Formally taking centre stage in Congress politics, general secretary Rahul Gandhi attended a meeting of the United Progressive Alliance coordination committee for the first time on Wednesday.
He later invited about two dozen young MPs for a tête-à-tête over tea at his residence.
The 39-year-old who addressed 120 meetings through the campaign has emerged as the face of the Congress’s success in the general election.
The Congress won 75 of the 120 seats where Gandhi campaigned.
Eight of the 10 candidates from the student and youth wings of the party won, many from difficult seats — such as Meenakshi Natarjan in Mandsaur in Madhya Pradesh.
With his participation in the coordination panel, Gandhi has been formally enlisted among the party’s key
strategists.
He did not speak at the UPA meeting, but interacted with the young MPs for over two hours. “He has had no opportunity to interact with some of the newly elected MPs,” said a party source. “He wanted to chat with them.”
Jyotiraditya Scindia, Manish Tiwari, Sachin Pilot, Sandeep Dikshit, Jitin Prasada, Jitendra Singh and Ashok Tanwar were among the MPs present.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
India Can Now Play A Bigger Part In International Events
The stunning election victory of the UPA now gives Dr Manmohan Singh's government a second chance to establish priorities, in foreign policy no less than in other spheres. It is notable that foreign policy did not become an election issue. Despite attempts to elevate the India-US nuclear deal to the status of a decisive issue, this particular subject seemed to fade away even before the campaign got into full swing. Similarly, calls for tougher handling of the issue of terrorism did not much resonate with the electors. Even the escalating Tamil casualties in the final assault by Sri Lanka on the LTTE did not become an issue affecting the vote.
In foreign policy as much as in other realms, the election result has been seen as a vote for continuity and stability. No basic re-orientation has been demanded or promised. Moreover, the strengthening of the Congress party in Parliament means that internal pressures within the ruling coalition, as became evident at crucial times during the last government, can no longer threaten to force the issue and unbalance decision- making.
Continuity is the watchword and we can legitimately expect to see foreign policy continue along its established path. This should not imply that there is no need for change or for fresh initiatives. Indeed, it should be possible as the government heads into its second term to pick up a number of threads from its previous initiatives and re-state essential goals, presenting a coherent picture of where the government aims to go over the next five years.
First 100 days
There are reports that a programme for the first 100 days is being shaped in the PM's Office, presumably along the lines of what is seen in the USA, to try to ensure that the newly installed government gets off to a flying start. Though dealings with foreign countries cannot readily be fitted into a domestic timetable, it is possible that this 100-day programme may outline some of the priority areas in external policy: an initial agenda, as it were.
Regarding the substance of the matter, it is evident that India's main problems in its external relations lie close to home. Surveying the neighbourhood in almost every direction, there are problems to be discerned. This is nothing new and differences of one sort or another with neighbours are more or less taken for granted. But India has advanced greatly: it has always loomed over its South Asian neighbours and with the rapid progress recorded over the last several years it has pulled further ahead. For it to remain entangled in regional, sometimes even parochial, issues is hardly in keeping with the country's wider interests and associations. Maybe it is now an opportune moment for another attempt to transform the neighbourhood from one of niggling contentiousness to one of genuine cooperation.
The most practical and well-received Indian move in this direction was that of then Prime Minister I.K. Gujral whose 'Gujral Doctrine' remains a signpost for South Asia. The essence of this doctrine was that India undertook to meet its smaller neighbours more than halfway and not demand strict reciprocity in its dealings with them. This brought real expectation to the region and led to some enduring agreements that helped resolve long-standing bilateral problems. Mr. Gujral did not remain in office long enough for the full impact of his doctrine to take effect. It could be time now for a fresh all-encompassing initiative by New Delhi that places India's relations with the surrounding countries on a healthier and more cooperative basis.
In its first term, the UPA did much to move in this direction. It helped achieve a democratic solution to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and tried to moderate the closing phase of the military destruction of the LTTE. Most important, as confirmed by the Prime Minister during the campaign, back channel talks with Pakistan brought the two sides within reach of agreement on issues that have bedeviled their relationship since they first emerged as independent nations. Thus it is possible to aspire to a South Asia free of major bilateral conflict, joined in a Virtuous Circle of mutual support and cooperation. Such an ambition would be a worthy goal for the government in its second coming.
On the wider stage, India's regional and international role needs closer explication. Much has been said ~ almost too much ~ about the implications of the India-US nuclear deal. Even though the criticism that the deal tends to make us subservient to today's sole super power is wide off the mark; with the nuclear deal India has entered a new strategic era whose implications are as yet somewhat unclear. The strengthening link with the USA comes at a time when that country has become more active than ever in South Asia. The 'Afpak' strategy makes demands on the region as a whole, not on the two principals alone. The USA has been careful until now to disclaim any direct attempt to bring India into the fold of its new policy but things might change, especially if confronting the Taliban insurgency proves more difficult and more prolonged than presently anticipated.
Indian Ocean
There are also other areas of activity where a different form of collaboration has emerged, notably in the affairs of the Indian Ocean. Here, too, the purpose and the limits of Indian strategy are not too clear. Now that India is on a crest, its democratic credentials yet again on display and several years of economic success behind it, its external associations are bound to become ever more elaborate and extensive.
To give an idea of where we are headed and what shape our future global strategy might take is a task that devolves on the country's leadership. A vision for the future commensurate with the country's changing needs and capacities is required. Nor can we ignore major issues where India's role has been under question and policy adjustments may be necessary ~ such as environment and climate change, WTO, security and counter-terrorism, among others.
One matter that is likely to loom large in the near future is that of nuclear disarmament. This is something on which we occupied the moral high ground for decades. Even now, it is India that can claim to have placed the most comprehensive and closely reasoned plan before the international community. As priorities have shifted and the older nuclear powers have started to revive global disarmament concepts, a fresh opportunity has arisen for India to take its proper place within the debate.
