Saving Face directed by Pakistani investigative documentary filmmaker Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy and Daniel Junge, received the prestigious Academy Award in the category: Best Documentary (Short) at the 84th Annual Academy Awards®. Here is the acceptance speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rvRi6skW-M&feature=youtu.be

The category of Best Documentary (Short) was presented by Rose Byrne & Melissa McCarthy to Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy and Daniel Junge. This marks both Sharmeen and Daniel’s first ever Oscar award and was also the first Oscar to be awarded to a Pakistani in the history of the Academy Awards. Upon receiving the award, Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy thanked the Heroes of Pakistan , The Academy, her colleagues, cast and crew, fellow nominees, parents, friends and family and said “I am deeply humbled and blown away by the outpouring of support and well wishes that I have received. It is an indescribable feeling and is a dream come true! This is for all the budding filmmakers who think that their work will not be appreciated or recognized; if I can do it, so can you. Today, Pakistan was in the news for all the right reasons and I am thrilled that we are now recognized as artists and story tellers. Zakia, Rukhsana- this one is for you”

The 84th Academy Awards ceremony was held at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, California and Billy Crystal hosted the ceremony, while Brian Grazer produced it. Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy walked the red carpet with her husband Fahad Chinoy wearing a custom made and quintessentially Pakistani outfit by renowned couturier Bunto Kazmi with jewellery exclusively designed for Sharmeen for the occasion by Kiran Aman of Kiran Fine Jewellery. After the main Academy Awards ceremony, Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy attended post-Oscar events on which she wore an ensemble by leading fashion designers Sana Safinaz with exclusive jewellery by Sherezad Rahimtoola.

Saving Face chronicles the work of acclaimed British Pakistani plastic surgeon, Dr Mohammad Jawad as he travelled to Pakistan and performed reconstructive surgery on survivors of acid violence. Acid violence, an extreme form of physical abuse, is systemically underreported in Pakistan; official figures state that 150 cases of acid violence are filed every year, though it is estimated that the actual figure is far greater. This is caused in part by structural inequalities that make it difficult for women to access the judicial system in addition to longstanding cultural practices that support gender discrimination. Saving Face is an account of such violence told by survivors through their personal journeys of endurance, recovery and reconciliation. Saving Face is equally a story about the ways in which women continue to struggle for justice in Pakistan as it is about their resilience and unwavering strength in overcoming difficult circumstances. The observational documentary was filmed entirely in Pakistan, primarily in the Seraiki belt in addition to Rawalpindi, Karachi and Islamabad.

Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy hopes to screen Saving Face in Pakistan, with special screenings at local schools, colleges, universities and communities in order to spread awareness and promote dialogue within Pakistan.

Renowned for producing hard-hitting, character-driven content, Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy continues to set new standards for documentary films that address cultural and political inequality. With a formidable list of awards under her belt including a coveted Emmy Award for her film ‘Pakistan’s Taliban Generation’, this is Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy’s first ever Oscar award.

Saving Face is set to air on America’s premier television cable network HBO, on March 8, 2012.

Who is Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy?

In 2001 the global view of terrorism and Muslims changed forever – and like the millions of people affected post 9/11, Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy, an aspiring journalist turned to the medium of visual storytelling, with a decision to work as an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker. Her vision has been to connect global audiences with the everyday lives of alienated and marginalised communities across the world. To date, Sharmeen’s work has taken her to over ten countries around the world where amongst other things she has had the opportunity to connect with refugees, women’s advocate groups and human rights defenders.

Sharmeen started her career in journalism while enrolled at the prestigious Smith College where she read Economics and Government, while freelancing as a writer for newspapers in the United States and Canada. She later completed her post graduate degrees in International Policy Studies in 2003 and Communication (Journalism) in 2004 from Stanford University.

Her work as an international documentary producer and correspondent progressed in 2002 when she started working at New York Times Television while she was still enrolled at Stanford. Since then, Sharmeen has worked as a producer, director & reporter at Channel 4 (2004-2009), a director & reporter at PBS Frontline World (2004-2009) and at Al Jazeera International (2006-2007). Indeed Sharmeen was one of the first Muslim women to be broadcast on mainstream Western media.

