Serving you since 1998
April 2007 :   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

April 26, 2007 


Taliban video of boy executioner causes anger
Thu Apr 26, 5:36 AM ET
SPIN BOLDAK, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A Taliban video of a 12-year-old boy beheading a man accused of spying has angered many Afghans, drawing condemnation from tribal and religious leaders.

"It's very wrong for the Taliban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.

"The Taliban do not follow the laws of Islam. They are taking advice from foreigners."

The video released this week shows the boy in a camouflage jacket and a white headband using a knife to behead a blindfolded man accused of being a spy for foreign forces as men cry "Allahu Akbar! (God is Great)."

The Taliban frequently behead suspected spies and often release video footage.

A tribal leader in the south, the Taliban's heartland, said the beheading was un-Islamic.

"The Taliban are doing very bad things and it is against Islam to behead a man by a very young boy," Haji Saeed Jan told Reuters.

"Islam does not allow anyone to behead any man. The Taliban show the wrong image of Islam to the world. We condemn this."

In the border town of Spin Boldak, near Pakistan, a young man, Abdul Ghafur, was appalled by the footage.

"After I watched this, I could not eat any food for two days," he said. Some television stations broadcast clips from the footage.

Taliban commander Mullah Hayatullah Khan said the Taliban would kill anyone helping foreign forces in order to protect their guerrilla fighters.

"We showed the beheading video to warn others," he said by satellite phone from a secret location.

Asked why the Taliban used a boy, he said:

"We want to tell the non-Muslims that our youngsters are also Mujahideens (holy warriors) and fight with us against you."

"These youngsters will be our Holy War commanders in the future and continue the jihad for freedom. Islam allow boys and women to do jihad against occupying non-Muslim troops and their spies and puppets."

Last year was the bloodiest since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001 and many security analysts expect this year to be worse, with the Taliban and other militant groups bolstered by money from another record opium crop.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Musharraf Says Kabul Losing War Against Taliban
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
MADRID, April 26, 2007 -- Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf says Afghan and NATO-led forces in Afghanistan are losing the war against the Taliban.

In an interview published today by Spain's El Pais newspaper, Musharraf was quoted as saying officials in Kabul who accuse Pakistan's military intelligence of helping the Taliban are, in his words, "liars" who are trying to "hide their shame because they are losing" against the Taliban. Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai are scheduled to meet in Ankara, Turkey on April 29.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Musharraf hits out at Karzai
via NDTV.com Associated Press Thursday, April 26, 2007 (Cordoba)
Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf has voiced scathing criticism of his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai over the resurgence of the Taliban.

In an interview published by the Spanish daily El Pais, Musharraf has slammed Karzai as weak on fighting terrorism and denied Afghan charges that Pakistan is helping the militants.

Musharraf's remarks could raise tension between the two key US allies in the war on terror as the two presidents prepare to meet later this week in Turkey to discuss their differences on fighting the Taliban.

''The ones who do nothing against terrorism, like Karzai, are those who criticize those who fight, like us,'' said Musharraf, who is in Spain on a four-day visit.

The relationship between Karzai and Musharraf, always strained, has deteriorated in recent months as the two have traded public accusations.

At a reconciliation meeting in Washington in September with US President George W Bush, the two men failed to shake hands.

Karzai claims Pakistan shelters top Taliban commanders and does little to patrol the nations' 2,600 km-long shared border.

Musharraf angrily defends his country's record in fighting the Taliban, and terrorism.

The two also are at odds over the possible location of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the mountainous frontier.

When Musharraf is asked, he says the terror leader is most likely in Afghanistan. Karzai places his probable location in Pakistan.

In Cordoba, where he addressed university students on relations between Islamic countries and the West, Musharraf insisted that both al-Qaida and the Taliban were products of Afghanistan.

''They were imported from Afganistan,'' Musharraf told a packed auditorium at the University of Labor. ''We in Pakistan are victims.''

In the newspaper interview, Musharraf noted his country has 80,000 soldiers guarding the border with Afghanistan and insisted that it is wrong to say Pakistan is aiding the Taliban to keep Afghanistan weak.

''We do not want to govern Afghanistan. We want a stable, democratic Afghanistan,'' he was quoted as saying.

In the university speech, Musharraf vowed to fight terrorism and extremism, but called for more international support, saying that countries must address the root of the problem, including resolving the political dispute between Israeli and the Palestinians, fighting poverty and improving education.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Taliban: Bin Laden planned Cheney attack
By ANNA JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer
Thu Apr 26, 2:12 AM ET
CAIRO, Egypt - A top Taliban commander said al-Qaida leader  Osama bin Laden was behind the February attack outside a U.S. military base in  Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President  Dick Cheney, according to an interview shown Wednesday by Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera.

Bin Laden planned and supervised the attack that killed 23 people outside the Bagram base while Cheney was there, said Mullah Dadullah, the Taliban's main military commander in southern Afghanistan who has had close associations with al-Qaida.

"You may remember the martyr operation inside the Bagram base, which targeted a senior U.S. official. ... That operation was the result of his wise planning. He (bin Laden) planned that operation and guided us through it. The operation was a success," Dadullah told Al-Jazeera.

He did not say how he knew bin Laden planned the attack, and it was not clear when the interview took place.

Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino said it was "an interesting claim but ... I haven't seen any intelligence that would support that."

A U.S. counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the information's sensitivity, said al-Qaida would likely have used more than a single explosion outside the base's main gate if it were targeting Cheney.

In addition, the official said, it takes bin Laden significant time to communicate from where he is hiding. That wouldn't offer him the flexibility to order an attack on Cheney, whose stop at Bagram was kept secret in advance of his arrival, the official said.

The U.S. military had said previously it was unclear whether the Taliban knew about Cheney's visit or whether the timing of the attack was a coincidence.

The Feb. 27 bombing killed 20 Afghan civilians, a U.S. soldier, a U.S. contract worker and a South Korean soldier outside Bagram while Cheney was meeting with officials inside the base. The Taliban claimed the attack was aimed at Cheney, but officials said it posed no real threat to him.

The attacker did not try to penetrate even the first of several U.S.-manned security checkpoints at Bagram, instead detonating himself among a group of Afghan workers outside the base.

Dadullah insisted bin Laden was alive and well. "Thank God he is alive. We get updated information about him. Thank God he planned operations in both  Iraq and Afghanistan," he told Al-Jazeera in excerpts that were translated into Arabic.

Parts of the interview were broadcast on Al-Jazeera's English and Arabic satellite TV channels and were posted on the stations' Web sites. Al-Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, said it planned to show the entire interview later Wednesday, but the interview had still not aired by midnight.

The interview was not the first time in recent months that Dadullah has said bin Laden is alive. On March 1, London television Channel 4 aired an interview in which he said the al-Qaida leader was in contact with Taliban officers. The station did not say when the tape was made.

U.S. officials have said they assume bin Laden is alive but do not have proof one way or the other. He is assumed to be in a rugged area of Pakistan, where remnants of the Taliban are living while mounting attacks inside neighboring Afghanistan.

U.S.-led forces drove the head of the terror network from his Afghanistan haven in late 2001 by overthrowing the hard-line Taliban government after al-Qaida was blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks.
------
Associated Press writers Katherine Shrader in Washington and Omar Sinan in Cairo, Egypt, contributed to this report.

Back to Top
Back to Top
French hostages are well, Taliban say
Thu Apr 26, 5:34 AM ET
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AFP) - Two French aid workers held by the Taliban in  Afghanistan are well, the Islamist movement said, a day ahead of an apparent deadline for demands to be met for their freedom.

The Taliban, which has beheaded several of its captives, said April 20 French troops must be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Kabul must release Taliban prisoners within a week.

"Without this, the position of Islamic Emirate (the Taliban) about foreign prisoners was clear to the world and (will) soon be applied," it said in a statement on its website.

Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP Thursday he could not comment on the deadline.

The two aid workers for French nongovernment organisation Terre d'Enfance (A World For Our Children) went missing in southwestern Afghanistan April 3 with three of their Afghan staff.

"They are in good health, in good condition. They are eating well and they are our guests," Ahmadi said. "There has been no particular development of the case. There has been no major direct or indirect negotiations."

A spokesman for the French foreign ministry said in Paris Monday he would not comment on the statement posted on the Taliban website (www.alemarah.8rf.com) a week ago.

French authorities "are continuing to make all the necessary efforts in liaison with the NGO Terre d'Enfance and the Afghan authorities," the spokesman said in comments fowarded to AFP by the French embassy in Kabul.

The Afghan government was investigating, interior ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told AFP also refusing to comment on the apparent deadline.

"Our relevant departments are working on the issue and they are trying their best," he said.

In a videotape message broadcast a week ago, the hostages said they feared for their lives and urged the French government to give in to the kidnappers' demands.

The Taliban made similar demands ahead of the release of the kidnapped Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo. The reporter was freed in exchange for five Taliban prisoners in a deal which met with widespread outrage.

His driver and his interpreter were beheaded.

Senior French diplomat Philippe Faure met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul April 19 to urge for the utmost efforts to free the five; French  President Jacques Chirac also called his Afghan counterpart about the matter.

Around 1,000 French troops are deployed in the Kabul region as part of the  NATO-led International Security Assistance Force helping the government to extend its authority across the country.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Canada to get access to Afghan detainees
By ROB GILLIES, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 25, 11:44 PM ET
TORONTO - Canada has reached an agreement with Afghan officials to check on the status of detainees amid allegations they are being tortured after Canadian troops hand them over, Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor said Wednesday.

O'Connor said Canadian officials will be allowed to enter detention facilities any time they want. The announcement comes two days after a newspaper report that such prisoners were abused led to calls for O'Connor's firing.

Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper reported Monday that dozens of detainees said they had been choked, starved and given electric shocks — fueling criticism that Ottawa's deal with  Afghanistan for the handover of such prisoners is flawed because it gave Canada no right to check on the condition of the prisoners it detained.

Canada signed an agreement with Afghanistan in 2005 that committed Canadian soldiers to hand over captured Taliban prisoners to local authorities. Unlike Britain and the Netherlands, Canada's prisoner transfer agreement with Afghanistan did not give it the automatic right to check on individuals handed over by its forces.

Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of Canada's Defense staff, said civilian staff in Kandahar will now take on the task of checking on detainees.

O'Connor and Prime Minister Stephen Harper both insisted again Wednesday that they had no knowledge of any specific reports of abuse.

A report in the Globe and Mail says that the Canadian embassy in Kabul warned the Conservative government last year about Afghanistan's poor human-rights record and allegations of torture within the country's justice system.

In addition to the embassy warning, both the  United Nations Human Rights Commission and the U.S. State Department have written their own scathing reports about the state of human rights in Afghan jails.

Canadians have become increasingly concerned about the mission in Afghanistan because of a mounting death toll and reports that troops might be an accomplice to torture. The Conservatives have lost some support according to recent polls.

Fifty-four Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed thus far in Afghanistan. Opposition lawmakers have been pushing for a troop withdrawal.

There are some 2,500 Canadian soldiers fighting alongside Afghan, American and other  NATO forces trying to weed out Taliban fighters in the most violent areas in the south.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Canada presses Kabul over prisoner abuse reports
By David Ljunggren Wed Apr 25, 4:37 PM ET
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's government, under increasing pressure over allegations that Afghan authorities torture prisoners handed over by Canadian troops, said on Wednesday it had demanded answers from Kabul.

