UN chief ‘deeply' regrets veto of Palestinian ex-PM as envoy

Washington, Jan 12: US president Donald Trump said Saturday the United States was monitoring Iranian demonstrations closely, warning against any new “massacre” as protests broke out after Tehran admitted to shooting down a passenger plane.

Iran said earlier it unintentionally downed a Ukrainian jetliner outside Tehran, killing all 176 people aboard, in an abrupt about-turn after initially saying that it had crashed due to mechanical failure. The firing came shortly after Iran launched missiles at bases in Iraq housing American forces.

President Hassan Rouhani said a military probe into the tragedy had found that “missiles fired due to human error” brought down the Boeing 737, calling it an “unforgivable mistake.”

Trump told Iranians -- in tweets in both English and Farsi -- that he stands by them and is monitoring the demonstrations.

“To the brave, long-suffering people of Iran: I've stood with you since the beginning of my Presidency, and my Administration will continue to stand with you,” he tweeted.

“There can not be another massacre of peaceful protesters, nor an internet shutdown. The world is watching,” he added, apparently referring to an Iranian crackdown on street protests that broke out in November.

“We are following your protests closely, and are inspired by your courage," he said.

The new demonstrations follow an Iranian crackdown on street protests that broke out in November. Amnesty International has said it left more than 300 people dead. Internet access was reportedly cut off in multiple Iranian provinces ahead of memorials planned a month after the protests.

On Saturday evening, police dispersed students who had converged on Amir Kabir University in Tehran to pay tribute to the victims, after some among the hundreds gathered shouted "destructive" slogans, Fars news agency said.

State television reported that students shouted "anti-regime" chants, while the news agency Fars reported that posters of Soleimani had been torn down.

Islamabad, Jul 20: Six advisors of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan posses dual citizenships and several of top 20 aides have admitted of owning movable and immovable assets worth millions of dollars abroad.

The list was published on the official website of Pakistan government's cabinet division.
All the dual nationals were working as special assistants to the prime minister (SAPM). 

These people include SAPM on Overseas Pakistanis Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari (UK), SAPM on Power Division Shahzad Qasim (US), SAPM on Petroleum Nadeem Babar (US), SAPM on Political Affairs Shahbaz Gill (US), SAPM on Parliamentary Coordination Nadeem Afzal Gondal (Canada) and SAPM on Digital Pakistan Tania Aidrus (Canadian citizenship by birth).

According to Gulf News report, the wealthiest SAPM is Power Division and Mineral Resources Assistant Shahzad Syed Qasim who has assets worth over Rs 4 billion followed by SAPM on Petroleum Nadeem Babar with assets worth Rs 2.75 billion. Meanwhile, Adviser for Overseas Pakistanis Syed Zulfiqar Abbas Bukhari's net assets is estimated over Rs 2 billion.

Giving further details of the wealthiest SAPM, the official website stated that the PM's aide on Power Division and Coordination of Marketing and Development of Mineral Resources owns assets in Pakistan, UAE and US. His three properties in UAE include two villas in Jumeirah Golf Estates and Sienna Lakes, Jumeirah Golf Estates and an apartment at Park Towers, DIFC - all worth Dh20,688,000. He has three cars in the UAE worth Dh400,000 and in the US, he has property worth US$865,000 while he has Rs 4 billion in various local and foreign bank accounts and retirement funds including $2.1 million in US.

Meanwhile, Nadeem Babbar, who is Special Assistant on Petroleum Division, owns assets worth over Rs 2.7 billion, including several properties in Pakistan and abroad and stakes in more than 30 local and foreign companies.

The Gulf News further reported that in the list Dr Moeed Yusuf's, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister on National Security Division and Strategic Policy Planning, the name was also included but was later withdrawn as it was clarified that he had the US residency and only holds the citizenship of Pakistan as per the affidavit submitted to the government. "I have not returned to the US since I took up my current responsibility, have no employment or income in the US nor do I have any millions worth properties abroad" Dr Yusuf was quoted as saying.

The latest list on PM Imran Khan's advisors possessing dual nationalities has sparked strong criticisms by the Opposition leaders.

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.