In the wake of the election and the clear verdict it has provided, India is in a position to play a bigger part in international events. Indeed, its burgeoning interests drive it in that direction. This is a time for big ideas and imaginative projections, which represents a considerable challenge to the incoming government.
courtsey:the statesman
In foreign policy as much as in other realms, the election result has been seen as a vote for continuity and stability. No basic re-orientation has been demanded or promised. Moreover, the strengthening of the Congress party in Parliament means that internal pressures within the ruling coalition, as became evident at crucial times during the last government, can no longer threaten to force the issue and unbalance decision- making.
Continuity is the watchword and we can legitimately expect to see foreign policy continue along its established path. This should not imply that there is no need for change or for fresh initiatives. Indeed, it should be possible as the government heads into its second term to pick up a number of threads from its previous initiatives and re-state essential goals, presenting a coherent picture of where the government aims to go over the next five years.
First 100 days
There are reports that a programme for the first 100 days is being shaped in the PM's Office, presumably along the lines of what is seen in the USA, to try to ensure that the newly installed government gets off to a flying start. Though dealings with foreign countries cannot readily be fitted into a domestic timetable, it is possible that this 100-day programme may outline some of the priority areas in external policy: an initial agenda, as it were.
Regarding the substance of the matter, it is evident that India's main problems in its external relations lie close to home. Surveying the neighbourhood in almost every direction, there are problems to be discerned. This is nothing new and differences of one sort or another with neighbours are more or less taken for granted. But India has advanced greatly: it has always loomed over its South Asian neighbours and with the rapid progress recorded over the last several years it has pulled further ahead. For it to remain entangled in regional, sometimes even parochial, issues is hardly in keeping with the country's wider interests and associations. Maybe it is now an opportune moment for another attempt to transform the neighbourhood from one of niggling contentiousness to one of genuine cooperation.
The most practical and well-received Indian move in this direction was that of then Prime Minister I.K. Gujral whose 'Gujral Doctrine' remains a signpost for South Asia. The essence of this doctrine was that India undertook to meet its smaller neighbours more than halfway and not demand strict reciprocity in its dealings with them. This brought real expectation to the region and led to some enduring agreements that helped resolve long-standing bilateral problems. Mr. Gujral did not remain in office long enough for the full impact of his doctrine to take effect. It could be time now for a fresh all-encompassing initiative by New Delhi that places India's relations with the surrounding countries on a healthier and more cooperative basis.
In its first term, the UPA did much to move in this direction. It helped achieve a democratic solution to the Maoist insurgency in Nepal and tried to moderate the closing phase of the military destruction of the LTTE. Most important, as confirmed by the Prime Minister during the campaign, back channel talks with Pakistan brought the two sides within reach of agreement on issues that have bedeviled their relationship since they first emerged as independent nations. Thus it is possible to aspire to a South Asia free of major bilateral conflict, joined in a Virtuous Circle of mutual support and cooperation. Such an ambition would be a worthy goal for the government in its second coming.
On the wider stage, India's regional and international role needs closer explication. Much has been said ~ almost too much ~ about the implications of the India-US nuclear deal. Even though the criticism that the deal tends to make us subservient to today's sole super power is wide off the mark; with the nuclear deal India has entered a new strategic era whose implications are as yet somewhat unclear. The strengthening link with the USA comes at a time when that country has become more active than ever in South Asia. The 'Afpak' strategy makes demands on the region as a whole, not on the two principals alone. The USA has been careful until now to disclaim any direct attempt to bring India into the fold of its new policy but things might change, especially if confronting the Taliban insurgency proves more difficult and more prolonged than presently anticipated.
Indian Ocean
There are also other areas of activity where a different form of collaboration has emerged, notably in the affairs of the Indian Ocean. Here, too, the purpose and the limits of Indian strategy are not too clear. Now that India is on a crest, its democratic credentials yet again on display and several years of economic success behind it, its external associations are bound to become ever more elaborate and extensive.
To give an idea of where we are headed and what shape our future global strategy might take is a task that devolves on the country's leadership. A vision for the future commensurate with the country's changing needs and capacities is required. Nor can we ignore major issues where India's role has been under question and policy adjustments may be necessary ~ such as environment and climate change, WTO, security and counter-terrorism, among others.
One matter that is likely to loom large in the near future is that of nuclear disarmament. This is something on which we occupied the moral high ground for decades. Even now, it is India that can claim to have placed the most comprehensive and closely reasoned plan before the international community. As priorities have shifted and the older nuclear powers have started to revive global disarmament concepts, a fresh opportunity has arisen for India to take its proper place within the debate.
In the wake of the election and the clear verdict it has provided, India is in a position to play a bigger part in international events. Indeed, its burgeoning interests drive it in that direction. This is a time for big ideas and imaginative projections, which represents a considerable challenge to the incoming government.
courtsey:the statesman
Chandrayaan-1 orbit raised
The orbit of Chandrayaan-1, which was at a height of 100 km from the moon since November 2008, has been raised to 200 km. Manoeuvres to raise the orbit were performed between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. on Tuesday.
According to a release from the Indian Space Research Organisation, Chandrayaan-1 going round the moon in this higher orbit will facilitate further studies of orbit perturbations and gravitation field variations of the moon, and imaging a wider swath of the lunar surface.
Over the past seven months, all the 11 payloads on board the spacecraft were successfully put into operation and data of excellent quality were obtained, the release said. Scientists from India and international agencies were analysing the data, and several interesting results were obtained, it said.
The scientific data is being archived and disseminated from the Indian Space Science Data Centre at Byalalu, near Bangalore.
The spacecraft operations are being performed at the Satellite Control Centre of the ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network in Bangalore and the Indian Deep Space Network at Byalalu.
Chandrayaan-1 was put into orbit on October 22, 2008.
According to a release from the Indian Space Research Organisation, Chandrayaan-1 going round the moon in this higher orbit will facilitate further studies of orbit perturbations and gravitation field variations of the moon, and imaging a wider swath of the lunar surface.
