Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy Kenneth Katzman Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs August 17, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL30588 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy Summary The Obama Administration and several of its partner countries are seeking to reduce U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan while continuing to build Afghan governing and security capacity to defend the country by the end of 2014. To secure longer term U.S. gains, on May 1, 2012, during a visit to Afghanistan, President Obama signed a Strategic Partnership Agreement that will likely keep some (perhaps 15,000—20,000) U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 as advisors and trainers. Until then, the United States and its partners will continue to transfer overall security responsibility to Afghan security forces, with Afghan forces to assume the lead nationwide by mid-2013. As lead responsibility shifts, the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, which peaked at about 99,000 in June 2011, will be reduced to 68,000 by the end of September 2012. President Obama has said that “reductions will continue at a steady pace” from then until the completion of the transition to Afghan lead at the end of 2014. In keeping with the Strategic Partnership Agreement, on July 7, 2012 (one day in advance of a major donors’ conference on Afghanistan in Tokyo) the United States named Afghanistan a “Major Non-NATO Ally,” further assuring Afghanistan of longterm U.S. support. As the transition proceeds, there is increasing emphasis on negotiating a settlement to the conflict. That process has proceeded sporadically since 2010, and has not, by all accounts, advanced to a discussion of specific proposals to settle the conflict. Afghanistan’s minorities and women’s groups worry about a potential settlement, fearing it might produce compromises with the Taliban that erode human rights and ethnic power-sharing. The Administration view is that, no matter the U.S. and allied drawdown schedule, Afghan stability after the 2014 transition is at risk from weak and corrupt Afghan governance and insurgent safe haven in Pakistan. Among other efforts to promote effective and transparent Afghan governance, U.S. officials are pushing for substantial election reform to ensure that the next presidential election, scheduled for 2014, will be free and fair. Afghan anti-corruption institutions have been established since 2008 but, thus far, have lacked effectiveness. To promote long-term growth and prevent a severe economic downturn as international donors scale back their involvement in Afghanistan, U.S. officials also hope to draw on Afghanistan’s vast mineral and agricultural resources. Several major privately funded mining, agricultural, and even energy development programs have begun or are beginning. As part of this economic strategy, U.S. officials also see greater Afghanistan integration into regional trade and investment patterns—referred to as the “New Silk Road (NSR).” Persuading Afghanistan’s neighbors to support Afghanistan’s stability instead of their own particular interests has been a focus of U.S. policy since 2009, but with mixed success. Even if these economic efforts succeed, Afghanistan will likely remain dependent on foreign aid indefinitely. Through the end of FY2011, the United States has provided over $67 billion in assistance to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban, of which about $39 billion has been to equip and train Afghan forces. During FY2001-FY2011, the Afghan intervention has cost about $443 billion, including all costs. For FY2012, about $15 billion in aid (including train and equip) is to be provided, in addition to about $90 billion for U.S. military operations there, and $9.7 billion in aid is requested for FY2013. As announced in the context of the July 8, 2012, Tokyo donors’ conference, U.S. economic aid requests are likely to continue at current levels through FY2017, according to the Administration. See CRS Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Politics, Elections, and Government Performance, by Kenneth Katzman. Congressional Research Service Afghanistan: Post-Taliban Governance, Security, and U.S. Policy Contents Background...................................................................................................................................... 1 From Early History to the 19th Century..................................................................................... 1 Early 20th Century and Cold War Era ........................................................................................ 1 Soviet Invasion and Occupation Period..................................................................................... 2 The Seven Major “Mujahedin” Parties and Their Activities............................................... 3 Geneva Accords (1988) and Soviet Withdrawal........................................................................ 3 The Mujahedin Government and Rise of the Taliban................................................................ 4 Taliban Rule (September 1996-November 2001)...................................................................... 5 U.S. Policy Toward the Taliban During Its Rule/Bin Laden Presence................................ 5 The “Northern Alliance” Congeals...................................................................................... 6 Policy Pre-September 11, 2001 ................................................................................................. 