Afghanistan rebuffs U.S. demand to sign security pact

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, November 22, 2013 10:55 EST

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 


• 



Afghanistan on Friday rebuffed a US demand to sign a highly anticipated security pact as soon as possible, insisting the document must wait until after next year’s presidential election.




Washington warned Kabul on Thursday to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) as soon as possible, with senior officials hinting that delaying beyond the end of this year could mean no post-2014 US troop presence.




The latest US run-in with President Hamid Karzai was set off by the Afghan leader saying the painstakingly negotiated deal would not be signed until after the election in April.




US officials bristled, saying the pact, which governs the conditions of any post-war American counter-terrorism and training mission in Afghanistan, must be signed by the end of the year.




The White House said it needed a swift decision from Karzai to start planning the footprint of any US forces, and warned Obama had not yet decided whether or not to keep US forces in Afghanistan.




“Failure to get this approved and signed by the end of the year would prevent the United States and our allies from being able to plan for a post-2014 presence,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.




Karzai had said the pact currently under consideration by a loya jirga, a meeting of tribal chieftains, could only be signed “when our elections are conducted, correctly and with dignity”.




His spokesman Aimal Faizi stood firm on the issue on Friday.




“Security, peace and good elections are key to the signing of the BSA,” Faizi told AFP.




“Let’s wait and see what will the loya jirga decide on the document. If approved, as the president said, it will be signed after elections.”




Senior US officials speaking on condition of anonymity were blunt, warning that if there were no BSA in force, there would be no US troop garrison in Afghanistan after NATO combat troops leave in 2014.




“We desperately need this pact”




Some jirga delegates voiced frustration at Karzai’s unexpected announcement — the latest in a long line of antagonistic outbursts.




“This should be signed by the current government not be left to the next one,” Aminullah Muavez, a member of the provincial peace council of Nuristan — a Taliban stronghold in the country’s northeast — told AFP.




“If we don’t sign it soon, the US might change their mind and withdraw from Afghanistan.”




Karzai on Thursday told jirga delegates that the BSA would allow up to 15,000 foreign troops to stay in the war-torn country.




Afghanistan goes to the polls on April 5 to elect a successor to Karzai, who must step down after his two terms. A credible election is seen as crucial to the country’s future stability.




The jirga is to give its decision Sunday on the BSA, the text of which was only agreed after months of tortuous negotiations with Washington.




It is widely expected to approve it, though possibly with recommendations or conditions, after which it must also be approved by the Afghan parliament before Karzai can sign it into effect.




Tahira Mirzad, a former MP representing Kapisa province at the Jirga, told AFP the country urgently needed the BSA.




“This is a sensitive phase we are going through at the moment. it’s a chaotic phase, every day we have attacks by the enemies, there is a lack of proper training for security forces, we desperately need this pact to be signed,” she said.




Obama stepped in this week with a letter to confirm a deal on the vexed question of US forces raiding Afghan homes.




The letter released by Karzai’s office said US forces would not enter Afghan homes for military operations “except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of US nationals”.




The issue is a sensitive one in Afghanistan and had for a time appeared to pose a serious threat to the deal.




Supporters of the deal say it is vital for post-2014, when the bulk of NATO’s 75,000 troops will pull out. The Taliban insurgency this year has reached levels of violence not seen since 2010, according to the United Nations.




The Taliban condemned the jirga as an American plot and threatened to target its delegates if they approve the deal.




A draft text released by Kabul Wednesday appeared to show Karzai had bowed to a US demand that American troops would not be tried in local courts if they are accused of crimes.




A similar security deal between the United States and Iraq collapsed in 2011 over the issue of whether American troops would be answerable to local courts, leading Washington to pull its forces out.








Agence France-Presse


AFP journalists cover wars, conflicts, politics, science, health, the environment, technology, fashion, entertainment, the offbeat, sports and a whole lot more in text, photographs, video, graphics and online.














WHAT REALLY HAPPENED



Afghanistan rebuffs U.S. demand to sign security pact

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

NEW YORK — For billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, throwing away $ 350,000 is equivalent to most Americans dropping loose change between the sofa cushions.

But the concern for Bloomberg is not the amount of money he personally invested in the effort to save the seats of two Colorado state senators — an effort that failed when both were ousted from office Tuesday by voters apparently displeased with their roles in passing gun control legislation.

Instead, the overriding worry for the 71-year-old mayor is that the defeats seem to underscore his increasing inability to nationally impact the public policy issues he’s most involved with.

On the heels of his failed $ 12 million effort to implement stronger gun laws on the national level — a crusade that some observers have said harmed efforts to pass background-check legislation — Bloomberg has become a favorite punching bag for the NRA and other small-government advocates, who have singled him out as an enemy of personal freedom.

And back home in New York City, there was further evidence this week of his apparently waning influence.

Though Bloomberg’s job approval rating remains at respectable levels citywide, Democratic primary voters on Tuesday awarded a sweeping victory to Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, whose rapid rise in the race was predicated largely on presenting himself as the most anti-Bloomberg candidate in the field.

