That same depression is onset when the United States became one of the nine nations out of 193 UN General Assembly members to vote no to the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. The fact is, just like Obama, Palestine has had to convince powerful nations around the globe of its existence since 1948, and while the UN status upgrade may seem like a symbolic gesture rather than one of consequence, the fact that 138 countries voted yes to the recognition of the state of Palestine is a significant demonstration that the world is changing and may not be so easily “bought” or bullied anymore.

Historically and in the recent past, the Palestinian-Israeli issue has been warped into an issue going beyond territorial strife. And the fact that denying statehood to any nation and its people is no longer seen as barbaric is shocking. Alliances, allegiances, valuing one human life and not another, are all characteristics that seemed to cloud the judgment of certain individuals and countries when it comes to this particular matter. These characteristics did not, however, seem to come into play when other countries have come to enjoy statehood such as South Sudan (2011), Kosovo (2008) after much devastation, and East Timor (2002).

As the historic vote was announced on Thursday, President Mahmoud Abbas was able to sum up the significance of the event with poise:

“We did not come here seeking to delegitimize a State established years ago, and that is Israel; rather we came to affirm the legitimacy of the State that must now achieve its independence, and that is Palestine.”

To be a Non-member Observer State

Palestine has now moved from “non-member observer entity” to “non-member observer state”. As a non-member observer entity, which is not something defined in the UN Charter, is a position which allows countries to speak at UN General Assembly meetings and participate in procedural matters. They are not allowed to vote on resolutions and may not be able to necessarily submit proposals. According to sources, Palestine was granted the status in 1974.

The move to “non-member observer state” is an indication that the member is recognized as a sovereign state and are now allowed the right to potentially become a member state. They are also allowed access to the International Criminal Court but are still not allowed to vote at the general assembly.

No Goers and Nay Sayers

Out of the 193 UN General Assembly members, 41 decided to abstain from the vote while 9 others voted no. The full list of voters (circulating on Twitter) can be found here: https://twitter.com/UN_PGA/status/274276290993983488/photo/1

While 138 countries recognized and acknowledged the “birth certificate” given to Palestine, in the words of President Abbas, there were a few who were either not fully satisfied with the terms, like the UK, so they abstained, or who were against the recognition of statehood, such as the US, Canada and Israel.

Despite the fact that the recognition of statehood would be used as a platform to continue peace talks with Israel, according to Palestinian authorities, the Israeli and American reaction to the vote was less encouraging. Both countries condemned the upgraded status immediately after the vote, while Ron Prosor, the Israeli ambassador to the UN, said

“Because this resolution is so one-sided, it doesn’t advance peace, it pushes it backwards.”

The fact that 138 countries had voted yes, and only 9 had voted no, was still a one-sided issue to the Israeli ambassador and not seen as a move by 9 isolationist in this matter.

Susan Rice, the ambassador to the UN from the United States was even more negative as she pointed out that the vote was only “an obstacle to peace” and that,

“Today’s grand pronouncements will soon fade and the Palestinian people will wake up tomorrow and find that little has changed…” “…this resolution does not establish that Palestine is a state.”

However this may not come as a surprise, as the United States had blocked an application for full membership by Palestine last year. They had also threatened Palestine of freezing funding, around $200 million in aid, because of the vote. According to The Guardian, “US law prohibits funding for any international body recognizing a Palestinian state.”

Regardless, this did not deter Palestinian President Mahmood Abbas from staying positive and moving forward. “Forward”, if memory serves correct, was a major slogan in the Obama re-election campaign as well. The fact that some should move forward and others should not is blatantly hypocritical, is it not? Regardless, after a historical day, let’s hope the tide changes and that there be peace in the Middle East.

“We will act responsibly and positively in our next steps, and we will to work to strengthen cooperation with the countries and peoples of the world for the sake of a just peace.” – President Mahmoud Abbas

The history of the Jewish people prior to finding their homeland in Israel is also one of tragic circumstances. The Holocaust which witnessed the mass genocide of 6 million because of their religion, among other defining factors decided by the Nazis, will always be a dark shade in the history of Europe. There will never be any justification for mass murder or persecution based on religion or race.

And thus starts a complex history, with the need of a homeland within the territory of another and a decision not based on both parties but external powers.

