Pakistan agencies foil IS plot to bomb ISI office in Multan

United Nations, Jun 19: Half of the world's children -- one billion every year -- are affected by physical, sexual or psychological violence, suffering injuries and death because countries have failed to follow established strategies to protect them, the first report of its kind from the UN has said, with experts noting that the coronavirus-related lockdowns have left far too many youngsters stuck with their abusers.

While nearly all countries (88 per cent) have laws in place to protect minors, less than half (47 per cent) say they strongly enforce them, said the Global Status Report on Preventing Violence Against Children 2020 launched on Thursday.

Because countries have failed to follow established strategies to protect children, about one billion are affected each year by physical, sexual or psychological violence, it said.

"There is never any excuse for violence against children," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said.

"We have evidence-based tools to prevent it, which we urge all countries to implement. Protecting the health and well-being of children is central to protecting our collective health and well-being, now and for the future," he said.

The report -- launched by the World Health Organisation, the UNICEF, the UNESCO, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Violence against Children and the End Violence Partnership -- charted progress in 155 countries against the "INSPIRE" framework, a set of seven strategies for preventing and responding to violence against children.

The report signaled a clear need in all countries to scale up efforts to implement them. It included the first ever global homicide estimates specifically for children under 18 years of age -- previous estimates were based on data that included 18 to 19-year olds.

According to the findings, in 2017, around 40,000 children were victims of homicide.

"Violence against children has always been pervasive, and now things could be getting much worse," UNICEF Executive Director Henrietta Fore said.

"Lockdowns, school closures and movement restrictions have left far too many children stuck with their abusers, without the safe space that school would normally offer. It is urgent to scale up efforts to protect children during these times and beyond, including by designating social service workers as essential and strengthening child helplines," she said.

UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay said during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the related school closures, "we have seen a rise in violence and hate online – and this includes bullying".

"Now, as schools begin to re-open, children are expressing their fears about going back to school. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that schools are safe environments for all children. We need to think and act collectively to stop violence at school and in our societies at large," Azoulay said.

Stay-at-home measures including school closures have limited the usual sources of support for families and individuals such as friends, extended family or professionals.

This further erodes victims’ ability to successfully cope with crises and the new routines of daily life. Spikes in calls to helplines for child abuse and intimate partner violence have been observed, the report said.

While online communities have become central to maintain many children's learning, support and play, an increase in harmful online behaviors including cyberbullying, risky online behavior and sexual exploitation have been identified.

“Whilst this report was being finalised, confinement measures and the disrupted provision of already limited child protection services exacerbated the vulnerability of children to various forms of violence," said Najat Maalla M’jid, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Violence against Children.

Of the INSPIRE strategies, only access to schools through enrolment showed the most progress with 54 per cent of the countries reporting that a sufficient number of children in need were being reached in this way.

Between 32 per cent and 37 per cent of the countries considered that victims of violence could access support services, while 26 per cent of the countries provided programmes on parent and caregiver support; 21 per cent of the countries had programmes to change harmful norms; and 15 per cent of the countries had modifications to provide safe physical environments for children, the report said.

Although a majority of countries (83 per cent) have national data on violence against children, only 21 per cent used these to set baselines and national targets to prevent and respond to violence against children, it added.

The report said about 80 per cent of countries have national plans of action and policies but only one-fifth have plans that are fully funded or have measurable targets. A lack of funding combined with inadequate professional capacity are likely contributing factors and a reason why implementation has been slow.

"Ending violence against children is the right thing to do, a smart investment to make - and it's possible. We can and must create a world where every child can thrive," Howard Taylor of the End Violence Partnership said.

Washington, May 31: US President Donald Trump said Saturday he will delay the G7 summit scheduled to take place in June and invite other countries -- including India and Russia -- to join the meeting.

"I don't feel that as a G7 it properly represents what's going on in the world. It's a very outdated group of countries," Trump told reporters on Air Force One.

He said he would like to invite Russia, South Korea, Australia and India to join an expanded summit in the fall.

It could happen in September, either before or after the UN General Assembly, Trump said, adding that "maybe I'll do it after the election."

Americans head to the polls in early November to choose a new president, with Trump keen for a return to normalcy after the coronavirus pandemic and a healthy economy as voters cast their ballots.

Describing the event as a "G-10 or G-11", Trump said he had "roughly" broached the topic with leaders of the four other countries.

Leaders from the Group of Seven, which the United States heads this year, had been scheduled to meet by videoconference in late June after COVID-19 scuttled plans to gather in-person at Camp David, the US presidential retreat outside Washington.

Trump created suspense last week, however, when he announced that he might hold the huge gathering in-person after all, "primarily at the White House" but also potentially parts of it at Camp David.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel became the first leader to decline the in-person invitation outright.

"Considering the overall pandemic situation, she cannot agree to her personal participation, to a journey to Washington," her spokesman said Saturday.

Her response followed ambivalent to positive reactions to the invitation from Britain, Canada and France.

The 65-year-old chancellor is the oldest G7 leader after Trump, who is 73. Japan's Shinzo Abe, also 65, is several months younger than Merkel. Their age puts them at higher risk from the coronavirus.

The G7 major advanced countries -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States -- hold annual meetings to discuss international economic coordination.

Russia was thrown out of what was the G8 in 2014 after it seized Ukraine's Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, an annexation never recognized by the international community.

The work of the G7 is now more important than ever as countries struggle to repair coronavirus-inflicted damage.

The White House had previously said the huge diplomatic gathering would be a "show of strength" when world economies are gradually reemerging from shutdowns.

The United States is the worst-hit country for COVID-19 infections, recording more than 1.7 million cases and over 103,680 deaths.

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.