What America needs to do By Ali Ezzatyar / Shahpur Kabraji

When its highest ranking military officer declares a major ally to be the potential sponsor of multiple terrorist attacks, including a 20-hour-long assault on a US embassy, the US has a problem. When it turns out that the same ally has also enlisted its military and intelligence to ambush and kill American servicemen, as Pakistan did in 2007, the US has a crisis. American policy towards Pakistan undoubtedly walks a tight rope, but it also needs an urgent rethink. A transformation in US policy towards Pakistan must begin immediately, from recalibrating its military aid, to premising that aid on Pakistan’s position, vis-a-vis India.

For too long, Pakistan has advanced the excuse that since it is deeply involved in helping the US fight terrorism, the US should have patience and appreciation for its multiple challenges. This has allowed Pakistan to get a pass when certain elements within the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) have provided material aid to elements like the so-called Haqqani network, whose stated aim is the destruction of US forces in the region. The excuse also allows Pakistan to remain complacent with respect to reforming its relationship with India, who it incorrectly views as its main enemy. As a result, Pakistan’s resources (among which US aid dollars count aplenty) are mismanaged and military intelligence failures of the highest order abound. As the Kabul embassy attack demonstrates, the US can no longer afford to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s sloppiness.

While it may not be an immediate solution, the US must begin bychanging the nature of military aid to Pakistan. The current system of reimbursing Pakistan for military assistance it provides does not work; an immense amount of money is spent on conventional hardware with an eye on India, that is largely useless in a war against small groups of terrorists. Rather than having this opaque mercenary arrangement, the US and Pakistan must openly demonstrate to citizens in both countries that US aid is being provided to combat terrorism and not for the purchase of redundant hardware, or even worse, siphoned into offshore bank accounts. After yet another alleged show of support for terrorism by elements of the Pakistan Government, the US is understandably sceptical of the Pakistani government, asking for resources and intelligence to deal with terrorists; the US administration is fearful that any intelligence provided will only allow the targets to move on before any operation can be executed. But the deal on the table should be simple: Pakistan must deal with specific threats as identified by the US. A failure to deal with such threats should result in reduction in aid. If the target is sufficiently high value, the US should make clear that it can and will act independently unless Pakistan demonstrates immediate willingness and control of its sovereign territory.

The mismanagement and miscommunication is partially the result of the US doing a poor job of articulating its vision in a way that facilitates Pakistani cooperation. While it is no excuse, recent revelations that Pakistani military officers were involved in attacks aimed at killing American soldiers are thought to be retaliation for US indifference to Pakistani casualties along the Afghan border. To convince a sceptical Pakistani government (and people) that they should be committing more to the fight, the US itself has to make its commitment to the region unequivocal. Washington should make clear to Islamabad and Kabul that, unlike previously, the US sees Pakistan and stability there, as crucial to furthering US regional interests. Part of this must be more pressure, premised on aid and diplomatic recognition, for Pakistan to redirect its military and political efforts (both internally and externally) away from outdated distractions such as confronting India.

Finally, the US must understand that its own reputation in the region is increasingly that of an incompetent dilettante. To show real commitment to the cause of stability in Pakistan means understanding some of the emotional issues that agitate young Pakistanis and using soft power to address these as well. It should reduce its dealings with the army such that it diminishes the role of the army as one of the fundamental components of the nation’s power structure to the benefit of democratic institutions.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 14^th, 2011.

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/273277/what-america-needs-to-do/

Some suggest staying away from Obama’s Wars By Imran Ali Teepu

ISLAMABAD: Gazetted officers of the federal government receive a book from the Cabinet Division’s Services Club every  year – for a price – to stimulate their minds.

Last year, ‘The Idea of Justice’ by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen was chosen for them and was well received. In the book the eminent Indian economist argues that a “theory of justice that can serve as the basis of practical reasoning must include ways of judging how to reduce injustice and advance justice, rather than aiming only at the characterisation of perfectly just societies”.

But some recipients are disturbed over this year’s choice of Bob Woodward’s ‘Obama’s Wars’. They find the “criticism” of President Asif Ali Zardari in it disturbing, more so when the book has been distributed through the Army’s Services Book Club (ASBC).

Both the presidential and military spokesmen sounded non-committal in their comments to Dawn on the distribution of the book by ASBC.

“ASBC routinely sends books to civilian officers,” said Maj Gen Athar Abbas of the ISPR. But he was “not aware” that this year the ASBC had sent them Obama’s Wars.

