September 12, 2009
U.S. to Accept Iran’s Proposal to Hold Talks
NYTIMES.COM
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that the United States would accept Iran’s offer to meet, fulfilling President Obama’s pledge to hold unconditional talks despite the Iranian government’s insistence that it would not negotiate over the future of its nuclear program.
The decision to engage directly with Iran would put a senior representative of the Obama administration at the bargaining table, along with emissaries from five other nations, for the first time since Mr. Obama took office.
The decision is bound to raise protests from conservatives who contend that unconditional talks are naïve, and from human rights groups that say the United States should not legitimize an Iranian government that appears to have manipulated its presidential election in June and crushed protests after the vote.
In advance of Friday’s announcement, senior administration officials said that their offer to negotiate directly with the Iranians, for what could turn into the first substantive talks since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, was, as a senior official had earlier put it, a “bona fide offer.”
But at the same time, officials said their expectations were extremely low. They also said their willingness to proceed was based in part on a recognition that some form of talks had to take place before the United States could make a case for imposing far stronger sanctions on Iran.
“We’ll be looking to see if they are willing to engage seriously on these issues,” said a State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley. “If we have talks, we will plan to bring up the nuclear issue.”
The talks would also include Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, which in the past have negotiated with Iran without the presence of an American representative, except for one meeting at the end of the administration of President George W. Bush.
During his first term, talks with unfriendly countries like North Korea and Iran were usually rejected out of hand in the hope of speeding their collapse. That loosened in Mr. Bush’s second term, but even then agreements to talk were usually under highly restricted conditions.
The result was a stalemate — one that Mr. Obama argued during last year’s presidential campaign was a huge mistake, in part because Iran was producing nuclear material while the standoff dragged on.
The United Nations Security Council has issued several rounds of sanctions against Iran for failing to comply with resolutions demanding it stop enriching uranium. It has called on Tehran to answer questions from international arms inspectors about documents that suggest that the country worked in the past on a nuclear weapons design.
Iran’s government insists that its efforts are aimed at the peaceful generation of electricity, and has charged that the documents were Western forgeries.
Iran made its offer to meet in a five-page letter delivered to several nations on Wednesday. Titled “Cooperation, Peace and Justice,” it touched on political, social and economic themes, called for reform of the United Nations and a Middle East peace settlement, and for universal nuclear disarmament.
But the letter said nothing about Iran’s nuclear program, and as recently as this week President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed never to halt the fuel production, saying Iran would not relinquish its fundamental rights.
Administration officials were dismissive of the letter, saying that it rehashed past statements and offers. But they said they would consider the offer to meet, and they spent less than 48 hours studying its contents before deciding to tell Iran that the United States would join its negotiating partners in talks.
It is unclear where the discussions will take place, but the most likely American representative is William J. Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who is leading the diplomatic effort.
The first announcement of the decision was made Friday in Brussels by Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, who acts as an intermediary for the six countries.
Hours earlier, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, appeared to take a softer line on Iran, saying the administration would not impose “artificial deadlines” on Iran.
It was difficult to judge Mr. Obama’s outreach to Iran because, she said, “the elections and their aftermath have added a layer of complexity to assessing the overtures and offers of diplomatic engagement.”
Some administration officials argued that Mr. Obama’s overtures, which included a videotaped New Year’s greeting and at least one letter to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, had thrown the Iranian leadership off balance. They thought that for the first time in recent history, the United States had Iran on the defensive, rather than the other way around.
Russia and China have expressed deep reservations about imposing additional sanctions on Iran. On Thursday, the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, expressed opposition to additional sanctions.
On Friday, Mr. Crowley also said the United States would be willing to hold direct talks with North Korea over its nuclear program, within the context of existing six-party negotiations.
“We are prepared to meet with North Korea,” he said. “When it’ll happen, where it’ll happen, we’ll have to wait and see.”
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
So what now in Afghanistan
The events in Afghanistan are a perfect reflection of the state of mind that the American's and coalition forces are in: Chaos and Confusion. From the missile attack by NATO which killed scores of civilians to Gen.McCrystal and Secretary Gates' opinion on what route to adopt for success after 8 years in Afghanistan. Just check out the following articles from opinion makers here in the US:
US general sees strike aftermath
The head of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan has visited the area where a Nato air strike destroyed two fuel tankers hijacked by Taliban militants.
