Pakistan to pass a law banning "honor killing"

After the "honor killing" of an outspoken media star Qandeel Baloch by her brother, Pakistan's ruling party is making moves to pass long-delayed legislation to ban honor killings.

The daughter of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Maryam Sharif, made the announcement on July 20. She said the bill will go before the legislature very soon. The present law allows family members to pardon a killer in cases where the killing is considered to be defending the honor of the family. The brother said that he was incensed by Baloch's often risqué posts on social media. Qandeel Baloch had become a household name for her posts of bold, sometimes raunchy, photographs, video and comments, in one case with a Muslim cleric. In Pakistani society where many hold conservative values, opinions are divided on this case. The brother strangled Baloch. In an unusual move, the government itself is a complainant in the case. The killing was designated as a crime against the state, and this blocked Baloch's family from forgiving the son for the crime.

Some 500 Pakistani women die from "honor killings" each year. Honor killings are a problem globally. Most of the victims are women but not all. According to Wikipedia: In 2000, the United Nations estimated that 5,000 women were victims of honor killings each year.[18] According to BBC, "Women's advocacy groups, however, suspect that more than 20,000 women are killed worldwide each year."[19] Murder is not the only form of honor crime, other crimes such as acid attacks, abduction, mutilations, beatings occur; in 2010 the UK police recorded at least 2,823 such crimes.[20]

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said his government wants to pass the law unanimously and has been negotiating with religious parties. In the past, the two main religious parties have opposed banning honor killings but this time Jamaat-e-Islami said it would not oppose the bill. Maryam Sharif said: "We have finalised the draft law in the light of negotiations. The final draft will be presented to a committee of joint session of parliament on July 21 for consideration and approval." The upper house of parliament had passed the bill in 2014 but the government failed to put it up for a vote apparently because it was more concerned with legislation dealing with security and economic reforms. However, now a senior government official claimed that all major parties were in support of the bill and it was likely to be passed by a joint session of parliament within a few weeks.

Islamic State recruiting in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Kabul - General John Campbell, the commander of international forces in Afghanistan reports that the Islamic State is recruiting fighters in Afghanistan and next door in Pakistan as well.

+ Add Image	1 of 2

Campbell claims that recruiters have funds for recruiting. While he does not believe the Islamic State is fully operational in either country, in Afghanistan some Taliban have split off and pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Campbell see this as an attempt for some Taliban to "rebrand" and as a way of bringing attention and resources to themselves. In other areas, this same type of change has led to a significant rise in Islamic State presence. In Libya, some members of Ansar al Sharia, an Al Qaeda-linked group, pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. Subsequently their strength grew and they now control two coastal cities.

In Afghanistan's Helmand province, Mullah Abdul Rauf has pledged allegiance to the Ilamic State. He is a former senior Taliban commander and former Guantanamo inmate. An elder from the area told the BBC there had been a fight between the new group and the Taliban after they had replaced the Taliban white flags with the black flag of the Islamic State. The elder said about 20 people from both sides had been killed or injured in the clash. The governor of Nimruz province, Amir Mohammed, said the IS tried to recruit people in the south-western province of Farah but were driven out by local people with the help of the police. However, he said the group still had the same program, though they were changing their name.

The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, has not been seen in public since 2001.There now appears to be a challenge to his leadership from the Islamic State not just in Afghanistan but in Pakistan too. In Pakistan an online video appeared in which several commanders claimed they had pledged allegiance to Abu Al-Baghdadi, the IS leader.

One Afghan news agency reported IS militants already were in control of most of the province of Nangahar in the north-east of Afghanistan, but General Campbell dismissed the report saying:"We are not seeing it operationalized to the point of like what you are seeing in Syria. But I think, given time, that is where they want to go, so I think we have to squash that out now while we can."

He did not deny the reports of Taliban and Islamic State fighters had fought with each other.