Over the past seven months, all the 11 payloads on board the spacecraft were successfully put into operation and data of excellent quality were obtained, the release said. Scientists from India and international agencies were analysing the data, and several interesting results were obtained, it said.
The scientific data is being archived and disseminated from the Indian Space Science Data Centre at Byalalu, near Bangalore.
The spacecraft operations are being performed at the Satellite Control Centre of the ISRO Telemetry, Tracking and Command Network in Bangalore and the Indian Deep Space Network at Byalalu.
Chandrayaan-1 was put into orbit on October 22, 2008.
Phil Mickelson's wife, Amy, diagnosed with breast cancer
Phil Mickelson was gearing up for his favorite time of year, working his way toward Bethpage Black and another crack at the U.S. Open before a New York gallery that treats him like a rock star.
All that changed today, along with his priorities, when he disclosed that his wife, Amy, has been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Mickelson is taking an indefinite leave from the PGA Tour. He withdrew from the Byron Nelson Championship, which he won in 1996. He is to defend his title next week at Colonial, but even that is uncertain. A statement from his management company said his 37-year-old wife would have more tests, though treatment would begin with "major surgery" as early as the next two weeks.
"We see Amy as this vibrant, bubbly mother of three who is tremendously devoted to her husband and family," Jack Nicklaus said. "No one, especially Amy, deserves to have to face the battle that accompanies cancer. But we know that Amy has this amazing inner strength and spirit, and with Phil's unwavering love and support, they will fight and overcome this."
Mickelson, a three-time major champion with 36 career PGA Tour victories, was closing in on the No. 1 ranking held by Tiger Woods. He was runner-up to Woods at Bethpage Black in 2002.
"Elin and I are deeply saddened to hear the news about Amy," Woods said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with her, Phil, the children and the entire Mickelson family."
Scott Verplank said Mickelson sent him a text message Tuesday night "and I had a hard time sleeping."
"Every time I've been around her, she's always had a smile on her face. She's always upbeat," Verplank said. "She's a neat girl. Hopefully, it's early and hopefully, they take care of it."
Amy Mickelson is one of the most visible wives on the PGA Tour, a former Phoenix Suns cheerleader who regularly walks the course during rounds and mingles easily with fans who recognize her blonde hair and engaging smile.
They met in 1992, when Mickelson was a senior at Arizona State, a year after he won his first PGA Tour event as an amateur. Amy knew nothing about golf at the time.
"I grew up in a tennis family, and when he told me he was a pro golfer, I thought he worked in the shop at a golf course," she wrote in Mickelson's book, "One Magical Sunday," after he won his first major at the 2004 Masters.
The first time she accompanied him to a golf tournament, the Bob Hope Classic, she figured they would walk hand-in-hand down the fairway and was angry at him for not spending enough time with her. But once she learned the difference between birdies and bogeys, she has been at his side during the highs and lows of golf tournaments.
They were married in 1996 and have three children: Amanda, 9, Sophia, 7, and Evan, 6. Their first child was born the day after the 1999 U.S. Open at Pinehurst No. 2., where Mickelson carried a pager and promised to leave if his wife went into labor.
Contractions began on Sunday, but she decided not to page him because he was so close to winning his first major. Mickelson lost by one stroke when Payne Stewart holed a 15-foot par putt on the final hole. Mickelson arrived home in time for the birth.
He nearly lost his wife during the delivery of their third child.
Sarah Strange, a breast cancer survivor and wife of former Ryder Cup captain Curtis Strange, said Amy Mickelson's outgoing personality would play a big part in her recovery.
"She's such an upbeat person, and I think she'll approach this in the same way, moving forward with confidence," Sarah Strange said. "I'm sure she's getting the best treatment they can find. An upbeat attitude plays such a key role in this, her own and those around her. I'll certainly be extending any experiences I've had, any questions she could ask me to keep upbeat.
"She was so supportive of me being a captain's wife," she said. "In return, she will feel that support from others."
Nicklaus and his wife, Barbara, spent time with the Mickelsons during his four stints as captain of the Presidents Cup team.
"She was the wife I went to for advice," Barbara Nicklaus said. "Amy is just one of those people who simply wants to help other people. Now we need to help her."
How much golf Mickelson misses this summer is uncertain, but it comes at a time when Woods, his chief rival, returned from eight months away with knee surgery. They played together in the final round of the Masters and practically stole the show with an exciting charge up the leaderboard. Mickelson finished one shot ahead of Woods, but three shots out of the playoff won by Angel Cabrera.
All that changed today, along with his priorities, when he disclosed that his wife, Amy, has been diagnosed with breast cancer.
Mickelson is taking an indefinite leave from the PGA Tour. He withdrew from the Byron Nelson Championship, which he won in 1996. He is to defend his title next week at Colonial, but even that is uncertain. A statement from his management company said his 37-year-old wife would have more tests, though treatment would begin with "major surgery" as early as the next two weeks.
"We see Amy as this vibrant, bubbly mother of three who is tremendously devoted to her husband and family," Jack Nicklaus said. "No one, especially Amy, deserves to have to face the battle that accompanies cancer. But we know that Amy has this amazing inner strength and spirit, and with Phil's unwavering love and support, they will fight and overcome this."
Mickelson, a three-time major champion with 36 career PGA Tour victories, was closing in on the No. 1 ranking held by Tiger Woods. He was runner-up to Woods at Bethpage Black in 2002.
"Elin and I are deeply saddened to hear the news about Amy," Woods said. "Our thoughts and prayers are with her, Phil, the children and the entire Mickelson family."
Scott Verplank said Mickelson sent him a text message Tuesday night "and I had a hard time sleeping."
"Every time I've been around her, she's always had a smile on her face. She's always upbeat," Verplank said. "She's a neat girl. Hopefully, it's early and hopefully, they take care of it."
Amy Mickelson is one of the most visible wives on the PGA Tour, a former Phoenix Suns cheerleader who regularly walks the course during rounds and mingles easily with fans who recognize her blonde hair and engaging smile.
