Mediaboss Marketing

Six teenage girls from Afghanistan have been denied visas to travel to the US for an international robotics competition, but they will be permitted to send their ball-sorting contraption to competewithout them.

The aspiring inventors wept when they heard they couldn't escort their machine to Washington DC for the First Global Challenge, an annual contest for high school students from across the world.

Team Afghanistan work on their project (FIRST Global Media)

They had twice trekked around 500 miles from Herat, a western city in Afghanistan, to the American embassy in Kabul to apply for the one-week travel visas.

But their efforts proved to be in vain as US officials rejected their applications following a series of interviews.

Afghanistan's first female tech boss Roya Mahboob, who founded software firm Citadel, organised the all-girl team and said they were "crying all day" after they were turned down.

She told Forbes: It's a very important message for our people. Robotics is very, very new in Afghanistan.

The girls are still working on a ball-sorting robot which they will send to compete against 163 other machines at the Firstchallenge in July, and they will appear at the event via video link from Herat.

Graduate students from Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania helped the students to programme their robot, but the team had to wait for months while customs officials inspected the raw materials of their contraption amid fears that Isis could use robots to wage terror across the region.

Team Afghanistan's robot now has permission to travel.

One of the team members, Fatemah, 14, told Forbes: "We want to show the world we can do it, we just need a chance."

First Global President Joe Sestak said the girls were extraordinarily brave young women and told Forbes he was disappointed they weren't allowed to travel to the US.

Only the teams from Afghanistan and Gambia have been denied travel visas, while students from Iran, Iraq, and Sudan are able to attend.

US State Department records state that just 32 business travel visas were granted for Afghans in April, far fewer than the 138 issued to Iraqis or the 1,492 applications accepted in Pakistan during the same month.

Jonathan Blanks, a media commentator and researcher at the Cato Institute, tweeted: "I feel safer now that we've denied a once in a lifetime opportunity to a group of girls whose country we've been bombing since their birth."

Verizon's former vice president of communications Anthony Citrano called the decision "infuriating".

The State Department has not commented on the visa denials because they are confidential records.

Read more:
Afghanistan's all-girl robotics team banned from entering US - but their robot will be allowed in - The Independent

Six teenage girls from Afghanistan planned to come to the US to compete in the First Global Challenge robotics competition this month, but those plans were canceled after they were denied visas to enter the country. Forbes reports that the girls traveled 500 miles to Kabul for their visa interviews, and that their robots supplies were held in customs for months.

This kit, which the competition organizers issued to every participating team, included different components, like brackets, extrusions, fastening hardware, hardware adaptors, bearings, wheels of different sizes, gears, pulleys, motors, servos, and sprockets. The State Department feared ISIS might try to use these parts on the battlefield, which is why they delayed sending them to the girls.

Still, the team built a ball-sorting robot on a shortened timeline; their kit only arrived three weeks ago. More than 100 other teams have entered the competition, including participants from Iraq, Iran, and Sudan. The girls robot will still compete, but the team will only be able to watch over a video call from their homes in Herat, Afghanistan.

Read more:
US denies visas to Afghanistan's all-girl robotics team - The Verge - The Verge

BRUSSELS Nearly three years after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization ended combat operations in Afghanistan, the 29-nation alliance willsend troops once more into the country withhopes that the renewed surge will help the Afghan military beat back a resurgent Taliban.

Speaking ahead of a defense ministerial meeting here Thursday, NATO Secretary GeneralJens Stoltenberg saidthousands of troops have been requested, but he did not say how many would deploy.

With the Taliban in control of broad swaths of the country and the Afghan military locked in a primarily defensive war, it is unclear how a new infusion of NATO or U.S. forces could radically turn the tide of the conflict.

Fifteen nations have already pledged additional contributions to Resolute Support Mission. And I look forward to further announcements from other nations, Stoltenberg said, using the name of the NATO mission to Afghanistan.

[Trump gives Pentagon authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan]

Stoltenberg stressed that NATOs renewed presence did not mean the beginning of another combat mission; instead, he said, the alliancewill focus on building the Afghan special operation forces, air force and othermilitary training institutions.

We dont think this operation in Afghanistan is going to be easy and we dont think its going to be peaceful this year or next year or in the near future, he said during a newsconference Thursday afternoon. As long as the Taliban believe they can win the war they will not negotiate. We need to break the stalemate and to enable the Afghans to made advances.

Stoltenbergs remarks come as the United States weighs its own commitment in what has become its longest-running war. In recent weeks, President Trump delegated authorities to the Pentagon to set troop levels in the Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has pledged to present a strategy to Congress by mid-July. Earlier this month, the retired four-star Marine general told lawmakers that the United States was not winning, and battlefield commanders, including the head of U.S. forcesin Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, have requested a few thousand more troops.

Mattis said Thursday during a news conference that he had received 70 percent of the commitments from NATO countries for his upcoming strategy and was confident that he would be able to secure the rest in the coming weeks. Mattis gave no timeline for Americas renewed commitment to Afghanistan and suggestedthat NATO had drawn down too early in 2014.