The announcement by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor was a marked change in tone from Ottawa, which has until now played down the allegations and referred to them as rumors.

O'Connor spoke hours after a newspaper published a secret internal report showing the minority Conservative government was aware last year that detainees were regularly abused in  Afghanistan.

International conventions prevent a country from handing over prisoners if there is reason to suspect possible abuse. One leading expert on international law says if the allegations are proven, then Canada is guilty of war crimes.

"Canadian officials have expressed our concerns both to the Afghan government and the Afghan independent human rights commission," O'Connor told Parliament's foreign affairs committee.

"We have strongly urged them to investigate the allegations and, if required, to take corrective actions. This is an issue that the Canadian forces, Canada and our international partners take very seriously," he said.

The Globe and Mail newspaper on Monday reported it had talked to 30 suspected Taliban militants who say they were beaten, whipped and mistreated by Afghan authorities after being handed over by Canadian troops.

The story increased the uneasiness felt by many opposition legislators about the 2,500-strong Canadian mission in the southern city of Kandahar. Canada has lost 54 soldiers so far, nine in the last two weeks.

Leaders of the two smallest opposition parties on Wednesday said they would not exclude introducing a motion of no-confidence in the government over the issue.

If all three opposition parties voted together, the government would be defeated and a new election would be called. The Liberals, the largest of the three, were cool to the idea, saying that for the time being they would continue to insist on O'Connor's resignation.

Opposition leaders say they are particularly unhappy with what they see as the flippant tone taken by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who has accused his critics of caring more about suspected Taliban members than about Canada's troops.

O'Connor said he had not read the secret report on human rights in Afghanistan prepared by the foreign ministry, which said "extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial are all too common."

In response, Liberal legislator Ujjal Dosanjh accused O'Connor of engaging in a "massive colossal systematic cover-up" of what was really happening on the ground.

Critics complain that Canadian troops are spending far too much time fighting the Taliban and not enough on helping rebuild the country.

Parliament on Tuesday voted 150 to 134 against a nonbinding motion calling for the soldiers to be withdrawn in February 2009 as scheduled. Ottawa says the mission will end on time, but opposition parties suspect the troops will stay longer.

The  NATO-led mission was supposed to end in February 2007 but in May 2006 the Conservatives persuaded Parliament to approve a two-year extension.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Rice hails Canada over costly Afghan deployment
Wed Apr 25, 6:09 PM ET
OSLO (AFP) - Canada will be singled out for praise over its costly contribution to the war in  Afghanistan when  NATO foreign ministers meet here, US Secretary of State  Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.

The Thursday meeting of NATO foreign ministers is being held two days after the Canadian parliament defeated a bill to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Rice said she would pull her Canadian counterpart, Peter MacKay, aside to express appreciation for the work of the Canadian military, which has lost 54 soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002.

"Canada has taken a number of casualties in this war and I'll want to say to him how much the sacrifice of the Canadian people is appreciated, and I'm sure that his NATO colleagues will want to say the same," Rice told reporters on her way to Oslo.

Earlier this week, Canada's parliament rejected a motion that would have blocked Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government from extending Canada's military mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009.

The government has also been under fire over reports this week that Afghan prisoners captured by Canadian forces faced possible torture after being transferred to Afghan custody.

The resolution, proposed by the opposition Liberals, was voted down 150 to 134.

The motion asked the government to dispel speculation that Canada's combat mission could be extended beyond 2009, its current mandate, and advise its NATO allies so they may prepare for an orderly handover of duties.

Canada has deployed 2,500 soldiers in the volatile Kandahar region in southern Afghanistan, hunting down former Taliban militants.

Since 2002, 54 soldiers and one senior diplomat have died in attacks, accidents or roadside explosions.

Last year, Harper's Conservatives pushed through Parliament a two-year extension of the mission to February 2009, with the support of several Liberal MPs, but did not exclude the possibility of a further commitment.

The Liberals now accuse Harper of having already made up his mind to extend the mission, despite his public denials.

According to a poll Tuesday, 52 percent of Canadians support the troop deployment in Afghanistan, but 63 percent also want their soldiers to return home in 2009.

The Liberals this week called for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's resignation for not immediately halting the practice of transferring Afghan prisoners to Kabul after a Toronto newspaper reported the torture allegations.

The Globe and Mail said Monday it had "uncovered a litany of gruesome stories and a clear pattern of abuse by the Afghan authorities who work closely with Canadian troops."

Back to Top
Back to Top
Torture a fact of life in war-torn Afghanistan, suggests PM's adviser
Wed Apr 25, 12:23 PM
OTTAWA (CP) - Torture is just part of the grinding conditions faced daily in Afghanistan's "tribal culture," suggests Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Mideast adviser.

Wajid Khan says he doesn't support that kind of abuse, but life isn't easy in the impoverished country torn apart by almost 30 years of war. "Keep in mind it is Afghanistan we're talking about," he said Wednesday in a brief interview.

"Every day people that are living over there are living in substandard conditions."

The Conservative government is on the defensive amid reports that dozens of Afghan detainees handed over by Canadian troops were allegedly tortured by Afghan interrogators.

Khan says at least some of those prisoners might have been shot on the spot had they been detained by other parties instead of Canadian soldiers.

"They might have saved their lives, because had the other parties found them first, they would've probably shot them. These things happen in those tribal cultures.

"But I'm not supporting it. There should be no torture. It is not acceptable, and the government is doing as much as (it) can."

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is under increasing pressure to resign after misleading MPs about the government's ability to ensure detainees aren't abused in Afghan custody.

Published reports have chronicled disturbing allegations from Afghans who say they were whipped with electric cables and beaten by Afghan interrogators before being released.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day told an international counter-terrorism conference Tuesday that Canada is right to be concerned about human rights.

Still, he added, humane treatment of prisoners is "a radical thought for a lot of people in that part of the world.

"We're saying to them that these people we're bringing you to put in jail, yes, these people have no compunction about machine-gunning, mowing down little children. They have no compunction about decapitating or hanging elderly women. They have no compunction about the vicious forms of torture you can imagine on innocent people. Now we've captured them ... and we're asking you to treat them humanely."

Human rights advocates in Canada point out that Canadian troops could be accused of war crimes if the detainees they hand over to Afghan authorities are later tortured.

A published report Wednesday suggests that the federal government was well aware of such abuse. But it deliberately censored such warnings from Canadian diplomats in Kabul in documents released to the media.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan war leaves Forces unable to buy new rescue planes
Strapped for cash, military 'shelves' $1.3-billion purchase
David Pugliese The Ottawa Citizen Thursday, April 26, 2007
The Canadian military's program to replace its 40-year-old search-and-rescue aircraft has been sidelined because money is being funnelled for more urgent equipment needed into the Afghanistan war, defence industry officials and sources say.

The $1.3-billion program to purchase a fleet of new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft was named as the No. 1 equipment priority in 2003 for the Canadian Forces.

But the project has since been derailed by the urgent purchases of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of gear for Afghanistan, the $650-million order for Leopard tanks and the multibillion-dollar purchases of C-17 and C-130J transport aircraft and Chinook helicopters.

Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier, as well as Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, have pointed out that the C-17, C-130J, Chinook helicopters and tanks are needed for the military's ongoing overseas missions, particularly in Afghanistan.

A defence source confirmed the procurement budget has been stretched by the recent equipment purchases to the point that there is little money available for the search-and-rescue project.

Even some army equipment projects, such as a plan to purchase a bunker-busting missile, have been delayed because of the priority for Afghanistan-related gear.

Aerospace industry officials have been told the search-and-rescue aircraft program, while not dead, will be stalled for several years.

"What they're saying is that it's shelved," said Randy Price, a retired colonel and search-and-rescue pilot. "They don't have any money."

Mr. Price, the former wing commander at Canadian Forces Base Comox, B.C., from which search-and-rescue Buffalo aircraft operate, said the military is reluctant to spend money on equipment not seen as having a direct combat role.

Mr. Price now works as a consultant for EADS Canada, a company that hopes to sell the Canadian Forces the C-295 aircraft for search-and-rescue missions.

The message about lack of money has also reached Alenia North America, the aircraft firm offering Canada the C-27J Spartan for search and rescue.

"We understand the Afghanistan participation has in some way (prompted) the government to give some importance to other programs such as the C-17 or the C-130J or the Chinook, or the tanks," said Giuseppe Giordo, president of Alenia North America.

The purchase of the 15 search-and-rescue planes was supposed to replace the 40-year-old Buffalo aircraft on the west coast as well as the aging Hercules transport planes also being used for such missions.

Mr. Price said it is becoming increasingly difficult to find parts for the aging Buffalo since suppliers have gone out of business over the decades. In some cases, military personnel have had to build new parts for the planes. When he was wing commander at CFB Comox in 2004 his staff had to rush out to purchase brake pads for the aircraft since the original supplier was shutting down.

Defence officials, however, dispute claims the Afghanistan mission has delayed any equipment project.

"While the Department has absorbed some of the costs of the Afghanistan mission, both for equipment acquisition and operating expenses, these funds have been sourced from the overall defence budget and it would be difficult to identify any particular initiative or acquisition that has been affected or delayed," said Canadian Forces spokeswoman Lieut. Carole Brown.

"Certainly, no project has been targeted as a source of funds for Afghanistan."

Military officials also say the Canadian Forces is in a significant period of transformation as well as adjusting strategies and capabilities to meet future operational needs. Defence officials used the example of the Leopard tank purchase to illustrate such changes.

"While the timelines associated with the acquisition of a new (search and rescue) aircraft may be affected by this process, the CF is evaluating options and taking action to ensure that fixed-wing search-and-rescue service is maintained without interruption until the new capability is fielded," added Lieut. Brown.

Mr. Price said he believes it will take several incidents in which the military can't respond to a major search-and-rescue call before the government is forced to proceed with the program.

Mr. Giordo argues that since aircraft such as the C-130J won't be delivered for at least three more years, there should still be money in the military procurement budget now for the search-and-rescue aircraft purchase.

In September 2003 then-chief of the defence staff Gen. Ray Henault announced the project was the top equipment priority for the military. In the spring of 2004 the Liberal government said it was fast-tracking the project. Military officials said they would approach industry in September 2004 to begin the competition. The first aircraft was supposed to be delivered sometime in 2006.

Military officials are still working on the statement of requirement for the aircraft, something they have been doing for more than three years now.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan says Iran deporting 5,000 Afghan refugees per day
The Associated Press Thursday, April 26, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan: Iran is deporting around 5,000 refugees a day back to Afghanistan, which lacks the capacity to feed and accommodate them, an Afghan official said Thursday.

In the last three days, Iran has deported Afghan refugees living illegally in the Islamic republic through the Zaranj border-crossing in southwestern Nimroz province, said Interior Ministry spokesman Zemeri Bashary.

Afghanistan lacks shelter, water and food to accommodate the influx, and Iranian authorities should "show a little patience on the refugee issue," Bashary said.

About 2 million Afghans live as refugees in Iran, having fled their homes during decades of ruinous conflict.

The decision to deport the refugees comes a week after Gen. Peter Pace, the top U.S. military commander, said U.S. forces recently intercepted Iranian-made mortars and other weaponry in Afghanistan. However, it is not clear if they were shipped directly from Iran.