A suicide attack in the Afghan eastern city of Jalalabad killed 33 people and injured over a hundred last March. The Taliban condemned the attack but a former spokesperson for the Pakistan Taliban claimed the attack as the work of the Islamic State in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In a visit to Washington last month Afghan president Ghani claimed that the Islamic State posed a "terrible threat" to Afghanistan

Saudi Arabia considering purchase of nuclear weapons from Pakistan

Saudi Arabia is said to be engaged in a strategic review of its security that includes as one possibility acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

+ Add Image

The Guardian reports that three options are being considered. One option is to acquire a nuclear capability as a deterrent. Another, to maintain or enter into an alliance with a nuclear power to offer it protection. Finally, to negotiate an agreement for a nuclear free Middle East. Washington until now has assumed that the Saudis were content to rely upon the U.S. with its nuclear arsenal for protection. Analysts say the review shows that the Saudis feel insecure in their relationship with the US and want to lessen their reliance on US protection. The Saudis worry not just about Iran but also Israel which appears to be under almost no international pressure to abandon its nuclear program or weapons except for Arab nations.

David Albright, of the Institute fo Science and International Security in Washington said:"There has always been worries that the Saudis would go down this path if provoked. There is growing US hostility which could lead to the removal of the US umbrella and will the Saudis be intimidated by Iran? They've got to be nervous."The Saudis bought intermediate range missiles from China back in 1988 that could carry nuclear bombs to any part of the middle east. Four years ago, a Saudi defence team toured Pakistani nuclear facilities. Albright doubted if anyone would sell nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia. However, U.S. officials told a London newspaper that Saudi Arabia would buy atomic weapons from Pakistan "off the shelf." The Saudis provided considerable financial support for the Pakistani nuclear program.

A BBC Newsnight report citing various sources went further and a NATO official said "that nuclear weapons made in Pakistan on behalf of Saudi Arabia are now sitting ready for delivery." Amos Yadin, a former head of Israeli intelligence said that if Iran got the bomb, the Saudis would not wait one month: “They already paid for the bomb, they will go to Pakistan and bring what they need to bring." In 2009, King Abdullah warned the visiting US envoy to the Middle East that if Iran were to cross the nuclear threshold that Saudi Arabia would get nuclear weapons.

Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif faces murder charges

Protesters in Pakistan are trying to force the resignation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. A Lahore court ordered murder charges be brought against both Sharif and his brother after a crackdown on a protest by preacher Muhammad Qadri last June.

Muhammad Qadri is a popular anti-Taliban anti-terror preacher. However, he has also made speeches critical of the Sharifs and their associates for corruption. He is a dual Canadian, Pakistani citizen who lived in Toronto for a number of years before returning to Pakistan. The Lahore Sessions Court gave the order: A Pakistani court on Saturday ordered framing of murder charges against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his brother and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz and 19 others over the June violence near Canada-based cleric Tahirul Qadri's headquarters that killed 14 of his supporters.

The Punjab government will challenge the court's decision according to an official of the ruling party. Protesters arrived in Islamabad after a Long March in which there were clashes with government supporters along the way. Along with Qadri, leader of an opposition party PTI, Imran Khan, led the protests in Islamabad. Even before the murder charges were laid the protesters were calling for the resignation of Sharif and fresh elections accusing him of corruption and the last elections as rigged. Together Khan and Qadri issued an ultimatum for Sharif to resign or face growing disobedience including not paying taxes. Later Khan announced that his entire PTI party the third largest in parliament would quit the parliament. The party holds about 10 per cent of the seats but also have significant positions in three provincial parliaments as well. The ruling PML-N party insists they are not about to resign in face of the protests. Should the situation further destabilize their is always a chance that the armed forces will take over power.

Song from Peshawar: "My gaze is as fatal as a drone attack".

A new romantic song by Pakistani singer Sitara Younis compares the gaze of a beautiful dancing girl to a drone attack. Both are equally fatal to men.