A multi-faceted entrepreneur, Sharmeen started her eponymous film production company Sharmeen Obaid Films in Toronoto in 2006 and recently opened a sister company in Karachi. Sharmeen has produced sixteen critically acclaimed films, all of which have been aired across international channels to global audiences including networks such as CNN, CBC, Channel 4, PBS, Al Jazeera and HBO. Sharmeen is also the co-founder of Pakistan’s leading non-profit organization dedicated to cultural and historic preservation, The Citizen’s Archive of Pakistan and continues to serve as the company’s President and leading cultural preservationist since its founding in 2007.  As a senior fellow at TED 2011 international, Sharmeen has also been one of the driving forces behind the locally organised Tedx Karachi events in both 2010 and 2011 where she reached out to iconic personalities such as Imran Khan and Mukhataran Mai, to share their stories of inspiration .

In September 2011 Sharmeen spoke at Google Zeitgeist in Arizona alongside the likes of Ted Kopple & Ariana Huffington. She was also selected as one of eleven rising young leaders from Asia by the Asia Society in 2011. and participated in the Asia Society’s sixth annual Asia 21 Young Leaders Summit, which was held in New Delhi India in November 2011.

Over her career, Sharmeen has received diverse international and national awards and accolades for her intrepid filmmaking and to this end, she has been the recipient of the esteemed International Emmy Award for her documentary Pakistan’s Taliban Generation (2010) and is still the first non US citizen to have received the coveted Livingston Award for Best International Reporting under the age of 35 in any medium, print and broadcast. She was also the proud recipient of the YWCA Toronto Women of Distinction award for her services in the field of Communication, making documentaries that touch upon the lives of women in extraordinary situations, from the refugee camps of Afghanistan, to the plight of aboriginal women in Western Canada.

Her ongoing projects include: Saving Face, a documentary chronicling the work the work of acclaimed British Pakistani plastic surgeon, Dr Mohammad Jawad as he travels to Pakistan and performs reconstructive surgery on survivors of acid violence.

Pakistani plastic surgeon aiding victims of acid attacks in Pakistan, which she is co-directing with acclaimed international director Daniel Junge. The film will air on HBO on March 8th  2012, Saving Face has won an Academy Award [Oscar] for the Best Documentary, Short Subject as announced by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences; Transgender: Pakistans Open Secret is another more recent film with Sharmeen at the director’s helm – the film was released in the UK in December 2011. The film explores the lives of transsexuals in Pakistan who exist on the fringes of society.

Sharmeen is also producing an animated television series for children in Pakistan for national broadcast which endeavours to explore issues in identity, history and culture in Pakistan.

For more information on Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy Films visit http://sharmeenobaidfilms.com

By Reza Sayah for CNN

Pakistani authorities vowed Tuesday to use the international police agency Interpol to arrest former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

“The government is moving for his (Musharraf’s) red notice,” Interior Minister Rehman Malik said, referring to the Interpol’s international arrest warrant.

“We will get him through Interpol to Pakistan.”

Malik made the announcement as part of a progress report of the four-year-long assassination probe that was presented to provincial lawmakers Tuesday in Bhutto’s home province of Sindh. The briefing lasted several hours and was broadcast live on Pakistani TV.

Bhutto was assassinated in a gun-suicide attack in December 2007, shortly after she came back to Pakistan from self imposed exile to take part in the 2008 general elections.

Malik and the head of the investigation team said former Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud plotted the assassination and paid the equivalent of about $4,500 to a network of Islamist militants to carry out the killing.

Using a Power Point presentation, pictures and video to outline the evidence they had gathered, authorities said Mehsud had Bhutto killed because she supported the west’s war against Islamist militants. Investigators said they collected much of their evidence from the accused plotters’ cell phone records before and after the killing.

Last November a Pakistani court charged five alleged Islamist militants with aiding the suicide attacker and two senior police officers for failing to provide adequate security.

Musharraf has also been accused of failing to protect Bhutto. In February 2011 a judge issued an arrest warrant for Musharraf after he didn’t show up to court for questioning.

Musharraf has been in self-imposed exile ever since he left Paksitan in 2008. Last August authorities confiscated his property in Pakistan and froze his bank account. The former military ruler has denied having anything to do with Bhutto’s killing.

In Tuesday’s briefing Malik and investigators said Musharraf rejected Bhutto’s request to use a western private security contractor for protection when she returned to Pakistan. They suggested Musharraf intentionally left Bhutto vulnerable because he felt politically threatened by her return.

