of labourers from Zowi Sidgi village had gathered at a tent. It was their “gathering place” after a long day of work. Missiles hit the tent soon after, killing eight labourers.

Some villagers ventured to search for survivors and sift through the devastation, narrates the report. However, more drones fired another series of missiles a few minutes later, targeting those who had come to the scene.

In the drone strikes that evening, at least 18 people were killed and 22 injured, including an eight-year-old girl named Shehrbano, who sustained shrapnel injuries to her leg.

Image of road leading into Zowi Sidgi village in North Waziristan Agency where 18 labourers were killed in a US drone strike on 6 July 6, 2012. IMAGES COPYRIGHT CREDIT: © AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

AI identified all those killed and injured in the Zowi Sidgi attack – all but Shehrbano were men of ‘military age’ , ie, 18-35, which seems to be the criterion for American targeting.  Contrary to official claims that those killed were “terrorists”, AI’s research indicates that the victims of these attacks were not involved in fighting and posed no threat to life.

Drone Strikes kills Civilians:UN 19 Oct 2013

Drone Strikes kills Civilians:UN 19 Oct 2013 by GeoNews

PTI Press Release

PTI Press Release

• Central Information Secretary PTI Shireen Mazari today expressed dismay at the blatantly false statement given by Nawaz Sharif immediately after he landed in the US to start his official visit. By declaring that after the mandate given to the federal government by the APC, "talks had begun" but were derailed because "violence erupted", PM Sharif was clearly not stating the truth. 
• 
  
• The facts are: one, the government has not moved at all to begin operationalising the APC mandate for talks which are nowhere near commencing; and, two, terrorism and violence did not suddenly "erupt" but have been prevalent with growing intensity which is why the APC sought dialogue to give peace a chance.
• 
  
• Mazari pointed out that failure to move at all on the APC mandate is one reason why the terrorists have felt emboldened and increased their attacks as they sense a lack of resolve on the part of the government.
• Mazari stated that such false statements to appease the US bode ill for Pakistan but she hoped the PM would take a resolute position on drones and make clear that Pakistan will not tolerate drone attacks anymore.
• 
  
• Mazari also stated that by having a low level delegation receive the PM on his official visit, the insult was to Pakistan and its people, not to the person of Nawaz Sharif. The PM Office and Ministry of Foreign Affairs should have ensured that this did not happen as the trip is minutely planned. Why was this insult accepted by the Pakistani planners? she asked.
• 
  
• The US has once again belittled Pakistan by doling out part of the money owed to Pakistan under the Coalition Support Fund at the time of the PM's visit - as if that should be enough ensure Pakistan's cooperation despite drone attacks; opposition to the vital IP pipeline; targeting of Pakistan's nuclear programme and questioning Pakistan's efforts to dialogue for peace while US itself seeks the same to exit Afghanistan! The CSF is money owed to Pakistan for services rendered at great cost by Pakistan to the US WoT and it should not be used to blackmail Pakistan politically, Mazari concluded.

Pakistan minister Israrullah Gandapur killed in blast

Pakistan minister Israrullah Gandapur killed in blast

Continue reading the main story

A provincial law minister and at least seven other people have been killed in a bombing in north-west Pakistan during the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha.

• Israrullah Gandapur was greeting locals at his residence in Kulachi village when a suicide bomber struck, witnesses said. More than 30 others were wounded.
• Mr Gandapur's party governs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a militant stronghold, and backs talks with the militants.
• There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack.
• Last week the Pakistani Taliban leader told the BBC he was "open to talks" but would continue to target the US and its allies.
• Mr Gandapur is the most senior member of former cricket star Imran Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI) to be killed in a wave of attacks which have left hundreds of people dead in recent months.
• The PTI posed a strong challenge to the Pakistan Muslim League which won general elections in May.
• It narrowly failed to become the country's official opposition but did win most votes in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and leads the provincial government there.
• The party advocates starting peace talks with the Taliban, and also opposes US drone attacks on targets inside Pakistan.
• 'Crying for help'
• 
• The Associated Press, quoting senior police officer Mohammad Jan, reports that the bomber killed the guard at Mr Gandapur's residence before blowing himself up inside the guest room.
• Mr Gandapur was taken to hospital in a critical condition but died on the way, he said.
• "I saw so many dead people and injured people crying for help," said eyewitness Haseeb Khan, Reuters news agency reports.
• Police have said that they fear casualty figures could rise.
• Pakistan has seen a wave of bomb attacks in recent weeks, much of it centred on the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa capital, Peshawar.
• Last week, two people were killed by a bomb which went off near campaigners against polio vaccinations in Pakistan. The blast struck a van near a hospital in the Budh Bher suburb of the city.
• On 29 September an explosion ripped through a market in Peshawar, leaving at least 33 dead and dozens wounded.
• Two days earlier, at least 17 people were killed in a bus bombing near the city.
• In one of the worst attacks on Christians in Pakistan, a twin-suicide bombing outside a church in Peshawar killed at least 75 people on 22 September.

