Iran cries victory after US bid to extend arms embargo flops at UN

Published on August 15, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

Iran on Saturday hailed a UN Security Council vote rejecting a US bid to extend an arms embargo on the Islamic republic, saying its foe has “never been so isolated”.

President Hassan Rouhani said the US had failed to kill off what he called the “half alive” 2015 deal with major powers that gave Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

“The United States failed in this conspiracy with humiliation,” said Rouhani.

“This day will go down in the history of our Iran and in the history of fighting global arrogance.”

Only two of the Council’s 15 members voted in favor of the US resolution seeking to extend the embargo, highlighting the division between Washington and its European allies since President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear accord in 2018.

Washington’s European allies all abstained, and Iran mocked the Trump administration for winning the support of just one other country, the Dominican Republic.

“In the 75 years of United Nations history, America has never been so isolated,” foreign ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi tweeted.

“Despite all the trips, pressure and the hawking, the United States could only mobilize a small country (to vote) with them.”

People on the streets of Tehran had mixed reactions.

“This is an American political game. One day they give a resolution to the Security Council, the next they say they have taken” Iranian fuel, said a worker at the city’s Grand Bazaar who gave his name only as Ahmadi.

A drugstore employee named Abdoli told AFP she was happy Iran won, but added that it “should interact with the United States and establish relations”.

The result increases the likelihood the US will try to unilaterally force a return of UN sanctions, which experts say threatens to plunge the Council into one of its worst-ever diplomatic crises.

‘Inexcusable’

“The Security Council’s failure to act decisively in defense of international peace and security is inexcusable,” said US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Israel’s UN ambassador called the UN vote a “disgrace”.

“This decision will further destabilize the Middle East, and increase the spread of violence around the world,” said Gilad Erdan.

The embargo on conventional arms is due to expire on October 18 under the terms of a resolution that blessed the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Since Trump pulled out of the JCPOA and slapped unilateral sanctions on Iran, Tehran has taken small but escalatory steps away from compliance with the accord as it presses for sanctions relief.

European allies of the United States — who, along with Russia and China, signed the deal with Iran — have voiced support for extending the 13-year-long conventional arms embargo, saying an expiry threatens stability in the Middle East.

However, their priority is to preserve the JCPOA.

The US text, seen by AFP, effectively called for an indefinite extension of the embargo on Iran, which diplomats said would threaten the nuclear deal.

Iran says it has the right to self-defense and that a continuation of the ban would mean an end to the agreement.

Pompeo said members had failed to back the proposal about 30 minutes before Indonesia, the current president of the Security Council, announced the official results included two votes against and 11 abstentions.

Russia and China opposed the resolution.

“The result shows again that unilateralism enjoys no support, and bullying will fail,” China’s UN mission tweeted.
‘Snapback’

Ambassador Gunter Sautter of Germany, which abstained, said “more consultations are needed” to find a solution acceptable to all Council members.

During a call between Trump and French President Emmanuel Macron, the leaders “discussed the urgent need for UN action to extend the arms embargo on Iran”.

Hours earlier, Russian President Vladimir Putin appealed to China, France, Russia, Britain, the US, Germany and Iran to convene an emergency video summit to avoid an escalation of tensions in the Gulf.

Washington has threatened to try to force a return of UN sanctions if it is not extended by using a controversial technique called “snapback”.

Pompeo has offered the contested argument that the US remains a “participant” in the JCPOA as it was listed in the 2015 resolution — and therefore can force a return to sanctions if it sees Iran as being in violation of its terms.

European allies have been skeptical on whether Washington can force sanctions and warn the attempt may delegitimize the Security Council.

Nevertheless, the US is expected to deliver the snapback letter next week, AFP understands.

Analysts suspect Washington purposely put forward a hardline draft that it knew Council members would not be able to accept.

SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/historic-rebuke-of-us-imperialism-un.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/update-us-isolated-for-anti-iran.html

UN soundly defeats US demand to extend arms embargo on Iran
By EDITH M. LEDERER

1 of 2
In this photo released Tuesday, July 28, 2020, by Sepahnews, a Revolutionary Guard's speed boat fires a missile during a military exercise. Iranian commandos also fast-roped down from a helicopter onto a replica of an aircraft carrier in the exercise called "Great Prophet 14." The drill appears aimed at threatening the U.S. amid tensions between Tehran and Washington. (Sepahnews via AP)

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council on Friday resoundingly defeated a U.S. resolution to indefinitely extend the U.N. arms embargo on Iran, with the Trump administration getting support from only the Dominican Republic but vowing further action to prevent Tehran’s sale and export of conventional weapons.

The vote in the 15-member council was two in favor, two against and 11 abstentions, leaving it far short of the minimum nine “yes” votes required for adoption. Russia and China strongly opposed the resolution, but didn’t need to use their vetoes.

The Trump administration has said repeatedly it will not allow the arms embargo provision in the Security Council resolution endorsing the 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and six major powers to expire as scheduled Oct. 18.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the defeat of the resolution ahead of a very brief virtual council meeting to reveal the vote.

He said Israel and the six Arab Gulf nations who supported the extension “know Iran will spread even greater chaos and destruction if the embargo expires, but the Security Council chose to ignore them.”

“The United States will never abandon our friends in the region who expected more from the Security Council,” Pompeo said in a statement. “We will continue to work to ensure that the theocratic terror regime does not have the freedom to purchase and sell weapons that threaten the heart of Europe, the Middle East and beyond.”

U.S. Ambassador Kelly Craft said “the United States stands sickened — but not surprised — as the clear majority of council members gave the green light to Iran to buy and sell all manner of conventional weapons.”

“The council’s failure today will serve neither peace nor security,” she warned. “Rather, it will fuel greater conflict and drive even more insecurity.”

Pompeo suggested the U.S. would invoke the “snap back” mechanism in the 2015 nuclear deal that would restore all U.N. sanctions on Iran — and Craft said the United States will go ahead “in the coming days” and keep America’s “promise to stop at nothing to extend the arms embargo.”

“Snap back” was envisioned in the event Iran was proven to be in violation of the accord, under which it received billions of dollars in sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.




President Donald Trump pulled out of the nuclear agreement between Iran and six major powers, known as the JCPOA, in 2018. But the U.S. circulated a six-page memo Thursday from State Department lawyers outlining why the United States remains part of the 2015 Security Council resolution that endorsed the deal and still has the right to use the `snap back’ provision.