Bashary said the two issues are not linked, and that their ministry has no proof of Iranian-made weapons showing up in Afghanistan.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Govt to close 4 Afghan refugee camps by Oct 30
Staff Report Daily Times, Pakistan
ISLAMABAD: The government has decided to close four Afghan refugee camps, two each in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan, till October 30 in two phases, sources told Daily Times.

They said the decision was taken on Monday in a high-level meeting presided over by Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao. Sources said that in the first phase the Afghan refugee camps at Kacha Garhi in NWFP and at Jungle Pir Alizai in Balochistan would be closed till June 15.

In the second phase, the Jalozai camp in NWFP and Girdi Jungle camp in Balochistan will be closed till October 30, they said. The inhabitants of these camps will be repatriated with the help of United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).

Back to Top
Back to Top
AFGHANISTAN: Abduction of health workers deprives the displaced of health services
26 Apr 2007 12:12:07 GMT
More  KANDAHAR, 26 April 2007 (IRIN) - Up to 50,000 internally displaced persons (IDPs) in the Zhari Dasht camp in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar have been denied health services for almost one month after the abduction of five health workers in the province. Doctors have since refused to travel on the dangerous roads leading there.

"When our children were sick, we were taking them to the doctors and the doctors were examining them and then giving prescriptions. But after the doctors were abducted, there is nothing left; no facilities and no treatment," said Ghulam Mohammad, a displaced person originally from Maimana, a town in northern Afghanistan.

Five Afghan health workers, including a doctor and three nurses and their driver, working for the provincial health department were abducted in Kandahar's Zherai district on their way to the camp on 27 March this year, department officials in Kandahar told IRIN.

They said the abductors were Taliban fighters and that Taliban representatives have contacted a brother of one of the health workers seeking negotiations with senior government officials in Kandahar. They want Taliban prisoners to be released in return for the health workers.

In the meantime, Zhari Dasht IDPs have to make a one-hour car journey to Kandahar for medical assistance - but for many that is not an option.

"We are poor people and we can't afford to take our sick to Kandahar city. We don't have the money to pay for transportation," said Ghani, an IDP living in the camp.

Many of the Zhari Dasht IDPs have lived there for at least five years and are ethnic Pashtuns from the north of Afghanistan who fled drought, ethnic tension and land disputes there.

According to the Ministry of Public Health, lack of health services for camp residents will continue.

Security must be ensured

"If the security of our health workers is not ensured, then we cannot put more health workers at risk and we won't be able to send more doctors to the camp," said Dr Abdullah Fahim, the ministry spokesman in Kabul.

But with the summer heat arriving, health risks will rise, Fahim warned. "Diseases -including diarrhoea, hepatitis and cholera - could spread because of drinking polluted water, the great amount of garbage and dusty days," he said.

Dr Abdi Momin, medical officer with the World Health Organization (WHO), says they, too, are concerned.

"So far, thank God, there have not been any outbreaks of diseases. [But] we are concerned about outbreaks of seasonal diseases such as diarrhoea," Momin said.

He said WHO is talking to other UN agencies and NGOs to find a way to resume health services in the camp.

Meanwhile, officials are calling on the abductors to release the health workers.

"If those brothers who have abducted the doctors hear my voice, I ask that they release them because these people are doctors. They can be your doctors and our doctors - doctors serve all the people of a community," Haji M. Nabi Safi, head of the Department for Refugees and Repatriation in Kandahar, said. "These doctors did not have links to any political party."

Back to Top
Back to Top
Pak-Afghan border completely sealed: Major Gen Saleem Nawaz
Thursday April 26, 2007 (0457 PST) PakTribune.com, Pakistan
QUETTA: Inspector General of Frontier Corps, Major General Saleem Nawaz has said that Pak-Afghan border has been sealed completely with the cooperation of tribesmen and aerial monitoring is also continued in the area.

Talking to a private TV Channel, Major General Saleem Nawaz said that 18 wings of Frontier Corps are performing their responsibilities on 1196 kilometer Kalkush-Rabat border with Afghanistan to control infiltration with the support of security forces.

He said that talks with Afghanistan were held for the establishment of 10 legal points on border, adding that Biometric system has been installed on Chaman border to check people entering and exit from the country. He added that 2680 infiltrators have been arrested in 2007.

Major General Saleem Nawaz said that steps have been taken to control infiltration of foreigners from Wazirstan to Zhob. He said that the local tribesmen want peace in their area and they are fully cooperating with the Frontier Corps.

Commenting on the Farari camps in Balochistan, Major General Saleem Nawaz said that there were 36 such camps in Dera Bugti and Kohlu and majority of them have been eliminated.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghan government takes over Italian aid group hospitals
The Associated Press Thursday, April 26, 2007
KABUL, Afghanistan: The Afghan government has taken over the management of hospitals run by an Italian aid group that pulled its international workers to protest the detention of a staff member by authorities, an official said Thursday.

About 40 foreigners working for the aid group Emergency left Kabul two weeks ago to protest the detention of Rahmatullah Hanefi, an Afghan staff member.

Hanefi was involved in negotiations to release an Italian journalist kidnapped by the Taliban last month, and an Afghan official has accused Hanefi of helping with the abduction.

Public Health Ministry spokesman Abdullah Fahim said Emergency should have waited for the investigation into Hanefi to be completed before walking out. He added that in the meantime, the ministry will run Emergency's hospitals and pay its 1,200 doctors, nurses and staff.

"The Emergency hospitals in Afghanistan are currently operating," Fahim told The Associated Press.

Despite Fahim's assertion, a doctor running the Emergency hospital in the southern city of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province said it has dismissed 200 of its 235 employees, keeping staff only to clean up.

"One of the Italian doctors came to Lashkar Gah and had a meeting with Afghan staff, and in the end, he closed the hospital," said Dr. Mohammad Arshad Sharifi, who is running the hospital. "We have only one patient right now, and he will be discharged soon."

He said the hospital staff — none of whom are employed by the Public Health Ministry — are now awaiting the government's decision to see what happens next.

Emergency runs three hospitals — in Lashkar Gah, Panjshir in the north and Kabul — and 28 first-aid posts across the country.

Hanefi worked in the Lashkar Gah hospital, which played a key role in brokering the March 19 swap of kidnapped Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo for the release of five imprisoned Taliban militants.

The deal was criticized by the United States and some European nations, and Afghan lawmakers and foreigners working in the country said it gave the Taliban incentive to stage more kidnappings.

Mastrogiacomo's driver was killed shortly after the March 5 abduction, and the hard-line militia beheaded a freelance Afghan journalist who was working as his translator on April 8 after authorities refused another prisoner exchange.

Hanefi was taken into Afghan custody after Mastrogiacomo's release. Afghanistan's intelligence service accused him of involvement in the kidnapping.

Fahim, of the Public Health Ministry, said Emergency should not have left Afghanistan.

"If an official or an employee of Emergency hospital is under the custody of the intelligence service in Afghanistan, it is up to the other officials of that organization to respect the laws of that country and wait for the investigation to be completed," Fahim said.

"Nobody has the right to say 'Release that person' without the completion of the investigation."

The hospital has enough supplies to operate for another three to six months, during which time it will seek other funds or support, Fahim said. If no others funding can be found, the public health ministry will administer the hospitals itself, he said.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Killers and censors bring fledgling media under fire from all sides
US and Kabul officials get tough with journalists amid growing insurgent violence
Declan Walsh in Kabul Thursday April 26, 2007 The Guardian
A day after being freed from captivity by the Taliban, the Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo stepped off a plane in Rome, beaming with relief and raising his arms in a victory salute. But back in Afghanistan his translator, Ajmal Nakshbandi, remained in Taliban hands.

The omens were bad: Mastrogiacomo's driver, Sayed Agha, had already been beheaded, and a week later 25-year-old Nakshbandi was also dead, his throat slit and his body dumped in the desert.

The brutal slaying last month shook Afghanistan's fledgling media, sparked recriminations and highlighted how young local reporters were becoming caught in the crossfire of an increasingly vicious conflict.
All sides consider news as a weapon of war, even those professing to defend press freedom. On March 4 American soldiers ripped cameras from local reporters in Nangarhar and deleted their pictures after a convoy of marines shot at least 10 people and wounded 33 in the aftermath of a suicide attack.

A US commander later justified the deletions on the basis that "untrained" Afghans might "capture visual details that are not as they originally were". A preliminary military inquiry, publicised last week, suggested what those sensitive details could have been: contrary to the soldiers' earlier claims, investigators found that all of the killed civilians had been unarmed.

Faced with a swelling insurgency and mounting criticism, Afghanistan's government has also taken a tougher line with the media. Last week three journalists with Tolo, a popular television station, and four from the Associated Press, were detained on orders from the attorney general, Abdul Jabar Sabet, who claimed he had been misrepresented by a reporter.

"We are coming under fire from all sides," said Rahimullah Samander, president of the Afghan Independent Journalists' Association. "Before everyone wanted to be a journalist. Not any more."

The Afghan media has altered beyond recognition since the Taliban regime, when there was one state-controlled radio station and a handful of religion-obsessed newspapers. Now there are eight TV stations, 400 publications and more than 2,000 journalists, according to Mr Samander.

The media explosion is fuelling social change and a spirit of accountability. Editorials harshly criticise the government of the president, Hamid Karzai, and TV stations feature women presenters, foreign films and racy music videos.

Foreign donors encouraged the local media with a flood of funding before the elections in 2004 and 2005. But over the past year the foreign money has started to dry up. Six daily newspapers have folded, journalists have been laid off and wages have plummeted.

There has been a three-fold increase in suicide attacks this year alone. As the Taliban stepped up its attacks, the government's commitment waned. Last year the state intelligence agency tried to curtail reporting of the insurgency by issuing a list of restrictions to local journalists. A public outcry caused the directive to be withdrawn, but public anger was again stoked over the handling of Mastrogiacomo's release.

Mastrogiacomo, a correspondent for La Repubblica, was freed in exchange for five "high-value" Taliban prisoners and $2m (£1m), said an Afghan official. President Karzai agreed to the controversial deal because he feared Italy would withdraw 1,800 troops from Afghanistan if the journalist died. The Taliban expedited negotiations by beheading his driver then making the panicked Italian record a video plea for help.

But Afghans say that once Mastrogiacomo was safe, Mr Karzai had allowed the Afghan, Nakshbandi, to die in the desert. "Why didn't the government strike a deal for both of them? It didn't take Ajmal seriously," said Farida Nekzad, managing editor of Pajhwok news agency. "In this country we have two policies - one for the internationals, the other for locals."

But the Afghan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the story was more complicated, and that the Taliban had never made demands for the release of Nakshbandi, who was killed to "humiliate Mr Karzai". He added: "It was political, just to make the government's name bad."

Journalists also directed their ire at the Italian journalist and La Repubblica for failing to save Nakshbandi. The Union of Italian journalists has offered money to his family, said Mr Samander.

This week the media debate has focused on the Tolo TV controversy. Mr Sabet, a strident conservative, told the Guardian he had been offended by a television report that took his words out of context. "They are not journalists, they are liars," he said. He insisted he was within his rights to detain whoever he wished. "These laws give me the power to summon any person in this country, even the president," he said, waving a book of legislation.

Since being appointed last year as attorney general Mr Sabet has cultivated a reputation as a crusader against corruption and vice, arresting crooked officials and shutting down brothels. But critics say that he sometimes breaks the law or applies it selectively and can be unpredictable.

