U.S. President Donald Trump’s rejection of peace talks with the Taliban has provoked a strong reaction from the Islamist insurgency, while lead Afghan clerics advocate against continuation of military action to end the war in Afghanistan.

“We have always maintained, the true authority of war and peace is not with the Kabul regime but with the American invaders, and the recent statement by Trump made this matter brighter than the sun,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said Tuesday.

Trump ruled out talks with the insurgent group and vowed to “finish” them in the wake of a wave of terrorist attacks in the Afghan capital, Kabul, that killed hundreds of people.

“They’re killing people left and right. Innocent people being killed left and right,” Trump told a U.N. Security Council delegation at the White House on Monday.

“So we don’t want to talk with the Taliban. There may be a time, but it’s going to be a long time,” noted the U.S. president, suggesting a stronger military campaign against the Taliban was imminent.

Trump and his “war-mongering supporters” should expect an equal reaction and not “roses” from the Taliban, asserted the insurgent spokesman in a written statement released to media.  

“War will only make the reactionary jihadist waves more violent and increase the human and financial losses of American troops by many folds,” Mujahid said.

Crossing a ‘red line’

A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Tuesday stopped short of supporting Trump’s idea of rejecting talks with insurgents. Shah Hussain Murtazawi told VOA the Afghan government will now use all available means to stop the Taliban from conducting terrorist attacks.

“The Taliban have crossed a red line and lost the opportunity for peace…We have to look for peace on the battlefield. They have to be marginalized,” Murtazawi pledged. He said a suicide car bombing last Saturday was the “red line.” The blast killed more than 100 people and wounded 250 others.

On Tuesday, an Afghan council of 100 prominent clerics met in Kabul to denounce the militant violence as un-Islamic.

The council’s spokesman, Mohammad Qasem Halimi, while talking to reporters, declined to directly comment on Trump’s refusal to engage in talks with the Taliban, but maintained that Islamic Afghanistan “faithfully” believes in resolving issues through peace negotiations.

“I want to stress that those [the Taliban] who are not coming to peace talks are against the [Islamic] religion. I am hopeful that discussing peace on the table talks can solve the problems. But we have not yet come to the conclusion that war is the way forward to find peace, particularly in Afghanistan,” Halimi said.

Visiting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan explained to reporters in Kabul Tuesday night that there was no change in Washington policy and the stepped up U.S. military pressure on the Taliban is meant to push insurgents into peace talks. 

Civilians have borne the brunt of the Afghan conflict in recent years. Observers see the stepped up Taliban attacks as a reaction to recent battlefield setbacks and killings of key Taliban commanders in U.S.-led international airstrikes.

The insurgency has refused to engage in peace talks until all foreign forces leave Afghanistan.

Pakistan complicit?

The United States believes the Haqqani network, a faction within the Taliban, plotted Saturday’s attack. Afghan officials have also long accused Pakistan of supporting and sheltering the Taliban and Haqqanis.

The Pakistani government denies the charges and has condemned the recent series of “heinous attacks” in the neighboring country.

Pakistani authorities also cite stepped up border scrutiny measures in addition to sustained counterterrorism operations on their side.

Earlier in January, about 1,800 Pakistani clerics issued a fatwa, or religious decree, declaring suicide bombings and anti-state acts as un-Islamic. Afghan officials and clerics, however, dismissed the move as insufficient for it being limited to Pakistan only. Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Faisal rejected the criticism as misplaced and declared the religious directive as a “landmark” development for countering religious extremism and terrorism.

“It [the fatwa] goes on to prohibit the use of Pakistani territory for the propagation of any kind of terrorism…Afghanistan may on its part seek a similar fatwa from its ulema [body of religious scholars]. The application of fatwas is universal and not restricted to geographical limits,” Faisal maintained.

Islamabad also alleges that anti-state militants are using bases in Afghan border areas to launch attacks against Pakistan, charges Kabul denies.

An improvement in strained relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan is seen as key to effective regional counterterrorism efforts.

 
…

your ad here

Afghanistan is asking the U.S. government to stop deporting Afghan nationals, saying it has no repatriation agreement with the United States.

