Mediaboss Marketing

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to a special interview for The Wire, supported by Glenlivet Books. Today, we present an exclusive interview from Islamabad on India-Pakistan relations. My guest is the Pakistan prime ministers advisor on national security and strategic policy planning, Moeed Yusuf. This is Dr. Yusufs first interview to the Indian media, its also the first interview by any official in Pakistan after the constitution changes in Jammu and Kashmir in August 2019.

Dr. Yusuf, lets start with August 2019. Why is Pakistan so worked up by the internal constitutional changes in Jammu and Kashmir? First of all, this is a strictly internal Indian matter its of no concern to Pakistan and secondly, youre reported to be attempting something very similar in Gilgit Baltistan.

Moeed Yusuf: Thank you for having me on your show, Karan. So, lets take these separately because GB is a separate issue, Ill come to that. As far as the 5th of August, 2019 is concerned, quite frankly, India scored an own-goal. You know, there was never a doubt what the Kashmiris of occupied Kashmir believed in what they thought of India but, if there was any doubt left, its gone now.

Dont accept what Im saying; Farooq Abdullah came to your programme very recently I heard him, what did he say? No Kashmiri sees him or herself as Indian, theyd much rather be ruled by Chinese of course, he couldnt say Pakistan, he has to survive in India but, the Chinese. What does the ICJ report saying? What is Yashwant Sinhas report saying? The world is calling India out. Karan, thats the reality. Kashmiris cant bear the thought of being Indian. Kashmiri Hindustan se nafrat kartein hain, Karan and, when thats the reality, what internal arrangement are you talking about?

KT: But see, youre confusing two things. Whatever the Kashmiri feeling toward India may be is another matter; but what has happened

MY: No, no! *chuckles*

KT: is an internal constitutional change. It doesnt affect Pakistan in any way, it doesnt affect the UN referendum or plebiscite requirement in any way. Its internal its simply a constitutional, administrative measure and precisely the same thing is being

MY: Let me correct you, Karan.

KT: talked about for

MY: Let me correct.

KT: Gilgit Baltistan.

MY: Let me correct you. If Indias taking a stance that its actions of August 5th a permanent change to the territory which is disputed if India is arguing that a forced domicile law, change of demography of that territory, is not against the UN Charter, well, India is then priding itself at being a rogue state, Karan. Let me tell you why. The UN Charter and the UN resolutions are very clear; Indias never obeyed them, but now you have formally stated youre going to violate them. And, let me also tell you, your foreign minister was very recently I think last year, perhaps in the US. I heard him say that India will now resolve all its problems unilaterally. So, let me tell you whats happening, its very important

KT: Let me come back to this point

MY: Just give me one second.

KT: Let me come back

MY: Karan, one second

KT: One quick point

MY: Let me just finish

KT: You made

MY: Karan, just let me finish

KT: a point of talking

MY: No, no, no

KT: about demographic changes. Pakistan has been making demographic changes in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, by bringing in Punjabi settlers, for decades

MY: No

KT: At the moment, what demographic changes happen, its only made possible by the domicile law and, secondly, this is equally important if you can change the administrative structure of Gilgit Baltistan, India can certainly do the same in Jammu and Kashmir.

MY: Karan. Karan, I told you Ill come to Gilgit Baltistan but let me just finish this topic. You know, there are three levels you know, I have a background in scholarship. There are three levels at which the state can operate in the international community of nations. Theres the multilateral international, which is the UN we know what India thinks of the UN resolutions, we know what India said about the plebiscite after going to the UN itself and then pulling back from it. The second level is bilateral; for years, for decades since 1972 Shimla, India told the world its a bilateral matter well use Shimla. What happened on the 5th of August? A unilateral decision that Shimla explicitly says you cannot do. And dont take my words for it, take A.G. Nooranis words what did he say in a recent article? The foul deeds of August 5th destroyed the Shimla agreement, or the Shimla pact, totally. And the third level is unilateral; youve done something unilateral, when you did something unilateral you had to bring in a 180,000 troops, lie to the world that there was a terrorist threat, and then you perpetrated Indian government perpetrated terrorism on the 5th of August

KT: Can I respond?

MY: And then, a year later

KT: Can I respond?

MY: You had to impose curfew

KT: Dr. Yusuf

MY: And when you say, Karan, that the

KT: You must let me respond

MY: wishes of the people dont matter, thats where you go wrong.

