Mediaboss Marketing

The European Union has urged Azerbaijan to release detained opposition figures, in an apparent reference to the alleged abduction and arrest of a journalist critical of Baku and the detention of an opposition politician.

The statement on June 4 did not mention names but came after journalist Afqan Muxtarli was kidnapped in the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, on May 29 and the arrest of opposition politician Gozal Bayramli.

On June 3, the U.S. State Department said the "United States is disturbed by the reported abduction in Tbilisi, Georgia, and subsequent arrest in Azerbaijan" of Muxtarli. It said it was "troubled" by the detention of Bayramli.

The EU statement said "a review by Azerbaijan of any and all cases of incarceration related to the exercise of fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression, and immediate release [of] all of those concerned is urgent.

"We expect that the due process of law is respected, as well as the civil and political rights of citizens and those residing legally in states other than their own," it added.

Muxtarli, 43, was jailed last week for a preliminary three months by an Azerbaijani court.

His attorney, Elcin Sadyqov, told RFE/RL his client was abducted in Tbilisi on May 29, tied up in a car, beaten by men in civilian clothing who spoke Georgian, and brought across the border into Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijani Prosecutor-General's Office spokesman Eldar Sultanov said on May 31 that Muxtarli was detained on suspicion of illegally crossing the border, and alleged that he was in possession of a large amount of cash.

The EU said it welcomed the Georgian government's announcement that it would investigate the alleged kidnapping. Tbilisi denies it was involved in the case.

Muxtarli and his wife fled to Georgia in 2015, fearing for their safety over his investigations into Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev's alleged links to corruption.

Bayramli, the deputy chief of the opposition Popular Front Party (AXCP), was arrested on May 25 after she crossed the border from Georgia into Azerbaijan, her party chairman said.

Read the rest here:
EU Urges Azerbaijan To Release Detained Opposition Figures - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

LONDON Nearly a year after Britain voted 52 percent to 48 percent to withdraw from the European Union, those on the pro-E.U. side still think that the idea of leaving the bloc registers somewhere between doltish and disastrous. The Remainers have notenthusiastically embraced the winning side. They are not born-again Brexiteers.

But they are not coalescing around a single party ahead of BritainsJune8 election. Instead, theyre splitting their support several ways, with a sizable faction even supporting the Remainer-turned-Brexiteer prime minister, Theresa May. Those who backed Brexit, by contrast, are flocking to the Conservatives.

As a result, the Remainers are the invisible man in this election, underscoring just how much May has altered the political landscape since coming to office last summer in the wake of the Brexit vote. The failure of the 48percent to unify is one of the main reasons May remains on course for victory, even as her Conservative Party slips in the polls.

[For Britains populist right, Brexit success comes with a poison pill]

Remain voters still think that leaving the E.U. is by and large a daft idea, saidMarcus Roberts, director of international projects at the YouGov polling agency. But he said the splintering can be explained in part by the original Brexit tribes of Leavers and Remainers having morphed into new categories: those who back their sides even more strongly and those who have flipped to the Brexit camp, which he calls Re-Leavers.

He said that nearly half of those who voted to remain in the E.U. the Re-Leavers now just want to make the best of an undesirable situation. For some, that means voting for the Conservatives, whose leader has signaled a hard break with Europe but is viewed by many voters as the best person to negotiate the upcoming divorce talks with the E.U.

It is very British to get on with it and make do with the situation, said Roberts, who noted that May herself was a Remainer but quickly shifted gears after her side lost the referendum.

Theresa May, you could say, was the first Re-Leaver, the first person to grasp the fundamental truth of the British character: After a big event has happened, we dont as a culture re-litigate that event. We try to move on and make the best we can, he said.

[A song that calls Britains Theresa May a liar is climbing the charts but it isnt being played on the radio]

The fragmenting of the Remainer vote can be seen vividly on the streets of Londons Vauxhall district, one of the most ardently pro-E.U. areas of the country. Here, voters should in theory be attracted to the Liberal Democrats, the centrist party that is campaigning to try to blunt the impact of Mays plans for ahard break with Europe.

