Friday’s Early Bird leads with news about Iraq’s recently concluded elections. The gist of the stories is that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki posted significant victories in Iraq's provincial elections, winning Baghdad and eight provinces in Iraq's Shiite south, according to official preliminary results released Thursday.In voting for Maliki and his allies, Iraqis appeared to be supporting a strong central government and rewarding the prime minister for sending in government forces to fight Shiite militias in the southern city of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City enclave. Maliki's State of Law coalition won 38 percent of the votes in Baghdad and 37 percent in Basra.But with the exception of these two provinces, Maliki and his allies won by close margins in the other seven provinces and will need to build coalitions with other parties. At the same time, the slim margins could also allow other parties to come together in opposition to Maliki.Iraqis also appeared to favor nationalist politicians who have portrayed themselves as non-sectarian leaders who oppose the division of Iraq. In Baghdad and in the south, Iraqis supported religious parties while in Sunni provinces, some secular parties posted strong results.
Other noteworthy stories in Friday’s Early Bird:
§ The Boston Globe reports that the United States is considering resuming military cooperation with authoritarian Uzbekistan as a part of backup planning for the potential loss of a nearby air hub for troops and supplies in the widening Afghanistan war, US officials said yesterday.Defense officials say they are examining options for supply routes through a semicircle of nations from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf that could be used in place of the strategic air base in the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan.Uzbekistan, a hard-line former Soviet satellite with rigid economic controls, is a surprise contender because diplomatic relations between the United States and Uzbekistan are rocky at best. After a brief 1990s rapprochement with the United States, the Uzbeks expelled American forces from a base there in 2005, and the two nations have traded accusations ever since.
§ The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told Princeton University students Thursday that "the line of battle these days is 360 degrees," and that the United States faces challenges from many different directions.Speaking without a script and eschewing the podium to walk the auditorium stage, Adm. Mike Mullen spoke of a wide range of foreign policy challenges the Obama administration faces, from the situation in Afghanistan to concerns about instability in Mexico.Mullen, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs is principal military adviser to the president, emphasized repeatedly that his top concerns include the health and well-being of U.S. military members and their families , especially after they return home from war , and the situation in the Middle East and the surrounding region.
§ The New York Times says that Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the former top American commander in the Middle East, said the Obama administration offered him the (post of American ambassador to Iraq) late last month, but withdrew the appointment without explanation, apparently in favor of a veteran diplomat, Christopher R. Hill.With General Zinni fuming in undiplomatic fashion about the way he was treated, the question of who should be the next ambassador to Iraq has turned into an embarrassing mess for the Obama administration as it struggles to recover from other stumbles over high-profile nominations. There has still been no formal announcement about the Iraq job.
§ The Wall Street Journal reports that security conference opening in Munich on Friday will be an early test of whether President Barack Obama's popularity in Europe will mean greater political support for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, as the administration seeks to deal with the possible loss of an air base used to support the war there.U.S. relations with Russia are likely to weigh heavily on the conference. Russia in recent days said it plans to create a military force designed to rival the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and pushed for the eviction of the U.S. from Kyrgyzstan's Manas air base, which is used to supply U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
§ Finally, the London Daily Telegraph reports that Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to frontline politics after President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow to win backing from Vladimir Putin's government for a nuclear disarmament initiative.The Daily Telegraph has learned that the 85-year-old former US secretary of state met President Dmitry Medvedev for secret negotiations in December. According to Western diplomats, during two days of talks the octogenarian courted Russian officials to win their support for Mr Obama's initiative, which could see Russia and the United States each slashing their nuclear warheads to 1,000 warheads.
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: All the papers lead with news that a group of centrist senators is furiously working behind the scenes to try to cut the cost of the economic stimulus plan that now clocks in at around $935 billion, give or take a billion or two. (Slate Magazine)
2. Nosedive in Afghan-U.S. relations: Relations between President Karzai's Afghan government and Washington are at an all-time low. (BBC)
3. Russia to fire up Iranian reactor: Russian nuclear experts have confirmed they are likely to fire up Iran's first nuclear power plant by the end of 2009. (BBC)
4. UN hails Iraqi election results: The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has made a surprise visit to Iraq to congratulate voters there on the outcome of nationwide local elections. (BBC)
Leading newspaper headlines
All the papers lead with news that a group of centrist senators is furiously working behind the scenes to try to cut the cost of the economic stimulus plan that now clocks in at around $935 billion, give or take a billion or two. The bipartisan group hopes to trim as much as $100 billion from the bill in order to make it more palatable to Republicans. Interestingly enough, as the Los Angeles Times points out high in its story, $100 billion is pretty much the amount that the package has grown by since it reached the Senate. But, of course, that has mostly been due to tax cuts, and the bipartisan negotiators want to slash some spending.
