Russia, China and India concerned about ‘strategic partnership’ in which Americans would remain after 2014 American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades. Though not publicised, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 – the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave — despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal. American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any “permanent” bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements. “There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently,” a US official told the Guardian. British troops, Nato officials say, will also remain in Afghanistan long past the end of 2014, largely in training or mentoring roles. Although they will not be “combat troops” that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example. Senior Nato officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014. There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets. News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US. American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans’ first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was “vaguely formulated”, one Afghan official told the Guardian. Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands. The Afghans are playing a delicate game, however. President Hamid Karzai and senior officials see an enduring American presence and broader strategic relationship as essential, in part to protect Afghanistan from its neighbours. “We are facing a common threat in international terrorist networks. They are not only a threat to Afghanistan but to the west. We want a partnership that brings regional countries together, not divides them,” said Rangin Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser and the lead Afghan negotiator on the partnership. Dr Ashraf Ghani, a former presidential candidate and one of the negotiators, said that, although Nato and the US consider a stable Afghanistan to be essential to their main strategic aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaida, a “prosperous Afghanistan” was a lesser priority. “It is our goal, not necessarily theirs,” he said. Though Ghani stressed “consensus on core issues”, big disagreements remain. One is whether the Americans will equip an Afghan air force. Karzai is understood to have asked for fully capable modern combat jet aircraft. This has been ruled out by the Americans on grounds of cost and fear of destabilising the region. Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden. “We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party,” said Spanta, Afghanistan’s national security adviser. A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops’ use and deployment. “There should be no parallel decision-making structures … All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution,” Spanta said. Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama’s expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is “simply not possible,” the Afghan official said. There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A “series of conversations” with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian. A European diplomat in Kabul said: “It is difficult to imagine the Taliban being happy with US bases [in Afghanistan] for the foreseeable future.” Senior Nato officials argue that a permanent international military presence will demonstrate to insurgents that the west is not going to abandon Afghanistan and encourage them to talk rather than fight. The Afghan-American negotiations come amid a scramble among regional powers to be positioned for what senior US officers are now describing as the “out years”. Mark Sedwill, the Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a “Great Game 3.0″ in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilising conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century. Afghanistan has a history of being exploited by — or playing off — major powers. This, Dr Ghani insisted, was not “a vision for the 21st century”. Instead, he said, Afghanistan could become the “economic roundabout” of Asia. Afghanistan US foreign policy Hamid Karzai Taliban al-Qaida Foreign policy Nato US military United States Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Russia, China and India concerned about ‘strategic partnership’ in which Americans would remain after 2014 American and Afghan officials are locked in increasingly acrimonious secret talks about a long-term security agreement which is likely to see US troops, spies and air power based in the troubled country for decades. Though not publicised, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 – the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave — despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal. American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any “permanent” bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements. “There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently,” a US official told the Guardian. British troops, Nato officials say, will also remain in Afghanistan long past the end of 2014, largely in training or mentoring roles. Although they will not be “combat troops” that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example. Senior Nato officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014. There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets. News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US. American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans’ first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was “vaguely formulated”, one Afghan official told the Guardian. Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands. The Afghans are playing a delicate game, however. President Hamid Karzai and senior officials see an enduring American presence and broader strategic relationship as essential, in part to protect Afghanistan from its neighbours. “We are facing a common threat in international terrorist networks. They are not only a threat to Afghanistan but to the west. We want a partnership that brings regional countries together, not divides them,” said Rangin Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser and the lead Afghan negotiator on the partnership. Dr Ashraf Ghani, a former presidential candidate and one of the negotiators, said that, although Nato and the US consider a stable Afghanistan to be essential to their main strategic aim of disrupting and defeating al-Qaida, a “prosperous Afghanistan” was a lesser priority. “It is our goal, not necessarily theirs,” he said. Though Ghani stressed “consensus on core issues”, big disagreements remain. One is whether the Americans will equip an Afghan air force. Karzai is understood to have asked for fully capable modern combat jet aircraft. This has been ruled out by the Americans on grounds of cost and fear of destabilising the region. Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden. “We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party,” said Spanta, Afghanistan’s national security adviser. A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops’ use and deployment. “There should be no parallel decision-making structures … All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution,” Spanta said. Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama’s expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is “simply not possible,” the Afghan official said. There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A “series of conversations” with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian. A European diplomat in Kabul said: “It is difficult to imagine the Taliban being happy with US bases [in Afghanistan] for the foreseeable future.” Senior Nato officials argue that a permanent international military presence will demonstrate to insurgents that the west is not going to abandon Afghanistan and encourage them to talk rather than fight. The Afghan-American negotiations come amid a scramble among regional powers to be positioned for what senior US officers are now describing as the “out years”. Mark Sedwill, the Nato senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a “Great Game 3.0″ in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilising conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century. Afghanistan has a history of being exploited by — or playing off — major powers. This, Dr Ghani insisted, was not “a vision for the 21st century”. Instead, he said, Afghanistan could become the “economic roundabout” of Asia. Afghanistan US foreign policy Hamid Karzai Taliban al-Qaida Foreign policy Nato US military United States Jason Burke guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …This is the kind of productive program that gets axed once Democrats catch that Geithner/Republican spending-cut fever, and it’s just sickening. I don’t think anyone disagrees that more pediatric specialists are needed The Obama administration’s bid to slash funding for training pediatricians at children’s hospitals is provoking intense protests from medical educators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Earlier this year, the administration, as part of its 2012 budget, proposed terminating a program that provides more than $300 million a year to the 56 free-standing children’s hospitals around the country, which train 40 percent of the nation’s pediatricians and 43 percent of pediatric sub-specialists. In addition, it cut $48 million from the program this month as part of the overall spending reductions for the current year that were in the budget agreement reached with Congress. But children’s hospitals officials say ending the 12-year program, called the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education payment program, or CHGME, could cause a raft of problems. “I can certainly envision a scenario where we just can’t train enough folks,” said Josh Greenberg, vice president for government relations for Children’s Hospital Boston. “I think there’s a real danger that a confluence of factors is going to make access to care for kids incredibly difficult.” The program was enacted in 1999 to provide children’s hospitals with funding for residencies and fellowships, the training that physicians get in a hospital once they leave medical school. Although Medicare and other federal programs also provide funding for residencies, the bulk of the money goes to hospitals generally serving adults. Since the program was put into place, the number of pediatric residents has increased 35 percent , said James Kaufman, vice president for public policy for the National Association of Children’s Hospitals. That was a reversal of the 13 percent decline in the 1990s. Much of the increase, he said, is attributable to a rise in the training of pediatric sub-specialists.
Continue reading …USA Today Religion Reporter Slams Baptist Preacher for Tweeting That Rep. Weiner Needs Jesus
June 13, 2011 No Comment
A Baptist preacher calling a sinner to repent and trust in Jesus Christ for salvation is hardly news. Except, perhaps, when it's done via Twitter. USA Today religion blogger Cathy Lynn Grossman yesterday took seminary president and Twitter user Albert Mohler to task for this tweet sent on Saturday:
Continue reading …An old online hoax is causing real-world headaches for McDonald’s after mysteriously resurfacing in recent days, reports Gawker . A fake sign, claiming that McDonald’s is charging an extra $1.50 for African-American customers due to an “insurance measure,” first appeared on the Internet’s notorious 4chan bulletin board last June. But…
Continue reading …Broken Bible Belt: Homes In Ruins From Tornadoes Denied Aid By FEMA For ‘Insufficient Damage’
June 13, 2011 No Comment
Jefferson County resident Jonathan Stewart said he laughed in shock after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) claimed the house his family lost in the deadly April 27 twister was ‘not unsafe to live in’. Displaced families in tornado-ravaged Alabama are outraged after being denied federal aide to rebuild their flattened homes – due to ‘insufficient damage’. The devastating reality is the… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Blaze Discovery Date : 13/06/2011 15:33 Number of articles : 3
Continue reading …
If you missed the Tony Awards last night, you missed this fantastic opening number: I’m going through the Month from Hell. This was the perfect remedy. And did anyone notice? Paddy posted today! I shall call her as soon as … Continue reading → Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : The Political Carnival Discovery Date : 13/06/2011 13:13 Number of articles : 3