7 September 11 Attacks and Operation Enduring Freedom ................................................... 7 Post-Taliban Governance-Building Efforts ............................................................................... 9 U.S. and International Civilian Policy Structure............................................................... 11 Security Policy, 2011-2014 “Transition, and Beyond”.................................................................. 13 Who Is “The Enemy”? Taliban, Haqqani, Al Qaeda, and Others............................................ 13 Groups: The Taliban (“Quetta Shura Taliban”)................................................................. 13 Al Qaeda/Bin Laden.......................................................................................................... 14 Hikmatyar Faction............................................................................................................. 15 Haqqani Faction ................................................................................................................ 15 Pakistani Groups ............................................................................................................... 17 Insurgent Tactics................................................................................................................ 17 Insurgent Financing: Narcotics Trafficking and Other Methods....................................... 18 The U.S.-Led Military Effort: 2001-2008 ............................................................................... 19 Perception of “Victory,” Followed by Setback and Deterioration..................................... 19 Obama Administration Surge .................................................................................................. 20 Review and December 1, 2009, Surge and Transition Announcement ............................. 21 NATO Converts July 2011 “Deadline” to “Transition” by the End of 2014..................... 22 Surge Implementation and Results.................................................................................... 23 Progress of the Transition and Drawdown .............................................................................. 24 Tranches of Territory in Transition:................................................................................... 24 Unwinding of the Surge Announced June 22, 2011 .......................................................... 24 Faster Transition to Afghan Combat Lead by Mid-2013 .................................................. 25 Beyond 2014: U.S. Troop Presence/Strategic Partnership Agreement.................................... 26 Likely Size and Structure of Post-2014 Force................................................................... 26 Strategic Partnership Agreement ....................................................................................... 27 Threats to Long-Term U.S. Presence: Civilian Casualties and Quran-Mishandling Protests........................................................................................................................... 29 Alternatives for the Post-Transition Period....................................................................... 30 Transition Pillar: Building Afghan Forces and Establishing Rule of Law .............................. 31 Current and Post-2014 Size of the Force........................................................................... 32 ANSF Funding .................................................................................................................. 32 Training Overview ............................................................................................................ 33 The Afghan National Army (ANA)................................................................................... 34 Afghan Air Force..............................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Shipbreaking # 43 – April 2016
    Shipbreaking Bulletin of information and analysis on ship demolition # 43, from January 1 to 31 March 31, 2016 April 29, 2016 Content Novorossiysk, the model harbour 1 Overview : 1st quarter 2016 11 Bulk carrier 46 Ports : the Top 5 2 Factory ship / fishing ship 13 Cement carrier 76 Ships aground and cargoes adrift 2 Reefer 14 Car carrier 77 In the spotlight 5 Offshore 15 Ro Ro 80 Yellow card and red card for grey ships 6 General cargo 19 Ferry 80 From Champagne to the blowtorch 8 Container ship 30 The END : Italy is breaking 82 Tsarev the squatter 9 Tanker 42 up migrant carriers The disgrace of German ship-owners 9 Chemical tanker 45 Sources 85 Dynamite in Indonesia 10 Gas tanker 45 Novorossiysk (Black Sea, Russia), the model harbour 1 Novorossiysk : detentionstorm in the Black Sea The port of Novorossiysk plays in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean a major role of watchdog. The Russian port has a long tradition in the control of merchant vessels. Within the framework of international agreements on maritime transport safety, inspectors note aboard deficiencies relating to maritime security, protection of the environment and living conditions of crews and do not hesitate to retain substandard ships as much as necessary. Of the 265 ships to be broken up between January 1st and March 31 2016, 14 were detained in Novorossiysk, sometimes repeatedly, and therefore reported as hazardous vessels to all states bordering the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. At least 4 freighters, the Amina H, the Majed and Randy, the Venedikt Andreev and the Med Glory had the migrant carriers profile.