The five other powers — Russia, China, United Kingdom, France and Germany — remain committed to the deal, and diplomats from several of these countries have voiced concern that extending the arms embargo would lead Iran to exit the nuclear agreement and speed up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

China’s U.N. ambassador, Zhang Jun, reiterated after the vote the Chinese contention that since the U.S. is no longer party to the 2015 agreement, it is “ineligible to demand the Security Council invoke a snap back.” He said the overwhelming majority of council members “believe the U.S. attempt has no legal basis.”

“Should the U.S. insist regardless of international opinion, it is doomed to fail like today,” Zhang said in a statement, adding that the vote showed “that unilateralism receives no support and bullying will fail.”

Iranian Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi accused the U.S. of seeking to use the arms embargo “as a pretext of killing the JCPOA forever through the snap back mechanism.”

“As we have already stated, imposition of any sanctions or restrictions on Iran by the Security Council will be met severely by Iran and our options are not limited. And the United States and any entity which may assist it or acquiesce in its illegal behavior, will bear the full responsibility,” he said.

While voting on the U.S. draft resolution was under way, Russia said President Vladimir Putin called for a meeting of leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council along with Germany and Iran to avoid escalation over U.S. attempts to extend the Iranian arms embargo.

In a statement released by the Kremlin, Putin said “the question is urgent,“ adding that the goal of the video conference would be “to outline steps to avoid confrontation and exacerbation of the situation in the U.N. Security Council,”

”If the leaders are fundamentally ready for a conversation, we propose to promptly coordinate the agenda,” Putin said. “The alternative is to further build up tension, to increase the risk of conflict. This development must be avoided.”

French President Emmanuel Macron’s office confirmed France’s “availability in principle” to Putin’s proposal. “We have in the past deployed initiatives in the same spirit,” it said.

Whether Trump and the others agree to participate in the meeting remains to be seen.

On Thursday, U.S. envoy Craft said in an interview with The Associated Press that the United States is “keeping the space open” for talks with Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China.

She urged the three European nations that support the nuclear deal — Britain, France and Germany — to put in writing their ideas to extend the expiring arms embargo on Iran, indicating the Trump administration may be willing compromise on its demand for an indefinite extension. She said they had mentioned a six-month or one-year extension.

European diplomats said the three countries share the U.S. goal of maintaining the arms embargo but need to find a compromise with Russia and China. The diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because discussions have been private, said the Europeans had offered a compromise proposal but the U.S., Russia and China showed no willingness to compromise.

The U.S. administration wants to end the Iran nuclear agreement before the American elections Nov. 3, the Europeans said, pointing to the time pressure the U.S. is exerting since the arms embargo doesn’t expire until October and there would still be time for negotiations.

Germany’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Günter Sautter, said after the vote that Germany remains committed to the nuclear deal, but remains deeply concerned about Iran’s transfers of weapon to Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq in violation of the 2015 council resolution.

He said Germany has been engaging with council members and is ready to continue discussions “in order to find a pragmatic way forward, which addresses our collective concerns.”

HISTORIC REBUKE OF US IMPERIALISM

UN Security Council rejects US bid to extend Iran arms embargo

Crisis looms as UNSC overwhelmingly rejects US resolution to indefinitely extend an arms embargo on Iran.

15 Aug 2020

The 13-year embargo is due to expire on October 18, under a 2015 deal curbing Iran's nuclear programme [Atomic Energy Organization of Iran via AP]

The United Nations Security Council has resoundingly rejected a bid by the United States to extend a global arms embargo on Iran.

In the Security Council vote on Friday, Washington got support only from the Dominican Republic for its resolution to indefinitely extend the embargo, leaving it far short of the minimum nine "yes" votes required for adoption.

Eleven members on the 15-member body, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, abstained.

Russia and China strongly opposed extending the 13-year ban, which was due to expire on October 18 under a 2015 nuclear deal signed between Iran and six world powers.

Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, announced the defeat of the resolution ahead of a very brief virtual council meeting to reveal the vote.

"The Security Council's failure to act decisively in defense of international peace and security is inexcusable," he said in a statement.

Iran nuclear deal five years on: Uncertainty after US withdrawal (3:10)


Israel and the six Arab Gulf nations who supported the extension "know Iran will spread even greater chaos and destruction if the embargo expires", Pompeo said, "but the Security Council chose to ignore them".

Zhang Jun, China's ambassador to the UN, said in a statement that the result "once again shows that unilateralism receives no support and bullying will fail".

Washington could now follow through on a threat to trigger a return of all UN sanctions on Iran using a provision in the nuclear deal, known as snapback, even though US President Donald Trump had unilaterally abandoned the accord in 2018. On Thursday, the US had circulated to council members a six-page memo outlining why Washington remains a participant in the nuclear accord and still has the right to use the snapback provision.

In a statement after the vote, US Ambassador to the UN Kelly Craft said Washington has "every right to initiate" the snapback mechanism, and added: "In the coming days, the United States will follow through on that promise to stop at nothing to extend the arms embargo."
'Diplomatic catastrophe'

Al Jazeera's Kristen Saloomey, reporting from New York, said the US's defeat on Friday was not a surprise.

"But it's a surprise that the US bid failed so miserably," she said.

"Any party to the nuclear accord could trigger the 'snapback' provision if Iran is seen to be in violation of the accord. But Russia and China say the US's withdrawal from the deal two years ago means it has forfeited its right to do that. Other members of the council would seem to agree," she said.

"The Europeans have expressed some misgivings about conventional weapons going into Iran. But at the end of the day, they say their concern about a nuclear weapon is paramount."

Under the deal, Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief and other benefits. Following the US withdrawal and imposition of unilateral sanctions, Tehran has already scaled back compliance with parts of the accord. Diplomats have said triggering the "snapback" provision would put the fragile agreement further at risk because Iran would lose a major incentive for limiting its nuclear activities.

Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi warned Washington against trying to trigger a return of sanctions.

"Imposition of any sanctions or restrictions on Iran by the Security Council will be met severely by Iran and our options are not limited. And the United States and any entity which may assist it or acquiesce in its illegal behavior will bear the full responsibility," he said in a statement.



Iran fires missile at mock US aircraft carrier during exercise (2:00)


Jarret Blanc, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Al Jazeera the US's failed bid amounted to a "diplomatic catastrophe".

"It demonstrates that President Donald Trump and his team are not only bad at the strategy of approaching Iran, they are bad at the day to day tactics of diplomacy. It is unconscionable that the US couldn't round up more than one vote for a resolution like this."

But some analysts said they suspect that Washington put forward a hardline draft purposefully, knowing that council members would not be able to accept it.