With less than four months remaining in his tenure at City Hall, and no indication that he has plans to ride off into the sunset anytime soon, the three-term mayor is facing a difficult prospect: He is a wealthy man with grand ambitions for shaping the nation’s priorities on issues ranging from guns to immigration, but has a questionable ability to do so.

While New Yorkers have a long history of rewarding strong leaders with outsized personalities, the rest of the country may be less enamored of such an aggressive style, one that seems rooted in an attitude of “I know what’s best for you.”

“Part of the problem with Bloomberg is that politically he’s had a difficult time speaking to the public on their level,” said Jeanne Zaino, a professor of campaign management and political communication at NYU. “There’s a way in which his money can be very helpful, but it has to be done artfully and in a way that understands the local culture and views of outsiders, and he doesn’t seem to have mastered that. There’s a ‘real person’ sense that seems to be missing.”

A legendary workaholic in a city full of them, Bloomberg has left an indelible mark during his 12 years in office. A Republican, he did not get elected three times in this heavily Democratic city by accident.

But despite a reputation for competent leadership on issues ranging from crime-fighting to economic development, Bloomberg’s sweeping public health initiatives have made him the personification of the “nanny state” both in and out of New York.

In some instances, that perception is generally regarded positively. Mounting an effort to reverse his groundbreaking 2003 initiative to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, for example, has become unthinkable.

But Bloomberg’s more recent attempt to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces is the highest-profile example of this perceived overreach; in fact, the issue was fodder for late-night comedians and Tea Party rallies.

Eager to avoid being seen as a “professional politician,” Bloomberg has always exuded a bluntness this is both a cornerstone of his appeal and a glaring example of his weaknesses as a communicator.

In an interview with New York Magazine, which was published just before Tuesday’s primary, it was the latter.

In the interview, Bloomberg characterized de Blasio as running a “racist” campaign — an ill-advised reference to the candidate featuring his biracial son in campaign ads; Bloomberg’s remark served only to solidify the Democratic frontrunner’s partisan support and boost perceptions that the current mayor had become politically tone deaf.

Though large swaths of the country may still yearn for his brand of centrism, negative perceptions of Bloomberg’s heavy-handedness have apparently limited his appeal, especially among the very people who should compose his political base: non-partisans fed up with the Washington establishment.

“He had the potential to be much more influential as a voice of independents, pre-2008 financial meltdown,” said New York-based Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein, a self-described fan of the mayor. “And I think he missed his moment because now, anyone who comes from the financial elite and has such strong ties to Wall Street is going to be compromised in the eyes of many.”

Politically vulnerable Democrats in red states who earned Bloomberg’s ire on the gun issue are wearing the New Yorker’s antipathy as a badge of honor as they embark on difficult re-election campaigns in 2014.

“A New York mayor telling an Alaska senator what to do? Alaskans will reject that big time,” Alaska Sen. Mark Begich told The Huffington Post after Bloomberg had urged donors to withhold contributions to the Democrat, whose seat is up next year.

And in Arkansas, Sen. Mark Pryor — another of the most vulnerable Democrats in next year’s midterms — took a direct shot at Bloomberg in his re-election effort’s first TV ad. He was returning fire after the New Yorker launched ads of his own attacking Pryor’s opposition to gun control legislation.

“I’m Mark Pryor, and I approve this message because no one from New York or Washington tells me what to do,” the two-term lawmaker said in the TV spot.

Despite his recent struggles, Bloomberg has shown an ability over the years to defy anyone who underestimates him and to set a course on policy that others eventually come around to, rather than being guided by the fickle political winds of the moment.

And in addition, money always talks in politics, and the business magnate has no shortage of that.

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the centrist group No Labels, warned against reading too much into this week’s results in Colorado, noting that Colorado Springs and Pueblo — where the two state senators were recalled — are deeply conservative enclaves.

“Team Bloomberg just got out-gunned on this one,” he said. “It’s only a surprise that Democratic senators represented those locales in the first place. And after three terms of Jesus Christ, New York would have elected Pontius Pilate just for something new and different. “

It may indeed be understandable that New Yorkers are eager to try something new after a dozen years under one mayor.

But for much of the rest of the country, even a glimpse of Bloomberg may be enough to turn the other way. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs

NEW YORK — For billionaire New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, throwing away $ 350,000 is equivalent to most Americans dropping loose change between the sofa cushions.

But the concern for Bloomberg is not the amount of money he personally invested in the effort to save the seats of two Colorado state senators — an effort that failed when both were ousted from office Tuesday by voters apparently displeased with their roles in passing gun control legislation.

Instead, the overriding worry for the 71-year-old mayor is that the defeats seem to underscore his increasing inability to nationally impact the public policy issues he’s most involved with.