Its not like you can declare a war over, Mattis said. What is the price of not fighting this war? And in thatcase were not willing to pay that price.

[Mattis: We are not winning in Afghanistan]

With a Taliban insurgency that has proven resilient despite heavy battlefield losses, lawmakers in Washington and some NATO allies remain waryof any new military solution in Afghanistan.

In an interview, Canadian Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan said his country has received the request for more troops but has not yetdecided to pledge any additional forces.

Canadian soldierswithdrew from Afghanistan completely in 2014, after participating in several bloody campaigns around Kandahar in 2006 and a limited training mission after 2011. Between 2001 and 2014, more than 150 Canadian troops died in Afghanistan.

With no physical presence in the country, Canada has instead continuedto provide financial support to the Afghan security forces.

Afghanistan is obviously very important to us, and were going to monitor the situation, Sajjan said. The military is not going to give you that complete victory. It takes an entire whole of government approach for it; the real solution will come from the political side.

[Whats your end game? Trump delegating Afghan war decisions to the Pentagon faces scrutiny]

BritishDefense Secretary Michael Fallon told a group of reporters during the ministerial meeting Thursday that Britain was in Afghanistan for the long haul and would sendjust under 100 additional troops to help prop up Afghan forcesaround Kabul, bringing the total number of British soldiers in the country to around 600. In the last year, the Afghan capital has been rocked by a spate of terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds.

Mattis said he would take what he learned from his NATO counterparts atthe defense ministerial back to Washington and deliverhis formal strategy to Trump in the coming weeks.

Currently there are roughly 13,500 NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan. The Americans number around 8,500 and are split between counterterrorism operations and supporting the NATO-led training mission. At the wars height in 2010 and 2011 there were more than 100,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

More than 2,000 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan since 2001, and Afghan security forces continue to take an almost unsustainableamount of casualties despite U.S. air support. Civilians, however, have borne the brunt of the violence, with 2016 marking the deadliest year for the Afghan population since the United Nations mission to the country began monitoringthe statistics in 2009.

Michael Birnbaum contributed to this report. This story was originally published at 9:17 a.m. and updated to include remarks from Defense Secretary Mattis and other officials in Brussels.

Read more:

Band-Aid on a bullet wound: What Americas new war looks like in Afghanistans most violent province

More here:
'What is the price of not fighting this war?': Mattis makes his pitch to get more NATO troops in Afghanistan - Washington Post

Amid reports that the Trump administration is likely to adopt a tougher stance on Pakistan for its alleged role in the growing instability in Afghanistan, New Delhi and Kabul have started air cargo operations between the two countries. The move may be seen as an attempt to outflank Pakistan, which is Afghanistans largest trading partner and together with Iran is the principal conduit for its overseas trade.

On the occasion of the inaugural cargo flight, which carried Afghan exports worth $5 million to India, President Ashraf Ghani vowed to change Afghanistan to an exporter country. Here is an objective no one would disagree with. There is a close and reciprocal link between economic revival and political instability in Afghanistan. Years of infighting ravaged the Afghan economy. On the other hand, a feeble economy has thwarted efforts for peace and reconciliation and encouraged corruption as mighty warlords competed for meagre resources. It also reduced Afghanistan to a vassal state, serving the foreign policy objectives which are often mutually incompatible of the key regional and international players.

At present, the $18 billion Afghan economy one of the smallest and the poorest in the world runs almost entirely on assistance from international donors. The country also faces a persistently huge balance of payment problem, as exports (worth $521 million) lag far behind imports (worth $3.3 billion). The Afghans need to narrow the trade deficit and start looking inwards to keep the wheels of the economy moving. As a result, an overwhelming dependence on foreign capital inflows will continue to rob the country of whatever sovereignty it is left with. But this is a case of easier said than done. An economy in tatters that rests on only a handful of agro-based industries and works in the shadow of terrorism, is extremely difficult to shape up.

It is customary for the Afghan leadership to blame Pakistan for all their economic and political problems. Being a landlocked country, Afghanistan has remained dependent on Pakistan for its foreign trade. The access was first provided to it through the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement of 1965 and currently it is granted through the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA). However, instead of cementing bilateral relations, transit trade has remained a source of friction between both countries.

There are at least three problems with Afghan transit trade. First, it is a conduit for smuggling. This is primarily because import tariffs in Afghanistan are much lower as there is no domestic industry worth mentioning to protect. The tariff gap between Pakistan and Afghanistan countries provides one of the strongest incentives for smuggling. Several products that are sent to Afghanistan eventually find their way back into Pakistan. This affects the local industry. Pakistan has responded by putting a few items on the negative list of transit trade and subjecting the merchandise and the carriers to greater checks than the Afghans would like.

