Monday, April 13, 2015

Afghanistan’s defining fight: Technocrats vs. strongmen







By Sudarsan Raghavan

A massive portrait of a middle-aged man towers over the Ferris wheel and giant mushrooms at an amusement park here. At night, the image is bathed in an ethereal light, visible from a quarter-mile away.
His admirers call him “Ustad,” or “Teacher.” His critics call him the King.
For more than a decade, Atta Mohammad Noor, governor of Balkh province, has controlled this northern region with an iron hand, imbued with the authority of the freedom fighter he was and the ultra-rich businessman he has become. Guns, militias and guile, as well as his ability to provide security, have made him one of the country’s most formidable strongmen.
To many war-weary Afghans, former warlords such as Noor — who are accused of human rights abuses yet rule with impunity — have to be marginalized for the nation to move into a new era. To their supporters, these former warlords remain a bulwark against the Taliban, al-Qaeda and,possibly, the Islamic State, more vital than ever as the U.S. military mission edges to a close.
“If Ustad Atta is ever replaced as governor, there will be chaos here, and it will spread to other provinces,” declared Haji Abdul Wahab, a close friend who manages the park, which Noor built. “He’s got a special place in the hearts of Afghan people.”
Noor’s rise and endurance is a legacy of America’s longest war and an emblem of a fresh contest for influence. It pits the aspirations of Western-educated technocrats keen to transform Afghanistan against conservative ethnic and tribal strongmen determined to preserve the status quo. That struggle is becoming the definitive battle for the future of every aspect of the country’s affairs — from forming a new cabinet to tackling rampant corruption to engaging in peace talks with the Taliban.
There’s a tug of war between two different ways of running the country,” said Peter Semneby, Sweden’s ambassador to Afghanistan. “It’s the traditional patronage way of running Afghanistan against the modern way of running a country, with respect for the constitution, laws and transparency.”
By the time U.S. forces left Iraq, conflict and occupation had destroyed many of the patronage networks, creating new elites. In Afghanistan, the traditional political order remains entrenched after more than 13 years of war, bolstered by American support, a weak central government and fears of a resurgent Taliban.
The ascent last year of ­President Ashraf Ghani, a U.S-educated former World Bank official, was widely seen as a key step in altering old notions of power. But Noor and other strongmen are challenging his efforts to strengthen the government’s authority. The U.S.-brokered power-sharing deal that ushered Ghani into his position “was a narrow victory for the modern way of running Afghanistan,” Semneby said. “But the patronage system is striking back.”
The mujahideen legacy
That system is visible across this sprawling provincial capital, the country’s fourth-largest city, graced with ancient shrines and modern construction projects. Billboards looming over intersections show Noor with influential former mujahideen leaders from years past. The message is unmistakably clear: Noor is the heir to their legacy.
An ethnic Tajik, Noor gained prominence in late 2001 as the top mujahideen commander in northern Afghanistan fighting the Taliban regime. With American funds and weapons, the rebels ousted the Islamists, paving the way for Noor to control the nation’s security forces in strategic Balkh province. In 2003, after a series of battles, he pushed out his main rival, Abdul Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek warlord, from its capital, Mazar-e Sharif. The next year, then-President Hamid Karzai made Noor provincial governor.
Under Karzai, the warlords thrived. The government either installed them in influential positions or left them alone. Many received funds from the United States and other Western powers to work alongside U.S. and NATO forces to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda, further increasing their influence in Afghanistan’s political circles.
Broad-shouldered with an athletic build, Noor was a high school teacher — hence his nickname — before he joined the U.S.-backed mujahideen resisting the Soviet occupation in the 1980s. He has since shaved his thick beard and traded his military uniform for tailored Western suits.
He has doled out parcels of land and jobs to hundreds of his former commanders and fighters, according to Western diplomats and human rights activists. Noor exerts influence over the media, judicial system and commercial life here. He’s said to control lucrative customs revenue as well as dozens of companies, some of which receive Western-funded government contracts.
In late 2001 and early 2002, forces under Noor’s command carried out a campaign of looting and rape against ethnic Pashtuns, whose tribesmen make up a majority of the Taliban, according to Human Rights Watch. Today, Noor commands a network of militias, some of which have been implicated in numerous violations, including killings, beatings, abductions, extortion and land seizures.
“Because of the regular and ongoing nature of abuses, it is credible to allege that Atta is either aware of the abuses and directly complicit, or he is indirectly culpable for failing to stop the abuses and hold perpetrators accountable,” said John Sifton, Human Rights Watch’s Asia ­Advocacy director.
