US preparing to sign deal with Taliban on February 29, says Mike Pompeo

The United States is preparing to sign a deal with the Taliban on February 29, building on an agreement on reducing violence across Afghanistan, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday.

"Upon a successful implementation of this understanding, signing of the US-Taliban agreement is expected to move forward," he said in a statement released after visiting Saudi Arabia.

A week-long "reduction in violence" between the Taliban, the US and Afghan security forces will commence shortly, Afghanistan's National Security Council spokesman Javed Faisal told AFP on Friday.

The partial truce will mark a historic step in more than 18 years of gruelling conflict in Afghanistan and would pave the way for a deal that could, ultimately, see the war end.

Pompeo said that intra-Afghan negotiations would begin shortly after the February 29 signing, expected to take place in the Qatari capital Doha.'

They will "build on this fundamental step to deliver a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire and the future political roadmap for Afghanistan," he said.

The US top diplomat said that challenges remain, but that progress made so far "provides hope and represents a real opportunity. The United States calls on all Afghans to seize this moment".

US targeted another Iranian official in Yemen day it killed Soleimani

The United States carried out a secret operation in Yemen that targeted, but failed to kill, an Iranian military official last week, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday.

The strike was carried out on the same day that the United States killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike in Baghdad, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The timing could suggest that the United States had sought to take out a broader swathe of the Iranian military leadership when it killed Soleimani, citing an imminent threat from him.

US hits Cuba with new sanctions over human rights, Venezuela

The United States is imposing new sanctions on Cuba over its human rights record and its support for Venezuela’s government, the US Commerce Department said on Friday.

In a statement, the department said it will restrict Cuba’s access to commercial aircraft by revoking existing licences for aircraft leases to Cuban state-owned airlines and denying future applications for aircraft leases.

The United States will also expand sanctions to include more foreign goods containing US content and impose additional restrictions on exports to the Cuban government, the statement said.

"This action by the Commerce Department sends another clear message to the Cuban regime — “ that they must immediately cease their destructive behaviour at home and abroad," US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said in the statement.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez responded in a post on Twitter, denouncing the move as "additional economic blockade measures evidencing moral bankruptcy of an internationally isolated policy promoted by a corrupted government". In a separate statement, the US State Department criticised Cuba for its detention of dissident Jose Daniel Ferrer, calling on Havana to disclose his whereabouts, treat him humanely and release him without condition.

Ferrer, a prominent figure who leads the Patriotic Union of Cuba (UNPACU), was detained in Santiago de Cuba on October 1 after a police raid on his home, which is also the group's headquarters.

Cuba's government does not typically discuss police activity, including the detention of dissidents, who Havana dismisses as provocateurs funded by the US.

Many concerned Pak militants may attack India post Kashmir decision: US

The United States on Tuesday voiced fears of many countries that following abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir special status, Pakistani militants might launch terror strikes in India unless Pakistan "keep a lid on militant groups".

I think many have concerns that Pakistan keep a lid on militant groups that might conduct cross-border activities as a result of the Kashmir decisions, and I don't sense that China wants that kind of conflict or would support that, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Indo Pacific Security Affairs, Randall Shriver, told a Washington audience.

Shriver was responding to a question on China's support to Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir after India nullified articles 370 and 35A of its the Constitution that gave special privileges to Jammu and Kashmir.

I think it (China's support to Pakistan on Kashmir) is mostly diplomatic and political support, Shriver said.

They (Chinese) have supported Pakistan in international fora. There is some discussion about whether or not Kashmir would be taken up in the UN, China would support that. But in terms of something beyond that or more active, I don't see it, the top Pentagon official said.

China has a long-standing relationship with Pakistan, and they have growing competition with India, he said, adding that India seeks a stable relationship with China.

Referring to the ongoing visit of India's External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, Shriver said the US is having consultations with him.

We have talked about the relationship with China. They want a stable relationship with China, but there's no doubt that there is growing concern and competition there as well. So I think on a range of issues to include Kashmir, China has leaned toward Pakistan, Shriver said.

Illusion of empowerment: Why we must oppose any law that makes RTI illusory

The United States (US) adopted the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in 1966. President Lyndon B Johnson said that he signed the Bill “with a deep sense of pride that the United States is an open society in which the people's right to know is cherished and guarded”. Years later, his press secretary Bill Moyers recollected that Johnson “hated the idea” of the Act. He had to be “dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony”. Speaking in 2016, Moyers recalled that “Getting FOIA passed was almost as difficult as making it work once it was law... we had to fight for it then, and we have to keep fighting for it 50 years later.”

India’s Right to Information (RTI) story is similar.