Gen Stanley McChrystal's visit came amid reports that civilians were among scores of people killed in the attack.
Gen McChrystal has made avoiding civilian deaths a priority in the alliance's Afghan campaign.
A Nato investigative team also visited the site of the attack, on the Kunduz River in northern Afghanistan.
The 10-member team led by US Rear Admiral Gregory J Smith had earlier visited a hospital in Kunduz city where some of the injured are being treated.
Rear Adm Smith said there were few confirmed details so far.
"Two fuel trucks were stuck in the sandbar. There were two bombs dropped on that area," he said.
"The sense was that there were insurgents there, but we need to discover what really happened.
"We are really trying to learn and understand, and we are listening."
In a statement broadcast on Afghan television, Gen McChrystal promised a full investigation into the air strike.
"As commander of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), nothing is more important than the safety and protection of the Afghan people," he said.
"I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously."
Meanwhile, the German defence minister has defended his country's troops for ordering the air strike.
Franz Josef Jung said the two fuel tankers had posed a considerable danger to the German soldiers stationed close by.
The Nato attack occurred about 7km (four miles) south-west of Kunduz city before dawn on Friday.
German forces had reported the two tankers hijacked by the Taliban while they were being driven from Tajikistan to supply Nato forces in Kabul.
Witnesses said one of the tankers had become stuck in a river and militants asked villagers to extract fuel to make it lighter.
At that point, the air strike occurred.
The death toll is still not confirmed, with reports varying from 56 to 90.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the attack had been a "big mistake".
The West should "work with the Afghan people, not bomb them", Mr Kouchner said in Stockholm, where European Union foreign ministers have concluded two days of talks focusing on their strategy in Afghanistan.
The ministers agreed there was "a need to reinforce our political, civilian and economic efforts in Afghanistan", Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said.
They also said there should be a greater focus fighting corruption and the production of opium.
Gates Says time not right to leave Afghanistan
WASHINGTON — Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.
Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said efforts by President Barack Obama — including ordering an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan this spring — are "only now beginning" and should be given a chance to succeed.
"I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers," Gates said. Later, he added: "I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan."
At the same time, there is a "limited time for us to show that ... this approach is working," Gates said.
Sitting beside Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen described "a sense of urgency" in securing Afghanistan to make sure extremists can no longer hatch terrorist plots against the United States and it allies from within its borders.
"Time is not on our side," Mullen said, adding that the military mission in Afghanistan until recently has been underfunded and undermanned. "Part of why it has gotten more serious and has deteriorated has been directly tied to that."
Both Gates and Mullen declined to talk about any of the recommendations contained in a new review of Afghanistan strategy sent this week to them and the president. Gates said only he could consider a major increase in combat troops under certain conditions.
Gates said he would be comfortable with a larger U.S. military presence in Afghanistan as long as the increase reassured the country's citizens that the Americans were there for the benefit of Afghans.
"If they interact with the Afghans in a way that gives confidence to the Afghans that we're their partners and their allies, then the risks that I have been concerned about the footprint becoming too big and the Afghans seeing us in some role other than partners I think is mitigated," Gates said.
A separate recommendation on troop increases is expected in the coming weeks from the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who wrote the new review, but how many troops McChrystal wants is unclear. There could be as many as 20,000, but in recent days military officials have predicted it will be far less, closer to or fewer than 10,000.
Mullen said the question of a new jump in troop deployments is just one element of a larger plan that the Pentagon will soon ask Congress to authorize. "It's a piece — critical, but it's not total," Mullen said.
Despite recent calls from leftist activists and also from conservative columnist George Will to wind down U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Gates forcefully argued for continued American efforts there.
Fifty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.
Gates cited the continuing threat from al-Qaida and its Taliban allies as the top reason why the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan. Leaving would allow terrorists to re-establish staging bases in a nation where the political leadership is unable to curb insurgent threats, Gates said in a blunt reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"We're in Afghanistan less for nation building than we are in giving the Afghan state the capacity to oppose al-Qaida, to oppose the use of their territory by other violent extremists, and for them to have that capacity that can be sustained over a period of time," the secretary said.
