text:
Thailand's secessionist Muslim insurgency escalates
On a hot spring day, the roads and dirt alleys of the predominantly Muslim province seem quiet, even abandoned. Groups of schoolchildren, the girls in headscarves and the boys in starched uniforms, walk together along the side of the road. Inside some of the small, makeshift houses, men watch football matches on satellite television.
The quietness would be temporary. On September 21, a group of men appeared on the streets and began spraying machine-gun fire into a shop. As a crowd gathered in the aftermath of the shooting, a car bomb hidden nearby was detonated, killing six people and wounding at least 50.
These types of brutal attacks have become routine in this province. On a daily basis, groups of heavily armed men attack local officials, police, soldiers, teachers and any Muslim they believe is not adhering strictly enough to Islamic values. The insurgents explode homemade bombs, climb onto school buses and strafe children with gunfire. Those believed to sympathise with the national government are sometimes decapitated, their headless bodies left in public places, along with warnings to obey a strict form of Islam.
This is Pattani in southern Thailand, just a few hundred kilometres from Phuket and the idyllic international beach resorts of Thailand's west coast. In the country's deep south, where three Muslim-majority provinces abut Malaysia, a brutal insurgency between local Muslim militants who want a separate state and the Buddhist-dominated Thai army and paramilitary forces has raged for over a decade now. (Thailand is roughly 95 per cent Buddhist, but Buddhists are a minority in the three southern provinces.)
Since the war began in earnest in 2001, more than 5,000 people have been killed, and about 11,000 severely wounded, according to statistics kept by Deep South Watch, a monitoring organisation in southern Thailand. In recent months, the region has averaged four violent incidents a day. The shootings, bombings and open gunfights in the streets have devastated the local economy and left towns in ruins. And now, according to both Thai officials and Malay diplomats, the violence appears to be escalating.
In April, insurgents launched three sophisticated car bomb attacks, killing 14 people. On one day this summer, insurgents launched 102 simultaneous attacks across the south, including five bombings and innumerable shootings. The death toll rises each year - 310 people in 2009, 521 in 2010, and 535 in 2011, according to monitoring organisations. The chief of staff of Thailand's army recently acknowledged that the violence was unlikely to end anytime soon. Both sides have begun using extreme tactics. The Thai forces have armed local Buddhists, and in doing so created state-sanctioned vigilante groups. Both sides are accused by human rights groups of using children as soldiers. Government security forces frequently abduct local suspects and torture or kill them, according to reports by Human Rights Watch.
The violence has made southern Thailand the deadliest war zone in East Asia. And yet the conflict in the south has, for years, been almost invisible on the global stage, even though Thailand is a country woven into the world economy by trade and tourism. It is rarely covered in the media in the West or the Muslim world. It is all but ignored in policy circles in Washington, most Asian capitals, and even among many policymakers in Bangkok. And though some Muslims from southern Thailand have attempted to get international bodies to help address their grievances, including the United Nations and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), they have been largely ignored.
Though representatives of the OIC have met with some representatives of the southern insurgents, by and large, say several diplomats who were involved with the OIC, southern Thailand is not an important issue for the organisation.
"They see some place like southern Thailand as tangential, it's not in the Arab world," says one.
The three southern provinces along the Malay border have long had differences with Bangkok. They were, until the early 20th century, part of a sultanate. Around then, the Bangkok monarchy - a Buddhist institution - gained control of the region, triggering local anger against what the Malay-speaking minority viewed as a foreign grip. In the 1960s and 1970s, an earlier separatist insurgency emerged in southern Thailand, but the death toll was relatively low, and most of the insurgents put aside their weapons in the 1980s, following an amnesty from the national government.
To this day, no one really knows why the insurgency re-emerged in the early 2000s, and why the new conflicts were so much more violent. Many southerners date the first major attack to 2001, when at the end of the year an unknown entity organised five well-coordinated attacks on police stations in the south, killing five officers. The attacks were shocking, but not completely unexpected. Even during the quiet periods of the 1980s and 1990s, separatist tensions still simmered. For the south's youth, limited economic opportunity, perceived discrimination from Bangkok paired with the capital's exploitation of the region's abundant natural resources and an increased prevalence of drugs all led to a sense of alienation and fuelled the emergence of a radicalised youth population. According to Duncan McCargo, a scholar of southern Thailand at the University of Leeds in the UK, some became involved in growing networks of organised drug gangs, which supported an initial spate of attacks on local officials and created a climate of lawlessness. In addition, in the 1990s, communities in southern Thailand became closely linked to other parts of the Muslim world. With public schools in the south teaching primarily in Thai, many southerners began sending their children to private Islamic pondok schools, some of which were funded by charities from Arabian Gulf nations. Some schoolteachers argued for a renewal of the battle against the Thai state, and some of these institutions began to provide fertile recruiting grounds for militant networks, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG).
The Thai government fuelled southerners' rage through repressive policies in the early and mid-2000s. After the first stirrings of the insurgency, Thaksin Shinawatra's government, abolished a popular local southern board designed to hear grievances. Worse, rather than making efforts to address some of the grievances aired in the early 2000s by nonviolent southern activists, Thaksin took the opposite approach by centralising power in Bangkok. He rotated larger battalions of troops to the south, including many from other areas of Thailand where the soldiers had never interacted with Muslims. Thaksin had, through speeches, essentially given the security forces free rein in the deep south.
The result of centralisation of power and demonisation of southerners led to disasters such as the October 2004 Tak Bai incident in Narathiwat. When six men were arrested for allegedly supplying weapons to the insurgency, protesters demanding their release amassed outside the station at which they were being held. Dozens of protesters were arrested, and during their transport to a nearby military base in which prisoners were stacked in a lorry five to six deep, 78 people were either crushed or suffocated to death. No senior army or police officer has ever been punished for the incident, but the level of violence in the south increased soon after.
Unlike the 1960s and early 1970s, when the earlier insurgency was led by several groups with well-known leaders, this time the violence has been highly decentralised. A study by Human Rights Watch showed that the insurgents want to drive Thai Buddhists out of the south, as well as possibly institute more use of local languages, stricter forms of Islam, and ultimately obtaining autonomy or a separate state. But no one leader has emerged at the head of the insurgency, and experts such as Don Pathan of The Nation newspaper in Bangkok say that the insurgent cells are diffuse. Some of the insurgents issue warnings and demands to locals in the south and the Thai government, often through leaflets left on cars or in public places, but no one knows whether these demands represent all of the insurgents. The best analysis of the structure of the insurgency, put together by several researchers travelling through the south, found that the insurgents seem to be organised in small cells of six or seven fighters, run by a higher "Military Council" whose leaders are known as BRN-Coordinate, an acronym representing a series of words in Malay. Benjamin Zawicki, a longtime Amnesty International researcher, says: "The secrecy of BRN-Coordinate is such, however, that often the real name of superiors … or even fellow unit members, is not known to other members."
As a result of the diffuse networks of command, breaking up insurgent cells or even trying to negotiate with the militants has proven difficult for the authorities. In recent weeks, the Thai government has convinced almost 100 alleged militants to surrender, and have held talks with some veteran militant leaders. Yet even senior Thai government ministers privately admit that, though there are some 60,000 troops in the south and 66 government agencies involved in addressing the violence, they have no real idea whether the men who surrendered had actually been linked to any violence, or whether the older leaders really had any direct ties to heads of insurgent cells operating today. Five years ago, the Thai military claimed they believed there were as many as 40,000 people in the south linked to the insurgency; more recently, the military has claimed that there are only a few hundred people involved, a disparity that suggests the Thai government has no real clue about the number of fighters.
For a brief period in the early 2000s, the conflict in southern Thailand did make it onto the world's radar. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, some western terrorism experts attempted to link the southern insurgents to Al Qaeda. A group of terrorism specialists who had never focused on southern Thailand before, including Rohan Gunaratna of the International Center for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore, seemed to want to lump all Muslim insurgent groups together, and began issuing reports, full of raw data but with few hard examples, of southern Thailand and the global jihadist movement.
In perhaps the most notable example of this trend, well-known American terrorism researcher Zachary Abuza became interested in southern Thailand and published a series of articles and books, mostly based on Thai security forces' views, which tried to link the south to a global jihad. Abuza argued that there was reason to be suspicious that the southern insurgency was linked to Al Qaeda funding networks, senior Al Qaeda operational leaders, and Al Qaeda local leaders in South East Asia. His reports were taken seriously, at least for a time, by government officials in the United States, where he taught at the National Defense University. This theory was encouraged by hawks in the Thai government, who saw that linking the south to international networks would gain Thailand greater assistance from the US.
Indeed, Hambali, who was said to be the South East Asia head of the organisation, travelled through Thailand and may have ventured to the south. One of the most prominent clerics in the south, a man named Ismail Lufti, who operates a prosperous, gleaming private school that stands out from the run-down schools on most southern streets, was seen in 2002 meeting with two men later linked to bombings in Bali. Meanwhile, a comprehensive study by the ICG, taken two years ago, showed that some Islamic private schools in the south, including several funded with foreign aid, helped "recruits [be] drawn into the [southern] movement".
But several teachers noted that none of the recruiters or students saw the southern conflict as part of some broader Muslim war, or were interested in establishing an Islamic caliphate in South East Asia, another theory proposed by counterterrorism specialists in the West. More often, they just raged at the Thai state's denigration of their legal and linguistic rights, or at the presence of thousands of army troops all over the south. Many of the captured militants showed little devotion to religion at all.