    [Show full text]
  • The Modern Firm
    Discerning The Knowledge-intensive modern Agile firm Sustainable 14 Discerning 44 Knowledge-intensive 98 Agile 156 Sustainable 202 One year in review Mazars Group Annual Report 2015-2016 Yearbook 2016 • 2 Auditors. Advisers. Entrepreneurs. A foreword, by Philippe Castagnac CEO & Chairman of the Group Executive Board chosen to explore four attributes, which define a modern firm: smart growth, high concentration of knowledge, sustainability and agility. Dear readers, Our annual report is not only a way to state This Yearbook has been designed as who we are and where we stand, but also a journey through topics that are of depicts the principles by which we abide paramount importance to us: leadership and the ways we create value. From a and entrepreneurship. Naturally, our annual broader perspective, we wish to contribute report is also a way to take stock of what to an open conversation on business and Mazars, and the individuals that constitute it, on the society in which we all live. have achieved this past year. Our objective, with this Yearbook, is therefore Our consolidated accounts, that we publish to present you with an overview of our again this year as we have every year since activities over the past year, and also to offer 2005, are only a small part of our quest you analysis and perspective. We are trying towards transparency and of our ambition to define what constitutes meaningful growth to apply to ourselves the same discipline for our organisation – not, by any means, that is applied to our clients. as an isolated structure, but together with our clients, employees, the regulators Each article can be read alone, but all are and all our other stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Maritime Transport 2016 Review of Maritime Transport
    UNCTAD UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT For further information on UNCTAD’s work REVIEW on trade logistics, please visit: http://unctad.org/ttl OF MARITIME and for the TRANSPORT Review of Maritime Transport 2016: http://unctad.org/rmt E-mail: 2016 [email protected] To read more and to subscribe to the UNCTAD Transport Newsletter, please visit: http://unctad.org/transportnews 2016 UNITED NATIONS ISBN 978-92-1-112904-5 Layout and printed at United Nations, Geneva 1623510 (E)–November 2016 – 2,102 UNCTAD/RMT/2016 United Nations publication Sales No. E.16.II.D.7 : © Jan Hoffmann Photo credit UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2016 New York and Geneva, 2016 ii REVIEW OF MARITIME TRANSPORT 2016 NOTE The Review of Maritime Transport is a recurrent publication prepared by the UNCTAD secretariat since 1968 with the aim of fostering the transparency of maritime markets and analysing relevant developments. Any factual or editorial corrections that may prove necessary, based on comments made by Governments, will be reflected in a corrigendum to be issued subsequently. * * * Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Use of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. * * * The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ukrainian Weekly, 2017
    No. 3 THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, JANUARY 15, 2017 5 2016: THE YEAR IN REVIEW In Ukraine: economic hardship and Russian hybrid warfare kraine endured another year of economic hardship and unprovoked Russian hybrid warfare on all fronts Uwhile a third post-Maidan government was installed amid political turmoil in another attempt to deliver the promises of democratic transformation espoused by the revolution of 2014. 2016 was also the year Ukraine marked the 25th anni- versary of the re-establishment of its independence on August 24, 1991, and Ukraine saw many reasons to cele- brate. A grand military parade was held on Kyiv’s main thoroughfare, the Khreshchatyk, as an expression of defi- ance toward ceaseless Russian aggression. President Petro Poroshenko had ordered a military parade for a third consecutive year intended to underscore the nation’s military capability. But it was the first year that highlight- ed hardware rolled fresh off factory floors and newly designed uniforms, marking Ukraine’s efforts to shed its outdated Soviet past. After more than 4,000 armed forces units marched Presidential Administration of Ukraine past, some equipped with Ukraine-made Tavor automatic The scene at Independence Square, the Maidan, in Kyiv for celebrations on August 24 of the 25th anniversary of rifles, and 200 armored vehicles rumbled by, Mr. the re-establishment of Ukraine’s independence. Poroshenko said: “Our main guarantor is the Ukrainian previous season, which accounted for 40 percent of the tious human rights strategy and action plan, and the armed forces.” Approaching a company of camouflaged nation’s total exports for the first nine months of 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • August 26, 2015 to ALL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
