Login | Sign Up

Posts Tagged ‘United Nations’

Conflict-related civilian deaths rise in Afghanistan

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

A United Nations report blaming a record loss of Afghan civilian lives last year on insurgents and the Taliban was dismissed as “untrue” by a Taliban spokesman Saturday.

Meanwhile, a commander of the International Security Assistance Force was encouraged by the report’s findings that coalition forces were not to blame for the increased casualties, but agreed that civilian deaths must drop. The U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said 3,021 civilians were killed last year, up from 2,790 the prior year.

In an e-mail sent to CNN, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid “strongly” disputed the U.N. mission’s report as “untrue.”

“It has been 10 years since UNAMA has started blaming our Mujahideen with such numbers and untrue figures while the invading forces are using tons of explosives every day in our country, conducting raids on civilian houses and they are killing our innocent people,” Mujahid said in the e-mail.

“Unfortunately I should say that UNAMA, which is operating under the umbrella of the U.N. as a propaganda tool for the invading forces, is trying to blame Mujahideen for the majority of the killings happening in Afghanistan,” Mujahid wrote.

“It is unfortunate that UNAMA is supporting oppressor Americans and other invading forces and is undermining its international reputation,” Mujahid stated.

A total of 11,864 civilians have been killed in the Afghanistan conflict since 2007, the U.N. mission said.

“Afghan children, women and men continue to be killed in this war in ever-increasing numbers,” Jan Kubis, the U.N. special representative for the secretary-general, said in a statement. “For much too long Afghan civilians have paid the highest price of war. Parties to the conflict must greatly increase their efforts to protect civilians to prevent yet another increase in civilian deaths and injuries in 2012.”

General John R. Allen, ISAF commander, said the report showed a reduction in coalition-related civilian casualties.

“Every citizen of Afghanistan must know ISAF will continue to do all we can to reduce casualties that affect the Afghan civilian population. This data is promising but there is more work to be done,” Allen said in a statement.

“The most striking — and obvious — component of the report is the increasing number of civilian casualties attributed to insurgents,” said Allen. “IEDs are now responsible for roughly one out of three civilian casualties according to UNAMA. The death toll from insurgent attacks is much too high and deserves Mullah Omar’s direct attention and action.”

The U.N. report said last year’s deaths are 8% more than in 2010, and double the number in 2007.

The vast majority of 2011 civilian casualties — 77%, according to the U.N. report — were caused by anti-government forces. The number of deaths attributable to the Afghan army and international forces declined year-over-year by 4%, to 410.

The report concludes that the higher number of casualties was due to changing tactics on the part of insurgents, including greater use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), deadlier suicide attacks and more targeted assassinations.

IEDs alone killed 967 Afghan men, women and children in 2011. Many of the 495 victims of targeted killings were provincial and district governors, peace council members and tribal elders.

Among the most disturbing statistics: in the second half of 2011, the number of women and children killed grew by 29 and 51% respectively, compared to 2010. That is in part due to the growing use of the pressure-plate IEDs, which are indiscriminate — such that a van carrying civilians is just as likely to set off the explosive as a Humvee.

“A piece of shrapnel had gone through his head. My son is dead, and his loss is killing me and my wife. He was the only son I had,” said a man in Mazar-e Sharif, who was quoted in the report.

“My daughter is nine years old, and every day before I leave for work, she cries: ‘Mama, don’t go to work, I don’t need to eat,’ “a police officer in Herat was quoted as saying.

The U.N. report says several statements from Taliban leaders in 2011 pledging greater efforts to avoid civilian casualties “neither resulted in improved protection of civilians nor minimized civilian casualties.”

While NATO can take comfort from the fact that its forces — and its allies in the Afghan National Army — caused fewer civilian casualties last year, it is clear that overall security for civilians has not improved. This is despite the deployment of well over 100,000 international troops across Afghanistan in 2011.

In addition to casualties, the number of Afghan civilians displaced by conflict soared last year. According to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, conflict and insecurity displaced some 185,000 people in Afghanistan, a jump of 41% compared to 2010.

The U.N. report suggests that there has been a significant geographic shift in casualties. As NATO and Afghan Army units focused on the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, the number of civilian casualties fell sharply in the second half of 2011.

But elsewhere — in southeastern, eastern and northern Afghanistan — incidents rose. The number of civilians killed in Kabul province, including in the capital itself, more than tripled largely because of several devastating suicide bombings.

The figures show that the number of casualties caused by NATO and allied night operations dropped sharply, despite the much greater intensity and frequency of such operations. That suggests better intelligence and tactics among pro-government forces. But the number of civilian killed in NATO airstrikes — a source of friction with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai — rose 9%.

Increasingly, as the transition to Afghan leadership gets underway, local security duties are being assigned to a relatively new force: the Afghan Local Police. The U.N. says it has received “mixed reports” about this entity’s overall performance. While most suggested that it had improved security, there were also accounts of human rights abuses and corruption.

