Afghanistan News December 8, 2005

December 8, 2005

Poll: Most in Afghanistan Say Life Better
Thursday December 8, 7:27 AM AP
More than three-fourths of the people living in Afghanistan say living conditions, security from crime and freedom of expression have improved from the days when they were living under Taliban rule, an ABC News poll says.

On the questions of jobs and economic opportunity, people are evenly divided on whether economic opportunities are better or worse.

Almost nine in 10 _ 87 percent _ say the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban in 2002 was a good thing for the people of Afghanistan. And three-fourths of Afghans say their country is headed in the right direction, far higher than in the United States, where only three of 10 say that.

The optimism comes in a country where people say by a 2-1 margin that their own economic situation is bad, medical care is limited and basic services like electricity are not available for many people.

Six in 10 Afghans say attacks on U.S. troops cannot be justified, while three in 10 say they can.

The poll of 1,089 adults was conducted by Charney Research with field work by the Afghan Center for Social and Opinion Research in Kabul from Oct. 8-18 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

Al-Qaeda Leader Says Bin Laden Still Leading Jihad
7 December 2005 -- The second-ranking leader of Al-Qaeda has appeared in a new video saying that the terror group's leader Osama bin Laden is alive and still leading the jihad holy war against Western countries.

The video of Al-Qaeda deputy chief Ayman al-Zawahri was reportedly made available on an Internet site used by militants. It has also been shown on Al-Jazeera television.

It was not clear when or where the video was made.

The whereabouts of bin Laden, who is held responsible for the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and other terror assaults around the world, is unknown. Some officials have said he could be hiding in the border regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Foreign Ministers to discuss Afghanistan expansion
Source: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) 06 Dec 2005
Foreign Ministers from NATO and partner countries will meet at NATO HQ in Brussels on 8 December to discuss key transatlantic political issues and the way forward for NATO in Afghanistan .

Among other issues, Ministers are expected to discuss an operational plan for expanding the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to the South of the country.

High level consultations

Ministers will also review and discuss the key political issues in transatlantic relations.

Meetings of the NATO-Russia Council, the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at the level of Foreign Ministers will also be held.

The meeting is the latest in a series of high-level political consultations held at NATO each year. It follows a Summit meeting of NATO Heads of State and Government in February this year, as well as informal meetings of Foreign and Defence Ministers in Februay, April and June.

Q&A: NATO troops in Afghanistan
By BY ROBERT E. HUNTER December 7, 2005 The New York Times
From the Council on Foreign Relations, December 7, 2005
Robert E. Hunter, who was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993-98, says that at this week's meeting of NATO foreign ministers, the current controversy over "rendition" of prisoners pales in importance to the issue of whether the NATO countries will agree to a significant increase in the size of their forces in Afghanistan, and to use it in combat roles. He says the Netherlands has raised some doubts that could scuttle plans to increase the force level from 10,000 to 16,000.

"I would say that the big event this week is not this political and psychological, political issue of rendition and the CIA, but whether Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice will succeed in convincing U.S. allies to stay the course in Afghanistan," says Hunter, currently senior adviser at the RAND Corporation and president of the Atlantic Treaty Association. He says, "I think they're prepared to do so and also to take on more responsibilities. That's going to be a tough sale but an important sale, and one to which I think the leadership under NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is deeply committed."

Hunter was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on December 6, 2005.

The semi-annual meeting of NATO foreign ministers takes place this week in Brussels. It is taking place against a background of controversy in Europe over the United States' use of so-called renditions, where it flies certain prisoners secretly to different countries and has them incarcerated and questioned. Had you ever heard of this when you were a NATO ambassador in the 1990s?

To put it very simply, no. In fact I don't even know if it was a practice in those days. A lot of this, one has to understand, is post-9/11, which has been a rather extraordinary time for the United States.

What does the United States gain from doing this?

To begin with, I don't know how much of it we do. I don't know how much of what we're seeing in the newspapers is accurate. One of the problems with this, in general, is everyone is operating with circumstantial evidence or circumstantial commentary. It might be useful to clear the air; to have a better picture of what is involved, what isn't involved. We have the formal statements by the Secretary of State [Condoleezza Rice] which, I thought were quite categorical and straightforward.

But it's one of these issues that get "legs" the longer it goes on without clear explanation. Having said that, I think the argument is that in this very complicated and difficult and demanding world of terrorism there is something gained in sending to other places people who one believes has committed, or could commit more serious attacks on the United States or its friends and allies. In particular, their home countries might be better able to deal with them in terms of language and culture, environment and the like. Whether it's a useful thing or not to do, I think we need to have a real debate and decision on.

To me it's interesting that none of the European countries that have been alleged to be the places where some of these "renditions" have taken place have acknowledged knowing anything about the practice. Presumably, somebody knew about them.

Again, we're operating in a murky environment here as to what the facts are. I suspect that in each of these countries there was at least somebody responsible, who understood it. These countries are put under a lot of pressure by the United States at a time when the United States to be cooperative. Some of them, of course, may find it useful in terms of trying to get information of potential or real terrorists. Having said all that and to try to demystify this a little bit, this is one of those questions in which you have to consider, what is the value of doing "x" versus the political and other costs, if "x" is revealed? And that's a balance that has to be struck. And in this case, there are some doubts that it was struck in the right way. A particular action might be fine if it remains secret, but what happens if it becomes revealed? Do I pay a higher price? And this may be one of those cases.

Let's move on to the NATO meeting. The official business of the NATO meeting, I assume, is the expansion of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan?