    August 26, 2015 TO ALL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE PROVIDERS APPROVED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CENTRALIZED HOUSEHOLD GOODS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM: This Request for Offers (RFO) transmits the issuance of the 2015-2016 Filing Cycle Special Instructions for the filing of rate offers in the General Service Administration’s (GSA’s) Centralized Household Goods Traffic Management Program (CHAMP) specific to the Filing Cycle for the period November 1, 2015 through October 31, 2016. This RFO and Special Instructions are in accordance with the Household Goods Tender of Service (HTOS). Transportation Service Providers (TSPs) who are approved to participate in CHAMP and have agreed to abide by the terms of the HTOS, supplements thereto and reissues thereof, are eligible to file rate offers in accordance with this RFO and these Special Instructions. While we strongly encourage TSPs to read the entire RFO and Special Instructions, we’ve highlighted below the major changes new to this RFO and Special Instructions and others that have been carried over from previous RFOs that need to be highlighted again. These, along with other major changes to the RFO and Special Instructions, have also been highlighted in “red” within the documents themselves. Due Date: Rate offers must be submitted in accordance with this RFO and Special Instructions by the Initial Filing due date of 10:00 PM Central Standard Time, October 5, 2015 and/or the Supplemental Filing due date of 10:00 PM Central Standard Time, March 14, 2016. Rate offers received after these dates and/or not submitted in accordance with this RFO and Special Instructions will not be accepted.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTIVE PLAYERS FORMER CHAMPIONS OPEN ERA WINNERS Atpworldtour.Com NICOLAS ALMAGRO (ESP) @Nicoalmagro Nicolas Almagro
    ACTIVE PLAYERS FORMER CHAMPIONS OPEN ERA WINNERS ATPWorldTour.com NICOLAS ALMAGRO (ESP) www.nicoalmagro.net @NicoAlmagro Nicolas Almagro Date of Birth: August 21, 1985 Career Win-Loss: 365-243 Turned Pro: 2003 Career Prize Money: $9,558,871 Birthplace: Murcia, Spain Career Singles Titles/Finalist: 12/9 Residence: Murcia, Spain Career Win-Loss vs. Top 10: 17-64 Height: 6’0” (1.83m) Highest Emirates ATP Ranking: Weight: 185lbs (84kg) 9 (May 2, 2011) Plays: Right-handed Highest Emirates ATP Doubles Ranking: One-handed backhand 48 (March 21, 2011) emirates atP ranking History (W-L) > Underwent right hand tendon surgery on July 21, 2008 2015: 73 (18-20), 2014: 71 (14-9), 2013: 13 (42-23), (missed 1 month) and left foot surgery on June 30, 2014 2012: 11 (58-24), 2011: 10 (47-23), 2010: 15 (44-26), (missed 7 months). Also missed Jan. ’14 with shoulder injury 2009: 26 (30-24), 2008: 18 (35-17), 2007: 28 (34-27), 2006: 32 (27-20), 2005: 111 (13-22), 2004: 100 (2-7), CAREER TITLES (12): 2012 (2) – Nice (CL), São Paulo (ICL); 2003: 153 (1-1), 2002: 864 (0-0), 2001: 844 (0-0), 2000: T1334 (0-0) 2011 (3) – Nice(CL), Buenos Aires(CL), Costa do Sauipe(CL); 2010 (2) – Gstaad(CL), Båstad(CL); 2009 (1) – Acapulco(CL); 2008 (2) – Acapulco(CL), Costa do Sauipe(CL); 2015 HigHLigHts 2007 (1) – Valencia(CL); 2006 (1) – Valencia(CL).FINALIST (9). Prize money: $437,670 CAREER DOUBLES TITLES (1). FINALIST (1). Matches won-lost: 18-20 (singles), 9-8 (doubles) Challenger: 8-1 (singles) granD sLam History (Career 5-set record: 13-11) Singles semi-finalist: Buenos Aires, Kitzbühel Career 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 Quarter-finalist: São Paulo, Casablanca, Estoril Aus.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Globalization: the New Era of Global Flows March 2016