But instead, the clear front-runner in the pro-Remain Vauxhall is a pro-Leave lawmaker who campaigned alongside arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage. Kate Hoey, 70, is an independent-minded member of the Labour Party. Unlike her party which has adopted a fudged position on Brexit Hoey is an outspoken E.U. skeptic.

Why did you vote to leave? demanded Shola, 25, a Remainer who gave only his first name and on a recent day confronted Hoey at a bustling community center where she was campaigning.

Were a wonderful country. We didnt need to be part of a little mafia, Hoey replied as she launched into an argument about how Britain was on the brink of regaining its freedom and would soon be able to cast off the shackles of Brussels. By the time Hoey was done, her interlocutor said hed vote for her as he did in the last election.

[Manchester suicide bomber may have largely acted alone, police say]

A lot of Remainers have accepted that were going to leave and are now asking: How do we make it work? Hoey said. Isnt it better to have somebody who supported the project of leaving, because Ill look silly if the whole thing is a disaster.

Sitting south of the River Thames, Londons Vauxhall is a mixed place, where crowded apartment blocks rub up against multimillion-dollar Georgian homes facing pretty garden squares. The area, which has a large immigrant community, voted 78percent to remain in the E.U.

The pro-Remain Liberal Democrats are trying to capitalize on the Brexit issue, especially in areas like this, and they hope that this election marks their comeback. It is the only major party to pledge to give voters the chance to reverse Brexit with a second referendum. And if Britain does leave, the Liberal Democratswant minimal disruption.

If were going to leave the European Union, surely it should be the softest of all Brexits, Tim Farron, the partys leader, said in an interview. We should stay in the single market. That means wed have the best opportunity to be a place where Americans could invest, people around the world can invest.

[May and Corbyn trade barbs in run-up to British election]

In some areas where people voted overwhelmingly to stay in the bloc, including university towns such as Cambridge, the Liberal Democrats may emerge victorious.But nationwide, its tough going, as polls show that referendum voting doesnt necessarily predict election voting.

The Remainers will probably bleed back to peoples party loyalties in the previous general election, said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London.

The Liberal Democrats were all but wiped out in the 2015 election as voters punished the party for joining in a coalition with the Conservatives and reversing its pledge not to increase university tuition fees. The latest polls a recent YouGov survey showed Conservatives with42percent support, Labour with 39percent and the Liberal Democrats with 7 percent suggest the party is still in the recovery ward.

But in some places, including Vauxhall, the Liberal Democrats hope they can deliver upsets by rallying the pro-E. U. spirit.

Brexit is the issue on the doorstep, said George Turner, 34, the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate in Vauxhall. Brexit is not a yes/no question. We need to have a big conversation about who we want to be as a country, and many are not comfortable with the vision put forward by the far right.

Turner conceded that he has a massive mountain to climb if he is to overturn Hoeys substantial majority but insists that this is the year when anything can happen.

While campaigning door-to-door recently, Turner quickly amassed names of voters who pledged their support, sometimes very quickly. When he knocked on the door of Brian Hogan, Turner explained that his main rival was hard-line pro-Brexit.

Thats all I need to know. Whats your name? You have my vote, said Hogan, 30, a project manager who lives on a street of closed shopfronts.

Hogan said that as an Irish citizen living in London, leaving the European Union is not theoretical for me but a real cause for concern. Its entirely possible that under a hard Brexit, I might not be able to live here in two years time.

View post:
48 percent of Britain voted to stay in the EU last June. Where have they gone? - Washington Post

Months have passed since we first heard the Trump administration is considering a new surge of United States forces in Afghanistan, and if the president is any closer to a decision than he was in February, mark that down as the one secret the White House has yet to leak to the press.

Trump's unpredictability makes it impossible to define what this delay might mean, but perhaps the wait can offer opportunity for more prudent and realistic counsel to prevail. Sending more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan cannot and will not produce anything resembling a winit will only protract the failed status quo of the country's longest war.

The surge proposal is lousy with the sort of familiarity that should breed contempt, because it is a reiteration of debates we've had at least four times before. Whether it's sending the oft-cited 5,000 or an ambitious 50,000 new troops, the basic logic is that more boots on the ground will serve to shore up an increasingly messy situation.