A confidential 2011 security report by the U.S. and NATO-led coalition forces, obtained by The Washington Post, found that Noor sought to bolster his political position “by using his patronage network to assassinate and harass political opponents.” The report added that Noor’s “relationship with criminals, especially drug traffickers, has likely been profitable and contributed to [his] financial resources.“
Anyone who opposes him is a target, his critics say.
“Because of Atta’s power, I can no longer do my work freely,” said Shamsuddin Shams, 51, an ethnic Uzbek activist and former businessman who has openly criticized Noor. Noor, he said, confiscated his lands by force, threw him in prison several times and shut down a university he had launched.
Noor did not respond to repeated requests to be interviewed for this story. He has publicly denied allegations of abuses and corruption. In interviews, his friends and close associates insisted that he is so wealthy that he does not need to subsist on graft or violence.
“There’s no truth to what his enemies say about him,” said Zahir Wahdat, the deputy governor of the province and also a former mujahideen commander.
Noor’s supporters contend that he and other strongmen are Afghanistan’s true leaders and have sacrificed immensely for the nation. They disdain technocrats such as Ghani who spent much of their adult lives in the United States and Europe, returning only after the Taliban was ousted.
“Who has destroyed this country for the past 13 years? It’s the people who came from the West,” said Mowlana Farid, a close friend of Noor’s for three decades. “These people with Western ideas have given a bad name to the mujahideen, calling them warlords. Instead of disrespecting them, they have to be respected.”
Opponents of the president
At Balkh Gate, the main entrance to the city, police officers search cars for weapons. Travelers cannot enter unless they deposit their guns and pick them up on the way out. In no other province in Afghanistan does that happen. The policemen are supposed to report to the nation’s Interior Ministry. But it’s clear where their allegiance lies.
“If we had a committed person like Ustad Atta in every province, Afghanistan would be secure,” said Hamidullah Chamto, the police commander at the gate, which was emblazoned with another giant portrait of Noor.
Mazar-e Sharif is widely viewed as the safest city in the country, largely due to Noor’s intelligence, police and military forces. In one recent incident, kidnappers snatched a 4-year-old boy, a relative of a well-known politician. Noor ordered that 5,000 photos of the child be distributed and closed all roads leading out of the city.
“The kidnappers released the child by the afternoon,” recalled Mohammad Moeen Marastial, the politician, who is a close Ghani ally. “Atta has people everywhere.”
That helps explain why Noor remains governor despite the allegations. In Noor, the United States and its allies see someone who can keep the north secure at a time when the Taliban are making inroads outside of their traditional power centers in the south and east.
But Noor and other strongmen have also emerged as the most powerful opposition to Ghani, even as the president forges the closest relationship an Afghan leader has had with Washington in decades.
During last year’s elections, Noor was a key supporter of Abdullah Abdullah, also a prominent former mujahideen figure. Noor publicly criticized Ghani and vowed to create a parallel government in the north if Ghani was elected. Ghani, in turn, vowed to tackle what he described as the illegal activities of Noor and other former warlords — and remove them from their influential positions.
The power-sharing deal brokered by Secretary of State John F. Kerry, under which Abdullah became the country’s chief executive, staved off potential chaos. But it boosted the influence of Noor and other strongmen aligned with Abdullah. Forced to make compromises, Ghani now leads an administration filled with former warlords, including Dostum, who is his vice president.
“If Ustad Atta doesn’t himself want to be replaced, no one can replace him,” Wahdat said.
Unlikely to be removed
In January, members of parliament loyal to the old patronage system rejected more than half the ministers Ghani had appointed to his cabinet, which still is not fully functioning. Some Karzai loyalists and former mujahideen commanders have voiced displeasure with Ghani’s attempts to enter peace talks with the Taliban. Ghani has also had a difficult time persuading Noor and other strongmen in charge of border areas to release vital customs revenue to the government.
“Ghani has a vision for a more unified country, and that runs up hard against Atta’s sense of independence,” said Graeme Smith, Afghanistan analyst for the International Crisis Group.
Noor has aspirations to become leader of the ethnic Tajiks, potentially positioning himself for even greater influence, Western diplomats and analysts said. Even Ghani’s closest friends say it is unlikely that he will fire Noor as governor in the near future. They are more worried that the Taliban or other militants will gain ground — or that other former warlords who have committed even graver abuses, such as Dostum, could seize control of the north.
“The government has too many problems,” said Marastial. “If I was in Ghani’s position, for the stability of Afghanistan, it would be better if Atta stays in his position.”

