Gunmen kill police officer assigned to protect polio workers in southwestern Pakistan
This is a locator map for Pakistan with its capital, Islamabad, and the Kashmir region. (AP Photo)
Gunmen shot and killed a police officer assigned to protect polio workers in southwestern Pakistan on Tuesday before fleeing the scene, police and officials said.
The attack occurred in Noshki, a district in Balochistan province, local police official Mohammad Hassan said, adding that the polio workers escaped unharmed in the attack.
The female health workers were administering oral polio vaccine drops to children inside a house when the assailants opened fire on the officer, Abdul Waheed, who died on the way to the hospital, Hassan said.
No one immediately claimed responsibility for the assault, but suspicion is likely to fall on separatist groups and Pakistani Taliban that have stepped up attacks on security forces and civilians in recent months.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi in separate statements denounced the assault and vowed stern action against those behind the attack, which came a day after Pakistan launched the nationwide campaign to vaccinate 45 million children from polio.
Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan remain the only two countries where the spread of the wild polio virus hasn't been stopped, according to the World Health Organization. There are ongoing outbreaks of polio linked to the oral vaccine in 10 other countries, mostly in Africa.
Since January, Pakistan has reported 10 polio cases from various parts of the country despite the launch of immunization drives. Last year, the South Asian country witnessed a surge in polio cases, which jumped to 74, though it reported only one polio case in 2021.
Since the 1990s, more than 200 polio workers and the police assigned to protect them have been killed in attacks.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yomiuri Shimbun
3 days ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Gaza Officials Say Israeli Forces Killed 27 Heading to Aid Site. Israel Says It Fired near Suspects
The Associated Press Palestinians carry bags filled with food and humanitarian aid provided by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a U.S.-backed organization approved by Israel, in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, on Tuesday, June 3, 2025. RAFAH, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli forces fired on people as they headed toward an aid distribution site in Gaza on Tuesday, killing at least 27, Palestinian health officials and witnesses said, in the third such shooting in three days. The army said it fired 'near a few individual suspects' who left the designated route, approached its forces and ignored warning shots. The near-daily shootings have occurred after an Israeli and U.S.-backed foundation established aid distribution points inside Israeli military zones, a system it says is designed to circumvent Hamas. The United Nations has rejected the new system, saying it doesn't address Gaza's mounting hunger crisis and allows Israel to use aid as a weapon. The Israeli military said it 'fired to drive away suspects.' In a statement, army spokesperson Effie Defrin said 'the numbers of casualties published by Hamas were exaggerated' but that the incident was being investigated. He said the army is not preventing Palestinians in Gaza from reaching aid in the distribution areas, but rather allowing it. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which operates the sites, says there has been no violence in or around them. On Tuesday, it acknowledged that the Israeli military was investigating whether civilians were wounded 'after moving beyond the designated safe corridor and into a closed military zone,' in an area that was 'well beyond our secure distribution site.' A spokesperson for the group said it was 'saddened to learn that a number of civilians were injured and killed after moving beyond the designated safe corridor.' Gaza's roughly 2 million people are almost completely reliant on international aid because Israel's offensive has destroyed nearly all of Gaza's food production capabilities. Israel imposed a blockade on supplies into Gaza in March, and limited aid began to enter again late last month after pressure from allies and warnings of famine. 'Either way we will die' Witnesses have said the shootings all occurred at the Flag Roundabout, around a kilometer (half-mile) from one of the GHF's distribution sites in the now mostly uninhabited southern city of Rafah. The entire area is an Israeli military zone where journalists have no access outside of army-approved embeds. Yasser Abu Lubda, a 50-year-old displaced person from Rafah, said the shooting started around 4 a.m. Tuesday and he saw several people killed or wounded. Neima al-Aaraj, a woman from Khan Younis, said the Israeli fire was 'indiscriminate.' She added that when she managed to reach the distribution site, there was no aid left. 'After the martyrs and wounded, I won't return,' she said. 'Either way we will die.' Rasha al-Nahal, another witness, said that 'there was gunfire from all directions.' She said she counted more than a dozen dead and several wounded along the road. When she reached the distribution site, she found there was no aid left, she said. She gathered pasta from the ground and salvaged rice from a bag that had been dropped and trampled upon. 'We'd rather die than deal with this,' she said. 'Death is more dignified than what's happening to us.' UN human rights official condemns shootings At least 27 people were killed early Tuesday, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Hisham Mhanna, a spokesperson for the International Committee of the Red Cross, confirmed the toll, saying its field hospital in Rafah received 184 wounded people, 19 of them declared dead on arrival, with eight others later dying of their wounds. The dead were transferred to Nasser Hospital in the city of Khan Younis. Three children and two women were among the dead, according to Mohammed Saqr, head of nursing at the hospital. Hospital director Atef al-Hout said most of the patients had gunshot wounds. An Associated Press reporter who arrived at the Red Cross field hospital at around 6 a.m. saw wounded people being transferred to other hospitals by ambulance. Outside, people were returning from the aid hub, mostly empty-handed, while empty flour bags stained with blood lay on the ground. Jeremy Laurence, a spokesman for the U.N. human rights office, told reporters it also had information indicating that 27 people were killed. 