Afghanistan is the No. 1 question on the agenda for a couple of reasons. First, it's in the United States' interest to try to get NATO countries further engaged in Afghanistan, not only in the tasks that they've been doing, which is with the PRTs [the Provisional Reconstruction Teams]. The United States has also been hoping to get NATO forces and the NATO command more engaged in the southern and southeastern parts of Afghanistan, where most of the fighting has been going on. The U.S. command has some 18,000 troops in Afghanistan that have been doing the bulk of the fighting.

The United States would like to reduce its troop presence and be able to use those forces elsewhere, including Iraq. There has been some resistance on the part of some NATO allies, in particular the Dutch, who have now indicated they may not want to play that role and that has slowed down and may even derail the effort to get NATO to play a broader military role. That's one element of the discussions that are going on, which is as much political as it is military.

The other aspect is NATO's engagement in Afghanistan overall. Every NATO ally is involved in the ISAF. That includes Iceland, which doesn't even have any military forces but sends a couple of doctors to it. It has been so significant for NATO that for a period of time this year the commander of forces there was a French general, which is remarkable because this is an operation run under the integrated military command under the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General [James L.] Jones. And here are the French who are not technically part of the command acting taking over as commander. And they have no problem with that.

But the most important thing is that NATO, in its entire history, has never failed and the NATO members don't want the first failure to be in Afghanistan. That's one reason NATO countries resist deeper engagement in Iraq; it's one reason they were a little bit leery of too much engagement in the Persian Gulf with the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative [that provided security throughout the broader Middle East]. I would say that the big event this week is not this political and psychological, political issue of renditions and the CIA, but whether Secretary Rice will succeed in convincing U.S. allies to stay the course in Afghanistan. I think they're prepared to do so and also to take on more responsibilities. That's going to be a tough sale but an important sale, and one to which I think the leadership under NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is deeply committed.

You don't think the "fix" is already in on this?

The fix is clearly not in; at least it wasn't as of last week. I was at a conference last week in Doha that RAND organized with NATO as part of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and at that point, the fix was clearly not in.

There are about 10,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan now under NATO command?

Something like that, yes.

The U.S. desire is to expand these to 16,000.

That's right, and to take further responsibilities in the southern, southeastern part where the fighting is taking place.

The numbers are always a problem, but enough arm-twisting and enough "lets all do this to preserve NATO" can generally deal with the number of forces. The real issue is taking over an increasing potential for a combat role, and there people thought it was more or less on track until the Dutch government announced it might not be able to take on the role. I would say it's going to be a lot of tough bargaining this week. They may not even come to closure. But for NATO, this is going to be a major test and a test of American leadership.

What's the problem for the Dutch? They've been pretty supportive of the United States, right?

They've been very supportive of the United States. There's no question about that. But there is a resistance back home to putting troops in harm's way in a far-off region of Afghanistan.

Obviously, they're having major second thoughts about being engaged in the fighting part of Afghanistan and a number of other countries may find shelter in the Dutch position.

NATO has to work unanimously?

They have to take decisions unanimously and that is a very important concept. When they take decisions unanimously, everybody does fall into line on the political part of the decision, but not every country has to take part. NATO in that sense is always a coalition of the willing. Some countries are involved and some aren't. It is remarkable that in the ISAF every single NATO ally is there because it is so important. It more directly relates to the war on terror than it does to what's going on in Iraq. Nobody in NATO has any doubts about the importance of the war on terror or the importance of Afghanistan as a central focus of that.

Some NATO countries are helping out in Iraq independently, right?

There are some countries involved. There is some NATO training, but no appetite for further engagement in Iraq. Part of that is because several of their allies say, "Look, NATO as an institution has bought into Afghanistan and NATO as an institution cannot be permitted to fail," and that's why there is reluctance, led by the Dutch. I suspect that when push comes to shove, if not at this meeting then at the next defense ministers' meeting in the spring, something will get agreed on. It's going to require a good deal of effort by the United States, a good deal of indication of exactly what is involved and what the end of the mission might look like.

I gather some of the NATO countries that have small contingents in Iraq are looking to pull out.

Iraq has to been seen as separate. As I say, NATO has a commitment in Afghanistan. It looks at it in institutional terms and also in terms as a central focus on the war on terror. For example, despite all the difficulties between the United States and some countries over Iraq, those difficulties have not spilled over to U.S. relations within NATO or U.S. relations with the European Union. Now in Iraq, a number of countries are either pulling out their forces or announced they would. The Italians want to reduce their contingent, the Greeks, the Poles, and the British next year want to reduce their forces. There's not much stomach at this point for countries to be so exposed in Iraq. Whether that changes after December 15th after the elections in Iraq and what happens afterwards, we will have to see.

What about NATO as an institution? Is it going to continue to expand? Is NATO going to take in Ukraine also?

There are two summits slated at this point. One will almost certainly take place in Riga, Latvia, probably next October or November; a smaller summit is likely [planned for] the last year of the Bush administration. Some people are saying that that second summit should issue an invitation to Ukraine to join along with possibly one or two other countries, like Croatia.

This is going to force a major debate, I suspect more serious than any debate on NATO enlargement since the very first one at the Madrid Summit in 1997 over the entrance of the Czech Republic, Hungry, and Poland, for a couple of simple reasons. One, it is still not clear that the democratic experiment in Ukraine is taking hold. Secondly, the country is still very deeply divided between, let's say, its Western population and its Eastern population, the latter having a very heavy Russian component. Third, given the state of relations between the United States and Russia, internal developments in Russia and Russia trying to find its own future, for NATO to go forward and take in Ukraine without a much clearer understanding with Russia could be asking for real trouble.