Presidential spokesman Farhatullah Babar was equally unaware but more dismissive. “Since I am not aware about this (distribution) I have no comments to offer,” he said.

Bob Woodward, a Washington Post journalist, writes in the book that President Zardari told the then-CIA Director Gen Michael Hayden during their meeting in New York on 12 November 2008: “Kill the seniors. Collateral damage (caused by CIA drone attacks inside Pakistan) worries you Americans. It does not worry me.”

That unattributed account of the meeting irritated Islamabad and was immediately rejected by Pakistani ambassador in Washington, Hussain Haqqani. “I am amazed that the book was purchased in bulk and distributed to civilian officials,” said a senior federal bureaucrat. His colleague concurred that Obama’s Wars should not have been a choice read because its narrative reflect’s Washington’s “paranoia like mistrust” of Pakistan.

However, there are bureaucrats who say that “anything revealing the inner thoughts of other governments about Pakistan must be read by us”.

“It was President Gen Ziaul Haq who made book reading a must in the bureaucracy. Every federal government officer of Grade 17 and above had to become a member of the ASBC,” recalled a former bureaucrat.

The missionary president, however, chose mainly religious books, including Maulana Abul Aala Maudoodi’s voluminous Tafheem-ul-Quran. After him the titles changed and books on worldly matters by international writers also found their way through ASBC, he said.

ASBC distributes the book chosen for the officers at nominal price which is deducted from their salary.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/14/some-suggest-staying-away-from-obamas-wars-2.html

Turkey’s renewal By A.G. Noorani - Analysis

NEARLY nine years in office as prime minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) has already carved his name in history by his domestic and foreign policies.

The economy has registered phenomenal growth. It grew at 8.9 per cent last year. Civil society is articulate in universities, trade unions, business associations and human rights groups. The press is assertive. Last June, he won his third electoral victory in a row — 87 per cent of a 15 million electorate cast its vote. He won 326 seats in the 550-member parliament. This is less than the 367 he needs to amend the archaic constitution of 1982 and the 330 he needs to put his own draft for vote in a referendum.

The AKP escaped a ban by the Constitutional Court on July 30, 2008 by just one vote. The charge was that it was an Islamist party out to overturn the ‘secular’ ideology of the founder of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal. Its two powerful ‘guardians’ are the court and the army. In an article entitled ‘What is behind headscarf ruling of the Turkish Constitutional Court?’ published in 2010 Prof Abdurrahman Saygili of the University of Ankara exposed the court’s usurpation of political power in the guise of judicial adjudication. The army has used ‘Kemalist secularism’ as a weapon to control politicians it dislikes.

Recently, Erdogan invited to dinner leaders of religious minorities, including the chief rabbi of Istanbul, and promised to return thousands of properties, confiscated in the past, to the Jewish and Christian minorities. He proudly declared: “In this city the [Muslim] call to prayer and church bells sound together. Mosques, churches and synagogues have stood side by side on the same street for centuries.”

Erdogan, aided by the able foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, charted a new course in a foreign policy of ‘zero problems’ with neighbours. Bridges were built with Armenia, Greece and Georgia. It was on Israel that the change was most pronounced.

Even before he became prime minister, Erdogan had attacked the Israeli Defence Force for its outrages against Palestinians in Jenin and Nablus.

In 2009, in Davos he famously walked out on Israel’s President Shimon Peres declaring “You know very well how to kill”.

Relations between the two countries were all but broken last year when Israeli commandos attacked the Turkish freighter Mavi Marmara, which sought to break the Gaza blockage. Nine Turkish civilians were killed.

Erdogan praises the Hamas as “resistance fighters who are struggling to defend their land”. Last month, he said on Egyptian TV: “I told Abbas to come with me so that we can all go together [to Gaza] Mahmoud Abbas, Erdogan and Ismail Haniya (the Hamas leader).” He made a remark which echoed all over the region because it is so very true: “Israel is the West’s spoiled
child. To this day, it has never executed a decision by the international community.”

Erdogan’s trip to Egypt, Tunisia and Libya in September was a resounding success. He has warned Syria’s President Bashar al Assad against suppression of peaceful agitations. It is a carefully calibrated foreign policy. In 2003, Turkey’s parliament voted against permitting American troops to use its territory to invade Iraq. Last year, it tried, along with Brazil, to mediate a
nuclear deal between Iran and the US. But Turkey also joined Nato’s US-designed missile shield against Iran, though it was careful not to name Iran.

