Two years ago, on March 14, 2007, police firing killed 14 people in West Bengal's Nandigram village. That was when villagers were protesting acquisition of farmland for a chemical hub. Today, the Left is trying to live down the past. But will the people forget and vote?
However, Lakshman Seth -- the CPM candidate for Tamluk which includes Nandigram -- believes Nandigram is not a central electoral issue.
"Nandigram is not the central issue of the election campaign. Central issues are price hike, nuclear deal with America and unemployment," he said.
Lakshman is the man who triggered the trouble at Nandigram by issuing a land acquisition notice apparently without the government's nod.
But Trinamool's Subhendu Adhikari says that is simply wishful thinking.
Nandigram is a big issue in this election because of the atrocity of CPM and barbarism of the state government, which is exposed," he says.
When Nandigram goes to vote, it will certainly remember those victims. Now, the big question is -- how many other voters in Tamluk and the rest of Bengal will remember them when their fingers are hovering over the EVM button
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
US to pressurise Pak to shift troops to Western border
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Comments Post your comments
Post Your Comments Fields marked with * are mandatory
*Name:
E-mail:
*Comments:
Limit 4000 characters - 4000 characters remaining
*Secure Code:
Problem viewing this image. Click to refresh
Kindly do not post any defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful material or information. NDTV Convergence Ltd reserves the right to remove without notice any content received from users.
The US is expected to mount "intense pressure" on Pakistan to "shift its strategic focus" from its eastern border with India by redeploying "much of over 2,50,000 troops" to the frontier with Afghanistan to carry out counterinsurgency operations against Taliban and Al-Qaida.
At the trilateral meeting between Presidents of the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan in Washington, Barack Obama is also expected to ask Islamabad to grant "major concessions to India", including a trade corridor to Afghanistan through the Wagah land border, according to a media report on Tuesday.
"The US, which is eying a dominant role for India in the region, wants Pakistan to provide an overland trade route for Indian exports to Afghanistan," a diplomatic source told the Dawn newspaper on the eve of trilateral summit involving Obama, and his Afghan and Pakistan counterpart Hamid Karzai and Asif Ali Zardari respectively.
The Obama administration will also reiterate its demand that Pakistani institutions end their "alleged hobnobbing" with jehadis, who have long been seen by Islamabad as "strategic assets", the report said.
However, the Pakistani leadership has been opposing any concession for India, saying it would not be possible without a quid pro quo, particularly on the Kashmir issue.
"It is very significant for Pakistan. Traditionally it was our bargaining chip for the Indians to move on Kashmir.
Now they want us to do something without any movement, and are browbeating us," an official was quoted as saying.
Playing day after, the Prachandagate tapes
A day after the resignation of Pushpa Kumar Dahal, Nepal’s first Maoist Prime Minister, a video called "Prachandagate” is the talk of this Himalayan Republic.
All this doesn’t augur well for the peace process and India that has invested so much in it. New Delhi’s only recourse can be to keep its channels open with the Maoists and hope for the best. Named after Dahal’s nom de guerre (a fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role), which means “the fierce one,” it shows Prachanda while addressing Maoist cadres, talking about how he hoodwinked everyone about the “real numbers” of his army.
"You also know we were just 7,000 to 8,000. But our strategy was to convince them that we were 35,000,” he is seen saying in the one-year-old video. “That way, we infiltrate more people into the Nepal Army.”
In the video, Dahal tells his troops that he wants control over the Nepal Army and eventually, he hopes to transform the country to a single-party rule. “That is our strategy.”
On a day where only sporadic incidents of protest were reported from Kathmandu, and a large number of political parties sat closeted inside a room trying to thrash out an alternative government, the video made top news.
Maoist leader Mohan Baidya, while confirming the genuineness of the tape, made light of it by saying this was “old strategy” and the thinking within his party had completely changed. “One should really investigate why has this tape suddenly surfaced after a year at this time,” he added.
Baidya’s hint is clear – he means the Indian government and its alleged Machiavellian role in Nepal’s politics. If Dahal was subtle in his resignation speech on Monday, his number two and the Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai was bludgeon-like. “India was behind this. It is going to cost India dearly…” The Maoists, clearly, have decided to whip up the old anti-India blame game frenzy.
Right from the days of King Mahendra, the “blame India” game has been played out in Kathmandu’s corridors of power – often with justification. The role of the Indian Embassy here is always seen with intrigue and is considered a part and parcel of the power equation.
This time too, analysts say, Indians had a strong interest in ensuring Gen Rookmangad Katawal stayed on as Army Chief. First, Katawal has close contacts with India’s top military brass and secondly the man who would have succeeded him – Gen Kulbahadur Khadka — is seen to be close to the Maoists.
Besides, there was the China factor. Nepal’s “Big Red” neighbour usually always dealt with the royal palace. But now, after the abolition of monarchy, it has decided to increase its sphere of influence and is openly wooing Nepal’s political parties including the Maoists. In fact, had he not resigned, Prachanda was scheduled for a Beijing visit that could have led to the signing of the first Sino-Nepal Friendship Treaty. So what happens now? The 21 parties who met on Tuesday have already declared that they shall form a national government on consensus. The Nepali Congress Vice President Ram Chandra Poudel said, “We will try to form a consensual government within the time as asked by the President.”
That means as soon as Saturday, Nepal could have a new government.
But Dahal and his party, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal, are still sulking. The Maoists skipped the all-party meeting on Tuesday, instead demanding an apology from President Ram Baran Yadav for saving Gen Katawal. They have also vowed to stall proceedings in the House.
All this doesn’t augur well for the peace process and India that has invested so much in it. New Delhi’s only recourse can be to keep its channels open with the Maoists and hope for the best.
All this doesn’t augur well for the peace process and India that has invested so much in it. New Delhi’s only recourse can be to keep its channels open with the Maoists and hope for the best. Named after Dahal’s nom de guerre (a fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role), which means “the fierce one,” it shows Prachanda while addressing Maoist cadres, talking about how he hoodwinked everyone about the “real numbers” of his army.
"You also know we were just 7,000 to 8,000. But our strategy was to convince them that we were 35,000,” he is seen saying in the one-year-old video. “That way, we infiltrate more people into the Nepal Army.”
In the video, Dahal tells his troops that he wants control over the Nepal Army and eventually, he hopes to transform the country to a single-party rule. “That is our strategy.”
On a day where only sporadic incidents of protest were reported from Kathmandu, and a large number of political parties sat closeted inside a room trying to thrash out an alternative government, the video made top news.
Maoist leader Mohan Baidya, while confirming the genuineness of the tape, made light of it by saying this was “old strategy” and the thinking within his party had completely changed. “One should really investigate why has this tape suddenly surfaced after a year at this time,” he added.
Baidya’s hint is clear – he means the Indian government and its alleged Machiavellian role in Nepal’s politics. If Dahal was subtle in his resignation speech on Monday, his number two and the Finance Minister Baburam Bhattarai was bludgeon-like. “India was behind this. It is going to cost India dearly…” The Maoists, clearly, have decided to whip up the old anti-India blame game frenzy.
Right from the days of King Mahendra, the “blame India” game has been played out in Kathmandu’s corridors of power – often with justification. The role of the Indian Embassy here is always seen with intrigue and is considered a part and parcel of the power equation.
This time too, analysts say, Indians had a strong interest in ensuring Gen Rookmangad Katawal stayed on as Army Chief. First, Katawal has close contacts with India’s top military brass and secondly the man who would have succeeded him – Gen Kulbahadur Khadka — is seen to be close to the Maoists.
Besides, there was the China factor. Nepal’s “Big Red” neighbour usually always dealt with the royal palace. But now, after the abolition of monarchy, it has decided to increase its sphere of influence and is openly wooing Nepal’s political parties including the Maoists. In fact, had he not resigned, Prachanda was scheduled for a Beijing visit that could have led to the signing of the first Sino-Nepal Friendship Treaty. So what happens now? The 21 parties who met on Tuesday have already declared that they shall form a national government on consensus. The Nepali Congress Vice President Ram Chandra Poudel said, “We will try to form a consensual government within the time as asked by the President.”
That means as soon as Saturday, Nepal could have a new government.
But Dahal and his party, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal, are still sulking. The Maoists skipped the all-party meeting on Tuesday, instead demanding an apology from President Ram Baran Yadav for saving Gen Katawal. They have also vowed to stall proceedings in the House.
All this doesn’t augur well for the peace process and India that has invested so much in it. New Delhi’s only recourse can be to keep its channels open with the Maoists and hope for the best.
It’s hands off mothers-to-be
Government-funded health workers often refuse to treat pregnant Dalit women. When they do, they demand bribes and then refuse to touch the patients while medically examining them. Even injections are administered without touching the women.
A survey by Jansahas, an NGO, and Unicef reveals these, and other, gruesome cases of caste discrimination in four districts — Jhabua, Sheopur, Katni and Ujjain —in Madhya Pradesh. Hindustan Times reported this first on Tuesday in a report titled Apartheid funded by the Indian tax-payer.
The survey has revealed that assistant nursing matrons (ANMs) or Asha Workers, who are responsible for delivering government-funded health benefits to poor people, seldom visit dalit localities. When they do, they don’t touch pregnant Dalit women while medically examining them.
And finally, Dalit women have to pay a major part of the monetary benefits they receive under the government’s Janani Suraksha Yojana (Mother Protection Scheme) as bribes to these ANMs and, sometimes, even to doctors.
The ANMs visit the villages once a month without intimation and examine pregnant women only in Anganwadi centres. “Since most of the Anganwadi centres are run from the homes of upper caste peoples, Dalit women, who are denied entry into these, are deprived of any medical attention,” Jan Sahas activist Ashif Sheikh told Hindustan Times.
In cases where they do receive treatment, Dalit women are the last to be examined — after the last non-dalit woman has left.
Then, even injections are administered without touching them, the survey showed. Injections administered in this manner increase the possibility of the needles breaking, thus, exposing the patients to medical complications.
“As many as 42 per cent of the young Dalit mothers surveyed claimed that they avoided visiting the Anganwadi centres because of caste discrimination,” he said, adding that 96 per cent of Dalit women surveyed said they had experience some form of discrimination, the most common being casteist abuses.
Around 23 per cent of Dalit women are deprived of the monetary benefits they are entitled to under the government’s Janani Surakhsa Yojana.
“Legally, they are entitled to free medical care during deliveries, but in practice, 86 per cent of Dalit women had to spend money,” said Sheikh.
courtsey: Hindusthan times
A survey by Jansahas, an NGO, and Unicef reveals these, and other, gruesome cases of caste discrimination in four districts — Jhabua, Sheopur, Katni and Ujjain —in Madhya Pradesh. Hindustan Times reported this first on Tuesday in a report titled Apartheid funded by the Indian tax-payer.
The survey has revealed that assistant nursing matrons (ANMs) or Asha Workers, who are responsible for delivering government-funded health benefits to poor people, seldom visit dalit localities. When they do, they don’t touch pregnant Dalit women while medically examining them.