Indeed, as McCargo says, "The standard tactics of global jihadis, such as targeting foreigners … and selecting high-profile targets outside of the immediate conflict zone, have not been used in southern Thailand." The militants have launched no major attacks outside the south, even though high-end resorts patronised by wealthy westerners are close by. By contrast, Jemaah Islamiyah, which is clearly an Al Qaeda-linked terror group that has operated in Indonesia for more than a decade, has attacked western interests such as the Bali nightclub strip and the JW Marriott hotel in Jakarta.
Senior members of Thailand's national security council have admitted as much, with National Intelligence Agency director Suwaphan Tanyuwattana recently declaring that he did not think southern insurgents received backing from Islamist militants. Or, as several southern teachers and activists told me, among young southerners, there is no cult following for prominent Middle Eastern clerics or terrorist leaders, since they look only to Malay leaders (including some Malaysian politicians) for cues.
When no major links to Al Qaeda emerged in the south, much of the world seemed to lose attention. Meanwhile, the few experts on Thailand that exist in the West have been primarily focused on the ongoing political conflict in Bangkok and the centre of the country, which since 2006 has resulted in a coup, numerous street protests, and the violent demonstrations and army actions that resulted in at least 80 deaths in Bangkok. The international media have no regular correspondents based in southern Thailand, a sharp contrast from Afghanistan or other major conflict zones, and the southern Muslims - unlike former fighters in East Timor or in Palestinian Territories today - have no global champion or diaspora network to speak for their cause and to bring their grievances to a broader audience. Most western news organisations, lacking any global story in the south or a compelling southern Thai leader, run only an occasional story about the violence. "Some people in Malaysia pay attention to these news stories, but anywhere else in the region, no one does," says one Malaysian diplomat. The Thai insurgents do not seem interested in changing this dynamic with reporters: they rarely issue public statements via the internet or television, or provide spokespeople who can meet with or at least telephone reporters.
After Thaksin was removed as prime minister in a coup in 2006, Thailand's elites fought for several years over control of Bangkok. Finally, in 2011, a party led by Thaksin's sister Yingluck, and actually commanding a majority of Thai voters, won parliamentary elections, giving it a strong mandate, though it was mistrusted by many army officers. Since taking office, the Yingluck government has adopted some new approaches to the south. Some top Thai politicians, including the deputy prime minister, have finally broached the idea of giving the southern provinces their own elected governors and significant autonomy, which was previously a red line no major Thai politician would cross.
This dramatic shift from previous Thai policy could, if correctly implemented, cut down the militants' appeal and reduce grievances in the south, and also possibly make Bangkok politicians who had just written off the violence begin to once again try to work for solutions. "The military-directed policy toward the south isn't working," wrote the Bangkok Post after the autonomy proposal was released. "It is past time to debate a new approach to the country's greatest security problem."
The government has not only accepted the surrender and provided amnesty to about 100 former fighters, it has also conducted more regular talks with men it believes are representatives of insurgent cells to get a better sense of their core demands. In sharp contrast to the bravado of previous Thai military leaders, the current army chief has won credit among southerners for at least admitting that the situation is severe, has many components, and will not be resolved easily anytime soon. Although the armed forces continue to detain suspects with little due process, the number of disappearances and reports of torture have diminished since the mid-2000s, and the army has rotated into the south a wider range of officers with more advanced counterinsurgency training, better understanding of local conditions, and at least some familiarity with Thai Muslims. In addition, the Thai government has tried to work more closely with neighbouring Malaysia, across the border, to prevent militants from easily slipping back and forth, according to several Malaysian diplomats.
And yet, even as the current Thai government seems to be moving closer to policy changes that could address southern grievances, the violence has, in recent months, reached its highest levels in recent years, while the insurgents also seem to have become better-coordinated and more confident.
Southern Thailand politicians and local officials offer differing explanations for the spike in violence. Among the most optimistic, usually officials who support the national government, the spike is an attempt by insurgent cells to press their advantage before coming to the peace table, a time-honoured strategy used by insurgents around the world. These officials argue that, with a populist government in Bangkok, supported by a large majority of rural Thais, the Yingluck govenrment is better-placed than any previous Thai government to understand the economic and political grievances of poor southerners.
Given that few people with top-level experience in the insurgency have actually surrendered or even agreed to talk, this explanation for the surging violence seems unlikely. Though the populist party running Thailand today is genuinely popular among the rural poor, it is not so beloved in the south - in the last parliamentary election, when Yingluck's party got an absolute majority of seats, it took only one seat in the entire southern region.
Instead, many teachers, local officials and analysts suggest a more menacing and depressing conclusion. After a decade of violence and with the Thai economy slowing down due to falling exports, young men in the south have become wedded to the insurgency as a way of life. Joining insurgent cells allows them access to money - insurgents often shake down local merchants and are allegedly involved in drug trafficking and other crimes - social status, and a way of venting their enormous resentments against Thai Buddhists, the state and their lack of relevance in Thai society as a whole. The insurgents also have attacked southerners who attempt to avoid violence and make money through traditional jobs such as rubber tapping. As each generation of young men in the south has been drawn into the insurgency, and as some teachers, local clerics, and other powerful southerners treat the insurgents with great respect, generation after generation of southerners see the battle as the best option not just for their politics, but for their own social well-being. And that is a hard cycle to break.
Joshua Kurlantzick is Fellow for Southeast Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations
Updated: October 20, 2012 04:00 AM


text:
Below are the complete blueprints for global (and soon galactic) financial, political and social domination, courtesy of the firm that is well on its way to becoming the undisputed heavyweight monopolist of all Wall Street action. Take out an effectively nationalized Citigroup and Bank of America, and it already is. It is time to break apart Goldman Sachs.
A year ago, when I presented at this conference, the mood was one of uncertainty and fear. Our industry was rocked to the core, buffeted by extraordinary volatility, and, in the credit markets, extreme illiquidity. Twelve months later, conditions across financial markets have improved significantly, and to an extent very few predicted or thought possible.
This has been helped by aggressive and effective government efforts – from various liquidity and funding facilities to the Treasury's Capital Purchase Program under TARP. It is impossible to know what would have happened to the financial system without concerted government action around the world. But, unquestionably, these efforts averted even more extreme circumstances and we are grateful for the critical role the government played.
At the same time, we have never run ourselves with any expectation of outside assistance. Throughout 2007, we were committed to reducing our risk exposures even though we sold at prices many in the market thought were irrational. Although we had access to the discount window, we increased our liquidity pool by 2.5 times to $170 billion, or almost 20% of our balance sheet. We raised nearly $11 billion in capital -- $5 billion of preferred from Berkshire Hathaway and $5.75 billion in an offering of common equity. We did this not knowing the TARP Capital Purchase Program was coming.
Our self-help actions were consistent with our historical behavior of maintaining one of the most conservative risk profiles in our industry. And through strong risk management guided by a disciplined fair value accounting process, we remain every bit as focused on protecting our shareholders' equity, our client franchise and our reputation.
Over the past year, clients have come to Goldman Sachs because we integrate strategic advice, risk management, financing, trading and investing skills. Our job – our duty to shareholders – is to protect and grow this client franchise that is the lifeblood of Goldman Sachs. And the best way we know how to do that is to safeguard our culture of performance and risk management, which has allowed us to be nimble and reactive, yet defined by prudent, long-term thinking. This culture has also allowed us to actively commit capital and inject liquidity throughout markets at a time when those lubricants for economic growth were scarce.
Today, I would like to describe the strength and value of our client franchise as well as the roles we play and risk we assume in service to that franchise. I will also cover our capital and liquidity positions, and will conclude with a brief discussion on our culture and people and long-term record of returns that they have generated.
While the extraordinary events and macroeconomic uncertainty of the past year have validated key attributes of our strategy, culture and processes, they have also prompted significant change within our firm. We embraced new realities around regulation and leverage because of our commitment to the long-term stability of our franchise and the overall markets.
The Federal Reserve is now our primary regulator. As a Financial Holding Company, we are
subject to the Fed's capital and leverage tests. Over the last 18 months, our balance sheet has fallen by a quarter, while our capital has increased by over a half. The amount of Level Three, or illiquid assets, is down by almost 50 percent and now represents less than 6 percent of our total assets.
Our client franchise is the core of our business model and strategy, and its quality and depth is shaped by the skill, talent and collaboration of our people. Our strategy is to integrate advice, financing and co-investing with best-in-class risk management to a broad range of largely institutional clients.
A keen and comprehensive appreciation of risk is at the center of everything we do. Whether we execute a sizable portfolio reallocation trade for a pension fund, or a long dated natural gas hedge for a producer, our ability to measure and mitigate risk is paramount to driving shareholder returns.
Our success in executing this model is dependent on our ability to identify opportunities early and allocate people and capital to them quickly and effectively. We have a strong track record of doing so over many years. Recently, to cite two examples, we raised Senior Loan and Mezzanine Funds to provide private capital to clients when public markets were less accessible. And we expanded our non-agency mortgage trading operations as liquidity left that market.
When we talk about the diversity of our business model, people often think about it in terms of product mix and geography. Another important construct is the breadth of our client base. In Investment Banking alone, we've advised over 1,000 clients in 67 countries over the past 5 years, solidifying our #1 market share position.
Our clients are corporations, financial institutions, governments, investors, pensions and individuals and they are based all over the world. As you can see from this chart, most of our clients interact with us through at least three of our businesses.
I previously mentioned the value of combining capital with ideas. In 2006, we saw opportunities to participate in large 'take private' transactions, in which clients valued our ability to merge our advice with the provision of capital. That skill set and capacity is no less important today.