They met in 1992, when Mickelson was a senior at Arizona State, a year after he won his first PGA Tour event as an amateur. Amy knew nothing about golf at the time.
"I grew up in a tennis family, and when he told me he was a pro golfer, I thought he worked in the shop at a golf course," she wrote in Mickelson's book, "One Magical Sunday," after he won his first major at the 2004 Masters.
The first time she accompanied him to a golf tournament, the Bob Hope Classic, she figured they would walk hand-in-hand down the fairway and was angry at him for not spending enough time with her. But once she learned the difference between birdies and bogeys, she has been at his side during the highs and lows of golf tournaments.
They were married in 1996 and have three children: Amanda, 9, Sophia, 7, and Evan, 6. Their first child was born the day after the 1999 U.S. Open at Pinehurst No. 2., where Mickelson carried a pager and promised to leave if his wife went into labor.
Contractions began on Sunday, but she decided not to page him because he was so close to winning his first major. Mickelson lost by one stroke when Payne Stewart holed a 15-foot par putt on the final hole. Mickelson arrived home in time for the birth.
He nearly lost his wife during the delivery of their third child.
Sarah Strange, a breast cancer survivor and wife of former Ryder Cup captain Curtis Strange, said Amy Mickelson's outgoing personality would play a big part in her recovery.
"She's such an upbeat person, and I think she'll approach this in the same way, moving forward with confidence," Sarah Strange said. "I'm sure she's getting the best treatment they can find. An upbeat attitude plays such a key role in this, her own and those around her. I'll certainly be extending any experiences I've had, any questions she could ask me to keep upbeat.
"She was so supportive of me being a captain's wife," she said. "In return, she will feel that support from others."
Nicklaus and his wife, Barbara, spent time with the Mickelsons during his four stints as captain of the Presidents Cup team.
"She was the wife I went to for advice," Barbara Nicklaus said. "Amy is just one of those people who simply wants to help other people. Now we need to help her."
How much golf Mickelson misses this summer is uncertain, but it comes at a time when Woods, his chief rival, returned from eight months away with knee surgery. They played together in the final round of the Masters and practically stole the show with an exciting charge up the leaderboard. Mickelson finished one shot ahead of Woods, but three shots out of the playoff won by Angel Cabrera.
Credit Card Industry Aims to Profit From Sterling Payers
Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.
Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.
Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.
“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”
As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and a long list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time. The legislation scheduled for a Senate vote on Tuesday does not cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure.
“There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you’ll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,” said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.
People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks.
“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”
Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as well as creditworthy cardholders — “deadbeats” in industry parlance, because they generate scant fee revenue.
“They aren’t charities. They have shareholders to report to,” he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. “Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start to maneuver.”
Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. But with the relaxing of usury laws in some states, and the ready availability of credit scores in the late 1980s, banks began offering cards with a variety of different interest rates and fees, tying the pricing to the credit risk of the cardholder.
That helped push interest rates down for many consumers, but they soared for riskier cardholders, who became a significant source of revenue for the industry. The recent economic downturn challenged that formula, and banks started dumping the riskiest customers and lowering their credit limits in earnest as the recession accelerated. Now, consumers who pay their bills off every month are issuing a rising chorus of complaints about shortened grace periods, new hidden fees and higher interest rates.
The industry says that the proposals will force banks to issue fewer credit cards at greater cost to the current cardholders.
Citigroup and Capital One referred comments to the A.B.A. Discover and American Express declined to comment. Bank of America intends to “provide credit to the largest number of creditworthy customers possible, while also remaining prudent in our lending practices,” said Betty Riess, a spokeswoman. Together with JPMorgan Chase, which has said the changes will force it to limit credit availability and raise fees, these banks account for 80 percent of the credit card industry.
Banks are not required to publicly reveal how much money they make from penalty interest rates and fees, though government officials and industry consultants estimate they constitute a growing portion of revenue.
For instance, Mr. Hammer said the amount of money generated by penalty fees like late charges and exceeding credit limits had increased by about $1 billion annually in recent years, and should top $20 billion this year.
Regulations passed by the Federal Reserve in December to curb unexpected interest charges would cost issuers about $12 billion a year in lost fees and income, according to industry calculations. The legislation before Congress would build on the Fed rules and would further squeeze banks’ revenue when they are being hit with a high rate of credit card charge-offs. The government’s stress tests showed that the nation’s 19 biggest banks will take on $82 billion in credit card losses in the next two years.
A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office estimated that 70 percent of card issuers’ revenue came from interest charges, and the portion from penalty rates appeared to be growing. The remainder came from fees on cardholders as well as retailers for processing transactions. Many retailers are angry at the high fees and plan to pass them on to shoppers once the Congressional legislation takes effect.
Consumer advocates say they have little sympathy for credit card issuers, arguing that they have made billions in recent years with unfair and sometimes deceptive practices.
“The business model will change because the business model doesn’t work for the public,” said Gail Hillebrand, a senior lawyer at Consumers Union.
“In order to do business under the new rules, they’ll actually have to tell you how much it’s going to cost,” she said.
With many consumers mired in debt and angry at what they consider gouging by credit card companies, the issue of credit card reform has broad populist appeal. Members of Congress and the Obama administration have seized on the discontent to push reforms that the industry succeeded in tamping down when the economy was flying high.
Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to President Obama, said that while the credit card industry had the right to make a reasonable profit as long as its contracts were in plain language and rule-breakers were held accountable, its current practices were akin to “a series of carjackings.”
“The card industry is giving the argument that if you didn’t want to be carjacked, why weren’t you locking your doors or taking a different road?” Mr. Goolsbee said.
Ron Lieber contributed reporting.
Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.
Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.
“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”
As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America and a long list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have set their sights on consumers who pay their bills on time. The legislation scheduled for a Senate vote on Tuesday does not cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure.
“There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you’ll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base,” said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.
People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks.
“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”
Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as well as creditworthy cardholders — “deadbeats” in industry parlance, because they generate scant fee revenue.
“They aren’t charities. They have shareholders to report to,” he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. “Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start to maneuver.”
Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. But with the relaxing of usury laws in some states, and the ready availability of credit scores in the late 1980s, banks began offering cards with a variety of different interest rates and fees, tying the pricing to the credit risk of the cardholder.
That helped push interest rates down for many consumers, but they soared for riskier cardholders, who became a significant source of revenue for the industry. The recent economic downturn challenged that formula, and banks started dumping the riskiest customers and lowering their credit limits in earnest as the recession accelerated. Now, consumers who pay their bills off every month are issuing a rising chorus of complaints about shortened grace periods, new hidden fees and higher interest rates.
The industry says that the proposals will force banks to issue fewer credit cards at greater cost to the current cardholders.
Citigroup and Capital One referred comments to the A.B.A. Discover and American Express declined to comment. Bank of America intends to “provide credit to the largest number of creditworthy customers possible, while also remaining prudent in our lending practices,” said Betty Riess, a spokeswoman. Together with JPMorgan Chase, which has said the changes will force it to limit credit availability and raise fees, these banks account for 80 percent of the credit card industry.
Banks are not required to publicly reveal how much money they make from penalty interest rates and fees, though government officials and industry consultants estimate they constitute a growing portion of revenue.
For instance, Mr. Hammer said the amount of money generated by penalty fees like late charges and exceeding credit limits had increased by about $1 billion annually in recent years, and should top $20 billion this year.
Regulations passed by the Federal Reserve in December to curb unexpected interest charges would cost issuers about $12 billion a year in lost fees and income, according to industry calculations. The legislation before Congress would build on the Fed rules and would further squeeze banks’ revenue when they are being hit with a high rate of credit card charge-offs. The government’s stress tests showed that the nation’s 19 biggest banks will take on $82 billion in credit card losses in the next two years.
A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office estimated that 70 percent of card issuers’ revenue came from interest charges, and the portion from penalty rates appeared to be growing. The remainder came from fees on cardholders as well as retailers for processing transactions. Many retailers are angry at the high fees and plan to pass them on to shoppers once the Congressional legislation takes effect.
Consumer advocates say they have little sympathy for credit card issuers, arguing that they have made billions in recent years with unfair and sometimes deceptive practices.
“The business model will change because the business model doesn’t work for the public,” said Gail Hillebrand, a senior lawyer at Consumers Union.
“In order to do business under the new rules, they’ll actually have to tell you how much it’s going to cost,” she said.
With many consumers mired in debt and angry at what they consider gouging by credit card companies, the issue of credit card reform has broad populist appeal. Members of Congress and the Obama administration have seized on the discontent to push reforms that the industry succeeded in tamping down when the economy was flying high.
Austan Goolsbee, an economic adviser to President Obama, said that while the credit card industry had the right to make a reasonable profit as long as its contracts were in plain language and rule-breakers were held accountable, its current practices were akin to “a series of carjackings.”
“The card industry is giving the argument that if you didn’t want to be carjacked, why weren’t you locking your doors or taking a different road?” Mr. Goolsbee said.
Ron Lieber contributed reporting.
Senate votes to block funding for Guantanamo closure
In an abrupt departure from President Obama's plans, the Senate today voted overwhelmingly against paying for closure of the U.S. military-run detention facility for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The 90-6 vote was the capstone of a weeks-long Republican drive to turn an issue that had been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign message into a political liability for Democrats whose constituents do not welcome the prospect of detainees being brought from the island prison to U.S. soil.
The vote comes on the eve of a national security address planned by Obama on Thursday in which he is expected to discuss in more detail his plan for closing Guantanamo, which he ordered shut days after his inauguration. He set a January 2010 deadline for its closure.
The administration requested $80 million to pay for closure costs, but Democrats balked after Republicans raised pointed questions about where and how the detainees would be transferred to the U.S. -- either in its prisons or its communities.
"It was a mistake to submit an amount [of money needed] without no plan," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who voted to strip the $80 million that had been included in a $91-billion bill to finance wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The issue likely will resurface later this year in other budget debates, but the Senate vote -- coupled with a similar decision by the House last week to drop funding for closing Guantanamo -- signals that Obama has a lot more political groundwork to lay before Congress will go along with the plan.
"There's been a major retreat by Democrats and Republicans," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the rare Republican who supports closing the Guantanamo facility. "Time is not on our side."
Pushing back against growing congressional opposition to moving detainees to the United States, a top Pentagon official said today that closing the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would require prisoners to be moved to the U.S. and urged lawmakers to think more strategically. Yet the director of the FBI also warned Congress today that moving detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. -- even into maximum security prisons -- poses potential security risks.
Michele A. Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense for policy and the Pentagon's No. 3 official, said that if allied nations were going to take detainees, the U.S. also needed to take some into its prisons.
"When we are asking allies to do their fair share in dealing with this challenge, we need to do our fair share," Flournoy said today. "This is a case where we need to ask members of Congress to take a more strategic view. Many of these members called for the closing of Guantanamo, and we need their partnership in making that possible."
But FBI Director Robert Mueller said that bringing detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. could pose a number of possible risks.
Mueller, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, was asked what concerns the FBI has about the prospect of transferring some of the 240 inmates currently held at the Naval base in Cuba to American prisons.
"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States . . . All of those are relevant concerns."
Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) prodded the FBI director to agree that dangerous detainees could be safely kept in maximum security prisons. Mueller balked at Nadler's suggestion, noting that in some instances imprisoned gang leaders have run gangs from inside prisons. "It depends on the circumstances," Mueller said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that he wanted neither to have detainees released into the U.S. nor to see them imprisoned here.
"We don't want them around the United States," Reid said.
With Obama set to deliver a speech about Guantanamo and detainee policy on Thursday, the White House is billing the address at the National Archives as a major statement on national security.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has predicted that between 50 and 100 detainees would eventually be moved to American prisons and that some of the Chinese Muslims, who are held at Guantanamo but not considered dangerous, would be released into the U.S.