The appended video comes from the city of Peshawar. The song from a popular movie has some of the standard lyrics of love songs. There is mention of rosebuds and wine. The blaring music celebrates a temptress who has "sweet lips". Her smile is as fresh as early dew..However the repeated chorus is:

"My gaze is as fatal as a drone attack".

This hit for Younis follows upon another last year in which the temptress warns a drunken man to stay away:

"Don't chase me, I'm an illusion, a suicide bomb."

Khalid Jilanii a part time lyricist and professional driver said that singers and poets are more and more drawing upon the local situation for ideas and images. Jilani said:

"It's been a hit because people like the music and the movie that it was written for. Now you hear it all the time being played at wedding halls and in cars."

Younis's performance was getting many hits on You Tube before You Tube was shut down by the government due to anger over the anti-Islamic film trailer posted on the site.

The composer of the music Maas Wesal claims the drone reference has nothing to do with politics just that the eyes of a beautiful dancing temptress can destroy men just like a drone. Nevertheless the song shows that events in the adjacent tribal territories are being reflected in popular culture.

Music such as this would be suppressed in the tribal areas where the Taliban along with drones are active. However the music flourishes in Peshawar a vibrant and quite diverse city of over three and a half million people.

Bakhtar Khattack, a composer in Peshawar, said:

"In the last five years we have suffered a lot of losses because of this war. People hear about so many different incidents that it becomes part of their psyche. It is actually very destructive to our society that these things are being taken lightly and people are even dancing to these sorts of tunes."

Some critics believe the songs are harmful to Pashtun culture and want a board of censors to ban this type of material in spite of or perhaps because of its popularity. The Express Tribune newspaper said: "All in all, the war on terror in these tribal areas has not only become a part of their art, literature and cinema but even the Pashto tele-films, which are famous for vulgarity and Kalashnikov culture."

Although the Pashto is not translated in the video you can see the characters with Kalashnikov's in the background. The video is vibrant and vulgar and I expect to the Taliban quite unIslamic.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/333209#ixzz272hDG1Zg

Blasphemy laws with draconian punishment exist in many countries

While media attention recently has focused on Pakistan and its blasphemy laws, many countries have such laws including Saudi Arabia and Iran. In western countries blasphemy laws have been replaced by hate speech laws that also punish some types of speech.

The arrest of a young Christian girl for allegedly burning pages of a beginner's guide for reciting the Quran has focused media attention on Pakistan's blasphemy laws. Those laws are draconian but they derive more generally from Sharia law and its prohibitions.

There is a certain irony in the strong association of draconian blasphemy laws with Islam. According to Wikipedia neither the Quran nor hadith (sayings) make reference to a crime of blasphemy. It is later jurists who incorporated laws against blasphemy into Sharia law. A lawyer, activist and critic of Pakistan's blasphemy laws, Ayesha Haq says:

"I think it's a bad law to start off with – it's a man-made law and it has nothing to do with religion. If you look at our history, the history of Islam and that of our Holy Prophet - he was exceptionally tolerant to those who were abusive towards him. He never took any action against anyone who did anything horrible to him, like throw garbage on him. So for him to put up with all that and we can't, to me, makes absolutely no sense."

Yet under Sharia law penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, and death by hanging or beheading. One section of Pakistani blasphemy law states:

“Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine.”

There is nothing unique about the Pakistani laws. Similar laws can be found in Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran. Again somewhat ironically laws governing criticism of Muhammad or Islam are often used against minority Muslim sects as well as adherents of other religions.

In 2008 in Saudi Arabia Ra'if Badawi ran a website that was critical of the Saudi religious police and also questioned the traditional Wahhabi interpretations of Islam. He was charged with setting up a site that insults Islam. Badawi was faced with possibly 5 years in prison and an $800,000 dollar fine. He fled the country.

In 2007 Sabri Bogday, a barber from Turkey, confessed to swearing at Allah and was sentenced to death. Two appeals were denied but eventually after Bogday appealed to King Abdullah and expressed repentance while asking Allah for forgiveness the king allowed his appeal and Bogday returned to Turkey.