“It was the duty of the government to provide the prime minister with protection,” Malik yelled at one point. “Why did you not give security? What was the problem?”

Filed under: Democracy, England, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis, Taliban Tagged: Asif Ali Zardari, Baitullah Mehsud, Benazir Bhutto, Interpol, Pakistan, Pakistanis, Pervez Musharraf, PPP, Sindh, Taliban

As Reported by CNN

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani of Pakistan is due to appear Monday before the country’s Supreme Court, which plans to charge him with contempt in relation to a long-running struggle over old corruption cases.

Gilani is locked in a standoff with the Supreme Court justices, who are demanding that he ask the Swiss authorities to revive corruption charges from the previous decade against President Asif Ali Zardari and others.

Gilani has refused the court’s demands and could be jailed for six months if the justices find him in contempt. The court on Friday rejected an appeal by Gilani’s lawyers against the summons to face the contempt charge.

The lawyers have argued that the prime minister has not followed the court’s order because Zardari enjoys immunity in Pakistan and abroad as a president in office.

Gilani said in an interview over the weekend with the satellite news network Al Jazeera that he had an “extremely capable” lawyer and didn’t believe the court would jail him on the contempt charges.

If found guilty of contempt, the prime minister could be forced from office. But his lawyers have said he would keep his position unless electoral officials disqualified him.

Gilani served more than five years in prison between 2001 and 2006 on corruption charges brought by the previous military regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf — counts he said were also politically motivated.

The corruption cases that the Supreme Court now wants reopened stem from money-laundering charges against Zardari and his late wife, former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. A Swiss court convicted them in absentia in 2003 of laundering millions of dollars.

After Musharraf granted a controversial amnesty in 2007 to Zardari, Bhutto, and thousands of other politicians and bureaucrats, Pakistan asked the Swiss authorities to drop the case. In 2009, the Pakistani Supreme Court ruled the amnesty was unconstitutional and called on the government to take steps to have the cases reopened.

The government has not done so, and the court apparently lost patience. Since Gilani is the head of the government, the court justices view him as responsible.

Filed under: Democracy, Pakistan, Pakistan Army, Pakistanis Tagged: Benazir Bhutto, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Pakistan, Pakistan Supreme Court, Pervez Musharraf, President Asif Ali Zardari, Swiss Court, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani

It would be my first blog on the great transformation taking place in the Arab World, and it is a transformation long overdue. What’s happening is not a freak moment in history but it is rather a natural reaction to what has been a long suppression of Arabs by other fortunate Arab oligarchs and bands of opportunists. Leaders, they were not. I remember when Omar Suleiman, the supposed Vice President of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, announced the latter’s resignation; I screamed of joy, I was ecstatic. It can happen! It just happened! I said to myself; Arabs can remove a president if that president betrays their trust, if he deprives them from basic dignity and freedoms. It first happened in Tunisia, but it was fast and it surprised everyone, even intelligence agencies that were supposed to be intelligent in gathering intelligence were unprepared for what was brewing. We did not it see it unfold day-by–day in Tunisia, Zine-Albidine Ben Ali rushed and fled the country, leaving everyone in a state of shock. I remember listening to the prophets of CNN and MSNBC dismissing rumors of contagion of this small revolution. They were wrong; the symptoms for the political and economic ills of Tunisia were prevalent in all Arab countries, hence, the revolution spread from the Atlantic to the Gulf, shaking the throne of some kings and toppling the self-appointed king of kings Muammar Qaddafi.
Egypt, January 25th, 2010 I was home all day glued to my TV watching Aljazeera Arabic. Hoping for a repeat, I see the hallmarks, but I am not sure. I read books describing revolutions of past history but I’ve never lived during or witnessed one, will the Egyptians do what their neighbors did two weeks before them, I have to stay tuned, I am. Every time Hosni Mubarak appears on TV, I say, this is it, only to have my hopes dashed and despair overtake me. During the three weeks, starting January 25th a struggle was taking place between the forces of the despot and the forces of the common weal. Sunday through Thursday momentum subsides and remains so until Friday, bringing another meaning to TGI Fridays, when the Egyptians come out in force after Friday prayers to demand the removal of the regime.
Egyptians did remove the regime, so did the Libyans, but with a heavy price. Moroccan compromised for greater transparency and accountability to the Parliament and elected representatives of the people. Yemenis deposed of the head of the regime but not the regime. Gulf countries bought the people’s hearts and tolerance of the regimes with an expensive and expansive social safety net. The Libyans suffered huge number of fatalities in their quest for freedom. Freedom has a price. Unfortunately for Muammar Gaddafi, he miscalculated, had he shown mercy to his people and spared them the months of bombing and killing by mercenaries, they could’ve been reciprocal toward him after his capture. Alas, as the common wisdom taught us: you reap what you sow. Arrogance is blinding. Wittingly or unwittingly, Bashar El-Assad is following in Gadhafi’s footsteps, believing that mass murder will save his dynasty.
Bashar El-assad is betting on the strategic alliance his country has with the republic of Iran and the complex make-up of the sectarian allegiances in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. The Middle East have seen the disastrous consequences of a civil war in Iraq, and it is trying by all means to avoid a repeat of such a scenario that could engulf the region. Russia will try it’s hardest not to break with its last ally in the Middle East. If the regime in Syria falls, Russia will lose its last totalitarian friend in the region. The people of Syria, however, are betting on their determination and the tectonic movements around them. Just like no one has predicted the spontenous start of these revolutions, no one can foretell how will they end. One year on, The transformation is still progress.

