The History Of New York Earthquakes: Before The Sixth Seal (Rev 6:12)


Historic Earthquakes
Near New York City, New York
1884 08 10 19:07 UTC
Magnitude 5.5
Intensity VII
USGS.gov
This severe earthquake affected an area roughly extending along the Atlantic Coast from southern Maine to central Virginia and westward to Cleveland, Ohio. Chimneys were knocked down and walls were cracked in several States, including Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Many towns from Hartford, Connecticut, to West Chester,Pennsylvania.
Property damage was severe at Amityville and Jamaica, New York, where several chimneys were “overturned” and large cracks formed in walls. Two chimneys were thrown down and bricks were shaken from other chimneys at Stratford (Fairfield County), Conn.; water in the Housatonic River was agitated violently. At Bloomfield, N.J., and Chester, Pa., several chimneys were downed and crockery was broken. Chimneys also were damaged at Mount Vernon, N.Y., and Allentown, Easton, and Philadelphia, Pa. Three shocks occurred, the second of which was most violent. This earthquake also was reported felt in Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Several slight aftershocks were reported on August 11.
Teilen mit:
TwitterFacebook

Smart statesmen CONTINUE to make bad decisions leading to nuclear war: Revelation 16

INTERVIEW/ Daniel Ellsberg: Smart statesmen can make bad decisions leading to nuclear war

By KOJI SONODA/ CorrespondentJune 19, 2021 at 07:00 JST

Daniel Ellsberg (From Daniel Ellsberg’s official website)

WASHINGTON—U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower seriously considered launching a nuclear attack against China during the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1958, according to a former Department of Defense official.

Daniel Ellsberg, 90, a nuclear policy expert who has disclosed a confidential document about the incident, said Eisenhower was prepared for possible nuclear retaliation from the Soviet Union.

In an interview with The Asahi Shimbun on May 25, Ellsberg also expressed strong concerns about the current tensions between Washington and Beijing over the Taiwan Strait.

“We’re talking now about possibly intervening in the civil war between China and Taiwan with U.S. force,” Ellsberg said. “I felt that this study was particularly relevant now to public debate and consideration.”

Ellsberg is famed for his acquisition and exposure of the classified Pentagon Papers in 1971, which he created with other staff members at the U.S. Department of Defense for the Vietnam War.

At that time, Ellsberg made a copy of another top-secret document written and examined by Morton Halperin, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, in connection with the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis.

The secret document shows that Eisenhower and high-ranking military officers at a meeting were considering the use of tactical nuclear weaponry for a pre-emptive strike against mainland China.

They surmised that the Soviet Union would intervene following such a U.S. nuclear attack, resulting in tit-for-tat actions using nuclear bombs between the two sides.

Nathan Twining, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested that a U.S. nuclear attack against the Chinese mainland would prompt Soviet Union nuclear counterstrikes most likely on Taiwan and probably on Okinawa Prefecture.

According to Ellsberg, later studies revealed the Soviet Union and China had no intention of going so far as to engage in an armed conflict with the United States.

But Ellsberg noted there was still a risk, citing as a similar example the Cuban Missile Crisis under the administration of President John F. Kennedy.

“There were a number of ways in which war could have emerged, even though there was no intention,” Ellsberg said.

Ellsberg, who was deeply engaged in compiling the U.S. nuclear war plan, said, “When we look at decision-making that led to catastrophe … there is a very strong tendency for people to think: ‘Well, that was long ago. Those people were dumb.’

“That’s absurd,” he continued. “The statesmen (then) were at least as smart people as the ones right now or in between. They made horribly unwise judgments.”

Ellsberg was quite concerned about the possibility of the current U.S.-China friction leading to an all-out war.

“Both sides would suffer very great costs,” he said. “If they are not stupid and foolish and reckless and crazy, they will not start a war … . But you know, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.”

Excerpts from the interview follow:

***

Question: You obtained copies of the document on the second Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1958 when you got the Pentagon Papers, right?

Ellsberg: The so-called Pentagon Papers were a study of U.S. decision-making in Vietnam from 1945 to 1968. I had worked on this study and had drafted the 1961 decision-making volume. And I was studying that for lessons from our failure in Vietnam. But I also had, in my top-secret safe, a top-secret study by Morton Halperin for the Rand Corporation, where I worked, that he had worked on (for) the Taiwan Strait Crisis in 1958. He worked on that as a Rand consultant from 1963 to 1966, when it came out as a top-secret report.