Since obtaining attractive public debt financing for large leveraged buy-outs has become difficult, clients have benefited from our ability to provide private financing through our Senior Loan and Mezzanine funds. A good example of this is a current transaction where we are acting as advisor to The Blackstone Group on its $2.7 billion acquisition of Busch Entertainment from Anheuser-Busch InBev. Our funds participated in the debt financing, which is critical to the transaction. This is what we do for clients – marshal advice and capital to help accomplish their objectives, while contributing to the process of investment and growth.
And, we are doing more of this in more parts of the world. We remain focused on expanding our client franchise in new high growth markets, and continue to implement a familiar strategy – begin with small principal investments, build underwriting capabilities, expand advisory client coverage, develop sales and trading expertise and grow our wealth management business. We prioritize and evaluate potential opportunities based on the need for our expertise and execution services in each market.
As tumultuous and significant as the financial crisis has been, we continue to believe that this will be the century of the BRICs and other emerging markets. For us, the BRICs are even more compelling post the crisis, and they remain a core part of our long-term growth strategy. Over the past year, we have advised on a number of important emerging market transactions including Satyam's majority sale to Tech Mahindra and China Mobile's strategic cooperation with Far EasTone.
Built over 140 years, our advisory business serves as our primary point of contact with our clients, and thus acts as the driver of our opportunity set.
Although advisory revenues are near a cyclical low, we have started to feel improvements in CEO confidence and their level of strategic dialogue. As activity levels improve, it's difficult to anticipate what types of transactions will be in favor, or which industries will be active. The key from our perspective is having a broad and deep franchise that allows Goldman Sachs to be relevant, effective and steeped in market knowledge in service to our clients.
The breadth of our franchise is demonstrated by the fact that we retain industry-leading positions in cross-border, acquirer, target and strategic defense advisory league tables. In addition to providing the classic investment banking services, we've had great success in growing our risk management solutions business within Investment Banking. This part of the business encapsulates our strategy of integrating advice, capital and risk management. For example, we worked with RSA Insurance Group to insure liabilities related to its defined benefit pension program. The transaction allowed RSA to take advantage of market conditions to enhance returns while mitigating inflation, interest rate and other risk factors on roughly one third of its total liabilities.
Our deep client relationships in investment banking provide us with these opportunities, but the revenues often show up in FICC or Equities from a financial reporting perspective. Since 2005, revenues from this activity have grown 22% compounded annually.
Our banking relationships are also the source of most of our financing mandates. As an intermediary, our job is to match the capital of our investment clients — who aim to grow the savings of millions of people — with the needs of our corporate and government clients — who rely on financing to generate growth, create jobs and deliver products and services.
Since the beginning of 2007, we have underwritten over $675 billion in corporate debt and over $400 billion in equity related products across 1,800 offerings for 750 clients around the world. These clients rely on our advice and execution to provide necessary capital to their enterprises.
We also have a long history of helping states and municipalities access the capital markets. Since Goldman Sachs entered the public finance business in 1951, we have been one of the largest industry participants. Over the past 10 years, we have helped states and municipalities raise over $250 billion of capital. We are currently the #1 underwriter for the Build for America Bond program, which allows states and municipalities to meet their borrowing needs and invest in infrastructure projects. In 2009, we've also raised over $24 billion for non-profit institutions including education services, healthcare and government entities.
FICC and Equities, our market intermediation businesses, have been a meaningful driver of our strong firmwide performance year to date. Through our role as a market maker, we commit and deploy our capital to ensure that buyers and sellers can complete their transactions -- contributing to the liquidity, efficiency and stability of financial markets. Our Securities Division continues to benefit from a diverse set of businesses. This slide illustrates the performance of individual businesses on a quarterly basis since 2007. The orange bars reflect a Top 3 performance for the individual unit. As you can see, no one business has dominated the mix.
An interesting trend we've seen this year is a 'Macro to Micro' handoff. In the first quarter, Macro businesses like Rates and Commodities were very strong. Beginning in the second quarter, Equities and Credit Products rebounded. By the third quarter, our Micro Businesses including Mortgages, Credit trading and Cash Equities had become the most active. This evolution is a reflection of increasing client risk appetite.
It is impossible to predict in which market our clients will be active at any given time. That's why it is a priority to stay close to our clients. And through that proximity, we direct our human and financial capital towards the most important opportunities in the markets.
Throughout this crisis, we made prices when markets were volatile and illiquid, and extended credit when credit was scarce. More generally, we execute on average over 2.5 million transactions daily for our clients across Fixed Income and Equity products.
Over the past 5 years, the number of trading clients in our credit business has increased 50% to over 2,200. This is a function of our global expansion strategy as well as the continued growth of capital markets around the world. For example, since 2004, the number of Chinese companies with a market cap of more than $1 billion has increased nearly five times to 530.
In recent months, some commentators have made various statements about the nature and level of risk, including proprietary risk, that financial institutions undertake. There has been concern that institutions may be returning to the practices that contributed to the financial crisis. The fact is that for Goldman Sachs, the vast majority of risk we take and revenues we generate is dominated by trades that advance a client need or objective.
I thought it would be helpful to walk you through a real trade that drove risk taking for the firm. Hopefully, this will help de-mystify the process.
An energy consumer asked us to help protect itself against a rise in the cost of fuel over the next five years, concerned that an unanticipated increase in fuel prices would impact its ability to execute on strategic growth initiatives. Typically on a trade like this, a client would post cash as collateral in the event fuel prices declined during the life of the trade. However, given more difficult funding markets, the client wanted to reduce the risk of poorly timed draws on its cash. To accomplish this, we structured a long-term secured hedge facility that allows the client to post a combination of cash and assets upfront.
In terms of managing our own risk, we bought hedges to offset the fuel price risk we assumed on behalf of our client. To mitigate our credit risk, we revalue the collateral on a regular basis. While we expect the collateral to be sufficient, we have the ability to hedge counterparty risk if necessary. We were able to structure the transaction at a fair price for our client, and generate an attractive risk-adjusted return for the firm. This transaction represents the type of risk that we take throughout the day, every day. It's this type of risk, which we assume and manage as a financial institution, that allows our clients to focus on their underlying businesses.
Co-investing continues to be an important aspect of our strategy, with two-thirds of our
corporate transactions sourced from our Investment Banking franchise. While quarterly returns in this business will fluctuate based on equity market performance, our merchant bank has an excellent history of providing strong returns for our fund investors and shareholders over the long term.
Our funds span the capital structure, including senior debt, mezzanine and private equity. Additionally, there is significant diversity within the funds themselves, with no one industry representing more than 25%. We remain well positioned to be opportunistic in the current investing environment. In 2009, we amended our GS Capital Partners VI fund's strategy to allow for investment in distressed assets. And there is approximately $8 billion available for further investment within that fund.
Our asset management business offers a range of products across Money Markets, Fixed Income, Equity and Alternatives. And our distribution channels to third party retail, institutional and high net worth clients are robust.
Our client base is diverse, with 2,000 institutional clients and 3rd party distributors, and 25,000 Private Wealth Management accounts. We manage more than $150 billion in assets for over 1,600 pension plans and non-profit organizations.
Asset Management is an important growth opportunity for Goldman Sachs, and we will continue to allocate significant time and resources to this effort. At the time of our IPO in 1999, our goal was to double assets under management over five years. We were successful. By 2008, we doubled assets under management again.
Going forward, we are focused on continuing to build our distribution and portfolio management capabilities. In fact, we are doubling our third party sales force in 2009, and significantly increasing our Institutional and Private Wealth sales coverage. We are expanding coverage in many areas, including government sponsored organizations, corporate pensions, and insurance companies, as well as emerging markets such as Brazil, the Middle East and China. Our objective is to continue to aggressively grow the business, while generating strong investment returns for our clients.
Given our roots as a privately held partnership, we've always focused on maintaining a conservative financial profile. We view liquidity as the single most important consideration for a financial institution, which is why we've lived by a funding motto "more for longer."
We steadily increased our Global Core Excess pool of liquidity for several years, and it now represents about 20% of our balance sheet. Importantly, it is in cash equivalents, notunencumbered assets. We've consistently maintained a significant amount of term in ourfunding book. The average life of our long-term debt is more than 7 years, while our short-term secured funding exceeds 100 days. Keeping this pool of liquidity is expensive. It also inflates our balance sheet and our gross leverage metric. But, it's worth it – it is the best insurance policy we can buy for our shareholders.
In the past year, our Basel I Tier 1 Capital Ratio has increased to 14.5%, through earnings generation and a number of capital offerings. In addition, the quality of our capital is very high,with 80% in common equity. Our gross leverage ratio is half of what it was going into the crisis – and that metric doesn't adjust for the cash on our balance sheet.
These ratios are some of the highest in the industry and act as a significant drag on our returns, but we view our actions as essential given the uncertain market environment.
Of course, human capital in our business is just as important as financial capital. We don't have material 'property, plant & equipment' or 'cost of goods sold'. Attracting and retaining the most talented professionals in the world is core to the success of our business. This focus has translated into a high degree of stability and experience in the upper ranks of our firm. Our Management Committee members have been at Goldman Sachs an average of 19 years. Our Executive Officers average over 23 years.
Throughout this crisis, we have remained focused on our recruiting efforts with every member of our management committee participating on campus and over 120,000 hours committed to recruiting by employees. We invest significant resources in developing our people. Through GS University, we provide 350,000 hours of orientation to our new hires. We leverage our senior leaders as faculty to foster the culture and provide more effective training. Last year, for example, over 5,000 courses were taught by our senior leaders.