By Sajjad Shaukat

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who visited Islamabad on October 20 this year, succeeded in reducing the heat in Pak-US relationship, but she emphasised on Pakistan to “remove safe havens of militants in FATA and the continuing threats across the border to Afghans.” But on October 23, during a CNN interview, Ms. Clinton first time remarked, “US acknowledges the need to

United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports. 

 The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior
Obama administration official, who declined to be identified. 

 

"Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in
April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone
of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb," Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius wrote.

"Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched
uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the
United States could then stop them militarily," Ignatius wrote.

Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was
attending a NATO defense ministers' meeting. 

READ MORE

Mia Bloom is an Associate Professor of Women’s Studies and International Studies at the Pennsylvania State University. Her focus is on terrorism through her fellowship at the International Center for the Study of Terrorism and her work specializes in Middle Eastern conflicts as well as rape in war. Mia’s studies have been featured on numerous media outlets, including CNN and CSPAN, and has been interviewed by Nightline’s Ted Koppel and PBS’ Jim Lehrer. Mia’s most recent work focuses on exposing the emergent occurrence of women and child terrorists. Her book, Bombshell: The Many Faces of Women Terrorists, brings these growing problems to light, analyzing the root causes and the direction of modern terrorism today.

GDTV is back on the air with a series of eight programs that encapsulate the issues rolled out this year for the Foreign Policy Association’s annual Great Decisions discussions.  These discussions take place in the many and far-flung FPA groups and also in classrooms across the country.  There is a bonus TV program in the series this year too, on The New Global Economy.

In my area of inquiry, there are two subject areas and TV programs that pertain:  “Living Planet: State of the Seas” and “Energy and Geopolitics.”  I’ve screened these segments and can recommend them to you highly.  The programs center on a dialogue between the venerable GDTV host, CNN World Affairs Correspondent Ralph Begleiter, and two principal guests, with commentary cut in from a number of other experts in the field.

I found the program on the state of our world ocean particularly compelling.  The two experts in the studio, David Helvarg, President of the Blue Frontier Campaign, and Carl Safina, President & Founder of the Blue Ocean Institute, were articulate and vastly knowledgeable.  (I noted Safina’s strong voice here in talking about public interest and involvement in issues relative to climate change.)  Both of these men and their organizations are doing critical work.  (For more on the state of the world’s oceans, see this excellent, concise report from the Plymouth Marine Laboratory and its partners.)

As to the “Energy and Geopolitics” show, both David Goldwyn, head of Goldwyn Global Strategies, and Frank Verrastro, Director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, hit the key point, for my money, that we are in a necessary transition away from fossil fuels and that how we get there and how fast is critical to the health of the planet.

Paul Collier, a world-class economist and the author of The Plundered Planet, appears in both programs, and has any number of valuable observations to add to the discussion.