I'm sure the summit in Riga will cause a lot of heartburn in Moscow as well.

I think the Russians have come to terms with the existence of the Baltic States now within NATO. But I think a number of Russians have recognized that if they have productive relationships with these states that have gained some membership in NATO and the European Union, economically that can be very helpful to at least the western parts of Russia. I think they've gotten over that particular concern. But Ukraine, from the Russian perspective and the Ukrainian perspective, is a real strategic issue if it actually comes formally into NATO. Right now, I would have to say Ukraine certainly is not ready for that, nor is NATO ready for that, nor is the NATO-Russia relationship ready for that.

It is hard to envision Ukraine, which was an integral party of Russia, as part of NATO.

I don't actually see a problem of countries joining NATO, provided a couple of things are fulfilled: one, that NATO continues to be effective; secondly, these countries are ready to be fully engaged in the West; and third, membership of country "A" doesn't come at the expense of interests of country "B." President George H.W. Bush enunciated the grand strategy that is being pursued in a simple phrase, "To try to create a Europe whole and free." The NATO perspective since then has always been that any country can join NATO if it's ready and willing to meet the requirements of NATO membership, to try to indicate that NATO is not a threat to anybody but it is a threat against the forces of instability. Working with the Russians to reassure them on that and to engage them more deeply in NATO, beginning with the NATO-Russia council, is of major strategic significance for everybody in Europe--to try to achieve the goal that nobody has ever had a chance to even try since Charlemagne, "Europe whole and free."

How is NATO doing overall?

I think people outside the professional community that follows this, has to understand that NATO is really thriving in this decade as it did in the last decade because it has gone through a major internal transformation. The old argument that [Senator] Richard Lugar [R-IN] had twelve years ago, "NATO out of business or out of area," has been decisively answered. NATO allies are now prepared to be engaged in a host of places. Most remarkable perhaps, is Afghanistan and the commitment in Afghanistan to get it right, to be successful. The United States, since the problems of 2003 [the Iraq invasion] is now showing a much more positive perspective on NATO. The President's visit [to Europe] in February, what Secretary Rice has been doing, and Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld has come around to see the renewed value of NATO. The key element, of course, as always is American leadership. When American leadership is there NATO works; when it's not, it doesn't. That is what we have to look to.

New parliament to meet
KABUL, 7 December (IRIN) - Following the appointment of 34 presidential appointees to the 102-seat Meshrano Jirga (the upper house of parliament), Afghanistan's new national assembly is scheduled to convene on 19 December for the first time in more than three decades, an official said on Wednesday.

"The new parliament building is prepared for the opening," said Tahira Shirzoai, public information officer for the national assembly, adding the recently refurbished building that would be home to both upper and lower houses, had been officially handed over to Azizullah Ludin, head of parliament's secretariat, on Tuesday.

The parliament building, located in the west of the capital, was constructed in the late 1960s to house Afghanistan's first parliament during the reign of King Mohammad Zahir Shah. It last housed the national legislature in 1973.

Renovating and equipping the new parliament building, damaged, along with most of Kabul's buildings, when rival factions fought for the capital in the 1990s, cost US $3.4 million, Shirzoai noted.

The 18 September election for the lower house and 34 provincial councils was a key step in war-torn Afghanistan's transition to democracy after the ouster of the hard line Taliban regime in 2001.

Of the country's 12.5 million registered voters, some 6.8 million Afghans took part in the polls to elect a national legislature and 34 provincial councils for a five-year term.

Almost 5,800 candidates contested the poll, including over 2,700 for the 249-seat Wolesi Jirga (lower house) and more than 3,000 for 420 seats in provincial councils.

Kec International Wins Orders From Afghanistan, Ethiopia
Thursday December 8, 9:55 AM
MUMBAI, Dec 8 Asia Pulse - Power transmission and engineering company KEC International Limited (KEC) has secured new orders worth Rs 3.39 billion ($US73.4 million) from Afghanistan and Ethiopia to enhance the power generation capacity of both the countries.
"In Afghanistan, KEC has bagged two orders worth Rs 2.04 billion for the supply and construction of 220 KV double circuit line.

"It would pass from Kabul to Salang Tunnel over a distance of 95km and from Salang to Phul-e-Khumri over a distance of 107km," the company said here in a release.

These transmission lines would be constructed to provide electricity to Kabul city.

This project would be executed over the next three years. These orders have been awarded by the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited.

The Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation had placed an order with KEC worth Rs 135 crore (one crore = 10 million) for supply and construction of 400 KV single circuit and 230 KV double circuit transmission line.

These will be spread over 234 km under the Gilgel Gibe II Hydro Power plant.

"The project aims to satisfy the growing demand for electricity in the country. The project is partly funded by th European Investment Bank," the release said.