Altogether, the U.N. Assistance Mission concludes that “the unremitting toll of civilian casualties coupled with pervasive intimidation affected many civilians directly, and many more indirectly, by fueling uncertainty, tension and fear.”

The report’s authors welcome “ideas that could contribute toward peace negotiations,” adding their value will be measured by reduced civilian casualties and improved security

Originally appeared on cnn.

HR ministry to take up drone attacks issue with UN rapporteur

Tuesday, September 20th, 2011

By Myra Imran

To build diplomatic pressure against drone attacks on Pakistan, the Federal Ministry of Human Rights has decided to take up the issue before UN Special Rapporteur on Extra Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions.

The decision was shared with the media by Adviser to Prime Minister on Human Rights Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar in a press briefing here on Monday. He said that the plan of having official communication with the United Nations in this regard is an initiative of the Ministry of Human Rights and is yet to be discussed with other stakeholders.

The government has condemned these attacks at every level. The parliamentarians already have a common stance over this issue. It is only the matter of formulating plan of action to take up the issue at the level of United Nations, he said while talking to media persons. The adviser described drone strikes as targeted killings and urged that the matter may be taken up with the US at the appropriate level.

Khokhar, who has also been a student of International Law, said that the first drone attack was conducted by the United States on Jordan in 2005 to kill terrorism suspect Al Harsi. At that time, the UN Special Rapporteur took notice of the incident and it was conveyed to the United States government that it has violated the international law by committing extra judicial killings.

It must be noticed here that the United States has conducted 270 such strikes against Pakistan and thousands of people have lost their lives in these attacks. There is no record of the number of people that have been killed in these attacks, he said.

He said that interestingly, up till now in Pakistan, the debate has only circled around the loss of innocent lives (collateral damage) and not around the specific legalities of these strikes in the light of International Humanitarian Law (Law of War) and how these strikes are being viewed by eminent jurists around the world.

Khokar said that apart from being in violation of Pakistan s territorial sovereignty, there is a growing consensus among the international law experts that these strikes can be aptly described as targeted killings or extra judicial killings primarily because the targets are being taken out without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law.

This view is gaining ground in the international legal fraternity and is supported by various international treaties as well as the United States own constitution. The advisor mentioned that one does not have to be a legal expert to see that there is a blatant disregard of international law, customary law, treaties and conventions by the American administration.

He said that it must be stressed upon partners in the war on terror that these extra judicial killings must be stopped forthwith as these are entirely counterproductive. The moral and legal obligations are being flouted by the US administration. America and its allies cannot preach respect for Human Rights when their own record is questionable ranging from disrespecting the environmental treaties to torturing detainees and now extra judicial killings.

He further requested that after every such strike the matter must be reported to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extra Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions. Since the office of Special Rapporteur already holds the view that these strikes may amount to extra-judicial killings and continues to take note of these strikes, Pakistan s official communication to it in this regard might prove to be highly productive.

This article originally appeared in The News.

Pakistan blocks FMCT

Wednesday, January 26th, 2011

Protesting against the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver to India, Pakistan today blocked negotiations on Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT), describing the move as “discriminatory” that will help New Delhi stockpile bomb-making nuclear materials.

Speaking at the the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, Pakistan’s ambassador Zamir Akram said the “discriminatory waiver” provided by the NSG will help India to stockpile bomb-making nuclear (fissile) materials.

The NSG waiver, Akram said, will further accentuate the asymmetry in fissile materials stockpiles in the region, to the detriment of Pakistan’s security interests.

For the last two years, Pakistan nearly blocked any progress in the FMCT negotiations.

It maintained that selective and discriminatory action of certain states in violation of their own national and international commitments, in pursuit of profit has tilted the nuclear balance in favour of India.

Without naming the United States, Pakistan’s envoy said, “One of the major powers has gone a step further by announcing its intention in November 2010 to support our neighbour’s full membership in the four multilateral control regimes – the NSG, Missile Technology Control Regime, Australia Group and the Wassenaar Arrangement.”

“Clearly this irresponsible undertaking raises several issues,” said Akram, pointing how major nuclear powers have undermined the nuclear-Non Proliferation Agreement to accommodate India.

Akram had told reporters last week that Islamabad will not accept the nuclear Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in its current form as it would enable India to increase its nuclear warheads at a rate of 40 per year following the waiver granted to New Delhi by the United States and other western countries.

Over the last 10 years, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) is nearly paralysed as it is unable to negotiate any major nuclear arms treaty.

Pakistan has blocked negotiations on arriving at a verifiable FMCT on the ground that it would not address the issue of current bomb- making nuclear stocks possessed by India and other countries.