'Palestinians have been presented the grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meager food that is being made available through Israel's militarized humanitarian assistance mechanism,' Volker Türk, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in a statement. The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation said it distributed 21 truckloads of food at the Rafah site on Tuesday, while its other two operational sites were closed. During a ceasefire earlier this year, around 600 aid trucks entered Gaza daily. 3 Israeli soldiers killed in northern Gaza The Israeli military, meanwhile, said three of its soldiers were killed in northern Gaza, in what appeared to be the deadliest attack on Israel's forces since it ended a ceasefire with Hamas in March. The military said the soldiers, all in their early 20s, died during combat on Monday, without providing details. Israeli media reported they were killed in an explosion in the Jabaliya area. Israel ended the latest ceasefire after Hamas refused to change the agreement to release more hostages sooner. Israeli strikes have killed thousands of Palestinians since then, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Israel says the new aid distribution system is designed to prevent Hamas from stealing aid. The U.N. says its own ability to deliver aid across Gaza has been hindered by Israeli restrictions, the breakdown of law and order and widespread looting, but that there's no evidence of systematic diversion of aid by Hamas. Hamas-led militants killed around 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and took 251 people hostage in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack into southern Israel that ignited the war. They are still holding 58 hostages, a third of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. Israel's military campaign has killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry, which doesn't say how many of the dead were civilians or combatants. The ministry is led by medical professionals but reports to the Hamas-run government. Its toll is seen as generally reliable by U.N. agencies and independent experts, though Israel has challenged its numbers. Israel says it has killed around 20,000 militants, without providing evidence. Around 860 Israeli soldiers have been killed since the Oct. 7 attack, including more than 400 during the fighting inside Gaza. Rockets fired from Syria Sirens sounded across Israel late Tuesday night. Israel's army said that two rockets were fired from Syria into open areas in the Israel-annexed Golan Heights, marking the first time a strike's been launched toward Israel from Syrian territory since the fall of former Syrian President Bashar Assad. A group calling itself the Mohammed Deif Brigades claimed the attack in a post on Telegram. Little is known about the group, which first surfaced on social media last month. Israel has been suspicious of the Islamist former insurgents who formed the new Syrian government and has launched hundreds of airstrikes on Syria and seized a U.N.-patrolled buffer zone on Syrian territory since Assad's fall. Syrian state TV reported Israeli shelling hit the western countryside of Syria's Daraa province after the rocket launch. Israel's defense minister said it holds Syria's president responsible for every threat and firing towards Israel, and that a 'full response' will come as soon as possible.
Japan Times
5 days ago
- Japan Times
Trump's WHO withdrawal could cost the U.S. dearly
While the COVID-19 pandemic is firmly in the past for many Americans, U.S. households continue to bear the costs of infectious-disease outbreaks. A few months ago, the price of eggs in the United States soared to a record high, largely owing to the spread of H5N1 bird flu. Since March 2024, the virus has ravaged U.S. chicken farms, leading to tens of millions of poultry deaths from infection or culling. More ominously, at least 70 human cases of bird flu have been identified in the U.S., with one death reported in Louisiana. In a recent report about enhancing the response to H5N1 in America and globally, the Global Virus Network, a consortium of the world's top virologists, warned of 'the terrible consequences of underreacting to current threats.' But while bird flu poses the most immediate risk to Americans, it is by no means the only one. Virulent infectious-disease outbreaks in other countries, such as mpox in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ebola in Uganda, Marburg in Tanzania and multicountry outbreaks of cholera do not respect borders and thus are a threat to people everywhere — including in the U.S. Without the efforts of the World Health Organization to contain these outbreaks, the risks of wider transmission would be much greater. This underscores the need for a global agency like the WHO to supervise cross-border cooperation — and the shortsightedness of U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the organization. Despite being the world's richest and most powerful country, America is not immune to another COVID-19-style calamity and abandoning multilateralism and neglecting pandemic preparedness (such as the stockpiling of treatments and vaccines) will make it all the more vulnerable. One might think that the deadly spread of COVID-19, prolonged by the emergence of new virus strains, would convince policymakers to strengthen the world's public-health architecture — especially as experts warn that future pandemics could be even worse. But with other leaders indicating that they may follow Trump's example and leave the WHO, the resources for pandemic prevention and control could dwindle to the point that global outbreaks become more frequent and difficult to overcome. If Trump follows through with the move, his administration will become increasingly isolated and impotent. American officials, including at U.S. military installations abroad, will lose access to the WHO-led and -facilitated global networks that collect and share information about infectious-disease threats and respond to outbreaks. Moreover, the U.S. government will have no say in developing new solutions (which will almost invariably be less effective) for controlling the spread of diseases across borders — including its own. Trump has suggested that he may change his mind, presumably if the grievances set out in his executive order to withdraw the U.S. from the organization are addressed. This implies that the WHO should apply pressure on China to identify the pandemic's origins. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, for his part, has refused to accept the Chinese government's prevarications. If Trump can propose a way to determine the cause of COVID-19, I am sure that the WHO's leadership would gladly hear it. Trump's second condition is that the WHO undertake reforms and use its resources more effectively at the local level, with a greater focus on stopping the spread of infectious diseases. This is a demand that can and should be met. To that end, Tedros has already promised more targeted use of funds and implemented other measures to transform the organization. In addition, under Tedros, the WHO has transformed the way it raises funds. Its member states have sharply increased their annual contributions and it has diversified its donor base to share the funding load more widely. This is all part of the WHO's drive to be more sustainably financed, a plan launched as part of Tedros's effort to transform the organization's operations after he took office in 2017. Back then, he and member states assessed that the departure of a major donor could leave the WHO's programs and independence vulnerable to funding shocks. Who knew it would be the U.S. But, had those changes not been made, we can only imagine how much more challenging the WHO's current financial situation would be. The Trump administration should welcome these changes, not least because it benefits from having a seat at the table. If the U.S. ultimately abandons the WHO, developing evidence-based guidance and regulations for chronic-disease prevention and management will be significantly harder, undermining the administration's goal of addressing America's chronic-disease epidemic. The U.S. will also no longer be a part of the WHO's medicine prequalification process, a program that opens a host of new markets for drug producers in a cost-effective manner. Instead, U.S. pharmaceutical companies will be forced to sell their prequalified products to each country individually, putting them at risk of losing access to highly profitable multibillion dollar markets. Twenty-first-century trends — including more mobility and international travel, greater urbanization and increasing human encroachment on nature — fuel the global spread of infectious diseases, to the detriment of everyone. U.S. officials would be better positioned to protect their citizens if they joined — and perhaps even led — a discussion on how the WHO and other global health organizations, such as Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, can meet the world's needs. One such initiative, in which the U.S. had been a strong partner until Trump took office, was to negotiate a WHO Pandemic Agreement, which WHO member states adopted by consensus at the World Health Assembly on May 20. This historic compact, based on the principles of equity, collaboration and the reaffirmation of national sovereignty in public-health decision-making, will make the world safer from future pandemics. The U.S., bolstered by its world-class medical professionals and substantial public investment in medical research, has long exerted considerable influence on global health priorities. But withdrawing from the WHO places America on the outside, unable to shape the agency's policy agenda and reforms. When the next pandemic strikes, the U.S. will be left watching from the sidelines, as the WHO and its remaining member countries manage the global response and pick up the pieces as they see fit. Gordon Brown, a former prime minister of the United Kingdom, is U.N. Special Envoy for Global Education and Chair of Education Cannot Wait. © Project Syndicate, 2025.
The Mainichi
5 days ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: With WHO Pandemic Agreement, global cooperation needed to raise its efficacy
Member countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted an agreement at a general meeting that sets forth a response the international community should take in the event of a future pandemic. Multilateral cooperation must be strengthened and measures to protect lives must be advanced. During the coronavirus pandemic, which claimed more than seven million lives, WHO was delayed in its initial response, leaving developing countries unable to secure sufficient vaccine supplies due in part to hoarding by developed nations. The Pandemic Agreement aims to address these shortcomings and create a global environment in which everyone can benefit equally from medical care. Under the initiative, advanced nations support developing countries in securing medicinal products and procuring funds. In exchange for collecting information on pathogens necessary for drug development and providing it to pharmaceutical companies WHO will receive at least 10% of vaccines produced as a donation. These vaccines will then be distributed to developing countries. The detailed design of the system will be finalized over the next year. WHO member states will also work to develop domestic laws to request pharmaceutical firms to supply vaccines. The agreement will take effect upon ratification by 60 countries. The question is how effective the agreement will prove. The United States, a pharmaceutical powerhouse, was absent from the General Assembly after President Donald Trump's administration announced the country's withdrawal from the WHO. Unless major U.S. drugmakers, which led the world in the development of COVID-19 vaccines, participate in the donation program, meaningful results cannot be expected. A system to encourage companies to join the initiative must be established. Washington has also stopped contributing operating funds to WHO, compelling the latter to significantly slash its budgets and undergo restructuring. This is likely to hinder efforts to secure personnel for assisting developing countries. The negotiations, which began in 2022, came to a brink of collapse after the rift between developed and developing nations deepened. Yet, the world has no alternative to WHO as a control tower when a pandemic arrives. It deserves credit that member countries came together and drew up the new rules after extending negotiations by a year amid the U.S. absence. False information over the agreement, such as that WHO will forcibly vaccinate people, became viral worldwide via social media. There is no such clause, and the agreement stipulates that the sovereignty of member states will be respected. Both the WHO and its members should exhaust all efforts to send out correct information. A new pandemic could occur at any time. Countries must take the adoption of the agreement as an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of international cooperation.