And finally, Dalit women have to pay a major part of the monetary benefits they receive under the government’s Janani Suraksha Yojana (Mother Protection Scheme) as bribes to these ANMs and, sometimes, even to doctors.
The ANMs visit the villages once a month without intimation and examine pregnant women only in Anganwadi centres. “Since most of the Anganwadi centres are run from the homes of upper caste peoples, Dalit women, who are denied entry into these, are deprived of any medical attention,” Jan Sahas activist Ashif Sheikh told Hindustan Times.
In cases where they do receive treatment, Dalit women are the last to be examined — after the last non-dalit woman has left.
Then, even injections are administered without touching them, the survey showed. Injections administered in this manner increase the possibility of the needles breaking, thus, exposing the patients to medical complications.
“As many as 42 per cent of the young Dalit mothers surveyed claimed that they avoided visiting the Anganwadi centres because of caste discrimination,” he said, adding that 96 per cent of Dalit women surveyed said they had experience some form of discrimination, the most common being casteist abuses.
Around 23 per cent of Dalit women are deprived of the monetary benefits they are entitled to under the government’s Janani Surakhsa Yojana.
“Legally, they are entitled to free medical care during deliveries, but in practice, 86 per cent of Dalit women had to spend money,” said Sheikh.
courtsey: Hindusthan times
US regulators warn Procter & Gamble plant over unsanitary conditions at Puerto Rico plant
U.S. regulators warned Procter & Gamble Co. over unsanitary conditions at a plant that makes Olay skin care products and Vicks cold medicine in Puerto Rico, according to a letter released Tuesday.
The warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration said problems at the Olay LLC plant in Cayey may have caused contamination or threatened the health of consumers. It faulted failures in following procedures for cleaning maintenance equipment.
An inspection found over-the-counter drug products have been "prepared, packed and held under unsanitary conditions whereby they may have been contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health," said the letter.
Paul Fox, a spokesman for Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble, said none of the issues raised by the FDA compromised the safety of any products.
But he said FDA inspectors did identify areas "where we can and will make improvements," and the company has begun a review of the plant's manufacturing practices.
The FDA letter, dated April 24, described violations that inspectors found between August and November 2008. It told the company to respond within 15 days with a plan to bring the plant in line with federal regulations.
Among other problems the letter cited the plant for not investigating evidence of possible contamination, including "health effect-related complaints" for its Vick Sinex product.
Procter & Gamble, which has about 700 employees in this U.S. Caribbean territory, said last month it was cutting about 90 part-time jobs at the plant in the central town of Cayey as part of a broader restructuring.
The warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration said problems at the Olay LLC plant in Cayey may have caused contamination or threatened the health of consumers. It faulted failures in following procedures for cleaning maintenance equipment.
An inspection found over-the-counter drug products have been "prepared, packed and held under unsanitary conditions whereby they may have been contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health," said the letter.
Paul Fox, a spokesman for Cincinnati-based Procter & Gamble, said none of the issues raised by the FDA compromised the safety of any products.
But he said FDA inspectors did identify areas "where we can and will make improvements," and the company has begun a review of the plant's manufacturing practices.
The FDA letter, dated April 24, described violations that inspectors found between August and November 2008. It told the company to respond within 15 days with a plan to bring the plant in line with federal regulations.
Among other problems the letter cited the plant for not investigating evidence of possible contamination, including "health effect-related complaints" for its Vick Sinex product.
Procter & Gamble, which has about 700 employees in this U.S. Caribbean territory, said last month it was cutting about 90 part-time jobs at the plant in the central town of Cayey as part of a broader restructuring.
Obama prepares to meet with leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan
President Obama begins two days of talks Wednesday with the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan to hastily overhaul a painstakingly developed security strategy that was unveiled only five weeks ago but is already badly outdated.
The three countries spent months developing the plan to combat an insurgency centered in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. But they are being forced to switch focus because of growing militant activity in Pakistan that is emerging as Obama's first major foreign policy crisis.
U.S. officials fear the militants could fracture Pakistan, destabilizing the region and even posing potential risks to control of Islamabad's nuclear arsenal.
Obama today will press Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to intensify his country's fight against the insurgency, step up economic development efforts and reach out to political rivals to broaden the fragile government's base of support.
Yet U.S. officials acknowledge that their influence on the government is limited, consisting mostly of the money and arms they can supply. One sign of America's limited influence is that the Pakistani who has the most control over the country's military effort, army Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, won't be at the meetings.
Afghanistan, in contrast, seems more manageable: "By comparison, it looks like Canada," one U.S. official said in an interview.
The talks convene as intensified fighting rages in Pakistan's Swat Valley, near Islamabad, the capital. Officials had hoped to achieve a cease-fire there by agreeing to Taliban control over much of the area. But Taliban militants last month attempted to advance closer to the capital, igniting the military confrontation.
Obama announced his new Afghanistan-Pakistan security plan in March, pledging extra combat forces and training units for Afghanistan and aid to Pakistan. But the Taliban advances and subsequent fighting in Pakistan have overtaken that strategy.
Obama today will meet separately with Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and then will meet with them together.
The two-day talks will also bring together senior military, intelligence and political officials in working groups in an effort to better coordinate their activities.
At the same time, administration officials are seeking regional support for the new efforts. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, visiting Riyadh, the Saudi capital, appealed for Saudi Arabia's help in backing Pakistani efforts to repel the militants.
Both Karzai and Zardari met with top lawmakers and policy analysts in Washington today.
The job of the three leaders is complicated by intense Pakistani opposition to U.S. airstrikes by unmanned aircraft there and by rising Afghan frustration over civilian casualties.
In one acknowledgment of the anti-American sentiments, U.S. and Pakistani leaders will lay out plans at the talks to train Pakistani troops elsewhere in the region, discreetly out of sight.
The summit comes at a time of unusual friction in U.S.-Pakistani relations. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said last month that the Zardari government had "basically abdicated" to militants.
She and other U.S. officials have spoken openly about concerns over the security of Pakistan's estimated 60 to 100 nuclear weapons, a subject that previous U.S. administrations avoided in public.
Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, said the two countries were in agreement on the way forward, and predicted that in the talks "past recriminations about who is to blame will be replaced by plans for who will do what." Pakistani officials have complained that despite U.S. commitments, little new economic and military aid has been sent.
The Defense Department has proposed $400 million for military aid, and the State Department is pushing for $497 million for economic, law enforcement and humanitarian assistance. In addition, Obama's regional strategy proposed $1.5 billion a year for five years as part of a bill that also sets conditions for the aid.
Pakistanis dislike the conditions, saying they represent meddling and pose both political and operational problems.
Similarly, Pakistanis have objected to U.S. overtures to former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a move the Obama administration has said is no different than contacts with opposition leaders in other countries but that Pakistanis fear is meant to undermine Zardari's government.
The security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a particular concern of Obama's, officials said.
"The security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and the security of nuclear weapons throughout the world, is something that the president thinks is of the highest priority," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
However, Zardari said in a CNN interview that the nuclear weapons were "definitely safe" and that there was no risk the militants would take them over.
"It doesn't work like that," he said. "We have a 700,000-[man] army." Private analysts say Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is dispersed widely throughout the country but includes several top-secret facilities near the country's capital.
"Right now the security is pretty good -- and it's as good or bad as the Pakistani army," said Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "If down the road you see the Pakistani government become more shaky . . . that could be impaired."
To help counter the militants, U.S. officials would like Pakistan to draw from the force it has massed on its border with rival India.
Administration officials said Obama would avoid lobbying Zardari directly on shifting forces from the Indian border, or on other specific steps. But other U.S. officials have not avoided being blunt in their recommendations.
"We need to put the most heavy possible pressure on our friends in Pakistan to join us in the fight against the Taliban and its allies," Richard C. Holbrooke, Obama's representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said in testimony before a House committee Tuesday.
Like talks between Obama and Zardari, U.S. discussions with Karzai could be strained. U.S. officials have criticized his leadership and what many say is his tolerance of corruption.
Karzai's relationship with the administration has been notably cooler than the cordial bond he enjoyed with former President Bush. Heading into his election campaign, the Afghan leader has sought to distance himself from elements of the Western-led military effort.
Karzai has criticized Western forces over civilian casualties, but has also been critical of the effectiveness of development aid, asserting that Afghans had hoped they would be much better off by now, nearly eight years after the fall of the Taliban.
On the eve of his departure for Washington, Karzai named an ex-warlord as one of his two vice presidential running mates. The choice of Mohammad Qasim Fahim caused dismay among Western diplomats.
In an address Tuesday to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, Karzai urged policymakers to be careful in the use of military force.
"In the longer term, the war on terrorism will succeed only if it is also addressed in a political manner," Karzai said. "It's not a military question at all. It's more a political question now."
The three countries spent months developing the plan to combat an insurgency centered in eastern Afghanistan, near the Pakistani border. But they are being forced to switch focus because of growing militant activity in Pakistan that is emerging as Obama's first major foreign policy crisis.
U.S. officials fear the militants could fracture Pakistan, destabilizing the region and even posing potential risks to control of Islamabad's nuclear arsenal.
Obama today will press Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to intensify his country's fight against the insurgency, step up economic development efforts and reach out to political rivals to broaden the fragile government's base of support.
Yet U.S. officials acknowledge that their influence on the government is limited, consisting mostly of the money and arms they can supply. One sign of America's limited influence is that the Pakistani who has the most control over the country's military effort, army Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, won't be at the meetings.
Afghanistan, in contrast, seems more manageable: "By comparison, it looks like Canada," one U.S. official said in an interview.
The talks convene as intensified fighting rages in Pakistan's Swat Valley, near Islamabad, the capital. Officials had hoped to achieve a cease-fire there by agreeing to Taliban control over much of the area. But Taliban militants last month attempted to advance closer to the capital, igniting the military confrontation.
Obama announced his new Afghanistan-Pakistan security plan in March, pledging extra combat forces and training units for Afghanistan and aid to Pakistan. But the Taliban advances and subsequent fighting in Pakistan have overtaken that strategy.
Obama today will meet separately with Zardari and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and then will meet with them together.
The two-day talks will also bring together senior military, intelligence and political officials in working groups in an effort to better coordinate their activities.
At the same time, administration officials are seeking regional support for the new efforts. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, visiting Riyadh, the Saudi capital, appealed for Saudi Arabia's help in backing Pakistani efforts to repel the militants.
Both Karzai and Zardari met with top lawmakers and policy analysts in Washington today.
The job of the three leaders is complicated by intense Pakistani opposition to U.S. airstrikes by unmanned aircraft there and by rising Afghan frustration over civilian casualties.
In one acknowledgment of the anti-American sentiments, U.S. and Pakistani leaders will lay out plans at the talks to train Pakistani troops elsewhere in the region, discreetly out of sight.
The summit comes at a time of unusual friction in U.S.-Pakistani relations. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said last month that the Zardari government had "basically abdicated" to militants.
She and other U.S. officials have spoken openly about concerns over the security of Pakistan's estimated 60 to 100 nuclear weapons, a subject that previous U.S. administrations avoided in public.
Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, said the two countries were in agreement on the way forward, and predicted that in the talks "past recriminations about who is to blame will be replaced by plans for who will do what." Pakistani officials have complained that despite U.S. commitments, little new economic and military aid has been sent.
The Defense Department has proposed $400 million for military aid, and the State Department is pushing for $497 million for economic, law enforcement and humanitarian assistance. In addition, Obama's regional strategy proposed $1.5 billion a year for five years as part of a bill that also sets conditions for the aid.
Pakistanis dislike the conditions, saying they represent meddling and pose both political and operational problems.
Similarly, Pakistanis have objected to U.S. overtures to former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a move the Obama administration has said is no different than contacts with opposition leaders in other countries but that Pakistanis fear is meant to undermine Zardari's government.
The security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is a particular concern of Obama's, officials said.
"The security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and the security of nuclear weapons throughout the world, is something that the president thinks is of the highest priority," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
However, Zardari said in a CNN interview that the nuclear weapons were "definitely safe" and that there was no risk the militants would take them over.
"It doesn't work like that," he said. "We have a 700,000-[man] army." Private analysts say Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is dispersed widely throughout the country but includes several top-secret facilities near the country's capital.
"Right now the security is pretty good -- and it's as good or bad as the Pakistani army," said Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asia program for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "If down the road you see the Pakistani government become more shaky . . . that could be impaired."
To help counter the militants, U.S. officials would like Pakistan to draw from the force it has massed on its border with rival India.
Administration officials said Obama would avoid lobbying Zardari directly on shifting forces from the Indian border, or on other specific steps. But other U.S. officials have not avoided being blunt in their recommendations.
"We need to put the most heavy possible pressure on our friends in Pakistan to join us in the fight against the Taliban and its allies," Richard C. Holbrooke, Obama's representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan, said in testimony before a House committee Tuesday.
Like talks between Obama and Zardari, U.S. discussions with Karzai could be strained. U.S. officials have criticized his leadership and what many say is his tolerance of corruption.
Karzai's relationship with the administration has been notably cooler than the cordial bond he enjoyed with former President Bush. Heading into his election campaign, the Afghan leader has sought to distance himself from elements of the Western-led military effort.
Karzai has criticized Western forces over civilian casualties, but has also been critical of the effectiveness of development aid, asserting that Afghans had hoped they would be much better off by now, nearly eight years after the fall of the Taliban.
On the eve of his departure for Washington, Karzai named an ex-warlord as one of his two vice presidential running mates. The choice of Mohammad Qasim Fahim caused dismay among Western diplomats.
In an address Tuesday to the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, Karzai urged policymakers to be careful in the use of military force.
"In the longer term, the war on terrorism will succeed only if it is also addressed in a political manner," Karzai said. "It's not a military question at all. It's more a political question now."
Pakistani Army Poised for New Push into Swat
Residents were flooding out of the Swat valley by the thousands on Tuesday as the government prepared to mount a new military operation against Taliban militants there after the collapse of a peace deal negotiated in February.
Residents fled aboard a bus leaving Mingora, the main town in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, on Tuesday after a government official urged residents in some neighborhoods to seek safety. More Photos >
For weeks the Taliban have flaunted their disregard for the February peace accord, and two weeks ago they used the territory all but ceded to them under the deal to launch an offensive into another district, Buner, 60 miles from the capital.
This week the Taliban reversed the only achievement of the deal, a ceasefire in the Swat district capital, Mingora, which they seized control of Sunday, when their turbaned fighters laid siege to several police stations, a local lawyer and resident of the town said.
The Taliban’s armed return to Mingora on Sunday signaled the final breakdown in the government’s efforts to negotiate a peaceful solution to two years of fighting that has costs thousands of lives and damaged homes and livelihoods the length of the once-prosperous farming valley of Swat.
The Pakistani military, which is fighting to clear militants from two other districts of the North West Frontier Province, Dir and Buner, now appears ready to push its operations into Swat once again.
But the question remains whether the military has the will and capability to sustain its operations in three districts. The task in Swat remains hugely difficult, not least because the Taliban were digging in and mining the streets, according to residents, and the military had already failed to drive out the Taliban before it agreed to the February accord.
But public opinion in Pakistan toward the Taliban has undergone an important shift since the deal, and has now apparently given the military more confidence to move with full force against the Taliban.
A recent video showing the Taliban flogging a young woman as the militants clamped down their version of Islam law on Swat shocked the nation. The government has taken great pains to show its efforts to make the Swat peace deal work.
Finally, the Taliban incursion into Buner two weeks ago solidified a growing consensus that the Taliban had gone too far and that the military needed to stand up to the insurgents, and it has provided the catalyst for the military to act.
The media, politicians and even religious leaders are now speaking out against the extremist position of Maulana Sufi Muhammad, the main negotiator on the Swat deal, and Mullah Fazlullah, his son-in-law, who has links to the Qaeda-backed Taliban movement based in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Leaders of the Awami National Party, which governs the North West Frontier Province where all of the districts are located, still stand by the deal, which it says has been critical in winning people away from the militants and over to the side of the government.
The peace deal was popular among the people of Swat, who were desperate for peace and angered by the heavy-handed military campaign in the valley. But over the last three months of efforts to make the deal work, the Taliban have revealed that they have no intention of ending their insurgency. It has also become apparent that Maulana Muhammad is not able to control the militants, the politicians say.
There is no doubt that the military is fighting this campaign seriously, said Maulana Yousuf Shah, general secretary of the Jamiat-u-Ulama-i-Islam-S, a political party that is close to the Taliban and has helped negotiations between the two sides.
A Supreme Court lawyer Anees Jillani, who visited Swat recently, said the military remains divided and some have sympathy for the Islamists and are not willing to fight.
“When you ask them why are you not defeating them, they ask: ‘Why should we?’ and you ask about Sufi Muhammad, they say: ‘What’s wrong with him?’” he said.
On the ground, however, there has been a significant change in the military and paramilitary forces ranged against the Taliban.
Under the leadership of Maj. Gen. Tariq Khan, an energetic and determined commander, the Frontier Corps, the local Pashtun paramilitary force, has become better armed and equipped in recent months, with the help of the United States.
Supported by army units, it has proved itself better able to push back the Taliban, first in the tribal areas in Bajaur last year, and now in Buner, though at big cost to civilians caught up in the operations.
Anti-terrorist police units have also been deployed in the operations in some outlying districts, in police actions that are better suited to counterinsurgency operations.
Peshawar anti-terrorist police units have killed 88 suspected militants in the last four months, cracking down on the kidnapping and general lawlessness that were reaching right into the city, a senior police official said, asking not to be named because of the nature of his work.
“It is a manageable problem,” he said, when asked whether Pakistan can contain the militant threat. “It does not take much to dishevel them,” he said.
American support has been critical in the improvement of the Frontier Corps and the police are hoping for the same help, he said. “If Uncle Sam shows the same generosity to our force, I don’t see why we cannot be a good supporting force,” he said.
He said it was critical to have weapons and equipment that were better than those used by the militants.
“It’s a bad situation, but certainly not a lost situation,” he said. “It’s not false bravado, I have seen the small dent we have made in this area. That has made them more hesitant of operating in this area.”
Residents fled aboard a bus leaving Mingora, the main town in the Swat Valley of Pakistan, on Tuesday after a government official urged residents in some neighborhoods to seek safety. More Photos >
For weeks the Taliban have flaunted their disregard for the February peace accord, and two weeks ago they used the territory all but ceded to them under the deal to launch an offensive into another district, Buner, 60 miles from the capital.
This week the Taliban reversed the only achievement of the deal, a ceasefire in the Swat district capital, Mingora, which they seized control of Sunday, when their turbaned fighters laid siege to several police stations, a local lawyer and resident of the town said.
The Taliban’s armed return to Mingora on Sunday signaled the final breakdown in the government’s efforts to negotiate a peaceful solution to two years of fighting that has costs thousands of lives and damaged homes and livelihoods the length of the once-prosperous farming valley of Swat.
The Pakistani military, which is fighting to clear militants from two other districts of the North West Frontier Province, Dir and Buner, now appears ready to push its operations into Swat once again.
But the question remains whether the military has the will and capability to sustain its operations in three districts. The task in Swat remains hugely difficult, not least because the Taliban were digging in and mining the streets, according to residents, and the military had already failed to drive out the Taliban before it agreed to the February accord.
But public opinion in Pakistan toward the Taliban has undergone an important shift since the deal, and has now apparently given the military more confidence to move with full force against the Taliban.
A recent video showing the Taliban flogging a young woman as the militants clamped down their version of Islam law on Swat shocked the nation. The government has taken great pains to show its efforts to make the Swat peace deal work.
Finally, the Taliban incursion into Buner two weeks ago solidified a growing consensus that the Taliban had gone too far and that the military needed to stand up to the insurgents, and it has provided the catalyst for the military to act.
The media, politicians and even religious leaders are now speaking out against the extremist position of Maulana Sufi Muhammad, the main negotiator on the Swat deal, and Mullah Fazlullah, his son-in-law, who has links to the Qaeda-backed Taliban movement based in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Leaders of the Awami National Party, which governs the North West Frontier Province where all of the districts are located, still stand by the deal, which it says has been critical in winning people away from the militants and over to the side of the government.
The peace deal was popular among the people of Swat, who were desperate for peace and angered by the heavy-handed military campaign in the valley. But over the last three months of efforts to make the deal work, the Taliban have revealed that they have no intention of ending their insurgency. It has also become apparent that Maulana Muhammad is not able to control the militants, the politicians say.
There is no doubt that the military is fighting this campaign seriously, said Maulana Yousuf Shah, general secretary of the Jamiat-u-Ulama-i-Islam-S, a political party that is close to the Taliban and has helped negotiations between the two sides.
A Supreme Court lawyer Anees Jillani, who visited Swat recently, said the military remains divided and some have sympathy for the Islamists and are not willing to fight.
“When you ask them why are you not defeating them, they ask: ‘Why should we?’ and you ask about Sufi Muhammad, they say: ‘What’s wrong with him?’” he said.
On the ground, however, there has been a significant change in the military and paramilitary forces ranged against the Taliban.
Under the leadership of Maj. Gen. Tariq Khan, an energetic and determined commander, the Frontier Corps, the local Pashtun paramilitary force, has become better armed and equipped in recent months, with the help of the United States.
Supported by army units, it has proved itself better able to push back the Taliban, first in the tribal areas in Bajaur last year, and now in Buner, though at big cost to civilians caught up in the operations.
Anti-terrorist police units have also been deployed in the operations in some outlying districts, in police actions that are better suited to counterinsurgency operations.
Peshawar anti-terrorist police units have killed 88 suspected militants in the last four months, cracking down on the kidnapping and general lawlessness that were reaching right into the city, a senior police official said, asking not to be named because of the nature of his work.
“It is a manageable problem,” he said, when asked whether Pakistan can contain the militant threat. “It does not take much to dishevel them,” he said.
American support has been critical in the improvement of the Frontier Corps and the police are hoping for the same help, he said. “If Uncle Sam shows the same generosity to our force, I don’t see why we cannot be a good supporting force,” he said.
He said it was critical to have weapons and equipment that were better than those used by the militants.