On Monday a government commission adjudicating on the Tolo dispute ordered the station to apologise to Mr Sabet. Its management refused to back down. "We come under illegal attack and they demand we apologise - how ridiculous is that?" said its director, Saad Mohseni.

There is greater peril in the provinces. Young and poorly paid reporters are vulnerable to intimidation and bribery from local strongmen, usually governors and warlords wanting to stop unfavourable coverage of corruption, human rights abuses and drug trafficking.

But the most potent danger remains the Taliban.

"They want to control our words. They say 'if we kill one person, you should write [that it was] two'," said Ms Nekzad, of Pajhwok, who likened the worsening situation to Iraq.

Refusal to comply can lead to an early grave. Mr Samander pulled out a "night letter" that a colleague in Nangarhar had received last week accusing him of working for the CIA. Several journalists had already left, he said.

He sighed. "It is not our job to take sides but this is very difficult. We will surely lose other Ajmals."

Backstory
Fighting continues in southern Afghanistan but elsewhere the struggle to control the country's cultural future is being played out on the small screen. TV stations showing Bollywood movies and looking at previously taboo subjects such as child sex abuse are highly popular with young, urban Afghans. Tolo TV is at the vanguard of this wave, but the fledgling media is staunchly resisted by many older Afghans who are sceptical about western influences. A media law now in parliament will give the government greater control. But the freedom that has been acquired might not be readily surrendered. Last week disabled athletes blocked protesters from reaching the Tolo building, in an upmarket area of Kabul. One disabled man said the athletes were involved because it was "good TV".

Back to Top
Back to Top
NATO pushes to improve Afghan army
By DENIS D. GRAY, Associated Press Writer Wed Apr 25, 5:24 PM ET
KABUL, Afghanistan -  NATO forces are putting more trained Afghan troops on the front lines and plan "rolling operations" against Taliban insurgents who are intensifying their attacks but remain unable to mount territory-seizing offensives, military officers say.

Still, there's little prospect the suffering of combatants or civilians will abate. After a bloody 2006, violence has escalated again, leaving more than 1,000 people dead in the first four months of 2007, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press.

In the field and at NATO headquarters, there's twofold optimism for the military campaign in the months ahead: that large-scale operations against the Taliban's southern strongholds have blunted what appeared to be a drive to seize vital terrain, and that the Afghan National Army is crystalizing into an effective fighting force.

"We're cynical about the so-called spring offensive. It may happen, but so far we haven't seen one," says British Squadron Leader David Marsh, NATO's spokesman in the south. "We've had a winter campaign to knock off what they might be able to do in the spring."

Yet, in a sign the conflict is deepening, the casualty figures on all sides for the first four months of the year are sharply up.

With the annual fighting season scarcely begun, at least 320 Afghan civilians and military and about 680 militants have been killed so far in 2007, according to figures compiled by AP from Afghan, NATO and U.S. officials.

That combined toll of 1,000 is more than double the total fatalities for the first four months of 2006 — which saw the deadliest spate of fighting in  Afghanistan since U.S. led forces ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001.

The number of militants killed has more than tripled in 2007, and combined casualties among civilians and Afghan security forces have doubled. The number of coalition and NATO soldiers killed has risen to 39, from 15 during the same period of 2006.

Deadly bombings happen every day. Last week, a roadside bomb hit a U.N. convoy in the southern city of Kandahar, killing four Nepalese guards in the deadliest attack for the world body in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster. On Wednesday, a bombing killed seven Afghan soldiers in eastern Paktika province, the latest in a string of attacks that have inflicted multiple casualties on security forces.

There have been at least 39 suicide attacks this year, a threefold increase over the same period in 2006, according to the NGO Safety Office, which advises relief groups on security.

Last year's ominous upsurge in Taliban strength prompted calls to increase U.S. and NATO troops, which are expected to total 52,000 by summer's end from the current 47,000, NATO spokesman Col. Tom Collins said. That compares with about 32,000 at the start of 2006.

Forces, he said, would be fighting a "rolling series of operations," not necessarily just in prime Taliban strongholds like Kandahar and Helmand provinces, but in other areas where the militants were concentrated but had not yet been confronted.

Last year, it became apparent that militants were able to control tracts of southern Afghanistan and wanted to expand their domain. NATO had to mount a major offensive that inflicted major losses on hundreds of Taliban fighters threatening the city of Kandahar.

Seth G. Jones, of the U.S.-based think tank RAND Corporation, who visited Kandahar early this year, says the Taliban are not capable of taking on NATO in pitched battles, but "may only need to conduct a limited military offensive" to extend their influence.

"Their short-term strategic aim, in my view, is to increasingly take territory in the east and south. If they can do this at the village and district level through a combination of fear and exploiting local grievances against the Afghan government, they may be able to take territory without significant amounts of (military force)," he said in an interview.

Even a record number of Western forces will find it difficult to counter the militants' influence in Afghanistan, a country about 50 percent bigger than  Iraq. And Afghanistan's history of aversion to foreign intervention also suggests that a prolonged military presence could backfire — like the Soviet occupation of the 1980s.

"Only the Afghan government can win this battle, which is primarily political. If we fight a colonial war, we lose," says Barnett R. Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University, who like many stress that building an effective Afghan army will be one ingredient for success.

While criticizing the police force for corruption and government for weaknesses, NATO troops who fight alongside Afghan soldiers invariably heap praise on them. Significantly, so do many fellow countrymen.
"The police are thieves and drug mafia, but the soldiers treat us with respect and try to provide security," says Alaji Akhter, a tribal leader in the southeastern province of Zabul.

"The will to fight is really here. I didn't find that in Iraq," says Maj. Christopher Clay, of St. Louis, deputy commander of the NATO task force in the province. "I trained 700 Iraqis but when it came time to fight in Fallujah, only 300 went with me. The rest melted away. Here in Afghanistan, if I ask for 150 soldiers, I get 150."

NATO officers, however, say many problems still confront the Afghan army. Soldiers go into battle on unarmored pickup trucks and carrying hand-me-down weaponry. Commanders lack experience in large-unit operations. Retaining the low-paid troops is difficult and their numbers are still too few.

The Afghan government says the goal of 70,000 Afghan soldiers — roughly double the current strength — has been pushed forward to December 2008 from 2011, and new U.S. funding of $8.6 billion for Afghanistan's security will help equip them.

But even a formidable Afghan army, backed by a beefed-up NATO, is unlikely to suppress the insurgency in the foreseeable future.

"We know the military solution alone just won't work," Collins says. "We're not just going out to hunt extremists. Reconstruction is the No. 1 priority here."

Still, the U.S. last year spent $19 billion on military operations compared to just $2 billion on reconstruction and development, which has stalled in many areas because of insecurity.

A recent survey by the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, describing 2007 as "the breaking point," concluded that Afghans were losing trust in their government.

"Public fear and frustration are on the rise in Afghanistan," it said. "Afghans will attach themselves to whomever they consider to be the most effective at providing security, income and improved living conditions."

Back to Top
Back to Top
Media at risk under new Afghan law
By Aunohita Mojumdar - Al Jazeera / April 24, 2007
Afghanistan's parliament is on the brink of passing a new media law that may considerably reduce the independence of the country's media.

The controversial amendments to the law, proposed by the religious and cultural affairs commission of the parliament, chaired by former regional commander Haji Mohammed Mohaqeq and supported by the government, will bring both private and state media under greater government control.

Proposed changes include an oversight committee that will scrutinise the functioning of the media including its content.

An earlier proposal to institute an independent commission to carry out this monitoring function has been scrapped in favour of a single body that will have officials from government ministries and departments but not media representatives.

Complaints relating to media content will be referred directly to the supreme court which, in Afghanistan, remains a conservative bastion.

Control of content will be guided through clauses which include prohibitions that prevent publicity of any other religion than Islam, prohibit the media from producing any content that is unislamic or jeopardises the stability of the nation or any false information which might disrupt public opinion. While some of these clauses are seemingly innocuous, they are so wide-ranging as to allow them to be misused against media organisations not toeing the line.

Interpretations of facts and falsehood, for example, are always contentious in a conflict zone. The government's determination of what are facts will result in one-sided reportage. Already there have been several attempts to impose guidelines for reporting on the media with a wide-ranging list of subjects which should not be reported.

The recently passed amnesty bill, immunising all jihadis from prosecution also sought to introduce a clause which would force the media to honour the jihadis in any reportage. Both moves were dropped under pressure but may be reintroduced through this bill.

The growing tensions between the media and the government are evident in recent events. The government's decision to trade Taliban prisoners for an Italian reporter leaving an Afghan reporter Ajmal Naqshbandi to be murdered has angered and shocked Afghan journalists.

More recently the country's most popular channel Tolo TV has been locked in a standoff with the attorney general of Afghanistan after police raided the channel following allegations of "misquoting" by Tolo.
Tolo TV, owned by three Afghan-Australian brothers, hit back accusing the attorney general of having carried out an illegal action and calling for his removal from office.

"The potential crimes [of the attorney general] are of the utmost seriousness and directly affect [the] issue of rule of law and sustainability of democracy in Afghanistan, especially given that they may be perpetrated by a person holding the highest operational legal position in Afghanistan," Tolo said.

The information ministry's commission to look into the matter has asked Tolo to apologise saying the channel had "presented the attorney general's statements in a way that can lead to various interpretations and cause unnecessary public anguish. The way this news was broadcast, could be seen as ill-intentioned."

However, Zaid Mohseni, a director of Tolo, states that the commission's finding does not show how and where Tolo had reported inaccurately. "We are not convinced there is a reason to apologise and we are looking into the matter," Mohseni told Al Jazeera.

The order is indeed ambiguous in that it refers to possible interpretations and mala fides, rather than any substantive breach of facts. The row illustrates an increasing pattern of confrontation between Afghanistan's independent media and those in power.

As the fledgling post-conflict state comes into being, with old roles being challenged and the balance of power changing, there are few areas where the contradictions have emerged as sharply as in the area of media.

Tolo itself is no stranger to controversy, having pushed the boundaries of media content in Afghanistan with programming content that is often considered to be too forward by Afghan standards.

However, Tolo also acts as a shock absorber for most of the media outlets that also fall far short of the restrictions that conservative sections would like to impose on them.

The new media law will also reverse moves to make the state broadcaster a public service broadcaster, by bringing it under government control. Abdul Karim Khurram, the information minister, said the government cannot afford not to have control over the state broadcaster since the county was at war.

Khurram also said he would like to ensure a ceiling on the use of foreign content in Afghan media. Channels such as Tolo are highly dependent on foreign content.

Afghanistan currently does not have the capacity to produce adequate programming to meet an increasing demand that has seen the establishment of seven different private channels in the past three years. Khurram's ministry recently banned Tolo TV from rebroadcasting Al Jazeera content.

Mohaqeq, chairman of the religious affairs commission, told this reporter that they would not want the government to use the RTA for propaganda but that the media needed to be brought under specific rules to prevent them from misusing their power to humiliate people.

The argument, which is also one forwarded by the government, has emerged as a uniting platform for those seeking to impose more curbs on media.

Resurgent conservatism as well as consolidation of power by former local commanders, an increasingly authoritative government and other power-brokers has seen increasing attacks on an independent Afghan media that had emerged as one of the strongest components of Afghanistan's attempts to form a democratic pluralistic state.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Ex-border police chief Amarkhail returns home
KABUL, Apr 25 -(Pajhwok Afghan News)-Former chief of the border police at Kabul Airport General Aminullah Amarkhail on Wednesday returned home after six months of self-exile.