A people’s legislation

In April 1996, thousands of residents of Beawar, a town in Central Rajasthan, marched to the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. They had a simple demand: “Humara Paisa, Humara Hisaab” (our money, our account). This was a watershed moment for Indian society. Instead of asking for the customary roti, kapda aur makaan (food, clothing and shelter), people were asking for the right to information! The Beawar agitation of 1996 started a decade-long process. It culminated with the enactment of the RTI Act in 2005.

When it was first enacted, the RTI Act was hailed as an iconic, people-empowering legislation. Since then, all three wings of State — including the Judiciary — have done everything in their power to undermine it. Over the years, a determined civil society has managed to fight off most attacks on the legislation. The latest battle seems to have been lost, for now. The Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019, eats into the independence given to Information Commissioners. In effect, it hollows out the Act without touching on any of the substantive rights or procedural rights the Act provides.

The Act and the amendment

Before getting into the nitty-gritties of the law, it is imperative to understand that the RTI Act was not conferred upon citizens in 2005. The Supreme Court in a consistent line of cases has held that the right is part of the Constitution’s free-speech guarantee. The freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and to disseminate it. The RTI Act, thus, is a vehicle to facilitate the implementation of a fundamental right.

The Act makes it mandatory for public authorities to disclose aspects of their structure and functioning. This includes disclosures on financial information, powers and duties of its employees, etc. The intent of such suo motu disclosures is that the public should need minimum recourse through the Act to obtain such information. Besides suo motu disclosures, citizens can file applications demanding the supply of specific information. This may include information in the form of documents, files, or electronic records under the control of the Public Authority.

‘Public Authorities’ include bodies of self-government established under the Constitution, or under any law or government notification. It also includes any entities owned, controlled or substantially financed and non-government organisations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the government.

The Act has established a three-tier structure for enforcing the right. Public Authorities designate some of their officers as Public Information Officers. The first request for information goes to them. These officers are required to provide information to an RTI applicant within 30 days of their request. Appeals from their decisions go to an appellate authority. The appellate authority is a senior official working in the same public authority. Thus, essentially, the first appeal is made from ‘Caesar to Caesar’.

Appeals against the order of the Appellate Authority go to the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission. Information Commissions consists of a Chief Information Commissioner, and up to 10 Information Commissioners. It is with respect to this that the amendment makes two crucial changes.

Under the original Act, the term of an Information Commissioner was fixed at 5 years. Further, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the central level) was to be equivalent to the salary paid to the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners, respectively. Similarly, the salary of the CIC and ICs (at the state level) was to be equivalent to the salary paid to the Election Commissioners and the Chief Secretary to the state government, respectively.

The Amendment Bill states that the central government will notify the term of office of Information Commissioners. Further, the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the central and state CIC and ICs will be determined by the central government. The reasoning given for this is bizarre.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act states: “The salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioner are equal to a Judge of the Supreme Court, therefore, the Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioner and the State Chief Information Commissioner becomes equivalent to a Judge of the Supreme Court in terms of their salaries and allowances and other terms and conditions of service.” It goes on to state that “the mandate of Election Commission of India and central and state Information Commissions are different. Hence, their status and service conditions need to be rationalised accordingly.”

The distinction misses a crucial point. Free speech and fair elections are Constitutional goals and part of the Constitution’s basic structure. The Election and Information Commissions act as facilitators of these goals. The Information Commission is essentially an adjudicatory body that decides whether an individual is entitled to access government information. The Commission decides disputes between the government and the citizen. It is, therefore, imperative that the Commission be free from all government control. It is precisely this independence that the Bill attacks.

By making the tenure and salary of Information Commissioners subject to the whims of the government, the amendment effectively turns them into ‘caged parrots’, a term the Supreme Court famously used for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Whether the Supreme Court or other Constitutional Courts do anything about it is another matter. Given their recent record, one does not hold much hope.

Epilogue

Like in the case of Aadhar, the government and its sympathisers have been quick to declare any dissent against the RTI Act amendments to be coming from the privileged intelligentsia. However, the story of the Beawar agitation should serve as a simple reminder that legislation like the RTI Act are not just for activists and lawyers. They are for the man on the street. Over the years, people have used the Act to enquire about why their pensions are stuck, why their subsidies have been disallowed and why no action has been taken on their complaints.

It is often said that the poor do not need obscure, ineffable things such as transparency and freedom — they need food. The poor know this better than anyone else. They also know that they have been denied their basic rights through a web of lies. Lies based on documents that are quoted, but never revealed. These documents were what the people of Beawar demanded to see. These documents are what RTI gave to them, and to us. And these documents are precisely why all of us must oppose any law which makes the Right to Information illusory.