“It’s a bad situation, but certainly not a lost situation,” he said. “It’s not false bravado, I have seen the small dent we have made in this area. That has made them more hesitant of operating in this area.”
Charges Seen as Unlikely for Lawyers Over Interrogations
An internal Justice Department inquiry into the conduct of Bush administration lawyers who wrote secret memorandums authorizing brutal interrogations has concluded that the authors committed serious lapses of judgment but should not be criminally prosecuted, according to government officials briefed on a draft of the findings.
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.
The conclusions of the 220-page draft report are not final and have not yet been approved by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The officials said it is possible the final report might be subject to revision, but they did not expect major alterations in its main findings or recommendations.
The draft report is described as very detailed, tracing e-mail messages between Justice Department lawyers and officials at the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among the questions it is expected to consider is whether the memos reflected the lawyers’ independent judgments of the limits of the federal anti-torture statute or were skewed deliberately to justify what the C.I.A. proposed.
At issue are whether the Justice Department lawyers acted ethically in writing a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2007. The main targets of criticism are John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and Steven G. Bradbury, who as senior officials in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel were the principal authors of the memos.
The opinions permitted the C.I.A. to use a number of interrogation methods that human rights groups have condemned as torture, including waterboarding, wall-slamming, head-slapping and other techniques. The opinions allowed many of these practices to be used repeatedly and in combination.
Several legal scholars have remarked that in approving waterboarding — the near-drowning method that President Obama and his aides have described as torture — the Justice Department lawyers did not cite cases in which the United States government had prosecuted American law enforcement officials and Japanese interrogators in World War II for using the procedure.
In a letter made public on Monday, the Justice Department advised two Democratic senators on the Judiciary committee, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, that the former department lawyers who wrote the opinions had until Sunday to submit written appeals to the findings.
The draft report on the interrogation opinions was completed in December and has provoked controversy within counterterrorism circles, which has intensified since last month when the Obama administration disclosed four previously secret opinions written from 2002 and 2005, which for the first time detailed the approved procedures.
courtsey.the nytimes
The report by the Office of Professional Responsibility, an internal ethics unit within the Justice Department, is also likely to ask that state bar associations consider possible disciplinary action, including reprimands or even disbarment, for some of the lawyers involved in writing the legal opinions, the officials said.
The conclusions of the 220-page draft report are not final and have not yet been approved by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The officials said it is possible the final report might be subject to revision, but they did not expect major alterations in its main findings or recommendations.
The draft report is described as very detailed, tracing e-mail messages between Justice Department lawyers and officials at the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency. Among the questions it is expected to consider is whether the memos reflected the lawyers’ independent judgments of the limits of the federal anti-torture statute or were skewed deliberately to justify what the C.I.A. proposed.
At issue are whether the Justice Department lawyers acted ethically in writing a series of legal opinions from 2002 to 2007. The main targets of criticism are John Yoo, Jay S. Bybee, and Steven G. Bradbury, who as senior officials in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel were the principal authors of the memos.
The opinions permitted the C.I.A. to use a number of interrogation methods that human rights groups have condemned as torture, including waterboarding, wall-slamming, head-slapping and other techniques. The opinions allowed many of these practices to be used repeatedly and in combination.
Several legal scholars have remarked that in approving waterboarding — the near-drowning method that President Obama and his aides have described as torture — the Justice Department lawyers did not cite cases in which the United States government had prosecuted American law enforcement officials and Japanese interrogators in World War II for using the procedure.
In a letter made public on Monday, the Justice Department advised two Democratic senators on the Judiciary committee, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, that the former department lawyers who wrote the opinions had until Sunday to submit written appeals to the findings.
The draft report on the interrogation opinions was completed in December and has provoked controversy within counterterrorism circles, which has intensified since last month when the Obama administration disclosed four previously secret opinions written from 2002 and 2005, which for the first time detailed the approved procedures.
courtsey.the nytimes
Swine flu plan to award GCSEs without exam
Exam boards are working on contingency plans to award children GCSE and A-level grades based on coursework marks if they are unable to attend an exam because of swine flu, the schools minister, Jim Knight, has revealed.
Five schools and a nursery have now closed after children were diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and some have had to urgently reschedule practical tests for art and music GCSEs scheduled for this week. There are now fears for the Sats tests, due to be taken by 600,000 11-year olds next week, and the GCSE and A-level exams, which are scheduled to run through to the end of June.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Schools are extremely worried about the exams, GCSEs, AS and A-levels. They need to know what to do if one of the pupils or staff is ill. They want to know what the contingency plans are for external examinations."
One further person, an adult living in the south-east who has returned from Mexico, was confirmed to have swine flu by the Health Protection Agency today, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 28, with 333 still under investigation.
Knight said exam boards were considering new contingency plans but urged schools not to panic and rush to close unless they had received specific advice from the HPA. It comes after one school, Dolphin school in Battersea, south London and its nursery, closed without taking advice from the HPA.
Knight said: "I would be surprised if schools were to unilaterally decide to close without consulting the Health Protection Agency, who are experts in this matter.
"I don't advocate schools doing anything without reference to the HPA. The HPA has been thorough and professional in advice to schools on swine flu. Heads have a legal responsibility to make sure their children and staff are safe at school. I would encourage schools to take advice from the HPA before they make the decision to close."
He revealed that the exam boards were looking at expanding the system of giving "special consideration" to pupils who are sick at the time of their exams. Under the system, GCSEs, A-levels and other qualifications can be awarded on the basis of coursework grades and marks from modules already sat. Knight said: "There are already procedures in place if candidates can't sit their exams and are given special consideration. That can be put into action if things get worse. In contingency terms all these things are being discussed by exam boards."
Other options include looking at how pupils can sit exams in isolation even if a school is closed. The exams watchdog, Ofqual, said: "We are looking again at contingency plans to take coordinated action for the exam season if needed." The exam boards are due to meet on Thursday to discuss the situation as it unfolds.
Private schools have been issued with guidance advising them to expand their medical facilities to "quarantine" any infected pupils. The HPA said it was not advising the same to all schools.
It does not advise schools to close automatically as soon as a pupil is diagnosed with swine flu, but recommends a risk assessment to see if is is possible to limit the disruption to other children's education. Most schools affrected have called in the local authority's health protection unit to help them decide whether to shut their doors.
"All the schools that have closed did close on the advice of the health protection unit, apart from the Dolphin schools, where the board of governors made the decision to do so," the HPA said.
Though cases of swine flu have so far been mild in the UK, the HPA says it must be treated differently from seasonal flu.
"Although it would be unusual to close a school in response to a single case of flu, in the light of evidence emerging that swine influenza can spread rapidly in the school setting, it is recommended that, if a probable or confirmed case of swine flu occurs in a school setting, consideration should be given to closing the school temporarily (initially for a period of seven days)," the HPA guidance says.
Key to the decision to close is how easily the flu could spread. Staff should consider how long any sick child has been in school, for instance, and whether classes or year groups intermingle and all eat together.
No such precautions are recommended for offices and workplaces. The HPA said schools were a special case because children play together and are frequently in close physical contact. If an office worker gets swine flu, public health officials will trace his or her close contacts, who will include work colleagues. Only those who have been working within one metre of the affected person for an hour or more are considered sufficiently at risk to be given antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu, which can prevent them falling sick.
Tonight one flu expert warned that the UK's much-lauded drug stockpile might not be enough if people in contact with flu are given drugs, as children in UK schools have been. Dr John McConnell, editor of the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, said in an online comment in the Lancet that 16 times as much antiviral medicine is needed to prevent illness as to treat people. "By this measure, the UK has stockpiles of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] sufficient to treat 30 million people (about half the population) but to prevent infection in only 1.9 million," he said.
courtsey:the guardian.com,uk
Five schools and a nursery have now closed after children were diagnosed with the H1N1 virus and some have had to urgently reschedule practical tests for art and music GCSEs scheduled for this week. There are now fears for the Sats tests, due to be taken by 600,000 11-year olds next week, and the GCSE and A-level exams, which are scheduled to run through to the end of June.
John Dunford, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: "Schools are extremely worried about the exams, GCSEs, AS and A-levels. They need to know what to do if one of the pupils or staff is ill. They want to know what the contingency plans are for external examinations."
One further person, an adult living in the south-east who has returned from Mexico, was confirmed to have swine flu by the Health Protection Agency today, bringing the total number of confirmed cases in the UK to 28, with 333 still under investigation.
Knight said exam boards were considering new contingency plans but urged schools not to panic and rush to close unless they had received specific advice from the HPA. It comes after one school, Dolphin school in Battersea, south London and its nursery, closed without taking advice from the HPA.
Knight said: "I would be surprised if schools were to unilaterally decide to close without consulting the Health Protection Agency, who are experts in this matter.
"I don't advocate schools doing anything without reference to the HPA. The HPA has been thorough and professional in advice to schools on swine flu. Heads have a legal responsibility to make sure their children and staff are safe at school. I would encourage schools to take advice from the HPA before they make the decision to close."
He revealed that the exam boards were looking at expanding the system of giving "special consideration" to pupils who are sick at the time of their exams. Under the system, GCSEs, A-levels and other qualifications can be awarded on the basis of coursework grades and marks from modules already sat. Knight said: "There are already procedures in place if candidates can't sit their exams and are given special consideration. That can be put into action if things get worse. In contingency terms all these things are being discussed by exam boards."
Other options include looking at how pupils can sit exams in isolation even if a school is closed. The exams watchdog, Ofqual, said: "We are looking again at contingency plans to take coordinated action for the exam season if needed." The exam boards are due to meet on Thursday to discuss the situation as it unfolds.
Private schools have been issued with guidance advising them to expand their medical facilities to "quarantine" any infected pupils. The HPA said it was not advising the same to all schools.
It does not advise schools to close automatically as soon as a pupil is diagnosed with swine flu, but recommends a risk assessment to see if is is possible to limit the disruption to other children's education. Most schools affrected have called in the local authority's health protection unit to help them decide whether to shut their doors.
"All the schools that have closed did close on the advice of the health protection unit, apart from the Dolphin schools, where the board of governors made the decision to do so," the HPA said.
Though cases of swine flu have so far been mild in the UK, the HPA says it must be treated differently from seasonal flu.
"Although it would be unusual to close a school in response to a single case of flu, in the light of evidence emerging that swine influenza can spread rapidly in the school setting, it is recommended that, if a probable or confirmed case of swine flu occurs in a school setting, consideration should be given to closing the school temporarily (initially for a period of seven days)," the HPA guidance says.
Key to the decision to close is how easily the flu could spread. Staff should consider how long any sick child has been in school, for instance, and whether classes or year groups intermingle and all eat together.
No such precautions are recommended for offices and workplaces. The HPA said schools were a special case because children play together and are frequently in close physical contact. If an office worker gets swine flu, public health officials will trace his or her close contacts, who will include work colleagues. Only those who have been working within one metre of the affected person for an hour or more are considered sufficiently at risk to be given antiviral drugs such as Tamiflu, which can prevent them falling sick.