Here’s a trailer for the Energy and Geopolitics program.  All good stuff.  It’s worth it to have all nine programs, for yourself, your classroom and/or your discussion group.

Israeli and American politicians alike are using the same playbook — attacking the media and often diverting attention from the real problems at hand.

In U.S. politics, GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich gave a stunning rebuke to CNN anchor John King during the South Carolina Republican debate last night, drawing applause and a standing ovation from the largely conservative crowd.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu might have done the Israeli equivalent, as news reports suggest that he pegged the New York Times and left-leaning Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz  as Israel’s two greatest threats. (While Netanyahu’s alleged comments have been denied, the anti-media rhetoric is most certainly real, as has been demonstrated by a letter from the Prime Minister’s Office declining an invitation to submit an op-ed to the New York Times last year.)

That’s right. Israel, a country surrounded by enemies that want nothing more than to push its citizens into the sea, is scared of “left-wing” journalists. Israel, a nation who’s only regional friends — such as Egypt and Turkey — are quickly turning their backs on it, is terrified of editorial writers. Israelis, a people who have overcome adversity and built a thriving, democratic and Western country in less than a hundred years, is trembling at the thought of a mustached columnist.

The contention that the press and the influence of the media over populations are Israel’s biggest threats is patronizing to Israelis, diminishes the country’s successes, and understates the very real challenge of ensuring bombs don’t rattle Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the Galil and the Negev at any second.

The New York Times is clearly the “paper of record,” but it has a challenge to overcome its alleged left-wing bias to garner credibility. While Ha’aretz  only captures approximately 6 percent of the Israeli audience, it has a far wider international reach and credibility. The paper is distributed along with the International Herald Tribune, which is, effectively, the international New York Times. Further, Ha’aretz visually looks similar to many credible U.S. papers — like the Washington Post and New York Times – and unlike it’s main competitors Yediot Achronot and Ma’ariv, which both have extensive pictures, graphics and more New York Daily News-type feels.

Ha’aretz and the New York Times clearly have in-roads with the U.S. and international communities and influence public policy, which can impact aid to Israel, pressure on the Arab world, and the prospects of interventions preventing the development of an Iranian nuclear warhead. Therefore, the true threat of these publications are their impact on public officials, which could lead to major changes in Israel-related policies.

However, the allegiance between Israel and its closest friend, the United States, is still rock-solid, where U.S. policymakers have overwhelmingly expressed their support for a safe and secure Israel. Both the New York Times and Ha’aretz have been in business for quite some time and been unable to derail that relationship.

Israelis for decades have been forging that strong bond, which is based on shared values and mutual interests. To suggest that all that hard work can be unraveled by editorial bias discounts the long-standing relationship and mutual concerns, effectively characterizing the two countries’ bond as superficial — which it most certainly is not.

Further, Israelis transformed what was once largely swamp and desert into a thriving economic and military powerhouse that has maintained freedoms and democracy. That achievement, forged from the sweat of the first kibbutz worker to the blood of today’s most recent army draftee, will not be decimated by a few choice journalistic words or the influence of a snarky columnist. Israelis’ perseverance will continue defeating all odds, even if so-called liberal publications sway opinion.

Lastly, the perception of fear from these publications largely undercuts arguments that Iran, terrorists, and Muslim extremists are very tangible threats that could cause the deaths of hundred or thousands of Israelis. From extremists in Egypt transforming a former Israeli ally into a threat to the prospects of a nuclear Middle East to rockets from terrorists on Israel’s borders, the country faces substantial security challenges. Solutions to those problems, whether military or economic, would benefit from policymakers’ accurate understanding of these threats, which are far more dangerous than a bad pun or a critical headline.

The declaration of the “liberal” media being more threatening merely diminishes the correct assertions that these very real dangers could jeopardize Israel’s security at any minute.

Elected officials’ obsession with attacking the so-called liberal media merely skirts the real issues of today, and threatens to downplay the most serious threats facing their country.  Netanyahu has thus far been a champion building international understanding of the true threat Iran and Muslim extremists face to Israel and the world at-large.  He should maintain that path and not let political kowtowing unravel his year’s of effective advocacy on behalf of Israel.