Radical changes in policies could not have been brought about unless they were rooted in long-felt aspirations. What we are witnessing is the people’s revolt against the perverted secularism forcibly imposed on them by Mustafa Kemal, despite their respect for him.

One learns of the depths of the revolt from a work of seminal importance by an erudite Turkish columnist and a committed Muslim, Mustafa Akyol, aptly entitled Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty. He recalls that Kemal’s “vision was not the only alternative for the Turkish Republic during its genesis. The preceding war of liberation [1919-22] was led by a democratic parliament convened in Ankara”. Kemal founded the Republican People’s Party. Others, including war heroes, founded the Progressive Republican Party, which believed in “respect for religious beliefs and ideas”. In 1925, Kemal crushed the PRP. From 1925-46, Turkey was a one-party state actively anti-religion, closing religious institutions, banning religious symbols and suppressing religious leaders. A personality cult was sponsored. As a rising politician Erdogan asked, “In Europe there is respect for worship, for the headscarf. Why not in Turkey?” This earned him 10 months in prison.

The new direction that the AKP embraced has its roots among the Islamic liberals of the Ottoman Empire as well as in the centre-right tradition of Turkish politics represented by the Progressive Republican Party in 1924; by Adnan Menderes between 1950 and 1960; and by Turgut Ozal between 1983 and 1993.

“Classical liberalism, an idea so popular in the late Ottoman Empire but denounced by the Kemalist Republic, was rediscovered in the late 1980s, thanks to the reforms of Ozal and the efforts of new organisations such as the Ankara-based Association for Liberal Thinking. Books and academic works addressing liberal philosophy, extremely rare before the 1980s, became ubiquitous.”

Erdogan said in Cairo on Sept 12: “The Turkish state is in its core a state of freedoms and secularism.” He prays daily and his wife wears a headscarf; so does the wife of President Abdullah Gul, a respected academic. Akyol’s book is a plea for a liberal interpretation of the Islamic tradition. He praises Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s efforts. “The modernist tradition in the subcontinent would later be continued, and much refined, by Muhammad Iqbal, the wise philosopher-poet of the early 20th century who
articulated an Islamic form of individualism and empiricism.”

Turkey is well set on the path of renewal.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/15/turkeys-renewal.html

BBC: Liam Fox Quits as Defence Secretary

Defence Secretary Liam Fox has resigned after a week of pressure over his working relationship with friend and self-styled adviser Adam Werritty.

Mr Fox was being investigated amid claims he broke the ministerial code.

In a letter to David Cameron, Mr Fox said he had "mistakenly allowed" personal and professional responsibilities to be "blurred".

In response, the prime minister said he was very sorry for Mr Fox's departure but "understood his reasons".

Labour said Mr Fox had not upheld the standards expected of ministers and his departure was "inevitable".

The defence secretary has been under pressure since it emerged that Mr Werritty, a lobbyist, had met him on 18 foreign trips despite having no official role, and had been handing out business cards suggesting he was an adviser to Mr Fox.

Questions have also been raised about who paid for Mr Werritty's business activities and whether he had personally benefited from his frequent access to the defence secretary.

'National interest'

No 10 sources said that the prime minister had been willing Mr Fox to stay in his job until the details of a report by Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell in his conduct was published early next week.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

I now have to hold myself to my own standard”

Liam Fox

• LIVE: Liam Fox quits
• Profile: Liam Fox
• Fox resignation letters in full

The BBC's Norman Smith said it was Mr Fox's decision to quit and his replacement was expected to be named soon.

In his resignation letter, Mr Fox said he had "mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred".

"The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days," he added. "I am very sorry for this.

"I have also repeatedly said that the national interest must always come before personal interest.

"I now have to hold myself to my own standard. I have therefore decided, with great sadness, to resign from my post as secretary of state for defence."

PM's reaction

Responding to Mr Fox's resignation, Mr Cameron said: "I understand your reasons for deciding to resign as defence secretary, although I am very sorry to see you go.

"We have worked closely for these last six years, and you have been a key member of my team throughout that time."

He said Mr Fox, MP for North Somerset, had "done a superb job in the 17 months since the election, and as shadow defence secretary before that" and had overseen changes that would allow the armed forces to "meet the challenges of the modern era".

Mr Fox apologised to MPs earlier this week about but maintained that there was no wrongdoing in his dealings with Mr Werritty.

'Broke rules'

Labour said Mr Fox had "fallen foul of the standards expected of ministers and broken the rules".

"The facts have caught up with Liam Fox and he had to resign," shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said. "It was unconceivable that once a minister had been seen to break their own code of conduct on so many occasions that he could survive."