The Israeli-Gaza conflict of 2012 which started this month in November, is witnessing its 8^th day. In over a week of fighting, over 120 people in Gaza have been killed according to health officials and 5 people in Israel according to the Israeli Defense Forces. Many rockets from Gaza have been intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome while Israeli airstrikes and shelling from the sea have bombarded the Gaza strip.

According to Amira Hass of Haaretz,

In addition to the nearly 100 Palestinians killed since Pillar of Defence began, some 700 Palestinians have been wounded in that time, including at least 215 children.

An estimated 585 buildings have been damaged in the explosions, including 46 that were totally demolished, according to al-Mezan.

The task of brokering a ceasefire has been given to Egypt in cooperation with all parties. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are in Jerusalem and will meet with President Netanyahu, after which they will leave for Cairo to work on the ceasefire.

The Israeli decision to launch a ground offensive in Gaza has been delayed after the Israeli government decided to give Egypt more time in brokering a ceasefire deal which would fully satisfy both parties.

All the statistics in the world at this point cannot help justify the loss of life and mass destruction that is taking place. The right to defend one-self is certainly a right awarded to everyone, not just “the good guy” or the “one we support”. The right to defend is a human right, so instead of making this a self-defense issue, which is a right for both sides, let’s make this a human rights issue.

Human life is being lost on both sides, and human life lost at the hands of opposing governments and armies is human life that deserves help from humanity. When we can accept a right to defend, we also must accept that that individual is practicing their right to retaliate, and that retaliation translates into aggression. When the defender starts fighting back, the definition of “defending oneself” becomes unstable.

There is no possible way to obliterate each other, so that should not be an option. The history of the region is so deep and the people too important to lose at the hands of each other. There has to be a consensus on a workable deal from both sides of the border.

And while some may claim that other Arab countries in the region hate Israel and will be a threat to its security, and it may be true, that hate does not indirectly translate into loving Palestine. If Arab countries in the region loved Palestine as much as they love bailing out Greece and English Premier League football, I’m sure the situation today would be very different.

In an already horrible situation, instead of making things worse, there has to be a better solution, and disarmament of the region should also be seriously considered. Trigger happy governments are not governments that are willing to work on peace.

Iran has decided not to acknowledge Assad’s government as aggressors, regardless of the 16-month long fight, claiming that the stir behind the opposition to the government is nothing but a foreign conspiracy.

Despite the fact that around 20,000 Syrian citizens have been killed in fighting, and continue to die daily, and over 1.5 million have been displaced and are homeless, Syrian ministers visited Tehran this week to establish an electricity deal with Iran through Iraq, as if conditions in Syria were completely normal.

Iran’s support is an added disappointment, as earlier this month, Russia and China vetoed the UN resolution on Syria for a third time. The resolution called for sanctions on President Assad if his government did not stop the use of heavy artillery against its own people, but remained too harsh for China and Russia to accept. With this latest setback, former UN president Kofi Annan’s plan is thinning out as the 300-strong UN-Arab League mission to Syria expires on Friday. The situation looks grim as UN peacekeeper in Syria, Herve Ladsous, stated that “there is no plan B” after Annan’s plan.

While Russia, China, and Iran may feel that they are standing behind Syria because of some principled stance, all they are making clear is that “we won’t die for you”, but “we’ll let them die for you”; the “them” being the Syrian people.

With fear of an intensified attack in Aleppo, the international community fears a massacre. With over 2 million people residing in Aleppo, the Syrian government continues to bring in tanks and gunships into the city.

Speaking in Srebrenica, the site where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed in 1995, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has compared the fight in Syria to that of what happened in Srebrenica.

“I do not want to see any of my successors, after 20 years, visiting Syria, apologising for what we could have done now to protect the civilians in Syria – which we are not doing now.”

And cause for concern is not unwarranted as earlier this month, according to the BBC, a Syrian government official acknowledged that they have chemical weapons and would use them if need be. The government did go on to say that they would not use the weapons against its own people or within its own country, but would use the weapons against external forces, if they were to be attacked. The very mention of chemical weapons is unnerving to say the least.

So far thousands of Syrian people have been fleeing and have settled in refugee camps in Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, etc. The Free Syrian Army has had support from various different governments, including communication equipment and medical supplies. The EU, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other countries have donated money as well as materials for some relief.