#Iran Says Open To Joint Operations With #Afghanistan, #Pakistan

Iran says it is ready to conduct joint counterterrorism operations with eastern neighbors Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Interior Minister Abdolreza Rahmani Fazli told reporters in Tehran on April 13 that Iran was willing to "carry out joint operations against terrorists with Pakistan and Afghanistan inside their territory."
Fazli said that although Tehran did not face any "critical security problems," the "occasional acts of sabotage" in Iran had taken place due to the "lack of control" in the neighboring countries.
In the past few months, armed groups have carried out several attacks against Iranian security forces along the volatile border with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
On April 7, the Jaish al-Adl militant group killed eight border guards near the border with Pakistan in Iran's southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchistan.
Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias have helped Iraqi forces fight Islamic State (IS) militants in Iraq, and Iran is one of several countries that have expressed concern about a growing IS presence in Afghanistan.

Pakistan - SAUDI MINISTER INFLUENCES CLERICS, BANNED OUTFITS, JOURNALISTS ON YEMEN CRISIS.

After Pakistani government made decision to maintain neutrality in Yemen crisis, Saudi Arab Deputy Minister of Islamic Affairs Dr. Abdul Aziz Abdullah started to influence banned religious outfits, religious political leaders, politicians, different heads of religious seminaries, journalists, NGOs on Yemen crisis, according to reports.

The undiplomatic and illegal ambassadorial activities of Dr. Abdullah has exposed the PML-N Government’s leniency toward Saudi Kingdoms, as Pakistani authorities let the Saudi minister free to do whatever in Pakistan.

It is pertinent to mention here that Dr. Abdullah recently presided over the Tahfuz-e-Harman-e-Sharifin Seminar, organized by the Jamiyat Ahle Hadith on April 11 in Islamabad. The seminar was attended by Molana Abul Khair, Jamat-ut-Dawa’s Hafiz Saeed, Pir Amin Hasnat, Pir Mehfoz Mashhadi, Molana Fazul-ur-Rahman Khalil of Ansar Ul Ummah, Owais Norani, Liaquat Bloch, Farzand Hamid-ul-Haq and Sami-ul-Haq, who is famous as the father of Taliban.

According to reports, the Saudi minister also contacted to the heads of the banned outfits and religious militants, which is really a threat to Pakistan’s sovereignty, as Pakistani armed forces are already engaged in the surgical operation, Zarb-e-Azb against these militants in different parts of the country.

The unjustified influence of the Saudi minister has motivated some religious parties and banned outfits to decry the resolution passed by Pakistan National Assembly on Yemen.

Following the motive of Saudi Arabia, the chief of banned outfit, Anjuman-e-Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), Maulana Muhammad Ahmad Ludhianvi has declared the resolution passed by Pakistan National Assembly on Yemen as “against the will of the people” and “a waste of time”.

Saudi-backed Mullahs (clerics) now have come in the ground to support Saudi Kingdome, and resolved that their parties’ workers and students of hundreds of religious seminaries (Madaris) will go and join Saudi-led alliance of ten countries.

Some reports say that some of journalist and anchor person including Saleem Safi, Amir Liaquat Hussain, Salman Ghani, Ahmed Qureshi (a junior anchor) and many others have been influenced by Saudi Arabian authorities to get their support.

http://www.shiitenews.org/index.php/shiitenews/pakistan/saudi-minister-influences-clerics-banned-outfits-journalists-on-yemen-crisis

Malala Yousafzai - World must do more to free Nigerian schoolgirl hostages










Nobel peace laureate Malala Yousafzai on Monday criticised Nigerian and world leaders for not doing enough to help free 219 schoolgirls kidnapped a year ago by Boko Haram militants.

“In my opinion, Nigerian leaders and the international community have not done enough to help you,” she said in a letter to the teenagers, on the eve of the first anniversary of their abduction.
“They must do much more to help secure your release. I am among many people pressuring them to make sure you are freed,” she added, calling the girls “my brave sisters”.
Yousafzai’s letter, which she said was “a message of solidarity love and hope”, comes as events, including marches, prayers and vigils, were being held to mark the girls’ 12 months in captivity.
Islamist fighters kidnapped 276 girls from their school in the remote town of Chibok, in Borno state, northeastern Nigeria, on the evening of April 14 last year.
Fifty-seven managed to escape soon afterwards but the remainder have not been seen since an appearance in a Boko Haram video in May last year.
Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau has claimed they have all converted to Islam and been “married off”.
Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan and his government were heavily criticised for their response to the kidnapping but Malala said there were now “reasons for hope and optimism”.
“Nigerian forces are re-gaining territory and protecting more schools,” she wrote.
“Nigeria’s newly elected president, Muhammadu Buhari, has vowed to make securing your freedom a top priority and promised his government will not tolerate violence against women and girls.”
Malala, 17, also wrote of her own experiences at the hands of militants in her native Pakistan. She was nearly killed by the Taliban in October 2012 for insisting that girls had a right to an education.
She recovered and became a global champion of girls’ rights to go to school.
A fund set up in her name would ensure the girls will continue their education after their release, she said, urging them not to give up hope.
“I look forward to the day I can hug each one of you, pray with you and celebrate your freedom with your families. Until then, stay strong and never lose hope. You are my heroes,” she added.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on Monday said that 800,000 of the 1.5 million people displaced by Boko Haram’s insurgency were children.
More than 300 schools have been severely damaged or destroyed between January 2012 and December last year, with at least 196 teachers and 314 schoolchildren killed in that period, it added.
Children have increasingly become targets for kidnapping, sexual abuse and forced marriage as well as “weapons of war”, being made to fight alongside militants or used as human bombs, UNICEF said.

