The fake news is coming from inside the White House, and it could influence who lives there next.
Earlier this month, Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society released a working paper studying mail-in voting disinformation campaigns. Using a quantitative and qualitative study of millions of tweets and tens of thousands of Facebook posts and news stories about mail-in voter fraud — the persistent but debunked idea that people are illegally using mail-in ballots to meaningfully sway elections — the study found that President Trump was largely responsible for spreading that disinformation.
In particular, the study found that the president himself, on Twitter as well as through press conferences and interviews, was the main source of falsehoods about mail-in voter fraud. In turn, right-wing media organizations and media organizations in general abetted the spread of that misinformation by uncritically parroting it without full context.
The intention is to get people to believe mail-in voting is faulty precisely as 80 million people are set to vote by mail this year, due to the coronavirus. Uncertainty about the mail-in voting process has the potential to subdue voter turnout and undermine faith in the outcome of the upcoming election.
This is hardly the only misinformation campaign being led by Trump this year. A recent Cornell study found the president to be the largest driver of coronavirus misinformation as well. In conjunction with lies about mail-in voting, these two campaigns not only jeopardize the health of millions of Americans, but also stand to sway the election results.
We spoke with the lead author of the mail-in voting study, Yochai Benkler, about how this disinformation campaign works, why it’s so insidious, and what can be done about it. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.
What’s your main takeaway from mail-in voting disinformation?
This looks like a political- and media-elite driven disinformation campaign by the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, directly from the media elites to mass media — and then social media sort of chimes in and secondarily amplifies it and circulates around. But the primary driver is Trump, his campaign, the RNC, and other sorts of Republican leadership. And the primary vector is straight through mass media: Fox media and talk radio on the right, and the rest of the media ecosystem.
So this sort of contradicts the narrative that misinformation wells up from the dark corners of the internet, from 8chan, QAnon and things like that. This is from the top down, from the president.
Absolutely. And I want to clarify, though, that I don’t think that because we found that that’s true in this critically important area nothing matters about QAnon or nothing matters about the internet. That’s an easy way to misunderstand what we’re saying. What we found is that in this area — and the truth is it’s also true in many things related to Covid and masks and a variety of others — that is simply not happening.
You said that the media also perpetuates disinformation, and I get that with Fox News and things like that, but are you also saying that, just by covering it, the media is doing so, too?
It depends on how significant the intervention is and it depends even more on how you’ll cover it. So, not every time the president says something it’s news just because he said it. It doesn’t have to be. If yesterday, there was a big story about the highest job losses ever and today, the president comes out and says something outrageous about cutting funding to states, you shouldn’t fall into the trap of saying, “Oh, there’s a new agenda item, let’s put that in the headline,” and forget about yesterday’s. And sometimes he uses it that way: “There’s bad news on the economy. There’s bad news on Covid. Let me say something outrageous.” And immediately you change the agenda.
So how should and shouldn’t presidential misinformation be covered?
So if you’re reporting: “On Thursday, the president said that mail-in voter fraud is a major issue, Democrats objected. Republicans said the Democrats are trying to steal the election, etc.” You’re creating a problem.
If you say, “On Thursday, once again, the president falsely stated that mail-in voting is full of fraud. Consensus of all of the studies that have been made independently is that mail-in voting is safe and an important way to vote during a pandemic.” That’s different. Which of the two you do is really what shapes what the people who don’t yet have a view will think about it.
Yes, you have to cover him because he’s the president. No, not every tweet is news. Yes, everything needs 15 to 30 minutes more of thought on how you frame it. You need an editorial equivalent of a four second lag to figure out what you’re not carrying and why you’re not carrying it. Why is he trying to change the subject if he’s trying to change the subject?
What is the point of misinformation around mail-in voting?
The voter fraud frame has been used by Republicans to set barriers on a background theory that they gain electorally from depressing turnout, particularly depressing turnout in urban and minority populations.
And disinformation about mail-in voting dovetails with the misinformation around the coronavirus pandemic.
The president and Republican Party have been trying, have been persuading their followers that Covid-19 is not a big issue. There’s a real gap in personal concern about the disease between Republicans and Democrats, which presumably will translate at some level into who does and doesn’t show up at the polls because they’re afraid to get sick. And so if you’re able to eliminate mail-in voting completely, let’s say for the moment, you have a built-in advantage from the fact that you’ve already propagandized to your followers that Covid-19 is not a big deal, right?