Saudi Arabia has decided to pay the salaries of the Free Syrian Army as well as send through weapons with the support of Qatar. The country has also raised over 120 million Saudi Riyals for the Syrian people, starting off with a 20 million Saudi Riyal donation by Saudi King Abdullah.

While there are some who are scratching the surface of aid to Syria, the truth is that because of diplomatic ties and alliances, the humanitarian situation in Syria had deteriorated. With the onset of more fighting and more widespread devastation, the powers that be need to ask themselves, how can you negotiate with a man and a government who do not care about killing thousands of their own people? If one becomes disconnected from their own humanity, can you still afford to appeal to them in that way? The answer is no.

Assad’s power is more important to him than human life, therefore there is only one way to deal with the situation. We must look at it as according to the law of instrument, “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Assad believes that opposition to his presidency can be dealt with by his armed forces, therefore, we must eliminate his power. It’s time to take away Assad’s hammer.

Inheriting a media company from his father, Murdoch went one step further and sought to build himself an empire quickly and swiftly. Buying up News of the World, The Sun, The Times, etc., Murdoch then decided to create News Corporation, a.k.a. News Corp, which is  the second largest media corporation in the world today, located in New York. News Corp was established as a holding company, a company that does not have a direct purpose, only that of owning outstanding stocks of other companies. It is a publicly traded firm which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and Twentieth-Century Fox.

With 800 companies under its belt, despite the British government’s hesitancy to allow Murdoch to own or be a major stake holder in so many media outlets in Britain, the News Corp Empire seemed unstoppable, until the phone hacking scandal came along.

After phone hacking evidence was used against News of the World (NOTW) in cases having to do with politicians, celebrities, and even murder investigations, NOTW was shut down. Since then a multitude of evidence has come out against News Corp employees in Britain and the United States. Pressured by the British Parliament and Congress, as well as News Corp employees being fired or stepping down, Rupert Murdoch continues to be under investigation into bribery and phone hacking.

Most recently, Jay Rockefeller, head of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee wrote to British Judge Leveson overseeing media ethics to ask whether or not Mr. Murdoch had broken any American laws. According to an article in the Guardian the committee is in charge of all broadcast communication and telecommunication, including cable TV in the United States. It also oversees the FCC which issues broadcast licenses to all major networks. Therefore, American ethics groups have called on the FCC to revoke News Corps FOX broadcast licenses, all 27 of them, until the phone hacking scandal is cleared. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have asked the FCC to revoke the licenses on “grounds of character” after a UK ethics committee found Murdoch unfit to head an international company.

Here are the FCC regulations on ownership:

Under FCC regulations, broadcast frequencies can only be handed to firms run by people of good character who serve the public interest and speak with candor.

What surprises me is that Murdoch, after owning 800 companies and building an empire over decades has only now had his character called into question, not before when he bought up publications like NOTW, FOX News and other controversial publications and broadcast channels with extreme political undertones and biases.

Although I find it incredibly difficult to see how the FCC can judge “good character” and find it hypocritical to talk about media corporation representatives speaking with “candor” the FCC feels that they can judge these characteristics by taking into account previous conduct of media corporation owners, even including their actions that may have nothing to do with media.

According to the Fortune 500 list last year, the largest media corporations in the United States are The Walt Disney Company, News Corp. Time Warner, CBS Corporation and VIACOM. All these corporations own mass media communications from television to movies to internet all around the world.

Now, when one company owns mass media around the globe, it is not, in my opinion, in the interest of the public. Pushing a specific viewpoint when owning newspapers, radio stations, internet sites, etc, can get very easy very fast with so much access and so many avenues to relay information. As the world gets smaller with advancements in science, it also gets smaller because of merging companies creating dominating media frequencies.

Here is an excerpt from the FCC’s site on Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership:

Beginning in 1975, FCC rules banned cross-ownership by a single entity of a daily newspaper and television or radio broadcast station operating in the same local “market”. Under the 2007 revised rule, the FCC evaluates a proposed cross-ownership combination on a case-by-case basis to determine whether it would be in the public interest – specifically, whether it would promote competition, localism, and diversity.

