Photo

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Photo

Best of Cannes

Style and scenes from the Cannes Film Festival.  Slideshow 

Photo

Ethiopia's salt trails

For centuries merchants have traveled to Ethiopia to collect salt from the surface of the vast desert basin.  Slideshow 

Sponsored Links

U.S, Pakistan warn of militant plots over floods

Related Topics

1 of 37. Ali Hassan, a villager, holds his sandals and meal as he wades through floodwaters in Amri village, August 19, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Akhtar Soomro

ISLAMABAD | Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:08pm EDT

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari and a senior U.S. senator warned on Thursday that Taliban insurgents are trying to exploit rising anger over the country's worst floods to promote their cause.

More than four million Pakistanis have been made homeless by nearly three weeks of floods, the United Nations said on Thursday, making the critical task of securing greater amounts of aid more urgent.

Eight million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance and many may not care where they get it.

The floods began washing away villages and destroying roads and bridges just after the government had made progress in stabilizing the country through offensives against Taliban.

Islamist charities, some with suspected links to militant groups, stepped in to help victims, possibly boosting their image at the expense of the U.S.-backed government, which is still accused of being lax nearly three weeks into the crisis.

U.S. Senator John Kerry, who visited flood-hit areas with Zardari, said action must be taken to prevent anyone from exploiting frustrations.

"We need to address that rapidly to avoid their (Pakistani's) impatience boiling over, and people exploiting that impatience and I think it's important for all of us to understand that challenge," Kerry said, in a clear reference to the Taliban. "We also share security concerns."

About one third of Pakistan has been hit by the floods, with waters stretching tens of kilometers from rivers.

In a small town in Punjab, people waved empty pots and pans at a military helicopter, wondering, like millions of others, when food supplies will arrive.

Aid agencies have been pushing for more funding as they try to tackle major problems such as food supplies, lack of clean water and shelter and outbreaks of disease.

The U.S. needs a stable Pakistan, which it sees as the most important ally in the war against militancy, especially in neighboring Afghanistan, where a Taliban insurgency is raging.

In a sign of growing concerns over the ramifications of the floods, Kerry said $200 million from the $7.5 billion U.S. aid package for Pakistan over five years, which he co-authored, would be diverted to the relief effort.

The bill was unpopular in Pakistan as it ties some funds to fighting militancy, to cooperation in stopping nuclear proliferation and ensuring Pakistani civilian government dominance over the military.

Kerry said he was shocked after seeing miles of destroyed homes and displaced people in camps in sweltering heat.

Floods have ruined crops over more than 1.6 million acres, hammering the mainstay agriculture industry. Aid workers say water could stagnate on the surface for months, making planting difficult.

The government also faces the prospect of food riots and social unrest.

Zardari, who drew a hail of criticism after he left on a trip to meet the leaders of Britain and France as the disaster unfolded, also said militants could capitalize on the floods.

"There is a possibility that some, the negative forces, would exploit this situation, this time of need," he told a joint news conference with Kerry, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"They would take babies who become orphans and then put them in their own camps, train them as the terrorists of tomorrow."

(Additional reporting by Faisal Aziz and Sahar Ahmed in Karachi, Zeeshan Kaider and Kamran Haider in Islamabad, Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva, Rosemarie Francisco in Manila and Jonathan Thatcher in Singapore)

(Writing by Michael Georgy; Editing by Alistair Scrutton)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (12)
Adinfintum wrote:
Don’t sound so Ignorant, Pakistanis have already lost 8000 lives to the hand of the same terrorists! It was never a fundamentalist country and fanaticism was imported to Pakistan from Saudi Arabia with the help of US to defeat communism. Still today the right wing religious parties have less than 2% vote bank. Those were the people that danced on the streets, those were the people that burn flags. And sadly those are the only pictures your media shows you. For ordinary Pakistanis, having enough food, shelter and health is most important like anywhere else! Don’t generalize the whole population for the act of few.

Aug 19, 2010 3:20am EDT  --  Report as abuse
zeus1 wrote:
The very sad part of all this story is that poor countries like Pakistan while they cannot take care of their population (even if the catastrophy is beyond imagination) they spend billions in possessing nukes. This money could have gone for much better purposes.

Aug 19, 2010 6:50am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Adinfintum wrote:
Lot of people are using this nuke excuse to not make any donations. I am as anti-nuke as anyone else but here is how it works. Ideally noone should have them, Pakistan has them cuz India has them and after three wars within 2 decades, the idea was to get nukes (after India had them in 1974) and eventually spend less on conventional army and focus on economic development instead after securing country’s defence. A nuke is really like a having a big scary dog in your house and then putting up a sign on the door for potential intruders. But whatever was spent on acquiring that thing, has already been done decades ago, nukes don’t need to be fed. And its not really possible for this poor country to put those nukes on ebay for relief money is it?

Aug 19, 2010 10:08am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.