Flournoy would not offer her own prediction of how many detainees the U.S. or its allies would eventually take. She said the administration was going through each case individually, and there were no decisions on where detainees might be moved.
"I am optimistic that all of us will take more than we have agreed so far," she said. "This is a challenge that will require all of us to step up and make hard choices."
European allies so far have offered to take only a couple additional detainees from Guantanamo. If the U.S. cannot move more of the detainees to allied countries, it will be faced with holding large number of detainees it cannot transfer to their home countries.
Officials have been reluctant to send many of the remaining 240 detainees to their countries of origin, fearful that the suspects would either be allowed to rejoin the fight against the U.S. or could be abused in prison.
Closing Guantanamo has proven to be a far more tricky political proposition than some in the Obama administration believed it would be. Top officials have remained largely silent, failing to offer broad arguments about how closing Guantanamo could help the U.S. position in the world. Obama is expected to answer these questions Thursday.
The administration has created task forces to deal with various aspects of interrogation and detention policies -- and craft new practices on how to handle current and future detainees.
The work is complicated by the fact that many of the detainees currently in custody were captured at different times, Flournoy said. "We are dealing with an inheritance," she said. "We are dealing with . . . people . . . taken into custody when different policies were in place."
One of the most critical questions facing the administration is what to do with the potentially dozens of detainees it cannot release, transfer or try. Until now, the detainees have been held indefinitely in Guantanamo.
But if they were moved to the United States, the Obama administration may seek congressional approval to continue to hold them without formal charges.
Pressed for the administration's position, Flournoy offered few details, but did not disavow continued detention without trial -- at least for some of the detainees.
"The desire is to provide due process to as many of these detainees as possible," she said.
Human rights groups remain strongly opposed to the Obama administration's push for congressional approval for detention without trial.
The 90-6 vote was the capstone of a weeks-long Republican drive to turn an issue that had been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign message into a political liability for Democrats whose constituents do not welcome the prospect of detainees being brought from the island prison to U.S. soil.
The vote comes on the eve of a national security address planned by Obama on Thursday in which he is expected to discuss in more detail his plan for closing Guantanamo, which he ordered shut days after his inauguration. He set a January 2010 deadline for its closure.
The administration requested $80 million to pay for closure costs, but Democrats balked after Republicans raised pointed questions about where and how the detainees would be transferred to the U.S. -- either in its prisons or its communities.
"It was a mistake to submit an amount [of money needed] without no plan," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who voted to strip the $80 million that had been included in a $91-billion bill to finance wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The issue likely will resurface later this year in other budget debates, but the Senate vote -- coupled with a similar decision by the House last week to drop funding for closing Guantanamo -- signals that Obama has a lot more political groundwork to lay before Congress will go along with the plan.
"There's been a major retreat by Democrats and Republicans," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), the rare Republican who supports closing the Guantanamo facility. "Time is not on our side."
Pushing back against growing congressional opposition to moving detainees to the United States, a top Pentagon official said today that closing the military-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, would require prisoners to be moved to the U.S. and urged lawmakers to think more strategically. Yet the director of the FBI also warned Congress today that moving detainees from Guantanamo to the U.S. -- even into maximum security prisons -- poses potential security risks.
Michele A. Flournoy, undersecretary of Defense for policy and the Pentagon's No. 3 official, said that if allied nations were going to take detainees, the U.S. also needed to take some into its prisons.
"When we are asking allies to do their fair share in dealing with this challenge, we need to do our fair share," Flournoy said today. "This is a case where we need to ask members of Congress to take a more strategic view. Many of these members called for the closing of Guantanamo, and we need their partnership in making that possible."
But FBI Director Robert Mueller said that bringing detainees from Guantanamo Bay into the U.S. could pose a number of possible risks.
Mueller, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, was asked what concerns the FBI has about the prospect of transferring some of the 240 inmates currently held at the Naval base in Cuba to American prisons.
"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States . . . All of those are relevant concerns."
Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-N.Y.) prodded the FBI director to agree that dangerous detainees could be safely kept in maximum security prisons. Mueller balked at Nadler's suggestion, noting that in some instances imprisoned gang leaders have run gangs from inside prisons. "It depends on the circumstances," Mueller said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that he wanted neither to have detainees released into the U.S. nor to see them imprisoned here.
"We don't want them around the United States," Reid said.
With Obama set to deliver a speech about Guantanamo and detainee policy on Thursday, the White House is billing the address at the National Archives as a major statement on national security.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has predicted that between 50 and 100 detainees would eventually be moved to American prisons and that some of the Chinese Muslims, who are held at Guantanamo but not considered dangerous, would be released into the U.S.
Flournoy would not offer her own prediction of how many detainees the U.S. or its allies would eventually take. She said the administration was going through each case individually, and there were no decisions on where detainees might be moved.
"I am optimistic that all of us will take more than we have agreed so far," she said. "This is a challenge that will require all of us to step up and make hard choices."
European allies so far have offered to take only a couple additional detainees from Guantanamo. If the U.S. cannot move more of the detainees to allied countries, it will be faced with holding large number of detainees it cannot transfer to their home countries.
Officials have been reluctant to send many of the remaining 240 detainees to their countries of origin, fearful that the suspects would either be allowed to rejoin the fight against the U.S. or could be abused in prison.
Closing Guantanamo has proven to be a far more tricky political proposition than some in the Obama administration believed it would be. Top officials have remained largely silent, failing to offer broad arguments about how closing Guantanamo could help the U.S. position in the world. Obama is expected to answer these questions Thursday.
The administration has created task forces to deal with various aspects of interrogation and detention policies -- and craft new practices on how to handle current and future detainees.
The work is complicated by the fact that many of the detainees currently in custody were captured at different times, Flournoy said. "We are dealing with an inheritance," she said. "We are dealing with . . . people . . . taken into custody when different policies were in place."
One of the most critical questions facing the administration is what to do with the potentially dozens of detainees it cannot release, transfer or try. Until now, the detainees have been held indefinitely in Guantanamo.