The New York Times and Washington Post say that the negotiating team, which is being led by Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has already identified around $80 billion to $90 billion in cuts. The WP, which got an early look at the legislation, says "a huge chunk" of the cuts comes from education-related programs. USA Today highlights the tough stance taken by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said he is still holding out hope for a compromise but is ready to move on the legislation without Republican support if necessary. The Wall Street Journal points out that Democrats might be able to use the January jobs data scheduled to be released tomorrow to pressure Republicans into action. Economists widely expect the U.S. unemployment rate for January to grow to 7.5 percent.
The WSJ points out that the bipartisan group of senators set their goal of getting the stimulus bill down to $800 billion after Sens. Collins and Nelson met with President Obama and were told the package needed to be at least that large in order to give the economy a boost. According to the WP, the biggest cuts will be $40 billion in aid for states that would have been used to bolster school budgets, $14 billion in funds for education programs, and $13.9 billion that was supposed to increase Pell grants for higher education. The NYT adds that the group would also cut $4.1 billion to make federal buildings more energy efficient and $1.5 billion to provide broadband Internet to rural areas. The senators emphasized that they want to cut out programs that wouldn't create jobs quickly or encourage more spending.
Early in the day, Reid expressed frustration at the discussions going on between the centrist senators, saying that the group "cannot hold the president of the United States hostage." But later he said he would give the senators until Friday to reach a deal. As the NYT points out, the bipartisan group "essentially tied" Reid's hands because he would need at least a few Republicans on his side in order to get to the 60 votes required to pass the measure. Democrats technically need two Republicans to go over to their side, but it will probably have to be three since Sen. Edward Kennedy has been away all week. And that's assuming that all Democrats stick with Obama. Reid might have been confused as to how far he should push because he might not have been receiving clear signs from the White House. While it seems Obama was encouraging the Senate negotiations, he appeared a tad impatient. "The time for talk is over," he said. "The time for action is now."
As the centrists tried to come up with a compromise, the rest of the senators were busy in a debate that seemed to turn more heated and more partisan as the day wore on. The WP's Dana Milbank characterizes it as a battle between the "workhorses" and the "showhorses" of the Senate. "Has bipartisanship been a failure?" asked Sen. Charles Schumer. "Well, so far it's not working. But it takes two to tango, and the Republicans aren't dancing." Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham showed off his vocabulary: "This bill stinks." And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell showed off his math prowess: "If you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn't have spent $1 trillion."
The WP's Steven Pearlstein thinks that if we're going to be spending so much money to stimulate the economy, we might as well throw in another $50 million or so to teach some economic basics to lawmakers. So far, lawmakers seem to be stumbling over each other to provide "silly arguments" against the stimulus bill. For example, it's ridiculous to say that money that's not spent within the next two years is "wasted," as is the argument that some spending won't stimulate the economy, or that spending money on hiring civil engineers to build a bridge is somehow more stimulative than hiring doctors to carry out health-care research. "Spending is stimulus, no matter what it's for and who does it," summarizes Pearlstein. "The best spending is that which creates jobs and economic activity now, has big payoffs later and disappears from future budgets."
The NYT fronts a look at how, if the recession continues to deepen, women might soon be the majority on the nation's payrolls. Around 82 percent of job losses have so far affected men, who are disproportionately represented in manufacturing and construction. If the numbers continue to rise, it means that more families would be dependent on women as the breadwinner and might consequently find it more difficult to make ends meet since women generally work fewer hours and earn less than men. But it might also bring about a change in gender roles. That hasn't happened yet though. Amazingly, it turns out that when women are unemployed, they double the amount of time they spend taking care of the children, but that doesn't happen with unemployed men, who end up spending more time watching TV, sleeping, and looking for a job.
The Post fronts, and everyone mentions, news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer. It is considered to be a particularly lethal form of cancer, but a statement released by the court said it was caught at an early stage and that Ginsburg had no symptoms. Only about 5 percent of those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer survive for five years, primarily because it's so difficult to detect in its early stages. But the LAT talks to a doctor who says that since Ginsburg's tumor appears to have been small and localized she probably has a 30 percent to 40 percent chance of surviving for five years.