But Conservative backbencher Peter Bone said Mr Fox had made mistakes but they did not constitute a "hanging offence".

"He said he made mistakes and with hindsight he wouldn't have done it but I didn't think that was enough to require him to resign," he told the BBC.

"But when the story, every news item, isn't about what's happening in Afghanistan and what's happening in Libya but who said what to who then he put his country first and resigned."

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15300751

Petraeus tells CIA analysts to heed troops on war

WASHINGTON (AP) — David Petraeus, the former general who led the Afghanistan war and now heads the CIA, has ordered hisintelligence analysts to give greater weight to the opinions of troops in the fight, U.S. officials said.

CIA analysts now will consult with battlefield commanders earlier in the process as they help create elements of a National Intelligence Estimate on the course of the war, to more fully include the military's take on the conflict, U.S. officials say.

Their input could improve the upcoming report card for the war.

The most recent U.S. intelligence assessment offered a dim view of progress in Afghanistan despite the counterinsurgency campaign Petraeus oversaw there and painted a stark contrast to the generally upbeat predictions of progress from Petraeus and other military leaders. Petraeus has made no secret of his frustration with recent negative assessments coming primarily from the CIA, and said during his confirmation hearing that he planned to change the way the civilian analysts grade wars.

The CIA's analysis makes up the bulk of national intelligence estimates, which help guide the White House and Congress in drafting future policy.

The CIA says Petraeus' tweaks to the agency's part of the assessment will add to its accuracy, not tilt the results, and that military commanders' views were always part of the equation.

"Analytic debate and discussion haven't been chilled; they've been promoted," CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Youngblood said.

The change has been backed by National Intelligence Director James Clapper, another senior U.S. official said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the intelligence assessment is classified.

Petraeus took over as head of the CIA last month. He was directly in charge of the war in Afghanistan for more than a year — his last job in uniform — and oversaw the war as the head of Central Command before that. Like Iraq, Afghanistan has become a proving ground for the theories of counterinsurgency Petraeus is credited with making central to current U.S. military doctrine.

The previous U.S. intelligence assessment on Afghanistan and Pakistan earlier this year contradicted then-war-commander Petraeus' assessment. Where he saw "fragile but reversible progress," the analysts from across the intelligence community largely reported stalemate in several parts of the country. The disagreements were highlighted in the CIA's district by district assessments in which progress was graded geographically, with intelligence analysts seeing far less progress in key districts than did military commanders on the ground.

They emphasized a spate of assassinations by the Taliban and poor performance by the Afghan government in their report, two U.S. officials say.

Analysts also were negative about the performance of the Afghanistan security forces, whereas military commanders saw some units performing competently.

After taking the top spy job, Petraeus dispatched a top CIA official to the Afghan war zone to interview both sides to try to reconcile their differing opinions. Petraeus together with his staff concluded that those lower-level commanders on the battlefield needed to have input into the CIA process, two U.S. officials said.

In the previous process of assessing Afghan districts — which becomes a key building block of national intelligence estimates — analysts only sent their work to the top military commander, toward the end of the process. Now they'll share their conclusions with lower-level officers earlier to give them the opportunity to assess the intelligence analysts' conclusions and offer dissenting opinions, two officials said.

That process of including the field commanders first was actually started by then-Gen. Petraeus, who asked that his regional commanders review the draft CIA assessments before he did, one senior official said. Marine Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan now, has now made the same request, the official said.

Critics of the change say allowing the military more pushback will have a chilling effect on the analysts' ability to give the war a failing grade, a senior intelligence official said.

One intelligence official expressed concern that this would institutionalize the former general's habit when in Afghanistan of challenging the CIA's unflattering conclusions, the official said.

Senior U.S. officials insist the military will not be able to change the CIA's analysis but only add comments if they dissent from it. How those comments will be reflected has not yet been determined.

Petraeus insisted at his confirmation hearing in June that he could "grade my own work." But he vowed then to change the way the CIA grades wars, saying the analysts relied on battlefield data that was often six weeks to eight weeks old. He called that a snapshot that was outdated by the time it reached decision-makers.

Petraeus earlier told senators he'd disagreed with four such national intelligence estimates on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan __ two because he thought they were too pessimistic, and two he thought were too optimistic.

Tweaking the way data is collected and analyzed is not new for Petraeus, said one U.S. military official who worked as a troubleshooter for the general in Afghanistan.