Iranian blasphemy law is based on Sharia law but from a Shia perspective. Critics claim it has been used against minorities such as the Sufis, Bahai, and even opposition journalists or politicians. Here are two illustrative cases from Wikipedia.

In June of 2009 singer Mohsen Namjoo was sentenced in absentia to a five-year jail term for ridiculing the Quran in a song even though a year earlier Namjoo had apologized for the song and claimed it was never meant for public release. Perhaps the most famous use of blasphemy laws was the fatwa issued against the novelist Salman Rushdie.

In 1989 the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Muslims to kill Rushdie and his publishers of the satirical novel the Satanic Verses for insulting Muhammad and Islam. While Rushdie has so far escaped punishment his Japanese translator was stabbed to death in 1991. The Italian translator also was stabbed but survived.

While in many western countries blasphemy laws have disappeared there are in many countries hate speech laws which criminalize certain types of speech. Hate speech laws are much broader than blasphemy laws which are connected to religion. Groups protected against hate speech include the disabled, ethnic minorities, religious groups, those of a particular gender or gender identity, those of a particular sexual orientation and no doubt others as well. Many countries,although not the United States, have such laws. However even more countries, including the United States, have hate crime legislation that in effect adds seriousness and punishment to existing crimes that are motivated by hate. All of these types of laws can be misused to stifle opposition and certainly they impose a type of political correctness on citizens.

Pakistan and U.S. nowhere near a deal on drone attacks

    The Pakistani parliament has several times passed motions demanding that U.S. drone attacks cease. Cessation of drone strikes was also made a condition of reopening NATO transit routes  through Pakistan to Afghanistan. However after Hillary Clinton apologized for a border incident in which 24 Pakistani troops were killed Pakistan reopened thee routes. The drone attacks did not cease. A drone attack was launched shortly after the reopening.
      Since the attacks continued after the NATO routes were reopened it appeared that perhaps Pakistan had tacitly agreed to the attacks. Sherry Rehman the Pakistani ambassador has vehemently denied this and reaffirmed Pakistan's opposition drone attacks as a violation of its sovereignty.
    Negotiations between the U.S. and Pakistan on some type of compromise deal on drones have been ongoing. However a senior official said::. “Cessation of drones is still a high priority for us in the dialogue with the US, but I’m afraid we are nowhere near a deal on the issue,”  “But we’ll keep talking to them about it,” 
   The defense committed of the Pakistani cabinet said after a meeting on July 3 that Pakistan“will continue to engage the US on counter-terrorism co-operation and counter-terrorism tools that are in line with international law and practice”  There have been recent meetings between Pakistani foreign minister Hina Khar and U.S. Secretary of  State Hillary Clinton..
  Just days before the July 3rd deal to reopen transit routes Pakistan suggested that there were alternatives to using drone strikes in the tribal areas although officials did not disclose exactly what they were. Foreign Office spokesperson Mozzam Khan said:“Pakistan’s position on drone attacks is very clear, and very clearly stated. This is an issue and both countries want to resolve it in a mutually acceptable manner,”  The drone attacks are quite unpopular in Pakistan. In the past the government has criticized the attacks in public while tacitly agreeing to them behind the scenes.
     Since the U.S. is adamant that the attacks continue a deal seems unlikely. However it is possible that if Pakistan is given more control over targeting and attacks launched only with Pakistani agreement a deal could be reached. However the U.S. is not likely to be agreeable to cede that much power to Pakistan.

Pakistan agrees to reopen NATO supply routes

     The routes have been closed since last November when a U.S. raid killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Among the conditions for reopening the routes was an apology for this event. Hilary Clinton is reported to have apologized in a telephone conversation with Hina Khat the Pakistani Foreign Minister. '
   Clinton said:. "We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again." Sherry Rehman the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S. said:. "We appreciate Secretary Clinton's statement, and hope that bilateral ties can move to a better place from here. I am confident that both countries can agree on many critical issues, especially on bringing peace to the region,"
    There is no mention of any cessation of drone attacks. Obviously the Pakistani side had not intention of making their cessation a real condition  for reopening the routes. Apparently NATO also rejected a huge hike in fees for transport. However, there will be the release of about a billion in military aid as part of the payment for Pakistani operations against militants. No payment has been made since 2010 and Pakistan puts the bill at over 3 billion. The Pakistani Taliban will attack the convoys one they begin again. For more see this article.
   Even with losses from attacks the Pakistani routes are much cheaper than alternative routes through the north.