Google, Reddit, and Wikipedia all are using their considerable web presence today to protest legislation pending in the U.S. Congress. According to the Google announcement:

Two bills before Congress, known as the Protect IP Act (PIPA) in the Senate and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House, would censor the Web and impose harmful regulations on American business. Millions of Internet users and entrepreneurs already oppose SOPA and PIPA.

It may appear to the casual reader that this is an effort by entertainment corporations (Hollywood) to impose their particular view of internet regulation on the rest of the country and encountering opposition from Silicon Valley. What’s not commonly understood (and why this is a subject for our discussion) is that provisions of these laws block foreign websites. In other words, the U.S. Congress has taken it upon itself to legislate for the world. This is why Wikipedia (a global encyclopedia) has blacked-out it’s English-language version that is available all over the world. While this is much more common than most would think (the U.S. Congress often sets standards that other countries and businesses must meet in order to do business in the U.S. – often their largest market – which makes the U.S. Congress a de facto global lawmaking body) it’s an excellent example of the global scope of American laws.

It’s particularly ironic that the U.S. Congress is seeking to curtail internet access while another branch of the U.S. government, the Executive Branch (namely the State Department) is seeking to undermine those countries that censor the internet. As this report notes:

The United States plans to pump millions of dollars into new technology to break through Internet censorship overseas amid a heightened crackdown on dissent in China, officials have said. State Department officials said they would give $19 million to efforts to evade Internet controls in China, Iran and other authoritarian states which block online access to politically sensitive material [...] The funding comes out of $30 million which the US Congress allocated in the current fiscal year for Internet freedom.

The New York Times clarifies some of the specific strategies and tactics the U.S. will use as this policy is implemented:

The State Department plans to finance programs like circumvention services, which enable users to evade Internet firewalls, and training for human rights workers on how to secure their e-mail from surveillance or wipe incriminating data from cellphones if they are detained by the police [...] Administration officials say that the emphasis on a broad array of projects — hotly disputed by some technology experts and human rights activists — reflects their view that technology can be a force that leads to democratic change, but is not a “magic bullet” that brings down repressive regimes.

A commendable policy, to be sure, but what happens if the repressive regime is the U.S.?

We are witnessing a very odd development in which other countries seek to block access to politically sensitive material while the U.S. seeks to block access to commercially sensitive material. Some would say it amounts to the same thing: state-sponsored censorship.

It is now a stock phrase among presidents and presidential candidates that they want to champion U.S. values abroad. Here is a perfect opportunity for them to do that. Does the U.S. stand for freedom of expression or censorship? The upcoming votes on SOPA and PIPA may well provide the answer.

Image Credit: CNN/AFP/Getty Images

In its latest effort to highlight the danger of loose nukes – in this case, weapons-usable nuclear material – the Nuclear Threat Initiative has launched its Nuclear Materials Security Index. The intent, according to NTI co-Chairman, Chief Executive Office and public face of NTI former Senator Sam Nunn, is to provide a “country-by-country assessment of the status of nuclear materials security conditions around the world.” The Index, which identifies North Korea and Pakistan as having the world’s worst overall atomic material security conditions among the universe of 32 nations holding a threshold level of nuclear material, is intended to help pinpoint where the trouble spots are. The threat of nuclear terrorism still exists and the index points out these all countries possessing such materials have work to do, some more than others.

At the top of the heap, the Index ranked Australia the highest of the 32 nations. Hungary and the Czech Republic came in second and third place.  The United States was given a ranking of 13, while the United Kingdom was ranked 10th.  The other remaining acknowledged nuclear powers, France, Russia and China, were respectively ranked 19th, 24th and 27th.

Developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the NTI index assesses the 32 states that possess a minimum of 1 kilogram of weapon-usable nuclear material on their overall nuclear protective conditions by looking at five broad factors: quantities and sites; security and control measures; global norms; domestic commitments and capacity; and societal factors. The index also analyzed the nuclear security conditions in 144 other nations that have less than 1 kilogram of weapon-usable material using a subset of conditions such as domestic legislation criminalizing atomic materials smuggling and participation in international nonproliferation agreements. Denmark was in the top spot on that list. Throughout the process, the EIU and NTI were advised by an international panel of experts who included former IAEA Nuclear Security head Anita Nilsson, Carlos Augusto Feu Alvim da Silva, the former head of the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials (ABACC), and Harvard Belfer Center nuke expert Matthew Bunn.