Pakistan - Violence In Turbat

The heinous killings of 20 labourers, who belonged to Sindh and Punjab, in the Turbat district of Balochistan on Saturday is yet another reminder of the grim situation in the province. Balochistan Liberation Front, a banned separatist militant group, claimed responsibility for the ethnic killings. Such groups, who claim to be fighting for the rights of Baloch people and independent Balochistan, cannot possibly do greater damage to their alleged cause. By murdering poor labourers, who take no part in devising the military establishment’s policy towards the province and can barely make ends meet, such extremist elements undermine the efforts of dedicated rights and political activists – Baloch and non-Baloch – struggling for peace and justice in Balochistan. 
Those, who campaign for justice and do not shy away from raising their voice against the military establishment’s highhandedness in Balochistan, must offer an equally unequivocal condemnation of ethnic killings in Turbat carried out by separatist groups. No cause, no grievance and no state or military policies justifies ethnic attacks on innocent civilians. It is indeed possible to offer meaningful resistance to misguided policies of the military establishment without excusing or justifying activities of BLF and other militant separatist groups. Loud state propaganda could never destroy their credibility like their own silence does.
As things stand today, Balochistan’s legitimate grievances remain unaddressed. That is partially because of the lack of interest and apathy afflicting the rest of the country. Most do not even understand the nature of problems in the province they have never visited and do not feel the need to. Such incidents will only contribute to Balochistan’s isolation and reinforce suspicions and paranoia surrounding the plight of the Baloch people. Issues like missing persons, lack of civilian powers and military excesses, which ought to be discussed and debated throughout Pakistan, remain stuck on the backseat owing to both state censorship and terrorist activities carried out by entities such as BLF.
The solution to Balochistan’s problems will not come from bullets regardless of who is pulling the trigger. If the state wishes to effectively counter militant separatists, it is advised to empower politicians, activists and citizens remain unarmed despite all that they face. Let them appear on television screens and let people listen to what they have to say. The unwarranted insecurity and paranoia is not doing anyone any good. Pakistan can and will survive harsh statements and unpleasing remarks, but what it cannot afford is perpetual silence.

Pakistan - #YemenCrisis - Unacceptable threat





UAE’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Dr Anwar Mohammad Gargash needs to go back to school to relearn the appropriate manner of conducting foreign relations, particularly with friendly countries. The worthy minister of a country Pakistan regards as a friend has attempted a ‘diplomatic’ intervention against the Pakistani parliament’s unanimous resolution to stay out of the Yemen conflict while being ready to come to Saudi Arabia’s assistance should its sovereignty or territorial integrity be threatened (so far it is not, despite the latest reports of ground clashes on the Saudi-Yemeni border because of Yemeni retaliation against the Kingdom’s air strikes). In what can only be termed unprecedented undiplomatic language, the UAE minister has seen fit to criticise the Pakistani parliament’s resolution as unacceptable neutrality in a conflict in which the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Arab countries are, according to their narrative, combating the spread of Iran’s influence (a charge that Tehran denies, despite the latest report that a couple of Iranian officers have been captured by the militias fighting against the Houthis and their allies). It is in fact so unacceptable to Dr Gargash that he issues a not even thinly veiled threat to Pakistan that it must either do what Saudi Arabia and its GCC allies want (send fighter aircraft, naval ships and ground troops to Yemen alongside the Arab coalition) or be ready to “pay the price”. Dr Gargash goes on to interpret Pakistan and Turkey’s calls for seeking a political solution to the Yemen conflict as reflecting that Iran is more important to Islamabad and Ankara than the Arabs. Interestingly, the UAE’s ‘senior’ partner, Saudi Arabia, has dispatched its foreign minister to Islamabad for discussions. On arrival, he said the parliamentary resolution is Pakistan’s internal matter and although he hopes for a better response from Pakistan, he is here to conduct an exchange of views. What a difference! Saudi Arabia is leading the 10-member Arab coalition and is in the forefront of the air strikes on Yemen but the junior foreign minister of the UAE seems to have diplomatic niceties lost on him. While the Pakistan foreign office has maintained a ‘diplomatic’ silence, pleading no such official message has been received from the UAE so far, Federal Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar has weighed in by calling the threat unacceptable. Certainly no self-respecting country can accept such diktat or language, even from a friend.

