Mediaboss Marketing

Baghdad Monday, March 15, 2021 H.E. Minister of Planning, Dr. Khaled Battal Al-Najm received Dr. Salah El Hajj Hassan, Representative of the Food Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Iraq and H.E Ambassador Safia Al-Suhail, Permanent Representative of the Republic of Iraq to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

The meeting aimed to strengthen cooperation between FAO Iraq and the ministry of planning. The discussions focused on enhancing the joint framework's implementation for the development of the agricultural sector in Iraq and the collaboration mechanism between the relevant ministries. The joint framework was identified as the appropriate road map for setting each ministry's priorities in detail and align the plan with each ministry's strategic objectives.

In his welcoming notes, Dr. Khaled Battal Al-Najm emphasized the importance of reviving the agricultural sector to be a leader in Iraq's economy and maximize its contribution to national production; he also commended the effectiveness of FAO Iraq in supporting the agricultural sector.

Ambassador Safia Al-Suhail discussed best practices in promoting and activating the cooperation framework, stressing the Iraq's need for the FAO support in programs that target the agricultural sector and farmers, improve the environment, and build or strengthen capacities through programs that provide institutional and individual support.

Dr. ElHajj Hassan stressed the importance of the joint framework as an effective, innovative, and sustainable mechanism for coordinating Iraq's agricultural sector development. This framework will guarantee the best investment of resources in supporting sustainable agriculture growth to achieve food security, employment generation, and climate change resilience. He added that FAO will provide the necessary support to improve Iraq's agriculture sector. At the end of the meeting, the Minister thanked FAO's delegation and highlighted the importance of cooperation and coordination with the FAO to develop Iraq's agricultural sector.

View original post here:
FAO in Iraq with the Minister of Planning and the Permanent Representative of Iraq to FAO in Rome, discussed strengthening the cooperation framework...

Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi renewed Wednesday the governments stance on steering clear from the use of live ammunition against demonstrators.

During a meeting for the Iraqi National Security Council (INSC), the PM rejected attempted attacks on private and public properties and the use of live ammunition to disperse protesters. But he called for providing security forces with the proper equipment to fulfill their duties.

Kadhimi commended their efforts to confront terrorist and criminal gangs and to impose security and stability.

He also emphasized his full support for the army, police, and all security personnel.

The prime minister directed the security commanders to be present at demonstrations in order to protect the protesters, and private and public properties.

A statement from Kadhimi's office said that the meeting discussed the recent developments in the country and measures to improve the efficiency of the security forces as they face enormous security challenges.

The INSC also approved a plan for Iraq to join the Joint Counter-Terrorism taskforce in the Middle East and North Africa.

See the original post:
Iraq's PM Rejects Use of Live Ammunition to Disperse Protestors - Asharq Al-awsat - English

Detroit man cleared in gas station bombing fights for citizenship

A Detroit man, who moved to the U.S. at 6-years-old, says if he would not have been wrongfully convicted 30 years ago, he'd be a citizen today but immigration is still trying ot send him to Iraq where he says his Christian beliefs will get him killed.

DETROIT (FOX 2) - A Detroit man who spent 13 years in prison for the bombing of a gas station in the late 1980s but was later exonerated is now facing a possible death sentence in the form of deportation to Iraq.

Waleed 'Tony' Isho was wrongfully convicted of the 1989 bombing of a gas station on Seven Mile and Woodward. He was arrested, tried and, after only 40 minutes of deliberation, Tony was convicted and spent 13 years in prison.

The moment he was released, immigration wanted to deport him.

It took another 18 years before the conviction was removed and he was exonerated by Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Qiana Lillard in 2020.

"When she said you were exonerated vacated, I still get chills- I got chills now talking about it," said Tony.

But with his conviction removed, immigration was still knocking on the door since Tony was brought to the U.S. when he was just 6 years old.

"I've been out here - about 18 years since I've been out of prison - and I followed everything immigration wanted of me. Everything," he said.

If he is deported to Iraq, he'd likely die. Attorney Marvie Neubauer is fighting for his citizenship and says Tony can't hide in Iraq.

"There's persecution for the Chaldeans in Iraq at this point in time. He's marked, he has Christian tattoos, that's not something he can hide," said Neubauer.

The two met at a prayer meeting just two years ago and Neubauer said if she was not convicted, Tony would be a citizen today.

After the meeting, Marvie went on his mission to get Tony exonerated - which happened last year - but the citizenship eludes him for now.

"Citizenship was halted because the US government, as a result of his wrongful conviction, took away his green card - thereby taking away his right to become a citizen," said Neubauer.

Tony is fighting the order from immigration and there's a temporary agreement to keep him in the U.S. due to his innocence.