Speaking at the Index release on January 10th, Nunn said that they found that, while governments were becoming more engaged on nuclear material security, there was not a consensus about what security measures mattered most. He also stated that the Index was not meant to punish the low scorers while praising the high ones. “I want to be clear that the Index is not about congratulating some and chastising others. Instead, it should be used as a tool for initiating discussion, analysis and debate, as well as beginning to help build a consensus. My bottom line: If the world is to succeed in preventing catastrophic nuclear terrorism, all countries can and must do more to strengthen security around the world’s most dangerous materials. The NTI Index challenges governments worldwide to respond to the threat by taking appropriate steps to strengthen security conditions.”

Nunn hopes that the Index will help inform the Nuclear Security Summit process, including the upcoming March meeting in South Korea.

By Carlos Harrison for The Huffington Post

It’s been a troubled – some might say, tragic – 10 years for the detention camps at the Guantánamo Naval Base in Cuba. And as they slouch into their 11th year on January 11, there’s no end in sight.

“We say to ourselves, in sort of gallows humor: Guantánamo will close when the last detainee there dies of natural causes,” Jeremy Varon, an organizer with Witness Against Torture, told the Huffington Post on Wednesday.

Franz Kafka himself would have been hard-pressed to concoct a more bewildering and brutal contradictory reality. Allegations over the years have included sexual humiliation, waterboarding, and the use of dogs to scare detainees. Released detainees reported being locked in in sensory deprivation cells, beaten repeatedly, and forced to race while wearing leg shackles. If they fell, they were punished.

If it sounds like Abu Ghraib, it should. The U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee found that intelligence teams transported the “aggressive” interrogation techniques perfected at Guantánamo to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The link between Cuba and the war zones, the New York Times reported, was Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, then the head of detention operations at Guantánamo. At his insistence, the Times wrote, the Defense Department sent training teams on 90-day tours in Iraq, showing the soldiers there the techniques utilized on the island. The timing, Amnesty International points out, happened to coincide with when the worst abuses occurred at Abu Ghraib.

Thanks to reports like those, the detention camps have become an international symbol of what democracy and justice are not. They’ve been plagued by suicide attempts by desperate detainees and condemned by the United Nations, human rights groups, even former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who called for the immediate closing of the camps in 2006.
“The value of holding prisoners there was unclear, but the price we were paying around the world for doing so was obvious,” Powell said.

The camps were created in 2002 as a deliberately “extraterritorial” place to extract information from captives in the “War on Terror.” By putting them at Guantanamo, the United States, meant to be beyond the jurisdiction of both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. courts.

That didn’t put them outside the range of public opinion. The camps sparked outrage on day one. Pictures flew around the world of shackled and handcuffed detainees on their knees on the ground with black hoods over their heads and mittens on their hands.

The indignation grew as the first 20 captives went into wire cages at Camp X-Ray, described by critics as “kennels.” Soon, though, the detainees were transferred to permanent cells, and Camp X-Ray was closed.

But the human rights complaints continued, even from some of America’s closest allies.
In 2006, speaking on BBC radio, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said:

“I am absolutely clear that the U.S. has no intention of maintaining a Gulag in Guantanamo Bay. They want to see the situation resolved and they would like it other than it is. However, that is the situation that they have.”

In all 779 detainees have been held in the camps. Eight have died there, including six suicides. One man died of colon cancer, another after an apparent heart attack.

And, in the 10 years since it opened, only six detainees have been convicted of war crimes.
The last 171 still there are caught at the conflicting conjunction where bureaucracy, politics, and military regulations collide – offering little chance, at least for the foreseeable future, of gaining their release.

Forty-six are classified as “indefinite detainees,” held without charges, but considered too dangerous to be released; 89 are eligible for release or transfer but in perpetual custody because there is no place to send them. Five more have been convicted of war crimes; and six face trial – perhaps this year – for the 9/11 attacks and the October 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing.
That makes Guantanamo, as Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald described it in a piece for Foreign Affairs, “arguably the most expensive prison camp on earth, with a staff of 1,850 U.S. troops and civilians managing a compound that contains 171 captives, at a cost of $800,000 a year per detainee.”