    DIGITAL GLOBALIZATION: THE NEW ERA OF GLOBAL FLOWS MARCH 2016 HIGHLIGHTS 43 73 85 Broadening participation Boosting productivity Changing the way and GDP companies go global In the 25 years since its founding, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) has sought to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. As the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, MGI aims to provide leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors with the facts and insights on which to base management and policy decisions. We are proud to be ranked the top private-sector think tank, according to the authoritative 2015 Global Go To Think Tank Index, an annual report issued by the University of Pennsylvania Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at the Lauder Institute. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Our “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on six themes: productivity and growth, natural resources, labor markets, the evolution of global financial markets, the economic impact of technology and innovation, and urbanization. Recent reports have assessed global flows; the economies of Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, and Japan; China’s digital transformation; India’s path from poverty to empowerment; affordable housing; the effects of global debt; and the economics of tackling obesity. MGI is led by three McKinsey & Company directors: Richard Dobbs, James Manyika, and Jonathan Woetzel.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Roland Garros Day 5 Men's Notes
    2019 ROLAND GARROS DAY 5 MEN’S NOTES Thursday 30 May 2nd Round Top Half Featured matches No. 1 Novak Djokovic (SRB) v (LL) Henri Laaksonen (SUI) No. 4 Dominic Thiem (AUT) v Alexander Bublik (KAZ) No. 5 Alexander Zverev (GER) v (Q) Mikael Ymer (SWE) No. 8 Juan Martin del Potro (ARG) v Yoshihito Nishioka (JPN) No. 9 Fabio Fognini (ITA) v Federico Delbonis (ARG) No. 10 Karen Khachanov (RUS) v (WC) Gregoire Barrere (FRA) No. 14 Gael Monfils (FRA) v Adrian Mannarino (FRA) No. 22 Lucas Pouille (FRA) v Martin Klizan (SVK) No. 23 Fernando Verdasco (ESP) v (WC) Antoine Hoang (FRA) On court today… • World No. 1 Novak Djokovic continues his quest to become the first man in the Open Era to win all 4 Grand Slams twice when he faces lucky loser Henri Laaksonen on Court Suzanne Lenglen today. The Serb, who won the title here in 2016, has never lost to a lucky loser in 9 previous meetings with lucky losers at Tour-level. Should Switzerland’s Laaksonen become the first lucky loser to defeat Djokovic, he will join compatriots Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka in the 3rd round – which would be just the 2nd time in the Open Era that 3 Swiss men have reached the 3rd round at a major, after the 2006 US Open, when Federer, Wawrinka and Marco Chiudinelli all reached that stage. • No. 5 seed Alexander Zverev plays the 2nd match on Court Simonne Mathieu, taking on Swedish qualifier Mikael Ymer. The pair have met once previously, as teenagers at Stockholm in 2015, with Zverev triumphing in 3 tight sets.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Rulebook 13Oct1149.Indd
    The 2016 ATP® Offi cial Rulebook Copyright © 2016 by ATP Tour, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of this work in whole or in part without the written per- mission of the ATP Tour, Inc., is prohibited. Printed in the United States of America. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ATP CIRCUIT REGULATIONS ...............................7 1.01 Categories of Tournaments ...................................................................... 7 1.02 Tournament Week ..................................................................................... 7 1.03 Match Schedule Plan ............................................................................... 8 1.04 Finals Options ........................................................................................... 8 1.05 Change of Tournament Site ....................................................................... 9 1.06 Commitment to Rules ................................................................................ 9 1.07 Commitment, Membership Obligations and Bonus Pool ........................... 9 1.08 Reduction of ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Commitment ...................... 12 1.09 Unsatisfi ed Player Commitment Penalties .............................................. 13 1.10 Mandatory Player Meeting ...................................................................... 13 1.11 Player Eligibility/Player University/Physical Exam ................................... 14 1.12 Waiver of Claims ..................................................................................... 14 1.13 Waiver/Player