Tonight one flu expert warned that the UK's much-lauded drug stockpile might not be enough if people in contact with flu are given drugs, as children in UK schools have been. Dr John McConnell, editor of the Lancet Infectious Diseases journal, said in an online comment in the Lancet that 16 times as much antiviral medicine is needed to prevent illness as to treat people. "By this measure, the UK has stockpiles of oseltamivir [Tamiflu] sufficient to treat 30 million people (about half the population) but to prevent infection in only 1.9 million," he said.
courtsey:the guardian.com,uk
Heir to Gandhi dynasty claims power now rests with the poor
Rahul Gandhi, the suave, Cambridge-educated heir to India's most powerful political dynasty, is on a mission to show that he is at one with the poorest and most downtrodden in India's rural heartland.
In a sports ground on the dry plains of Rajasthan, 15,000 people, most of them farmers, sat beneath an orange canopy, enduring temperatures of 42C, as he told them that his Congress party had the fate of India's common man, the am aadmi, at its heart.
The audience, many of them wafer thin and wearing broken plastic shoes, had nothing in common with this privileged emblem of India's elite, and yet Gandhi's potent political heritage and his determination to focus on the needs of the dispossessed won him enthusiastic applause.
A young mother, nursing her one-month-old daughter, wrapped on her lap in a frayed yellow strip of cloth, said she had braved the heat so her child could see the country's future prime minister. "I want her to grow up in an India ruled by Rahul Gandhi," she said.
Gandhi, 38, showed no signs of exhaustion on the 30th day of his helicopter tour of India, battling simultaneously to win votes for his party and to secure the continued pre-eminence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has been at the summit of Indian politics for the past 60 years. Two-thirds of the way through polling, India's election rests on a knife-edge, with analysts uncertain who will be victorious when the results are given on 16 May.
The Congress party has staked its hopes for survival on Gandhi's ability to win the hearts of the 700 million Indians who still live on less than two dollars a day.
Gandhi, who was last year appointed the Congress party's general secretary, is giving the challenge everything he has.
In recent months he has cast aside his image as India's most eligible bachelor – his handsome, dimpled smile no longer features regularly on magazine society pages – and adopted a more sober persona, rebranding himself as the biggest champion of India's impoverished masses since Mother Teresa died.
During his address Gandhi did not speak of his family, but everyone in the audience knew his lineage: from his great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister, through to Indira, her son Rajiv – who took over as prime minister after Indira's murder and was blown up by a suicide bomber in 1991 – and his wife, Sonia, current leader of the Congress party, who declined the post of prime minister despite leading the Congress party to victory in 2004.
In this state the votes are finely balanced between the Congress party and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata party, and much of Rahul's speech was directed against his political rivals. Wiping the sweat from his glasses, he reminded his audience of the BJP's ill-fated "India Shining" slogan, which was the theme of its over-confident 2004 election campaign, when its leaders focused exuberantly on the nation's soaring economic growth. The Congress party successfully retaliated, pointing out that the vast majority of Indians endured lives that could scarcely be described as shining, and swept to power, promising to defend the interests of those left behind.
The Congress party has been in power, in a coalition with several allied parties, for five years, but the benefits of growth have yet to spread to the rural poor.
Gandhi argued that this was still a work in process, listing initiatives which have brought subsidised work schemes to the countryside and reduced the crippling interest paid by farmers.
He told the audience how this year he had brought "an English minister to see how people in India's villages lived". He was referring to a trip in January with David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, when the two spent a night in a mud hut in Gandhi's constituency, sleeping on charpoys. The excursion provoked considerable controversy in Delhi. "The BJP said 'why are you showing our poverty off to the English?'" Gandhi said, bending forward over the podium. "I was not showing off our poverty, I was showing him the powerhouse of India. These poor people are the people who will make India great. India's powerhouse is not in the cities, not in the metros. It lies in the villages."
The crowds roared their approval and rushed forward to see Gandhi's departure. If there was a contradiction between his earnest avowal of empathy with the nation's excluded, and his rapid exit in a helicopter back to his Delhi residence, in a rich, tree-lined enclave of the capital, it was not remarked upon by the supporters left behind in a cloud of dust.
It was hard to find anyone in the crowds to criticise him, even obliquely.
Jag Ram, 70, a cotton farmer, had risen at four to go 30 miles (48 km) in a bus with 20 other farmers to hear Gandhi speak. His membership of the dispossessed class was obvious from his mismatched shoes. He said he had benefited from the programme to relieve farmers' debts, and planned to vote Congress again, as his father and grandfather did. It was the first time he had seen the youngest active member of the dynasty. "His relatives gave their lives for this country, that's why we should vote for his party." Rahul was beginning to acquire something of his grandmother's stature, he added. "He is not old enough yet, but in the future it would be good to see him as India's prime minister."
The question of age is a key element in Gandhi's campaign. With 70% of India's population under 35, the Congress party hopes its flagging popularity can be revitalised by the transformation of Gandhi into a powerful force within the party. India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is 76, and recently had heart surgery, while Lal Krishna Advani, the leader of the BJP, is 81. There is much talk of the need for a younger generation.
Gandhi likes to dwell on his youth, calling on India's millions of "other youngsters" to join the Congress party youth wing to help rebuild India. Working with the youth groups is his immediate focus, he says, rejecting the idea that he is angling to be named prime minister if the Congress does well in the polls.
Sonia Gandhi has stated that she will back the current prime minister to stay in his post, and her son has agreed. "Mr Singh is the best prime minister that this country could have," Rahul said.
Political analysts used to dismiss Rahul as the less talented of Sonia and Rajiv's two children, casting him in the shadow of his younger sister, Priyanka, who despite enormous popularity (down in part to her physical resemblance to Indira Gandhi) has refused to enter politics. However, observers concede that Rahul, after five years as an MP, no longer has the awkward schoolboy demeanour that used to characterise his speeches, and agree that he has developed confidence. His earlier political diffidence, his weekends spent paragliding or dining glamorous women at Delhi's most expensive Italian restaurant (where starters cost more than the average weekly salary), have all been replaced by a zeal to claim his "birthright". Over the past year he has travelled extensively, familiarising himself with the remote rural extremes of the nation.
At a press conference in Delhi yesterday he returned to his theme of the need to spread India's growth to the dispossessed. "I go to the villages where there is nothing, and I see people who are amazing, who put all of us to shame. The real energy of India is in the villages. We need to transfer the growth to that population."
Returning to a theme well-worn by his father, he asked why it was that only 10 paisa of every rupee of government money spent on development actually reached its intended target – the outcome, historically, of entrenched corruption.
But these lines of argument, while successful themes for an opposition party, could backfire for a party already in power. MJ Akbar, a columnist and magazine editor, said: "We have become so entranced by the dynasty that we are really forgetting the larger issues – has poverty been reduced since they've been in power? Has the quality of life improved? Has governance improved? If only 10 paisa are getting through, then who's responsible? They've been in power for the last five years, they should be making sure that 90% gets through to the poor."
Gandhi believes his party cannot be held responsible for such ancient problems. "We run one of the biggest administrative systems in the world, next to China," he said. "To change this is not an event. It is a process, a long-term process."
Critics also say that Gandhi's emphasis on poverty alleviation means he barely mentions India's new economic woes, its failure to contain terrorism, and his government's inability to push through long-promised reforms. They add that Gandhi is remarkably hazy when he comes to outlining precisely how his party will further spread the benefits of growth.
In his speeches Gandhi talks with passion about the power of India's democracy, but that too is dangerous territory, because, as his enemies delight in pointing out, there is something deeply undemocratic, if not positively feudal, about the way he has been helped to rise by his party. Maywati, chief minister in Uttar Pradesh and an arch political foe, calls him a "crown prince who inherited power".
There is a paradox with his career: how is it that a five-generation political dynasty has catapulted its heir to a position of power at the head of the world's largest democracy? "It is undemocratic," Gandhi agreed yesterday. "My position gives me certain advantages."
Somewhat unconvincingly, he said his background had instilled in him a desire to reform a system riddled with nepotism. "The fact that the Indian political system tends to be about who you know and who your brother is, that is just a fact of life. I want to change that. I consider it an honour and my duty to try to change the system of which I am the result. It is ironic, but that is how it is."
excertps from the guardian uk
In a sports ground on the dry plains of Rajasthan, 15,000 people, most of them farmers, sat beneath an orange canopy, enduring temperatures of 42C, as he told them that his Congress party had the fate of India's common man, the am aadmi, at its heart.
The audience, many of them wafer thin and wearing broken plastic shoes, had nothing in common with this privileged emblem of India's elite, and yet Gandhi's potent political heritage and his determination to focus on the needs of the dispossessed won him enthusiastic applause.
A young mother, nursing her one-month-old daughter, wrapped on her lap in a frayed yellow strip of cloth, said she had braved the heat so her child could see the country's future prime minister. "I want her to grow up in an India ruled by Rahul Gandhi," she said.
Gandhi, 38, showed no signs of exhaustion on the 30th day of his helicopter tour of India, battling simultaneously to win votes for his party and to secure the continued pre-eminence of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, which has been at the summit of Indian politics for the past 60 years. Two-thirds of the way through polling, India's election rests on a knife-edge, with analysts uncertain who will be victorious when the results are given on 16 May.
The Congress party has staked its hopes for survival on Gandhi's ability to win the hearts of the 700 million Indians who still live on less than two dollars a day.
Gandhi, who was last year appointed the Congress party's general secretary, is giving the challenge everything he has.
In recent months he has cast aside his image as India's most eligible bachelor – his handsome, dimpled smile no longer features regularly on magazine society pages – and adopted a more sober persona, rebranding himself as the biggest champion of India's impoverished masses since Mother Teresa died.
During his address Gandhi did not speak of his family, but everyone in the audience knew his lineage: from his great-grandfather, Jawaharlal Nehru, the country's first prime minister, through to Indira, her son Rajiv – who took over as prime minister after Indira's murder and was blown up by a suicide bomber in 1991 – and his wife, Sonia, current leader of the Congress party, who declined the post of prime minister despite leading the Congress party to victory in 2004.
In this state the votes are finely balanced between the Congress party and the main opposition Bharatiya Janata party, and much of Rahul's speech was directed against his political rivals. Wiping the sweat from his glasses, he reminded his audience of the BJP's ill-fated "India Shining" slogan, which was the theme of its over-confident 2004 election campaign, when its leaders focused exuberantly on the nation's soaring economic growth. The Congress party successfully retaliated, pointing out that the vast majority of Indians endured lives that could scarcely be described as shining, and swept to power, promising to defend the interests of those left behind.
The Congress party has been in power, in a coalition with several allied parties, for five years, but the benefits of growth have yet to spread to the rural poor.
Gandhi argued that this was still a work in process, listing initiatives which have brought subsidised work schemes to the countryside and reduced the crippling interest paid by farmers.
He told the audience how this year he had brought "an English minister to see how people in India's villages lived". He was referring to a trip in January with David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, when the two spent a night in a mud hut in Gandhi's constituency, sleeping on charpoys. The excursion provoked considerable controversy in Delhi. "The BJP said 'why are you showing our poverty off to the English?'" Gandhi said, bending forward over the podium. "I was not showing off our poverty, I was showing him the powerhouse of India. These poor people are the people who will make India great. India's powerhouse is not in the cities, not in the metros. It lies in the villages."