So in 1969, when I was copying the Pentagon Papers, I also copied other documents from my top-secret safe with the intention of putting them out eventually after the Vietnam War had subsided, or after the Pentagon Papers had done what they could. And that included Morton Halperin’s study.

Q: Why do you think the document should be widely read for public debate 50 years later?

Ellsberg: The threat of initiating nuclear war has remained U.S. policy until today. And that’s why I felt that this study was particularly relevant now to public debate and consideration because it is a study of an occasion in which the Americans very seriously were preparing for first use or initiation of nuclear war against mainland China.

Q: I am surprised that, according to the document, generals were seriously considering a nuclear attack on mainland China. And the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said then, there would be “no alternative but to conduct nuclear strikes deep into China as far north as Shanghai.”

Ellsberg: The theory, the strategy, of pursuing U.S. national security interests by threatening the initiation of nuclear war. That was the core of Eisenhower’s strategy, the so-called New Look, or Massive Retaliation strategy, where the official top-secret doctrine that I was aware of said that in any conflict with a major power, like the Soviets or China, the main but not sole reliance would be on nuclear weapons.

When the Chinese mainland, the Chinese Communist government, announced that they intended to take back sovereignty or to assert sovereignty on the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the United States had at that time no plan for defending them with conventional weapons, non-nuclear weapons. Their plan consisted entirely of using nuclear weapons, perhaps tactical nuclear weapons … both in the water, in the Taiwan Strait, and on China.

And they continued, the military, except for the U.S. Army, Maxwell Taylor, the other Joint Chiefs of Staff continued to press strongly for the use of nuclear weapons at the outset of any attempt to invade Quemoy or Matsu, or to blockade them successfully using, for example, air interdiction.

And President Eisenhower agreed that if the blockade were successful, in particular, if they used air interdiction in addition to artillery, he did say we would use nuclear weapons. That’s their plans.

He did disconcert them by saying that he wanted initial operations by the United States to be conventional. And they had no such plans, but they had to immediately work on planning for an initial phase of conventional weapons. But everyone agreed, including Eisenhower, that if the Chinese did not quickly back off in this case, we would have to use nuclear weapons.

Q: On the 1958 crisis, they had already acknowledged that the Soviet Union would retaliate with a nuclear attack. And surprisingly, the Joint Chiefs of Staff stressed that if national policy is to defend the offshore islands, then the consequence had to be accepted.

Ellsberg: I drafted the guidance for the nuclear war plans of the United States in 1961, which were given by the secretary of defense to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. For that purpose, I studied the Eisenhower plans, which I was replacing. The Eisenhower plan had no provision for limited war with the Soviet Union. In the case of any armed conflict with the Soviet Union, we would immediately carry out, pre-emptively if possible, an all-out attack on every city in Russia, Soviet Union, and China, an all-out war.

Q: So, do you think the 1958 crisis was on the verge of a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Ellsberg: Now, at that time, we weren’t sure whether the Soviets had given some nuclear weapons to the Chinese, and the Chinese had in fact asked for them. But in fact, the Soviets had refused to give them.

However, (Nikita) Khrushchev was saying that he stood fully behind the Chinese and would use all available weapons on the side of the Chinese. The Americans, from Eisenhower down, took it for granted that an attack on China would (lead the) Soviets to retaliate with nuclear weapons. In other words, in my opinion, in retrospect, that was extremely unlikely that Khrushchev would have done that despite his public statements. He said he would, but I don’t think he would.

Another thing we know in retrospect, did not know at the time, was that Mao (Zedong) had no intention of pressing this to armed conflict with the United States. So, in that sense, looking back on it, it was not dangerous because they were not going to press.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, in which I participated as a consultant right below the level of the White House, the executive committee of the National Security Council, I was reporting to them, and studied that for a great deal. I conclude that, contrary to their public statements, neither Kennedy nor Khrushchev had any intention of going to armed conflict. They were, in effect, bluffing.

They were threatening the others and intimidating the others, and were deploying in readiness for nuclear war, but they had no intention actually of carrying out a nuclear war. And nevertheless, as my book “Doomsday Machine” and other places show, they came within a hair’s breadth of an all-out nuclear war because of actions of subordinates who did not realize that their leaders were bluffing, and who were readying for nuclear war in a way that almost exploded into all-out nuclear war.