    [Show full text]
  • Payment Methods Report 2019 Innovations in the Way We Pay
    Insights into Payments Payment Methods Report 2019 Innovations in the Way We Pay Endorsement partners: Key media partner: Payment Methods Report 2019 Innovations in the Way We Pay Contact us For inquiries on editorial opportunities please contact: Email: [email protected] To subscribe to our newsletters, click here For general advertising information, contact: Mihaela Mihaila Email: [email protected] RELEASE VERSION 1.0 JUNE 2019 COPYRIGHT © THE PAYPERS BV ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TEL: +31 20 893 4315 FAX: +31 20 658 0671 MAIL: [email protected] Management Summary The fourth edition of our Payment Methods Report presents the latest updates, trends, and innovations in the way people pay in an omnichannel world. By providing insightful content, we aim to keep our readers updated with the latest dynamics of the payments industry, an industry that is continually evolving at a rapid pace. There is a lot of interest into what is new in (e)commerce payments, and the results of a Worldpay report show it clearly: overall, ecommerce is expected to surpass USD 4.6 trillion globally by 2022, with 140 online payment methods in use today. According to the report, e-wallets have gained a lot of popularity thanks to the seamless experience they provide. Online banking payments are also in the spotlight, as they are convenient for both consumers and merchants, while cash is still king at the POS. As more studies like this have appeared, it has become clear to us that an in-depth approach to the status of payment methods and innovations in the way people pay would be useful.
    [Show full text]
  • Crises and the Transformation of the National Political Space in Europe
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Kriesi, Hanspeter; Hutter, Swen Book Part — Published Version Crises and the Transformation of the National Political Space in Europe Provided in Cooperation with: WZB Berlin Social Science Center Suggested Citation: Kriesi, Hanspeter; Hutter, Swen (2019) : Crises and the Transformation of the National Political Space in Europe, In: Hutter, Swen Kriesi, Hanspeter (Ed.): European party politics in times of crisis, ISBN 978-1-108-65278-0, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/9781108652780.001 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/210472 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an
    [Show full text]
  • Kyle Edmund(Gbr)
    KYLE EDMUND (GBR) @kyle8edmund Kyle Edmund @kyleedmund8 Date of Birth: January 8, 1995 Career Win-Loss: 23-33 Birthplace: Johannesburg, South Africa Career Win-Loss vs. Top 10: 0-6 Residence: Beverley, England Career 5-set Record: 1-2 Height: 1.88m (6’2”) Career Prize Money: $1,152,596 Weight: 80kg (176lbs) Highest Emirates ATP Ranking: Plays: Right-handed 40 (October 24, 2016) Two-handed backhand Highest Emirates ATP Doubles Ranking: 713 (November 3, 2014) EMIRATES ATP RANKING HISTORY (W-L) > ATP Masters 1000: Enjoyed 1st ATP Masters 1000 win 2016: 45 (21-20) 2014: 193 (0-5) 2012: 568 (0-0) at 2016 Miami (d. Vesely 76 in 3rd, l. to No. 1 Djokovic in 2R). Also advanced to 2016 Shanghai 2R as Q (d. 2015: 102 (1-5) 2013: 376 (1-3) Delbonis, l. to Edmund). Lost in 1R at 2014 Miami (l. to Benneteau), 2015 Miami (l. to Haase), 2016 Indian 2016 HIGHLIGHTS Wells (l. to Pella) and 2016 Toronto (l. to Diez). Prize Money: $742,013 > Davis Cup: Member of British team that won 2015 Win-Loss: 21-20 (singles), 1-3 (doubles) Davis Cup title. Fell to Goffin in opening rubber 36 16 Challenger: 13-1 (singles), 0-1 (doubles) 62 61 60 (GBR d. BEL 3-1). Became 1st player since F. Singles Semi-finalist: Antwerp Lopez in 2003 to play 1st Davis Cup match in a final and Quarter-finalist: Doha, London/Queen’s Club, Beijing 1st since Mathieu in 2002 to do so in singles. Enjoyed 1st 2 Davis Cup wins over Tipsarevic and Lajovic in CAREER 2016 QF (GBR d.
    [Show full text]