"The fact is that everybody at the UN believes this [resolution] is just a prelude to a US effort to trigger snapback and sink the Iranian nuclear deal," Richard Gowan, a UN expert at the International Crisis Group, told AFP news agency.

While voting on the US draft resolution was under way, Russia said its President Vladimir Putin called for a meeting of leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council along with Germany and Iran to avoid escalation over US attempts to extend the Iranian arms embargo.

In statement released by the Kremlin, Putin said "the question is urgent", adding that the goal of the videoconference would be "to outline steps to avoid confrontation and exacerbation of the situation in the UN Security Council".

"If the leaders are fundamentally ready for a conversation, we propose to promptly coordinate the agenda," Putin said. "The alternative is to further build up tension, to increase the risk of conflict. This development must be avoided."

Asked if he would take part, Trump told reporters: "I hear there's something, but I haven't been told of it yet."

French President Emmanuel Macron's office confirmed France's "availability in principle" to Putin's proposal. "We have in the past deployed initiatives in the same spirit," it said.

Jarret Blanc, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, called the US’s failed bid a “diplomatic catastrophe”.

“It demonstrates that President Donald Trump and his team are not only bad at the strategy of approaching Iran, they are bad at the day to day tactics of diplomacy. It is unconscionable that it couldn’t round up more than one vote for a resolution like this.”

SOURCE: AL JAZEERA AND NEWS AGENCIES

SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/iran-cries-victory-after-us-bid-to.html

UPDATE
US Isolated for Anti-Iran Resolution at Security Council


Anti-U.S. protests in Teheran, Iran, July 4, 2020. | Photo: Twitter/ @queeralamode

Published 15 August 2020

Eleven member states abstained from the vote to extend its arms embargo on Iran, in the latest blow to U.S. unilateralism.

In a major blow to Washington’s unilateralism, the United States failed to extend the United Nations arms embargo on Iran which will expire in October.

RELATED:
Iranian President Denies US Statements on Tankers Seizures

Close U.S. allies opted to abstain from taking part in the UN Security Council (UNSC) vote on Friday, leaving the U.S. with the backing of only the Dominican Republic. The resolution needed support from nine of 15 votes to pass.

The Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the UN, Majid Takht Ravanchi, responded on social media, tweeting “The result of the vote in #UNSC on arms embargo against Iran shows—once more—the US' isolation. Council's message: NO to UNILATERALISM. US must learn from this debacle. Its attempt to “snapback" sanctions is illegal, and was rejected by int'l community, as was evident today.”

Permanent Members Russia and China voted against the unlawful resolution, while 11 countries abstained: France, Germany, UK, Belgium, Estonia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Vietnam, South Africa, Indonesia, Tunisia and Niger.

The int'l community, once again & w/ a clear voice, rejected the US reckless & futile attempt to undermine the #UNSC credibility. The #American_regime should take a listen from its total failures & stop shaming itself at UN, otherwise it will get isolated, even more than now. pic.twitter.com/mGjJfy8O9o— S.A MOUSAVI (@SAMOUSAVI9) August 15, 2020

Iran has accused the U.S. of “actively resorting to Iran-phobia and coercion” to gain support at the Council but says Washington was forced to retreat from an earlier draft resolution, after being rebuffed by UNSC members.

Commenting on the news on Saturday, President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, said the United States has generated the story about the seizure of four tankers carrying Iranian gasoline bound for Venezuela after suffering its embarrassing diplomatic defeat: “U.S. lied about seizing four Iran oil shipments in international waters. Neither the tankers nor their flags were Iranian. It was a lie to cover up humiliation at UNSC."

Venezuela’s Ambassador to the UN, Samuel Moncada, echoed the sentiments of Iranian officials saying Trump remains alone at the Security Council: “His closest associates refrain from supporting legal nonsense. Trump found the limits to his arrogance. The UN does not belong to him.”

Venezuela has also been a target of U.S. attempts to pass unilateral and hostile resolutions at the Security Council.

En voto histórico Trump se queda solo en Consejo de Seguridad ONU. Fracasó con propuesta absurda para imponer embargo de armas a Irán. Sus socios más cercanos se abstienen para no apoyar un disparate legal. Trump encontró los límites a su arrogancia.
La ONU no le pertenece. pic.twitter.com/rGEkOL1spk— Samuel Moncada (@SMoncada_VEN) August 15, 2020

The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to unlawfully trigger the so-called snapback provisions of the 2015 nuclear deal if it cannot secure an arms embargo extension.

The U.S. has turned to its maximum pressure campaign against Iran since leaving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018.

#Iran asks the world to stop the 'savage monster' #UnitedStates. pic.twitter.com/GENrgeQ4lN— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) June 19, 2019

PressTV
Foreign Ministry of Iran
by teleSUR -

SEE
https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/iran-cries-victory-after-us-bid-to.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2020/08/historic-rebuke-of-us-imperialism-un.html

UPDATED
Afghan women’s rights trailblazer survives gun attack

'THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IS A WAR FOR GIRLS & WOMEN' HILARY CLINTON

HOW'S THAT GOING 


Published on August 15, 2020 By Agence France-Presse

Fawzia Koofi (AFP)

Trailblazing Afghan women’s rights campaigner Fawzia Koofi, a member of the negotiating team that will hold peace talks with the Taliban, has been wounded in a gun attack near Kabul, officials said Saturday.

Gunmen opened fire on Koofi, 45, and her sister on Friday when they were returning from a meeting in the province of Parwan near the capital, interior ministry spokesman Tariq Arian told AFP.

Koofi, a former member of parliament and strong critic of the Taliban, was shot in her right hand, he said, adding that she was in a stable condition.

The Taliban denied they were involved in the attack on Koofi.

The attack drew strong condemnation from Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani — who described it as a “cowardly attack”, according to his spokesman Sediq Seddiqi.

Abdullah Abdullah, who heads the national reconciliation council, called on Afghan authorities to bring “the perpetrators of the attack to justice”.

The chief of Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission, Shaharzad Akbar, also condemned the “horrific attack”.

“Worrying pattern of targeted attacks that can negatively impact confidence in peace process,” she wrote on Twitter.

In recent months, there have been gun attacks against human rights activists and prosecutors in Kabul.

Koofi survived a previous assassination attempt in 2010, when gunmen fired at her as she was returning to the capital after an International Women’s Day event.


She was among the few women in a pan-Afghan delegation that held several rounds of unofficial dialogue with the Taliban in 2019.

That dialogue came alongside separate negotiations between the Islamist militants and the United States in Qatar which finally led to the signing of an agreement between the two in February this year.

