America announced a bounty of US $10 million on Pakistan based Jama'at-ud-Da'wah(JuD)’s leader Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. The announcement came through US Under Secretary of state Ms. Wendy Sherman during her visit to New Delhi on April 02. This was followed by US Justice Department posting the announcement on their official website. Pakistan in its first official response to the bounty, said that Washington needed to provide “concrete evidence” if it wants the government to act against Saeed. Prime Minister Of Pakistan Gilani said that “the United States should have informed Pakistan before taking such a action because there is no solid evidence against Saeed.” He added that if the U.S. has solid evidence, it should share it with Pakistan, which has an independent judiciary. Mr. Gilani made the comments to parliament, which re-convened to debate a new framework for ties with the United States. On the other side Hafiz Saeed came open in a press conference saying “I am here, I am visible. America should give that reward money to me, “I will be in Lahore tomorrow. America can contact me whenever it wants to.” he told reporters, mocking Washington for placing a bounty on a man whose whereabouts are no mystery.

Most of the critics say that timing and place of bounty announcement show American desire to please India and curtail Difa- e -Pakistan’s efforts against drones and NATO supply. However, like American misadventures in Abbottabad operation this may turn out to be another miscalculated foreign policy fiasco. Tactically killing bin Laden was an emotional triumph for the US but strategically it clearly has dented relationship with Pakistan and damaged objectives of all collation partners involved in War against Terror. State department spokesperson Ms. Nuland talking on procedure of announcing bounty said “My understanding is that the primary work that is done before we offer these rewards is internal, we do advise affected governments that we intend to do this” but Pakistan’s response show more of misunderstanding on her part.

Another concern shown by journalists in US State department briefings made spokesman Mark. C. Toner defensive, when he was asked as to why US is putting tax payer money when there is no credible information to convict. A journalist asked that “the reasons given are fairly old reasons, including that he is suspected of masterminding the Mumbai attacks. That was three and a half years ago, I mean, why would it take years to decide to put him on the Rewards for Justice Program?” If there is not any evidence, why is this guy a wanted terrorist? On the other side Hafiz Saeed has said he is ready to face "any American court" to answer the charges. Pakistan’s Foreign Office said that Islamabad will act against Saeed and Makki if evidence is provided against them. Pakistani court has acquitted Hafiz Saeed on many occasions and in many cases due to lack of evidences against him. On October 12, 2009, the Lahore High Court quashed all cases against Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and set him free. The court also notified that Jama'at-ud-Da'wah is not a banned organization and can work freely in Pakistan. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa, one of two judges hearing the case, observed "In the name of terrorism we cannot brutalise the law." If the bounty announcement has any links to proof which India say it has, lets put the record right. India’s own investigations on Samjhota Express pointing fingers to Pakistan resulted in involvement of local Indians like Col Prohit as their investigation matured. There is no derth of such examples just study let us only recollect 2007, Mecca Masjid Blast on May 18 when 14 people died, Ajmer Sharif Blast on October 11. This shows a glimpse of investigation handling in India, the larger story can be summarized in what a human right activist and Mumbai advocate Mihir said,” It is believed that CBI is seeking directions from the home ministry to see the Ajmer, Mecca Masjid, Malegaon and other blasts in conjunction after there has been no conclusive evidence of the involvement of Islamic groups”.

After Russian occupation of Afghanistan Lashkar e Toiba (Let) was raised in 1984 in Kunar to fight the aggressors. This occupation was a prelude to Russian desire of reaching the warm waters and next phase had to move through Pakistan. The US – Pak National interests coincided and full support was provided to this organization. In the aftermath of success US left Pakistan at its own to deal with such organizations. LeT a small organization of about 4000 odd members decided to support oppressed Muslims of Indian held Kashmir (IHK). Pakistan also did not check as it provided a counter to Indian interference in its neighbours. 9/11 decade brought another change in foreign relations and the New World Order rejected all such movements and linked them with Al-quida (ALQ), US declared LeT as Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO) in 2001 and Pakistan banned its activities in 2002 . Where it was easy decision for US, Pakistan which had to implement had to face problems as the region went into destabilization mode due to 9/11. Pakistan’s take from here on followed a systematic approach to shift the orientation of modest faction of this organization towards welfare of countrymen and take strict actions against hard liners after 26/11 at Mumbai. These measures forced hard liners to join the moderate group. The welfare faction , Jamat ud Dawa (JUD) is functioning under Hafiz Saeed who publically condemns Mumbai attacks. They run 163 schools and 4 colleges for almost 44000 students. In health sector it provides 6 hospitals , over hundred dispensaries and ambulance services. Its contributions in floods and earthquake are recognized by the world. JuD came to limelight during 2010 Floods of Pakistan. Even the USAID chief Rajiv Shah visited a Sukkur relief camp supposedly run by Falah-i-Insaniat (FI), the relief organ of Jamaatud Dawa. Mr. Shah donated two trucks of relief goods on behalf of US aid to the camp.