KEC International, with a presence in more than 15 countries, is a subsidiary of Rs 84.50 billion RPG Enterprises.
(PTI)

Daily Afghan Report
Radio Free Europe/ Radio Free Liberty [7 December 2005 ]
Neo-Taliban Execute Afghan Captive
Qari Mohammad Yusof, purporting to speak for the neo-Taliban, said the guerillas have executed an Afghan they abducted for allegedly spying for U.S.-led coalition forces in the Kandahar area, the Peshawar-based Afghan Islamic Press news agency reported on 6 December. Mohammad Yusof said the execution took place on 5 December. "After some investigation, the Taliban executed a certain Hayat Khan on charges of spying for the Americans last night," he said. "He was arrested in the Mirwais Mena area of Kandahar city on 4 December." The claim has not been independently verified, and the Afghan authorities have not commented on it. MR

Afghan Cabinet Passes Law Protecting Investors

The cabinet of President Hamid Karzai has passed a new law aimed at protecting investors, Commerce Minister Hedayat Amin Arsala said on 5 December, AFP reported. "I am happy to announce that a new law on domestic and foreign investment was passed by the cabinet two weeks ago and will be enacted after the president's signature," Arsala told a U.S.-Afghan trade forum in Washington. Arsala did not say when the law will go into effect. Arsala said the law will provide "even more encouraging protection of investors." Some critics say the fledgling government in Kabul has done too little to help investors seeking to get involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. "The government of Afghanistan is the biggest obstacle for the private sector today -- the lack of capacity, professionalism, and corruption and [the existence] of [outdated] rules and regulations," Afghan Builders Association President Abdullah Nadi told AFP. Nadi claims his company has invested $7 million to build apartment projects in Afghanistan over the last 4 1/2 years. "We have not received anything from the government but obstacles and lip service," he said. "It costs us a lot more because of obstacles the government creates every day." MR

Afghan Parliament Sets Date To Convene

The newly elected Afghan parliament plans to convene for the first time on 19 December, AP reported on 6 December. Azizullah Ludin, head of the parliament secretariat, said the National Assembly session will be held in the newly reconstructed parliament building, which was last used by the legislature in 1973. "I am happy to announce...that everything is ready for the session of parliament for 19 December," Ludin said. "We have no problems." MR

Neo-Taliban Attacks Kill Four Afghans In South

Suspected neo-Taliban insurgents killed four Afghans in two separate attacks in eastern and southern Afghanistan on 5 December, AFP reported on 6 December. In one attack, a bomb ripped apart a vehicle in Orgun, a restive district in eastern Paktika Province. Officials said the blast killed the driver and injured General Zia ul-Haq of the Afghan National Army and his bodyguard. Military official Sana ul-Haq blamed the neo-Taliban and claimed the bomb was detonated remotely. In the second attack, a policeman and two civilians died when gunmen thought to be neo-Taliban guerillas fired on them in southern Helmand Province, Deputy Governor Ghulam Muheedin said, AFP reported. Two other policemen suffered injuries during the fighting as well, Muheedin said. Meanwhile, AP reported on 6 December that Afghan security forces killed nine neo-Taliban fighters during a gun battle at an insurgent hideout in Oruzgan Province the same day. Six other insurgents were reportedly arrested. MR

Afghanistan to be eighth member of SAARC
Dhaka, November 13, 2005|19:41 IST Indo-Asian News Service
Afghanistan will become the eighth member of SAARC while China and Japan will be granted observer status with the South Asian regional grouping, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Dhaka on Sunday.

Addressing a press conference at the conclusion of the 13th summit in Dhaka of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Manmohan Singh said: "We have agreed to induct Afghanistan as a new member."

"We also welcome China and Japan as observers since they have shown interest," he said, putting at rest confusion over Afghanistan's inclusion in the grouping as well as over the nature of China's involvement in SAARC.

"Afghanistan is very close to us. It is now in our group," he said.

Later, Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said: "The standing committee meeting of the council of ministers of SAARC will finalise the status of China and Japan while it is now only for Afghanistan to sign an agreement of the SAARC charter and join as a member."

Besides India and Bangladesh, SAARC currently groups Bhutan, Nepal, the Maldives, Sri Lanka and Pakistan.

AFGHANISTAN: UNICEF expresses concern about child labour
KABUL, 6 Dec 2005 (IRIN) - An estimated 1 million child labourers under 14 are deprived of education, health care and other necessary facilities for human development across Afghanistan, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said on Monday.

“[Some] 25 percent of all children aged between seven and 14 years are involved in various forms of work across the country,” Edward Carwardine, an information officer for UNICEF, said in the Afghan capital Kabul, adding the majority of child labourers were involved in domestic work.

UNICEF has expressed its concern that a considerable number of children were involved in heavy and dangerous works, such as construction.

“Children should not be involved in dangerous employment. They need to have time to play and access to recreation, physical exercises and playing games, which is a part of human development,” Carwardine explained.

Among the children who do paid work, many of them are involved in light agricultural work, mechanical workshops, restaurants, carpet weaving and labouring on building sites.

According to officials at the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, the government is working to tackle the problem of child labour in Afghanistan.

“We have provided vocational training and literacy programmes to around 38,000 child labourers across the country,” Mohammad Ghaus Bashiri, the deputy minister, said.

Maldives crush Afghanistan in SAFF opener
FootballAsia.com Dec 7, 2005
KARACHI – Afghanistan’s first ever SAFF Championship goal was scant consolation for the war-torn nation as they were swept aside by the Maldives, with the 2003 runners-up winning the tournament curtain raiser 9-1.

Ten minutes after the first meeting between the two sides kicked-off, Ali Umar put the Maldives ahead before Ibrahim Fazeel doubled the advantage in the 27th minute after 9 headed a long free-kick across the area towards the New Radiant attacker.

Ali Ashfaq made it 3-0 in the 33rd minute with an unstoppable drive before Bashar Ahmed Sadat reduced the deficit seven minutes later, heading home Afghanistan’s first ever SAFF Championship goal.