Almost all Pakistanis against drone strikes according to Pew poll.

The full Pew Research poll on global attitudes can be found here. The poll also shows a decline in confidence in Obama in many parts of the world. However most countries in Europe want to see him reelected.

There are many other interesting statistics in the poll. Putin for example is not viewed favorably as a leader except in Russia itself at 69 per cent and to some extent in China.

The Pakistan attitudes on drones show 97 per cent opposed and a majority believe that the drone strikes have a negative impact on the country. Ninety four per cent believe that the drones kill too many innocent people. Some of the statistics seem inconsistent but that is probably the result of people's attitudes! The number of people who see militant groups as a main problem to be addressed in Pakistan is dwindling although the popularity of militant groups is not increasing. A full 74 per cent do not think drone attacks are necessary to defend Pakistan from extremist groups. The survey also shows that the most popular party is the PTI led by Imran Khan. For more see this article.

Pakistan may not attend upcoming Chicago summit on Afghanistan

     The Chicago Summit on Afghanistan sponsored by NATO is slated to start on May 20th. However Pakistan may not attend. The NATO general secretary more or less implied that Pakistan was not welcomed unless it reopens closed transit routes for NATO supplies through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
    However Pakistan has also suggested that unless drone strikes cease in Pakistan's tribal areas it will boycott the meeting. The U.S,. has indicated that it will not stop the attacks in fact they have been continuing even after several motion by the Pakistan parliament have demanded they cease.
   A recent Pentagon report claims that terrorists still have safe havens in parts of the Tribal Areas. This no doubt means that drone attacks will not stop. The two sides seem to be at an impasse. However talks are ongoing next week to try and solve the issues outstanding. It will be politically difficult for Pakistan to give in and allow continuing drone attacks but it also wants a great deal of money several billion it feels it is owed for past efforts against terrorism. For more see this article.

Pakistan may pull out of NATO summit on Afghanistan over drone attacks

In spite of the fact that the Pakistani parliament has passed several motions demanding that drone attacks cease the U.S. has recently struck a target in the tribal territories. Pakistan has also made stopping the attacks a condition for reopening supply routes through Pakistan to Afghanistan. Yet the attacks continue.

Now it may be that Pakistan will protest by not attending a key NATO summit. About the recent attack the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs said:. "Such attacks are in total contravention of international law and established norms of interstate relations," However Moazzam Khan a ministry spokesperson said that no decision had been made as to whether to attend the NATO conference on May 20-21 in Chicago. Pakistan had earlier stayed away from a conference in Bonn to protest the U.S. killing of 24 Pakistani troops in a border incident.

Recent talks in Pakistan to resolve issues between Pakistan and the U.S. have not been successful. The U.S. is holding up billions of dollars in aid owed to pay for Pakistani actions against terrorists. No payments have been made since 2010. This debt is used as leverage to force Pakistan to accede to U.S. demands. For more see this article. Yet a standoff remains between the two countries.

Pakistani legislators tie opening of Pakistan supply routes to stopping drone attacks

The Pakistan parliament passed a resolution demanding drone attacks cease some time ago. Just lately the Parliamentary Committee on National Security also recommended that the attacks cease.

Now the parliament is urging the government to tie reopening supply lines to Afghanistan with stopping the drone attacks. The U.S. has made it clear that it will not cease the attacks. In fact the latest attack was today. The attacks mounted by the CIA continue and Pakistani parliamentary demands have been ignored.