But if they were moved to the United States, the Obama administration may seek congressional approval to continue to hold them without formal charges.
Pressed for the administration's position, Flournoy offered few details, but did not disavow continued detention without trial -- at least for some of the detainees.
"The desire is to provide due process to as many of these detainees as possible," she said.
Human rights groups remain strongly opposed to the Obama administration's push for congressional approval for detention without trial.
A Peace Overture in Afghanistan
Leaders of the Taliban and other armed groups battling the Afghan government are talking to intermediaries about a potential peace agreement, with initial demands focused on a timetable for a withdrawal of American troops, according to Afghan leaders here and in Pakistan.
The talks, if not the withdrawal proposals, are being supported by the Afghan government. The Obama administration, which has publicly declared its desire to coax “moderate” Taliban fighters away from armed struggle, says it is not involved in the discussions and will not be until the Taliban agree to lay down their arms. But nor are they trying to stop them, and Afghan officials believe they have tacit support from the Americans.
The discussions have so far produced no agreements, since the insurgents appear to be insisting that any deal include an American promise to pull out — at the very time that the Obama administration is sending more combat troops to help reverse the deteriorating situation on the battlefield. Indeed, with 20,000 additional troops on the way, American commanders seem determined to inflict greater pain on the Taliban first, to push them into negotiations and extract better terms. And most of the initial demands are nonstarters for the Americans in any case.
Even so, the talks are significant because they suggest how a political settlement may be able to end the eight-year-old war, and how such negotiations may proceed. They also raise the prospect of potentially difficult decisions by President Hamid Karzai and President Obama, who may have to consider making deals with groups like the Taliban that are anathema to many Americans, and other leaders with brutal and bloody pasts. Some of the leaders in the current talks have been involved with Al Qaeda.
While the talks have been under way for months, they have accelerated since Mr. Obama took office and have produced more specific demands, the Afghan intermediaries said.
The Taliban leaders, through their spokesman, and those of other armed groups publicly deny that they are involved in any negotiations. But several Afghans here and in Pakistan say they have been talking directly to the Taliban leadership group headed by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the movement’s secretive founder. The council is based in the Pakistani city of Quetta.
Discussions have also been held with representatives of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a longtime warlord with a record of extreme brutality, and with Sirajuddin Haqqani, whose guerrilla army is based in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Mr. Haqqani’s group is also known for its ruthlessness, and for sending suicide bombers into Afghanistan.
“America cannot win this war, and the Taliban cannot win this war,” Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, a former Taliban ambassador and one of the intermediaries, said in an interview. “I have delivered this message to the Taliban.”
The talks under way now appear to be directed not at individual bands of antigovernment insurgents — the strategy suggested by President Obama — but at the leaders of the large movements.
American officials insist they are not participating in any talks. “The U.S. would support such efforts only if Taliban are willing to abandon violence and lay down their arms, and accept Afghanistan’s democratically elected government,” said Ian Kelly, a State Department spokesman. Still, two of the principal intermediaries, Mr. Zaeef and Daoud Abedi, said they had held extensive discussions with American officials.
A State Department memo described a single meeting with Mr. Abedi, but said it ended briefly because American officials were not permitted to meet with representatives of Mr. Hekmatyar. There is no independent confirmation of Mr. Zaeef ’s claim to have met with Americans.
Afghan officials said they welcomed the talks. “The government has kept all channels of communication open," said Homayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Mr. Karzai. “This includes the Taliban and Hekmatyar.”
Mr. Abedi, an Afghan-American businessman from California and a member of Mr. Hekmatyar’s political party, the Islamic Party, said he conducted negotiations in March. Guerrillas loyal to Mr. Hekmatyar are battling the Americans in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. His political party still has a wide following in the country.
In an interview, Mr. Abedi said he undertook the negotiations — with Mr. Hekmatyar and with the Taliban leaders — at the behest of the State Department, a claim that American officials deny. Mr. Abedi said he met several times with American officials in Washington before and after his trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He declined to say which American diplomats he met, saying, “I am a Pashtun, and I swore on my honor that I would not reveal the names of the people I met with, so I cannot.”
Mr. Abedi said he hammered out a common set of demands between the Taliban and Mr. Hekmatyar’s group. The groups agreed to stop fighting if those conditions were met, Mr. Abedi said. The Taliban’s demands seem incompatible with much of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which is to substantially weaken the Taliban through a combination of military force and economic development. Nor did the deal Mr. Abedi described mention either Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri, the two senior Qaeda leaders who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan under the protection of the Taliban or some other armed group.
The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.
As for Mr. Hekmatyar, Mr. Abedi said he maintained a “direct link” with the guerrilla leader, and that he was authorized to negotiate on his behalf. He did not meet with Afghan government officials.
After the agreement between the Taliban and the Islamic Party was reached, Mr. Abedi said the Taliban leaders added more conditions: an end to the drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and a release of some Taliban prisoners.
Mr. Abedi said that when he returned to the United States with his proposal, he was greeted with enthusiasm by officials at the State Department. But he said they never called him back.
Mr. Hekmatyar earned a reputation as an especially brutal commander in the civil war that engulfed the country in the 1990s, in particular for the relentless bombardment of Kabul between 1994 and 1996 that killed an estimated 40,000 civilians during an attempt to capture the capital.
In 2002, after Mr. Hekmatyar resisted the American invasion, the Americans tried to kill him with a missile fired from a pilotless airplane. They missed.
The other main negotiation is led by Mr. Zaeef and Arsallah Rahmani, a former Taliban minister and now a member of the Afghan Parliament.
“We are not talking to low-ranking people — we are talking to the leaders,” Mr. Rahmani said in an interview. Mr. Zaeef was the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan; he served nearly four years in American military prisons, including the one at Guantánamo Bay.
Their plan would be for the guerrillas and the government to reconcile slowly, starting with the least contentious issues. One of the main low-level demands of the opposition leaders is that their names be removed from a so-called blacklist, contained in a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council, which obliges governments to detain the men. More difficult issues would follow.