On the stroke of half-time Ali Umar turned provider when he intelligently cut the ball across the Afghanistan penalty area allowing the on-rushing Fazeel to emphatically drive the ball home before Thariq headed the Maldives’ fifth in first half injury time.

Any hopes that the Indian Ocean islanders would take the foot of the gas in the second half were dismissed less than a minute after the restart when Thariq pounced to make it 6-1 after the Afghan keeper had spilled Umar’s shot.

Fazeel completed his hat-trick on the hour mark, heading home Ashfaq’s free-kick before some mesmerising skills and unselfish play from Ashfaq allowed Thariq to score his second and Maldives’ eighth with four minutes left to play.

But the scoring wasn’t finished there as Ashfaq completed the scoring a minute later drilling the ball home from a similar position where he set up Thariq.

Three Canadian special forces troops wounded in Afghan operations
STEPHEN THORNE Wed Dec 7,11:36 PM ET
OTTAWA (CP) - Three Canadian special forces soldiers have been wounded on operations in southern Afghanistan, the first known casualties within the highly secretive Joint Task Force 2 in the troubled southwest Asian country.

ADVERTISEMENT

One member of JTF2 was listed as stable at a U.S. military hospital in Germany. The other special forces soldiers were treated for their injuries and have returned to their unit, the Defence Department said Wednesday. No names were released.

"For reasons of operational security and for the safety of those Canadian special operations forces members and their families, no other information on this incident or on the special operations being conducted in Afghanistan will be released," said a Defence Department statement.

The wounded Canadians are believed to have been part of major operations in which 22 suspected militants were killed in two clashes with Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces this week.

The U.S. military said 13 enemies died in an attack on a cell believed responsible for bombings in southern Afghanistan. Several regular-force Canadian soldiers have been slightly wounded in such bomb attacks.

American officials said Afghan, U.S. and other coalition soldiers were wounded in fighting Sunday in a small village north of Kandahar, the former Taliban stronghold where the Canadians are now based.

On Tuesday, a joint Afghan-U.S. patrol was conducting offensive operations when it reported coming under fire from a ridgeline northwest of Tarin Kowt.

Air support was called in, and Afghan and U.S. forces then manoeuvred on the ridge line, forcing the militants to flee.

A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Bill Graham said Canadians have been warned that the Afghanistan deployment is high-risk, especially as the Forces' mission shifts from patrols around Kabul in the north to more aggressive operations around Kandahar in the volatile south.

About 2,000 regular fighting troops will be in the country by March, in addition to what are believed to be fewer than several dozen JTF2.

"There are significant risks in these missions but these troops are tremendously skilled and Canadians can be proud of what they do," said Renee Filiatrault.

"Our thoughts are with the troops and their families right now."

Shortly after the Defence Department's announcement, the Polaris Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to economic, social and environmental issues, urged Graham to provide more information.

"How were the soldiers injured?" Steven Staples, the institute's security director, said in a statement. "Was the mission conducted under U.S. or Canadian command?"

JTF2 is a fraction of the size of U.S. special forces. Officials say its small size leaves its soldiers vulnerable if they're identified or too many details of their activities and methods are revealed.

In an unprecedented acknowledgment from a Canadian military commander, the head of defence operations confirmed in September his special forces troops had killed and captured Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan.

Brig.-Gen. Mike Ward wouldn't confirm numbers, but he said JTF2 had to that point been involved in multiple operations with U.S. and other coalition forces throughout the country.

Prisoners had been taken, questioned and turned over to U.S. or Afghan authorities with assurances they would be treated humanely and in accordance with elements of the Geneva Conventions.

JTF2 is involved in "important and dangerous missions," Ward said at the time.

"If we are going to keep the (enemy) at arms' length from these Afghani officials and protect them from murder and assassination . . . we have to engage in combat operations that take the offensive into the mountains, into the remote regions where they have their bases and their sanctuaries and keep them off-guard."

Ward added: "Casualties do occur. That's the nature of war; that's certainly the nature of operations."

The troops have the authority to use lethal force where necessary. And they had, indeed, used it, he said.

Canadian troops hold detainees only long enough to process them and acquire any tactical - that is, immediately valuable - intelligence before turning them over to appropriate U.S. or Afghan authorities, he said.

JTF2 has been in Afghanistan almost continuously since early 2002.

Southeast Europeans, U.S. Agree On Afghan Deployment
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty 07.12.2005
December 7 2005 -- Defense ministers from southeastern European countries and the United States have formally agreed to deploy a peacekeeping brigade of at least 400 troops to Afghanistan for six months.

Ukraine has pledged to airlift the troops from Romania to Afghanistan next year. At Tuesday's meeting in ashington, Ukraine also officially became a full member of the Southeastern European Defense Ministerial group. Defense Minister Anatoly Hrytsenko praised Ukraine's membership, saying it brings Ukraine closer to future membership in NATO.

The Ukrainian defense chief added that Ukraine was preparing to sign an agreement to supply Soviet-made arms to Afghanistan's government. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the defense ministers also discussed cooperation to transform the United Nations-led peacekeeping force in Kosovo to make it more mobile and flexible.

Members of the group include Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia, Turkey, Ukraine and the United States. Representatives from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia-Montenegro and Moldova attended the meeting as observers.

Swedish parliament approves Afghanistan peacekeeping force increase
STOCKHOLM, Dec. 7 (Xinhuanet) -- Sweden's government has approved plans to boost its peacekeeping forces in Afghanistan to 375 soldiers by March, according to the parliament's statement.

The Scandinavian country currently has 100 troops in northern Afghanistan but the figure is to be increased when they take command over a provincial reconstruction team in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif.