The WP goes inside with a new report by congressional investigators that will be released today that says the government overpaid for assets as part of its massive bailout plan to the tune of $78 billion. The Treasury Department put $254 billion into the financial companies, and in return received preferred stocks that, at the time, were worth $176 billion. It doesn't necessarily mean that the government has lost money, since the companies will be required to pay the cash back, plus interest. Lawmakers are angry because former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had vowed that the government would buy the assets at market value.
The WSJ hears some updates on the administration's new plan to prop up the nation's ailing financial system, which will be detailed on Monday. The paper warns that there could still be lots of changes, but it looks like the administration is moving away from creating a so-called bad bank that would purchase the toxic assets. (If you're still confused about what a "bad bank" is, the LAT has a very helpful Q&A.) In order to deal with these troubled assets, the administration is considering expanding what is known as the Term Asset-Backed-Securities Loan Facility, which was set up to boost consumer loans. The administration would also inject more cash into troubled banks, but they would likely have stricter terms and apply more to weaker banks rather than the healthier banks that were preferred in the first round of capital infusions. The WSJ says the plans continue to be fluid partly because officials want to create a plan that is markedly different from the one used by the Bush administration, but they're "running into many of the same thorny questions" encountered by their predecessors.
Obama plans to hold his first prime-time news conference Monday, and broadcasters are getting a little peeved at the president's talkative ways, reports the Post's Lisa de Moraes. Network executives have been warned to expect three prime-time presidential appearences in three weeks, which would translate into three hours of lost programming. Adding salt to the wound is the fact that Monday is one of the biggest days of the week for broadcasters. In order "to accommodate Obamavision" this Monday, Fox will have to pull House at a cost of about $3 million. "His economic stimulus package apparently does not extend to the TV networks," one executive said.
Top of the Document
Nosedive in Afghan-US relations
Relations between President Karzai's Afghan government and Washington are at an all-time low. As Richard Holbrooke - President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan - prepares to make his first visit to the region since being appointed, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Kabul looks at why the relationship has soured.
Mr Karzai has fallen out of favour
Hamid Karzai has become increasingly vociferous in his criticism of American military tactics and has been making half-hearted threats to shift his allegiance to Moscow if he does not get his way.
Washington has yet to publicly declare its hand but a series of well-placed leaks, briefs and snubs have raised the prospect that it could move its support elsewhere in this year's presidential election.
One Afghan newspaper spoke of "a new cold war".
A senior Afghan government official says the new Obama administration has insulted President Karzai and one prominent MP accuses America of "running a shadow-government".
'Narco-state'
The decline in relations began with a visit last year by Joe Biden, now the vice-president, to Kabul.
Joe Biden's meeting with President Karzai reportedly did not go well
At the time, as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate, he attended a private m
eeting with Mr Karzai.A well-placed source describes Mr Biden, exasperated at not getting "straight answers" on drugs and corruption, launching into a verbal tirade and storming out of the meeting.
In a country where honour and decorum are second only to God and country, this was less than tactful.
On the campaign trail and more recently in confirmation hearings, senior members of President Barack Obama's team have questioned the effectiveness and honesty of Hamid Karzai's government.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's written statement to Congress during her confirmation hearing called Afghanistan a "narco-state" that was "plagued by limited capacity and widespread corruption".
She may have been wise enough not to use the phrase in her public testimony but by the time it was reported on the front page of the newspapers in Kabul, it did not really make much difference.
'Potential impediment'
Earlier in January the Nato secretary-general wrote an opinion piece about the lack of leadership in the country, laying the blame not at the feet of the Taleban but the lack of governance.
Civilians need better protection, says Mr Karzai
Then there was a recent article in the New York Times. Quoting anonymous "senior administration officials", it said Washington planned to take a tougher-line with Kabul and that Hamid Karzai was now regarded as "a potential impediment to American goals" in the country.
Hamid Karzai is an avid reader of the Western press and is known to be highly sensitive to criticisms they may have of him. Publicly he has not responded but he is now under considerable pressure.
His government's writ is limited to Kabul, the north and a few urban spots elsewhere in the country.
His own popularity has fallen and some whisper privately and mischievously about his "state of mind".
When asked whether the country was heading towards a crisis, one senior political figure responded that the country was already in one.
Old Afghan hand
President Karzai has been holding a series of meetings with former Mujahedeen commanders in the past few weeks amid suggestions that he is trying to align the country with Russia.