Continue reading …Tom MacMaster, heterosexual American, contrite over fictional lesbian blogger ‘Amina Abdallah Aral al Omari’ The male American PhD student who confessed to being an internet hoaxer masquerading as a lesbian blogger in Damascus has spoken publicly about the reasons behind his deception, saying he was motivated, in part, by his own “vanity”. Gay activists in Syria and further afield have reacted furiously to the revelation that the blog, A Gay Girl in Damascus , was written not by a 35-year-old woman kidnapped by security forces last week, but by Tom MacMaster, a married, 40-year-old American studying at Edinburgh University. Speaking via Skype video to the Guardian, MacMaster, who is on holiday in Istanbul with his wife, expressed some contrition for the blog, which he began in February after constructing an elaborate web identity for Amina Abdallah Aral al Omari, a fictional lesbian Syrian, over more than four years. He said: “I regret that a lot of people feel that I led them on. I regret that … a number of people are seeing my hoax as distracting from real news, real stories about Syria and real concerns of real, actual, on-the-ground bloggers, where people will doubt their veracity.” Informed that Syria’s official news agency, Sana, has leapt on the controversy, claiming the fictional blog had perpetuated “continuous fabrications and lies against Syria in term of kidnapping bloggers and activists”, MacMaster said: “Yep. I regret that.” He had started the blog, he said, because he believed online posts about the Syrian and Israel-Palestinian situations would earn “some deference from obnoxious men” if written under an Arab woman’s name rather than under his own, where “someone would immediately ask: why do you hate America? why do you hate freedom? This sort of thing.” He had made her a lesbian, he said, in an attempt “to develop my writing conversation skills … It’s a challenge. I liked the challenge. “I also had the thing that I like to write, and my own vanity is … if you want to compliment me, tell you like my writing … That’s how to make me happy.” But why had he exchanged many hundreds of emails with a woman in Canada, Sandra Bagaria, who believed herself to be having a romantic relationship with the blogger? “I feel really guilty about that … I got caught up in the moment and it seemed … fun. And I feel a little like shit about that.” He denied having been sexually excited by the interaction: “I don’t want to go into that aspect particularly of it.” The student, who was later photographed by the Guardian at an address in Istanbul, confirming his location there, denied having ever met Jelena Lecic, a London woman whose photographs he appropriated from the internet and passed off as images of Amina. “I found her photo on Facebook a while back and … when I saw her photo, I was like, that is Amina … So I just nabbed her photos and was using her.” During the course of his deception MacMaster masqueraded as “Amina” in direct communication with a number of news organisations, including the Guardian, whose correspondent in Syria had taken detailed steps, at some risk to the journalist, to meet the blogger. MacMaster had emailed the correspondent with a photograph, purportedly of Amina, which was in fact of Lecic. Gay activists in Syria have reacted with fury to the revelation of the blogger’s true identity and to the suggestion that MacMaster had written it in an attempt to help their cause. “There are bloggers in Syria who are trying as hard as they can to report news and stories from the country,” wrote Sami Hamwi, a pseudonym for the Damascus editor of GayMiddleEast.com . “We have to deal with [more] difficulties than you can imagine. What you have done has harmed many, put us all in danger, and made us worry about our LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] activism. Add to that that it might have caused doubts about the authenticity of our blogs, stories, and us.” MacMaster told the Guardian: “I am not happy about that. And I understand their concern … I don’t want to put anybody at risk, or increased risk. And in actual fact, some of my self-justification was that in having a completely fictional character being bold and forward, then it makes it easier for real people. Which is probably just a self-justification, but it was something that crossed my mind.” His post last Monday, in which he posed as a cousin of the blogger claiming she had been kidnapped by Syrian security services, “was, stupidly, my sort of ‘away message’”, written as he and his wife left for a holiday in Istanbul, he said. MacMaster’s wife, Britta Froelicher, is studying at the University of St Andrews for a PhD in Syrian economic development. He said she had not participated in the fiction. “She is a student of that region – Syria, specifically. She is extremely knowledgeable and obviously a great consultant for such a project. But I am the sole author.” Why was the going-away message “stupid”? “I wanted to shut down the whole blog for a while, and I was thinking I would phase out the character, and having her abducted was not the way to do it.” He had intended, he said, to post in a few days that Amina “had been released, had left the country and was not going to blog any more”. As questions about the identity of the mysterious blogger became more acute in the days after her supposed abduction, a number of individuals and bloggers, among them journalists from the website Electronic Intifada (EI), traced internet leads that increasingly pointed to MacMaster. Confronted by EI and by the Washington Post, MacMaster originally denied involvement, before admitting the hoax in a confessional post on the blog on Sunday. In that post, MacMaster said his intention had been in part to expose “the often superficial coverage of the Middle East and the pervasiveness of new forms of liberal orientalism”. Wasn’t there a very bitter irony, the Guardian asked, that a supposedly young Arab lesbian woman had been exposed as being the fictional creation of a heterosexual American man, and lacking an authentic voice of her own? MacMaster replied: “I am very aware the irony is 20 layers thick.” Did he accept that it was difficult to criticise the media for their coverage of the Middle East when he had lied explicitly to several news organisations? “Yeah, absolutely … I don’t feel incredibly happy with myself, you know. I wish in retrospect I would have done things very, very differently.” Syria Arab and Middle East unrest Gay rights Middle East Scotland Canada United States Esther Addley guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Syrian TV has aired pictures of what appears to be the regime’s weekend offensive against a reported mutiny in the town of Jisr al-Shughour near the Turkish border. (June 13)
Continue reading …
Police in Bloomington, Indiana say they are bringing in a national search expert in their hunt for Lauren Spierer, a 20-year-old who was last seen walking home June 3rd from a bar. (June 13)
Continue reading …