Amrakhail had gone into hiding on October 7 soon after his testimony before a parliamentary commission, during which he disclosed that he had been sacked by the Attorney General.
In his statement, Amrakhail had mentioned arrest of smugglers as the main reason behind his dismissal.

The Attorney General had directed all the relevant authorities and organisations to put Amarkhail's name on the exit control list; however, the latter managed to flee the country despite all restrictions.

A security official at the Kabul Airport, requesting anonymity, told Pajhwok Amarkhail arrived here through an Aryana flight from Dubai this morning. He was taken out of the airport in a police escort, said the official.

General Juma Muhammadi, chief of the border police at the airport, confirmed Amarkhail's return to the country; however, he did not divulge more information.

Another security official, asking not to be named, said Amarkhail was taken to the Attorney General's office in police escort. Some government officials were also accompanying him.

The official said the former border police chief returned to his house after meeting the Attorney General Abdul Jabbar Sabit.

Administrative Affairs chief at the Attorney General's office Sameer Ahmad Samimi confirmed the meeting between the AG and the General Amarkhail at the former's office this morning.

"During the meeting, Amarkhail assured the AG that he would clarify his position about the charges leveled against him," said Samimi, adding he (Amarkhail) was accused of sending people abroad through fake passports.
Habib Rahman Ibrahimi

Back to Top
Back to Top
Tribeca Film Probes Death of Afghan Cabby Beaten by U.S. Guards
By Rick Warner
April 26 (Bloomberg) -- Alex Gibney's father, a former Naval interrogator who questioned Japanese prisoners in World War II, was furious to learn that U.S. soldiers were torturing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

``He felt it was basically undermining the rule of law, which is what he fought to defend in World War II and what we are allegedly fighting to defend in the war on terror,'' said Gibney, whose film about the torture scandal, ``Taxi to the Dark Side,'' premieres Saturday at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York.

Frank Gibney, a noted journalist and author, died last year, six weeks after asking his son to unhook him from an oxygen machine so he could express his outrage about the torture. His taped comments provide a poignant coda to this disturbing documentary by the director of the Oscar-nominated ``Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room.''

I spoke with Gibney, 53, last week at Bloomberg's headquarters in New York.

Warner: The movie centers on the torture and subsequent death of a young Afghan taxi driver, who was falsely accused of being a terrorist in 2002. Who was he and what happened to him?

Gibney: He was 22 years old, had a young daughter and had never spent a night away from home. He was picked up by Afghan militia, accused of taking part in a rocket attack on a U.S. base and sent to Bagram prison outside of Kabul. Five days after he arrived, he was dead.

Warner: What killed him?

Gibney: A quick investigation determined he died of natural causes. But very mysteriously an autopsy report turned up and it revealed that the Army coroner had marked the cause of death as homicide.

No Murder Charge

Warner: Has anybody been charged with his death?

Gibney: No. A number of people were charged with maltreatment and assault, but not murder. And none of them were higher-ups.

Many people contributed to his death. He was shackled for days in a standing position where the blood flowed to his legs, and there was another procedure called a peroneal strike, where they would knee him near the thigh. This was done hundreds of times; his legs turned into pulp and a pulmonary embolism traveled to his heart.

Warner: This happened long before the revelations about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Why haven't we heard more about it?

Gibney: That's a good question. The New York Times did some stories about it, but nobody really connected the dots. What happened at these prisons wasn't the fault of a few bad apples. This was a systematic policy of detention and interrogation that went amok.

Prisoner in Diaper

Warner: Wasn't there one case where they humiliated a retarded prisoner?

Gibney: Yes, at Bagram there was a guy who was literally eating his own feces. He had to be kept in a diaper. But they told the interrogators, ``Don't fall for that, it's an al-Qaeda trick.''

Warner: Are the prison guards and interrogators who've been charged with mistreatment being used as scapegoats?

Gibney: I think so. It's too simple to say that they're victims because many of them did horrible things, and they need to be held accountable. What's shocking is that nobody in charge of these policies has been prosecuted or held to account in any way, shape or form. That's the really horrendous thing.

Warner: The TV series ``24'' shows a lot of graphic prisoner torture. Do you see any connection between that series and what happened at these prisons?

Gibney: I don't think there's a causal connection, but I do think that ``24'' plays a role in desensitizing Americans to this whole idea of torture.

Bad Information

Warner: Isn't it true that torture rarely leads to useful information?

Gibney: There's a whole body of literature that shows that torture doesn't yield reliable information. It also corrupts the rule of law. Once you begin to torture a little bit, you start to torture all the time. And it undermines our standing throughout the world, and actually makes us more likely to be hit by terrorists.

Warner: We didn't torture prisoners in World War II, so why now?

Gibney: Because back then, our interrogators didn't lose sight of the fact that their prisoners were human beings.

Warner: Your next documentary is on gonzo journalist Hunter Thompson. What would Hunter say about ``Taxi to the Dark Side''?

Gibney: I think he'd like it. Hunter used his typewriter a little bit like a machine gun; his words were bullets that were meant to penetrate the corruption of political officials.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Pakistan: The Taliban takeover
Ziauddin Sardar New Statesman (UK) April 30, 2007 issue
Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. Taliban-style militias are spreading rapidly out from provinces in the far north-west. The danger to the country and to the rest of the world is escalating

"You must understand," says Maulana Sami ul-Haq, "that Pakistan and Islam are synonymous." The principal of Darul Uloom Haqqania, a seminary in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), is a tall and jovial man. He grabs my hand as he takes me round the seminary. Maulana ul-Haq laughs when I ask his views on jihad. "It is the duty of all Muslims to support those groups fighting against oppression," he says.

The Haqqania is one of the largest madrasas in Pakistan. It produces about 3,000 graduates, most from exceptionally poor backgrounds, every year. The walls of the student dormitory are decorated with tanks and Kalashnikovs. A group of students, all with black beards, white turbans and grey dresses, surrounds me. They are curious and extremely polite. We chat under the watchful eye of two officers from Pakistan's intelligence services. What would they do after they graduate, I ask. "Serve Islam," they reply in unison. "We will dedicate our lives to jihad."

Pakistan is reverberating with the call of jihad. For more than two months, the capital, Islamabad, has been held hostage by a group of burqa-clad women, armed with sticks and shouting: "Al-jihad, al-jihad." These female students belong to two madrasas attached to the Lal Masjid, a large mosque near one of the city's main supermarkets. I found the atmosphere around the masjid tense, with heavily armed police surrounding the building. Though the students were allowed to go in and out freely, no one else could enter the mosque. The women are demanding the imposition of sharia law and the instant abolition of all "dens of vice". Away from the masjid, Islamabad looked like a city under siege.

A new generation of militants is emerging in Pakistan. Although they are generally referred to as "Taliban", they are a recent phenomenon. The original Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan briefly during the 1990s, were Afghan fighters, a product of the Soviet invasion of their country. They were created and moulded by the Pakistani army, with the active support of the United States and Saudi money, and the deliberate use of madrasas to prop up religious leaders. Many Taliban leaders were educated at Haqqania by Maulana Sami ul-Haq. The new generation of militants are all Pakistani; they emerged after the US invasion of Afghanistan and represent a revolt against the government's support for the US. Mostly unemployed, not all of them are madrasa-educated. They are led by young mullahs who, unlike the original Taliban, are technology- and media-savvy, and are also influenced by various indigenous tribal nationalisms, honouring the tribal codes that govern social life in Pakistan's rural areas. "They are Taliban in the sense that they share the same ideology as the Taliban in Afghanistan," says Rahimullah Yusufzai, Peshawar-based columnist on the News. "But they are totally Pakistani, with a better understanding of how the world works." Their jihad is aimed not just at "infidels occupying Afghanistan", but also the "infidels" who are ruling and running Pakistan and maintaining the secular values of Pakistani society. "They aim at nothing less than to cleanse Pakistan and turn it into a pure Islamic state," says Rashed Rahman, executive editor of the Lahore-based Post newspaper.

The Pakistani Taliban now dominate the northern province of Waziristan, adjacent to Afghan istan. "They are de facto rulers of the province," says Yusufzai. Waziristan is a tribal area that has historically been ruled by the tribes themselves. Pakistan has followed the policy of British Raj in the region. The British allowed tribal leaders, known as maliks, semi-autonomous powers in exchange for loyalty to the crown. Pakistan gives them the same power but demands loyalty to the federal government. They have been sidelined by the Taliban, however. Pro-government maliks who resisted the onslaught of the Taliban have been brutally killed and had their bodies hung from poles as a lesson to others. The Taliban have declared Waziristan an "Islamic emirate" and are trying to establish a parallel administration, complete with sharia courts and tax system.

Taliban-type militias have also taken control of parts of the adjacent NWFP. In Peshawar, one of the most open and accessible areas of the province, one can feel the tension on the streets. There are hardly any women out in public. The city, which has suffered numerous suicide attacks, is crowded with intelligence officers. Within an hour of my arrival in Peshawar, I was approached by a secret service official who warned that I was being watched. It is practically impossible for outsiders to enter other NWFP towns such as Tank, Darra Adam Khel and Dera Ismail Khan. In Dera Ismail Khan, outsiders - that is, Pakistanis from other parts of the country - need police escorts to travel around. You are allowed in only if you can prove you have business or relatives there. Girls' schools have been closed, video and music shops bombed, and barbers forbidden from shaving beards. The religious parties have passed a public morality law that gives them powers to prosecute anyone who does not follow their strict moral code. Legislation to ban dance and music is being planned. Even administration of polio vaccination campaigns has been halted amid claims that it is a US plot to sterilise future generations.

Why is the ostensibly secular government of President Pervez Musharraf not taking any action against the Taliban militants and the parties that support them? Part of the answer lies in the militants and religious parties having served the military regime well. After coming to power in 1999, Musharraf used them to neutralise the mainstream political parties - Benazir Bhutto's People's Party and the Muslim League, led by Nawaz Sharif. "The military and mullahs have been traditional allies," says the Islamabad-based security analyst Dr Ayesha Siddiqa. "The alliance of religious parties that rules NWFP came into power through his support." Musharraf also used the religious militants to destabilise Indian-held Kashmir by proxy. He encouraged extremists preaching jihad to infiltrate India for acts of sabotage.

The same is true of the Taliban. The Afghan Taliban have been a useful ally against unfriendly governments in Kabul. Even though Musharraf has been forced to go against them under pressure from the Americans, his strategy has been to try to contain them, rather than defeat them. He tried to regulate the madrasas in NWFP and elsewhere in Pakistan that provide recruits for the Taliban, seized their funds and banned them from admitting foreign students. But that's about as far as he wanted to go. Constant US pressure has forced him to send in the army, with grave consequences. Every time the Pakistani army enters Waziristan, it takes heavy casualties. Since 2003, when Pakistani troops first entered the tribal regions, more than 700 soldiers have been killed. Not surprisingly, Musharraf signed a hasty peace agreement on 5 September 2006 allowing the Afghan Taliban to get on with their business. "The military regards the Taliban as an asset," says Siddiqa. "So why destroy an asset? Particularly when the asset could be useful in the future."