We could go into exactly the details here. I won’t do it now. But going back to the Taiwan Straits, it was not the intention of the Chinese to hit an American ship with their artillery. It was about bombarding Quemoy.

Does that mean it was impossible that they would hit a ship, either by accident or because some lower person thought the time had come to do so and couldn’t resist, or acted? In other words, there were a number of ways in which war could have emerged, even though there was no intention.

And as our military and Eisenhower said, we would have to “accept the consequences of using nuclear weapons with the expectation that the Soviets would reply on Taiwan and possibly elsewhere, Okinawa, Guam.” So, that it would be an expanding war. They accepted that, in effect. The effect would have been to obliterate Taiwan and Okinawa. And assuming that it did not go as far as Japan, but which could have happened.

Q: What would be the lessons learned from the 1958 Taiwan Strait crisis?

Ellsberg: When we look at decision-making that led to catastrophe, like World War I, by almost all parties, or the decision-making in Japan in 1940-41, which looks inconceivably bad when you look at it, or the decision-making in Vietnam, or invasion of Iraq, or in 1958, there is a very strong tendency for people to think: “Well, that was long ago. Those people were dumb. They were naive. They were immature. We’re not like that now. Weren’t they strange and awful?” And so there’s no lesson to be learned for us. That’s absurd.

The statesmen in 1914 were at least as smart people as the ones right now or in between. They made horribly unwise judgments. And that is equally available to our decision-makers right now.

The China Nuclear Horn and US Policy: Daniel 7

Chinese Nuke Modernization Prompts Shift In DoD Strategy

“The growing diversity of the Chinese nuclear threat and its mixing in with conventional forces creates complexity for US commanders. It is also unclear what conditions would lead to PRC nuclear use, since their arsenal is growing and creating more options,” Bryan Clark of the Hudson Institute says.

WASHINGTON: A short exchange during a Senate hearing on the 2022 budget appears to have revealed what experts say is an important shift in how the Pentagon views the Chinese military and its nuclear forces.

“This is a new framing of the nuclear modernization and deterrence challenge,” says Bryan Clark, a strategic expert at the Hudson Institute. “The size and capability of our arsenal has not been driven in the past by the PRC’s nuclear forces, but clearly the DoD is beginning to use China as a pacing threat alongside Russia.”

It began with a question by Sen. John Hoeven, from the state where Minot Air Force Base houses a substantial portion of the nation’s ICBM nuclear force. The North Dakota lawmaker asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if the existing US strategic deterrent would remain “credible” if China doubled the size of its nuclear forces.

Here’s Milley’s reply:

“If we continue to fully modernize the triad then the US nuclear deterrent is fully adequate to deter any adversary to include China, even if China doubled what they have right now.

“There’s no question in my mind, but deterrence, as you know, requires not only the capability and the will but also the communication, and the adversary needs to understand that you have the capability and their will,” Milley replied. “Today, they’re adequate and, I think, once modernized they’ll be adequate in the future. The conventional piece — the nuclear piece and the conventional piece — go hand in hand and it’s a dynamic that works in order to keep great power peace, and it’s very, very important that we retain overmatch relative to China and Russia.”

Much of this shift appears to arise from China’s own nuclear modernization plans. SIPRI, which produce the authoritative annual Yearbook on the world’s nuclear forces, in the latest 2021 edition, says: “China is in the middle of a significant modernization and expansion of its nuclear weapon inventory.”

Dean Cheng, one of the West’s top experts on the Chinese military, goes further, saying that: “China is now pushing modernization of its nuclear forces, and this calls into question some basic assumptions, including how much fissile material they have. The broad expanse of Chinese nuclear modernization programs, including an air-breathing portion, is very different from what had been seen before.”

SIPRI’s 2021 Yearbook says that China has “an estimated total inventory of about 350 nuclear warheads. This is an increase of 30 from the previous year, due largely to the indication that the DF­5B intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) can carry more warheads than previously believed. Just over 270 warheads are assigned to China’s operational land­- and sea­-based ballistic missiles and to nuclear­-configured aircraft. The remainder are assigned to non­-operational forces, such as new systems in development, operational systems that may increase in number in the future, and reserves.”