The president wants new rules of engagement for Nato troops
That has certainly been his public stance. As well as a deliberately leaked "letter of understanding" with Moscow, President Karzai publicly warned America that unless it supplied the military hardware he wanted, he would look to other countries for support.
No-one was in a moment's doubt who this meant. The Russian ambassador, Zamir Kabulov, an old Afghan hand, was seen strutting around parliament last week.
He has warned that the US and Nato are repeating the same mistakes of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. As he was posted to the Soviet Embassy at the time, his opinion is worth considering.
Now President Karzai has sent a document to Nato outlining new "rules of engagement". If implemented they would substantially alter the mandate for foreign forces in the country.
It seems inconceivable that there could be a real and lasting schism between Kabul and Washington. It will be the job of Richard Holbrooke, the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, to ensure that does not happen.
But the date has been set for Afghanistan's presidential election and the West's disappointment with Hamid Karzai can no longer be disguised.
A number of challengers are jostling for American support and in the current climate, their chances are starting to improve.
Top of the Document
Russia to fire up Iranian reactor
Iran's nuclear plant at Bushehr goes live this year, say Russians
Russian nuclear experts have confirmed they are likely to fire up Iran's first nuclear power plant by the end of 2009.
Russia's nuclear agency Rosatom said the first stage would be a "technical start-up" to test the reactor at the Russian-built Bushehr plant.
Some Western powers are concerned that Tehran may be building a nuclear weapons capability. Iran denies this.
Russia insists the Bushehr plant is for purely civilian use, and cannot be used for military purposes.
Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Rosatom, said the technical launch was on track to take place this year, and safety was the absolute priority.
"We will carry out as many tests as needed," he said.
The building of Iran's first nuclear plant has been beset by delays and difficulties.
It was first started in the 1970s by the German firm, Siemens.
But that stage of the project was disrupted by the Islamic revolution of 1979 and then further delayed by the war between Iran and Iraq that ended in 1988.
Since the Russians took on the completion of the plant, in 1995, Bushehr has been the cause of occasional friction between Russia and countries like the United States which oppose the possible acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons.
Top of the Document
UN hails Iraq election results
The UN chief said progress had been made but there was further to go
The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, has made a surprise visit to Iraq to congratulate voters there on the outcome of nationwide local elections.
After talks with political leaders in Baghdad, Mr Ban said the vote showed how far Iraq had come.
However, he said there was still a long way to go before Iraqis could claim to have "genuine freedom and security".
Allies of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki swept to victory in Baghdad and key provinces in last Saturday's poll.
The United Nations played a key role in organising the elections - seen as a test of stability before a general election, due later this year.
The BBC's Jim Muir, in Baghdad, says that like everyone else, the UN is relieved that both the polling day itself and the announcement of the results passed off with virtually no violence at all.
Celebratory mood
Election commission preliminary results announced on Thursday showed Mr Maliki's State of Law coalition had made spectacular gains in southern Shia areas.
PM Maliki's coalition won by huge margins in Baghdad and Basra
The coalition won 38% of votes in Baghdad and 37% in Iraq's second city Basra - curbing the previous dominance of rival Shia parties.
Meanwhile, the once-dominant Sunni Arabs regained political power in other parts of the country - having boycotted the 2005 election.
There were fears of violence in the mainly Sunni flashpoint province of al-Anbar, where tribal leaders had threatened to take up arms over the result.
In the event, they came in just half a percentage point behind another Sunni party to which they are allied.
IRAQI ELECTIONS
2003: US appoints Governing Council
2004: Governing Council elects interim government
Aug 2004: National conference elects interim national assembly
Jan 2005: First general elections for transitional national assembly and provincial councils - Sunnis boycott vote
Dec 2005: General elections for first full-term government and parliament
Jan 2009: Elections for provincial councils - key test of security gains
Late 2009: General elections due
Iraq voices: provincial elections
Iraq: Key facts and figures
Mr Ban was expected to hold talks with Mr Maliki as well as Iraqi President Jalal Talabani while in Baghdad.
He will "reiterate the UN's commitment to the country", and "above all congratulate the Iraqi people on the success of largely violence-free elections", UN spokesman Said Arikat told the AFP news agency.
The election was an extraordinary achievement in a country that has been wracked by violence for the last nearly six years, our correspondent says.
Healthy and peaceful political competition, and change through the ballot box, have become the name of the game, he adds.
Just over half of Iraqis voted in Saturday's election, lower than some had predicted.
Final results are not expected to be known for weeks.
Top of the Document
No comments:
Post a Comment