The hallmark of civilized societies is marked by rule of law for anyone and everyone with logics, arguments and fairness. As we proceed in this unipolar world each day unfolds a new challenge for our generation and question our decision to join the reversal of liberty which we inherited through struggle of generations. The buzz word is let the system survive, yes we must if we see it is proceeding in right direction even at snail speed but if it is in wrong direction we may be cultivating tough tomorrow for coming generations. The rule of powerful rush in where the Law and logic fail to tread. The most to suffer is the advanced society where the statue of liberty laughs when basic rights of its own citizen are put at stake in name of fight against terror and force them to remain silent on such illogical logics.—OM

Masood Khan Jubail

Early morning on April 7, a massive avalanche smashed into a Pakistan Army camp on the Siachen glacier, burying alive more than 124 soldiers and 11 civilians.

Siachen glacier is the world’s highest battlefield, 6,000 meters above the sea level, where winter temperature drops to minus 70 Celsius with blizzards gusting at a speed of 160km/h. Siachen glacier was part of Pakistani Kashmir since the Indo-Pak war of 1948. However, Pakistan never kept its forces on the glacier in winter considering it unnecessary due to severe weather conditions. It was until 1984 winter when Indians quietly moved their troops and occupied around 70 percent of the ice mountain. In response, Pakistan was also forced to depute its forces throughout the year. According to an estimate, Indians are keeping a force of 5,000 soldiers while Pakistan’s strength is about half of that. Both countries are spending $400 million – $500 million per year to keep the forces on the glacier.

In the local Balti language, Siachen means “valley of roses”, not valley of death where more than 2,000 soldiers have died due to extreme weather conditions. As both the countries realize that it is waste of resources and unnecessary burden on the forces, they have held dozens of meetings in the past to discuss a possible withdrawal of troops from the glacier, but nothing came out of these meetings. The reasons being ego, stubbornness and deficit of trust. Indians have refused to withdraw until Pakistan recognizes its troops’ present position; India fears that in case of its withdrawal, Pakistan may move its soldiers to re-occupy the earlier lost territory.

Today, tragedy has struck Pakistani soldiers, tomorrow the victims could be Indian forces. Then why can’t this glacier be demilitarized and made a mountain of peace. Why can’t the political and military leaders on either side of the border take a back seat and let the sense prevail — why to spend resources on a war which is of no use (unless it satisfies some egoist evil minds), why to expose the poor soldiers to severe weather, frost bite, inhospitable terrain and possible death. Perhaps both India and Pakistan may learn a lesson from this catastrophe and re-start the stalled dialogue on Siachen glacier and Sir Creek.—AN

William D. Nordhaus

A January 27 opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal by a group of 16 scientists, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” contained many of the standard criticisms of climate skeptics in a succinct statement. The essay argued that the globe is not warming and delaying policies to slow climate change for 50 years will have no serious consequences.

At a time when we need to clarify public confusion about the science and economics of climate change, the 16 scientists have muddied the waters. Here, I describe some of their mistakes.Their first claim is that the planet is not warming. More precisely, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.”

It’s easy to get lost in the tiniest details here. Most people will benefit from stepping back and looking at the record of actual temperature measurements. Data from 1880 to 2011 on global mean temperature averaged from three sources. We don’t need complicated statistical analysis to see that temperatures are rising. Furthermore, they’re higher during the last decade than they were in earlier decades.

One of the reasons that drawing conclusions on temperature trends is tricky is that the historical temperature series is highly volatile. The presence of short-term volatility requires looking at long-term trends. A useful analogy is the stock market. Suppose an analyst says that because real stock prices have declined over the last decade, which is true, it follows that there’s no upward trend. Here again, an examination of the long-term data quickly shows this to be incorrect. The last decade of temperature and stock market data are not representative of longer-term trends. The finding that global temperatures are rising over the last century-plus is among the most robust findings of climate science and statistics.

The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than two degrees Centigrade. Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.

A final point concerns economic analysis. The 16 scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century: A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls.

This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now.

The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary economics teaches that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits – that is, the difference between, not the ratio of, benefits and costs.

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency points to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions immediately. Waiting another 50 years is not only economically costly, but will also make transition more costly when it eventually takes place.

Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed.

If anything, the uncertainties would point to a more forceful policy – one starting sooner rather than later – to slow climate change.

The 16 scientists urge avoiding alarm about climate change. I’m equally concerned by those who allege that we’ll incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and respect for sound logic and good science.—KT