Combine that with what the Heritage Foundation expert says is a shift in Chinese views of nuclear escalation and nuclear doctrine. For decades China, which has a declared No First Use policy, held to what Cheng calls its “minimal deterrent” posture. The new Chinese view is “towards more of a ‘limited deterrent,’ or beyond. I’ve been asked, for example, about whether the PRC might be adopting a ‘launch-on-warning’ posture, and whether the Chinese are developing the NC3 (nuclear command, control, and communications) capabilities necessary to support this.”

Bryan Clark says Milley’s comments before the Senate Armed Services Committee mark more than a “rhetorical change” for US policy. “The thinking on Russian nuclear weapons use had been that Moscow might escalate and use a small number of weapons to gain an advantage during a conventional confrontation, but this theory has been somewhat discredited. Moreover, there are few plausible situations where the Russian government would feel existentially threatened by NATO and US. In contrast, numerous conventional scenarios could result in the CCP believing the regime was at existential risk and that nuclear escalation was necessary to prevent its collapse.”

China also, according to both Clark and Cheng, does not treat nuclear forces as a separate and unique component of its arsenals. “The growing diversity of the Chinese nuclear threat and its mixing in with conventional forces creates complexity for US commanders. It is also unclear what conditions would lead to PRC nuclear use, since their arsenal is growing and creating more options,” Clark says in an email.

That intertwining of capabilities makes it more difficult for the US and others to estimate China’s intentions, they say.

“The Chinese intertwining of nuclear and conventional capabilities (best seen in how the DF-21 (missile) has both nuclear and conventional variants OPERATING ALONGSIDE EACH OTHER) also highlights how differently the Chinese look at nuclear deterrence. We and the Russians are much more similar to each other in trying to LIMIT confusion or overlap,” Cheng observes.

And then we go back to Milley’s comments. Cheng says they indicate “a broader recognition within various parts of DOD/national security establishment that we have been operating under old assumptions when it comes to nuclear for perhaps too long.”

Devastating aftermath of escalation outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Devastating aftermath of Israel-Gaza escalation

News and Press Release Source 

Posted 18 Jun 2021 Originally published 18 Jun 2021

Civilians try to rebuild lives and livelihoods after Israel-Gaza escalation.

People in Gaza and Israel have been deeply affected by the latest escalation. With every round of fighting, they are left worse off, with livelihoods and homes ruined once more.

The psychological impact of the cycles of fear and destruction on both sides of the Gaza fence reverberates for years among children and adults alike.

A whole generation has grown up knowing nothing but closed borders and repeated series of hostilities. Those under 18 have lived through four military operations and countless escalations. They need a glimmer of hope, a future to look forward to.

The ICRC is bringing in medical supplies to support an already-fragile health system under duress, which is also simultaneously coping with the spread of COVID-19. We are also assisting families who have lost homes and access to water and electricity. We are focused on long-term needs like rebuilding infrastructure and crucial mental health support.

It is time for us to step up our response substantially.

There is no time to lose – It will take years to rebuild and even longer to rebuild fractured lives. For those, who witnessed the attacks or lost their loved ones the grief remains. There is a lot of work to be done to give them the support they need now.

Iranian Nuclear Horn Hardens After Latest Vote: Daniel 8

Apathy greets Iran presidential vote dominated by hard-liner

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iranians voted Friday in a presidential election dominated by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s hard-line protege after the disqualification of his strongest competition, fueling apathy that left some polling places largely deserted despite pleas to support the Islamic Republic at the ballot box.

Opinion polling by state-linked organizations, along with analysts, indicated that judiciary chief Ebrahim Raisi — who already is under U.S. sanctions — was the front-runner in a field of only four candidates. Former Central Bank chief Abdolnasser Hemmati is running as the moderate candidate but hasn’t inspired the same support as outgoing President Hassan Rouhani, who is term-limited from seeking the office again.

As night fell, turnout appeared far lower than in Iran’s last presidential election in 2017. At one polling place inside a mosque in central Tehran, a Shiite cleric played soccer with a young boy as most of its workers napped in a courtyard. At another, officials watched videos on their mobile phones as state television blared beside them, offering only tight shots of locations around the country — as opposed to the long, snaking lines of past elections. 

Balloting came to a close at 2.a.m. Saturday, after the government extended voting to accommodate what it called “crowding” at several polling places nationwide. Paper ballots, stuffed into large plastic boxes, were to be counted by hand through the night, and authorities said they expected to have initial results and turnout figures Saturday morning at the earliest. 