Petraeus had been equally demanding of commanders in the field, asking them to constantly grade their district's progress, and had been working to revamp the reporting process there as well, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe the military intelligence collection process.

Petraeus would ask field commanders to assess everything from how secure the area was to whether the Afghan government was providing people adequate services, but his troubleshooting team had found there was no uniform scale within the military to compare progress district by district. The troubleshooters concluded that commanders making the calls were often less than well-versed in judging non-military measures of progress such as the integrity of local government, so the assessment was often based on the commander's personal opinions.

That was something Petraeus was working to fix when he left, the official said.

The February Afghan intelligence assessment found that special operations night raids, combined with village-by-village security operations, had shown more lasting progress in undermining the Taliban and their influence than attempts by conventional military forces to drive out militants, according to three U.S. officials who have read the analysis and described it to The Associated Press.

Petraeus oversaw both the conventional and special operations military campaigns, but his ideas about how to outsmart insurgent militias are more closely associated with the conventional military.

The report did not favor one strategy over another. But the information gave ammunition to those who supported Vice President Joe Biden's special operations-centered counterterrorism strategy over Petraeus' backing of traditional counterinsurgency. It was seen as proof for some that the additional conventional forces Petraeus championed made little impact on the overall campaign and a slam against parts of the strategy designed by its architect just as he seeks to lead the intelligence service.

President Barack Obama's announcement of a drawdown of 33,000 troops is being seen as another departure from Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy.

Petraeus would only say it was a more "aggressive ... timeline" than he'd recommended, which meant greater risk that U.S. forces might not succeed.

In at least one instance, the analysts' conclusions in that last intelligence assessment tracked with Petraeus' recommendation of keeping larger numbers of troops on the ground for a longer time period.

The intelligence analysts pointed to intercepted communications and broadcasts among Taliban commanders who were heartened by Obama's drawdown timetable and were able to reverse their decline of last spring in recruiting new fighters, two U.S. officials said.

___

Kimberly Dozier can be followed on Twitter via (at)kimberlydozier

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/petraeus-tells-cia-analysts-heed-troops-war-073021045.html;_ylt=Aq4Z8alHx0v4csmStYaThkys0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNhNHFvODhzBG1pdAMEcGtnA2EwZWU2OGQyLWFiNTEtMzM4NC05MzIwLTQxMWIwMWIwZTEwMgRwb3MDNQRzZWMDbG5fQVBfZ2FsBHZlcgNiYTczNjEwMC1mNjM4LTExZTAtYmZkYy1jZDU3Y2U3Yjc5NzI-;_ylv=3

Climate change: off the boil: Guardian UK Editorial

Invest in battery development and green cars and back British science to lead the consumer end of energy revolution

• Editorial
• guardian.co.uk, Thursday 13 October 2011 22.36 BST
• Article history

Electricity prices are so confusing that even the staff selling them cannot identify which is cheapest, Which? reported yesterday. The day before, one of the big six providers, Scottish and Southern Energy, made aheadline-grabbing announcement that it was to start auctioning its electricity on the open market, pre-empting a government initiative to try to increase competition. But on closer inspection, it turned out to be only the day-ahead market, where just 1% of domestic energy is sold. It is certainly a start, but only a small one – and it is all too typical of an industry where smoke and mirrors are a stock in trade.

The attention such stories now attract, however, is a reminder of how the politics of energy have changed. Where the soundtrack to the debate was once provided by the quiet whirr of a generating windmill, today it is the thud of the bill on the doormat that pierces through. Until this month, the coalition's green credentials were not too bad. Chris Huhne is an energetic secretary of state. His Green Deal, to make 14m homes energy efficient by 2020, is properly ambitious. His plans to tackle the market hold of the major providers are a good response to Ofgem's criticism. Helping cash-strapped domestic consumers, whose bills are inflated byclimate change policies by about 8% according to Ofgem, is absolutely essential to keep popular support for action alive.

But that is only part of the battle. At last week's Conservative conference,George Osborne attached a stick of dynamite to one of the key supports of climate change policy. He suggested policy was open to negotiation: "We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business," he said, undermining with a sentence the confidence that is fundamental to investment. Yet he also spoke directly to the millions of voters, fearful for their jobs, who hear the complaints of energy-intensive manufacturing firms – the very companies that are supposed to be the engine of the recovery – and worry that this might be just what is happening. It may merely have been a piece of casual conference politics. But the Treasury has a long record of undermining green policies.