Tony was on a green card in 1989 and, typically, it takes five years until citizenship is granted. He and his attorney argue that he not been wrongfully convicted, he'd be a citizen today. Immigration says he has to start from the beginning - which means five years on a green card before becoming a legal citizen.

Waleed 'Tony' Isho spent 13 years for a gas station bombing but was later exonerated. But his wrongful conviction could wind up with him being deported to Iraq, despite being on track for citizenship before his arrest.

The rest is here:
Chaldean cleared of Detroit gas station bombing fights deportation to Iraq, likely death - FOX 2 Detroit

Democrats in Congress and Republicans in many statehouses are on a collision course over elections laws, with both sides racing to get their preferred rules in place before the 2022 elections.

The Senate is set to kick off consideration of a Democratic-backed election bill (S. 1) with a hearing next week, coinciding with a $30 million advertising and mobilization campaign to push for passage of the measure. A House-passed version (H.R. 1) would outlaw restrictions on voting by mail and partisan gerrymandering, among scores of other provisions that also would change campaign finance and ethics rules.

At the same time, Republicans are teeing up bills in state legislatures they control that would tighten voting restrictions, such as by limiting options for mail-in ballots and early voting for many voters. Theyre also getting set for a new round of redistricting likely to favor GOP lawmakers, especially in southern states set to gain House seats.

Which side prevails could determine how elections are conducted and who wins for years to come, both parties say.

By designating the legislation as S.1, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday, Senate Democrats made clear we are committed to standing up to the voter suppression efforts that are threatening the core tenets of our democracy, to ending dark money in politics, and to ensuring public officials work for those they represent and not the special interests.

Schumer has indicated hes considering changing Senate rules to overcome a certain Republican filibuster to get it passed. Failure is not an option, he said.

Photo by Samuel Corum/Bloomberg

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) speaks during a news conference Wednesday.

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee will hold a hearing on the bill March 24 and schedule a markup to advance it to the floor soon after, Chairwoman Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said in a statement Wednesday.

She said Congress has clear power under the Constitution to set rules for federal elections and override state rule changes. And in announcing the bill, Klobuchar called it essential to protecting every Americans right to vote.

The bill faces long odds in the Senate, where Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) promised Tuesday a scorched-earth response if they try to change filibuster rules to pass the election bill and other liberal measures on a party-line vote. Democrats and Republicans are divided 50-50 in the Senate, with Vice President Kamala Harris holding the deciding vote to give Democrats the majority.

McConnell, the Senates strongest opponent of changes in federal election and campaign finance laws, said earlier this year that the Democratic bill the House recently passed was an effort to grab unprecedented power over how America conducts its elections and how American citizens can engage in political speech.

But Republicans also are facing a backlash over their election proposals in states including Georgia, where legislation that would roll back voting by mail and early voting are seen by critics as aimed at restricting minority voting.

Rather than change their message, theyre busy trying to change the rules, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said of Republican legislators on Wednesday in his first floor speech since being elected in January.

Tying that effort to his election as the states first Black senator, he said, We are witnessing right now a massive and unabashed assault on voting rights unlike anything weve ever seen since the Jim Crow era.

Republican lawmakers say theyre reacting to widespread concerns about election integrity. The Republican State Leadership Committee launched a commission last month for state leaders to share ideas on overhauling voting laws.

Restoring confidence in our nations elections wont happen overnight, but the RSLCs Commission on Election Integrity has served as a fantastic hub of ideas for beginning the process, RSLC President Dee Duncan said in a statement.

Recent GOP polling has shown a steep dropoff in Republican election confidence after Donald Trumps claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

A poll sponsored by the conservative nonprofit R. Street found less than a quarter of Republicans believed the presidential election results were valid, even though about half GOP voters took advantage of mail-in ballots or early voting and nearly 90% said they were personally satisfied with the process they used to cast ballots.

Supporters of the Democratic election bill say their polling shows support for the voting rights and anti-corruption measures it contains. The campaign to pass the bill is being supported by the National Democratic Redistricting Council, whose chair is former Attorney General Eric Holder, along with liberal groups that have long supported revamping election and campaign finance laws.

Digital ads are already running. TV ads will start next week as Senate hearings on the bill get under way, with messages aimed at supporting Democrats who back it and at persuading Republicans. The first round of ads is set to target Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania.

Democrats have used reform messages successfully to elect candidates in recent elections, according to Tiffany Muller, head of the nonprofit End Citizens United/Let America Vote, which is spearheading the latest ad effort. But this effort is aimed at getting a bill passed, not election messaging, she insisted.

Theres a new urgency to getting that done as we see voting rights attacked across the country, Muller said on a call with reporters Wednesday. If Republicans are allowed to set the rules for the 2022 elections it makes the ability to just have the same debate in 2023 much more difficult, she said. And theres no doubt thats what Republicans are counting on.