Why did you focus on mail-in voting disinformation in this study, rather than all the other disinformation out there?
I want to distinguish here between narrow things like QAnon — Democrats running a global pedophilia ring, which even if they have tens of thousands, even if they have hundreds of thousands, even if there are 2 million people who believe it, that’s not going to move a 330 million person democracy one way or the other — and questions of, “Who’s to blame for the economic collapse? Is it directly tied to responsibility for dealing with Covid or not? How poorly are we doing? Are we doing poorly? Or how bad is the disease? And how poorly was it managed?” These are the big things that are weighing at the 100 million voter level when you look at surveys of what people care about.
From a historical standpoint, have politicians and their attendant news organizations always spread disinformation at this level, or is this especially bad because we have President Trump who’s so forthright about disinformation? Like, is this worse than it used to be? Or is this just par for the course?
Ask people in the Middle East about whether weapons of mass destruction were worse or better as a disinformation campaign at a national level. We tend to have such a strong sense of the crisis of the moment. Think of the 1960s, where the president, the leading presidential candidate, and the two major civil rights leaders were assassinated in the span of six years. Yeah, things are bad. But democracy in America has always been attacked in many ways internally.
Good point. Let’s try a different tack. The refrain that I keep hearing is that social media makes everything worse since you’re able to spread this disinformation at scale. Do disinformation campaigns last longer, or are they more powerful because of social media?
You think that North Korea is strong on social media? You think that Pravda was social media? The Committee on Public Information in World War I was the origin. This is pre-radio, we’re talking about newspapers and the penny press and posters. As soon as the public, as the masses are invented at the beginning of the 20th century, we see the emergence of propaganda as a discipline. There’s an elite that wants power. And it’s using and developing the techniques, the most cutting edge techniques it can, to control the population.
So social media is just the technology of the day with which they’re doing the same thing?
As it turns out, even that’s an overstatement. Because Fox News, if you look at all of the Pew surveys from the last seven or eight months, the group of Republicans who are most on message are the people who say that they only get news from Fox News and talk radio. Anybody who gets news from anything else, which includes online sources, is less single-mindedly loyal to the perspective of the party. So if all you consume is Pravda, that is to say Fox News and talk radio, you believe in the party line. If you get a little bit of samizdat on the side, you’re not quite so sure.
Recently Facebook banned QAnon and Holocaust denial, and took down a Trump post that incorrectly said the flu is more deadly than Covid. Twitter is noting when the president tweets misinformation and is generally trying to dissuade people from sharing falsehoods. What’s your take on efforts by social media companies to curtail disinformation on their platforms?
On these big campaigns — the economy, Covid, and voter fraud — I think it’s okay for them to do it. They can try, particularly when the people they’re constraining are known elites. I think that’s a place where using powerful corporate power to contain powerful political elites is not too bad.
I doubt that it will be hugely influential if tomorrow you shut down Trump’s Twitter handle. He would not meaningfully lose access to the people he wants to lead because as it is, even on this campaign, he uses his daily press briefings and picks up the phone to Maria Bartiromo or Sean Hannity on the radio and he makes his comment, so he’ll go find a different venue.
What’s the downside in trying?
I am worried about a handful of very powerful corporations getting legitimacy to navigate public discourse. We are facing such a challenge that we’re at risk of making bad precedent. Just like traditional journalists want to appear neutral, there’s enormous pressure on Facebook and Twitter not to appear biased against the right. So you have completely asymmetric levels of propaganda, which means if you actually had neutral application of the policies, you’d get massively more enforcement against right-wing than left-wing stories, just because that’s the origin of most of the propaganda at the moment. But if you’re trying to actually look even-handed, then suddenly, you’re going to make up some antifa groups that are not antifa groups at all, but happen to have a lefty orientation, you’re going to shut them down. You’re going to look even-handed under conditions that are not actually symmetric and even.
I have a long-term concern about imagining that we can solve really foundational tensions in our democracy by giving more power to a tiny number of extremely powerful companies to shape how we talk about our relations in the society.
Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.
All the products we found to be the best during our testing this year
Throughout the year, CNN Underscored is constantly testing products — be it coffee makers or headphones — to find the absolute best in each respective category.
Our testing process is rigorous, consisting of hours of research (consulting experts, reading editorial reviews and perusing user ratings) to find the top products in each category. Once we settle on a testing pool, we spend weeks — if not months — testing and retesting each product multiple times in real-world settings. All this in an effort to settle on the absolute best products.