Lastly, the people of Goldman Sachs have a strong sense of responsibility to their communities. Our people sit on 1,500 non-profit boards and 500 of our employees have been engaged in our 10,000 Women initiative with another 250 on the waitlist to be mentors. This year, 23,000 of our employees worldwide volunteered for over 800 local non-profits through our Community Team Works program.
I often hear reference to our higher compensation per employee metric – but what people fail to mention is that our net income generated per head is a multiple of the peer average. The people of Goldman Sachs are one of the most productive workforces in the world. In fact, when you look at the profitability of Goldman Sachs, we have higher pre-tax margins than any industry average in the Fortune 500 over the past 10 years, and we are in the top 10% of all companies.
It is important to keep in mind that these are the profits that go to our shareholders after we pay our people. Our shareholders are pensioners, mutual funds and individual investors and they are all tax payers.
We believe in pay for performance and when you compare us directly to our peer group, we have the strongest track record of correlating compensation growth to revenue growth. Our EPS growth, ROE and Book Value per share growth significantly outperforms our peers, and our Net Income per employee is almost 150% higher than our peers.
We certainly are not blind to the attention focused on our industry, and in particular, Goldman Sachs. We have been outspoken on the need for significant regulatory reform -- from how institutions account for their assets, to improvements in risk management processes, to better tying compensation to long-term performance.
In this last respect, our compensation to net revenue ratios have traditionally been one of the lowest in our industry. The bulk of compensation for our senior people is in the form of equity which vests over at least three years and has sales restrictions for even longer. And, our senior executives are required to retain 75 percent of the stock they have been awarded until they retire. We have made our detailed compensation principles public and we expect our shareholders to hold us accountable for how we implement them.
As I've said before, the significance of the government's actions last fall cannot be overstated, and we are grateful. We believe those efforts were critical to protecting the financial system and ensuring the continued viability of the American economy.
Government intervention in the financial system, however, should not obscure the fact that we have been conservative in the management of our capital and liquidity. Before the crisis, we had a strong balance sheet with prudent maturities. And during the crisis, we took the initiative to reduce further our exposure to problem assets and to raise new capital.
During our history, our firm has been guided by three tenets: the needs and objectives of our clients; attracting talented and long-term oriented people; and our reputation and client franchise. We remain every bit as focused on these ambitions. We have a clear strategy to integrate advice and capital with risk management. We have built a diverse set of businesses. We have an expanding global footprint. And, we have established a proven culture of risk management.
We, no doubt, will encounter our fair share of challenges and mis-steps – and we already have. But the legacy of client service and performance for our shareholders, which every person at Goldman Sachs is charged with protecting and advancing, must be continually nurtured and passed on to future generations. And, I have never been more confident of that outcome.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
M WAQAR..... "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Albert Einstein !!! NEWS,ARTICLES,EDITORIALS,MUSIC... Ze chi pe mayeen yum da agha pukhtunistan de.....(Liberal,Progressive,Secular World.)''Secularism is not against religion; it is the message of humanity.'' تل ده وی پثتونستآن
Tuesday, March 4, 2014
Kunming attack prompts call for strengthened anti-terrorism legislation
Putin in speech on Ukraine makes clear Russia isn't on anyone's side, but opponent of anti-constitutional coups - expert
Kerry Pledges $1 Bln Loan During Kiev Visit
Ukrainians and Russians in New York want peaceful resolution
As tensions rise between Russia and the Ukraine, members of the large ethnic communities in New York City pray for a peaceful resolution
Get the Phone: Malala Admits She Has No Cell
Malala Yousafzai Brings Literacy to Women via Mobile Phones
Fizza Malik: Face of Pakistan's latest tragedy
Young Pakistani lawyer Fizza Malik is being seen by many as the face of the latest tragedy in Pakistan's conflict. The country's media and social networks have seen an outpouring of grief since it emerged she had been killed in Monday's attack on a local court in Islamabad, reports BBC Urdu's Iram Abbasi.
"I wish my sister had listened and come with me to Dubai," said her brother Ali. Aged 23, Fizza had just qualified as a lawyer. She was working on a criminal case in the court in the city's F-8 area when militants mounted a suicide gun and bomb attack on the premises.
She used to love Pakistan so much that she never wanted to settle abroad but who knew her own country will become her killer?" her mother told the BBC, with tears in her eyes.
"My Fizza was so beautiful she didn't have to die so young."
Ms Malik graduated from Islamabad School of Law last year under a distance learning programme with the UK's University of Northumbria and had been practising for only a very short time. She was the only sister of two brothers who both work in Dubai. Her other brother Asad was weeping openly on his mother's shoulder when I entered the family house. "The menace of terrorism took my sister away - no brother could feel his sister is safe if she steps out of house to work," he said as he remembered their last phone conversation. Her father told me how caring his daughter had been: "We've sacrificed our daughter and it'll be in vain if this country doesn't stand up against terrorism. Will the government honour our sacrifice?"
Ms Malik had lost the sight of one of her eyes and had been receiving treatment in the US but her friend Ahmed told the BBC she had been so ambitious "even that didn't stop her from pursuing her goal of being the best criminal lawyer in the country". At least 11 people, including a judge and several other lawyers, were among those killed and more than 20 others were wounded in the assault on the court. Colleagues and friends remembered a young woman brimming with energy and potential in an article on the Dawn news website. "A life snuffed out," read the headline in Express Tribune. News of her death spread rapidly on Twitter. "We bury r children & move on. No change," read a message from human rights activist Alizeh Iqbal Haider.
"#RIP all those who are not among us today," tweeted Nazrana Yousufzai.
Ancient virus resurrected after 30,000 years, scientists say
http://www.worldbulletin.net/Melting snow and ice in Siberia has unleashed a 30,000-year-old virus, which lay buried and inactive, frozen in a 30 meter deep layer of permafrost. Scientists who uncovered the virus brought it back to life after 30,000 years, and witnessed it attacking single-cell organisms like amoebas, according to a study is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). Professor Jean-Michel Claverie, from the National Centre of Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Aix-Marseille in France, said "this is the first time we've seen a virus that's still infectious after this length of time." The virus poses no threat to humans and animals, but scientists fear that more aggressive viruses like smallpox may also be lying deep in the Siberian permafrost that could also be revived if the ice continues to melt. "By going deeper we may reactivate the possibility that smallpox could become again a disease of humans in modern times," the scientist told the BBC.
Saudi female activists demand expanded women's rights in new petition
A group of female activists has sent a petition to the Saudi Arabian Shura Council, demanding the end of male guardianship and the expansion of women's rights. The advocates want the Council to take the necessary steps to improve women's rights and stop domestic violence against them. Twenty-five women—including some university professors— recently sent the petition ahead of International Women's Day on March 8, the Saudi Gazette reported, citing Saudi newspaper Al-Hayat. Azizah Al-Yousif, an activist who signed the petition, said the group is determined to be heard."This petition renews our demands as women. We want our issues to be put on the top of the Council's priority list," she said. Al-Yousif added that two Shura Council members promised to tackle many of the points raised in the petition. The changes the group seeks include women no longer be obliged to have a male guardian's permission to complete education, work, and travel. Women also want to be able to file a lawsuit, receive medical treatment, be released from prison, or apply for an ID or passport without a man's consent. Women and children who are victims of domestic violence at the hands of men should be protected by a special law granting them the right to self-determination, according to the letter. One example of the hold men have over women in Saudi Arabia is called "adhl," when a male guardian prevents a woman in his custody from getting married. Men can now also demand minors to marry, divorce their wives without compelling reasons, and discriminate against women and harass them at work and in public. The petition wants to limit these powers. Women should be treated equally and provided the same opportunities as men to hold high positions in the private and public sectors, and granted the same pension benefits as men, according to the plea. After detailing their demands for expanded rights, the activists warned that these issues affect the lives of millions of women, and are vital to future generations. Writing in Al-Riyadh Arabic daily, Haya Al-Manee said that a Saudi woman is considered a minor. "In our society, a woman is treated a minor in every aspect… I don't know when a Saudi woman would pass the phase of being a minor," Al-Manee wrote. According to the website of the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Washington D.C., the Shura Council is a consultative body that consists of 150 members of educated and experienced citizens appointed by the King. In 2004, the Shura Council's mandate was broadened to include proposing new legislation and amending existing laws without prior submission to the monarchy. But only the King can pass or enforce laws.
Pakistan: Islamabad is not safe anymore, says Khursheed Shah
National Assembly Opposition Leader and Pakistan People's Party (PPP) senior member Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah has declared Islamabad unsafe. Speaking to media after visiting the victims of the Islamabad Court Attack at Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) on Tuesday morning he said, "Islamabad is not safe anymore and the foreigners and the citizens are leaving the city." "It is a misconception that India or any other state is responsible for the court attack", he added. The opposition leader demanded that such deplorable incidents indicate failure of the administration and hence it should be changed at once. Khursheed Shah further said federal government is lucky to have opposition's support even without any significant performance.
Cricket: Afridi goes 'Boom Boom' in win against Bangladesh
Shahid Afridi lived up to the 'Boom Boom' title for the second consecutive match as he blasted 59 runs from 25 balls in Pakistan's win over Bangladesh. Not to be overshadowed by Afridi, Fawad Alam scored 74 runs to guide Pakistan to victory in the final overs of the match. Pakistan overcame a daunting 327 run target and confirmed their place in the Asia Cup final against Sri Lanka. Opener Ahmed Shahzad played a brilliant knock and scored a century ensuring that the required run rate remained in hand. Bangladesh captain Mushfiqur Rahim won the toss and elected to bat in a must-win match. Opener Amanul Haque scored a century and was supported by Imrul Kayes with 59 runs. Mominul Haque and Mushfiqur Rahim also chipped in with half-centuries.