“Blood begets blood, but talking begets peace,” Mr. Rahmani said.
Mr. Zaeef said the public declarations of Mullah Omar, who usually vows to fight on, are not necessarily to be taken seriously.
“A policy can have many faces,” he said.
The talks, if not the withdrawal proposals, are being supported by the Afghan government. The Obama administration, which has publicly declared its desire to coax “moderate” Taliban fighters away from armed struggle, says it is not involved in the discussions and will not be until the Taliban agree to lay down their arms. But nor are they trying to stop them, and Afghan officials believe they have tacit support from the Americans.
The discussions have so far produced no agreements, since the insurgents appear to be insisting that any deal include an American promise to pull out — at the very time that the Obama administration is sending more combat troops to help reverse the deteriorating situation on the battlefield. Indeed, with 20,000 additional troops on the way, American commanders seem determined to inflict greater pain on the Taliban first, to push them into negotiations and extract better terms. And most of the initial demands are nonstarters for the Americans in any case.
Even so, the talks are significant because they suggest how a political settlement may be able to end the eight-year-old war, and how such negotiations may proceed. They also raise the prospect of potentially difficult decisions by President Hamid Karzai and President Obama, who may have to consider making deals with groups like the Taliban that are anathema to many Americans, and other leaders with brutal and bloody pasts. Some of the leaders in the current talks have been involved with Al Qaeda.
While the talks have been under way for months, they have accelerated since Mr. Obama took office and have produced more specific demands, the Afghan intermediaries said.
The Taliban leaders, through their spokesman, and those of other armed groups publicly deny that they are involved in any negotiations. But several Afghans here and in Pakistan say they have been talking directly to the Taliban leadership group headed by Mullah Muhammad Omar, the movement’s secretive founder. The council is based in the Pakistani city of Quetta.
Discussions have also been held with representatives of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a longtime warlord with a record of extreme brutality, and with Sirajuddin Haqqani, whose guerrilla army is based in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Mr. Haqqani’s group is also known for its ruthlessness, and for sending suicide bombers into Afghanistan.
“America cannot win this war, and the Taliban cannot win this war,” Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, a former Taliban ambassador and one of the intermediaries, said in an interview. “I have delivered this message to the Taliban.”
The talks under way now appear to be directed not at individual bands of antigovernment insurgents — the strategy suggested by President Obama — but at the leaders of the large movements.
American officials insist they are not participating in any talks. “The U.S. would support such efforts only if Taliban are willing to abandon violence and lay down their arms, and accept Afghanistan’s democratically elected government,” said Ian Kelly, a State Department spokesman. Still, two of the principal intermediaries, Mr. Zaeef and Daoud Abedi, said they had held extensive discussions with American officials.
A State Department memo described a single meeting with Mr. Abedi, but said it ended briefly because American officials were not permitted to meet with representatives of Mr. Hekmatyar. There is no independent confirmation of Mr. Zaeef ’s claim to have met with Americans.
Afghan officials said they welcomed the talks. “The government has kept all channels of communication open," said Homayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Mr. Karzai. “This includes the Taliban and Hekmatyar.”
Mr. Abedi, an Afghan-American businessman from California and a member of Mr. Hekmatyar’s political party, the Islamic Party, said he conducted negotiations in March. Guerrillas loyal to Mr. Hekmatyar are battling the Americans in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. His political party still has a wide following in the country.
In an interview, Mr. Abedi said he undertook the negotiations — with Mr. Hekmatyar and with the Taliban leaders — at the behest of the State Department, a claim that American officials deny. Mr. Abedi said he met several times with American officials in Washington before and after his trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan. He declined to say which American diplomats he met, saying, “I am a Pashtun, and I swore on my honor that I would not reveal the names of the people I met with, so I cannot.”
Mr. Abedi said he hammered out a common set of demands between the Taliban and Mr. Hekmatyar’s group. The groups agreed to stop fighting if those conditions were met, Mr. Abedi said. The Taliban’s demands seem incompatible with much of Mr. Obama’s strategy, which is to substantially weaken the Taliban through a combination of military force and economic development. Nor did the deal Mr. Abedi described mention either Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri, the two senior Qaeda leaders who are believed to be hiding in Pakistan under the protection of the Taliban or some other armed group.
The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.
As for Mr. Hekmatyar, Mr. Abedi said he maintained a “direct link” with the guerrilla leader, and that he was authorized to negotiate on his behalf. He did not meet with Afghan government officials.
After the agreement between the Taliban and the Islamic Party was reached, Mr. Abedi said the Taliban leaders added more conditions: an end to the drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas, and a release of some Taliban prisoners.
Mr. Abedi said that when he returned to the United States with his proposal, he was greeted with enthusiasm by officials at the State Department. But he said they never called him back.
Mr. Hekmatyar earned a reputation as an especially brutal commander in the civil war that engulfed the country in the 1990s, in particular for the relentless bombardment of Kabul between 1994 and 1996 that killed an estimated 40,000 civilians during an attempt to capture the capital.
In 2002, after Mr. Hekmatyar resisted the American invasion, the Americans tried to kill him with a missile fired from a pilotless airplane. They missed.
The other main negotiation is led by Mr. Zaeef and Arsallah Rahmani, a former Taliban minister and now a member of the Afghan Parliament.
“We are not talking to low-ranking people — we are talking to the leaders,” Mr. Rahmani said in an interview. Mr. Zaeef was the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan; he served nearly four years in American military prisons, including the one at Guantánamo Bay.
Their plan would be for the guerrillas and the government to reconcile slowly, starting with the least contentious issues. One of the main low-level demands of the opposition leaders is that their names be removed from a so-called blacklist, contained in a resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council, which obliges governments to detain the men. More difficult issues would follow.
“Blood begets blood, but talking begets peace,” Mr. Rahmani said.
Mr. Zaeef said the public declarations of Mullah Omar, who usually vows to fight on, are not necessarily to be taken seriously.
“A policy can have many faces,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)