So, as we enter peak gifting season, if you’re on the hunt for the perfect gift, we know you’ll find something on this list that they (or you!) will absolutely love.
Beginner baristas and coffee connoisseurs alike will be pleased with the Baratza Virtuoso+, a conical burr grinder with 40 settings for grind size, from super fine (espresso) to super coarse (French press). The best coffee grinder we tested, this sleek look and simple, intuitive controls, including a digital timer, allow for a consistent grind every time — as well as optimal convenience.
Best drip coffee maker: Braun KF6050WH BrewSense Drip Coffee Maker ($79.95; amazon.com)
During our testing of drip coffee makers, we found the Braun KF6050WH BrewSense Drip Coffee Maker made a consistently delicious, hot cup of coffee, brewed efficiently and cleanly, from sleek, relatively compact hardware that is turnkey to operate, and all for a reasonable price.
Best single-serve coffee maker: Breville-Nespresso VertuoPlus ($165; originally $179.95; amazon.com)
Among all single-serve coffee makers we tested, the Breville-Nespresso VertuoPlus, which uses pods that deliver both espresso and “regular” coffee, could simply not be beat for its convenience. Intuitive and a snap to use right out of the box, it looks sleek on the counter, contains a detached 60-ounce water reservoir so you don’t have to refill it with each use and delivers perfectly hot, delicious coffee with a simple tap of a lever and press of a button.
Best coffee subscription: Blue Bottle (starting at $11 per shipment; bluebottlecoffee.com)
Blue Bottle’s coffee subscription won us over with its balance of variety, customizability and, most importantly, taste. We sampled both the single-origin and blend assortments and loved the flavor of nearly every single cup we made. The flavors are complex and bold but unmistakably delicious. Beyond its coffee, Blue Bottle’s subscription is simple and easy to use, with tons of options to tailor to your caffeine needs.
Best cold brewer coffee maker: Hario Mizudashi Cold Brew Coffeepot ($25; amazon.com)
This sleek, sophisticated and streamlined carafe produces 1 liter (about 4 1/4 cups) of rich, robust brew in just eight hours. It was among the simplest to assemble, it executed an exemplary brew in about the shortest time span, and it looked snazzy doing it. Plus, it rang up as the second-most affordable of our inventory.
Best nonstick pan: T-fal E76597 Ultimate Hard Anodized Nonstick Fry Pan With Lid ($39.97; amazon.com)
If you’re a minimalist and prefer to have just a single pan in your kitchen, you’d be set with the T-fal E76597. This pan’s depth gives it multipurpose functionality: It cooks standard frying-pan foods like eggs and meats, and its 2 1/2-inch sides are tall enough to prepare recipes you’d usually reserve for pots, like rices and stews. It’s a high-quality and affordable pan that outperformed some of the more expensive ones in our testing field.
Best blender: Breville Super Q ($499.95; breville.com)
With 1,800 watts of motor power, the Breville Super Q features a slew of preset buttons, comes in multiple colors, includes key accessories and is touted for being quieter than other models. At $500, it does carry a steep price tag, but for those who can’t imagine a smoothie-less morning, what breaks down to about $1.30 a day over a year seems like a bargain.
Best knife set: Chicago Cutlery Fusion 17-Piece Knife Block Set ($119.74; amazon.com)
The Chicago Cutlery Fusion 17-Piece Knife Block Set sets you up to easily take on almost any cutting job and is a heck of a steal at just $119.97. Not only did the core knives included (chef’s, paring, utility and serrated) perform admirably, but the set included a bevy of extras, including a full set of steak knives. We were blown away by their solid construction and reliable execution for such an incredible value. The knives stayed sharp through our multitude of tests, and we were big fans of the cushion-grip handles that kept them from slipping, as well as the classic look of the chestnut-stained wood block. If you’re looking for a complete knife set you’ll be proud of at a price that won’t put a dent in your savings account, this is the clear winner.
Best true wireless earbuds: AirPods Pro ($199, originally $249; amazon.com)
Apple’s AirPods Pro hit all the marks. They deliver a wide soundstage, thanks to on-the-fly equalizing tech that produces playback that seemingly brings you inside the studio with the artist. They have the best noise-canceling ability of all the earbuds we tested, which, aside from stiff-arming distractions, creates a truly immersive experience. To sum it up, you’re getting a comfortable design, a wide soundstage, easy connectivity and long battery life.