“My vote will not change anything in this election, the number of people who are voting for Raisi is huge and Hemmati does not have the necessary skills for this,” said Hediyeh, a 25-year-old woman who gave only her first name while hurrying to a taxi in Haft-e Tir Square after avoiding the polls. “I have no candidate here.”

Iranian state television sought to downplay the turnout, pointing to the Gulf Arab sheikhdoms surrounding it ruled by hereditary leaders and the lower participation in Western democracies. After a day of amplifying officials’ attempts to get out the vote, state TV broadcast scenes of jam-packed voting booths in several provinces overnight, seeking to portray a last-minute rush to the polls.

But since the 1979 revolution overthrew the shah, Iran’s theocracy has cited voter turnout as a sign of its legitimacy, beginning with its first referendum that won 98.2% support that simply asked whether or not people wanted an Islamic Republic. 

The disqualifications affected reformists and those backing Rouhani, whose administration both reached the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and saw it disintegrate three years later with then-President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of America from the accord. Former hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, also blocked from running, said on social media he’d boycott the vote.

Voter apathy also has been fed by the devastated state of the economy and subdued campaigning amid months of surging coronavirus cases. Poll workers wore gloves and masks, and some wiped down ballot boxes with disinfectants. 

If elected, Raisi would be the first serving Iranian president sanctioned by the U.S. government even before entering office over his involvement in the mass execution of political prisoners in 1988, as well as his time as the head of Iran’s internationally criticized judiciary — one of the world’s top executioners.

It also would put hard-liners firmly in control across the government as negotiations in Vienna continue to try to save a tattered deal meant to limit Iran’s nuclear program at a time when Tehran is enriching uranium at its highest levels ever, though it still remains short of weapons-grade levels. Tensions remain high with both the U.S. and Israel, which is believed to have carried out a series of attacks targeting Iranian nuclear sites as well as assassinating the scientist who created its military atomic program decades earlier.

Whoever wins will likely serve two four-year terms and thus could be at the helm at what could be one of the most crucial moments for the country in decades — the death of the 82-year-old Khamenei. Speculation already has begun that Raisi might be a contender for the position, along with Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba.

Khamenei cast the first vote from Tehran, urging the public to “go ahead, choose and vote.”

Raisi, wearing a black turban that identifies him in Shiite tradition as a direct descendant of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad, voted from a mosque in southern Tehran. The cleric acknowledged in comments afterward that some may be “so upset that they don’t want to vote.”

“I beg everyone, the lovely youths, and all Iranian men and women speaking in any accent or language from any region and with any political views, to go and vote and cast their ballots,” Raisi said. 

But few appeared to heed the call. There are more than 59 million eligible voters in Iran, a nation of over 80 million people. However, the state-linked Iranian Student Polling Agency has estimated a turnout will be just 44%, which would be the lowest since the revolution. Officials gave no turnout figures Friday, though results could come Saturday.

Fears about a low turnout have some warning Iran may be turning away from being an Islamic Republic — a government with elected civilian leadership overseen by a supreme leader from its Shiite clergy — to a country more tightly governed by its supreme leader, who already has final say on all matters of state and oversees its defense and atomic program.

This is not acceptable,” said former President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who sought to change the theocracy from the inside during eight years in office. “How would this conform to being a republic or Islamic?”

For his part, Khamenei warned of “foreign plots” seeking to depress turnout in a speech Wednesday. A flyer handed out on the streets of Tehran by hard-liners echoed that and bore the image of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2020. A polling station was set up by Soleimani’s grave on Friday. 

Some voters appeared to echo that call.

“We cannot leave our destiny in the hands of foreigners and let them decide for us and create conditions that will be absolutely harmful for us,” said Tehran voter Shahla Pazouki. 

Also hurting a moderate like Hemmati is the public anger aimed at Rouhani over the collapse of the deal, despite ongoing talks in Vienna to revive it. Iran’s already-ailing economy has suffered since, with double-digit inflation and mass unemployment.

It is useless,” said Ali Hosseini, a 36-year-old unemployed resident in southern Tehran, about voting. “Anyone who wins the election after some time says he cannot solve problem of the economy because of intervention by influential people. He then forgets his promises and we poor people again remain disappointed.”