There have also been demands in parliament that supplies transferred through Afghanistan should not involve munitions. Senator Mushahid Hussain said: “Permitting weaponry in the NATO supplies means that we want to keep the conflict in Afghanistan continued,” He went on:“This is for the first time that USA has taken Pakistani parliament seriously after 9/11. President Obama also suggested that they are waiting for Pakistani parliament’s decision,” There is no sign that the U.S. is taking Pakistan seriously on drone attacks at least no sign that they will stop at any rate! For more see this article.

Pakistan's President Zardari calls for end to U.S. drone strikes

The leader of the Pakistan opposition pointed out that Pakistan has had two motions in parliament that the attacks cease. Now the parliamentary review group has demanded the attacks cease as a condition for renewing normal relations with the U.S. The first two motions the opposition leader noted have never been acted upon so it is simply embarassing to pass another one.

However, Zardari never seems to be fazed by inconsistency between his rhetoric and reality. The reality is that the U.S. has said it will not cease the attacks. In fact it may not even compromise by letting the Pakistanis have foreknowledge of when attacks are happening or a say in when and where they should happen. However, Zardari wiill probably go on saying one thing in public and tacitly agreeing with the U.S. in private.

Zardari said that the parliamentary review process shows that democracy has taken root in Pakistan. But it may be a root without fruit. Zardari also said that negotiations with the U.S. should work within the parameters set by parliament and not bypass it. However the drone issue will become a problem if Zardari is serious about this. But there are other demands as well.

A spokesperson for the president said that Zardari demanded greater transparency in the Pakistan U.S. relationship. Really? Does he want the public to know that there will probably be tacit agreements on issues such as drone attacks?

During talks with U.S. officials Zardari also suggested that there might be preferential tariffs for Pakistani goods entering the U.S. Zardari also expressed concern about the Afghan drug trade. He said that large amounts of drugs were entering Pakistan from Afghanistan.

Zardari said that money from the trade financed the Afghan insurgency and that it was important for the U.S. and NATO to intercept the drugs.

Zardari also told the U.S. officials that drone attacks were violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, and were counterproductive. He claimed that civilian casualties fueled militancy and should stop. This sort of rhetoric is nothing new but that Zardari is saying this within the context of renewing normal relations with the U.S. may mean that he is serious this time. Most likely he is serious in the sense that he will use the demand to get concessions from the U.S. on other issues. Zardari also defended Pakistan's decision to continue with a natural gas pipeline project from Iran. For more see this article

Pakistani opposition leader opposed to reopening NATO supply routes

According to a report by SANA(South Asian News Agency) the leader of the Pakistan opposition in the National Assembly Chaudry Nizar Ali Khan , Pakistan should not at this time re-open NATO supply routes. Chaudry claims that restoring the routes would create unrest in the country.

Chaudry is particuarly angry at the government for doing nothing about two resolutions passed by parliament that demanded the end of drone attacks. Instead of doing anything concrete to ensure the resolutions were carried out, the Pakistani government has now tabled another resolution demanding the same action!

Passing another resolution claims Chaudry dishonours the parliament. He also claims that nothing in the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on restoring U.S. Pakistan relations does anything to balance to U.S. Pakistan relations. Given that the U.S. provides a lot of aid both military and otherwise to Pakistan, the country can probably not expect much balance.

Chaudry also said:“I am saying continuously that foreign intelligence agents are working in Pakistan without any license, Government should bring the details of those before the masses. "" He noted too that the government continually passed laws in its own interests. Surely that is not a crime but common everywhere! For more see this article.

U.S. rejects Afghan recommendation to stop drone attacks.