There are a few other details specifying more guidelines, but the foundations of the guidelines are not stable. When a corporation is used to mold social and economic market behavior, there is a problem. I know this is not the only instance that corporations are used to mold social and economic market behavior (Final answer? what is capitalism, Alex) but it is important to note, especially when the corporation is responsible for relaying information to the world from its own media outlets.

To me, cross-ownership seems to do the exact opposite of what the FCC regulations want. It lessens competition and localism and certainly does not promote diversity. The only competition that is increased is between the corporations that own media outlets. While the corporation is growing, the various outlets it owns become smaller in their ideology of what news is and in their overall newsworthy outlook, even venturing into “non-news” worthy stories.

Something needs to change, but until then, as was once pointed out to me at a news network, we will remain to be “only as liberal as the corporation that owns us.”

When it comes to attacks within Afghanistan, usually the Taliban are blamed. When it comes to cross border attacks, it usually is blamed on Al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network and sometimes the Pakistani Taliban. Are all these groups different or synonymous or overlapping, etc?

With the onset of increased violence in Kabul and other areas of Afghanistan, the blame game has started and rumor has it that the Haqqani network is behind the Kabul attack. Some say that the ISI is also involved, as they have ties to the Haqqani network. And some go even further to speculate, such as one Afghan minister, that an attack of this scale in Kabul can only be “sponsored violence” and that it can “only be supported by a professional intelligence agency”, therefore indicating a Pakistani twist to the tale. So Pakistan is an enemy of Afghanistan?

It is difficult to talk about Afghanistan without mentioning the histories and traditions of the inhabitants in the country, and the establishment of the 1893 Durand Line, the advent of colonialist rule, the threat of communism destroying Islam, and eventually the land in which Osama bin Laden would train his men to carry out terrorist missions around the world. It is even more difficult to attempt a “solution” to the Afghan “problem” when there are a multitude of problems with different culprits. Some see the occupation as a problem, some see President Hamid Karzai as the problem, some see the Taliban as a problem, some see Pakistani influence in Afghanistan as a problem, etc.

So who is the real enemy?

Coalition forces and NATO? Taliban? Al-Qaeda? Haqqani Network? President Karzai? Pakistan? According to US ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, coalition forces are leaving Afghanistan too soon, before Afghan forces have a hold on their country’s security.

If coalition and NATO forces left before Afghanistan was secure, then that would “invite the Taliban and Al-Qaeda back in and set the stage for another 9-11…”

So are the coalition and NATO forces the enemy in Afghanistan or the saviors? Many in South Asia would believe that they are the enemy. The foreign forces that came to Afghanistan to avenge the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 were and still are seen as occupying forces that are unwanted. While they may be after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the people of Afghanistan have fallen victim to their 11 year war, and have had to deal with a failing infrastructure that could have seen improvement in the last decade had it not been for war. While the coalition forces and NATO have secured certain regions and have attempted to bring stability to the Afghan leadership and government institutions, they have also been involved in the death of many innocent Afghan and Pakistani people in both countries.

So could the Afghan enemy be the Taliban or Al-Qaeda? The Taliban is still a major threat to democracy and a secular way of life in Afghanistan to many Afghans and international critics, and so is Al-Qaeda. While the Taliban may want to regain control of Afghanistan and its government, Al-Qaeda seeks refuge in its remote and hazardous terrain. Their goals may be different to the Taliban’s, as they have a global agenda, but they may work hand in hand when it comes to defeating foreign forces on Afghan territory.

So what about the Haqqani network? Once a member of the Taliban government, Jalaluddin Haqqani was highly influential during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan and is thought to be the link to the ISI in Pakistan. The Haqqani network has been deemed the top most enemy network, and are known as a separate entity than the Taliban but have the same agenda. The Haqqani network seems to focus solely on South and Central Asian regions from Afghanistan to Chechnya, and seem to be a bigger and more effective threat than the Taliban?

Could President Karzai be an enemy of Afghanistan as he is deemed an American puppet and has been involved in controversial decisions while ruling over Afghanistan? Is the attack on Kabul foreshadowing what will happen under his rule when the coalition and NATO forces are gone? Or are the wrongdoers Pakistan’s ISI? Pakistan’s government? Or Pakistan’s Taliban, Tehreek-e-Taliban?