KT: You began, first of all

MY: All that matters is the wishes of the people.

KT: Dr. Yusuf, you must let me respond. You began, first of all, by referring to the UN requirements of a plebiscite that is conditioned by a Pakistani withdrawal which didnt happen. So, lets be honest

MY: *chuckles*

KT: the first step was from your side, it didnt happen, thats why the plebiscite didnt never happened. Secondly, youre talking about the world believing that India has done the wrong thing with the exception of Turkey and Malaysia, no other country supports Pakistans position on 370. In fact, youre aware better than me that your attempt to create a special OIC meeting annoyed the Saudis and has strained your relationship with them. Actually, your obsession with Kashmir is becoming an own goal against yourself.

MY: Youre actually packing too many questions so Im going to write so I dont forget. So, Karan, first of all, here is where India goes wrong the only thing that matters is the wishes of the people because the UN resolutions are about the right to self-determination of the Kashmiris you dont believe me? And, Ill come to GB now you think what Im saying about occupied Kashmir is wrong? Even though everybody on your programme, in New York Times andThe Economist have said what they have to say? Lets hold a UN-administered plebiscite tomorrow. Lets bring the UN in, ask them what needs to be done

KT: Youre changing the subject

MY: Just do it.

KT: Were not talking about a UN plebiscite, were talking about the fact that Pakistan for reasons that have no warranty or justification is finding fault with Indias internal decision to change the constitutional arrangements in Jammu and Kashmir. Youve done the same in Gilgit Baltistan. Secondly, youve been changing the demography of P0K by bringing in Punjabi settlers for decades that hasnt happened in India.

MY: Yeah. So, let me come to the Pakistan side by adding just one sentence to what I was saying. The day India recognises that only the wishes of people of Kashmiris matter, this issue can be resolved. And today, Karan, I sit here, on the instructions of my prime minister, to talk to you about the future to talk to you how we can move forward, how we can get over our problems, not to litigate the past.

But since youre there, Gilgit Baltistan first of all, no decision has been made. What is happening in Gilgit Baltistan? Theres a public debate? Yes. Why is there a public debate? For the polar opposite reason to what is happening in Illegally Occupied Kashmir. Whats the reason? People of Gilgit Baltistan want to be fully integrated into Pakistan that is the reason of this public debate. Now

KT:Can I interrupt you?

MY: what is Pakistans response?

Indus River at Skardu in Gilgit-Baltistan region. Photo: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

KT: I have to interrupt you because youve made, I think, according to your papers, a factual error. Dawn, one of Pakistans best-known papers, on the 22nd of September, reported that at a meeting with several senior cabinet ministers present, members of the PPP, and the army chief a decision was taken to confer provincial status on Gilgit Baltistan. And that was confirmed to Dawn thereafter by your railway minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed and by the minister in charge of Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan affairs, Ali Amin Gandapur. Im quoting Dawn! They say the decision

MY: My friend. My friend, the proof is in the pudding. If it was so confirmed and so done, where is the act? Now, please let me finish this answer. You asked me two or three times, I want to clarify this. One, no decision has been made; two, there is a public debate the public debate is not being generated by the Government of Pakistan, its being generated by the people of Gilgit Baltistan. Theyve been saying this for two or three years now. What are they saying? We want to be fully integrated with Pakistan. Now, you tell me, Karan, if a people is not treated well, would they ever want that? Ive never heard the Kashmiri Muslims talk about this in the occupied territories

KT: Youre deliberately missing the point.

MY: Third, whatever

KT: Just as you say

MS: Sorry, Karan just let me finish.

KT: Just as you say the people of Gilgit Baltistan

MS: Karan, this is not fair.You ask me a question, you dont let me finish.

KT: people of Ladakh wanted to be separated from Jammu and Kashmir, they wanted union territory status as well, they asked for it.

MY: Karan, not fair. You asked me a question, let me finish please have the patience to hear me out. The third part of that is most important. Whatever decision is ultimately taken will be within the framework of the UN Security Council resolutions. If the resolutions bar permanent change of territorial status, there will be no permanent change and there may be no change. This is a debate, this is how democratic societies debate; democratic societies, by the way, Karan, do not bring in a 180,000 troops to change the status of a territory. Thats the difference between Pakistan and India right now.

