‘ UK, EU strike financial services deal’
‘ Kabul control slips as Afghan forces suffer record losses’
Times on Washington, Nov. 1:, Kabul’s control of Afghanistan slipped in recent months as local security forces suffered record- level casualties while making minimal or no progress against the Taliban, a US government watchdog said on Thursday.
The latest glimpse into Afghanistan’s security crisis highlights persistent problems among police and Army units who have faced years of devastating losses, and shows the Taliban’s resilience 17 years after the USled invasion.
Numbers provided by Resolute Support, the US- led Nato mission in Afghanistan, show that during the last quarter, the Afghan government controlled or influenced 226 of the country’s 407 districts — or 55.5 percent. According to the US Special Inspector General for A f g h a n i s t a n Re c o n s t r u c t i o n ( SIGAR), which compiled the data, the figure marks a slight drop ( 0.7 percent) over the previous quarter.
It is the lowest level since SIGAR began tracking district control in November 2015. Of the remaining districts, SIGAR assessed that 49 were under insurgent control or influence ( 12 percent). The balance — 132 districts — are considered “contested” between the Kabul government and the Taliban or other insurgent groups.
In terms of the Afghan population itself, Kabul controls or influences 65.2 percent, the same amount as a year ago. access to EU markets as long as domestic regulations remained broadly aligned with those set by Brussels. The pound started to rally against the dollar following the publication of the report at midnight ( 0000 GMT). It stood at a weekly high of about $ 1.29 around 0730 GMT.
Financial services are a major part of Britain’s economy and access to European markets has been a key concern in the Brexit negotiations.
Currently, the EU would be able to withdraw market access with a month’s notice if it decides that a partner country no longer has equivalent financial services regulations.
The report in the Times suggested that neither London nor Brussels would be able to declare unilaterally that regulations had fallen out of equivalence and block access to their markets without first going through independent arbitration and a notice period significantly longer than one month.