A statement from the Swedish parliament said: "The parliament backed the government's proposal to place at the disposal (of the peacekeeping force) an armed force of a maximum of 375 people for 24 months."

The move comes two weeks after a roadside bomb killed one Swedish soldier and injured three others in Mazar-e-Sharif. Some politicians called for a withdrawal of the Swedish troops after the incident.

Although Sweden is not a NATO member, it has contributed troops to the alliance-led mission in Afghanistan since 2002.

There are currently about 11,000 International Security Assistance Force soldiers from 37 countries stationed in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan: Collaboration With U.S. Theater Brings Images Of Afghan Life To Audiences
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
New York, 6 December 2005 (RFE/RL) -- The idea for "Beyond the Mirror" first took root in northern Pakistan in the spring of 2002. Members of Manhattan's Bond Street Theatre -- performing for Afghan refugee children -- met a group of Afghan actors and a friendship was formed.

Joanna Sherman is the artistic director of the Bond Street Theatre and codirector of "Beyond the Mirror." She tells RFE/RL the two groups of actors were drawn to each other by their common mission. A grant from the U.S. National Endowment for the Arts has allowed the troupes to perform "Beyond the Mirror" throughout Afghanistan, as well as in Japan and the United States.

"People are fascinated," she said. "We follow every performance with a kind of question-and-answer talk back with the audience, in which we found that people are really intrigued by Afghanistan. They remember that it was an issue. The issue has sort of been overtaken by the Iraq situation, and people remember that it was the unended story. 'Whatever happened to Afghanistan? What happened to the people there?' Which is one of the reasons why we are bringing this production here, because we want to clear up some of the misconceptions about Afghanistan and how the conflict occurred."

A separate grant from the U.S. State Department has allowed both groups to pursue educational programs aimed at Afghan

students.

"Beyond The Mirror" is built on the personal stories of real Afghans. The productions starts with the invasion by the Soviet Union in 1979, continues through the reign of the Taliban regime, and ends with the current situation.

"[Mahmoud] Salimi and I decided that we wanted to talk about conflict, the chronological order of events," she said. "And it's all drawn on true stories, so it's more of an episodic show. And all of these different stories of normal people that we've interviewed -- all true stories, starting with the actors themselves -- and then going to different provinces and interviewing women and children and old men, all different phases of life."

The Bond Street Theatre was founded in 1976. The history of Afghan's Exile Theater is shorter, but more turbulent. Salimi is the company's 30-year old founder: "We were in Pakistan, living there illegally as refugees when the Taliban were in Afghanistan, [when] they had power there. On March 18, 2000, we established Exile Theater. We were 12 [members]. At that time, people from TV, movie, theater, and also some other people that were not involved with the arts, we got together and established the theater. The aim was to rehabilitate Afghanistan's theater because it was stopped by the Taliban at that time."

Two years later, Salimi says, a group of armed men visited their refugee camp and, after tense questioning, warned them to stop their performances. In 2003, Exile Theatre moved to Kabul.

Exile Theatre's Anisa Wahab is an ethnic Tajik and one of the few women in Afghan theater who has enjoyed a long and successful career -- first as a child TV star, then on the stage, and in the movies. Wahab says that, while the arts climate in Afghanistan has improved considerably since the ouster of the Taliban, there is still a long way to go. But at least female performers, she says, have the opportunity to work undisturbed: "The conditions for women in Afghanistan are now better. They go to their jobs. I appear on TV and on stage. There is no problem from my family. There is no pressure from the government on actors not to perform. The government now supports artists. They can go and perform."

Wahabi first gained prominence on Afghan TV in the 1960s, where she sometimes played the roles of boys. Later, she switched to performing in comic shows. She says she is still recognized on the streets of Kabul.

Salimi says the time he has spent in New York has been intense. He and his friends have been to some Broadway shows and are enjoying the sights and sounds of the city. But he says he has also been struck by the individualism and loneliness he has witnessed.

"Family structure is a much more secure place or environment for me, that's more strong [in Afghanistan]," he said. "Especially when I see old men and women here [in New York], I don't feel secure about them. Because more than food and clothes and home, they need support from humans, to talk to them, to have kind behavior, to have love."

U.S. media reviews of "Beyond The Mirror" were generally sympathetic. "The New York Times" called the actors "ambassadors for peace, armed with slapstick." There are plans to continue the tour of "Beyond the Mirror" in Europe in the near future.

Ariana Afghan Airlines To Start E-Ticketing
Thursday December 8, 2005, 11:53 am
KABUL, Dec 8 Asia Pulse - Ariana Afghan Airlines (AAA), the national flag carrier, Wednesday started e-ticketing to bring further improvements in its operations and facilitate reservations for customers.

The new system would enable the customers to reserve tickets through the Internet. The process would be given practical shape in the next three weeks.

In a talk with Pajhwok Afghan News, the AAA chief Mohammad Nadir Atash described the step as a landmark progress in establishing the national flag career on a modern footing and bringing it to par with the international carriers.

He said the new system would allow customers from inside as well outside the country to reserve seats on Ariana.

To familiarise employees with the new system, 20 officials of the company were imparted training by Lufthansa in Germany and a group of 20 more would be sent there for training in the next three months, he added.
(Pajhwok Afghan News)

Hunter: Rice Faces ‘Tough Sale’ to Persuade NATO Allies on Expanding Force in Afghanistan
Interviewee: Robert E. Hunter, Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman December 6, 2005- Council on Foreign Relations
Robert E. Hunter, who was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993-98, says that at this week's meeting of NATO foreign ministers, the current controversy over "rendition" of prisoners pales in importance to the issue of whether the NATO countries will agree to a significant increase in the size of their forces in Afghanistan, and to use it in combat roles. He says the Netherlands has raised some doubts that could scuttle plans to increase the force level from 10,000 to 16,000.