But even the budget conscious Congress resists closing the base. In fact, it has used its spending oversight powers to thwart the president’s efforts to do just that. It has used that authority to prevent the trial of detainees on U.S. soil and to block the purchase of a dedicated prison facility in Illinois to house transferred detainees.
And no one wants to risk having a released captive later become involved in an act of terrorism or insurgency, which happened with at least one-fourth of the 500 detainees set free under President George W. Bush.

So, the captives remain in Guantanamo. Until when no one knows.
As Marc Thiessen, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told CNN:

“We have the right to continue to hold them as long as al Qaeda is at war with us.”

Having the right, though, doesn’t make it right, said Geneve Mantri, government relations director for national security, Amnesty International.

Speaking to The Huffington Post on Wednesday, he said the 89 cleared for release by both the Bush administration and a review ordered by President Obama, “represent little or no threat.”

“This has always been sold as a question of the worst of the worst and the reality is that a large number of the people that have been picked up, I hate to say it are in the insignificant and rather pathetically sad story category,” he said.

“There is a minority of people (in the camps) that no one doubts are truly dangerous. That minority of people should be placed in front of a US court. Because we have the most efficient system, the fastest and cheapest and best system for looking at all the evidence. You produce it all in a court of law. Have a real defense — an internationally recognized defense. And then put them away forever.”

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Freedoms, Hate Crime, homegrown terror, Middle East, Pakistan, Pakistani Taliban, President Obama, United States Tagged: Civil Rights, Constitutional Rights, Cuba, GITMO, Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay, Gulag, Human rights, NDAA, President Obama, United Nations

By Nasir Habib for CNN

Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf pledged in a speech Sunday to return to his country later this month, despite word from authorities that he will be arrested when he does so.

“I am coming, Pakistan,” Musharraf told thousands of supporters via video link in the southern city of Karachi. “Attempts have been made to scare me, but I am not afraid of anything.”
He pledged to return between January 27 and 30.

When he does, Pakistani officials said, Musharraf will be arrested in connection with the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in 2007. Chaudhry Zulfiqar Ali, a special public prosecutor in the assassination case, said a Rawalpindi court has already issued an arrest warrant for Musharraf.

“They are bound to execute the order unless a higher court sets aside the orders,” Ali said, adding that Musharraf is accused of conspiring in the assassination.

Musharraf’s attorney, Chaudry Faisal, said the threat of arrest is politically motivated and has no legal bearing. The warrant is being challenged in court, the attorney said.

He described the claim that Musharraf could be arrested at any time upon return as “absurd.” The former president said Sunday that he will return even at the risk of his life.

Musharraf, who resigned in 2008, is expected to fly into Pakistan from the United Arab Emirates later this month, accompanied by up to 500 supporters, said Jawed Siddiqi, spokesman for the former president’s All Pakistan Muslim League party.

“President Musharraf told me that although the possibility of arrest is there — there is no way of knowing what will happen, and how dangerous the situation is, until one jumps into the situation head first,” he said. Elections are set to take place in Pakistan next year; Musharraf intends to run.

On Sunday, he told Pakistanis that other politicians have failed leading the country, but “I succeeded 100%.”

“When I took charge of the country, it was surrounded in huge problems,” he said. “… Today, we have to decide whether we need change or we need the same faces.”

Terrorism in Pakistan, he said, “is at its peak. We are alone in the world.” He said he restored Pakistan’s economic development, increased its global standing and strengthened the armed forces.

Musharraf resigned in 2008 as the country’s ruling coalition began taking steps to impeach him. He was succeeded by Asif Zardari, Bhutto’s widower.
In 2010, the United Nations released a report that said Musharraf’s government had failed to protect Bhutto before her 2007 assassination. Musharraf has rejected such accusations, saying that Bhutto had police protection and took unnecessary risks.

Bhutto’s assassination turned public opinion strongly against Musharraf in 2008 and led to his resignation and self-exile in London. In 2010, Musharraf said the timing of his return to Pakistan would depend on the environment there.

“My going back is dependent, certainly, on an environment to be created in Pakistan and also, I would say, with certainty, that whenever the signs of the next election comes up, I will be there in Pakistan,” he said.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Democracy, Freedoms, Pakistan, Pakistan Army Tagged: All Pakistan Muslim League, Benazir Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Pakistan, Pakistanis, Pervez Musharraf, President Asif Ali Zardari, United Nations