Dr Gargash’s undiplomatic outburst aside, which may well reflect partially the GCC’s frustration at not being able to turn the tide of battle in Yemen despite continuous air strikes, the ground situation in Yemen both reveals the limitations of air power alone in any war as well as the risks of entering the war on the side of deposed president Hadi and against the Houthis and their allies. Informed analysts who know Yemen well are warning that any such intervention, far from defeating the Houthis and their allies, promises to turn into a protracted war that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy of the war spilling over the border into Saudi Arabia itself. Interestingly, what has largely gone unnoticed is the US’s support to the Saudi-led war in Yemen. Not only are there now reports of Washington opening its intelligence sharing a crack wider to assist the Saudi bombing campaign, it has now admitted mid-air refuelling of Saudi jets to strengthen the bombing campaign.

Thank God for the collective wisdom of our parliament that scotched any notion of Pakistan getting entangled in another proxy war in the region (the ones in Afghanistan and Indian Held Kashmir, in case anyone needs reminding, have yet to end). Not only would any Pakistani acceptance of the Saudi request for a military intervention have drawn armed forces personnel and resources away from our own struggle against terrorism (though some may drool at the possibility of being richly rewarded by our Arab friends), it had the potential of alienating neighbour Iran and pitching Pakistan directly into the maelstrom of a regional proxy war that is being painted in sectarian colours despite the complexity of the situation and forces fighting in Yemen. Additionally, it is worth reflecting on the US backing to the Saudi campaign opening the door in Yemen to al Qaeda and Islamic State, just as its ill thought through intervention in Iraq and Syria did. The law of unintended consequences is fully at work in the region. Lessons must be learnt from past such mistakes and Pakistan should first and foremost look to its own house on fire, then play a wise and reconciliatory role in its own interests.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Video - The politics of skinny: France bans underweight models

Video - Earth’s moon formed after planetary collision with large protoplanet – researchers

Video - Cuban hopes for a brighter future and relations with the US become warmer

Video - Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 White House Bid

Video - President Obama Meets with President Castro

Obama and Raul Castro dialogue: What’s next US-Cuba?

http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=110591
By Isaac Risco 
A “historic” gathering with an open ending, the Panama Summit will be remembered as the scenario in which the presidents of the United States and Cuba turned to dialogue, but it will be just one more stop on a long road.
“We are ready to discuss everything, but we have to be patient, very patient,” said the president of Cuba, Raul Castro, during his meeting with his US counterpart in Panama City.
Barack Obama also acknowledged that both parties will often “disagree”, but hoped they do so “with respect”.
Full normalization of relations between Washington and Havana will be a “long process, difficult and complex,” predicted Cuba Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, when he appeared before the press to discuss the historical dialogue between Obama and Castro.
Despite the thaw between the two countries, “profound differences” persist that will not be easy to remedy. Even the planned reopening of embassies is without a date. Rodriguez could not even confirm when the fourth round of the negotiations who occur. The talks began in January.
The United States has not yet announced the removal of Cuba from its list of countries sponsoring terrorism, noted Rodriguez, which is currently seen as one of the main obstacles to the advancement of the diplomatic rapprochement.
In Panama there was speculation that Washington would announce the removal of Cuba from the “black list” during the days of the summit. The list, in effect since 1982, currently includes Iran, Sudan, Syria and Cuba. The White House said that the evaluation process has concluded, but the decision is not taken.
Raul Castro and Barack Obama dialogue at the Summit of the Americas in the presence of their delegations. Photo: Estudios Revolución
Obama attributed the inaction to a temporary issue. “I’ve been traveling and I want to make sure I have a chance to read it (evaluation),” he explained.
Rodriguez also called for a prompt solution to the problem faced by the Cuban Interests Section in Washington because no bank will handle its accounts, due to ramifications of the US embargo on the island. The building is destined to become the next Cuban Embassy.
Even when praising Obama for approving measures to ease the embargo, Rodriguez was critical: “Cuba appreciates the very limited steps taken by the US government,” he said.
But Washington has repeatedly stressed since it began diplomatic negotiations with the Castro administration that it will continue to support Cuban dissidents. “Our governments will continue to have differences,” Obama noted in Panama.
Before his first greeting with Castro at the summit, the US President even received two Cuban dissidents, along with 13 other civil society activists from around the continent. The anti-Castro opponents had participated in the civil society forum that took place in the days before the summit, in which there were several incidents between Castro supporters and dissidents.
Raul Castro and Barack Obama on April 11, 2015, at the Summit of the Americas in Panama.
“Nobody thought that decades of mistrust and suspicion were going to disappear overnight,” said Michael Shifter of the Washington Inter-American Dialogue think tank before the summit.
Full normalization of relations with Cuba in the region itself will be a difficult task. To date, Havana refuses to return to the Organization of American States (OAS), despite the body lifting six years ago its 1962 sanctions against Cuba.
The government of Raul Castro rejects the OAS, traditionally seeing it as an “instrument of domination” of Washington in the region.
“Rapprochement, if any, will occur in the coming years, through other UN agencies,” predicted the outgoing OAS general secretary, José Miguel Insulza, in a conversation with dpa in Panama.
The new secretary, Luis Almagro, said he expects to achieve the return of Cuba during his mandate.