"I would say that the big event this week is not this political and psychological, political issue of rendition and the CIA, but whether Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice will succeed in convincing U.S. allies to stay the course in Afghanistan," says Hunter, currently senior adviser at the RAND Corporation and president of the Atlantic Treaty Association. He says, "I think they're prepared to do so and also to take on more responsibilities. That's going to be a tough sale but an important sale, and one to which I think the leadership under NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is deeply committed." Hunter was interviewed by Bernard Gwertzman, consulting editor for cfr.org, on December 6, 2005.

The semi-annual meeting of NATO foreign ministers takes place this week in Brussels. It is taking place against a background of controversy in Europe over the United States' use of so-called renditions, where it flies certain prisoners secretly to different countries and has them incarcerated and questioned. Had you ever heard of this when you were a NATO ambassador in the 1990s?
To put it very simply, no. In fact I don't even know if it was a practice in those days. A lot of this, one has to understand, is post-9/11, which has been a rather extraordinary time for the United States.

What does the United States gain from doing this?
To begin with, I don't know how much of it we do. I don't know how much of what we're seeing in the newspapers is accurate. One of the problems with this, in general, is everyone is operating with circumstantial evidence or circumstantial commentary. It might be useful to clear the air; to have a better picture of what is involved, what isn't involved. We have the formal statements by the Secretary of State [Condoleezza Rice] which, I thought were quite categorical and straightforward.
But it's one of these issues that get "legs" the longer it goes on without clear explanation. Having said that, I think the argument is that in this very complicated and difficult and demanding world of terrorism there is something gained in sending to other places people who one believes has committed, or could commit more serious attacks on the United States or its friends and allies. In particular, their home countries might be better able to deal with them in terms of language and culture, environment and the like. Whether it's a useful thing or not to do, I think we need to have a real debate and decision on.

To me it's interesting that none of the European countries that have been alleged to be the places where some of these "renditions" have taken place have acknowledged knowing anything about the practice. Presumably, somebody knew about them.

Again, we're operating in a murky environment here as to what the facts are. I suspect that in each of these countries there was at least somebody responsible, who understood it. These countries are put under a lot of pressure by the United States at a time when the United States to be cooperative. Some of them, of course, may find it useful in terms of trying to get information of potential or real terrorists. Having said all that and to try to demystify this a little bit, this is one of those questions in which you have to consider, what is the value of doing "x" versus the political and other costs, if "x" is revealed? And that's a balance that has to be struck. And in this case, there are some doubts that it was struck in the right way. A particular action might be fine if it remains secret, but what happens if it becomes revealed? Do I pay a higher price? And this may be one of those cases.

Let's move on to the NATO meeting. The official business of the NATO meeting, I assume, is the expansion of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan?
Afghanistan is the No. 1 question on the agenda for a couple of reasons. First, it's in the United States' interest to try to get NATO countries further engaged in Afghanistan, not only in the tasks that they've been doing, which is with the PRTs [the Provisional Reconstruction Teams]. The United States has also been hoping to get NATO forces and the NATO command more engaged in the southern and southeastern parts of Afghanistan, where most of the fighting has been going on. The U.S. command has some 18,000 troops in Afghanistan that have been doing the bulk of the fighting.

The United States would like to reduce its troop presence and be able to use those forces elsewhere, including Iraq. There has been some resistance on the part of some NATO allies, in particular the Dutch, who have now indicated they may not want to play that role and that has slowed down and may even derail the effort to get NATO to play a broader military role. That's one element of the discussions that are going on, which is as much political as it is military.

The other aspect is NATO's engagement in Afghanistan overall. Every NATO ally is involved in the ISAF. That includes Iceland, which doesn't even have any military forces but sends a couple of doctors to it. It has been so significant for NATO that for a period of time this year the commander of forces there was a French general, which is remarkable because this is an operation run under the integrated military command under the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, General [James L.] Jones. And here are the French who are not technically part of the command acting taking over as commander. And they have no problem with that.

But the most important thing is that NATO, in its entire history, has never failed and the NATO members don't want the first failure to be in Afghanistan. That's one reason NATO countries resist deeper engagement in Iraq; it's one reason they were a little bit leery of too much engagement in the Persian Gulf with the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative [that provided security throughout the broader Middle East]. I would say that the big event this week is not this political and psychological, political issue of renditions and the CIA, but whether Secretary Rice will succeed in convincing U.S. allies to stay the course in Afghanistan. I think they're prepared to do so and also to take on more responsibilities. That's going to be a tough sale but an important sale, and one to which I think the leadership under NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is deeply committed.

You don't think the "fix" is already in on this?
The fix is clearly not in; at least it wasn't as of last week. I was at a conference last week in Doha that RAND organized with NATO as part of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and at that point, the fix was clearly not in.

There are about 10,000 NATO forces in Afghanistan now under NATO command?
Something like that, yes.

The U.S. desire is to expand these to 16,000.
That's right, and to take further responsibilities in the southern, southeastern part where the fighting is taking place.
The numbers are always a problem, but enough arm-twisting and enough "lets all do this to preserve NATO" can generally deal with the number of forces. The real issue is taking over an increasing potential for a combat role, and there people thought it was more or less on track until the Dutch government announced it might not be able to take on the role. I would say it's going to be a lot of tough bargaining this week. They may not even come to closure. But for NATO, this is going to be a major test and a test of American leadership.