The History and Logic of Military Ultimatums, From Suez to Crimea
We run through some important modern ultimatums to show why governments make them, and what—if anything—they accomplish.What's an ultimatum? It's a thousand different things, depending on who's making it—but it's generally something like a threat attached to a set of demands. "There will be costs for any military intervention in Ukraine" President Obama said in a speech on Friday, though he did not specify what the costs to the Russians would be, or how they would be exacted. In Crimea Monday, three days after President Obama delivered his remarks warning of costs, and as Russian troops occupied more ground in Ukraine, A Russian admiral delivered his own ultimatum. According to Interfax news agency, Aleksander Vitko, Russia's Black Sea Fleet chief, gave Crimean forces until 5 a.m. on Tuesday to surrender or face a full military assault. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry denied receiving any specific threat from Russian officials, and the same news agency that issued the initial story later reported that a Russian spokesmen denied any ultimatum was given. What to make of all these ultimatums, those rescinded or falsified and those left on the table? Start with this: they're given so often because they're easily made, the price of making them isn't collected right away, and because they buy time for preparations and appear useful to those for whom a course of action isn't immediately clear or available. And ultimatums aren't always cheap. They can be useful if they're backed up by some decisive action that proves a cause and effect between warnings and consequences; they don't necessarily require force, but some form of clear and effective retribution if they are not abided. With no promises of thoroughness, here's a rundown of some case-study ultimatums from our recent history. There are older examples that you won't find here, ancient ones even, but to keep both the Bible and Hitler out of a complex situation that's already been grist for reductive morality tales, let's take a look at the scene starting after World War II. No Sudetenland references here, folks. The Suez Crisis, 1956 An unlikely place to start, you might think, and a strange set of alliances: Israel, France, and England arrayed against Egypt, while the Soviet Union and the U.S. guarded their own interests and played peacemaker from the sidelines. "Within 24 hours after Israel invaded Egypt, Britain and France joined in an ultimatum to Egypt and Israel—and then began to bomb Cairo," Time magazine wrote in the Suez conflict's immediate aftermath. The setup for the ultimatum: On the heels of an arms race between the French backed Israeli's and the Soviet backed Egyptians, Israel invaded Egypt in response to the Nasser government nationalizing the Suez Canal and closing off the Straits of Tiran. France and Britain, wanting to regain control of the canal, are waiting in the wings to join the war. An example of a certain type of ultimatum that, despite appearing to present terms to prevent war, was the pretext for an attack that was already decided. Afghanistan, 2001 The beginnings of a familiar modern ultimatum, which holds a state accountable not only for its own direct actions but also those carried out by its citizens and groups within its borders. President George W. Bush responded to al Qaeda's attack on the United States and the killing of almost 3,000 American citizens by issuing an ultimatum to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which had a close relationship with al Qaeda and allowed the group to operate freely in the country. Bush demanded that the Taliban turn over Osama bin Laden and the rest of al Qaeda's leaders and rid the country of terrorists. The Taliban refused and less than a month later the U.S. war began. The ultimatum failed to produce bin Laden. That would take another 10 years and SEAL Team 6 to accomplish. But it did help cement the international coalition that backed the U.S. invasion and created a precedent that held sponsor states accountable for the groups operating under their auspices, or those that they had allowed to work within their borders. This is an ultimatum seeking a target in the disorienting matrix of asymmetric warfare. Syria, 2013 A slow fuse ultimatum and then an ultimatum put on hold. In response to a question about the Syrian civil war posed in 2012, President Obama said, "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus." In 2013, after reports surfaced of horrific casualties from the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against civilians and rebel groups, the vague ultimatum the president had established in the past year became a test of U.S. resolve and a mandate for action. Would the red line be enforced if evidence proved that Assad had used chemical weapons? Did enforcement necessarily mean invasion or could it be accomplished through long-range missile strikes and air power? Did it have to mean military action at all or were there other ways to ensure the Assad regime's compliance and reinforce the message that the U.S. was willing and able to back up its words and enforce standards in the international order? Scrambling to interpret the implications of its own ultimatum, the Obama administration passed through a series of policy positions until a most unexpected development released them from having to decide exactly what Syria's trespass of the "red line" required. Seizing on a statement made by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Russia stepped in to broker a peace deal with Syria that promised to both get rid of Syria's chemical weapons and relieve the U.S. of having to follow through on the Red Line speech's threat of action. Some observers warned at the time that ceding the diplomatic initiative and appearing to abandon earlier U.S. ultimatums would embolden both the Syrians and the Russians in the future. There might be a useful lesson in the recent history of ultimatums. Rhetoric itself can be powerful. In Syria, the Russians—whatever their own interests and intentions were—made the U.S. an offer that it thought it couldn't refuse. To have turned down the Russian initiative would have appeared like favoring war over peace. By publicizing a deal the U.S. thought it had to accept, the Russians were able to seize the initiative and begin dictating terms in Syria. That shift in the power dynamic didn't come from force or the threat of it but from maneuvering around interests. There are two ways to judge the effectiveness of an ultimatum. One measure is how effectively it yields the demands made of the other party. The other, broader measure of an ultimatum views it as an instrument of leverage rather than a precision tool for producing specific results. By this standard a successful ultimatum might be one that can't be met, as long as making it increases the relative power and maneuvering position of the party placing the demands.
Kerry Arrives in Ukraine, Pledges $1 Billion in US Aid
http://www.voanews.com/U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrived Tuesday in Kyiv, Ukraine, where he will announce a $1 billion aid package to a nation divided by political unrest. Kerry was met by enthusiastic crowds at Independence Square in Kyiv, where some protesters chanted "thank you" to America's top diplomat. Arriving for his first visit since the overthrow of Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych, Kerry described the experience as "moving, distressing and inspiring," according to Reuters. As Kerry demonstrated U.S. support for Ukraine's interim government, Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country is prepared to use all options to protect Russians in Ukraine. He added that he hopes Russia will not have to use force. In his first public comments since Yanukovych fled Kyiv, the Russian leader called Ukraine's political power shift an "anti-constitutional coup and armed seizure of power," and said Yanukovych is still Ukraine's legitimate leader. "As for bringing in forces. For now there is no such need but such a possibility exists,'' Putin said, looking relaxed as he sat before a small group of reporters at his residence near Moscow. "What could serve as a reason to use military force? It would naturally be the last resort, absolutely the last."' Putin's comments Tuesday come amid a growing crisis over Russia's military presence in the Ukrainian region of Crimea. However, there was no immediate sign of any new movements by Russian forces in Crimea overnight. The United States and its European allies are considering sanctions against Russia for its presence in Ukraine. While in Ukraine, Secretary Kerry is expected to meet members of the interim government and reinforce U.S. support for Ukraine's sovereignty. Loan guarantees he was expected to offer are aimed at lessening the impact of proposed cuts to energy subsidies on Ukrainian citizens. Russian navy blocks channel Russian navy ships have blocked off the Kerch Strait which separates Ukraine's Crimea region and Russia, Reuters reported Tuesday. The Ukrainian border guard service said Russian servicemen are in control of the Crimean side of the narrow channel and that Russian armoured vehicles have been sighted on the Russian side. "The Kerch Strait is blocked by two Russian ships - from the north and from the south," Pavel Shishurin, the deputy head of the border guards, told reporters. The Russian military has not confirmed his comments. Elsewhere, Putin ordered tens of thousands of troops taking part in military exercises in western Russia, near the Ukrainian border, to return to base. The exercises were scheduled to end, so it is unclear whether the move was intended to help ease tensions. Moscow has denied that the exercises, started last week, were related to the situation in Ukraine. On Monday night, U.S. President Barack Obama met with Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and other members of his national security team at the White House to discuss policy options. Earlier Monday, President Obama called on Congress to approve an aid package for the new Ukrainian government. In tandem with the diplomatic push, the U.S. Defense Department said Monday it is suspending military-to-military contacts with Russia. Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said the move is aimed at prodding Moscow to de-escalate the Ukraine crisis, and said the suspension covers maneuvers, bilateral meetings, port visits and conference planning. EU deadline European Union foreign ministers have issued a Thursday deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull back his troops or face punitive measures. Russia, meanwhile, is calling on Ukraine to return to a February 21 agreement between ousted President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition that involved forming a national unity government. But State Department spokeswoman Psaki said Monday that while the agreement could be used as a "basis," the dramatic change in circumstances since then means it is not usable as it is. President Obama accused Russia Monday of violating international law with its actions in Ukraine. He said the country is "on the wrong side of history." Russia says its military movements in Ukraine are to protect its citizens there. But the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, told an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council Monday that Russia's intervention is an "act of aggression," and not the humanitarian mission it is seeking to portray. Diplomacy U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke Monday by telephone with Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The White House said Biden urged Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukraine, support the immediate deployment of international monitors and begin a "meaningful political dialogue" with the Ukrainian government. Crimea is a Black Sea peninsula placed under Ukrainian control in 1954 by then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. It remained part of Ukraine when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Crimea has a tiny border with Russia on its far eastern point, and the Crimean port of Sevastapol is home to Russia's Black Sea fleet. Most of the people living in Crimea are ethnic Russians, but the region also is home to ethnic Muslim Tatars, who generally show disdain for Russia. Ukraine's troubles began in November, when President Yanukovych backed out of a trade deal with the European Union in favor of closer ties and economic aid from Russia. The move triggered weeks of pro-Western anti-government demonstrations in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine, and forced the pro-Russian Yanukovych to flee the capital in late February.