“Our opposition to the FMCT is due to the asymmetry in the current proposal,” ambassador Akram told reporters, suggesting that it would enable India to divert its current stock of nuclear fissile material towards military use.

“This asymmetry is further worsened following the civilian nuclear agreement signed by India, the United States, and IAEA, as it would enable India to increase the number of warheads to 40 per year in which civilian nuclear fuel could be used for military purposes as India did in the past from the Tarapore reactor,” he told reporters.

US President Barak Obama’s recent visit to India has added a new dimension to FMCT as India will now be allowed to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) and other international arrangements, Akram said.

“It is ironic that the Nuclear Suppliers Group was created after India’s first nuclear test in 1974,” said ambassador Akram, suggesting that India would now be facilitated to become a member in these special arrangements without having to join the NPT (non-nuclear proliferation treaty).

When asked whether Pakistan is “tainted” by its AQ Khan who was allegedly responsible for illegal transfer of nuclear material to Libya and Iran and whether it would not be admitted to these arrangements despite being close to Washington, ambassador Akram said “we are tainted because we are seen close to China.”

He said Pakistan is continuing to build two small reactors with the technical assistance from China and will also pursue “credible deterrence” policy that will not “match India missile to missile or war head to war head.”


Original post at: Daily News & Analysis

UN report on Benazir assassination delayed

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Pakistan has delayed the delivery of a UN report on the assassination of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to allow time for input on warnings Bhutto got from three countries, a presidential spokesman said.

The report follows a nine-month inquiry by a three-person UN panel and was due to be presented on Tuesday to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. But it has been delayed until April 15 because of a request by Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower, the United Nations said on Tuesday.

“We requested them to include the views of three countries which had warned (Bhutto) after her return that she should take extra precaution because they had information she would be assassinated,” said presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar.
He declined to identify the three countries he said had warned Bhutto.

Bhutto was killed in a gun and suicide bomb attack after an election rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Dec. 27, 2007, weeks after she came back from eight years in self-imposed exile.

The then government led by allies of then president Pervez Musharraf blamed then Pakistani Taliban leader and al Qaeda ally Baitullah Mehsud for Bhutto’s murder.
Mehsud was killed in a US drone strike last August. Despite the accusations against Mehsud, conspiracy theories have abounded in Pakistan over who was behind the assassination.

Bhutto was mistrusted by sections of the Pakistani military and security establishment and speculation has lingered that she was the victim of a plot by allies of Musharraf who did not want her to come to power.

A staunch opponent of Islamist militants, Bhutto survived a bomb attack on a rally hours after arriving home in the city of Karachi in October 2007. About 140 people were killed. Bhutto had returned home to contest an election under a power-sharing deal with Musharraf that the United States had helped broker.

Billion dollar conversion

Friday, February 5th, 2010

This post carries an offer for the right wingers. Those who consider themselves good Christians, the ones who talk incessantly about family values and the importance of virginity. The ones who go to Church every Sunday and incorporate Jesus into every nonsensical thought that comes out of their mouths. The wholesome, flag-waving American-born Christians.

For all you believers, Afghanistan has a proposition for you. The Taliban leaders had a grand Jirga and suggested that each riteous Christian should be offered a sum of money, a couple of grand, to change their hearts.

Now, we know not all good Christians are sell outs…but look when you take gas prices, utility bills, unemployment, health, inflation, and the kids’ education into account, is it that hard to imagine that more than a few people would consider the Taliban’s offer?

Good Christians might secretly visit Church even after agreeing to the deal. But what’s going to happen once the money is gone? Good Christians will return to their faith, or will scheme to keep the money coming their way.

Does this sound ridiculous enough?

Well, that’s what Afghanistan’s puppet President Hamid Karzai proposed at the London Conference. The United States backed the idea, and has decided to raise one billion dollars to buy off Taliban or Taliban sympathizers. The specific amount of money each member of the Taliban would receive has not yet been worked out, but given the high corruption level in Afghanistan, my shot in the dark is that they won’t get enough money to keep their loyalties to one party.

Over the next 5 years, as proposed by the Afghan government, this money would be used to establish a trust to finance the reintegration program that would persuade the militants to lay down their weapons.

The U.N. Security Counsel  also removed the names of five Taliban leaders from the “black list” of 144 dangerous terrorists figuring in the sanctions regime under Resolution 1267 dating back to the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. This shows that we are back to square one. As the UN envoy to Afghanistan put it, “If you want results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority.”

Paying the bribe to purchase a change of heart is a bogus idea. But some argue that Taliban supporters have failed to realize why international forces are in their country. Interestingly, this idea is supported by the argument that it can’t be worse than the previous efforts.

Well, then the previous efforts were wrong, as this one. Bottom line is, you can not correct a historical blunder with such idiotic tactics. This is what the West never understood and still refuses to.

Picture Credit: AP



Powered by Hashe!