The war outside the Temple Walls continues: Revelation 11

Israel’s Strikes More Hamas Sites as Incendiary Balloons Continue from Gaza


By Jewish Telegraphic Agency – 06/18/2021 9:39 AM 0 53


Men prepare incendiary balloons near Gaza city to launch across the border fence towards Israel, June 16, 2021.


Men prepare incendiary balloons near Gaza city to launch across the border fence towards Israel, June 16, 2021. (Fatima Shbair/Getty Images via JTA)
The attacks raise fears that the recent cease-fire could be in jeopardy.

(JTA) — The Israeli military hit Hamas sites in Gaza with rockets for the second time this week on Thursday night in retaliation for incendiary balloons sent in to spark fires in southern Israel, raising fears that the recent Israel-Hamas cease-fire could be in jeopardy.

The Israel defense forces said it struck Hamas military compounds and rocket launch sites, according to CNN. Hamas did not send rockets in response.

The IDF had sent a round of rockets into Gaza on Tuesday after it lost patience with the deluge of balloons filled with flammable material sent into Israel by Palestinians near the Gaza-Israel border. Hamas praised the attacks — which started a series of fires but did not injure any in the Israeli countryside — although the militant group did not take responsibility for organizing them.

The cease-fire last month brought an end to over a week of intense fighting between Israel and Hamas that killed about 230 Gazans and 12 Israelis.

By Gabe Friedman

The red line on the first nuclear war: Revelation 8

Pakistan Reiterates Call for India to Halt Attempts to Alter Status of Kashmir

Foreign Office spokesman says Delhi must implement stricter measures for nuclear safety

June 18, 2021

Pakistan on Thursday reiterated its call for India to revisit its “unlawful and destabilizing” actions in India-held Jammu and Kashmir, adding it should ensure compliance with U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Addressing a press briefing in Islamabad, Foreign Office spokesman Zahid Hafeez Chaudhri warned that reports of Delhi’s plans for further changes to the disputed territory could “imperil regional peace and security.” He stressed that Pakistan would continue to oppose any Indian attempts to alter the demographic structure and disputed status of India-held Jammu and Kashmir. He said that Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi had written a letter to the U.N. secretary general and the UNSC president urging them to raise the issue with India.

The spokesman also reiterated Pakistan’s concerns about the recovery of weapons-grade uranium in India, noting this had been reported by their own media. He said such incidents pointed to lax controls, poor regulatory and enforcement mechanisms, and the possible existence of a black market for nuclear materials. “Instead of resorting to baseless and usual anti-Pakistan rhetoric, India must thoroughly investigate the matter in a credible and transparent manner. To comply with its international obligations, India must also take verifiable measures for strengthening the security of its nuclear materials,” he added. He said it was surprising that the Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ spokesperson had sought to use the incident as an example of Pakistan trying to malign India.

To a question about convicted Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav, Chaudhri said Pakistan abided by all its international obligations, including the International Court of Justice’s judgment in this particular case. “The legislative measures taken by Pakistan are only aimed at giving full effect to the ICJ judgment. The legislation or its purpose should not be, in any way, misconstrued,” he added.

FATF meeting

To another question, he said that Pakistan was committed to further strengthening its anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism regime regardless of the outcome of the upcoming plenary meeting of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF). He said the meeting scheduled for the last week of June would review Pakistan’s progress under the FATF Action Plan and subsequently announce its decision, adding that Islamabad had thus far fulfilled 26 out of 27 points.

“As you are aware, Pakistan has made significant strides during the implementation of the Action Plan through concerted national efforts. The tremendous progress made by Pakistan leading towards the conclusion of the Action Plan has been acknowledged by the FATF as well as the larger international community,” he added.

Visa issues

On the issue of U.A.E. visas for Pakistanis, Chaudhri said the government had shared the latest information about Pakistan’s COVID-19 numbers with the Emirati government. “We hope the U.A.E. will review its COVID related advisory for all Pakistanis soon. Currently, Pakistanis having diplomatic and official visas and U.A.E. golden visas can travel,” he said.

He said Islamabad had also raised the issue of vaccinations with Saudi Arabia to facilitate Pakistanis wishing to travel to the Gulf kingdom. “We have proposed inclusion of some of the Chinese vaccines used in Pakistan in the list of vaccines approved by the Saudi authorities,” he said.