At the time, Koofi told AFP how she had received threats previously from militants just for wearing nail polish.

Pride and stress

Koofi is now one of four women negotiators in the Afghan team that will hold direct talks with the Taliban in the coming days.

“I think this time we are going for serious talks,” she told AFP this week.

“There is a sense of pride… but in the meantime, it’s a lot of stress.

“You have to really make sure that you are perfect in many ways.”

Koofi, a widow and mother of two daughters, was the first girl in her family to attend school.

Her education was interrupted when she was forced out of medical college in 1996 as the Taliban stormed to power.

It was only after the US-led invasion in 2001 that she rose to prominence as a politician and in 2005, became the first woman to serve as the deputy speaker of Afghanistan’s parliament.

The talks with the Taliban are expected within days, aimed at ending the conflict that has ravaged Afghanistan for almost two decades.

Afghan authorities are currently releasing from jails some 400 Taliban militants, fulfilling a key demand from the insurgent group for any talks.

But the release has raised widespread international concern as some of those militants are accused of killing scores of people including foreigners in deadly attacks.

Female member of Afghanistan peace team survives attack by gunmen

Tariq Arian, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Fawzia Koofi, who is also a former parliamentarian, was attacked Friday afternoon near the capital Kabul.

Published: 15th August 2020 0

For representational purposes (Express Illustrations)

By Associated Press

KABUL: A female member of Afghanistan's peace negotiating team was lightly wounded in an assassination attempt, officials said Saturday.

Tariq Arian, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Fawzia Koofi, who is also a former parliamentarian, was attacked Friday afternoon near the capital Kabul while returning from a visit to the northern province of Parwan.

Koofi is part of a 21-member team charged with representing the Afghan government in upcoming peace talks with the Taliban, following a US deal with the militants that was struck in February.

The head of the Afghan peace delegation, Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, tweeted that Koofi had survived the attack and was "in good health."

Fawzia Koofi and her sister Maryam Koofi stopped at a market in the Qarabagh district when gunmen attacked them, Arian said.

Both Taliban and an Islamic State group affiliate continue to carry out attacks against Afghan government figures, but Zabihullah Maujhid, a Taliban spokesman, denied the group was involved.

Koofi is also a women's rights activist who has been a vocal Taliban critic.

A message on her Facebook page said she suffered a wound to her right arm.

"Thankfully not a life-threatening injury," it said. Arian said police were launching an investigation.

No further details of the assault were available, he said.

The US peace deal aims to recruit the Taliban to fight Islamic State militants in Afghanistan, a mutual enemy.

The Taliban and IS are staunch rivals.

The peace deal also paved the way for U.S. and NATO forces to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan and for the Taliban and Afghan government to begin direct talks.

The Afghan government said on Friday that it had released the first 80 of a final 400 Taliban prisoners ahead of direct negotiations between the two sides.

Prisoner releases on both sides are part of the agreement signed in February between the U.S. and the Taliban.

It calls for the release of 5,000 Taliban held by the government and 1,000 government and military personnel held by the insurgent group as a goodwill gesture ahead of intra-Afghan negotiations.

Talks are expected to be held in Qatar where the Taliban maintain a political office.

Several Afghan leaders told The Associated Press talks could begin by Aug. 20.

Female member of Afghan peace team survives attack by gunmen
By RAHIM FAIEZ

FILE - In this Feb. 5, 2019, file photo, Afghan politician Fawzia Koofi speaks to media before the "intra-Afghan" talks in Moscow, Russia. Koofi survived an assassination attempt, Afghan officials said Saturday, Aug. 15, 2020. A spokesman for the Interior Ministry said that Koofi was attacked late Friday afternoon near the capital of Kabul returning from a visit to the northern province of Parwan. (AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin)


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A female member of Afghanistan’s peace negotiating team was lightly wounded in an assassination attempt, officials said Saturday.

Tariq Arian, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said Fawzia Koofi, who is also a former parliamentarian, was attacked Friday afternoon near the capital Kabul while returning from a visit to the northern province of Parwan.

Koofi is part of a 21-member team charged with representing the Afghan government in upcoming peace talks with the Taliban, following a U.S. deal with the militants that was struck in February.

The head of the Afghan peace delegation, Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, tweeted that Koofi had survived the attack and was “in good health.”

Fawzia Koofi and her sister Maryam Koofi stopped at a market in the Qarabagh district when gunmen attacked them, Arian said.

Both Taliban and an Islamic State group affiliate continue to carry out attacks against Afghan government figures, but Zabihullah Maujhid, a Taliban spokesman, denied the group was involved.

Koofi is also a women’s rights activist who has been a vocal Taliban critic. A message on her Facebook page said she suffered a wound to her right arm. “Thankfully not a life threatening injury,” it said.

Arian said police were launching an investigation. No further details of the assault were available, he said.

The U.S. peace deal aims to recruit the Taliban to fight Islamic State militants in Afghanistan, a mutual enemy. The Taliban and IS are staunch rivals.

The peace deal also paved the way for U.S. and NATO forces to begin withdrawing from Afghanistan and for the Taliban and Afghan government to begin direct talks.

The Afghan government said on Friday that it had released the first 80 of a final 400 Taliban prisoners ahead of direct negotiations between the two sides.

Prisoner releases on both sides are part of the agreement signed in February between the U.S. and the Taliban. It calls for the release of 5,000 Taliban held by the government and 1,000 government and military personnel held by the insurgent group as a good will gesture ahead of intra-Afghan negotiations.

Talks are expected to be held in Qatar where the Taliban maintain a political office. Several Afghan leaders told The Associated Press talks could begin by Aug. 20.

Heeding mom, Tennessee lawmaker helped women gain the vote
By DAVID CRARY

1 of 8A statue of Febb Ensminger Burn and her son, Harry Burn, stands in downtown Knoxville, Tenn., on Feb. 3, 2020. Women in the United States were guaranteed the right to vote with ratification of the 19th Amendment — secured by a 24-year-old Tennessee legislator's decisive vote, cast at the bidding of his mother. (Brianna Paciorka/Knoxville News Sentinel via AP)


One hundred years ago this month, women in the United States were guaranteed the right to vote with ratification of the 19th Amendment — secured by a 24-year-old Tennessee legislator’s decisive vote, cast at the bidding of his mother.

Harry T. Burn’s surprise move set the stage for decades of slow but steady advances for American women in electoral politics. Two years ago, a record number of women were elected to Congress. On Tuesday, Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden selected Sen. Kamala Harris as his running mate — making her the first Black woman on a major party’s presidential ticket.