That future may not be too far off. Pakistan's foreign policy towards Afghanistan is based on the assumption that the Nato forces there will withdraw sooner rather than later, leaving Hamid Karzai's regime to fend for itself. The Karzai government is strongly anti-Pakistani. But the Pakistani army needs friendly rulers in Kabul who would be willing to run the oil and gas pipelines that will serve the newly established port at Gwadar through Afghanistan's provinces (see page 32). So Pakistan needs the Afghan Taliban to exist as a force strong enough to establish the next government in Afghanistan.

Moreover, a pro-Islamabad Taliban-type government in Afghanistan would help establish peace in the northern tribal regions of Pakistan. Although Karzai himself is a Pashtun, most of the people in power in Kabul are Tajiks, a minority tribe. A sizeable majority of Afghans belong to the Pashtun ethnic group, which ruled Afghanistan for centuries. The position of Pakistan's military is that this imbalance "against the political history and tribal culture of Afghan istan", as one army officer told me, is not going to last. Most of the Pakistani Taliban - that is, the vast majority of people in Waziristan - are also Pashtun. And they will not rest until their brothers across the border hold the reins of power. As such, peace in this part of Pakistan depends on who rules Afghanistan.

Musharraf's strategy is to contain the Taliban of Afghan and Pakistani varieties alike, while weeding out al-Qaeda jihadis, or "foreign elements", as they are known in Pakistani military circles. The foreigners are a legacy of the Soviet-Afghan war. When the war ended, many of the central Asians who came to fight the Soviets were not welcomed back in their countries. For want of an alternative, they settled in Pakistan. Most of these foreign jihadis are Uzbek. Musharraf has simply bribed the local tribes to attack and eradicate the Uzbek jihadis. The battle between Pashtun tribesmen and al-Qaeda in Wana, southern Waziristan, in which more than 200 al-Qaeda fighters and some 50 tribal fighters were killed a fortnight ago was a product of this policy.

Musharraf's problem is that the Taliban cannot be contained. The Pakistani Taliban have now acquired enough confidence to break out of Wazi ristan and NWFP into other parts of the country. "What's happening at the Lal Masjid in Islamabad is a trial run for the rest of the country," says Rahman. "If the Taliban succeed in Islamabad, they will turn Pakistan into Talibistan."

Lawyers in uproar

While Musharraf continues to placate the Taliban, the rest of Pakistan is standing up against Talibanisation. Huge demonstrations have been held in Lahore, Karachi and other cities throughout Pakistan. To begin with, the protests were held to support Chief Justice Iftikhar Moham med Chaudhry, who was sacked by Musharraf in March. Chaudhry, who has become a national hero, tried to prevent the army from selling the national steel mill for a song. The affair was the latest in a long list of scandals involving the military. The openly unconstitutional act caused uproar, leading to countrywide protests by lawyers. But the lawyers have now acquired a broader agenda. They have become a national resistance movement, supported by all sections of society, against military rule and the Taliban.

Musharraf's response to the demonstrations and the Taliban challenge is to try to entrench himself even more deeply. While the country buckles under the pressure of suicide bombings, kidnappings and acts of sabotage, his main concern is his own survival. Constitutionally, he must hold elections some time this year - something he has promised to do, but the whole exercise will be designed to ensure that he continues as president for another five years.

His plan to get "re-elected" has two strands. The simple option is to get the current hand-picked parliament to endorse him for a second term and try to manipulate this vote, which the present sham constitution dictates, to ensure a healthy two-thirds majority. The heads of intelligence, the security services and the police have already been primed to ensure "positive results".

Bhutto to the rescue?

The other option is a bit messy. It involves making a deal with the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, head of the Pakistan People's Party. Bhutto, who has been ousted from power by the military twice, is desperate to get back into power. She has a great deal in common with the general. She runs the People's Party as her personal property, and her social and economic policies - rooted as they are in feudalism and opportunism - are not far removed from those of the army. Her foreign policy would be the same as that of Musharraf; indeed, she is even more pro-American than the general.

So Bhutto and Musharraf, who have been negotiating with each other for almost three years, are an ideal couple. "The problem," says Rahman, "is that Musharraf does not want to give up his military uniform. It is the source of his strength. And the idea of Musharraf remaining military chief is anathema to Bhutto."

But the state of the nation, on the verge of political and religious collapse, may force Musharraf's hand. A deal between the general and the self-proclaimed "Daughter of the East" in which Musharraf retains most of his power as civilian president and Bhutto serves as prime minister may be acceptable to both. Rumours abound in Islamabad that a deal is imminent.

Bhutto's return from the cold would do little to stop Pakistan's slide into anarchy, however. The Taliban sense victory and will not be easily satisfied with anything less than a Pakistan under sharia law, or wide-ranging bloodshed. As Asma Jahangir, chairwoman of Pakistan's Human Rights Commission, makes clear, the country cannot survive its "deep-seated rot" unless the "unrepresentative organs of the state - the military, the mullahs and the all-consuming intelligence agencies - are brought under control". It is hard to disagree with her assessment. But it is even harder to see how these "unrepresen tative organs" can be stopped from dragging Pakistan further towards the abyss - with dire consequences for the rest of the world.

Pakistan: a short history

1947 Muslim state of Pakistan created by partition of India at the end of British rule

1948 First war with India over disputed territory of Kashmir

1965 Second war with India over Kashmir

1971 East Pakistan attempts to secede, triggering civil war. Third war between Pakistan and India. East Pakistan breaks away to become Bangladesh

1980 US pledges military assistance following Soviet intervention in Afghanistan

1988 Benazir Bhutto elected prime minister

1996 Bhutto dismissed, for the second time, on charges of corruption

1998 Country conducts nuclear tests

1999 General Pervez Musharraf seizes power in military coup

2001 Musharraf backs US in war on terror and supports invasion of Afghanistan

2002 Musharraf given another five years in office in criticised referendum

2003 Pakistan declares latest Kashmir ceasefire. India does likewise

2004 Musharraf stays head of army, having promised in 2003 to relinquish role

2005 Earthquake in Pakistan-administered Kashmir kills tens of thousands of people

2007 Musharraf suspends Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, triggering nationwide protests

Back to Top
Back to Top
The Afghan opium market has become a mystery
Antonio Maria Costa The Record (Canada) / April 26, 2007
Something strange is going on in the global opium market, and it could spell trouble.

Opium is a commodity -- an illegal commodity, but it should still be subject to the normal rules of supply and demand.

Annual demand for opium is approximately 4,500 tons. Last year a record 6,100 tons were produced in Afghanistan alone. That country's production is 30 per cent more than total world demand. Heroin prices should, in theory, be plummeting. But they are not. So what is going on?

Does opium defy the laws of economics? Historically, no. In 2001, prices surged tenfold from 2000, to a record high, after the Taliban all but eliminated opium poppy cultivation across the Afghan territory under its control. So why, with last year's bumper crop, is the opposite not occurring?

Early estimates suggest that opium cultivation is likely to increase again this year. That should be an added incentive to sell.

Yet prices seem to be resilient. The (unweighted) national average price of dry opium at the farm gate in Afghanistan is dropping, but not significantly -- it was $125 per kilo in December 2006 compared with $150 per kilo a year earlier. Prices differ across the country, not surprisingly, since Afghanistan is not a unified territory or market, even for opium.

But overall, the drop in prices is modest when compared with the massive increase in opium production, 50 per cent, in 2006.

Heroin prices on the streets of Western Europe are also relatively steady, although the drug's purity is going up -- a telltale sign of greater availability.

Are farmers stockpiling the drug? Unlikely. Opium, unlike cocaine, has a long shelf life and can be stored as a form of saving, a source of liquidity and as collateral for credit. But why would poor farmers sit on more than $1 billion worth of stock when they are struggling to make ends meet and common sense suggests that prices could easily fall?

An alternative hypothesis is that new heroin markets may be emerging somewhere we do not yet know about, perhaps in Asia. But if new markets were absorbing a 1,500-ton surplus, we would expect an increase in seizures of the drug and overdoses in these countries. That hasn't been happening.

So where is it? I fear there may be a more sinister explanation for why the bottom has not fallen out of the opium market: Major traffickers are withholding significant amounts.

Drug traffickers have a symbiotic relationship with insurgents and terrorist groups such as the Taliban and al-Qaida. Instability makes opium cultivation possible; opium buys protection and pays for weapons and foot soldiers, and these in turn create an environment in which drug lords, insurgents and terrorists can operate with impunity.

Opium is the glue that holds this murky relationship together. If profits fall, these sinister forces have the most to lose.

I suspect that the big traffickers are hoarding surplus opium as a hedge against future price shocks and as a source of funding for future terrorist attacks, in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

What can be done? Since NATO forces are wary of making enemies out of opium farmers by being associated with eradication, and since the Afghan government is opposed to spraying poppy fields, rounding up the major traffickers may be the best available option for disrupting Afghanistan's lucrative opium market.

Another step in the right direction would be to draw up a list of most-wanted traffickers involved in the Afghan drug trade. These criminals would be subject to international arrest warrants, asset freezes, travel bans and, where appropriate, extradition to face justice.

More could also be done to find and destroy opium storage facilities and heroin labs.

This is by no means easy, but interdiction at the source is always more effective than trying to catch drug shipments dispersed into smaller units and smuggled across mountain passes and deserts.

Afghanistan's neighbours are either accomplices or victims in the opium trade, so they need to be part of the solution. They could, for example, improve intelligence-sharing and border security to ensure that more opium is seized. At the moment, less than a quarter of the world's opium is intercepted, compared with around half of global cocaine output.

But even if the surplus is tracked down and destroyed, and even if law enforcement efforts improve, interdiction alone will not solve Afghanistan's opium problem.

More needs to be done to wean farmers off illicit crops, especially by giving them sustainable alternative sources of income.

Most important, the consuming countries need to get serious about curbing drug addiction. If there was less demand for heroin, the bottom really would fall out of the opium market.

Antonio Maria Costa is executive director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Indian English for Afghan army
SUJAN DUTTA The Telegraph Calcutta India
New Delhi, April 25: India will send a team of eight army officers to Kabul next month to teach Afghan National Army troops and officers “to read, write and speak in English”, defence sources said today.

This is a step-up for India in its involvement in Afghanistan, where it has so far refused to put boots on the ground.

The Indian Air Force’s air warrior symphony orchestra will also host 10 Afghan officers to teach them “martial music” for six months near Bangalore.

This year, India expects to host 49 Afghan army officers in different training courses. But the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the US and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have been asking India for something more substantial than language training and music-teaching.

Indian Army sources said the decision to send the officers follows a request from the ministry of external affairs and that it does not indicate a shift in policy.

The army sources said four of the officers would be from the Army Education Corps that runs the Indian Army’s own basic military education programmes. Three officers in the eight-member team are likely to be lady officers. There are also two infantry officers in the team.

The decision to send the officers was disclosed after an army commanders’ conference last week during which the generals were asked by defence minister A.K. Antony to take note of military stabilisation operations outside the United Nations fold.

The presence of the Indian Army — even for teaching English — would be resented by Pakistan, which has already alleged that India was “meddling” in Afghan affairs. The actual presence of army officers in Afghanistan indicates a shift to a higher gear.

Karzai, who is also the commander-in-chief of the Afghan National Army, in particular has been keen on Indian training for the troops. He has explained that, like the Indian Army, he was keen that the ANA should also be an integrated force made up of different ethnic groups. The ANA is to be expanded to about 70,000 troops by 2008.