“We did not sign any such agreements with the United States of America,” Ahmad Shekib Mostaghni, spokesperson for the Afghanistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the VOA Afghanistan Service. If there were such an agreement, Mostaghni said, it would have been made by the nation’s Ministry of Refugees and Repatriations, which he said handles all immigration issues.

“So, since they are not aware of such an agreement, I can officially confirm that we — MoFA — did not ink any deal with the U.S in this regard,” Mostaghni said.

Ministry of Refugees and Repatriations adviser Hafiz Ahmad Miakhel also insisted that his government has not approved a repatriation agreement and said the ministry is asking for a halt to all deportations. “Ongoing war has been forcing people to leave Afghanistan,” he said in an interview. “We are a country still at war, and our people need to be helped rather than deporting.”

The European Union entered into a repatriation agreement with Afghanistan in October 2016 to pave the way for the return of failed Afghan asylum seekers. In addition, Germany, Sweden and Finland have country-to-country agreements.

When VOA asked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement if the United States has such an agreement, spokesman Brendan Raedy provided a written response:

“International law obligates each country to accept the return of its nationals ordered removed from the United States. The United States itself routinely cooperates with foreign governments in documenting and accepting its citizens when asked, as do the majority of countries in the world.”

Afghan deportations

Deportations from the U.S. were down overall in 2017, but an analysis of the data by National Public Radio shows that if the Latin American countries — which make up some 90 percent of repatriations — are not counted, deportations to the rest of the world were up by 24 percent.

“Deportations to Brazil and China jumped,” NPR reported. “Removals of Somalis nearly doubled. Deportations to Ghana and West Africa are up more than two times.”

Afghanistan is no exception. ICE statistics show the number of Afghans deported rose sharply last year from 14 in fiscal year 2016 to 48 in FY 2017.

“Dozens of Afghan immigrants or asylum seekers have been deported to Kabul since [U.S. President Donald] Trump took the power,” Miakhel said. “In April 2017, we received a group of 21 deportees of different ages.”

Miakhel said there was not much clarity about the reasons for the deportations. “We were told that some of the Afghan deportees were not qualified to seek asylum in the U.S.; some of them may have posed a threat to the U.S. national security or may have committed crimes.”

The United States has an estimated 14,000 troops in Afghanistan assisting, training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces to defeat Taliban, Islamic State and other insurgent groups.

According to the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, more immigrants and refugees hail from Afghanistan than any other country except Syria. Some 2.7 million Afghan immigrants and refugees are under UNCHR protection worldwide, most of them fleeing violence and insecurity.
…

your ad here

As trade tensions grow between the United States and China, there is concern among foreign companies in China that a possible trade war between the two countries could leave them caught in the crossfire.

 

President Donald Trump has been ratcheting up trade pressure on China, and a senior administration official has said the U.S. leader would be “emphasizing the fair and reciprocal nature of trade” in his State of the Union speech Tuesday.

 

Already, Trump has issued what some believe could be the opening salvo in a more intense showdown over trade, recently slapping stiff import tariffs on solar panel imports and washing machines. More trade actions could be announced soon.

 

“If that does go forward, I have been told by certain officials [in China] that yes, definitely, there will be retaliation,” said William Zarit, chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, or AmCham China. “And what we’ve been telling our interlocutors is that if there is some kind of tariff and if the Chinese do want to retaliate, they do so maturely and with precision so as to not actually adversely affect their own economy.”

 

Zarit spoke on Tuesday at the launch of AmCham China’s annual survey on the business climate in the world’s second-largest economy. The survey for 2017 was conducted at the time of Trump’s visit late last year and cited growing optimism among members about the outlook for growth and investment in China.

 

Seventy-eight percent of the respondents said that positive relations between the U.S. and China are extremely important or very important, compared with 64 percent in 2015.

Three out of every four companies surveyed, however, said they still feel unwelcome in China. One key driver of that perception – regulatory barriers for foreign companies and unfair treatment relative to local ones, the survey found.

 

While no one wants a trade war, the survey found that more than 60 percent are advocating for the U.S. government to take actions to help correct trade imbalances.