With Iran and now Cuba, Obama breakthroughs face hard sell

http://www.chron.com/

By JIM KUHNHENN


After breakthroughs abroad, President Barack Obama is finding stern challenges at home to his foreign policy, facing hard sells to skeptics over U.S. shifts, first on Iran and now Cuba.
Obama returned to Washington early Sunday still basking in the attention from his historic meeting with Cuban President Raul Castro at a summit of Western Hemisphere leaders. But Obama is certain to find a less appreciative crowd in Congress than the one he left behind at the Summit of the Americas in Panama.
To complete a nuclear agreement with Iran, Obama must deal with resistance in Congress and the unpredictability of the Iranian leadership, which has a distinctly different interpretation of what the sides have settled on so far.
Cuba and Iran offer Obama, whose term ends in early 2017, the potential for legacy-crowning achievements. Iran may prove a greater challenge than Cuba, but together they are subjecting Obama's foreign policy to the kind of scrutiny that most international issues, short of war, rarely draw.
Obama made clear in a closing news conference late Saturday in Panama City that he believes he can handle the twin trials. The American public is on his side on Cuba, the president said, and he had tough words for Republicans defying him on Iran.
Both have their roots in decades of grievances. Both have had constituencies in the U.S. deeply mistrustful of the governments with which Obama is dealing. Pro-Israel Americans cannot fathom a deal with an Iran that will not recognize Israel's existence. And for long, Cuban-Americans who escaped Fidel Castro's revolution could not imagine a U.S. government not committed to ousting the Havana government.
On the flip side, Cuba is hardly the threat Iran could be. Public opinion no longer demonizes Cuba. In the end, Obama's efforts to re-establish normal relations looks like the lesser burden.
When it comes to Cuba, "the American people don't need to be persuaded," Obama said.
Still, there are reminders that the barriers have not all fallen.
Castro, in a lengthy speech at the summit, recited a litany of objections to past U.S. policies. And the room where Obama and Castro met displayed no flags, thus declaring the absence of diplomatic relations.
Obama's next step is removing Cuba from the United States' list of state sponsors of terrorism. Such a decision, recommended by the State Department, could come in days. Obama would have to notify Congress. Lawmakers do not have to ratify the decision, but they have 45 days to disapprove it.
Such a vote, if attempted, probably would not succeed. But the issue is percolating just as 2016 presidential candidates are jumping into the race.
Florida, once the center of anti-Castro activism, is a pivotal presidential state, and some Republican candidates will try for a political upper hand by accusing Obama of weakening America's place in the world.
"President Obama's foreign policy has been one appeasement toward autocratic dictators, thugs, and adversaries after another," Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican toying with a presidential run, said amid news Obama was to sit down with Castro.
The White House hardly appears worried about the politics of Cuban diplomacy, given that support for ending more than 50 years of U.S. isolation of the island nation crosses party and geographic lines.
"''Perhaps the most important difference is that while Iran is inherently a security issue, today Cuba is the opposite," said Carl Meacham, a former senior Republican aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committeewho now is a director at the Center for Security and International Studies. "If he removes Cuba for the list of state sponsors of terror, President Obama will demonstrate that the United States can no longer reasonably look at Cuba as a threat to our own security."
Obama perceives the Iran deal as far more fragile.
Iran and the world powers negotiating the deal have until the end of June to reach a final deal. Congress is angling to assert authority over the final agreement, and even some of Obama's Democratic allies support that.
But Obama reserves most of his frustrations for Republicans and he singled out Sen. John McCain of Arizona, his 2008 presidential rival, for specific scorn during Saturday's new conference.
McCain last week declared a major setback in the nuclear talks after Iran's supreme leader demanded that sanctions against Tehran had to be lifted immediately after a deal went into place.
Obama cast McCain's criticism as an assault on the credibility of Secretary of State John Kerry.
"Now we have a senator suggesting that our secretary of state is purposefully misinterpreting the deal and giving the supreme leader of Iran the benefit of the doubt in the interpretations," Obama said. "That's not how we're supposed to run foreign policy, regardless of who is president or secretary of state."