   A Pakistani parliamentary committee has presented a list of 40 recommendations to a joint meeting of the Pakistani Senate and National Assembly for renewing ties with the U.S. Among the recommendations is that drone attacks cease.
    According to reports the U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter has told the Pakistani foreign minister that the U.S. will not cease drone strikes on the Tribal areas. The Pakistanis claim the attacks are counter-productive, increase anti-American feeling, and violate Pakistan's sovereignty. However up until the break off of relations after a NATO attack killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November many think that there clearly was implicit approval by Pakistan of the drone attacks. Of course in public this approval was never admitted. In fact ruling party officials along with the opposition condemned the attack. There was even a motion in parliament that they cease.
    No doubt the Pakistanis will be able to get some of their recommendations accepted by  the U.S. Pakistan is proposing a tax on all NATO supplies passing through Pakistan. They also want an apology for the airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. The U.S. apparently is willing to offer an apology.. However, on the issue of drone strikes the U.S. clearly is firm on continuing them in spite of the hostility it is causing and the problems it creates for Pakistani politicians.
  In the U.S. Senator Joe Libierman said: “drone strikes are critically important to America's national security. So obviously, I do not believe they should stop.” US Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein said “I think the key is whether Pakistan will go into North Waziristan and other places and take out those terrorist leaders who are essentially fuelling and leading attacks against our troops in Afghanistan,”  For more see this article.

Pakistan claims drone strikes violate their sovereignty

Excuse the pun but Pakistan drones on and on about this issue. Parliament has even passed a motion that the attacks must stop. However they haven't. There was a pause after the U.S. killed a couple of dozen Pakistani troops on the Afghan border but that was all. They have resumed.
It seems obvious that at least until the pause there was tacit agreement within the Pakistani government and military concering the drone attacks. In fact Pakistani intelligence probably helped with targeting.
However, the issue seems to be taken more seriously now after two drone strikes killed at least 15 people in South Waziristan. The Pakistani government was quick to deny that it was involved. The government says it was not consulted at all with respect to any recent strikes.
The Pakistani government claims that they warned the U.S. to stop carrying out the strikes. The Pakistani ambassador Sherry Rehman said they told the U.S. this on March 9 after strikes that killed 13 people.
Foreign Office spokesperson Abdul Basit that there was no question that the drone attacks violated Pakistan' sovereignty. He said:"Pakistan has been using all diplomatic channels to bring an end to the strikes that are damaging our efforts against militancy and terrorism. Voices are also being raised in the West against these illegal drone strike," But all that has happened is that drone attacks have resumed. Basit did not talk of shooting down the drones as an option.
By continuing the attacks the U.S. puts the Pakistan government in an almost impossible position. They must complain about them as a political necessity. However, they are dependent upon the U.S. for aid and have not shown any willingness to really confront the U.S. except by verbiage that makes them look more silly and ineffective by the day. They will pay come the next election. For more see this article.

Pakistan still not opening Afghan border to U.S.

After a recent meeting of Pakistani leaders no decision was made to reopen the Afghan border. Most supply deliveries as well as troop withdrawals are made through crossings from Pakistan.

The meeting of a leadership council decided to leave the decision on the opening to the Pakistani parliament. Given that the parliament long ago passed a motion demanding that drone strikes cease but the attacks continued, it is unlikely that the parliament would pass a motion to open the border. The government is already seen as too pro-American by much of the populace. There are elections coming up.

A week or so ago the commander of CENTCOM James Mattis predicted a reopening soon. The border has been closed since last November after the U.S. killed a number of Pakistani soldiers in a border attack. Prime Minister Gilani said it would last several weeks. Another month and it will have lasted half a year!

The Pakistani government is already facing very strong anti-American sentiments among much of the population. The parliament is not about to stoke the anti-American fires or face defeat at the polls. Meanwhile Russia that has roused the ire of the U.S. for supporting Syria seems set to offer a base to the U.S. from which it can supply Afghanistan and also transport troops. See this article. Russia is anxious that the U.S. continue the Afghan war. Shouldn't that be a reason for the U.S. to think about getting out!

Pakistan demands that U.S. stop drone attacks

At least this is so according to Bloomberg's Business Week. The report is based upon statements by anonymous U.S. officials.According to the article the officials must remain anonymous because the drone program is classified. I doubt that the officials would want to reveal who they are in any event when they are reporting on ongoing talks!