Best noise-canceling headphones: Sony WH-1000XM4 ($278, originally $349.99; amazon.com)
Not only do the WH-1000XM4s boast class-leading sound, but phenomenal noise-canceling ability. So much so that they ousted our former top overall pick, the Beats Solo Pros, in terms of ANC quality, as the over-ear XM4s better seal the ear from outside noise. Whether it was a noise from a dryer, loud neighbors down the hall or high-pitched sirens, the XM4s proved impenetrable. This is a feat that other headphones, notably the Solo Pros, could not compete with — which is to be expected considering their $348 price tag.
Best on-ear headphones: Beats Solo 3 ($119.95, originally $199.95; amazon.com)
The Beats Solo 3s are a phenomenal pair of on-ear headphones. Their sound quality was among the top of those we tested, pumping out particularly clear vocals and instrumentals alike. We enjoyed the control scheme too, taking the form of buttons in a circular configuration that blend seamlessly into the left ear cup design. They are also light, comfortable and are no slouch in the looks department — more than you’d expect given their reasonable $199.95 price tag.
The Stila Stay All Day Liquid Lipstick has thousands of 5-star ratings across the internet, and it’s easy to see why. True to its name, this product clings to your lips for hours upon hours, burritos and messy breakfast sandwiches be damned. It’s also surprisingly moisturizing for such a superior stay-put formula, a combo that’s rare to come by.
The Stila Stay All Day Waterproof Liquid Eyeliner is a longtime customer favorite — hence its nearly 7,500 5-star reviews on Sephora — and for good reason. We found it requires little to no effort to create a precise wing, the liner has superior staying power and it didn’t irritate those of us with sensitive skin after full days of wear. As an added bonus, it’s available in a whopping 12 shades.
The Steelcase Series 1 scored among the highest overall, standing out as one of the most customizable, high-quality, comfortable office chairs on the market. At $415, the Steelcase Series 1 beat out most of its pricier competitors across testing categories, scoring less than a single point lower than our highest-rated chair, the $1,036 Steelcase Leap, easily making it the best bang for the buck and a clear winner for our best office chair overall.
Best ergonomic keyboard: Logitech Ergo K860 ($129.99; logitech.com)
We found the Logitech Ergo K860 to be a phenomenally comfortable keyboard. Its build, featuring a split keyboard (meaning there’s a triangular gap down the middle) coupled with a wave-like curvature across the body, allows both your shoulders and hands to rest in a more natural position that eases the tension that can often accompany hours spent in front of a regular keyboard. Add the cozy palm rest along the bottom edge and you’ll find yourself sitting pretty comfortably.
Best ergonomic mouse: Logitech MX Master 3 ($99.99; logitech.com)
The Logitech MX Master 3 is an unequivocally comfortable mouse. It’s shaped to perfection, with special attention to the fingers that do the clicking. Using it felt like our fingers were lounging — with a sculpted ergonomic groove for nearly every finger.
Best ring light: Emart 10-Inch Selfie Ring Light ($25.99; amazon.com)
The Emart 10-Inch Standing Ring Light comes with a tripod that’s fully adjustable — from 19 inches to 50 inches — making it a great option whether you’re setting it atop your desk for video calls or need some overhead lighting so no weird shadows creep into your photos. Its three light modes (warm, cool and a nice mix of the two), along with 11 brightness levels (among the most settings on any of the lights we tested), ensure you’re always framed in the right light. And at a relatively cheap $35.40, this light combines usability and affordability better than any of the other options we tested.
Best linen sheets: Parachute Linen Sheet Set (starting at $149; parachute.com)
Well made, luxurious to the touch and with the most versatile shopping options (six sizes, nine colors and the ability to order individual sheets), the linen sheets from Parachute were, by a narrow margin, our favorite set. From the satisfying unboxing to a sumptuous sleep, with a la carte availability, Parachute set the gold standard in linen luxury.
Best shower head: Kohler Forte Shower Head (starting at $74.44; amazon.com)
Hands down, the Kohler Forte Shower Head provides the best overall shower experience, offering three distinct settings. Backstory: Lots of shower heads out there feature myriad “settings” that, when tested, are pretty much indecipherable. The Forte’s three sprays, however, are each incredibly different and equally successful. There’s the drenching, full-coverage rain shower, the pulsating massage and the “silk spray” setting that is basically a super-dense mist. The Forte manages to achieve all of this while using only 1.75 gallons per minute (GPM), making it a great option for those looking to conserve water.