As Brookings' Michael O'Hanlon writes at USA Today in a representative argument for escalation, if "we want a robust eastern pillar in our broader counterterrorism network to take on foes ranging from the Taliban to al Qaeda to ISIS, an increase of several thousand U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan has a sound logic behind it."

Sure, O'Hanlon concedes, this is likely to further guarantee permanent U.S. occupation, with U.S. forces serving as Afghanistan's surrogate military forever. But in his telling, the 15 years of U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan since 2002bought at a price of tens of thousands of U.S. and Afghan casualties, trillions of U.S. tax dollars, and a shambolic nation-building debaclewas just too passive, too half-hearted. These 5,000 more troops will finally do the trick.

Except, of course, they won't, and the "passivity" narrative of post-Sept. 11 foreign policy is so absurd it'd grow Pinocchio a skyscraper.

The first point, the suggestion that a surge is all we need to build a "robust eastern pillar in our broader counterterrorism network," easily breaks down under scrutiny. At the height of the intervention, there were 140,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. This was in 2011, and about 100,000 of that number were American.

Six years later, Afghanistan remains in utter turmoil. Basic institutions of civil society are nonfunctional. Corruption and insecurity are rampant, and it is no surprise the Afghan refugee crisis continues. The Taliban controls at least 40 percent of the countryand that's the conservative estimate. Some analysts suggest it's more like 90 percent, excluding cities. Adjusted for inflation, the U.S. has spent more on Afghanistan than the Marshall Plan which re-built Europe, and we've fought there for four times as long as U.S. combat participation in World War II.

The results of that investment are dismal.

In the context of this recent history, the surge case unravels.

What can 5,000 troops possibly accomplish that 100,000 could not? What will be different this time? What positive outcome is remotely plausible?

Wishing that a new surge will produce peace or even basic stability is not enough to make it so, and it certainly isn't enough to justify sending more Americans into harm's way. (The price, by the way, of maintaining a single U.S. soldier in Afghanistan for a year is nearly $4 million. Even if a strategic case for escalation could somehow be mustered, the cost alone would require serious justification.)

The second pointthat the flaw in recent U.S. foreign policy is inactivityis almost too bizarre to countenance, and yet it is a favorite theme of the bipartisan foreign policy establishment. Unfortunately, this imaginative assessment seems to be persuasive to Trump, whose nascent foreign policy mainly consists of doing the same thing as his predecessors, only more. If he maintains that streak in Afghanistan, some surge seems likely to garner his blessing.

That would be a grave mistake. There is no reason to believe this escalation will make any security gains for the U.S. or even for the Afghan people. (It is telling no one bothers to argue a surge will make the U.S. safer, because the American public long ago realized occupying Afghanistan does not protect us.)

There is no definition of success, let alone a chance it will lead to victory, and it will not end the chaotic status quo.

The difficult but plain truth is that no amount of U.S. military intervention can impose an exterior stability on Afghanistan, however much Washington denies this fact. It is futile and dangerous to continue to try.

Bonnie Kristian (@bonniekristian) is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She's also a weekend editor at The Week and a columnist at Rare.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

See the original post here:
The US can't fix Afghanistan, and it should stop trying - Washington Examiner

For almost ten years, Bev McCraw has kept a small tin of desert sand safely tucked away inside her Hamilton home.

McCraw, the mother of Sgt. Shawn Eades, CD, collected it during a trip to Afghanistan in 2008, just after her son was killed by a roadside bomb.

McCraw says she had no idea what, if anything, she would do with it only that she felt compelled to bring a piece of the place where her son died back to Canada. So, before journeying home, McCraw scooped a few handfuls of sand into an empty peanut tin covered in Arabic text, save for the "Planters" logo wrapped it in packing tape, and stashed it in her suitcase.

On Saturday, that sand became part of a new monument honouring Eades and three other Hamilton soldiers who died during the Afghanistan war Pte. Mark Anthony Graham, Maj. Raymond Mark Ruckpaul, and Cpl. Justin Matthew Stark.

Graham was killed in a friendly fire incident near Kandahar in 2006, Ruckpaul died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in Kabul in 2007 and Stark died by suicide in Hamilton in 2011, 10 months after returning from Afghanistan. Canadian troops were in that country from 2002-2014.