Iran nuclear checks most detailed ever - Ashton

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton: "This has been an intensive and very important meeting"

Continue reading the main story

World powers and Iran have had "their most detailed talks ever" on Iran's nuclear programme, the EU's top foreign policy official Catherine Ashton says.

The two sides have held two days of discussions in Geneva. Further talks will take place on 7 and 8 November.

Ms Ashton and Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called the talks "substantive and forward-looking".

International negotiators were carefully considering an Iranian proposal, a joint statement said.

The discussions in Geneva brought together Iranian officials and representatives of the "P5+1" - the permanent members of the UN Security Council (Britain, China, France, Russia and the US) plus Germany - also known as the E3+3.

"The participants also agreed that E3+3 and Iranian nuclear, scientific and sanctions experts will convene before the next meeting to address differences and to develop practical steps," the statement went on.

At a news conference afterwards, Mr Zarif said he hoped the talks would lead to the "beginning of a new phase in our relations" and would help resolve "an unnecessary crisis".

He said that he expected international negotiators would need time to "digest and respond to" Iran's proposal.

Iran has previously said its proposal at the two-day summit in Geneva has the "capacity to make a breakthrough".

Continue reading the main story

In previous rounds, Iran and the world powers largely talked past one another but now they appear to be getting into actual details, the BBC's James Reynolds reports from Geneva.

One official at the talks suggested that the reticence to make details of the Iranian proposal public was a positive sign - real discussions don't take place in public, our correspondent adds.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Iran had shown a "level of seriousness and substance that we have not seen before".

Russia's response, however, was more cautious. "There is no reason to break into applause; things could have worked out better," Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague welcomed the fact that "diplomats have for the first time begun more substantive discussions with Iran".

"Iran will need to take the necessary first steps on its programme and we are ready to take proportionate steps in return," he added.

The West suspects Tehran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, but Iran says its programme is purely for peaceful purposes.

Spot checks

Earlier, Deputy Foreign Minster Abbas Araqchi said snap visits to Iranian nuclear sites could be part of a "last step" of any deal.

Lowering uranium enrichment levels could also be part of a final deal, Mr Araqchi told Iranian media.

The talks have taken place in a more positive atmosphere than previous negotiations

The Iranian team at the talks was led by Mr Zarif, although much of the actual negotiating was said to have been delegated to Mr Araqchi.

The talks are the first since Hassan Rouhani - seen as a relative moderate - became Iran's president in August.

International negotiators want Tehran to take specific steps to prevent it from ever being able to make nuclear weapons, the BBC's James Reynolds in Geneva reports.

In return, they promise to lift some of international sanctions which have been imposed in recent years.

Key international demands include the acceptance by Iran of a comprehensive verification regime - with unannounced checks - and a reduction in Iran's level of uranium enrichment.

Iran subscribed to a fuller inspection regime under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was known as the additional protocol, until 2006.

Mr Zarif said the reintroduction of the additional protocol was not currently being discussed.

The closure of the Fordo facility is one of the demands of Western nations

Sanctions demands

Western nations have demanded that Iran halt the production and stockpiling of uranium enriched to 20% - a step away from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

They also want Iran to send some of its stockpiles abroad, and shut down the Fordo production site near the city of Qom, where most of the higher-grade enrichment work is done.

Since 2006 the UN Security Council has imposed a series of sanctions - including asset freezes and travel bans - on entities and people involved in Iran's nuclear programme.

Separate US and EU sanctions have targeted Iran's energy and banking sectors, crippling its oil-based economy. Iran wants the sanctions lifted.