The US is trying to raise a force that will be representative of Afghanistan’s diverse ethnic groups — Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and the rest. But the ANA has to overcome several internal complexities, not the least of which is desertion in large numbers.

So far, the Indian Army has been officially present in Afghanistan for a road-building project being executed by its Border Roads Organisation from Delaram to Zaranj in the country’s south.

In September 2006, officials of the Nato at its military headquarters in Mons said they would welcome Indian involvement in stabilisation efforts in Afghanistan. Indian involvement in rebuilding the ANA — for which the US is the “lead nation” — has been limited to supplying 300 trucks and vehicles that are troop carriers and bullet-proof jackets and helmets.

Back to Top
Back to Top
''Afghanistan's Role in Iranian Foreign Policy''
Dario Cristiani The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) April 26, 2007
The United States recently accused Iran of increasing its influence in Afghanistan. General Peter Pace, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that "in the last month, we have intercepted in Afghanistan weapons that were made in Iran." Shortly thereafter, Richard Boucher, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, said that "we have been seeing a series of indicators that Iran is maybe getting more involved in an unhealthy way in Afghanistan," implying that the United States will keep an even closer eye on this involvement.

Iran strongly denies such accusations. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, said that Washington's conjectures were totally baseless. Apart from these specific accusations, it appears that Tehran has been playing a stronger role in Afghanistan since 2001, and Tehran has a specific interest in increasing this involvement.

Iranian Influence in Afghanistan

Afghanistan and its ethnic and religious mosaic is a "paradigmatic case" of the importance that trans-state identities play in the geopolitical configuration of the Greater Middle East. Iran's attempt to gain leverage over Afghanistan is mainly based on these factors, although Tehran has attempted to engage different and distant actors on occasions in which it needs to safeguard tactical and short-term interests. In Afghanistan, there are many groups that, for their linguistic, cultural, ethnic and religious patrimony, might be targets of Iranian moves.

First of all, Iran has been the traditional backer of Afghanistan's Shi'a, such as the Hazaras, the Qizilbashs and the Farsiwans. The largest Shi'a faction in Afghanistan, about ten percent of the overall population, is the Hazara group, mainly based in the central regions of Bamyan and Ghor, the so-called Hazarajat. This area represents a sort of "Shi'a enclave" encircled by the great urban centers of Sunni power.

In the early 1990s, however, Tehran widened its range of action in Afghanistan. Iran backed other groups that were linked by history, language and culture to Iran, such as the Tajik faction and its most important leaders, Ahmed Shah Massoud and Ismail Khan. Moreover, Tehran searched for a tactical alliance with other elements in the Afghan theater, and such a posture brought Tehran to support the Uzbek warlord Abdul-Rashid Dostum and the former president, Burhanuddin Rabbani.

This was the same logic that influenced Tehran during the Taliban period. Anyone standing against the Taliban was a potential asset for Iran in its struggle with the hostile neighbor. The Taliban were the representatives of traditional Afghan Sunnism, strongly hostile to the Shi'a. Indeed, prior to the new constitution of 2004, the Hanbali school -- the most intransigent of the four juridical schools of the Sunni Islam -- was recognized as the sole legitimate order.

The fall of the Taliban regime opened an important window of opportunity for Tehran in order to regain leverage and influence over its neighbor. However, a kind of "structural contradictoriness" affects Iran's strategy in Afghanistan. Such a contradiction stems from the complexity of Iranian aims in the Afghan theater. The main contradiction is linked to the necessity of having a stable Afghanistan for its internal security, social and economic concerns and, in the meantime, trying to weaken the U.S. position in the area.

Iran's Strategic Imperatives and Diversified Goals

Iran and Afghanistan, as well as Pakistan, are bound in a sort of "strategic geography" in which their security, economic and social well-beings are deeply interdependent and their geopolitical fates are strongly linked. Therefore, Tehran has an interest in a strong and stable Afghanistan. This is for several reasons. An unstable Afghanistan could threaten the stability of Iran, above all in those provinces bordering the Afghan western regions. Such instability could spill over the boundaries and affect Iranian security. This instability could also lead to future waves of refugees in Iran, and Tehran perceives it as a key threat for its social stability and economic tenure. Moreover, Tehran wants a stable Afghanistan in order to combat drug trafficking.

Tehran hopes for an authoritative government in Kabul because it could be impermeable and more autonomous from external influences. Such a development is an important concern for Tehran. Afghanistan is a fundamental wedge for the geopolitical struggle in the Greater Middle East. Tehran, for example, perceives as a danger the renewed influence of Pakistan, and it is afraid of Saudi activism based on the export of radical Sunni Salafi/Wahhabi ideology, which has been a fundamental tool of influence for Riyadh.

Tehran wants to use the current strained relations between Kabul and Islamabad in order to gain leverage over Afghanistan. Such a situation brings Kabul in search of an alternative course to the southern route of its exports. Iran wants to take advantage of this situation by becoming a significant open door to the world for Afghanistan and a privileged transit country for its products and exports. Indeed, it wants to use these Afghan strategic needs to make its geopolitical role essential for Kabul.

Nevertheless, Tehran could also have an interest in an unstable Afghanistan. Such an element appears clear if the analysis of Iran's interests shifts from a strictly internal and regional scale to a global one. An unstable Afghanistan could represent a formidable tool of pressure against the United States.

Iran is increasingly concerned about the presence of U.S. troops near its eastern borders in Afghanistan. This strategic logic also affects Iran's stance in Iraq. Tehran is concerned about a scenario in which the United States would keep its troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for a long time, and it is afraid of being sandwiched between two pro-U.S. governments. For example, in 2005, the United States and Afghanistan signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the aim of creating a "strategic partnership" that could lead to permanent U.S. military bases close to Iran's borders. This is an element of deep concern for Tehran.

Given Iran's traditional sensitivity to its national sovereignty, which amplifies its threat perception and strongly influences its foreign policy decision making, and its self-representation as a great power with the aim of extending its influence over the entire Greater Middle East region and gaining a vanguard position in the geography of Islamic power, Tehran will not accept a similar development and its stance will be aimed at avoiding a lasting presence of the United States in these theaters of conflict.

Iran's Tools for Spreading Influence

Iran wants to extend its influence over Afghanistan with a plurality of instruments, including: economic aid and support for reconstruction; the reinforcement of the levels of trade between the two countries and a growth of Iranian investments, aimed to consolidate economic interdependence; the building of road and rail links in the way of "steering" the economic and geopolitical projection of Afghanistan toward the west; Iran's "soft power" levers, embodied by the scholarships given by Tehran to young Afghans in order to consolidate cultural influence over the country; the strengthening of Tehran's ties with religious and ethnic groups sensitive to Iranian influence; and typical intelligence actions, such as the recruitment of agents, the activity of information-gathering and the use of propaganda.

This is the conceptual framework in which U.S. accusations against Iran must be read and analyzed. It is likely that the vagueness of U.S. claims over Iranian involvement is a part of Washington's strategy to place pressure on Iran and a way to weaken its ties with Kabul through the accusation that Tehran is backing President Hamid Karzai's enemies. Although an Iran-Taliban dialogue cannot be ruled out, this strategy would be troublesome for Tehran because the Taliban is a "structural enemy" of the Shi'a and of Persian power. Even if the Taliban were pushed by short-term interests to search for Iran's support, once these interests were satisfied or changed, the Taliban would be an enemy for Tehran and, when foreign forces leave Afghanistan, a return to power of the Taliban could be a strategic failure for the country.

Iran wants to consolidate its influence in Afghanistan in order to gain enough leverage that, once N.A.T.O. forces leave Afghanistan, it can affect political outcomes there. Therefore, such an aim compels Tehran to have a flexible and pragmatic approach on the Afghan issue. Even though Iran is an important ally of President Karzai, if he loses power and authority, Tehran will support other actors in order to maintain its leverage in Afghanistan.

Conclusion

Since 2001, Tehran has been playing an even stronger role in Afghanistan, which is considered an important wedge on its geopolitical map. The moves of Iran respond to different kinds of interests. On the one hand, Tehran needs a stable Afghanistan in order to guarantee its internal stability and its economic and social interests. On the other hand, Tehran could have an interest in stirring up instability and disorder within Afghanistan with the aim of affecting U.S. interests in the Greater Middle East. The last aim of Tehran, however, is to consolidate influence in Afghanistan, thus, in the case of a persistent presence of U.S. troops close to its frontiers, it could use this influence to distress the United States or, in the case of a departure of foreign forces from Afghanistan, it could use its proxies to play a role in decisions on the fate of the country.

Iran's involvement in Afghanistan could be a hedge if the United States decides to attack its nuclear facilities, or it could help Tehran prevent a return to power of the Taliban. In Iran's view, the process that is bringing Tehran to play an even stronger role in Afghanistan must be irreversible and must prevent Iran from being pushed aside on future decisions in Kabul.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Women's Well-Being Key to Afghanistan's Future, UNFPA Leader Stresses
RedNova - Apr 25 4:36 PM
KABUL, Afghanistan, April 25 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "No nation can be developed when women die while giving birth," Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, Executive Director of UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, declared today in an appeal for increased international support for the well-being of Afghanistan's women.

Mothers' health was a key topic of discussion when Ms. Obaid met with President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. The Afghan leader said that the country's maternal death rate was unacceptably high, and thanked UNFPA for its help in addressing the crisis. Nearly one woman dies for every 60 live births in Afghanistan, and in some provinces the rate is four times higher.

President Karzai also voiced appreciation for the Fund's support of the country's first full census, scheduled for 2008. UNFPA is training Afghan staff, offering technical support and mobilizing funds for the effort, which aims to gather data vital to national planning and reconstruction.

This morning, on the third day of her four-day visit here, United Nations Under-Secretary-General Obaid joined Health Minister Dr. Sayed Mohammed Amin Fatemi in inaugurating a UNFPA-supported surgical facility at Malalai Hospital to treat women suffering from obstetric fistula. The devastating disability, a consequence of obstructed labour without timely medical assistance, is widespread in Afghanistan, but no treatment was available before now.

The causes of fistula and maternal death are the same: childbirth without skilled attendance or access to emergency obstetric care, too often and starting too young. Medical care is now more widely available in Afghanistan than five years ago, but there continues to be a critical shortage of female health providers. Along with partner agencies, UNFPA is helping to train midwives, and is supporting eight maternity hospitals in three remote provinces.

At a press briefing on Monday, Ms. Obaid said that birth spacing can "help mothers to become healthier, devote more attention to the child and help ensure that the mother doesn't die when the child is born." Emphasizing these benefits, she suggested, can lead to greater acceptance of family planning in a Muslim society like Afghanistan's. UNFPA is assisting the Ministry of Public Health in promoting family planning, and has established a logistics system to ensure adequate supplies.

This afternoon, the UNFPA head took part in a panel on women's rights, along with the Minister of Women's Affairs, Husun Banor Ghazanfar, and others. She called for stronger efforts to counter violence against women by involving men in communities, sensitizing police officers and providing support for the victims.

For more information, please contact Omar Gharzeddine, UNFPA, New York, +1 (212) 297-5028, gharzeddine@unfpa.org or William A. Ryan, UNFPA Regional Information Adviser for Asia, tel.: +93 (0) 700-307-551, ryanw@unfpa.org.