It is impossible to speculate with all the history and warfare the region has had to endure but one thing is for certain, what has happened in the last 11 years of the country has been devastating and to rebuild Afghanistan will be a task that needs to include what ordinary Afghan’s wants and needs are with the help of their friends, not people who want to exploit the nation or its resources.

For a more in-depth account of the current war in Afghanistan, you can read Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis’s account here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/world/asia/army-colonel-challenges-pentagons-afghanistan-claims.html?pagewanted=all and http://www. guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/14/afghan-war-whisleblower-daniel-davis?INTCMP=SRCH

]]> http://manalshakir.com/2012/04/16/taliban-a-qaeda-who-exactly-is-the-enemy-in-afghanistan/feed/ 0 manalshakir1 http://manalshakir.com/2012/03/23/when-the-solution-becomes-the-problem/ http://manalshakir.com/2012/03/23/when-the-solution-becomes-the-problem/#comments Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:16:21 +0000 manalshakir1 http://manalshakir.wordpress.com/?p=274 Continue reading →]]> When it comes to international relations, it is usually wise to step forward with the right foot. If you have someone representing you in another country, you want to ensure that that person represents you in the best possible way. You want to make sure that person shows your culture, values, traditions, in the most positive light. This is how people come to learn, appreciate, and admire people who hail from other countries.

So when it comes to the armed forces, are the criteria different? Must a soldier have a history of aggression to become a better soldier? Does a soldier have to be brainwashed into believing an enemy is an enemy in order for them to be able to kill people? Does war allow our governments to send people with behavioral issues into other countries to fight? Because imagine if Robert Bales, whose name was not revealed until a week after he shot and killed 17 innocent people in Afghanistan, had walked into homes in a neighborhood in New York or Chicago and killed 17 people, how would we feel then?

Robert Bales, a 38 year old soldier who has served four terms in Iraq, shot and killed seventeen people, and injured six, in Kandahar, Afghanistan on March 11^th in the middle of the night as they slept. Nine of his seventeen victims were children. He then burned some of the bodies and covered others with blankets. Eyewitnesses in neighboring homes watched as Bales, and some say Bales and other soldiers, senselessly went from house to house and killed innocent people as they slept. Bales, a father of two himself, and a member of the armed forces for 11 years, could not differentiate at that moment between a threat and a non-threat? Or were his intentions to kill innocent people?

It is no surprise that this incident has already become the catalyst for a string of debates about whether or not it was “right” to go into Afghanistan or how to proceed, etc. The focus of the debates should not be about the past we cannot change, it should be about the future and how we can move forward, but that does not mean we cannot ask questions about decisions that pertain to soldiers like Bales who, even after displaying a history of aggression, was still allowed to serve his country.

This is not a stab at soldiers or at the American armed forces, but what I don’t understand is how is someone who has a history of physical and alcohol abuse allowed to serve in other countries? And after committing the crimes was immediately flown out of Afghanistan to be held in a maximum security prison in Kansas.

Just like Raymond Davis, Bales was flown out of the country and will at least face seventeen counts of murder, six accounts of attempted murder, and six accounts of aggravated assault. In the case of Raymond Davis, however, he shot and killed two Pakistanis in Lahore who he suspected of following him, he was held under diplomatic immunity and then sent to the United States after his victim’s families were paid off. Not facing any charges for his action in the United States, Davis then emerged onto the scene a few months later when he was charged with assault in the second degree for beating up a man in a Colorado parking lot after he had an argument about a particular parking space.

Unlike Raymond Davis, Bales already had a history of aggressive nature, in at least two accounts resorting to violence when intoxicated. However, punching someone and going to anger management is very different than consciously going into people’s homes and shooting seventeen people to death and wounding six others. The situation that presents itself is tragic, especially when the “solution” to Afghanistan starts becoming the problem.

And when you step back and look at the situation in a general light, I guess the problem wouldn’t be as much armed forces than it is the aspect of war.

March 18, 2012

On March 18 2012, anti-war groups from around the Chicagoland area came together to march on Devon Avenue, a central area for the South Asian community in Chicago.

Starting at a parking lot across Gharib Nawaz restaurant, groups such as the Pakistan Federation of America, Pakhtun Jirga, Midwest Anti-War Mobilization, Chicago World Can’t Wait, Voices for Creative Non-Violence, etc, joined to mark the 9^th anniversary of the Iraq war and to stand together in protest of wars in Afghanistan, possible war on Iran and Syria, and drone attacks in Pakistan’s Tribal regions.