The monument, unveiled at a ceremony Saturday at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum, is a demilitarized Light Armoured Vehicle (LAV) III the same type of vehicle Eades was in when he was killed.

"It means a lot to me, for the simple reason that Shawn was killed in a LAV," said McCraw. "I miss him every day. He was so much of our lives, and now he's gone. He left behind a wife and three little girls, so it's been hard on all of us."

During a dedication ceremony Saturday morning, the sand from McCraw's trip to Afghanistan was poured into a container that will be permanently sealed at the monument's foot.

The ceremony drew community members, military personnel, and local officials, including MP Bob Bratina, MP David Christopherson, MPPs Paul Miller and Monique Taylor, Mayor Fred Eisenberger, and Councillors Donna Skelly and Brenda Johnson.

One of the most notable groups who attended the ceremony were the North Wall Riders Association, a group of motorcycle riders dedicated to supporting veterans and the military. The group which turned out in full force wearing leather vests and red T-shirts spearheaded the fundraising effort to create a permanent monument to the Afghanistan war in Hamilton.

Keven Ellis, the president of the Steel City North Wall Riders Association, says the project was two-and-a-half years in the making. To Ellis, it was a true labour of love.

"My entire family served in the military, right back to the 1700s in England. I was unable to serve because of some learning disorders that I have. So I've felt, since I was 15, that the only way that I could serve my country is to serve those that served it," he said.

"I've spent the rest of my life remembering those that have served our country and defended our freedom."

Emma Reilly is a reporter with the Hamilton Spectator.

Read the rest here:
New monument commemorates Hamilton soldiers killed during Afghanistan war - Hamilton Spectator

Pakistans military has swept terrorist groups from the nations once-lawless tribal areas, but the gains could be put at risk if the security situation across the border in Afghanistan is not brought under control, Islamabads diplomat in Washington said, stressing that his nation is waiting for the Trump administration to clarify its strategy for the Afghanistan conflict.

Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said his countrys reputation as a source of instability and a haven for jihadis is badly out of date. He argued that Pakistans economy is on a sharp upswing and that relations with Washington are stronger today than at any other time since the covert American commando raid that killed al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden in his Pakistani hideout six years ago.

There are some perceptions which are not fully up to speed with the new reality of Pakistan, a reality that has changed only very recently, Mr. Chaudhry told editors and reporters of The Washington Times. We have reversed the tide of terrorism, which had come down heavy on us.

Having just arrived in Washington in March, Mr. Chaudhry took care to neither openly praise nor criticize the Trump administrations foreign policy. As an honored guest of the U.S., he is eager to deal with the man whom American voters chose as their president, he said.

At the same time, he said Pakistan was a strong supporter of the global Paris climate accord. President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement last week.

There are issues on which Pakistan has its own positions regardless of what the U.S. position is, said Mr. Chaudhry, noting that Pakistan is at risk of flooding as Himalayan glaciers melt. We supported the Paris talks. We committed to it.

On another front, the ambassador went to lengths to credit China just as much as Washington for helping spur remarkable economic progress. Pakistans economy is on pace to grow at an annual 6 percent rate next year, and predictions say it could emerge among the worlds top 20 by 2030 a dramatic rise from its current rank in the 40s.

The stock market in the predominantly Muslim nation of roughly 200 million people is booming, said Mr. Chaudhry.

The biggest foreign investment some $60 billion in recent years is from Beijing, which sees Pakistan as a key conduit for development in Chinas mainly Muslim western region, he said. China has poured money into energy projects aimed at easing Pakistans electricity shortages.

But the boldest investment is the development of a major deep-sea port in Gwadar, designed to open Pakistans southern coastline to trade routes in the Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean, a critical link in Chinese President Xi Jinpings One Belt One Road growth strategy for wider Asia and beyond.

Moment of stability

The Chinese investments have coincided with a rare moment of political stability in Pakistan, after the nations first-ever successful transition from one democratically elected government to another in 2013.

The transition of power, which brought back former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, followed decades of military coups, assassinations and other upheaval, including massive anti-corruption demonstrations that marred the nations 66-year history.