Putin Slams Ukrainian Govt, Says Invasion 'Last Resort'
Obama Budget Proposal: Tie Tax Hike for Rich to Cuts for Poor
The President will roll out his 2015 budget plan on TuesdayPresident Barack Obama's proposed 2015 budget would raise taxes on many wealthy individuals while providing an estimated 13.5 million Americans a tax break, the White House announced Monday, in the latest manifestation of Democrats' midterm-election agenda. Obama's budget, to be rolled out on Tuesday, would expand the earned income tax credit for low-income Americans without children, while expanding the child- and dependent-care tax credit to help families afford child care, the White House announced. Additionally it would include automatic enrollment in IRAs for employees to help save for retirement and several provisions to help students and families pay for college tuition. The White House is framing the proposals as a continuation of Obama's populist State of the Union message, "Opportunity for all," which he encouraged Democrats to embrace at last week's meeting of the Democratic National Committee. The $60 billion in lost tax revenue would be paid for by stripping two tax breaks employed by the nation's wealthiest, which the White House said "do not promote work or growth." It would eliminate a provision used by hedge funds and private-equity firms to treat income from managed investments, known as carried interest, as capital gains, as opposed to ordinary income, effectively raising the tax rate on billions of dollars in payouts to firm managers. It would also remove the so-called Newt Gingrich or John Edwards loophole, which allows individuals to treat some income as corporate profits to avoid payroll taxes. Obama has tried to raise the carried-interest tax rate to the level of ordinary income for years, but has been stymied by stiff opposition in Congress that has not subsided. The election-year budget is designed to showcase the party's focus on the middle class, while portraying GOP opponents as defenders of the wealthy. "This [carried interest] tax rate is significantly below the income and payroll taxes that a manager would owe on comparable salary income and is less than the effective federal income and payroll tax rate for a single childless worker making $50,000," the White House said in an economic report on the proposed changes. Read more: Obama 2015 Budget Proposal: Tax Hikes for Rich, Cuts for Middle Class | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2014/03/03/barack-obama-2015-budget-proposal/#ixzz2v0XEj100
Can We Afford Another Failed State in Afghanistan? Beyond the 2014 Drawdown
By Zaman Stanizai
President Obama has threatened a full U.S. troop drawdown from Afghanistan by the end of this year unless Afghan President Hamid Karzai signs a security agreement with the U.S. Obama didn't say anything about "the asking price" of the controversial agreement, nor did he say much about the Afghan state the U.S would be leaving behind. He did not give even any inkling of the possibility that Afghanistan could plunge into the quagmire of a failed state to which the U.S. will not be indifferent -- a scenario based on the uncertainties likely to be left by unresolved issues.
American and NATO forces are leaving behind a country where only 10 percent of its GDP of $1 billion comes from legitimate economic activity; of the remainder, 30 percent comes from underground narcotic trade and 60 percent from foreign aid. As a country with one of the highest military to civilian ratios, Afghanistan has more than 350,000 security force, both army and police, with $4 billion annual operation cost, but with few resources to support it. These armed forces are comprised predominantly of ethnic minorities from the north of the country that are launched against a resistance that comes largely from the country's Pashtun ethnic majority in the south.
Many of the warlords who Balkanized the country in the 1990s act as high-ranking officials and parliamentarians, ranks they have acquired through the flagrant abuse of ethnic loyalties and tribal quotas. They have divvied up public offices to their former militia and have carved out ethnic-exclusive zones of influence in the government bureaucracy. These ethnic fiefdoms within the present bureaucracy are a major stumbling block to reform and the source of unbridled government corruption.
Furthermore, some of these warlords-turned-demagogues have been implicated in crimes against humanity, but remain immune to prosecution with the tacit approval of the United States. Most of them are also on the not-so-secret CIA payroll and have acquired large estates in Afghanistan and abroad -- primarily in Dubai and Istanbul. By manipulating linguistic fault lines in the ethnic mosaic of Afghanistan the U.S. has been instrumental in creating a 'bribed and indebted' super rich class of collaborators in one of the poorest countries in the world.
The loss of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in America's longest military adventure has created what is perhaps the world's most corrupt state. At the same time, Afghanistan is a country with an estimated $1 trillion mineral wealth "without proper structures and management." The country's fragile political structure, presently held together by a scaffolding of American military and economic assistance, could collapse into a failed state overnight, manifesting the worse aspects of the civil strife seen in Rwanda, Congo, and Syria.
In the annals of U.S. foreign policy, Afghanistan stands as a typical case where a flawed military strategy has sidelined viable political solutions. Washington incentivized war through perks and privileges, and four-star promotions and undermined peace efforts. The U.S. has had a war strategy, but no political strategy or a clear exit strategy.
The presence of foreign troops is never conducive to peace and sophisticated weapon systems don't stop wars, they only raise the prize in blood the less equipped opponent is willing to pay, e.g. resorting to suicide bombing in desperation. The U.S.-Afghanistan Bilateral Security Agreement may delay the occurrence of a failed state in Afghanistan, but without a peace initiative it will not prevent it. Averting that dreaded scenario requires a more comprehensive approach that reflects a peace initiative borne by regional reality rather than a shortsighted military strategy.
Now that Afghanistan's second generation is being raised in the nearly four decades of war, the welfare of its citizens should be achieved through minimizing foreign interference and maximizing political participation through reconciliation. Likewise, the success of the American assistance to Afghanistan should be measured through a dividend of peace and security that could potentially provide opportunities for American investment and offset some of the cost, instead of linking it to military bases that will undoubtedly entail onerous maintenance cost.
Thus, a peace initiative is not just an ideal, but a practical solution beneficial to both Afghans and Americans. A comprehensive peace plan can end the current impasse, achieve long-term regional security, and can prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state again. Early in the Obama administration there was a debate about the best exit strategy. The generals were calling for a surge to eliminate the resistance once and for all. The diplomats like Richard Holbrooke, a career diplomat who was instrumental in resolving the former Yugoslavia crisis, considered negotiation for power sharing with the opposition critical and essential to the Afghan crisis. That modicum of peace effort was abandoned with the untimely death of Richard Holbrooke and along with it all the expectations of a peace initiative from a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate President Obama vanished. Now that the surge has failed to win "the right war," it is time to revive the peace initiative.
Every military conflict is eventually resolved through peace. No peace initiative will succeed without a bold stand by the United States to convince the Afghan resistance that while they may win through a costly war at some future point in time, they can certainly win without bloodshed now if they join the peace process. Similarly, the hedging strategies of neighboring Pakistan and Iran can be brought in line with an outright U.S. support for an ethnically balanced representative government in Afghanistan. This two-tier peace plan calls for a reconciliation stratagem modeled on the South African experience and the replication of Swiss Neutrality principle in the regional context:
. The U.S. economic assistance should not be made contingent upon the establishment of military bases; instead it should be linked to a peace and reconciliation process in which the re-integration of the resistance forces is coordinated to coincide with the complete withdrawal of the American residual forces.
A regional multilateral treaty must be signed with all of Afghanistan's neighboring states under the auspices of the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council that guarantees the neutrality of Afghanistan and the inviolability of its borders to any military intrusion or political interference.
Pakistan: Ahrah-ul-Hind is a fake organisation, TTP behind court attack-Altaf Hussain
Taliban involved in Landi Kotal, Islamabad attacks, Altaf Hussain said.Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain on Tuesday demanded "a full and thorough" investigation into the tragic incidents in Islamabad District Court and Landi Kotal to find out if these attacks were carried out by the Teheeke-e-Taliban Pakistan. "Although an unknown group Ahrah-ul-Hind has claimed the responsibilities of the attacks. However, majority of the Pakistanis believe this is a fake organization and these attacks were carried out by Taliban. Taliban does not want to take the blame for the attacks," Altaf Hussain said in a statement. Two incidents of terrorism occurred on Monday. The first incident occurred in Landi Kotal tehsil where terrorists attacked an FC vehicle, which resulted in the deaths of two personnel and injured scores of them. The second brutal, horrific and nerve-wrecking incident occurred in Islamabad where terrorists entered the district court of Islamabad and attacked it with guns and grenades. In this attack 11 people were killed and more than 25 injured. The dead included a senior judge, Rafaqat Ahmed Awan, and several lawyers. One of the martyrs was a young lawyer Fizza Malik. The 23-year-old lawyer had recently returned Pakistan with a law degree from the UK and had started the practice two days. Altaf Hussain said he wanted to share some important facts with the writers, journalists and intellectuals. He added that these facts would enable them to analyze new developments and events which occurred after the announcement of ceasefire of Taliban and offer honest and unbiased analysis. "It is strange that no one knew about the organization when the negotiation with the Taliban started. The question is: Why has this organization been brought forward at time when the negotiation has started? Their statement is shocking. They have said they would not respect the agreement between the government and Taliban," the MQM chief said. He further stated that "the situation is very grave. I demand that prime minister, federal interior minister order and investigation into the attack. They should not believe on the statement of the unknown organization. This statement has been issued to mislead people and the government." He said Taliban can betray us and It would put security and survival at risk.
TTP ceasefire: should Pakistan be taken seriously?