Best humidifier: TaoTronics Cool Mist Humidifier (starting at $49.99; amazon.com)
The TaoTronics Cool Mist Humidifier ramped up the humidity in a room in about an hour, which was quicker than most of the options we tested. More importantly, though, it sustained those humidity levels over the longest period of time — 24 hours, to be exact. The levels were easy to check with the built-in reader (and we cross-checked that reading with an external reader to confirm accuracy). We also loved how easy this humidifier was to clean, and the nighttime mode for the LED reader eliminated any bright lights in the bedroom.
Best TV: TCL 6-Series (starting at $579.99; bestbuy.com)
With models starting at $599.99 for a 55-inch, the TCL 6-Series might give you reverse sticker shock considering everything you get for that relatively small price tag. But can a 4K smart TV with so many specification standards really deliver a good picture for $500? The short answer: a resounding yes. The TCL 6-Series produces a vibrant picture with flexible customization options and handles both HDR and Dolby Vision, optimization standards that improve the content you’re watching by adding depth to details and expanding the color spectrum.
Best streaming device: Roku Ultra ($99.99; amazon.com)
Roku recently updated its Ultra streaming box and the 2020 version is faster, thanks to a new quad-core processor. The newest Ultra retains all of the features we loved and enjoyed about the 2019 model, like almost zero lag time between waking it up and streaming content, leading to a hiccup-free streaming experience. On top of that, the Roku Ultra can upscale content to deliver the best picture possible on your TV — even on older-model TVs that don’t offer the latest and greatest picture quality — and supports everything from HD to 4K.
Best carry-on luggage: Away Carry-On ($225; away.com)
The Away Carry-On scored high marks across all our tests and has the best combination of features for the average traveler. Compared with higher-end brands like Rimowa, which retail for hundreds more, you’re getting the same durable materials, an excellent internal compression system and eye-catching style. Add in smart charging capabilities and a lifetime warranty, and this was the bag to beat.
Best portable charger: Anker PowerCore 13000 (starting at $31.99; amazon.com)
The Anker PowerCore 13000 shone most was in terms of charging capacity. It boasts 13,000 mAh (maH is a measure of how much power a device puts out over time), which is enough to fully charge an iPhone 11 two and a half times. Plus, it has two fast-charging USB Type-A ports so you can juice a pair of devices simultaneously. While not at the peak in terms of charging capacity, at just $31.99, it’s a serious bargain for so many mAhs.
Trump’s misleading tweet about changing your vote, briefly explained
Searches for changing one’s vote did not trend following the recent presidential debate, and just a few states appear to have processes for changing an early vote. But that didn’t stop President Trump from wrongly saying otherwise on Tuesday.
In early morning posts, the president falsely claimed on Twitter and Facebook that many people had Googled “Can I change my vote?” after the second presidential debate and said those searching wanted to change their vote over to him. Trump also wrongly claimed that most states have a mechanism for changing one’s vote. Actually, just a few states appear to have the ability, and it’s rarely used.
Trump’s claim about what was trending on Google after the debate doesn’t hold up. Searches for changing one’s vote were not among Google’s top trending searches for the day of the debate (October 22) or the day after. Searches for “Can I change my vote?” did increase slightly around the time of the debate, but there is no way to know whether the bump was related to the debate or whether the people searching were doing so in support of Trump.
It was only after Trump’s posts that searches about changing your vote spiked significantly. It’s worth noting that people were also searching for “Can I change my vote?” during a similar period before the 2016 presidential election.
Google declined to comment on the accuracy of Trump’s post.
Trump also claimed that these results indicate that most of the people who were searching for how to change their vote support him. But the Google Trends tool for the searches he mentioned does not provide that specific information.
Perhaps the most egregiously false claim in Trump’s recent posts is about “most states” having processes for changing your early vote. In fact, only a few states have such processes, and they can come with certain conditions. For instance, in Michigan, voters who vote absentee can ask for a new ballot by mail or in person until the day before the election.
The Center for Election Innovation’s David Becker told the Associated Press that changing one’s vote is “extremely rare.” Becker explained, “It’s hard enough to get people to vote once — it’s highly unlikely anybody will go through this process twice.”
At the time of publication, Trump’s false claims had drawn about 84,000 and 187,000 “Likes” on Twitter and Facebook, respectively. Trump’s posts accelerated searches about changing your vote in places like the swing state of Florida, where changing one’s vote after casting it is not possible. Those numbers are a reminder of the president’s capacity to spread misinformation quickly.