Over the past decade, the instability was spiked by a bloody campaign of suicide bombings and other attacks by al Qaeda and other jihadi groups on civilian and government targets. But an aggressive counterterrorism campaign launched by the Sharif government in the northwest Federally Administered Tribal Areas has sharply reduced such violence, Mr. Chaudhry said.

The number of terrorist incidents, which used to be very high, up to 150 terrorist incidents per month on the average right up to 2014, is today down to single digits, the ambassador said. That has sent a very positive wave all across the country.

Mr. Chaudhry said hopes are high that foreign investment will grow amid prospects for another smooth transition after elections next year.

Pakistans improving economic picture means that the Koreans, the Turks, the European and corporate America are also coming in, with energy plants being built along the nations southern coastline. The next phase for us is to build a series of industrial zones, he said. We are expecting and attracting investments, and many of the European countries are particularly keen.

So with our labor, the Chinese want to bring in capital, and if the technology can come in from the West, I think it would be an ideal combination for everybody, the ambassador said.

The U.S. has sent roughly $2 billion a year in aid to Pakistan in the past two decades. The majority of the money was aimed at supporting the Pakistani military. But Mr. Chaudhry said corporate America is beginning to sense opportunities.

I think they are able to see what, perhaps, you and I are not able to see, he said.

General Electric Co. recently won a project bid to generate 3,600 megawatts of electricity in Pakistan, and Exxon Mobil Corp. has put together a consortium to spend roughly $800 million to build a liquefied natural gas terminal and gasifying plant near the new southern seaport.

[Its] why Procter and Gamble is there, why PepsiCo is there, why many companies are going there, Mr. Chaudhry said. Theyre not going because they want to put their money at risk; they are going there because they can see that there is some money to be made.

The trouble next door

But the ambassador stressed that all of Pakistans regional and economic ambitions could be derailed if the situation continues to deteriorate in neighboring Afghanistan, where the number of attacks by extremists, including the Islamic State, is on the rise.

On Wednesday, a massive truck bomb rocked the heavily fortified diplomatic quarter of Kabul, killing 90 people and underscoring the challenge facing Afghan leaders and American and Pakistani officials seeking to stabilize the war-torn country, Mr. Chaudhry said.

How does the United States want to deal with their huge investment in Afghanistan, both militarily and economically? We are waiting for it, the ambassador said. He was referring to a highly anticipated shift in U.S. strategy that the Trump administration has said will be announced in the coming weeks.

We think that the United States also wants to stabilize Afghanistan, he said. Why? Because you have invested hugely in blood and in treasure for the last 15 to 16 years [there].

One plan reportedly being circulated through the White House and the Pentagon calls for up to 5,000 more U.S. troops, with a matching commitment from NATO, which could bring to roughly 15,000 the total number of foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Mr. Chaudhry did not take an explicit position on a proposed troop increase but said any use of military force should be tied to a push for a political solution to the conflict in Afghanistan. Such a push, he said, should include the pursuit of a peace process with the Taliban.

The jihadi insurgent group, which once harbored al Qaeda and bin Laden in Afghanistan, has extended its grip on territory since U.S. forces ended their combat mission in Afghanistan in 2014.

A modest surge of American forces now, said Mr. Chaudhry, might pressure the Taliban to embrace peace talks with the U.S.-backed government in Kabul that have stalled for years. Once [the Taliban] are weakened, they will come to the table, the ambassador predicted, but he said the Afghan government should lead the peace process.

Pakistans proximity to the situation is delicate. Despite its internal success against jihadi groups over the past three years, Islamabad faces accusations that its intelligence services are clandestinely backing certain extremist groups inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan also harbors millions of Afghan refugees. The ambassador said Islamabad hopes they will be allowed to return home soon.

Afghan intelligence officials claimed that one that of those groups, the Haqqani network, was responsible for the attack in Kabul last week.

Mr. Chaudhry vehemently rejected the accusation during his interview with The Times. Pakistan has absolutely nothing to do with the Haqqanis and the Taliban, he said. They do not represent the views of my people and we have squeezed the space on them in Pakistan.

Excerpt from:
Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Pakistan's ambassador, awaits Trump's ... - Washington Times