KT: Let me repost to some of the things youve said. First of all, you said the change in Gilgit Baltistan is happening because the people have requested it that is equally true of Ladakh, the people of Ladakh have been wanting to be separated from Jammu and Kashmir for decades, they wanted union territory status, theyve now got it. So, the same criteria apply in both instances. Secondly

MY: Within the constraints of the UN.

KT: You have to let me finish, you have to let me finish.

MY: Sure.

KT: Secondly, you said that, in fact, what is happening is not a violation of the Shimla agreement in the case of Gilgit Baltistan, it is, you claim, a violation of Shimla in the case of Jammu and Kashmir. Actually, its the same thing happening on both sides; you are changing the nature of the

MY: But nothing has happened!

KT: Youre changing the nature

MY: Nothing has happened! 5th of August has happened. In Pakistan theres a public debate and one thing I can guarantee you on your programme whenever that debate settles, there will be no question of going outside any multilateral or bilateral framework that Pakistan has agreed to.

KT: Doctor, when you say nothing has happened

MY: Karan, thats the difference.

KT: youre forgetting the fact

MY: Karan, that

KT: that changing the provincial nature of Gilgit Baltistan is a campaign promise of Imran Khans party. Mr. Gandapur had said so, Im quoting Mr. Gandapur, just listen to the minister

MY: Yeah, you quote him.

KT: Our government has decided to deliver on the promise it made to the people there. Hes saying so, its a campaign promise

MY: The promise made to people in Gilgit Baltistan is to ensure that they get more development, even more rights within the framework of the UN Security Council resolution. If the UN Security Council resolutions allow the word provisional to be added, maybe the public debate goes there; if it doesnt allow it, it wont go there. Karan, we are talking of Kashmir, right? This is a disputed territory, internationally recognised

KT: Both sides of it! Both sides of it! Do not forget to include PoK-Gilgit Baltistan; its disputed, India believes

MY: Absolutely. It will be included in the plebiscite the day the plebiscite happens. My map, behind me, Pakistans official political map, all of it in one colour for that very reason. Now, youve talked of Kashmir, but Karan, let me say one thing this is no longer, unfortunately, an India focused on Pakistan doing things that are illegal and wrong. Unfortunately, we are now seeing at least, sitting on this side of the border we are seeing an ideology that you who knows better than you?

KT: Forgive me, just a moment

MY: Weve seen expansionism

KT: Just a moment! Before you start branching into an ideology and making claims, like your Prime Minister has made with the UN, that Mr. Modi

MY: Karan, youve written about it! For god sakes, youve written about it.

KT: Lets not become polemical, lets stick to details

MY: No!

KT: otherwise, we

MY: No, no I was going to

KT: will not have a discussion, we will have a tu tu, main main which will serve no ones purpose.

MY: No, no Im here to talk of the future.

KT: Let me come back to the issue

MY:Lets talk of the future, lets talk peace.

KT: I will definitely talk to you about the future

MY: Lets talk peace.

KT: but lets talk about the present first.

MY: Okay.

KT: Lets come back to Article 370. I want to point out the paradox. One, while Article 370 existed, Pakistan dismissed it as a sham. Your high commissioners repeatedly refused to meet the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir they wouldnt recognise them. Now that Article 370 has been scrapped, youre clamouring for its restoration. You seem to be contradicting yourselves.

MY: First of all, Karan, Pakistan does not recognise cannot recognise Article 370 because Pakistans quarrel is with the actual instrument of accession; an instrument of accession that was signed under duress

KT: *chuckles* Youve just given the game away. If you cant recognise 370, why worry when its scrapped? Why make such a protest about its scrapping? Thats the point Im making.

MY: Oh, its not my issue. Im not making a protest about 370, lets be clear

KT: Your government is.

MY: No, no not at all. Show me one place where weve said 370 good or bad. We are raising an issue because you have formally gone outside the UN Charter and the resolutions by making a permanent change in the territory I rightfully claim as mine, to people who cant bear the thought of being under Indian occupation. Thats my quarrel. My quarrel is the domicile law which is thrusting people on a Muslim-majority territory to change its character.

KT: Dr. Yusuf, everything youre saying will apply to Gilgit Baltistan a campaign manifesto promise of your government, a commitment made in public by your railway minister and the Kashmir minister to the Dawn newspaper you can apply your arguments to yourself. What Im saying is

MY: So, Ive said two things to you, Karan

See the original post:
Full Text: Interview with Imran Khans NSA on Kashmir, Uighurs, Jadhav, Terror and Talks - The Wire

THE Philippine Olympic Committee (POC) has formalized the accreditation of Philippine Electronic Sports Organization (PESO) as the official National Sports Association (NSA) for esports in the Philippines.