On Facebook, the president’s post came with a label directing people to Facebook’s Voting Information Center, but no fact-checking label. Twitter had no annotation on the president’s post. Neither company responded to a request for comment.
That Trump is willing to spread misinformation to benefit himself and his campaign isn’t a surprise. He does that a lot. Still, just days before a presidential election in which millions have already voted, this latest episode demonstrates that the president has no qualms about using false claims about voting to cause confusion and sow doubt in the electoral process.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes. It’s essential that all Americans are able to access clear, concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives, and the lives of their families and communities. That is our mission at Vox. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election: Contribute today from as little as $3.
Nearly 6,000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan so far this year
From January to September, 5,939 civilians – 2,117 people killed and 3,822 wounded – were casualties of the fighting, the UN says.
Nearly 6,000 Afghan civilians were killed or wounded in the first nine months of the year as heavy fighting between government forces and Taliban fighters rages on despite efforts to find peace, the United Nations has said.
From January to September, there were 5,939 civilian casualties in the fighting – 2,117 people killed and 3,822 wounded, the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said in a quarterly report on Tuesday.
“High levels of violence continue with a devastating impact on civilians, with Afghanistan remaining among the deadliest places in the world to be a civilian,” the report said.
Civilian casualties were 30 percent lower than in the same period last year but UNAMA said violence has failed to slow since the beginning of talks between government negotiators and the Taliban that began in Qatar’s capital, Doha, last month.
The Taliban was responsible for 45 percent of civilian casualties while government troops caused 23 percent, it said. United States-led international forces were responsible for two percent.
Most of the remainder occurred in crossfire, or were caused by ISIL (ISIS) or “undetermined” anti-government or pro-government elements, according to the report.
Ground fighting caused the most casualties followed by suicide and roadside bomb attacks, targeted killings by the Taliban and air raids by Afghan troops, the UN mission said.
Fighting has sharply increased in several parts of the country in recent weeks as government negotiators and the Taliban have failed to make progress in the peace talks.
The Taliban has been fighting the Afghan government since it was toppled from power in a US-led invasion in 2001.
Washington blamed the then-Taliban rulers for harbouring al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaeda was accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks.
Calls for urgent reduction of violence
Meanwhile, the US envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on Tuesday that the level of violence in the country was still too high and the Kabul government and Taliban fighters must work harder towards forging a ceasefire at the Doha talks.
Khalilzad made the comments before heading to the Qatari capital to hold meetings with the two sides.
“I return to the region disappointed that despite commitments to lower violence, it has not happened. The window to achieve a political settlement will not stay open forever,” he said in a tweet.
There needs to be “an agreement on a reduction of violence leading to a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire”, added Khalilzad.
1/4 I return to the region disappointed that despite commitments to lower violence, it has not happened. The window to achieve a political settlement will not stay open forever. https://t.co/hVl4b032W6
— U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad (@US4AfghanPeace) October 27, 2020
A deal in February between the US and the Taliban paved the way for foreign forces to leave Afghanistan by May 2021 in exchange for counterterrorism guarantees from the Taliban, which agreed to sit with the Afghan government to negotiate a permanent ceasefire and a power-sharing formula.
But progress at the intra-Afghan talks has been slow since their start in mid-September and diplomats and officials have warned that rising violence back home is sapping trust.
The 10 Best Deals of November 23, 2020
Too bright to breed
Toronto FC hoping to make MLS Cup run having spent much of 2020 far from home
Astros bash way past Athletics to reach ALCS
Conquer Your Pup’s Dander and Fur With $700 Off a Cobalt or Charcoal Bobsweep PetHair Plus Robot Vacuum
The 10 Best Deals of November 23, 2020
Sports2 months ago
Astros bash way past Athletics to reach ALCS
Tech1 month ago
Conquer Your Pup’s Dander and Fur With $700 Off a Cobalt or Charcoal Bobsweep PetHair Plus Robot Vacuum
Uncategorized1 week ago
The 10 Best Deals of November 23, 2020
Sports3 weeks ago
Toronto FC hoping to make MLS Cup run having spent much of 2020 far from home
Tech4 months ago
Check out some wonderful Playdate game demos, including a low-fi Doom
Tech4 months ago
Still no first stimulus check? How to track it and report your absent payment to the IRS – CNET
Food2 months ago
Puerto Rican Piñon
Tech4 months ago
Spotify Duo vs. Family vs. Individual: Which Premium Spotify plan is best? – CNET