What's the problem for the Dutch? They've been pretty supportive of the United States, right?
They've been very supportive of the United States. There's no question about that. But there is a resistance back home to putting troops in harm's way in a far-off region of Afghanistan.
Obviously, they're having major second thoughts about being engaged in the fighting part of Afghanistan and a number of other countries may find shelter in the Dutch position.

NATO has to work unanimously?
They have to take decisions unanimously and that is a very important concept. When they take decisions unanimously, everybody does fall into line on the political part of the decision, but not every country has to take part. NATO in that sense is always a coalition of the willing. Some countries are involved and some aren't. It is remarkable that in the ISAF every single NATO ally is there because it is so important. It more directly relates to the war on terror than it does to what's going on in Iraq. Nobody in NATO has any doubts about the importance of the war on terror or the importance of Afghanistan as a central focus of that.

Some NATO countries are helping out in Iraq independently, right?
There are some countries involved. There is some NATO training, but no appetite for further engagement in Iraq. Part of that is because several of their allies say, "Look, NATO as an institution has bought into Afghanistan and NATO as an institution cannot be permitted to fail," and that's why there is reluctance, led by the Dutch. I suspect that when push comes to shove, if not at this meeting then at the next defense ministers' meeting in the spring, something will get agreed on. It's going to require a good deal of effort by the United States, a good deal of indication of exactly what is involved and what the end of the mission might look like.

I gather some of the NATO countries that have small contingents in Iraq are looking to pull out.
Iraq has to been seen as separate. As I say, NATO has a commitment in Afghanistan. It looks at it in institutional terms and also in terms as a central focus on the war on terror. For example, despite all the difficulties between the United States and some countries over Iraq, those difficulties have not spilled over to U.S. relations within NATO or U.S. relations with the European Union. Now in Iraq, a number of countries are either pulling out their forces or announced they would. The Italians want to reduce their contingent, the Greeks, the Poles, and the British next year want to reduce their forces. There's not much stomach at this point for countries to be so exposed in Iraq. Whether that changes after December 15th after the elections in Iraq and what happens afterwards, we will have to see.

What about NATO as an institution? Is it going to continue to expand? Is NATO going to take in Ukraine also?
There are two summits slated at this point. One will almost certainly take place in Riga, Latvia, probably next October or November; a smaller summit is likely [planned for] the last year of the Bush administration. Some people are saying that that second summit should issue an invitation to Ukraine to join along with possibly one or two other countries, like Croatia.
This is going to force a major debate, I suspect more serious than any debate on NATO enlargement since the very first one at the Madrid Summit in 1997 over the entrance of the Czech Republic, Hungry, and Poland, for a couple of simple reasons. One, it is still not clear that the democratic experiment in Ukraine is taking hold. Secondly, the country is still very deeply divided between, let's say, its Western population and its Eastern population, the latter having a very heavy Russian component. Third, given the state of relations between the United States and Russia, internal developments in Russia and Russia trying to find its own future, for NATO to go forward and take in Ukraine without a much clearer understanding with Russia could be asking for real trouble.

I'm sure the summit in Riga will cause a lot of heartburn in Moscow as well.
I think the Russians have come to terms with the existence of the Baltic States now within NATO. But I think a number of Russians have recognized that if they have productive relationships with these states that have gained some membership in NATO and the European Union, economically that can be very helpful to at least the western parts of Russia. I think they've gotten over that particular concern. But Ukraine, from the Russian perspective and the Ukrainian perspective, is a real strategic issue if it actually comes formally into NATO. Right now, I would have to say Ukraine certainly is not ready for that, nor is NATO ready for that, nor is the NATO-Russia relationship ready for that.

It is hard to envision Ukraine, which was an integral party of Russia, as part of NATO.
I don't actually see a problem of countries joining NATO, provided a couple of things are fulfilled: one, that NATO continues to be effective; secondly, these countries are ready to be fully engaged in the West; and third, membership of country "A" doesn't come at the expense of interests of country "B." President George H.W. Bush enunciated the grand strategy that is being pursued in a simple phrase, "To try to create a Europe whole and free." The NATO perspective since then has always been that any country can join NATO if it's ready and willing to meet the requirements of NATO membership, to try to indicate that NATO is not a threat to anybody but it is a threat against the forces of instability. Working with the Russians to reassure them on that and to engage them more deeply in NATO, beginning with the NATO-Russia council, is of major strategic significance for everybody in Europe—to try to achieve the goal that nobody has ever had a chance to even try since Charlemagne, "Europe whole and free."

How is NATO doing overall?
I think people outside the professional community that follows this, has to understand that NATO is really thriving in this decade as it did in the last decade because it has gone through a major internal transformation. The old argument that [Senator] Richard Lugar [R-IN] had twelve years ago, "NATO out of business or out of area," has been decisively answered. NATO allies are now prepared to be engaged in a host of places. Most remarkable perhaps, is Afghanistan and the commitment in Afghanistan to get it right, to be successful. The United States, since the problems of 2003 [the Iraq invasion] is now showing a much more positive perspective on NATO. The President's visit [to Europe] in February, what Secretary Rice has been doing, and Secretary [of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld has come around to see the renewed value of NATO. The key element, of course, as always is American leadership. When American leadership is there NATO works; when it's not, it doesn't. That is what we have to look to.