United Nations Population Fund

CONTACT: Omar Gharzeddine, New York, +1-212-297-5028,gharzeddine@unfpa.org, or William A. Ryan, Regional Information Adviser forAsia, +93 0 700-307-551, ryanw@unfpa.org, both of United Nations PopulationFund

Back to Top
Back to Top
New Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan Appointed
April 26, 2007No. 64 Government of Canada Newsroom (press release), Canada
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, today announced the appointment of Arif Lalani as Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan. This appointment is effective immediately.

“Mr. Lalani brings a wealth of experience and a track record of leadership to his new post, and will ensure that Canada continues to make an important contribution to helping the government and people of Afghanistan rebuild their country,” said Minister MacKay.

Mr. Lalani succeeds David Sproule. Minister MacKay thanked Mr. Sproule for his outstanding dedication as Canada’s Ambassador to Afghanistan since 2005, and wished him continued success in his next assignment. Mr. Sproule will serve in an advisory capacity to the Associate Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Interdepartmental Coordinator for Afghanistan, drawing upon his considerable in-country experience and understanding of Canada’s integrated approach in Afghanistan.

In addition to making the Head of Mission position in Kabul one of Canada’s most senior diplomatic assignments, Canada’s diplomatic and development presence in the country is also being increased. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Canadian International Development Agency are preparing to deploy additional personnel to Afghanistan in the coming months.

Canada, along with 36 other nations, is in Afghanistan at the request of the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan, and is part of the UN-sanctioned mission, led by NATO, to help build a stable, democratic and self-sufficient society.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Dateline Afghanistan: Should German Soldiers Fight? (Part I)  
By Stephan Richter | Thursday, April 26, 2007   The Globalist
As Germany becomes an active provider of global security, the country is split over whether to assume a more prominent role in securing Afghanistan. As Stephan Richter explains, it is a battle worth fighting — not only for the sake of oppressed Afghans, but also for the sake of the Western alliance.

Germany has moved from a long-time “consumer of global security to a provider of global security,” as one of the country’s senior officials put it during a recent visit to Washington.

And yet, not just since the November 2006 NATO summit in Riga, Latvia, there has been a lot of debate about the reticence of some nations to engage themselves fully in the fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Germans providing security

Especially Germany, with its almost 3,000 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, has gotten into the crossfire. 
It would seem the "smart thing" to do not to become embroiled in contributing to NATO's fighting force in Afghanistan.
 
Its soldiers, critics argue, should do more in Afghanistan than serve in non-combat roles in the north of the country, a low-risk region.

Six decades after the Nazi era, most people can appreciate that the Germans want to go about stationing troops abroad in a most circumspect of manners.

And it is certainly a sign of the country’s maturity — and sense of global responsibility — that its parliament decided in May 1999 to endorse German participation in a combat operation in Kosovo and thus open the door for further military missions abroad.

Negotiations or combat?

But with regard to Afghanistan, the question before Germans now is whether it is wise to hold steadfast to a ban on confining themselves strictly to the North — or expand their involvement to flanking NATO troops already operating in the much more dangerous South.

There are certainly many voices within Germany who warn against such a move. They argue with the weight of history on their backs — and counsel against such a step.

A question of values
 
Simply put, why — if, say, a country like Canada believes it is worth having combat troops in Afghanistan — should Germans not do the same?
 
Ultimately, this debate — complex as it may seem at first — boils down to a number of very straightforward questions.

None is more important than the question of values: Under which circumstances, and in which situations, is it advisable for democracies to be willing to deploy combat troops — and to risk their soldiers’ lives?

Rather than launch into too abstract a debate on this crucial issue, let us look at some real-life, practical applications of exercising those values.

Germany Vs. Canada?
Simply put, why — if, say, a country like Canada believes it is worth having combat troops in Afghanistan — should Germans not do the same? Nobody in his or her right mind could argue that democratic Canada stands for values on the global stage that differ from Germany’s.

Neither is there evidence that Canadians, in contrast to the United Kingdom or Australia, are generally more risk-prone — or swashbuckling. In fact, the six soldiers Canada lost in Afghanistan on April 8, 2007 marked the country’s single largest combat loss since the Korean War.

Security is needed
In addition, as did Germany’s, Canada’s government opposed the Iraq invasion. Plus, Canada has a long-standing history of seeking to 
Preventing the radical wing of the Taliban from resuming power has at least as much to do with reconstruction as with combat.
 
 
advance democracy around the world by being active in the field of development policy.

And yet, Canadians understand very clearly, as one surmises most open-minded Germans would, that the key development problem for Afghanistan at this stage is to provide real security, with teeth if need be. Only then can all the other measures succeed.

To be sure, the country has slipped into a precarious situation — in large part due to the lack of U.S. attention following the completely ill-advised invasion of Iraq.

What is the "smart" decision?

And for NATO as a whole, even the specter of a Soviet-style defeat cannot be ruled out. Given those circumstances, it would seem the “smart thing” to do not to become embroiled in contributing to NATO’s fighting force in Afghanistan.

However, being “smart” can be something quite different from being honorable. It can, in fact, seamlessly move into outright opportunism.

Thinking of the future
It is clear that, in the annals of the Western alliance, Afghanistan will matter a lot. Even if the tide cannot be stemmed, it will matter who was there — and how much they risked — in order to prevent a potentially disastrous outcome. 
The Germans truly believe in a different concept. It basically says that, in the long run, you cannot quell violence unless there is a bright future on the horizon.
 
But lest anybody think that this is a matter of abstract and seemingly outdated concepts such as the West’s “honor,” here is the very real question: Doesn’t anybody who wants to help Afghanistan — especially the country's oppressed women and girls — have a shot at a humane future need to be ready to stand up and fight, not just work as a quasi-police force?

It’s a tricky question because the American example of nation-building as exercised in Afghanistan is not a particularly convincing one — for instance using Provincial Reconnaissance Teams as launching pads for military operations.

Building a future

The Germans truly believe in a different concept. It basically says that, in the long run, you cannot quell violence unless there is a bright future on the horizon.

In other words: Simply fighting the Taliban will not work. You have to have successful civilian reconstruction projects to present to the people of Afghanistan. Only this will convey the message that it makes sense to side against the rebels.

The Afghan mindset

Twenty-nine years of wars has pushed Afghans into a mindset that is hard to overcome. Generations have learned to obey only their local commanders. 
Germany has moved from a long-time consumer of global security to a provider of global security.
 
They have been the only ones to provide some sort of security. To serve them, they picked up the rifles and went to fight — not for far-away rulers in Kabul. To lead a civil life was alien by nature — because nobody asked them to do so.

Come to think of it, the military defeat of the Taliban is not an option in this war. For one, there will always be a steady stream of fighters and weaponry trickling in from Pakistan. Secondly, in this fundamental Muslim society, the Taliban always have been a major and respected element.

A continued threat

When the U.S. invasion in October 2001 succeeded, no Taliban army was captured. The fighters simply put down their arms and blended with their peers — only to resurface some time later. Preventing the radical wing of this group from resuming power has at least as much to do with reconstruction as with combat.

That should be at the back of the minds of those Germans who are not convinced that outright military assignment is a risk worth taking.

A battle worth fighting

At the same time, this stance militates against the very values that contemporary 
Germany, critics argue, should do more in Afghanistan than serve in non-combat roles in the north of the country, a low-risk region.
 

Germans widely believe they stand for in today’s world. More importantly, it militates against a distinctly positive track record they have established in these areas.

These values include advancing equal rights for women, providing educational opportunities, laying the groundwork for building an economy out of the ruins of war and recognizing the importance of democracy to resolve internal power conflicts.

When that checklist is applied to Afghanistan, it becomes clear that this is a battle worth fighting.

Part II of this piece will be published on The Globalist tomorrow.

Editor's Note: The author is a German citizen — and served in the German army as a draftee in the late 1970s.

Back to Top
Back to Top
Execute bin Laden? U.S. and Mexico would
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer Thu Apr 26, 6:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON - The bulk of Americans and a slim majority in Mexico want  Osama bin Laden executed if caught, but most people in seven other countries would rather he spend life or many years in prison, an AP-Ipsos poll says.

In all nine nations surveyed, markedly more people would choose the death penalty for the al-Qaida leader than for run-of-the-mill murderers, even in nations with little taste for capital punishment.

Americans also prefer execution over prison for murderers by greater margins than people in the other countries. Of the nine countries polled, only the U.S. and  South Korea have the death penalty.

The poll underscores stark differences between the U.S. and many of its allies over the death penalty at a time when U.S. treatment of terror-war detainees — some of whom may face execution — has been a major irritant in their relations.

"It's my way of saying no to something," said Walter Bain, 89, a retired Navy petty officer from Des Moines, Wash., who prefers the death penalty to prison. "I don't like the idea of a person walking down the street and shooting someone in cold blood just for exercise."

Though several top al-Qaida operatives have been captured, bin Laden remains free, with some officials saying he is hiding along the Pakistan-Afghan border.  President Bush vowed to capture bin Laden, dead or alive, shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Given a choice of capital punishment for bin Laden or imprisonment, 62 percent in the U.S. supported executing him, while 36 percent chose prison. More than one-third of those preferring life imprisonment for convicted murderers said they would support bin Laden's execution.

"He's acting out of pure hate," said Tieara Causell, 19, a day-care provider in Ypsilanti, Mich., who thinks ordinary murderers should be imprisoned. "What he's doing is horrible, and I think he should die."

Only in Mexico, where people chose the death penalty over prison for bin Laden by 54 percent to 35 percent, did sentiment run close to that in the United States. Opinion ran strongly toward prison in Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, South Korea and Spain — in some cases by more than two-to-one margins.

In the U.S., support for executing bin Laden ran 10 percentage points higher than for common murderers. In the other countries, that preference ranged from 6 percentage points higher in Britain to 17 percentage points greater in Canada and France.

Academics say increased support for executing infamous people is common. An AP-Ipsos poll in February 2006 found people in the U.S. supported  Saddam Hussein's execution over life in prison by 57 percent to 36 percent, similar to their views on bin Laden's fate. The Iraqi leader was hanged last December.

Women were likelier than men to favor life imprisonment over the death penalty for murderers in all countries surveyed except Canada, Mexico and Germany, where the genders were about even. Support for capital punishment also ran lower for people who are better educated, have higher incomes, are young or — in the U.S. — are Democrats.

South Korea, which has the death penalty, was the native country of Seung-Hui Cho, whose Virginia Tech shooting rampage claimed 32 lives, suggesting Seoul might not have objected had Cho — a permanent U.S. resident — not taken his own life and instead been sentenced to death.

In several countries, the public so opposes capital punishment that the matter seldom becomes a political issue. Reflecting Italian sentiment, since 1999 when a death sentence is commuted anywhere or a nation abolishes capital punishment, the city of Rome bathes the Colosseum in golden light at nighttime.

"He should serve life in prison without parole, away from any contact that could allow him to communicate and harm again," Mauro Cosmai, 59, a Rome university psychology professor, said of bin Laden.

In the U.S., the preference for execution over prison for murderers in general was 52 percent to 46 percent. Those favoring prison slightly outnumbered death penalty supporters in Mexico, while in the remaining seven countries prison was the overwhelming preference.

"I don't believe in a society when 'an eye for an eye' system is practiced," said Katrin Beissert, a 16-year-old high school student from Karlsruhe, Germany.

Support for executions measured higher in each country when the question was phrased differently.

Asked whether they favor or oppose the de