Second, as in the case of India, political issues have cast a pall over Pakistans trade relations with Afghanistan as well. Both countries have incessantly accused each other of patronising anti-state elements. Whenever terrorists strike in Afghanistan, the people at the helm in Kabul invariably point fingers at Pakistan. By the same token, several incidents of terrorism taking place in Pakistan such as the December 2014 Army Public School tragedy in Peshawar have been attributed to militants residing in Afghanistan.

In recent months, the tense bilateral relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan have led to the closure of the Pak-Afghan borders at Torkham and Chaman on quite a few occasions including for two weeks between February and March. Even when the borders are open, heightened security measures tend to slow down the movement of traffic. The closure of the borders is seen by the Afghans as an attempt by Pakistan to squeeze them economically.

The third problem stems from the inability to allow Indian exports access to Afghanistan via the land route. The APTTA allows Afghan exports to India through the Wagah border. But it doesnt extend the same facility to the Indian exports destined to Afghanistan. Pakistan has itself restricted trade with India and even fewer Indian exports are allowed through Wagah.

New Delhi has tricked Kabul into believing that by not allowing Indian exports overland access to Afghanistan, Pakistan is hurting the Afghan economy. At present, the total Indo-Afghan trade amounts to $551 million which include exports worth $130 million from Afghanistan and $421 million from India. This is much lower than Pak-Afghan trade worth $1.57 billion (exports worth $1.34 billion from Pakistan and exports amounting to $227 million from Afghanistan).

Any attempt to open up trade with India will, by no means, tilt the balance of trade in Afghanistans favours as the Indians have much more to sell to the Afghans than the other way round. Rather it will drive up Indian exports to Afghanistan and may even exacerbate Afghanistans overall balance of payment situation. This will, in turn, shore up the countrys dependence on foreign assistance including that from New Delhi. As a result, the greater the volume of Indo-Afghan trade, the higher is likely to be the Afghanistans indebtedness to India.

By Indian standards, Afghanistan is a small market. If a purely economic logic is anything to go by, it should not hold much of an attraction for the Indians. But the economy has never been the mainspring of New Delhis overtures towards Kabul. What it has set upon itself and has already achieved a lot through is the strong commercial and political presence in the war-torn but strategically important country. Given the zero-sum game that New Delhi and Islamabad are engaged in, any gains made by India anywhere are seen by both countries as a loss for Pakistan and vice versa. As a result, the growing warmth in New Delhi-Kabul relations are perceived to be an affront to Pakistan.

Speaking in economic terms, Pakistan possibly losing out from stronger Indo-Afghan ties is not a question of mere perceptions. Afghanistan is among the largest export markets for us. It is also one of the few countries with which we run more than a billion-dollar trade surplus. In case Indian exports get overland transit to Afghanistan, they could displace a large chunk of exports from Pakistan and thereby result in the loss of an important market. In addition, Afghan trade is a source of substantial commercial activity in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa where economic opportunities are otherwise meagre.

In part, India has sought to get over the problem by helping build the Chabahar Port in south-east Iran and connecting infrastructure in Afghanistan and using it to export merchandise to Afghanistan and beyond that to Central Asia. Though it has been carried out on a much lower scale reflecting the relative economic strengths of the two countries the Indian investment in Chabahar has also been compared with that of China in Gwadar.

Iran is another country in the region which is on excellent terms with the people at the helm in Kabul for being on the same page on security-related matters. Its also one of the largest trading partners of Afghanistan. The coldness that in recent years has characterised Islamabad-Tehran relations for one reason or another has also served to bring Iran closer to India and Afghanistan. But can the Kabul-Tehran-New Delhi nexus help Afghanistan get out of the catch-22? The Afghans must try to answer this question.

The writer is a freelance countributor.

Email: [emailprotected]

See more here:
Beyond Afghanistan's catch-22 - The News International

WASHINGTON: A key US Senate panel has asked the Pentagon to identify ways for India to play a larger role in providing increased and coordinated defence-related support to Afghanistan.

US Senator Dan Sullivan presented a resolution in this regard on Thursday and it was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee as part of the the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA-2018). The committee authorised $640 billion in critical defence spending for Fiscal Year 2018.

"This provision encourages the Department of Defence to identify ways that India can play a larger role in providing increased and coordinated defence-related support to Afghanistan, a critical part of overcoming the current 'stalemate' in the fight against the Taliban," said a statement by the office of Sullivan.

"Encourage Increased Role for India in Afghanistan" was one of the 24 amendments unanimously passed by the Senate committee.

Meanwhile, US Defence Secretary James Mattis called on NATO allies to "finish the job in Afghanistan" or risk "terrorist revenge" as the alliance confirmed a troop increase to counter a resurgent Taliban.

"The bottom line is that NATO has made a commitment to Afghanistan for freedom from fear and terror, and freedom from terror demands that you can't let this be undone," he added.

The US, which once had more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, is preparing a new strategy for a war which has dragged on for 16 years and which even US generals concede is a "stalemate" at best.

See original here:
Pentagon asked to identify increased role for India in Afghanistan - Economic Times