On the heels of his failed $ 12 million effort to implement stronger gun laws on the national level — a crusade that some observers have said harmed efforts to pass background-check legislation — Bloomberg has become a favorite punching bag for the NRA and other small-government advocates, who have singled him out as an enemy of personal freedom.

And back home in New York City, there was further evidence this week of his apparently waning influence.

Though Bloomberg’s job approval rating remains at respectable levels citywide, Democratic primary voters on Tuesday awarded a sweeping victory to Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, whose rapid rise in the race was predicated largely on presenting himself as the most anti-Bloomberg candidate in the field.

With less than four months remaining in his tenure at City Hall, and no indication that he has plans to ride off into the sunset anytime soon, the three-term mayor is facing a difficult prospect: He is a wealthy man with grand ambitions for shaping the nation’s priorities on issues ranging from guns to immigration, but has a questionable ability to do so.

While New Yorkers have a long history of rewarding strong leaders with outsized personalities, the rest of the country may be less enamored of such an aggressive style, one that seems rooted in an attitude of “I know what’s best for you.”

“Part of the problem with Bloomberg is that politically he’s had a difficult time speaking to the public on their level,” said Jeanne Zaino, a professor of campaign management and political communication at NYU. “There’s a way in which his money can be very helpful, but it has to be done artfully and in a way that understands the local culture and views of outsiders, and he doesn’t seem to have mastered that. There’s a ‘real person’ sense that seems to be missing.”

A legendary workaholic in a city full of them, Bloomberg has left an indelible mark during his 12 years in office. A Republican, he did not get elected three times in this heavily Democratic city by accident.

But despite a reputation for competent leadership on issues ranging from crime-fighting to economic development, Bloomberg’s sweeping public health initiatives have made him the personification of the “nanny state” both in and out of New York.

In some instances, that perception is generally regarded positively. Mounting an effort to reverse his groundbreaking 2003 initiative to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, for example, has become unthinkable.

But Bloomberg’s more recent attempt to ban the sale of sugary drinks larger than 16 ounces is the highest-profile example of this perceived overreach; in fact, the issue was fodder for late-night comedians and Tea Party rallies.

Eager to avoid being seen as a “professional politician,” Bloomberg has always exuded a bluntness this is both a cornerstone of his appeal and a glaring example of his weaknesses as a communicator.

In an interview with New York Magazine, which was published just before Tuesday’s primary, it was the latter.

In the interview, Bloomberg characterized de Blasio as running a “racist” campaign — an ill-advised reference to the candidate featuring his biracial son in campaign ads; Bloomberg’s remark served only to solidify the Democratic frontrunner’s partisan support and boost perceptions that the current mayor had become politically tone deaf.

Though large swaths of the country may still yearn for his brand of centrism, negative perceptions of Bloomberg’s heavy-handedness have apparently limited his appeal, especially among the very people who should compose his political base: non-partisans fed up with the Washington establishment.

“He had the potential to be much more influential as a voice of independents, pre-2008 financial meltdown,” said New York-based Democratic strategist Dan Gerstein, a self-described fan of the mayor. “And I think he missed his moment because now, anyone who comes from the financial elite and has such strong ties to Wall Street is going to be compromised in the eyes of many.”

Politically vulnerable Democrats in red states who earned Bloomberg’s ire on the gun issue are wearing the New Yorker’s antipathy as a badge of honor as they embark on difficult re-election campaigns in 2014.

“A New York mayor telling an Alaska senator what to do? Alaskans will reject that big time,” Alaska Sen. Mark Begich told The Huffington Post after Bloomberg had urged donors to withhold contributions to the Democrat, whose seat is up next year.

And in Arkansas, Sen. Mark Pryor — another of the most vulnerable Democrats in next year’s midterms — took a direct shot at Bloomberg in his re-election effort’s first TV ad. He was returning fire after the New Yorker launched ads of his own attacking Pryor’s opposition to gun control legislation.

“I’m Mark Pryor, and I approve this message because no one from New York or Washington tells me what to do,” the two-term lawmaker said in the TV spot.

Despite his recent struggles, Bloomberg has shown an ability over the years to defy anyone who underestimates him and to set a course on policy that others eventually come around to, rather than being guided by the fickle political winds of the moment.

And in addition, money always talks in politics, and the business magnate has no shortage of that.

GOP strategist Mark McKinnon, a co-founder of the centrist group No Labels, warned against reading too much into this week’s results in Colorado, noting that Colorado Springs and Pueblo — where the two state senators were recalled — are deeply conservative enclaves.

“Team Bloomberg just got out-gunned on this one,” he said. “It’s only a surprise that Democratic senators represented those locales in the first place. And after three terms of Jesus Christ, New York would have elected Pontius Pilate just for something new and different. “

It may indeed be understandable that New Yorkers are eager to try something new after a dozen years under one mayor.

But for much of the rest of the country, even a glimpse of Bloomberg may be enough to turn the other way. 

RealClearPolitics – Articles

Bloomberg"s Influence Takes a Hit in Voter Rebuffs