Why Hillary Clinton Has Such a Strong Chance of Becoming the Next President








BY PERRY BACON JR.



Eight years ago, Hillary Clinton entered the White House race as the favorite to win the Democratic nomination and seemed the most likely person from either party to be elected president.

Her circumstances at first glance look similar today: she is the leading Democrat and the most famous candidate in the field. But this time is much different. Hillary Clinton begins the race with a much, much larger advantage than in 2008 against other Democrats in the primary, but it may be harder for her to win the general election in 2016 than it would have been back then.
In terms of the primary, Clinton is right now the strongest non-incumbent candidate from either party since then-Vice President Al Gore ran in 2000. Dozens of members of Congress have already endorsed Clinton, her campaign staff includes some of the most experienced strategists in the Democratic Party and President Barack Obama and his political circle have all but anointed her as his successor. The party's donors are strongly behind Clinton as well.
Clinton was the favorite of the party in 2008 as well, but Democrats were much more divided back then. Clinton's vote for the Iraq War and refusal to apologize for it made her vulnerable in the primary, with a heavily anti-war electorate and the rise of Obama, who had opposed the war from its start.
Tom Daschle, the former Senate Majority Leader and an influential figure in the party back then, endorsed Obama early in the race and many of his former aides joined Obama's team. Even as Clinton was preparing her campaign in 2006, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, two of the party's leading figures, privately urged Obama to run. Eric Holder and Susan Rice, who held senior roles in Bill Clinton's administration, opted for Obama over Clinton early in the race.
Eventually, Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama, dismissing concerns about his level of experience and giving Obama backing from a deeply-trusted figure in the party. For many Democrats, electing the first black president was just as or more significant than electing the first woman. And African-Americans overwhelming backed Obama, making it impossible for Clinton to win many Southern primaries.
Now many Democrats have said the party should nominate a female candidate. The war in Iraq is no longer a huge issue in American politics.
There is no obvious black candidate seeking to challenge Clinton, and even if one emerged, it's not clear that person would get more than 80% of the black vote as Obama did. The election of the first black president, a huge motivating factor for many African-Americans voters and some whites, has already happened.
The Democrat in perhaps the best position to defeat Clinton is someone who has never run for office before and seems very unlikely to do so: Michelle Obama.
Seeing the consolidation around Clinton, some of the strongest potential Democratic candidates are so far not even bothering to run. There is little sign that Vice President Joe Biden or Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the two strongest potential challengers, are considering campaigns. The field of candidates who appear likely to run against Clinton lack broad or intense support in the party: former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb.
This trio is likely to attack Clinton on two issues: economic populism and national security. Sanders supports major tax increases on the wealthy and increasing Social Security benefits. It's not clear where Clinton stands on those issues. O'Malley has called for greater restrictions on Wall Street banks, another topic where Clinton has not stated precise views recently.
Webb was an early Iraq War opponent and is more skeptical of the use of U.S. military force than Clinton has been in the past. The two could differ on how much the U.S. should do to stop ISIS and how much it should intervene in the Syrian civil war. Clinton has said Obama waited too late to support Syrian rebels.
But Clinton's biggest challenge in the Democratic primary is a mistake that forces the party's establishment to rethink whether she is a strong candidate for the general election. In that scenario, major party officials could tap a candidate like Warren and provide her with the kind of fundraising and grassroots support to challenge Clinton.
This is what happened in 2008, when Obama got so much support in part because of concerns from top Democrats about Clinton's ability to win the general election.
An anti-Clinton campaign within the Democratic Party seems very unlikely this year. The recent controversy about Clinton's unusual use of e-mail as secretary of state has not caused Democrats to break from the former first lady, although investigations by both Republicans in Congress and the press may unearth more damaging details.
Clinton's ties with Wall Street, while annoying to party liberals, have not yet emerged as the kind of rift that her Iraq War vote was. And Clinton is already taking strong stances on other issues liberals care deeply about, recently blasting the religious freedom law that was being considered in Indiana and calling Obamacare a huge success.
And despite complaints from some voters that America does not need to elect another president whose last name is Bush or Clinton, the former first lady's association with Bill Clinton seems to be an asset at this point.
In terms of the states that vote early in the Democratic primary, Clinton struggled in Iowa in 2008, finishing behind not only Obama, but also John Edwards. Some Iowa Democrats who backed Obama in 2008 say they are behind Clinton now.
But even if the former of secretary of state somehow lost Iowa to O'Malley, she would still have a strong chance of winning the nomination. Voters in New Hampshire strongly supported Bill Clinton in the 1992 primary and Clinton upset Obama there in 2008.
South Carolina's large black population is a huge advantage for her.
The general election will be much more difficult for Clinton than the primary. She does have some advantages. Her stances on many major issues, such as calling for an increase in the minimum wage and paid sick leave for all workers, are backed by a majority of Americans. While wages remain stagnant for many U.S. workers, the economy is in much better shape than when Obama took office.
And whoever is the Republican Party's nominee must grapple with balancing the views of the party's older, mostly white and deeply-religious bloc of base voters with the views of younger, less-religious voters. Clinton's strong support of gay marriage and creating a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants will be a strong contrast to the GOP nominee, who will likely have to hedge on those issues.
At the same time, Clinton must navigate establishing her own political brand as being different from both her husband and Obama.
A March NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll showed that 51 percent of Americans say that she would "represent too much of a return to the policies of the past" if elected president, while 44 percent say she "would provide the new ideas and vision the country will need for the future."
Republicans will rightly argue that electing Clinton would be something of a third term for Obama, since he and Clinton agree on nearly every major policy issue. The last two people (Gore in 2000 and John McCain in 2008) who tried to run for the third term of their political party lost.
In addition, even some Democrats consider President Obama's foreign policy record weak, from tense relations with Israel to the rise of both ISIS and Russia militarily during his tenure. Republicans plan to attack Clinton's four years as one of Obama's top foreign policy advisers.
Clinton has an obvious model to follow in terms of getting elected in the general election. Obama won in both 2008 and 2012 by carrying a series of states that Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004 did not: Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. He benefited from both a growing percentage of non-white voters (from about 19 percent of the electorate in 2000 to 26 percent in 2012) and deep support from those minority voters, about 80% of whom backed him.
Clinton will be hard-pressed to follow the model of her husband, who won in states like Arkansas and Kentucky. The South has become almost entirely Republican at the federal level since Bill Clinton's victories, and it's hard to see Hillary Clinton reversing such a strong trend.
There are a few factors about the electorate environment that aren't clear at this point. Will minority voters be less inclined to get behind Clinton, either because Republicans successfully woo them or the absence of Obama on the ticket? Could Clinton outperform Obama among women because of the historic nature of her candidacy? Will some men or even women be reluctant to elect a female president? Can she appeal better than Obama to working-class whites? And how will Americans view the economy and Obama's presidency overall 18 months from now?