Recent public opinion polls have shown Americans' dwindling support for the idea of sending more troops to the conflict and falling confidence in how the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan is working. Part of the issue for Americans, the polls show, is confusion over what is the U.S. mission in Afghanistan — a concern echoed by senators from Obama's own party.
Last week, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin questioned the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, saying it has lost focus and needs a flexible timeline for withdrawing troops from the country. Additionally, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he is "concerned that this war not last a whole lot longer."
"We've got to begin seeing changes," Brown said after returning from a trip to Afghanistan. "We don't stay forever if they don't meet the goals they need to meet."
Any additional funding approved by Congress likely will be spent to train Afghan army, police and other security forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and on equipment to protect U.S. troops from attacks and homemade bombs known as IEDs.
By the end of the year, an estimated 68,000 troops will be in Afghanistan, 21,000 of which were ordered there by Obama last spring. Military commanders and State Department officials on the ground, however, say many more are needed to get the job done.
Despite waving off questions about the contents of McChrystal's review, both Gates and Mullen repeatedly referred to some of his recommendations, with Mullen calling it a "frank and candid" look at how military forces can accomplish the Afghanistan mission.
Obama is reading the report during the long Labor Day weekend at Camp David, his aides said.
US general sees strike aftermath
The head of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan has visited the area where a Nato air strike destroyed two fuel tankers hijacked by Taliban militants.
Gen Stanley McChrystal's visit came amid reports that civilians were among scores of people killed in the attack.
Gen McChrystal has made avoiding civilian deaths a priority in the alliance's Afghan campaign.
A Nato investigative team also visited the site of the attack, on the Kunduz River in northern Afghanistan.
The 10-member team led by US Rear Admiral Gregory J Smith had earlier visited a hospital in Kunduz city where some of the injured are being treated.
Rear Adm Smith said there were few confirmed details so far.
"Two fuel trucks were stuck in the sandbar. There were two bombs dropped on that area," he said.
"The sense was that there were insurgents there, but we need to discover what really happened.
"We are really trying to learn and understand, and we are listening."
In a statement broadcast on Afghan television, Gen McChrystal promised a full investigation into the air strike.
"As commander of the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf), nothing is more important than the safety and protection of the Afghan people," he said.
"I take this possible loss of life or injury to innocent Afghans very seriously."
Meanwhile, the German defence minister has defended his country's troops for ordering the air strike.
Franz Josef Jung said the two fuel tankers had posed a considerable danger to the German soldiers stationed close by.
The Nato attack occurred about 7km (four miles) south-west of Kunduz city before dawn on Friday.
German forces had reported the two tankers hijacked by the Taliban while they were being driven from Tajikistan to supply Nato forces in Kabul.
Witnesses said one of the tankers had become stuck in a river and militants asked villagers to extract fuel to make it lighter.
At that point, the air strike occurred.
The death toll is still not confirmed, with reports varying from 56 to 90.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the attack had been a "big mistake".
The West should "work with the Afghan people, not bomb them", Mr Kouchner said in Stockholm, where European Union foreign ministers have concluded two days of talks focusing on their strategy in Afghanistan.
The ministers agreed there was "a need to reinforce our political, civilian and economic efforts in Afghanistan", Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said.
They also said there should be a greater focus fighting corruption and the production of opium.
Gates Says time not right to leave Afghanistan
WASHINGTON — Faced with waning public support for the military escalation in Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that the war is worth fighting and signaled for the first time he may be willing to send more troops after months of publicly resisting a significant increase.
Gates urged patience amid polls showing rising disenchantment among the public with the war effort, saying the American military presence in Afghanistan was necessary to derail terrorists.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gates said efforts by President Barack Obama — including ordering an additional 21,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan this spring — are "only now beginning" and should be given a chance to succeed.
"I don't believe that the war is slipping through the administration's fingers," Gates said. Later, he added: "I absolutely do not think it is time to get out of Afghanistan."
At the same time, there is a "limited time for us to show that ... this approach is working," Gates said.
Sitting beside Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen described "a sense of urgency" in securing Afghanistan to make sure extremists can no longer hatch terrorist plots against the United States and it allies from within its borders.
"Time is not on our side," Mullen said, adding that the military mission in Afghanistan until recently has been underfunded and undermanned. "Part of why it has gotten more serious and has deteriorated has been directly tied to that."