Criticizing the American president’s policies for not being any different than the policies of the Bush Administration, the crowd called for “peace and an end to all wars” and for the United States to stop spending “tax-payers dollars on illegal wars.”

Before the protestors marched down 2100 West Devon Avenue, people gathered to speak to the crowd. From World Can’t Wait, Chicago Chapter, Jill McLaughlin spoke about threats against Iran and Syria.

“We all know that what the Syrian government and what
the Iranian government are doing to their people is wrong, we all know that, we all agree, but those people have a right to self determination and a right to determine what’s going to happen for themselves without interference from the US government. Interference only means domination. It doesn’t mean liberation for those people.”

Speaking about the G8 summit to be held later this year in May, Andy Thayer, organizer of the event, spoke about the G8’s agenda concerning war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“…they’re probably going to be proclaiming some sort of
plan to end the war in Afghanistan. Now after ten years of lies about Afghanistan and ten years, almost ten years about war in Iraq, are we going to believe President Obama when he says he’s going to be ending the war in Afghanistan?”

The Midwest Anti-War Mobilization also went one step further and announced that they had built up opposition to the US war on Iran and Syria. Neil Reznikov told protestors that his group had established an emergency response network if the United States or Israel attacked Iran in the coming months. Reiterating his stance, Neil Reznikov said,

“This is a culmination of a whole series of the US building up its empire, illegally and unjustly. There is a basic law that no country has the right to attack another country unless its been attacked first. The Afghanistan government had not attacked the US; it did not threaten the US.

Then to the mic came President of the Pakistan Federation of America, Dr. Said Umar Khan, also one of the organizers of the protest, to speak on behalf of his group.

“For the last many many years, Pakistan has been under
drone attacks. So far, more than 300 drone attacks have taken place and more than 3000 people have been killed, innocent people. And they say ‘we are going to kill the terrorists’, I don’t understand how the drone, from 20,000 ft above, can recognize who is the terrorist and who is innocent.”

But not wholly blaming the United States, Dr. Khan went on to say that the Pakistan government had a part to play in the death of Pakistanis who are killed due to drone attacks in the tribal regions.

“I understand that the Pakistan government, every successive government, is a client agent of the United States and they support them. But as far as the people of Pakistan are concerned, they condemn it.”

Dr. Khan went on to talk about military brutality and extra-judicial killing in Pakistan. He spoke about how 3,000 people had been kidnapped or disappeared by the armed forces for no reason.

Lastly he brought the topic to Balochistan and the Baloch Nationalist Movement. Although the most resourceful province, Balochistan is the poorest province in Pakistan.

Before the march proceeded, Kathy Kelly from Voices for Creative Nonviolence spoke about her missions in Afghanistan and the people she had spoken to in Afghanistan.

“Now I could mention one young friend, Mohammad Jan,
who said ‘what can we do to make people in your country hate us less?’ Maybe I could mention that Amnesty International has said that 400 people every day are displaced by the war in Afghanistan…”

Marching towards Devon Bank, the protestors held signs and chanted as they walked down cordoned off streets. Police barricades blocked traffic as onlookers either honked their horns and joined in the march or yelled “shame on you” to the protestors.

When they reached Devon Bank, a Skype interview was organized by the Pakistani groups to speak to Mrs. Amina Janjua, Defense of Human Rights Pakistan, and a woman whose husband has been missing since 2005. Struggling to fight for and find thousands who have gone missing in Pakistan, Amina spoke to the crowd for a few minutes, despite technical difficulties. Surrounded by people holding up pictures of their missing family members, Amina said,

“I am Amina Masood Janjua. I’m from Pakistan and I’m
really thankful to all of you. I hope you can see the camp where we are dwelling for the last 23 days, and the government is not concerned as to why we are bearing the cold weather, the rains…which we have to face all the time. We are asking for rule of law and for the return of our loved ones who are being picked up from Pakistan.

The crowd cheered her on and held up their arms in a show of solidarity.

For another look at the march, visit Joe Scarry’s blog.

All photographs have been taken by Frank Johnson.