Ayaz AmirSo there we have it. The resolve stories were a bit premature. Appeasement wins again and of course it will be hailed as a triumph of statesmanship. And the army while scowling in private will in public hide behind the fig-leaf of civilian supremacy. The inevitable – the having to take on the Taliban (TTP) – has been merely postponed, not the necessity of it eliminated. Other countries compete in summer and winter Olympics. The Pakistan we have grown up with has come to specialise in playing games with itself. So just when it looked that government and army might have cast irresolution aside comes the charade of the ceasefire between the state of Pakistan and the Holy Shura of the TTP. It's like Vladimir Putin and the Chechen rebels declaring a mutual ceasefire, or India in Indian Kashmir declaring a ceasefire with the Lashkar-e-Taiba. But then of course Pakistan, wafted by the winds of jihad, is in a class by itself. Do these wizards really think there is common ground, any meeting point, between the Pakistani state and the messianic Islamist warriors of the TTP dedicated to the overthrow of the Pakistani state? If they think there is can they let us know? For you only negotiate if some common ground exists. Merely brandishing olive branches is never enough. So what will government and army gain by this reprieve? Will the TTP come any closer to altering its makeup and becoming a force for peace? Will the army be in a better position, a month from now, to deliver a decisive blow against the TTP? What then are government and army hoping to achieve by this month long ceasefire? From the TTP's standpoint it makes perfect sense. The aerial strikes, via PAF and helicopter gunships, have been called off. The TTP will have a chance to regroup, relocate, make up for any losses suffered, and prepare for the next round. In return it has ceded nothing, not an inch of ground, not even any theoretical concession. Government and army of course are crowing about a fictitious victory: sense was knocked into the TTP which is why, taking a small U-turn, it has agreed to a ceasefire. But the ceasefire at this stage, with the TTP under pressure from the patchy aerial offensive, means relief for the TTP, none for government and army. The 23 FC soldiers whose throats were slit – this particular horror forcing the military to act – are not about to be brought back to life. The TTP is not about to renounce violence or lay down its arms. Or is it so hard for the wizards to understand this? But we will be told to be patient and not rush to judgement. We will be told that this is just the first step, leading to talks and, with luck holding, a peaceful settlement. Fine, let us suspend disbelief, let us eschew negative thoughts and with open and welcoming arms embrace optimism. But the old nagging question remains: can anyone tell us, if not in detail in bare outline, the likely contours of a Taliban settlement? Kuch toh bataien…tell us something. On this point we encounter the silence of the mountains. Even as government and army shift from one leg to another, painting appeasement and one-sided concessionism in the colours of victory, we are expected to take the government's word on trust. So far about the one thing which has happened is that the four-man government committee has been knocked out into the cold and the interior minister has emerged centre-stage to take charge of the so-called peace efforts. Let us wish him success and see what miracles he brings about. In a way this is good because the four-man committee was toothless. With all the ropes now finally in Nisar's hands – and by the way, the announcement of the ceasefire from the government side came from the interior ministry – at least there won't be room for any excuses when the delusions of peace finally dissipate and the hard rocks of reality rise more clearly from the waters. But a crucial month will have been lost and we will be that much closer to the Americans pulling out of Afghanistan. When that happens, the calculus of everything will change. And if anyone thinks that when that moment of vindication for Taliban arms arrives, the TTP led by Mullah Fazlullah of Swat fame will be in a more reasonable frame of mind regarding the confused republic of Pakistan, he will have to be counted amongst the diehard brigade. Air-Vice Marshal Shahzad Chaudhry's piece in this paper last Saturday, 'The case of the LTTE', about the Tamil Tigers insurgency in Sri Lanka where he was ambassador in 2006 is worth reading by everyone concerned. It explains how peace talks and concessionism failed and finally what it took to defeat and crush the LTTE. The Tamils at least had genuine grievances against the Sinhalese-dominated state. The Taliban insurgency is being fuelled not by a sense of genuine grievance but by the messianic desire to impose their will on the Pakistani state. The Taliban are not fighting for fundamental rights or Fata autonomy. They are fighting for their version, their very convoluted and primitive version, of the holy kingdom. And the Pakistani state is shuffling and shifting and making a spectacle of itself, and hoping, desperately hoping, that tough decisions will not be required and like manna descends from heaven peace will somehow descend from the skies. Pakistan's Pakhtun tribal population, the overwhelming majority, is committed to Pakistan, not because Pakhtuns sway to the sound of Iqbal's poetry but because their economic interests are tied to Pakistan. But where the TTP holds sway they are sunk into a sullen and apathetic silence because they have lost faith in the ability of the Pakistani state to protect them and fight the Taliban. If the army really bares its fangs it can be assured of the support of the tribal people. But who will give that vitamin shot to the state and the army? Under Gen Kayani the Pakistan Army perpetuated one of the great hoaxes of our time when it led most people to believe that because of tough terrain it was difficult going into North Waziristan. The tough terrain is in South Waziristan, not the north which is relatively flat. Now look at the comedy which has been going on in Miranshah, the principal town of North Waziristan. There we have an army div hqs, the FC hqs and close by an establishment of the famous Haqqanis. Hakeemullah Mehsud's house where the drone got him is hardly 4-5 kilometres from the div hqs. The villages where live our Uzbek, Chechen, and Arab friends are not far away. All this is common knowledge there. An operation could have been undertaken, had the will been there, long ago. But the nation has been fed the tale of North Waziristan's near-impregnability. Where does fiction end and reality begin? Meanwhile comes news of the attack on the Islamabad courts. And as I switched on the TV there was every channel in the land going on and on about the TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid saying the TTP had nothing to do with this attack. He's right. This is another Indo-Zionist-CIA conspiracy to sabotage the peace talks. Trust the TTP's media apologists, and there is no shortage of this clan here, to plug this line and urge the government to remain steadfast to the peace process – a phenomenon visible through special goggles only to the TTP apologists and the Chamberlainites of the interior ministry.
John Kerry hopes to visit Pakistan again: State Department
Blasts keep people away from cinemas in Peshawar
Gunmen kill 2 in attack on NATO trucks in Pakistan
A Pakistani official says gunmen have opened fire on a NATO supply convoy in the country's northwest, killing two truck drivers and wounding another. Local administrator Mohammed Asif says the attack took place in the tribal Jamrud region on Tuesday when the trucks were heading to neighboring Afghanistan to take supplies to NATO forces. Jamrud is located 40 kilometers (25 miles) northwest of the city of Peshawar. The attack comes less than a week after the ruling political party in the northwest ended a three-month blockade of a NATO supply route to Afghanistan over contentious U.S. drone strikes in the country. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party blocked the route from the northwestern city of Peshawar, one of two overland routes used by NATO for getting supplies into and out of Afghanistan. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/03/04/3972665/gunmen-kill-2-in-attack-on-nato.html#storylink=cpy
Bilawal Bhutto condemns Islamabad terror attack
Pakistan: Time for a reckoning
Pakistan: Opposition demands Nisar to resign on court attack
Pakistan's fragile ceasefire with the Taliban
Violence continues in Pakistan despite the Taliban's announcement of a month-long truce last week. Meanwhile, the demand for an all-out military offensive against the militants is growing in the Islamic country.
At least 11 people, including a session court judge, were killed in bomb attacks in the country's capital Islamabad on March 3 (main picture). It was the first such incident after the Pakistani Taliban - also known as the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) - announced a month-long ceasefire on Saturday, March 1, to facilitate peace talks with the Pakistani government. The negotiations between Islamabad and the Islamist insurgents formally began last month. But they came to an abrupt halt after the Taliban continued to attack civilians and security forces. The government responded by striking the militants' hideouts in the restive North Waziristan region, which borders Afghanistan, killing scores of insurgents.
On March 1, TTP spokesman Shahidullah Shahid told the media that he had called on "all comrades to respect the decision and refrain from any activity during the ceasefire period." Pakistani authorities hailed Shahid's statement and said they would reciprocate the gesture by immediately stopping the "surgical strikes" against the extremists, thus raising hopes that the seven-year-long violent Islamist insurgency in Pakistan would finally come to an end. Rahimullah Yusufzai, a member of the government's negotiation team, told AFP that the truce inceased the possibility of resuming peace talks. "A ceasefire was the demand of the government ... But it should be effective, and there should be no attacks."Can the Taliban be trusted? But Monday's attack on an Islamabad court has once again raised doubts about the outlawed TTP's intentions. Many in Pakistan believe the Taliban are not serious about peace and that the truce announcement is only a tactic to avoid the military strikes and win more time to regroup after suffering heavy losses in the Pakistani Air Force's recent bombings in their northwestern strongholds.
Nasir Tufail, a journalist working for a private TV channel in Karachi, says he has no faith in Shahid or the TTP. "The militants will not cease the attacks. They are deceiving everyone. The only way to deal with them is through power," Tufail told DW. The journalist criticized Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's government for lacking a "proper policy" to tackle the issue of terrorism in the country. The government's approach towards the Taliban is reactionary, he said, as Islamabad has limited itself to simply responding to the insurgents' attacks. The journalist believes the ceasefire won't last for long and that Islamabad will eventually have to go after the insurgents. "The Pakistani people gave Sharif a mandate for peace and not for truce with the Taliban in the May 2013 election. There won't be any peace if the PM keeps giving concessions to the Islamists," Tufail said, adding that he had no doubt that most Pakistanis would support an all-out military offensive against the Islamists.
Saman Jafri, one of the rally organizers and a member of parliament, says that Pakistan's progressive parties must unite against the religious fanatics if they want their country to survive. "We are pro-Pakistan and anti-Taliban, and we stand behind the security forces who are fighting the militants and sacrificing their lives. It is now or never, and the people have said 'no' to extremism," Jafri told DW. "The Taliban threat should be taken seriously," Abdul Hai, a veteran human rights activist in Karachi, told DW. "We see that the Taliban influence is growing, and it means that a huge disaster is in the making." This view is shared by Nizamuddin Nizamani, a political analyst and researcher, who argues that the government shouldn't negotiate with "terrorists."