The crowds roared their approval and rushed forward to see Gandhi's departure. If there was a contradiction between his earnest avowal of empathy with the nation's excluded, and his rapid exit in a helicopter back to his Delhi residence, in a rich, tree-lined enclave of the capital, it was not remarked upon by the supporters left behind in a cloud of dust.
It was hard to find anyone in the crowds to criticise him, even obliquely.
Jag Ram, 70, a cotton farmer, had risen at four to go 30 miles (48 km) in a bus with 20 other farmers to hear Gandhi speak. His membership of the dispossessed class was obvious from his mismatched shoes. He said he had benefited from the programme to relieve farmers' debts, and planned to vote Congress again, as his father and grandfather did. It was the first time he had seen the youngest active member of the dynasty. "His relatives gave their lives for this country, that's why we should vote for his party." Rahul was beginning to acquire something of his grandmother's stature, he added. "He is not old enough yet, but in the future it would be good to see him as India's prime minister."
The question of age is a key element in Gandhi's campaign. With 70% of India's population under 35, the Congress party hopes its flagging popularity can be revitalised by the transformation of Gandhi into a powerful force within the party. India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, is 76, and recently had heart surgery, while Lal Krishna Advani, the leader of the BJP, is 81. There is much talk of the need for a younger generation.
Gandhi likes to dwell on his youth, calling on India's millions of "other youngsters" to join the Congress party youth wing to help rebuild India. Working with the youth groups is his immediate focus, he says, rejecting the idea that he is angling to be named prime minister if the Congress does well in the polls.
Sonia Gandhi has stated that she will back the current prime minister to stay in his post, and her son has agreed. "Mr Singh is the best prime minister that this country could have," Rahul said.
Political analysts used to dismiss Rahul as the less talented of Sonia and Rajiv's two children, casting him in the shadow of his younger sister, Priyanka, who despite enormous popularity (down in part to her physical resemblance to Indira Gandhi) has refused to enter politics. However, observers concede that Rahul, after five years as an MP, no longer has the awkward schoolboy demeanour that used to characterise his speeches, and agree that he has developed confidence. His earlier political diffidence, his weekends spent paragliding or dining glamorous women at Delhi's most expensive Italian restaurant (where starters cost more than the average weekly salary), have all been replaced by a zeal to claim his "birthright". Over the past year he has travelled extensively, familiarising himself with the remote rural extremes of the nation.
At a press conference in Delhi yesterday he returned to his theme of the need to spread India's growth to the dispossessed. "I go to the villages where there is nothing, and I see people who are amazing, who put all of us to shame. The real energy of India is in the villages. We need to transfer the growth to that population."
Returning to a theme well-worn by his father, he asked why it was that only 10 paisa of every rupee of government money spent on development actually reached its intended target – the outcome, historically, of entrenched corruption.
But these lines of argument, while successful themes for an opposition party, could backfire for a party already in power. MJ Akbar, a columnist and magazine editor, said: "We have become so entranced by the dynasty that we are really forgetting the larger issues – has poverty been reduced since they've been in power? Has the quality of life improved? Has governance improved? If only 10 paisa are getting through, then who's responsible? They've been in power for the last five years, they should be making sure that 90% gets through to the poor."
Gandhi believes his party cannot be held responsible for such ancient problems. "We run one of the biggest administrative systems in the world, next to China," he said. "To change this is not an event. It is a process, a long-term process."
Critics also say that Gandhi's emphasis on poverty alleviation means he barely mentions India's new economic woes, its failure to contain terrorism, and his government's inability to push through long-promised reforms. They add that Gandhi is remarkably hazy when he comes to outlining precisely how his party will further spread the benefits of growth.
In his speeches Gandhi talks with passion about the power of India's democracy, but that too is dangerous territory, because, as his enemies delight in pointing out, there is something deeply undemocratic, if not positively feudal, about the way he has been helped to rise by his party. Maywati, chief minister in Uttar Pradesh and an arch political foe, calls him a "crown prince who inherited power".
There is a paradox with his career: how is it that a five-generation political dynasty has catapulted its heir to a position of power at the head of the world's largest democracy? "It is undemocratic," Gandhi agreed yesterday. "My position gives me certain advantages."
Somewhat unconvincingly, he said his background had instilled in him a desire to reform a system riddled with nepotism. "The fact that the Indian political system tends to be about who you know and who your brother is, that is just a fact of life. I want to change that. I consider it an honour and my duty to try to change the system of which I am the result. It is ironic, but that is how it is."
excertps from the guardian uk
Pentagon warns over Chinese boats
The Pentagon has accused Chinese fishing boats of "dangerous" manoeuvres near a US Navy surveillance ship in the Yellow Sea last week.
Two boats came within 30 yards (27 metres) of the USNS Victorious in an "unsafe and dangerous" fashion on Friday, a statement said.
Correspondents say the US response was muted compared to its reaction to similar incidents earlier in the year.
Beijing accuses US vessels of entering its exclusive economic zone illegally.
There was no immediate Chinese response to the US statement on Tuesday.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Victorious had been conducting "routine operations".
The Victorious sounded its alarm and shot water from its fire hoses to try to deter the vessels in an hour-long incident, one unnamed US official told the Associated Press news agency.
But the vessels did not leave until the Victorious radioed a nearby Chinese military vessel for help, Mr Whitman added.
Asked why the tone of the US statement was muted this time, he said: "We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically."
There have been four incidents in the past month in which Chinese-flagged fishing vessels manoeuvred too close to two unarmed ships staffed by civilians and used by the Pentagon for underwater surveillance and submarine-hunting missions, reported.
Two boats came within 30 yards (27 metres) of the USNS Victorious in an "unsafe and dangerous" fashion on Friday, a statement said.
Correspondents say the US response was muted compared to its reaction to similar incidents earlier in the year.
Beijing accuses US vessels of entering its exclusive economic zone illegally.
There was no immediate Chinese response to the US statement on Tuesday.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the Victorious had been conducting "routine operations".
The Victorious sounded its alarm and shot water from its fire hoses to try to deter the vessels in an hour-long incident, one unnamed US official told the Associated Press news agency.
But the vessels did not leave until the Victorious radioed a nearby Chinese military vessel for help, Mr Whitman added.
Asked why the tone of the US statement was muted this time, he said: "We will be developing a way forward to deal with this diplomatically."
There have been four incidents in the past month in which Chinese-flagged fishing vessels manoeuvred too close to two unarmed ships staffed by civilians and used by the Pentagon for underwater surveillance and submarine-hunting missions, reported.
UN rebukes Israel over Gaza raids
United Nations inquiry into attacks by Israeli forces on UN property during the Gaza conflict four months ago has heavily criticised Israel's army.
It found Israel to blame in six out of nine incidents when death or injury were caused to people sheltering at UN property and UN buildings were damaged.
In one case, Palestinian militants were found to have fired at a UN warehouse.
The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, rejected the report, saying it was biased.
"We have the most moral army in the world," he said.
"IDF [Israeli Defense Force] commanders and soldiers made every effort to avoid hurting uninvolved civilians."
Ban Ki-moon calls for progress in peace negotiations
He accused Hamas of hiding its fighters among civilians and in the vicinity of UN installations.
The UN report says the Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside and recommends further investigation into possible war crimes.
One of the incidents highlighted in the document is the firing of artillery shells near a UN-run school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering on 6 January.
The panel says more than 40 people died outside the school - Israel says only 12 were killed, and seven of them were "terror operatives".
The board of inquiry also criticises Israel's use of white phosphorus shells which the UN says caused the incineration of the UN's main food warehouse in Gaza.
Reparations sought
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN says it is a hard-hitting report which includes heavy criticism of the Israeli military's actions and subsequent explanations and justifications.
UN REPORT'S MAIN FINDINGS
Israeli army responsible in six cases in which UN property was damaged and UN staff and other civilians hurt or killed
No military activity was carried out from within UN premises in any of the incidents
Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness"
Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside
Case studies: Weapons use
The UN board's first recommendation seeks "formal acknowledgment" by Israel that its initial public statement that Palestinians had fired from the school grounds and from within the UN field office compound "were untrue and are regretted".
A later Israeli inquiry said militants had fired from a site about 80m away from the school.
Israel also contends that Hamas militants had positioned themselves near the UN relief agency headquarters.
Another recommendation says the UN should take appropriate action to seek reparation for all deaths and injuries involving its personnel and property.
The report says Israel's actions were in breach of the agreement that UN premises and those sheltering within them should be immune from attack, something which cannot be set aside for military action.
The board says investigating the deaths outside the UN school is outside its remit.
It recommends that this and allegations of war crimes committed in Gaza and southern Israel by Palestinian militants and Israel should be investigated by another inquiry.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has stressed this report is not a legal document.
It found Israel to blame in six out of nine incidents when death or injury were caused to people sheltering at UN property and UN buildings were damaged.
In one case, Palestinian militants were found to have fired at a UN warehouse.
The Israeli Defence Minister, Ehud Barak, rejected the report, saying it was biased.
"We have the most moral army in the world," he said.
"IDF [Israeli Defense Force] commanders and soldiers made every effort to avoid hurting uninvolved civilians."
Ban Ki-moon calls for progress in peace negotiations
He accused Hamas of hiding its fighters among civilians and in the vicinity of UN installations.
The UN report says the Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside and recommends further investigation into possible war crimes.
One of the incidents highlighted in the document is the firing of artillery shells near a UN-run school in Jabalia where Palestinians were sheltering on 6 January.
The panel says more than 40 people died outside the school - Israel says only 12 were killed, and seven of them were "terror operatives".
The board of inquiry also criticises Israel's use of white phosphorus shells which the UN says caused the incineration of the UN's main food warehouse in Gaza.
Reparations sought
The BBC's Laura Trevelyan at the UN says it is a hard-hitting report which includes heavy criticism of the Israeli military's actions and subsequent explanations and justifications.
UN REPORT'S MAIN FINDINGS
Israeli army responsible in six cases in which UN property was damaged and UN staff and other civilians hurt or killed
No military activity was carried out from within UN premises in any of the incidents
Israeli military's actions "involved varying degrees of negligence or recklessness"
Israeli military took "inadequate" precautions to protect UN premises and civilians inside
Case studies: Weapons use
The UN board's first recommendation seeks "formal acknowledgment" by Israel that its initial public statement that Palestinians had fired from the school grounds and from within the UN field office compound "were untrue and are regretted".
A later Israeli inquiry said militants had fired from a site about 80m away from the school.
Israel also contends that Hamas militants had positioned themselves near the UN relief agency headquarters.
Another recommendation says the UN should take appropriate action to seek reparation for all deaths and injuries involving its personnel and property.
The report says Israel's actions were in breach of the agreement that UN premises and those sheltering within them should be immune from attack, something which cannot be set aside for military action.
The board says investigating the deaths outside the UN school is outside its remit.