An NSA is the officially appointed regulatory body of a sport in the country. For a refresher of how NSAs work, read this:

In a certificate issued on October 9, 2020, the POC declared PESO as an associate member of the National Olympic Committee (NOC) Philippine Olympic Committee.

As such, PESO is the sole recognized National Sports Association and governing body for the sport of ESPORTS in the Philippines, the certificate reads.

The certificate also bears the names of PESO officials who will serve the term of two years from their election last February 2019: Brian Benjamin Lim, president; Eric Redulfin, vice president; Jess Tamboboy, secretary general; and Michael Gatchalian, corporate secretary.

The news comes after reports surfaced this week that esports would return to next years SEA Games.

Continue reading below

PESOs member-organizations include Bren Esports, Gariath Concepts, Mineski Philippines, The Nationals, PlayBook Esports, Tier One Entertainment, TV5, and TNC Holdings. These groups were key in last years debut of esports as a medal event in the 30th SEA Games.

They also worked, variously, as technical officials for the production and streaming of the event, as well as coaches and managers for Sibol, the Philippines esports team.

Continue reading below

Recommended Videos

We are honored and grateful for the trust that the POC placed in us. We embrace this huge responsibility as we continue to support our athletes and push the growth and development of Esports in the country, said PESO President Brian Lim.

We also echo POCs call for unity among esports groups and communities as we all share the same goal to showcase the skills and abilities of Filipino gamers in the world arena and ultimately bring glory to our country, he adds.

PESO went through a rigorous accreditation process by the POC, which took into consideration its years of experience in organizing esport events and programs, as well as its linkages with reputable esport organizations.

Continue reading below

Since 2012, PESO has been a member in good standing of the International Esports Federation (IESF).

Last March, IESF and Asian Esports Federation (AESF) signed a milestone agreement to promote and advance esports globally, and across the Asian continent.

Under the agreement, the IESF recognizes the AESF as the sole federation for esports in Asia, while the AESF recognizes IESF as the sole federation for esports on the international level.

Spin fans unite at the Spin Viber Community! Join the growing community now and complete the experience by subscribing to the Spin Chatbot.

See original here:
PESO named official national sports association for esports in the Philippines - Sports Interactive Network Philippines

THE National Sheep Association (NSA) has voiced concerns following the rejection by the House of Commons on a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill that would force future trade deals to meet UK animal welfare and food safety rules.

The vote, which saw MPs reject the amendment by 332 votes to 279, will potentially allow food products with lower standards than that produced in the UK to be accepted into the country once new trade deals are secured following the UKs departure from the EU.

NSA chief executive Phil Stocker said: This amendment provided an opportunity to uphold and protect our animal welfare standards, some of the highest in the world.

"With this being rejected by MPs last night, there is now the very real risk, despite Governments assurances, that the UKs standards that our nations farmers are proud to work to, could be undermined by lower standard imports.

The Government may have already given a verbal commitment to farmers and consumers that the current high UK standards will not be threatened by imported goods but even if this commitment is upheld, it comes from the current Government only and therefore is for the present Parliamentary term, four years down the line there is a risk this commitment could be lost and the UK farming sector could be left to fight this battle again.

Farming Minister George Eustice has said that the amendment was unnecessary and would be opposed by ministers as it could cause technical issues and disrupt existing trade deals with countries such as South America that already bring small amounts of product into the UK.

Mr Stocker said: Any suggestion by the Government that importing just relatively small quantities of lower standard products is worth it in order to safeguard other trade flies in the face of the UKs stated aim to see animal welfare standards increase across the world.

"We simply will not achieve this if we allow our markets to support standards we wouldnt find acceptable here.

We sincerely hope the British public will get behind the countrys farmers more than ever now in supporting their hard work producing the highest quality, good value farm produce, while caring for their livestock and upholding animal welfare standards at all times.

"As we leave the EU and further trade deals are secured, it will be more important than ever to support UK agriculture and buy British to be assured of food traceability and quality.

Read more:
'Risk' that food standards will be lowered by imports, says NSA - Darlington and Stockton Times

DUBLIN--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The "5G: The Greatest Show on Earth! Vol 13: Needle in a Haystack" report has been added to ResearchAndMarkets.com's offering.