 

Zarit said some have grown weary of years of negotiations on trade and investment issues between the governments and think Washington should use pressure.

 

“Strictly just dialogue has not really brought much in terms of progress. So, perhaps some pressure will help get us more progress to a more balanced economic and commercial relationship,” he said.

 

Seeking ‘level playing field’

According to the survey, 27 percent of its business members “advocate more strongly for a level playing field” for U.S. businesses in China. Another 19 percent want the U.S. government to “apply investment reciprocity as an approach to improve market access in China.”

 

A third group comprising 14 percent of AmCham members wants Washington to pursue a new multilateral trade agreement that would include the U.S. replacing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

 

One of Trump’s first actions in office was to pull the United States out of the TPP, but last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he hinted at a possible path back toward the TPP or something similar to the trade agreement.

Lester Ross, head of AmCham China’s policy committee, said American companies should be ready to deal with harsh measures and other forms of retaliation from Beijing.

“I don’t think any company wants to absorb or make a sacrifice for trade relations, but I think some companies will inevitably suffer some repercussions if there are trade frictions between the two countries,” he said. “They [U.S. companies] have to consider that possibility.”

 

Ross said retaliation from the Chinese government could include measures targeting the airline and agriculture sectors, and possibly affecting industries and communities where support for Trump was strong during the elections.

 

“It would be likely that they [Chinese] will target sectors that have political resonance in the United States, and particular products or commodities,” he said.

Rising friction over trade is not the only way companies doing business in China could be caught in the middle.

 

As part of Trump’s efforts to exert more pressure on North Korea, he previously has complained that China is not doing enough and used the threat of possible trade actions as a carrot and stick to try to get Beijing to do more.

Some analysts said the Trump administration might go slowly on trade remedies against China if Beijing does more to help Washington in resolving the North Korea problem.

But that, in turn, could distract Washington from its plans to deal with what the U.S. sees as Beijing’s unfair trade practices.

Zarit said AmCham members also want the North Korea issue to be resolved as peacefully as possible.

 

“We also hope that our needs for addressing the structural imbalances in the relationship are not sacrificed in the process,” he said.

 
…

your ad here

U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade chief on Monday dismissed Canadian proposals for unblocking NAFTA modernization talks but pledged to stay at the table, easing concerns about a potentially imminent U.S. withdrawal from the trilateral pact.

Trump, who described the 1994 pact as a disaster that has drained manufacturing jobs to Mexico, has frequently threatened abandon it unless it can be renegotiated to bring back jobs to the United States.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said after a sixth round of NAFTA modernization talks in Montreal that Trump’s views on the pact are unchanged, and cautioned that talks are still moving too slowly on U.S. priorities.

“We finally began to discuss the core issues, so this round was a step forward,” Lighthizer said. “But we are progressing very slowly. We owe it to our citizens, who are operating in a state of uncertainty, to move much faster.”

But Lighthizer’s Mexican and Canadian counterparts said that enough progress was made in Montreal to be optimistic about concluding the pact “soon,” with nine days of talks in Mexico City scheduled to start Feb. 26.

“For the next round, we will still have substantial challenges to overcome. Yet the progress made so far puts us on the right track to create landing zones to conclude the negotiation soon,” said Mexico’s Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo.

Officials are now openly speculating that the bid to salvage the $1.2-trillion free trade pact will continue well beyond an end-March deadline set to avoid Mexican presidential elections.

Canadian proposals dismissed

Heading into Montreal last week, some officials had feared the United States might be prepared to pull the plug on the pact amid frustration over slow progress.

The mood lightened after Canada presented a series of suggested compromises to address U.S. demands for reform.

But Lighthizer criticized Canadian proposals to meet U.S. demands for higher North American content in autos, saying it would in fact reduce regional autos jobs and allow more Chinese-made parts into vehicles made in the region.

He also dismissed a suggestion on settling disputes between investors and member states as “unacceptable” and “a poison pill” and said a recent Canadian challenge against U.S. trade practices at the World Trade Organization “constitutes a massive attack on all of our trade laws.”