Theres no similar ad campaign among opponents of the election bill, David Keating, president of the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, said in an email, but he pointed to widespread opposition from Republican officials, conservative organizations, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

To contact the reporter on this story: Kenneth P. Doyle in Washington at kdoyle@bgov.com

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Kyle Trygstad at ktrygstad@bgov.com; Bennett Roth at broth@bgov.com

Continued here:
Parties Set for Election Law Clash as Senate Bill Heads to Floor - Bloomberg Government

Can the United States, under the Biden administration, responsibly end its forever war in Afghanistan?

The White House reportedly has a new idea on how to try, after watching peace talks in Qatar between the Afghan government and the Taliban flounder over the past year. Itis proposingan international summit including Afghan leaders and the Taliban. The initial goal would be to create an interim power-sharing government, which would buy time for more comprehensive peace talks thereafter. This would also allow the United States and NATO to keep their small military footprint in place for a while longer, beyond the May cutoff that some believe the February 2020deal between Washington and the Taliban requires.

Unfortunately, this diplomatic Hail Mary is very unlikely to produce a quick accord. Whatever leverage President Biden can generate over Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, including the implied threat of a quick U.S. and NATO troop departure, the Taliban is unlikely to accept the demand for a 90-day reduction in violence. Its leaders are also unlikely to agree to meaningful power-sharing especially if they sense we are already halfway out the door.

Thus, Biden will still likely have to decide: Do we stay or do we go? We believe that the correct answer is to stay. As difficult as it is to remain in this longest war, the most likely outcome of pulling out of Afghanistan would be very ugly, including ethnic cleansing, mass slaughter and the ultimate dismemberment of the country.

In weighing the United States options, the president certainly needs to bear in mind the costs of the current U.S. deployment 2,500 U.S. troops out of a NATO-mission total of9,000, perhaps $10 billion per year in expense to the U.S. taxpayers, and the prospect of perhaps 10 to 20 American casualties a year if the Taliban resumes its previous use of force against U.S. forces. But Biden also needs to form an expectation of what would likely happen after any NATO departure.

First, if we pull out the remaining U.S. troops, those of other foreign nations will leave, too. NATO depends on the United States for key combat and intelligence capabilities and leadership.

Second, despite the departure of troops, U.S. and NATO military assistance in the form of money and equipment will likely continue to flow to Afghan government forces. After all, why would we abandon them after fighting alongside them for 20 years? Thus, both the Taliban and Kabul will have the wherewithal to maintain the fight. The war will continue, and it will move into Afghanistans cities, which have generally remained under government control throughout the past two decades.

Third, no rapid progress towards a peace accord will occur. Taliban leaders will be more certain than ever that time is on their side. The Ghani government will still believe it has leverage and legitimacy by virtue of its constitution, as well as international diplomatic recognition and financial support. Their fundamental ideological differences remain: The Taliban wants an Islamist emirate, Kabul wants a democratic government.

Fourth, while existing battlefield dynamics already favor the Taliban, those dynamics could be exacerbated after a U.S. and NATO departure with terrible humanitarian consequences. As some cities fall to partial or complete Taliban control, and the Taliban exacts leverage on those it considered collaborators with the regime, there would be powerful incentives for opponents to prevent its infiltration into other cities. Most Pashtun (Afghanistans largest ethnic group) are not Taliban and do not support the Taliban. However, virtually all Taliban are Pashtun. Thus, if you are from a Tajik, Hazara or Uzbek ethnic group, the simplest way to protect yourself is to hunker down above theHindu Kush mountains in the nations north and push out all Pashtun. That is a recipe for ethnic cleansing, and massive human suffering throughout the country.

Fifth, the result of all this would be an enormous refugee strain on neighboring Pakistan, risking instability in that important country of more than220 million. Some might believe Pakistan could prop up a Taliban regime in Afghanistan, much as in the 1990s, but that assumption ignores the Talibans evolution away from Pakistani control, and Pakistans own difficult experience with militancy over the past 20 years. Todays Pakistan probably does not want an exclusively Taliban-run Islamist emirate on its Western flank.

Sixth and finally a small silver lining the new rump Afghanistan in the nations northeast would likely become a friend of the West, much like Kurdistan in Iraq. It would likely welcome not only financial aid but also Western military and intelligence capabilities. Alas, the scale of the terrorism problem would likely have grown a great deal in the meantime, as the Taliban would be even less likely to break with al-Qaeda than it is today, and most or all of the nations southeast would be under its control. Along the way, the Afghanistan wars current tragic death tolls, measured in the tens of thousands a year, would surely have multiplied.

Continued here:
Why staying in Afghanistan is the least bad choice for Biden - Brookings Institution