It recommends that this and allegations of war crimes committed in Gaza and southern Israel by Palestinian militants and Israel should be investigated by another inquiry.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has stressed this report is not a legal document.
Bernanke Sees Hopeful Signs but No Quick Recovery
The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben S. Bernanke, said on Tuesday that the economy appeared to be stabilizing on many fronts but cautioned that a recovery was still months away and that “further sizable job losses” will continue even after an upturn begins.
“We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year,” Mr. Bernanke told the congressional Joint Economic Committee, according to his prepared remarks.
“Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while,” he predicted. “We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly.”
Notwithstanding his caveats, the Fed chairman gave his most upbeat assessment since the United States fell into its most severe financial crisis since the Depression and its steepest recession since at least the early 1980s.
He noted that consumer spending, which sank sharply the second half of 2008, actually grew in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes have been “fairly stable” since late last year, in part because plunging home prices have made houses more affordable and interest rates on some fixed-rate mortgages have fallen below 5 percent.
Mr. Bernanke said conditions in credit markets have revived slightly in recent weeks. Homeowners are refinancing mortgages at a rapid clip, and financial institutions have stepped up their sale of securities backed by of credit card loans, automobile debt and student loans.
At the same time, the Fed chairman made it clear that the recession is not yet over and that many people will experience harder times in the months ahead. The nation has already lost five million jobs since the recession began more than one year ago, and unemployment usually continues to climb for many months after economic growth begins.
Mr. Bernanke noted that business investment was still “extremely weak,” which means that businesses are still contracting and will continue to shed workers. The unemployment rate hit 8.5 percent in March, and the Labor Department is expected to report on Friday that the jobless rate jumped sharply again in April.
The Fed chairman suggested that many of the nation’s 19 biggest banks will be instructed to raise additional capital when the Fed announces the results of “stress tests” on Thursday, and he tacitly acknowledged that the federal government will become a bigger shareholder in at least some of those institutions.
The tests are designed to determine whether the banks would have enough capital if the economic downturn is worse than expected. The banks have six months to raise that capital from private investors, but will have to take government money in exchange for shares of common stock if private money is unavailable.
“Following the announcement of the results, bank holding companies will be required to develop comprehensive capital plans,” Mr. Bernanke said, without specifying an exact number. Asked if he expected banks to raise the “majority” of the required capital from private sources, Mr. Bernanke predicted only that the amount could be “significant.”
Mr. Bernanke came under sharp criticism for his decision against immediately stopping credit card companies from abruptly doubling or tripling their interest rates to consumers, often for people who have remained current on all their payments.
The Fed is preparing new protections for credit card customers, but it will not impose them until much later this year. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he had asked Mr. Bernanke to use the Fed’s emergency powers to act immediately but that the Fed chairman refused to do so.
“You’ve acted swiftly to use your emergency powers to stabilize teetering financial institutions,” Mr. Schumer said. “What about the family that’s had a $10,000 balance and had its rate jump from 7 to 23 percent?”
Mr. Bernanke said he was “very concerned” about such practices, but said that cutting short the normal process for approving new regulations might simply provoke banks to raise their rates even more quickly or to cut many customers off entirely.
“It’s a quandary,” he told Mr. Schumer.
“I’m very frustrated,” the senator responded. “You could have figured out a better way than the one you have chosen.”
“We continue to expect economic activity to bottom out, then to turn up later this year,” Mr. Bernanke told the congressional Joint Economic Committee, according to his prepared remarks.
“Even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while,” he predicted. “We expect that the recovery will only gradually gain momentum and that economic slack will diminish slowly.”
Notwithstanding his caveats, the Fed chairman gave his most upbeat assessment since the United States fell into its most severe financial crisis since the Depression and its steepest recession since at least the early 1980s.
He noted that consumer spending, which sank sharply the second half of 2008, actually grew in the first quarter of this year. Sales of existing homes have been “fairly stable” since late last year, in part because plunging home prices have made houses more affordable and interest rates on some fixed-rate mortgages have fallen below 5 percent.
Mr. Bernanke said conditions in credit markets have revived slightly in recent weeks. Homeowners are refinancing mortgages at a rapid clip, and financial institutions have stepped up their sale of securities backed by of credit card loans, automobile debt and student loans.
At the same time, the Fed chairman made it clear that the recession is not yet over and that many people will experience harder times in the months ahead. The nation has already lost five million jobs since the recession began more than one year ago, and unemployment usually continues to climb for many months after economic growth begins.
Mr. Bernanke noted that business investment was still “extremely weak,” which means that businesses are still contracting and will continue to shed workers. The unemployment rate hit 8.5 percent in March, and the Labor Department is expected to report on Friday that the jobless rate jumped sharply again in April.
The Fed chairman suggested that many of the nation’s 19 biggest banks will be instructed to raise additional capital when the Fed announces the results of “stress tests” on Thursday, and he tacitly acknowledged that the federal government will become a bigger shareholder in at least some of those institutions.
The tests are designed to determine whether the banks would have enough capital if the economic downturn is worse than expected. The banks have six months to raise that capital from private investors, but will have to take government money in exchange for shares of common stock if private money is unavailable.
“Following the announcement of the results, bank holding companies will be required to develop comprehensive capital plans,” Mr. Bernanke said, without specifying an exact number. Asked if he expected banks to raise the “majority” of the required capital from private sources, Mr. Bernanke predicted only that the amount could be “significant.”
Mr. Bernanke came under sharp criticism for his decision against immediately stopping credit card companies from abruptly doubling or tripling their interest rates to consumers, often for people who have remained current on all their payments.
The Fed is preparing new protections for credit card customers, but it will not impose them until much later this year. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said he had asked Mr. Bernanke to use the Fed’s emergency powers to act immediately but that the Fed chairman refused to do so.
“You’ve acted swiftly to use your emergency powers to stabilize teetering financial institutions,” Mr. Schumer said. “What about the family that’s had a $10,000 balance and had its rate jump from 7 to 23 percent?”
Mr. Bernanke said he was “very concerned” about such practices, but said that cutting short the normal process for approving new regulations might simply provoke banks to raise their rates even more quickly or to cut many customers off entirely.
“It’s a quandary,” he told Mr. Schumer.
“I’m very frustrated,” the senator responded. “You could have figured out a better way than the one you have chosen.”
look at the rhetoric surrounding Elections 2009 and wonder — has any political party promised to improve the state of the environment for you and me? Or thought about our right to fresh air or clean water — commodities that have become a rarity in an urbanising India?
Over the past few weeks I’ve studied the manifestos of all political parties and silently witnessed the city around me change. Ancient trees are being decapitated for wider roads, a park’s been taken over for a multiplex and a storm drain, a barrier against monsoon floods, has been filled with sand to make way for a parking lot. Grab and construct is the new mantra for the ‘development’ of our cities.
We spend three hours on an average on roads, stuck in traffic jams, while one in every five Indians suffers from respiratory disorders. Indian cities are headed towards an urban disaster. Take the depleting quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink (that's if we get it in our taps); while rivers turn into noxious black threads with methane bubbling on their surfaces and landfill sites expand.
Analysts predict that in the next thirty years, more than half of India will be living in urban areas. But does any leader or political party have a vision to address the impending environmental problems? Caste and religion continue to dominate the rhetoric of Election 2009, but is global India, with a growth rate of 9 per cent, doing anything about the toxic gas chambers that are our cities or the brown sludge flowing from our taps?
You could dismiss my angst for clean air and water as an elitist preoccupation that doesn’t affect a majority of the population. But take a look at the alarming figures collected by the Central Pollution Control Board and the Centre for Science and Environment. Out of the 100 Indian cities monitored, almost half have critical levels of particulate matter. Fifty-two cities hit critical levels, 36 have high levels and a mere 19 are at moderate levels. Only three cities — Dewas, Tirupati and Kozhikode — recorded low pollution levels.
Adding to the gas chambers are toxic gases like nitrogen oxide — a major contributor to acid rain and global warming — that are on the rise even in smaller cities like Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Nashik and Chandrapur. Indian cities can be cured of the curse of pollution, but various policy measures will have to be initiated. One way out could be the introduction of compressed natural gas in the public transport system, and financial incentives for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars or to switch to public transport.
If we look at the availability of water in Indian cities, the situation is no different. According to a 2007 World Bank study on 27 cities, the average duration of water supply was not more than four hours and in some, like Rajkot, it’s less than 0.3 hours. Not even one Indian city gets continuous water supply, and a majority are in the red in terms of plummeting ground water tables. Besides, in the poorer parts of our nation, people have to buy water and have to spend, on an average, one to two hours per day foraging for it.
And what about the impending threat from climate change? There is now enough scientific evidence to show that climate change will first affect the poor, with disastrous consequences for India's farmers and fishermen. But has any political party woken up to this threat? The BJP, interestingly, has a separate section on the environment in its manifesto, referring to the need to move towards a low carbon economy. Does that mean it will scrap the 54-odd thermal power projects that were cleared under the UPA government? Climate change may already be upon us in many ways. But one look at the National Climate Change Action Plan launched by the Prime Minister will tell us that most of the targets under the eight missions are non-measurable, so there’s no way to measure the outgoing government’s performance.
And how ‘green’ are our politicians themselves? While one has drained the wetlands of an endangered bird only to build an airstrip in his native village, another, with strong prime ministerial aspirations, spent more than Rs 80 crore ravaging a green belt on the edge of the Okhla bird sanctuary, while yet another in Madhya Pradesh got the course of a river diverted, to make it flow close to his private resort. Media campaigns ask voters to stop complaining and go out and vote. Yes, I too will go and vote. But I am still waiting for that one political party or candidate who promises me, a citizen of India, my right to clean air and water.
ecxcerpts from bahar dutt as publised in Hindusthan times
Over the past few weeks I’ve studied the manifestos of all political parties and silently witnessed the city around me change. Ancient trees are being decapitated for wider roads, a park’s been taken over for a multiplex and a storm drain, a barrier against monsoon floods, has been filled with sand to make way for a parking lot. Grab and construct is the new mantra for the ‘development’ of our cities.
We spend three hours on an average on roads, stuck in traffic jams, while one in every five Indians suffers from respiratory disorders. Indian cities are headed towards an urban disaster. Take the depleting quality of the air we breathe or the water we drink (that's if we get it in our taps); while rivers turn into noxious black threads with methane bubbling on their surfaces and landfill sites expand.
Analysts predict that in the next thirty years, more than half of India will be living in urban areas. But does any leader or political party have a vision to address the impending environmental problems? Caste and religion continue to dominate the rhetoric of Election 2009, but is global India, with a growth rate of 9 per cent, doing anything about the toxic gas chambers that are our cities or the brown sludge flowing from our taps?
You could dismiss my angst for clean air and water as an elitist preoccupation that doesn’t affect a majority of the population. But take a look at the alarming figures collected by the Central Pollution Control Board and the Centre for Science and Environment. Out of the 100 Indian cities monitored, almost half have critical levels of particulate matter. Fifty-two cities hit critical levels, 36 have high levels and a mere 19 are at moderate levels. Only three cities — Dewas, Tirupati and Kozhikode — recorded low pollution levels.