Burn, from the small town of Niota in eastern Tennessee, joined the Legislature in 1918 as its youngest member. The following year, Congress approved the 19th Amendment, touching off the battle to win ratification by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 states.

The process moved quickly at first: By March 1920, 35 states had ratified, while eight states, mostly Southern, had rejected the amendment. Of the states yet to vote, Tennessee was the only one where ratification was considered possible under prevailing political conditions.

So all eyes turned to its Legislature, where lawmakers had the power to grant the women’s suffrage movement a victory it had sought for more than 70 years or deal it a painful setback.

At that time, women in more than half the states could vote in presidential elections. But they had no statewide voting rights throughout the South and several other states.

Thousands of activists on both sides of the debate poured into Nashville ahead of the special session. The posh Hermitage Hotel became a hotbed of lobbying and political gossip.

The amendment was approved 25-4 in the state Senate and sent to the House, where sentiment was divided as its turn to vote came on Aug. 18, 1920.

Anti-suffragists believed they had the votes needed to table the amendment, but that failed in a 48-48 tie. Burn was among those supporting the motion to table.

Next came the decisive vote on whether to ratify. Onlookers expected another tie, which would have doomed the measure.

But when Burn’s turn came, he switched sides. His “aye” was so unexpected that many onlookers were unsure what they’d heard, according to various historical accounts. The amendment passed 49-47.

Some wondered if Burn had been bribed. But the next day, addressing the House, he offered an explanation.

He had received a letter from his mother, urging him to buck the anti-suffragist sentiments of many of his constituents and instead support the amendment.

“Dear Son, Hurrah and vote for suffrage!” she wrote. “Don’t forget to be a good boy and help Mrs. Catt put the ‘rat’ in ratification. Your Mother.”

That was a reference to Carrie Chapman Catt, a leading suffragist who had come to Nashville to campaign for the amendment.

Burn told the House: “I believe in full suffrage as a right.” He added: “I know that a mother’s advice is always safest for her boy to follow, and my mother wanted me to vote for ratification.”

It took decades after 1920 to reach some significant milestones. For example, no woman was elected a state governor in her own right — as opposed to succeeding her husband — until Ella Grasso in Connecticut in 1975. Even now, women hold only nine of the 50 governorships and about one-fourth of the seats in Congress.

Yet women’s commitment to voting has deepened over the decades. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, American men had higher turnout rates than women in presidential elections until 1980, while women’s turnout rate has been higher ever since. In the 2016 election, according to the center, votes were cast by 73.7 million women and 63.8 million men.

The women’s suffrage movement in the United States is widely considered to have been launched at the Seneca Falls convention in New York state in 1848. At the time, many Southerners were wary of the movement because key leaders also were engaged in anti-slavery campaigning.

By the 1910s, many Southerners were viewing the proposed 19th Amendment through a racial prism, said Marjorie Spruill, an emeritus professor of history at the University of South Carolina.

“The attitude was, ’If you ratify the 19th Amendment, you’re not a good son of the South,’” Spruill said. “‘These white radical women from outside are going to insist that Black women get the vote.’”
That opposition continued right through ratification. A few states on the periphery of the former Confederacy — Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, Texas — had preceded Tennessee in passing the amendment. But in the core of the South, opposition was solid.

Even after ratification, Black women, along with Black men, were frequently disenfranchised in Tennessee and other Southern states by Jim Crow laws with requirements for voters such as paying a poll tax, owning property and passing a literacy test.

“Black women had to continue their fight to secure voting privileges, for both men and women. ... The 19th Amendment was a starting point,” wrote Sharon Harley, a professor of African American Studies at the University of Maryland.

For white women as well, ratification did not lead swiftly to political equality. Tennessee, for example, has never elected a woman as governor, and Marsha Blackburn became its first female U.S. senator just two years ago.
Wanda Sobieski, a lawyer who led campaigns to erect suffrage memorials in her hometown of Knoxville, said women are now well represented as judges in Tennessee, including holding three of the five seats on the state Supreme Court.

But she says it’s been difficult for women to raise the funds needed to win statewide elections.

Spruill said there’s a similar pattern across the South, where only a few states have elected a woman as governor and most have opposed recent efforts to resurrect the long-derailed Equal Rights Amendment.

Mississippi, Tennessee’s neighbor to the South, was the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment, waiting 64 years before taking that step in 1984.

“In politics, sexism is alive and well,” Spruill said.



In this Aug. 19, 1920 photo made available by the Library of Congress, Alice Paul, chair of the National Woman's Party, unfurls a banner after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, at the NWP's headquarters in Washington. The women’s suffrage movement in the United States is widely considered to have been launched at the Seneca Falls convention in New York state in 1848. At the time, many Southerners were wary of the movement because key leaders also were engaged in anti-slavery campaigning. (The Crowley Company/Library of Congress via AP)

In this Oct. 23, 1915 photo made available by the Library of Congress, women march in a suffrage parade on Fifth Avenue in New York. (Library of Congress via AP)

FILE - In this Aug. 27, 1920 file photo, New York Gov. Alfred E. Smith, welcomes Carrie Chapman Catt, women's suffrage leader, on her return from Tennessee, the last state to ratify the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote, in New York. Catt carries a bouquet of blue and yellow flowers, colors of the National American Woman's Suffrage Association. (AP Photo)

In this circa 1913 photo made available by the Library of Congress, demonstrators march in a women's suffrage parade near the Capitol building in Washington. A horse and cart pulls a sign which reads, "We demand an amendment to the constitution of the United States enfranchising the women of this country." (Harris & Ewing/Library of Congress via AP)


In this circa 1911 photo made available by the Library of Congress, men look at materials posted in the window of the National Anti-Suffrage Association headquarters in the United States. (Harris & Ewing/Library of Congress via AP)

FILE - In this August 1920 file photo, Alice Paul, seated second from left, sews the 36th star on a banner, celebrating the ratification of the women's suffrage amendment. The banner flew in front of headquarters of the Women's Party in Washington of which Miss Paul was national chairperson. The 36th star represented Tennessee, whose ratification completed the number of states needed to put the amendment in the Constitution. (AP Photo)

The Tennessee Women's Suffrage Memorial stands in Knoxville, Tenn., on July 20, 2009. The statue was unveiled in August of 2006 and was sculpted by Nashville's Alan LeQuire. The statue depicts Tennessee suffragists Lizzie Crozier French, center, Anne Dallas Dudley, left, and Elizabeth Avery Meriwether. (Saul Young/Knoxville News Sentinel via AP)

USPS UPDATES
Trump ripped for saying he’s making USPS great again: ‘Guys, I think the president might be lying to us’



Published  August 15, 2020 By Bob Brigham

President Donald Trump on Saturday defending the sabotage of the U.S. Postal Service by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy.