Mr Araqchi had earlier insisted there could be no question of Iran relinquishing its stockpiles of enriched uranium.

"We will not allow even a gram of uranium to go out of the country," he was quoted as saying by Iranian media.

Calorie burner: How much better is standing up than sitting?

Continue reading the main story

Studies have claimed major health benefits for standing for much of the day as opposed to sitting. The difference is marked, explains Michael Mosley.

Guess how many hours a day you spend sitting? Fewer than eight? More than 10? A recent survey found that many of us spend up to 12 hours a day sitting on our bottoms looking at computers or watching television. If you throw in the seven hours we spend sleeping then that adds up to a remarkable 19 hours a day being sedentary.

Sitting down as much as this is clearly bad for us and some studies suggest that those who sit all day live around two years less than those who are more active. Most of us are guilty of excess sitting. We sit at work, in the car and at home, moving only to shift from one seat to another.

Even if you exercise on a regular basis that may not be enough. There is mounting evidence that exercise will not undo the damage done by prolonged sitting. Our technology has made us the most sedentary humans in history.

Continue reading the main story

Glucose is an essential fuel but persistently high levels increase your risk of diabetes and heart disease. Your pancreas produces the hormone insulin to help get your glucose levels back down to normal, but how efficiently your body does that is affected by how physically active you are

We wanted to see what would happen if we took a group of people who normally spend their day sitting in an office and ask them to spend a few hours a day on their feet instead.

Standing while you are working may seem rather odd, but it is a practice with a long tradition. Winston Churchill wrote while working at a special standing desk, as did Ernest Hemingway and Benjamin Franklin.

So with Dr John Buckley and a team of researchers from the University of Chester we conducted a simple experiment. We asked 10 people who work at an estate agents to stand for at least three hours a day for a week.

Our lucky volunteers had mixed feelings about how they would get on.

"It'll be different, but looking forward to it, yes…"

"I think my feet might hurt - I'll have to wear sensible shoes…"

"The small of my back, it's going to hurt…"

"I'm worried that I'm not going to be able to stand up for all that time…[Laughs nervously]"

We asked all the volunteers to wear an accelerometer - a movement monitor - to record just how much moving about they were doing. They also wore heart rate monitors and had glucose monitors that measured their blood sugar levels constantly, day and night.

The equivalent of 10 marathons a year?

The evidence that standing up is good for you goes back to at least the 1950s when a study was done comparing bus conductors (who stand) with bus drivers (who don't). This study, published in the Lancet, showed that the bus conductors had around half the risk of developing heart disease of the bus drivers.

Since then prolonged sitting has not only been linked to problems with blood glucose control, but also a sharp reduction in the activity of an enzyme called lipoprotein lipase, which breaks down blood fats and makes them available as a fuel to the muscles. This reduction in enzyme activity leads to raised levels of triglycerides and fats in the blood, increasing the risk of heart disease.

Continue reading the main story

They did. One woman with arthritis even found that standing actually improved her symptoms.

The Chester researchers took measurements on days when the volunteers stood, and when they sat around. When they looked at the data there were some striking differences. As we had hoped, blood glucose levels fell back to normal levels after a meal far more quickly on the days when the volunteers stood than when they sat.

There was also evidence, from the heart rate monitors that they were wearing, that by standing they were burning more calories.

"If we look at the heart rates," John Buckley explains, "we can see they are quite a lot higher actually - on average around 10 beats per minute higher and that makes a difference of about 0.7 of a calorie per minute."

Continue reading the main story

Now that doesn't sound like much, but it adds up to about 50 calories an hour. If you stand for three hours a day for five days that's around 750 calories burnt. Over the course of a year it would add up to about 30,000 extra calories, or around 8lb of fat.

"If you want to put that into activity levels," Dr Buckley says, "then that would be the equivalent of running about 10 marathons a year. Just by standing up three or four hours in your day at work."

Dr Buckley thinks that although going out and doing exercise offers many proven benefits, our bodies also need the constant, almost imperceptible increase in muscle activity that standing provides. Simple movement helps us to keep our all-important blood sugar under control.

We can't all stand up at work but the researchers believe that even small adjustments, like standing while talking on the phone, going over to talk to a colleague rather than sending an email, or simply taking the stairs, will help.