The use of drones has been a key part of Obama's counter terror strategy especially in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. Sherry Rehman met with Antony Blinken national security adviser on March 9. She told him that Pakistan's political parties agree that the drone flights must end. The parliament actually passed a motion demanding the drone attacks end ages ago. After a pause of several months they are now happening again.

The drone attacks are seen as a violation of Pakistani airspace as well as being responsible for the deaths of many civilians as collateral damage. Public opinion is heavily in favor of ending the missions.

The attacks are unlikely to end. The U.S. provided 4.4 billion dollars in aid in 2010. This aid can be used as leverage to force Pakistan into some sort of explicit or implicit agreement that the attacks continue

Pakistan is pressing for an agreement that would have the U.S. agree to share intelligence about the strikes and carry out the attacks only in coordination with the Pakistani military and intelligence. So far the U.S. has refused to give information to Pakistan fearing that targets might be forewarned of attacks. This complete lack of trust makes the situation even worse.

In spite of the questionable legality let alone morality of the drone attacks, Obama has greatly increased their use compared to Bush. In 2008 under Bush there were only 35 attacks. Under Obama there were 117 in 2010.

Pakistan has constantly complained of the attacks but secretly approved them and even helped with targeting. However relations now are very strained. The killing of Bin Laden with no coordination or prior notice to Pakistan is one irritant. The killing of 2 Pakistanis by a CIA contractor is another. Finally there was the killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in a border incident. This time the Pakistani's may be serious. Personally, I doubt that the U.S. will agree to stop the attacks. However, having another tacit agreement may be politically difficult for Pakistani politicians. For more see this article.

U.S. resumed drone strikes despite Pakistani objections

In spite of Pakistani criticism and a motion in the Pakistani parliament that drone strikes cease, the U.S. simply informed Pakistan that it was resuming the attacks without any agreement. '

Last month on Jan. 10th the attacks resumed after a pause of two months after relations were strained with Pakistan. A U.S. attack on the border of Pakistan killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Sources say that both vice-president Biden and Secty of State Clinton spoke with Pakistani officials. Rumours were that there were negotiations to limit attacks and co-ordinate with the Pakistanis but apparently this was not to be.

In public Pakistani politicians have always objected to the drone strikes as violations of sovereignty. However, there have never been any attempts to shoot the drones down although on occasion this has been threatened. Many analysts believe that privately there is tacit agreement to the attacks.

The Pakistani intelligence service even helps in targeting. U.S. officials say they are not likely to give Pakistan advance notice of attacks as they fear that militants might be given the information.

The drone attacks have fueled already strong anti-US sentiment in Pakistan. The Pakistani foreign minister Hina Khar is on a visit to the UK and is trying to convince the British to use their influence with the U.S. to stop the drone attacks. See this article. For more on the drone strikes see this article.

Obama has made expansion of drone and special forces attacks a center piece of his war policy making much more use of drones than his predecessor Bush. U.S. liberals on the whole remain silent about them.

Iran, Pakistan, Afghan meeting ends in acrimony

Leaders of the three neighbouring countries discussed a number of peace efforts. Afghanistan failed to get Pakistani support for an Afghan initiative to promote peace with the Taliban.

  Pakistan's foreign minister Hina Khar felt that Afghanistan had ridiculous expectations as to Pakistan's influence over the Taliban. For example, he said it was preposterous that Afghan authorities should think that Pakistan could force Mullah Omar head of the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table.

  The harsh comments were rather unexpected as usually these disagreements are kept in the background. The U.S. is promoting the peace process. However the Taliban has always demanded the withdrawal of U.S. troops as a condition of a settlement. But some troops are expected to stay in Afghanistan are 2014.

  A Taliban spokesperson said:"The Taliban did not talk with the Kabul government anywhere," An Afghan analyst based in Kabul noted that both Iran and Pakistan must agree to any peace deal for lasting peace in the area. For more see this article.