At a pressconference at the president’s private, members-only Bedminster Golf Club, Trump said DeJoy was trying to make the USPS “great again.”

Here’s some of what people were saying about his comments:

President Trump on his support for Postmaster General DeJoy: "He's a fantastic man. He wants to make the post office great again. You ever hear the expression? He wants to make the post office great again. The post office is catastrophe."
— Craig Caplan (@CraigCaplan) August 15, 2020

By doing this? pic.twitter.com/SqPH6fn7Re
— Maureen (@momads99) August 15, 2020



Perhaps I'm just a bit confused, but I'm unable to see how delaying mail for weeks makes the Post Office great?
— Scott L (@The1wiggin) August 15, 2020

We will be retiring the word “great,” once this hell is over. Right, @MerriamWebster ? Right?
— Robin L (@RobinLuvsDisney) August 15, 2020

Or profiting off of them.
— Corinne – I didn't see sh*t (@CorinneFavero) August 15, 2020

Guys I think the president might be lying to us
— Fleetwood Macintosh (@trubisky10) August 15, 2020

Trump says his campaign donor who was appointed as postmaster general has his backing for efforts to undermine services, which are delaying the delivery of life-saving medicine, paychecks and other needs: “He wants to make the post office great again.” pic.twitter.com/7WNLyQibtK
— DNC War Room (@DNCWarRoom) August 15, 2020

The way he makes things great again seem at odds with the definition.
— Lee Goettl Voices (@leegoettl) August 15, 2020

Jesus Christ. https://t.co/BsG5Z8MWWL
— IllinoisNewDemocratRicoP (@reesetheone1) August 15, 2020

The Postal Service is our only hope, enshrined in the US Constitution…Trump’s brazen attempt to sabotage one is sabotaging both.
I:8:7 "To establish Post Offices" pic.twitter.com/3G6smG3pmN
— Raziel Abulafia (@AbuRaziel) August 15, 2020

The repeated problem is @realDonaldTrump’s lack of understanding of the definition of making something “great again.”

His blatant undermining and attempted deconstruction of the U.S. Post Office is the real “catastrophe.”#TrumpPressBriefing #TrumpPressConference pic.twitter.com/VLfIXROsce
— American Bridge 21st Century (@American_Bridge) August 15, 2020

WATCH: Protesters dump ballots outside of USPS head Louis DeJoy’s home

August 15, 2020 By Matthew Chapman


On Saturday morning, angry crowds of protesters gathered outside of pro-Trump Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s residence in Washington, D.C. to protest his organizational changes rolling back capacity at the Postal Service — changes widely suspected of sabotaging mail-in voting ahead of the November election.

The protesters banged together pots and pans and blew air horns. Many of them gathered at the entrance holding fake mail-in ballots and shoved them into the bars of his front door.

Watch below:
Upon arrival…. pic.twitter.com/Y4ipb7iyNx
— John Domen (@JDDsays) August 15, 2020Now they’re putting fake (blank) ballots on the front door of the building for delivery pic.twitter.com/er1hfhTAsP
— John Domen (@JDDsays) August 15, 2020

Maddow reveals how one state stood up to Trump’s USPS cuts — and won
 August 14, 2020
By Bob Brigham

The host of 'The Rachel Maddow Show' on MSNBC (screengrab)

MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow’s opening segment on Friday focused on a positive story of political pressure stopping one of the Trump administration’s attacks on the U.S. Postal Service.

Maddow reported how NBC Montana reporter Maritsa Georgiou had doggedly reported on the removal of postal boxes in Missoula, where she is based. Missoula has been a long-time Democratic Party stronghold.

Montana has a competitive U.S. Senate election in 2020, with Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock challenging first-term Republican Sen. Steve Daines.

As Georgiou chased the story, she learned there were also plans to remove boxes in the battleground of Billings. And more planned for the blue town of Bozeman. And other towns.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was already focused on the issue, but Georgiou’s reporting and the public attention got both Republicans in the congressional delegation, Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte, to issue critical statements.

By the end of the day, the Postal Service in Montana had dropped the plans to remove the boxes.

Here’s the final product that hit the 5pm news tonight. Thanks to all of you for helping share this today! #mtnews #mtpol #USPS pic.twitter.com/SZYuODzYwY
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

“If the Trump administration thinks that Republican voters can somehow be talked into the idea that slowing down the mail and stealing all the mailboxes is great for America and therefore Republican senators and members of Congress will go along with it and cheer for it, that just might need more thought given the way the post office works in all of our lives,” Maddow explained.

“This is the kind of fight that most Americans have a side they want to be on and it is not the side that is stealing the mailboxes and telling us that, ‘Yeah, I don’t think it’s going to work out for you to get your ballot in on time.’ But the important thing here is that pushback works,” she reported

“They were planning on doing this everywhere and then people got really mad when they noticed them doing it and they screamed and yelled and that stopped them,” Maddow explained “In this era, especially as we are getting closer and closer to the election and this stuff is getting more and more blatant and overt, hoping for the best doesn’t work, right? Shame doesn’t work. We’ve seen the president flat out admit it, right? That he’s doing this stuff for the reasons we know he’s doing it. Hope doesn’t work, shame doesn’t work, but noise does, it turns out. Not always, but it’s sort of the only thing that’s working now.”

“Locally focused outrage and complaint and hard questions and ‘We’re not going to take it!’ sometimes works. At least it did today in Montana and then very soon thereafter nationwide. You can thank Montana, I believe, for having saved your state from going through this same thing maybe even before the rest of us knew it was starting to happen,” Maddow concluded

Watch Read Maritsa Georgiou’s full thread:

The Montana Letter Carriers Union just confirmed the removal of 13 in Missoula, 9 in Bozeman, and orders to remove 3 in Lewistown and 30 in Billings. #mtnews #USPS
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020A source that wishes to stay anonymous just sent me this email, outlining the order to remove USPS collection boxes in Missoula. One is outside Target. Several are downtown. #mtnews #USPS pic.twitter.com/LPYkPVbUhA

— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

Spox for @SteveDaines says: "The senator is looking into the situation and has strong concerns with reports of boxes being removed and impacts to service times. The senator is a strong advocate for the USPS And will continue working to ensure the USPS is working for Montanans."
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