Pakistan's Minorities Retrieve Memories of Late Minister
Fresh military operation in Balochistan: 19 innocent persons killed 40 injured
http://balochwarna.com/At least nineteen Bugti tribesmen were killed and more than 40 wounded during a Pakistani military offensive in Dera Bugti area of Balochistan on Saturday. According to details a large number of fresh military troops backed by gunship helicopters launched a military operation many civilian populated areas of Sui, Dera Bugti. Pakistani Army indiscriminately bombarded villages in Darengen area where at least eleven people including three women and four children have been killed and more than 40 are injured. The deceased victims of Darengen area bombardment have been identified as Gulbaig s/o Naseban Bugti, Tari s/o Humbo Bugti, Wahido s/o Mohammad Bugti, Bashirullah Bugti, Samul Bib, Jannat Bibi and Hanifa Bugti along with her four children. Meanwhile sources reported bodies of at least eight previously abducted Baloch were also found in the same area. The BRP media cell alleged in their Facebook page that the victims' bodies were thrown down from helicopters during operation in Darengen area of Sui. Two of the victims have been identified as Sate s/o Karam Ali Bugti and Wadhu s/o Pirka Bugti. The rest of the sex bodies could not be identified as they were decomposed beyond recognition. The BRP sources further said that Sate s/o Karam Ali Bugti and Wadhu s/o Pirka Bugti were abducted by Pakistani security forces along with many others from Pirkoh area during an operation on 13th Feb 2014. The affected areas were under the tight military siege until filling of this report. Forces sealed the exit and entry routes to the areas and innocent civilians are denied of any sort medical aid. The BRP media cell on Facebook wrote: "Provisional minister and head of military death squad, Safraz Bugti, is personally monitoring the deadly operation." Two days prior to military operation in Dera Bugti, Pakistan forces have abducted more than 30 Marri Baloch from different areas of Kohistan Marri region of Balochistan. The raids were carried out in the darkness of night in Kahan town and adjoining villages. Separately, several people were abducted from Marri Bohri, Nahad kot and other nearby areas.
اسلام آباد ڈسٹرکٹ کچہری میں لال مسجد بریگیڈ نے جج رفاقت اعوان کو کیوں نشانہ بنایا؟
اسلام آباد ڈسٹرکٹ کچہری میں لال مسجد بریگیڈ نے جج رفاقت اعوان کو کیوں نشانہ بنایا؟ اسلام آباد- ڈسٹرکٹ کچہری میں تین مارچ کو صبح آٹھ بجے کلاشنکوفوں ،دستی بموں سے لیس پانچ سے تکفیری دیوبندی دھشت گردوں نے حملہ کردیا اور خود کش بم دھماکوں کے زریعے دو دھشت گردوں نے خود کو اڑایا جبکہ باقی حملوں آوروں کی فائرنگ سے ایک نوجوان خاتون وکیل سمیت تیرہ افراد جاں بحق ہوگئے،
Pakistan:Where is the cease-fire?
In the restive tribal areas of Pakistan terrorism stems as much from religious extremism as from the lairs of crime mafias. But there is enough of evidentiary material to suggest that both sides live and flourish under the overarching umbrella of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. Then there are sub-groups the TTP leadership has directed "to respect and fully abide by the cease-fire declaration and restrain themselves from all kinds of jihadi activities". Within hours of TTP announcement the Bara-based Mulla Tamance group waylaid the security squad of anti-polio team killing 11 including a civilian and injuring many - only to be fiercely retaliated by army helicopters which killed five terrorists. Next day, the district courts located in the heart of Islamabad came under a suicidal attack killing a judge and 10 others in addition to some three dozen injured in the assault. And, Hafiz Gul Bahader, who enjoys immense clout in North Waziristan, that has announced his Taliban are not part of the understanding between the TTP and the government. Who then the government is talking to and who is to secure the cease-fire promised by the Taliban leadership. Apparently, there are quite a few unknowns, or undisclosed, links and pieces in the process with potential to derail the bilateral cease-fire understanding. That the government 'reserves the option and the armed forces reserve their right to react and take counteraction against the troublemakers, the interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali may be quite categorical in expressing the government resolve but how would he know that the TTP or any of its outfits is not involved in a particular terrorist act. Terrorist networks exist throughout the country, some alive and kicking and others hibernating as sleeper cells. And some have honed specialisation to undertake specific errands if and when asked for. No doubt then some people tend to interpret the Nawaz Sharif government's peculiar adjustments to keep alive peace talks with Taliban as a tactic to put off the much-awaited military operation in North Waziristan. There is just no room for this leniency unless one buys the theory that the Taliban are a natural reserved force of the rightists in national politics.
Ideally, the momentum built in the wake of surgical strikes should have continued till the job of total eradication of terrorists' hideouts wherever they are in Pakistan. The month-long relief from military action granted to the TTP has the inbuilt risk of giving terrorists sufficient time to regroup and revive their lethality. Since that is no more the case and government is prepared to sit with them at the negotiating table there are certain dos and don'ts that official interlocutors must observe. One, all of the talk has to be within the parameters of the constitution. The TTP side has to swear unqualified allegiance to the constitution irrespective of its reservations - the government simply doesn't have the mandate to concede anything which militates against the letter and spirit of the constitution. Two, before the regular talks begin the TTP must declare on whose behalf it would be talking to the government. In case, which is quite likely, as it happened in the case of suicide attack on the district court in Islamabad yesterday, it disowns representation of a certain group or groups it should name them and make no issue if security forces take retaliatory action against them. Though the TTP promptly denied any link with the Islamabad courts attack but the incident has all the hallmarks of suicide-bombings the entity has specialised long ago. Three, not only the talks have to be held at the place of the government's choosing but also not open-ended. Where in Pakistan is the 'demilitarised safe zone' the Taliban want as the venue for talks - reminiscent of The 38th Parallel dividing the two Koreas. So, even when 'talking to Taliban' - a strong sentiment with the Nawaz Sharif government - Islamabad must give a serious thought to the possible end product which may not be as pleasing as being forecast by some interested quarters. Not only has the TTP made no commitment as to its principal position on constitutional rule and democratic process, it is also not in a position to commit anything on behalf of other terrorist entities. Then, the proposed scheme of talks is localised to tribal areas while the menace of terrorism is almost evenly spread to most of the country. By granting a comparable status to the committed killers as stakeholders and worthy partners to the cause of peace in Pakistan the government has put itself to a severe test of competence in the eyes of people. Is the government prepared to conduct peace parleys with other violent entities that number in scores? Let's pause and think deeply, before we leap.
Pakistan: Safe city claim comes to haunt Nisar
The combined opposition in the upper and lower houses of parliament on Monday denounced the terrorist attack on Islamabad district courts and called for the resignation of Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan for failing to secure the federal capital in spite of his repeated claims. Senate business was suspended and the session was adjourned in solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attack, as the opposition senators walked out in protest over the security failure. During the 102nd Senate session, chaired by Chairman Nayyar Hussain Bukhari, the members condemned the terrorist incident in Islamabad district courts that left as many as 11, including an additional sessions judge, dead and 28 others injured. Pakistan People's Party (PPP) Senator Aitzaz Ahsan said that Interior Minister Nisar should step down from his office for not being able to ensure security in the federal capital. "The interior minister had claimed that 26 security agencies were working round-the-clock to ensure Islamabad's security. He should accept responsibility for the security lapse and resign from his office immediately," he said. Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl Senator Hamadullah criticised the national security policy and declared it a bundle of lies. He added that the policy was targeting the seminaries, which was unjustified, as Osama bin Laden was not recovered from any seminary and Dr Shakeel Afridi was not a seminary graduate. He accused the government of being involved in terrorism as well as patronising the terrorist elements across the country. "Chaudhry Nisar is the wrong person for the job and he should be sacked immediately," he said. "Where were the 26 intelligence agencies when terrorists were spraying bullets indiscriminately for 45-50 minutes and judges and lawyers were running across streets to save their lives," said Hamdullah. Pakistan Muslim League (PML) Senator Mushahid Hussain said that the day was the darkest in the history of federal capital and the tall claims by Interior Minister Nisar have been badly trashed. "Now dialogue should be launched with this new group as well because Taliban have denied involvement in the incident," he mocked the government. Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) Senator Tahir Mashhadi criticised the security personnel for failing to challenge the terrorists effectively. He demanded the government give a go ahead to the armed forces to launch a decisive operation against terrorists. PPP Senator Kazim Khan said that if the Taliban had not taken responsibility for the attack, they could deny any truce in the future. Senator Sardar Ali pointed out that two hours after the incident, no government officials appeared to take people on board. Senator Sehar Kamran questioned, "Where is the security across the country?" On the occasion, Senator Haji Adeel interrupted and hit hard the government's irresponsible approach pointing out that no government official or the interior minister were present in the House. He staged protest walkout from the House that was joined by other opposition parties, including PML, PPP and MQM. The Senate chairman expressed his solidarity with the victims and suspended the business of the House on private members day and adjourned the session.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)


text:
Compatibility: web-based
Trello is an online collaboration tool that allows an individual or group to organize groups, project or to-do lists. Create a Trello "board" for your project, a "list" for each major step, and a "card" for each major step in each list. You can assign tasks, move cards from one list to another, upload documents or link to websites. Participants can vote, and make comments on anything. While I admit I was a little baffled on its use when I first looked at Trello, the more I worked with it, the more I realized the possibilities!! We've tried to present some practical applications for the classroom below. Students will need an account to edit a Trello board.
Trello Demo Video
Trello options
Please use the forum below to share your insights, experiences, links, or cool ideas you have for Trello. Thanks for collaborating!