Both Gates and Mullen declined to talk about any of the recommendations contained in a new review of Afghanistan strategy sent this week to them and the president. Gates said only he could consider a major increase in combat troops under certain conditions.
Gates said he would be comfortable with a larger U.S. military presence in Afghanistan as long as the increase reassured the country's citizens that the Americans were there for the benefit of Afghans.
"If they interact with the Afghans in a way that gives confidence to the Afghans that we're their partners and their allies, then the risks that I have been concerned about the footprint becoming too big and the Afghans seeing us in some role other than partners I think is mitigated," Gates said.
A separate recommendation on troop increases is expected in the coming weeks from the top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who wrote the new review, but how many troops McChrystal wants is unclear. There could be as many as 20,000, but in recent days military officials have predicted it will be far less, closer to or fewer than 10,000.
Mullen said the question of a new jump in troop deployments is just one element of a larger plan that the Pentagon will soon ask Congress to authorize. "It's a piece — critical, but it's not total," Mullen said.
Despite recent calls from leftist activists and also from conservative columnist George Will to wind down U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, Gates forcefully argued for continued American efforts there.
Fifty-one U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in August, making it the bloodiest month for American forces there since the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001.
Gates cited the continuing threat from al-Qaida and its Taliban allies as the top reason why the U.S. should stay in Afghanistan. Leaving would allow terrorists to re-establish staging bases in a nation where the political leadership is unable to curb insurgent threats, Gates said in a blunt reference to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"We're in Afghanistan less for nation building than we are in giving the Afghan state the capacity to oppose al-Qaida, to oppose the use of their territory by other violent extremists, and for them to have that capacity that can be sustained over a period of time," the secretary said.
Recent public opinion polls have shown Americans' dwindling support for the idea of sending more troops to the conflict and falling confidence in how the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan is working. Part of the issue for Americans, the polls show, is confusion over what is the U.S. mission in Afghanistan — a concern echoed by senators from Obama's own party.
Last week, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin questioned the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, saying it has lost focus and needs a flexible timeline for withdrawing troops from the country. Additionally, Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said he is "concerned that this war not last a whole lot longer."
"We've got to begin seeing changes," Brown said after returning from a trip to Afghanistan. "We don't stay forever if they don't meet the goals they need to meet."
Any additional funding approved by Congress likely will be spent to train Afghan army, police and other security forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and on equipment to protect U.S. troops from attacks and homemade bombs known as IEDs.
By the end of the year, an estimated 68,000 troops will be in Afghanistan, 21,000 of which were ordered there by Obama last spring. Military commanders and State Department officials on the ground, however, say many more are needed to get the job done.
Despite waving off questions about the contents of McChrystal's review, both Gates and Mullen repeatedly referred to some of his recommendations, with Mullen calling it a "frank and candid" look at how military forces can accomplish the Afghanistan mission.
Obama is reading the report during the long Labor Day weekend at Camp David, his aides said.
Pakistan's Defence day today: The nation remembers its Heros
Here is a list of the Recipients of the Nishan-e-Haider, the highest military award in Pakistan
Captain Muhammad Anwar Shaheed
Major Tufail Muhammad Shaheed
Major Raja Aziz Bhatti Shaheed
Major Muhammad Akram Shaheed
Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas Shaheed
Major Shabbir Shabir Shaheed
Jawan Sarwar Muhammad Hussain Shaheed
Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz Shaheed
Captain Muhammad Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed
Havaldar Lalak Jaan Shaheed
Captain Muhammad Anwar Shaheed
Major Tufail Muhammad Shaheed
Major Raja Aziz Bhatti Shaheed
Major Muhammad Akram Shaheed
Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas Shaheed
Major Shabbir Shabir Shaheed
Jawan Sarwar Muhammad Hussain Shaheed
Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz Shaheed
Captain Muhammad Karnal Sher Khan Shaheed
Havaldar Lalak Jaan Shaheed
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Political Stability in Pakistain: Too much to Ask?
The last couple of weeks in Pakistan's politics have seen the ugly apolitical forces raise their head. Former head of the Intelligence Bureau Brig. Imtiaz revealed how the intelligence agencies paid politicians who were part of the Islami Jamoori Ittehad or the Islamic Democratic Alliance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)