I just looked up all of the addresses of the Missoula collection boxes on the removal list. Take a look: #mtnews #USPS pic.twitter.com/X0tITx2hUU
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

You can add @GregForMontana to the list of Montana lawmakers writing letters. His team just sent me this letter to Postmaster General after I reached out to them earlier. #mtpol #mtnews #USPS pic.twitter.com/OenPaRxJ2r
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

Add @GovernorBullock to the list of politicians writing the Postmaster General about the Montana USPS boxes. #mtpol #mtnews #USPS pic.twitter.com/J6BtsKCrlr
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

Also, couldn’t have done this today without the help of @marwhi @Swyberg3 and @darrenNBCMT . Thanks so much to them!
— Maritsa Georgiou (@MaritsaNBCMT) August 14, 2020

Buying stamps won’t stop Trump from destroying the postal system


on August 15, 2020
By Matthew Rozsa, Salon - Commentary
(

AFP / JIM WATSON)
News of a financial crisis at the United States Postal Service (USPS) has led to a public call urging Americans to buy stamps to save the country’s beloved mail system and prevent the delay of mail-in ballots in November’s election. Articles published in both Hyperallergic and Lifehacker promoted the idea that buying stamps could save the USPS. Back in April, before Trump began gutting the post office for political reasons, people who cared about the postal service were urging others to buy stamps in the hope that this would save it

These calls to buy stamps appear logical in theory: the post office is being defunded by the Trump administration, and stamps give money to them.

But there’s just one problem: Consumers buying stamps won’t do anything to save the postal system. The postal service is not like a lemonade stand. Indeed, the problems created by Trump (and, previously, George W. Bush) are definitely structural and run much deeper.

The USPS’s crisis exists largely because Trump cut funding for the post office and implemented other policies that slow mail delivery. Trump actually told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on Thursday that he deliberately weakened the post office, and said that move would make universal vote-by-mail impossible.

“They need that money in order to have the Post Office work, so it can take all of these millions of ballots,” Trump told Bartiromo. “If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting. Because they’re not equipped.”

He made a similar remark during a press briefing on Wednesday, telling reporters that “They don’t have the money to do the universal mail-in voting. So therefore, they can’t do it, I guess. Are they going to do it even if they don’t have the money?”

The partisan attack on the US postal system is certainly troubling. Indeed, the post office is a venerated institution that qualifies as one of America’s signal achievements, both technologically and as an institution of effective, competent government. Moreover, Trump’s claim that mail-in voting leads to fraud is provably false — one political scientist, Edie Goldenberg, found that since 2000 there have only been 204 allegations and 143 convictions for voter fraud that involved mail-in ballots out of 250 million mail-in ballots that were cast. Hence, it seems that Trump’s goal is to suppress mail-in votes in the hope that it will win him the election.

The entire debacle is an unprecedented, anti-democratic backslide. Still, buying stamps is not the solution.

“Should you buy stamps to show your support for the post office? Yes. Will it generate the money the post office desperately needs? No,” David Morris, the co-founder of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and a longstanding advocate of the USPS, told Salon by email. “If Americans were to buy 1 billion first class stamps — about 4 per household — it would constitute a resounding vote of confidence and support. On the other hand, it would generate only about $500 million [in revenue]. Most observers believe the post office needs an immediate injection of $25 billion. Only Congress can make that happen.”

Morris noted that the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives is trying to do that but is being met with opposition by Trump and the Republican-controlled Senate

The blame for the post office’s slow decay is not entirely the fault of Trump — or, for that matter, of the Republican Party. In 2006, Congress passed a bill called the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, one that required the postal service to set aside billions of dollars over a ten-year period to pay for the next 75 years of retiree health benefits. This policy, and this policy alone (one that is not used for any other governmental agency or corporation), is why the postal service has experienced such serious budgetary problems.

After forcing the post office into a budget crisis with the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, conservatives argued that the post office should be privatized, pointing to the budgetary problems that they, ironically, created. Barring that, Republicans have demanded layoffs and service cuts, actions that do nothing to address the absurd policy that is causing the USPS’ problems but go a long way toward hurting working class Americans and simultaneously making the postal service less efficient. As early as 2012, Senate Democrats — along with a then-obscure independent senator named Bernie Sanders — were urging Congress to save the postal service by ending the pre-funding mandate, permitting a refund of billions in overpayments to pension funds and encouraging the agency to diversity its services.

These approaches would make sense if the goal was to save one of America’s most venerated and historically successful public institutions. It does not wash, though, if the objective is sell it to some private enterprise for the enrichment of a few at the expense of the many.

So the post office’s crisis doesn’t originate in a dearth of stamp purchases. But there’s another, bigger problem with the premise of buying stamps to save the post office, as Morris explains. “The post office only recognizes the revenue generated by selling stamps when ‘services are rendered,’ which means when you use the stamps,” he says. “So we’d have to initiate a massive letter writing campaign to go along with our massive stamp buying initiative.”

Rebecca Brenner Graham, a PhD student at American University writing her dissertation about the USPS, made a similar point to Salon in an email.

“Movement to buy stamps: It’s nice. If everyone stopped buying stamps, that would be a big problem,” Graham explained. “But the movement to buy stamps alone is too little too late. It is the equivalent of individuals donating to charity in the wake of a natural disaster when the federal government needs to send FEMA or big aid packages. Of course, people should continue buying stamps and donating to charities after national disasters. But we need the federal government to act and to act big.”

Critical to understanding why buying stamps alone won’t work, of course, is breaking down precisely how the postal system was slowly destroyed and understanding Trump’s motivations.

“There’s three main ways that he’s doing this,” Jason Johnson, a professor of political science and journalism at Morgan State University, told Salon. “The first is [Postmaster General Louis] DeJoy came in and eliminated 23 positions for postal executives, sort of regional directors. He just eliminated regional directors and then only replaced like a third of them. And these are people responsible for managing mail” — the kind of work that involves directing employees, resources, mail machines and the like, Johnson explained.

Johnson noted that Trump has also weakened the postal service by eliminating overtime, which will make employees refuse to work several extra hours on top of their shifts since they won’t be fairly compensated for doing so. He also pointed out that the post office usually hires extra people on September through November in advance of the Christmas season — meaning that “cutting back on overtime has no purpose other than to try to make it more difficult for post office workers to pick up mail and bring it in.”

Johnson also drew attention to Trump removing 20 percent of the letter sorting machines used around the country (a decision that seemed to predate DeJoy’s tenure), explaining that “these sorting machines are critical because that’s what allows you to tell what size mail from another. A mail-in ballot has a very specific size.”