Industry lobbying currently has a very specific focus: the carbon price support scheme, introduced in the last budget. It is intended to put a floor under the price of carbon to maintain the incentive to find alternative sources of energy. It is also a nice little earner for the Treasury. No surprises that it is one of their wholly owned policies. Unfortunately it is badly constructed, which stokes fears of exactly the sort the chancellor played on. On top of that, by keeping up the price of carbon, it could drive up the retail price of electricity – something which may be unavoidable, but which is bound to be controversial when every 1% on fuel bills pushes another 60,000 households into fuel poverty. All more so since – while Chris Huhne and Vince Cable are working together to find a support package to ease the cost for industry – consumers have to rely on a cash-limited scheme operated by the suppliers for relief.

Meanwhile carbon capture technology, a project in which Britain was to have been a world leader, is proving ever more elusive, and the £1bn competition announced by the last government with such fanfare has only one entrant whose negotiations with the energy department appear to be parked. It may have been a duff idea. Yet the energy industry, according to an Ernst & Young report, has bucked all recent trends and created 45,000 jobs in the past two years. Maybe big science is not the right answer, or at least not right now. The smart money should be in battery development, backing British science, incentivising greener car manufacturers (Land Rover is already at it) and fighting to lead the consumer end of the energy-saving industry. Think Steve Jobs. Think innovation.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/13/climate-change-green-cars-energy

PAKISTAN: Children in 2005 quake zone still lack schools

PESHAWAR, 11 October 2011 (IRIN) - Zawar Khan, 13, can only recall a little of what he had been learning at school till six years ago.

“I still remember my numbers, how to write my name and a few other basic words, but not much else,” Zawar, now a waiter at a tea stall in Peshawar, capital of the Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa Province (KP), told IRIN.

Zawar’s life was altered forever by the 8 October 2005 quake which killed 73,000 people in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and KP. His family moved to Peshawar four years later in 2009, mainly because his school in KP’s Shangla District, one of the regions worst hit by the quake, had not been rebuilt.

“My family wanted me to study, but since there was no longer a school for me to attend, we decided to move so I could find work. We need the income as my father injured his leg in the quake and can now only do limited labour,” Zawar said. 

According to figures from the Earthquake Relief and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) set up in the aftermath of the quake, 204 schools were destroyed in Shangla and another 319 damaged by the disaster. Around 13,000 pupils in the district were affected.Speaking to IRIN from Shangla, Latifur Rehaman, an official in the District Reconstruction Unit, said “60 schools have already been reconstructed” and that these were now operating “normally”. He said funding constraints had delayed the construction of the remaining schools, but hoped they would be completed within two years.According to ERRA, across the earthquake zone, of the 5,751 educational institutions requiring reconstruction, 73 percent had been completed by the start of September 2011. This has, however, meant that many children have not been able to go to school for a long time.Some teachers in Shangla are struggling to cope in wretched conditions. “I teach the village children the best I can - in the broken down verandah of the school that once stood here, but it is not easy and many children have dropped out,” Sirajuddin Muhammad, 50, said from a village near the town of Besham in Shangla District. He said the state of the building meant “freezing conditions through the winter when many children stay away”.

I teach the village children the best I can - in the broken down verandah of the school that once stood here

Shattered dreamsWhile the failure to rebuild schools has been a key reason for the disruption of education in Shangla District and other quake-hit areas, other factors, too, have affected people’s education.“My mother died in the quake. As the eldest daughter in the family, I took over the household chores and the care of my three younger siblings,” said Azra Bibi, now 16. “I had once hoped to be a doctor. That dream has gone, but I do make sure my sisters pay attention to their studies at the new school constructed here.”Many parents worry. “I have educated my three children at home for four years. But I am not well read, I worry about their future and hope the school being built here will start functioning soon,” said Rehmat Ali, 35, from his village in Shangla.International agencies such as Oxfam have also expressed concern over the failure to keep promises made in 2005, immediately after the quake. Oxfam believes better disaster-prepardness is also essential to mitigate future disasters. “Everyone is aware of how disasters have taken their toll in Pakistan and how they are continuing to put people at the brink of desperation. Until we start preparing for these events and having systems in place to cope in an effective and properly invested way, the vicious circle of suffering will continue to affect millions," said Neva Khan, country director of Oxfam in Pakistan, in a press release.“So many children in Shangla and other areas died under the debris of poorly built schools. We hope the authorities have taken measures to ensure this never happens again,” said Rehmat Ali. According to UNICEF, some 17,000 schoolchildren were killed in the 2005 quake. Many of those who survived still face an uncertain future.

Source: http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=93931