The publisher just completed their thirteenth 5G benchmark study, this time with a focus on the T-Mobile Band n71 5G NR Standalone (SA) network and how it compares with the operator's 5G NR Non-Standalone (NSA) network. They tested in the Dallas area, as well as rural areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

Highlights of the Report include the following:

Improved Coverage and Performance: Although it wasn't easy to find locations where the smartphone used [needed] SA, in those regions, the publisher observed 5G NR coverage which didn't exist with the NSA-capable smartphone. They also documented meaningful increases in end-user data speeds, even in cases when the NSA smartphone was using both LTE and 5G NR.

Latency Results were Mixed: The publisher measured handover times, acquisition times, RTT and web page load times. The results were mixed, at best.

Related Challenges: PDCP packet losses, especially with poor LTE coverage remain a big problem that isn't specific to any operator or vendor. Furthermore, they continue to observe smartphones camping on a low-band LTE frequency (i.e., Band 12) instead of leveraging 5G NR in another low-band frequency. The publisher is very familiar with the airplane mode feature which can trigger a different response and the desired outcome.

Sidebar Study: The publisher covered the majority of Wisconsin while testing the top three operator networks. AT&T had the fastest network (by far) while the T-Mobile network had the greatest use of 5G NR. They also captured scanner data to look at operator low-/mid-band LTE coverage and 5G NR coverage.

Key Topics Covered:

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Key Observations

3.0 Latency-Related Metrics

4.0 5G NR SA Coverage and Performance

4.1 Wisconsin

4.2 Minnesota

5.0 Test Methodology

6.0 Final Thoughts

7.0 Appendix

Companies Mentioned

For more information about this report visit https://www.researchandmarkets.com/r/36q5ic

Read the original here:
United States 5G Benchmark Study 2020: T-Mobile Band n71 5G NR Standalone (SA) Network and how it Compares with the Operator's 5G NR Non-Standalone...

The National Sheep Association (NSA) has responded to the vote in the House of Commons on a Lords amendment to the Agriculture Bill that would force future trade deals to meet UK animal welfare and food safety rules.

The vote which saw MPs reject the amendment with 332 votes to 279 will potentially allow food products with lower standards than that produced in the UK to be accepted into the country once new trade deals are secured following the UKs departure from the EU.

NSA chief executive Phil Stocker said:

This amendment provided opportunity to uphold and protect our animal welfare standards, some of the highest in the world.

With this being rejected by MPs last night there is now the very real risk, despite governments assurances, that the UKs standards that our nations farmers are proud to work to, could be undermined by lower standard imports.

The government may have already given a verbal commitment to farmers and consumers that the current high UK standards will not be threatened by imported goods.

However, even if this commitment is upheld it comes from the current government only and therefore is for the present Parliamentary term; four years down the line there is a risk this commitment could be lost and the UK farming sector could be left to fight this battle again.

Farming Minister George Eustice last week stated that the amendment was unnecessary and would be opposed by ministers as it could cause technical issues and disrupt existing trade deals with countries such as South America that already bring small amounts of product into the UK.

Stocker continued:

Any suggestion by the government that importing just relatively small quantities of lower standard products is worth it in order to safeguard other trade flies in the face of the UKs stated aim to see animal welfare standards increase across the world.

We simply will not achieve this if we allow our markets to support standards we wouldnt find acceptable here.

We sincerely hope the British public will get behind the countrys farmers more than ever now in supporting their hard work producing the highest quality, good value farm produce whilst caring for their livestock and upholding animal welfare standards at all times.

As we leave the EU and further trade deals are secured it will be more important than ever to support UK agriculture and buy British to be assured of food traceability and quality.

NSA Scottish Region chairman Jen Craig added:

It is incredibly disappointing that the UK government has voted against the amendment to ensure imports to the UK are produced to the same standard as our own.

However, we should not allow this vote to undermine what we do in the UK. We will continue to be world leaders in animal health and welfare whilst producing food to the highest of standards.

This allows our consumers to have the utmost trust and confidence that when they buy Scottish and British food, they can have pride in knowing where it has come from and that it is safe.

RELATED STORIES

Here is the original post:
Agriculture Bill rejection leaves a 'real risk' to UK animal welfare standards - NSA - Agriland.co.uk