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hastily overhaul a painstakingly developed security strategy that was unveiled only five weeks ago but is already badly outdated.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."
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)