He explained that without sorting machines, workers have to hand-sort mail, which increases the probability that mail gets mis-sorted or trapped in a flier or a magazine. “So at a technical level, you’ll have fewer people getting your mail actually getting sorted in any reasonable amount of time. And then when people report those problems to their superiors, you won’t have experienced people there in order to solve a problem.”

Greg Palast, a journalist who has extensively covered voter fraud and voter suppression cases, told Salon by email that the problems with the post office are “only a tiny part of the problem.”

“Even if the ballots get through the post office, there will be mass challenges,” Palast explained. “That’s what Trump’s 50,000 strong volunteer army is for. It’s not for voter intimidation, it’s for challenging and canceling votes. Challenges to signatures — which cost 625,000 voters their vote in 2016 — quintuple that for this year. The Democrats will need an army to challenge the challenges.”

He added, “As to the post office, Democrats better have plans for mass legal ballot harvesting to take vote straight into county election board officers. The post office must be bypassed at all costs which can be done in almost every state.”

Some voters may see the postal situation and opt to vote in person on November 3 this year — a proposition that could pose significant health risks given the pandemic.

Post Office warns states across US about mail voting
By BRIAN SLODYSKO and AMY BETH HANSON

1 of 6
FILE - In this May 28, 2020, file photo, mail-in primary election ballots are processed at the Chester County Voter Services office in West Chester, Pa. Gov. Tom Wolf's top election official said Friday, Aug. 14, that the administration had to take action after receiving a blunt warning from the U.S. Postal Service that it may be unable to deliver some mail-in ballots in the November presidential election by the deadline in state law. That warning precipitated Thursday night's filing in the state Supreme Court asking for an order to extend the deadline for mail-in ballots to be received in the Nov. 3 election when Pennsylvania will be a premier presidential battleground. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)


WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Postal Service is warning states coast to coast that it cannot guarantee all ballots cast by mail for the November election will arrive in time to be counted, even if mailed by state deadlines, raising the possibility that millions of voters could be disenfranchised.

Voters and lawmakers in several states are also complaining that some curbside mail collection boxes are being removed.

Even as President Donald Trump rails against wide-scale voting by mail, the post office is bracing for an unprecedented number of mail-in ballots as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

The warning letters sent to states raise the possibility that many Americans eligible for mail-in ballots this fall will not have them counted. But that is not the intent, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in his own letter to Democratic congressional leaders.

The post office is merely “asking elected officials and voters to realistically consider how the mail works, and be mindful of our delivery standards, in order to provide voters ample time to cast ballots through the mail,” wrote DeJoy, a prominent Trump political donor who was recently appointed.

The back-and-forth comes amid a vigorous campaign by Trump to sow doubts about mail-in voting as he faces a difficult fight for reelection against Democrat Joe Biden.





Though Trump casts his own ballots by mail, he’s repeatedly criticized efforts to allow more people to do so, which he argues without evidence will lead to increased voter fraud that could cost him the election. Meanwhile, members of Congress from both parties have voiced concerns that curbside mail boxes, which is how many will cast their ballots, have abruptly been removed in some states.

At the same time that the need for timely delivery of the mail is peaking, service has been curtailed amid cost-cutting and efficiency measures ordered by the DeJoy, the new postmaster general, who is a former supply-chain CEO . He has implemented measures to eliminate overtime pay and hold mail over if distribution centers are running late.

The federal watchdog of the Postal Service has opened an inquiry into operational changes at the agency that have delayed mail deliveries across the country, a spokeswoman said Friday. That comes after Sen. Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and eight other Democrats sent a letter requesting a review.

The Post Office released copies of the warning letters it sent to all 50 states and the District Columbia on its website. While some states were given a less stringent warning, the majority were told the situation could be more dire.

The laws, the letter said, create a “risk that ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not be returned by mail in time to be counted.”

The mass mailing of the warning letters was first reported by The Washington Post.

Many state officials criticized the move.

“This is a deeply troubling development in what is becoming a clear pattern of attempted voter suppression by the Trump administration,” Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam said in a statement. “I am committed to making sure all Virginians have access to the ballot box, and will continue to work with state and federal lawmakers to ensure safe, secure and accessible elections this fall.”

Kim Wyman, the Republican secretary of state in Washington state, where all voting is by mail, said sending fall ballot material to millions of voters there is a “routine operation of the U.S. Postal Service.”

“Politicizing these administrative processes is dangerous and undermines public confidence in our elections,” she said in a statement. “This volume of work is by no means unusual, and is an operation I am confident the U.S. Postal Service is sufficiently prepared to fulfill.”

Meanwhile, the removal of Postal Service collection mail boxes triggered concerns and anger in Oregon and Montana.

In Montana, postal officials said the removals were part of a program to eliminate underused drop boxes. But after the outcry, which included upset members of Congress, the officials said they were suspending the program in Montana. It was unclear if the program was suspended in other states.

At least 25 mail boxes were removed in mid-July in Montana with another 30 scheduled to be taken away soon, said Julie Quilliam, president of the Montana Letter Carriers Association. She rejected the claim that the boxes were removed because of low usage.

“Some of the boxes scheduled to be removed from downtown Billings are nearly overflowing daily,” Quilliam wrote in a Facebook message.

All three members of Montana’s congressional delegation — two of whom are Republican — raised concerns about the removal of mail boxes in letters sent to Postmaster DeJoy.

“These actions set my hair on fire and they have real life implications for folks in rural America and their ability to access critical postal services like paying their bills and voting in upcoming elections,” said Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat.

Republican Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte, also a Republican, raised similar concerns in letters to DeJoy about the effect the removal of the mail boxes might have on delivery times. All three asked for information on how the agency decided which boxes to remove and whether any more removals were planned.

“During the current public health crisis it is more important than ever the USPS continue to provide prompt, dependable delivery service,” said Gianforte.

Postal Service spokesperson Ernie Swanson said the Oregon removals were due to declining mail volume and that duplicate mail boxes were taken from places that had more than one. The Postal Service said four mail boxes were removed in Portland this week.

“First-class mail volume has declined significantly in the U.S., especially since the pandemic,” Swanson said. “That translates to less mail in collection boxes.”

Separately, the National Association of Letter Carriers, which represents 300,000 current and retired workers, endorsed Biden.

The union said Trump has been hostile to the post office and has undermined it and its workers while Biden “is — was — and will continue to be — a fierce ally and defender of the United States Postal Service,” said union president Fredric Rolando.

___

Hanson reported from Helena, Montana. Associated Press writers across the U.S. contributed to this report.