New York Times reporter Matt Rosenberg has been questioned by Afghan officials, over yesterday's story that some Afghan officials were threatening to seize power if the presidential election crisis is not resolved soon.
The Afghan attorney general’s office called in a New York Times correspondent for questioning Tuesday, and later banned him from leaving the country, after The Times published a story about discussions among some officials of imposing an interim government.
The correspondent, Matthew Rosenberg, 40, a three-year veteran of The Times’s Kabul bureau, was summoned to the attorney general’s office for what was billed as an “informal chat” Tuesday about an article published in that day’s newspaper
Rosenberg is being prevented from leaving the country.
“They did not explicitly tell me I couldn’t leave the country, but it was clear I was not free to go,” Rosenberg said. He said he was questioned by three men who were “polite but insistent” and who seemed equally concerned by the “idea” of the story and which officials and political leaders had spoken with him. He said the Times was consulting lawyers about his next step.
Afghanistan bars New York Times reporter from leaving country, Washington Post
The U.S. State Department has issued a statement.
"We are deeply disturbed by the actions of the Afghan attorney general and by this travel ban that has allegedly been put into place," said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, "and urge the Afghan government to respect fundamental freedoms of expression and expression of the press, and we’ll continue to monitor it."
US ‘deeply disturbed’ after Afghans bar reporter from leaving country, The Hill
The Committee to Protect Journalists has, as well.
"We call on Afghan authorities to lift all travel restrictions on Matthew Rosenberg immediately," said CPJ Deputy Director Robert Mahoney. "Denying journalists freedom of movement is nothing more than a form of intimidation at a time when Afghanistan's democracy is most in need of independent political reporting."
New York Times reporter barred from leaving Afghanistan, Committee to Protect Journalists
The detail that Rosenberg is prevented from leaving, was seemingly told to Tolo news, before being told to Rosenberg.
Rosenberg confirmed on Twitter that he is unable to leave Afghanistan, adding that the government seemingly told Tolo TV, a news network, first
Why a New York Times Reporter Has Been Banned From Leaving Afghanistan, The Blaze
Last Thursday, in the
Washington Post, Balkh governor
Atta Mohammed Noor had once again threatened civil war, if Abdullah Abdullah was not declared the winner of the presidential election.
A powerful Afghan governor and former militia leader, who had threatened mass protests in the wake of the disputed presidential runoff in June, warned Wednesday of a “civil uprising” if the ongoing ballot recount proves biased and his candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, is not named the winner.
Attah Mohammed Noor, 50, had not been seen in public since the election controversy and was rumored to have fled Afghanistan. He came to the capital Wednesday and said he had been away undergoing surgery for shrapnel wounds suffered during the Afghan-Soviet conflict.
Key Abdullah ally warns of Afghan unrest if vote recount is ‘one-sided’, Washington Post
Threats of civil war are background to Rosenberg's story that Afghan officials were planning a seizure of power.
“I see some people are really serious about it,” said a senior Afghan official. He said fears of a repeat of the civil war that engulfed Afghanistan in the years after the withdrawal of Soviet forces in 1989 were driving the discussions.
“It’s not only tactical, it’s real, and it’s because the memory of the crisis years ago in the 1990s is still fresh, and they don’t want to go to that,” the official said.
Amid Election Impasse, Calls in Afghanistan for an Interim Government, New York Times
Afghan power struggles are being played out, partly via news article in the
New York Times and the
Washington Post. Threats of civil war, in the
Post, are met with threats of a coup, in the
Times.
Rosenberg says this is unusual.
Though it is unusual to telegraph plans for what could amount to a coup — though no one is calling it that — the officials all stressed that they hoped the mere threat of forming an interim government would persuade the country’s rival presidential candidates, Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, to make the compromises needed to end the crisis.
Amid Election Impasse, Calls in Afghanistan for an Interim Government, New York Times
In the other war in Afghanistan, Taliban and other insurgent forces are gathering in larger numbers, with the withdraw of American air cover.
No longer pinned down by US air cover, Taliban fighters are attacking Afghan military posts in larger numbers with the aim of taking and holding ground, a shift from the hit-and-run strikes with posses of gunmen, explosives and suicide bombers.
Struggling to hold the insurgents back, the riposte from commanders of the Afghan security forces has been clear: across the country, they are now telling their men to kill captured Taliban fighters instead of taking prisoners.
The police chief of the militant-infested southern province of Kandahar, General Abdul Raziq, bluntly announced the new approach last month, telling reporters: "I have ordered my men to kill these terrorists once and for all, and not take any prisoners, because they will be released anyway."
'Take No Prisoners': Order in Afghanistan as Battle Gets Deadly, Reuters
The exact number of attackers involved in recent offensives – as that of the casualties – is difficult to verify independently. However, the Taleban do seem to be returning to the tactic of mass attacks (after trying and failing to use them, especially in Kandahar and Helmand in 2006). It is possible that militants have been trying to exploit the uncertainty and low morale caused among security forces and state officials by the electoral stalemate. More critically, the reduced support in terms of airstrikes and logistics by NATO has inevitably weakened the Afghan security forces in isolated areas (for more examples see previous AAN reporting). As UNAMA reported (read AAN analysis), the insurgents have become more confident in massing troops, something which they had been prevented from doing precisely by the constant risk of NATO bombings. This has enabled them to put pressure not only on isolated police outposts, but also on district centres, forcing the government to a prompt delivery of helicopter gunships to Nangarhar province.
Footsloggers, Turncoats and Enforcers: The fight along the eastern border, Afghanistan Analysts Network
In election audit news, the campaigns now seem to have agreed on what they disagree on.
Although the committees basically did not resolve any of the main sticking points, they did manage to clarify and narrow down what the pending issues are that need to be negotiated – which in itself is useful. The points that have now been referred back to their leaders are said to be:
- whether there will be only a Chief Executive Office (CEO) (Ashraf Ghani team position) or both a CEO and a leader of the opposition (Abdullah Abdullah team position);
- whether the CEO and his deputies will head the council of ministers (Abdullah position) or whether this will remain with the president (Ghani position);
- whether the CEO will be represented on the National Security Council or have a say in the appointment of the National Security Adviser (Abdullah position) or whether this remains the prerogative of the president (Ghani position).
Elections 2014 (45): Solving audit problems by creating new ones, Afghanistan Analysts Network