Adding to the gas chambers are toxic gases like nitrogen oxide — a major contributor to acid rain and global warming — that are on the rise even in smaller cities like Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Nashik and Chandrapur. Indian cities can be cured of the curse of pollution, but various policy measures will have to be initiated. One way out could be the introduction of compressed natural gas in the public transport system, and financial incentives for people to buy more fuel-efficient cars or to switch to public transport.
If we look at the availability of water in Indian cities, the situation is no different. According to a 2007 World Bank study on 27 cities, the average duration of water supply was not more than four hours and in some, like Rajkot, it’s less than 0.3 hours. Not even one Indian city gets continuous water supply, and a majority are in the red in terms of plummeting ground water tables. Besides, in the poorer parts of our nation, people have to buy water and have to spend, on an average, one to two hours per day foraging for it.
And what about the impending threat from climate change? There is now enough scientific evidence to show that climate change will first affect the poor, with disastrous consequences for India's farmers and fishermen. But has any political party woken up to this threat? The BJP, interestingly, has a separate section on the environment in its manifesto, referring to the need to move towards a low carbon economy. Does that mean it will scrap the 54-odd thermal power projects that were cleared under the UPA government? Climate change may already be upon us in many ways. But one look at the National Climate Change Action Plan launched by the Prime Minister will tell us that most of the targets under the eight missions are non-measurable, so there’s no way to measure the outgoing government’s performance.
And how ‘green’ are our politicians themselves? While one has drained the wetlands of an endangered bird only to build an airstrip in his native village, another, with strong prime ministerial aspirations, spent more than Rs 80 crore ravaging a green belt on the edge of the Okhla bird sanctuary, while yet another in Madhya Pradesh got the course of a river diverted, to make it flow close to his private resort. Media campaigns ask voters to stop complaining and go out and vote. Yes, I too will go and vote. But I am still waiting for that one political party or candidate who promises me, a citizen of India, my right to clean air and water.
ecxcerpts from bahar dutt as publised in Hindusthan times
US needs 'digital warfare force'
The head of America's National Security Agency says that America needs to build a digital warfare force for the future, according to reports.
Lt Gen Keith Alexander, who also heads the Pentagon's new Cyber Command, outlined his views in a report for the House Armed Services subcommittee.
In it, he stated that the US needed to reorganise its offensive and defensive cyber operations.
The general also said more resources and training were needed.
The report, part of which was outlined in an Associated Press news agency story, is due to be presented to the subcommittee on Tuesday.
During the past six months, the Pentagon spent more than £67m ($100m) responding to and repairing damage from cyber attacks and other network problems.
Gen Keith Alexander's new department, to be based in Fort Meade in Maryland, will be part of the US Strategic Command - currently responsible for securing the US military's networks - and will work alongside the US Department of Homeland Security.
It is thought the new department would open in October and be at full strength in 2010.
Self defence
A separate document, from the US Air Force's chief information officer Lt Gen William Shelton, said the US relies heavily on industry efforts to respond to cyber threats which, he says, "does not keep pace with the threat".
The proposed digital warfare force would be based in Maryland
Peter Wood, operations chief with First Base Technologies and an expert in cyber-warfare, said that the US were entirely within their rights to protect themselves.
"My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the US is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing.
"The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and, just recently, the US national grid. If that is determined to be an organised attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks," he said.
"The only problem is that the internet - by its very nature - has no borders and if the US takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."
The submissions to the House Armed Services subcommittee comes a few days after the National Research Council - part of the United States National Academy of Sciences - said that current US policies on cyber warfare are "ill-formed, lack adequate oversight and require a broad public debate".
The report went on to say that the "undeveloped and uncertain nature" of the US governments cyber warfare policies could lead to them being misused in a possible crisis.
The US administration is due imminently to publish the results of a 60-day review on cyber-security ordered by President Obama.
Bookmark with:
Lt Gen Keith Alexander, who also heads the Pentagon's new Cyber Command, outlined his views in a report for the House Armed Services subcommittee.
In it, he stated that the US needed to reorganise its offensive and defensive cyber operations.
The general also said more resources and training were needed.
The report, part of which was outlined in an Associated Press news agency story, is due to be presented to the subcommittee on Tuesday.
During the past six months, the Pentagon spent more than £67m ($100m) responding to and repairing damage from cyber attacks and other network problems.
Gen Keith Alexander's new department, to be based in Fort Meade in Maryland, will be part of the US Strategic Command - currently responsible for securing the US military's networks - and will work alongside the US Department of Homeland Security.
It is thought the new department would open in October and be at full strength in 2010.
Self defence
A separate document, from the US Air Force's chief information officer Lt Gen William Shelton, said the US relies heavily on industry efforts to respond to cyber threats which, he says, "does not keep pace with the threat".
The proposed digital warfare force would be based in Maryland
Peter Wood, operations chief with First Base Technologies and an expert in cyber-warfare, said that the US were entirely within their rights to protect themselves.
"My own view is that the only way to counteract both criminal and espionage activity online is to be proactive. If the US is taking a formal approach to this, then that has to be a good thing.
"The Chinese are viewed as the source of a great many attacks on western infrastructure and, just recently, the US national grid. If that is determined to be an organised attack, I would want to go and take down the source of those attacks," he said.
"The only problem is that the internet - by its very nature - has no borders and if the US takes on the mantle of the world's police; that might not go down so well."
The submissions to the House Armed Services subcommittee comes a few days after the National Research Council - part of the United States National Academy of Sciences - said that current US policies on cyber warfare are "ill-formed, lack adequate oversight and require a broad public debate".
The report went on to say that the "undeveloped and uncertain nature" of the US governments cyber warfare policies could lead to them being misused in a possible crisis.
The US administration is due imminently to publish the results of a 60-day review on cyber-security ordered by President Obama.
Bookmark with:
Swat residents 'flee their homes'
Residents of Pakistan's Swat Valley are reported to be fleeing their homes despite authorities rescinding an earlier order for them to leave.
A peace deal between the government and Taleban militants in the region appears close to collapse after the army said militants attacked police checkpoints.
There has also been heavy fighting to the west and east of Swat.
A major army operation against the Taleban appears likely within a few days, says the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan.
Our Islamabad correspondent says the army seems in an uncompromising mood, with the renewed violence apparently the death knell for the peace deal, which has held since February.
See a map of the region
In other violence, a suicide bomber killed four security personnel near Peshawar, North West Frontier Province.
Police said the attacker rammed an explosive-laden car into a military vehicle.
It is not yet known who is behind the attack, but Taleban militants are known to be active in the province.
Patrols
Pakistani Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said the government was preparing six camps to cater for up to 500,000 people fleeing fighting in the region, AP news agency reported.
The town of Dargai, near the Swat border, is reported to be where at least one camp is being built.
Armed Taleban fighters have been openly patrolling, the army says
A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj-Gen Athar Abbas, told the BBC the Taleban had violated all the norms of the peace deal in Swat Valley.
He said the Taleban had sent out armed patrols and had gone into the neighbouring Dir and Buner districts.
The army says militants attacked checkpoints and bases in four different locations in Swat, and that armed militants are openly patrolling the streets of the district's main city Mingora.
A witness in Mingora told AP that black-turbaned militants were deployed on most streets and on high buildings, and that security forces were barricaded in their bases.
Khushal Khan, district co-ordination officer in Swat, told the BBC that residents of areas around Mingora had been told to evacuate because there was a fear that the Taleban could use heavy weapons to attack security forces.
But he said the order was later rescinded when the attacks no longer seemed likely.
However, reports say residents are fleeing in their hundreds anyway, taking advantage of the government's lifting of a curfew.
Taleban spokesman Muslim Khan said that the militants were in control of "90%" of the valley.
He told AP that Taleban actions were in response to the army violating the peace deal. He said the peace deal had "been dead" since the army's recent offensive in neighbouring Buner district.
"Everything will be OK once our rulers stop bowing before America," he said.
Washington talks
The deteriorating situation in Pakistan's north-west came as President Asif Ali Zardari was preparing for talks in Washington on Wednesday.
Analysts say US President Barack Obama will seek assurances from Mr Zardari that his country's nuclear arsenal is safe from Taleban insurgents and that Pakistan intended to root-out militant groups and defeat them.
Militants fought the army in the region from August 2007 until this year's deal.
Under the deal the Taleban were expected to disarm.
The Taleban say they will not lay down their arms until Islamic Sharia law is fully implemented in Swat.
They have banned the playing of music in cars and are also using mosques to invite local youth to join them.
A peace deal between the government and Taleban militants in the region appears close to collapse after the army said militants attacked police checkpoints.
There has also been heavy fighting to the west and east of Swat.
A major army operation against the Taleban appears likely within a few days, says the BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan.
Our Islamabad correspondent says the army seems in an uncompromising mood, with the renewed violence apparently the death knell for the peace deal, which has held since February.
See a map of the region
In other violence, a suicide bomber killed four security personnel near Peshawar, North West Frontier Province.
Police said the attacker rammed an explosive-laden car into a military vehicle.
It is not yet known who is behind the attack, but Taleban militants are known to be active in the province.
Patrols
Pakistani Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain said the government was preparing six camps to cater for up to 500,000 people fleeing fighting in the region, AP news agency reported.
The town of Dargai, near the Swat border, is reported to be where at least one camp is being built.
Armed Taleban fighters have been openly patrolling, the army says
A Pakistani military spokesman, Maj-Gen Athar Abbas, told the BBC the Taleban had violated all the norms of the peace deal in Swat Valley.
He said the Taleban had sent out armed patrols and had gone into the neighbouring Dir and Buner districts.
The army says militants attacked checkpoints and bases in four different locations in Swat, and that armed militants are openly patrolling the streets of the district's main city Mingora.
A witness in Mingora told AP that black-turbaned militants were deployed on most streets and on high buildings, and that security forces were barricaded in their bases.
Khushal Khan, district co-ordination officer in Swat, told the BBC that residents of areas around Mingora had been told to evacuate because there was a fear that the Taleban could use heavy weapons to attack security forces.
But he said the order was later rescinded when the attacks no longer seemed likely.
However, reports say residents are fleeing in their hundreds anyway, taking advantage of the government's lifting of a curfew.
Taleban spokesman Muslim Khan said that the militants were in control of "90%" of the valley.
He told AP that Taleban actions were in response to the army violating the peace deal. He said the peace deal had "been dead" since the army's recent offensive in neighbouring Buner district.
"Everything will be OK once our rulers stop bowing before America," he said.
Washington talks
The deteriorating situation in Pakistan's north-west came as President Asif Ali Zardari was preparing for talks in Washington on Wednesday.
Analysts say US President Barack Obama will seek assurances from Mr Zardari that his country's nuclear arsenal is safe from Taleban insurgents and that Pakistan intended to root-out militant groups and defeat them.
Militants fought the army in the region from August 2007 until this year's deal.
Under the deal the Taleban were expected to disarm.
The Taleban say they will not lay down their arms until Islamic Sharia law is fully implemented in Swat.
They have banned the playing of music in cars and are also using mosques to invite local youth to join them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)