U.S. - Weekly Address: Tuition-Free Community College

Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid

Throwing her hat in the ring!

It's official: Hilary Clinton is running for President of the United States once more. The former Secretary of State, New York Senator, and First Lady announced her candidacy bid on Sunday, April 12.
Clinton, 67, launched her campaign for the 2016 election with emails from her campaign chairman, John Podesta, to donors and others on Sunday afternoon. 

"I wanted to make sure you heard it first from me – it’s official: Hillary’s running for president,” the email reads.
Clinton previously lost to President Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Clinton's plans to run slipped through the cracks on Friday, with several media outlets reporting that she would be making a statement over the weekend. That same day, a new epilogue to Clinton's 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, was published on Huffington Post.

"You shouldn't have to be the granddaughter of a President or a Secretary of State to receive excellent health care, education, enrichment, and all the support and advantages that will one day lead to a good job and a successful life. That's what we want for all our kids," the passage read, referring to her 6-month-old granddaughter Charlotte.
"I'm more convinced than ever that our future in the 21st century depends on our ability to ensure that a child born in the hills of Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley grows up with the same shot at success that Charlotte will," she continued. "Becoming a grandmother has made me think deeply about the responsibility we all share as stewards of the world we inherit and will one day pass on. Rather than make me want to slow down, it has spurred me to speed up."

Up next, Clinton is immediately getting to work with planned trips to Iowa and New Hampshire to meet with voters and begin the road to win the ticket at the Democratic convention. The next general presidential election will be held on Nov. 8.


Read more: http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/hillary-clinton-announces-2016-presidential-bid-in-twitter-video--2015124#ixzz3X7nS2SPr
Follow us: @usweekly on Twitter | usweekly on Facebook