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, who stood stony faced as Lighthizer made his remarks, later told reporters that “the negotiating process is … always dramatic.”

A Canadian government source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, noted Lighthizer had not speculated about withdrawal and said the U.S. official had been more positive in private than during previous rounds.

Officials said the negotiating teams had closed a chapter on anti-corruption measures and were close to wrapping up sections on telecommunications, sanitary measures for the agriculture industry and technical barriers to trade.

Challenging demands

But the three sides are still far apart over U.S. demands to boost regional auto content requirements to 85 percent from the current 62.5 percent and require 50 percent U.S. content in North American-built vehicles.

Other challenges are Washington’s demands that NAFTA largely eliminate trade and investment dispute-settlement systems and contain a “sunset” clause to force renegotiations every five years.

Critical comments by Trump, Lighthizer and others have unsettled markets that fret about the potential damage to a highly integrated North American economy if the United States gives six months’ notice it is leaving.

The Mexican round next month is an extra set of talks that officials added to help tackle the many remaining challenges.

Negotiators are supposed to finish in Washington in March with the eighth and final round.

Although some officials have privately speculated about freezing the talks at the start of April, Guajardo told reporters that “we cannot afford to suspend this process.”
…

your ad here

Brushing aside opposition from the Department of Justice, Republicans on the House intelligence committee voted Monday to release a classified memo that purports to show improper use of surveillance by the FBI and the Justice Department in the Russia investigation.

 

The memo has become a political flashpoint, with President Donald Trump and many Republicans pushing for its release and suggesting that some in the Justice Department and FBI have conspired against the president.

 

Privately, Trump has been fuming over the Justice Department’s opposition to releasing the memo, according to an administration official not authorized to discuss private conversations and speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

At the behest of Trump, White House chief of staff John Kelly and other White House officials have been in contact with Justice Department officials in the past week to convey the president’s displeasure with the department’s leadership on the issue specifically, the official said. In a series of calls last week, Kelly urged the Justice officials to do more within the bounds of the law to get the memo out, the official said.

 

In the hours before Monday’s vote, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders underscored the administration’s position, saying Trump favors “full transparency.”

 

Trump now has five days to decide whether he wants the information released. The panel could release the information five days after the vote if Trump doesn’t object.

 

Democrats are livid about the memo, which they say omits crucial facts and should not be selectively released. They have pushed back on Republican criticism of the FBI, saying it is an attempt to discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and whether Trump’s campaign was involved. The probe has already resulted in charges against four of Trump’s former campaign advisers and has recently moved closer to Trump’s inner circle.

 

The top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, California Rep. Adam Schiff, said last week that Democrats on the panel had put together their own memo.

 

On Monday, the committee voted to make the Democratic memo available to all House members — but not the public. Texas Rep. Mike Conaway of Texas, who’s leading the House’s Russia investigation, said he was open to making it public after House members have a chance to review it.

 

While Trump’s White House signaled he would likely support the memo’s release, his Justice Department has voiced concerns. In a letter to House intelligence committee Chairman Devin Nunes last week, Justice officials said releasing the classified memo could be “extraordinarily reckless” and asked to review it.

 

Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd wrote Nunes that given the panel’s role in overseeing the nation’s intelligence community, “you well understand the damaging impact that the release of classified material could have on our national security and our ability to share and receive sensitive information from friendly foreign governments.”

 

Some senators have expressed concern about the release as well. But John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Senate Republican and a member of that chamber’s intelligence committee, said last week that Nunes and the Justice Department need to work out their differences. On Sunday, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina both said they don’t think the memo should be released.

 

“No, I don’t want it released yet,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.” “I don’t. I want somebody who is without a political bias to come in and look at the allegations that I have seen.”

 

The fate of the memo is the latest flashpoint in the contentious relationship between Trump and the Justice Department.

 

Trump has frequently raged at the head of the department, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, for recusing himself from the Russia probe, a move the president believes led to the appointment of Mueller. Trump has bemoaned, both privately and publicly, that Sessions and his department have not shown him the “loyalty” that former attorneys general Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy showed their presidents.
…

your ad here