Serving you since 1998
May 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 31

May 25, 2007 

Afghan Qaeda leader "ready for prisoner swap"
May 25, 2007
DUBAI (Reuters) - A purported leader of al Qaeda in Afghanistan said in a statement posted on the Internet on Friday that his organisation was willing to exchange prisoners with Britain and other Western countries.

"The al Qaeda organisation in Khorasan (Afghanistan), announces that it is ready to receive any Muslim prisoner that would be exchanged with any party, anywhere, even if it was prisons in crusaders' countries," said Abu Laith al-Libi.

"On top of these prisoners is the honourable Sheikh and cleric Abu Qatada al-Filistini who is jailed in Britain," said the statement posted on an Islamist Web site used mainly by al Qaeda.

It was unclear if the group was holding any Western prisoners.

Abu Qatada is a radical Islamic cleric suspected of close links to al Qaeda, and has been described by the British government as a "significant international terrorist".

A little-known Islamist group in the Gaza Strip which is holding BBC journalist Alan Johnston said earlier this month that it would free him if Britain released Abu Qatada.

Libi mentioned other names of people he said were prisoners without saying in which countries.

"O God help Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, Sheikh Abu Qatada, Sheikh Abu Mohammad al-Maqdsisi, Sheikh Suleiman al-Elwan, Sheikh Abu Munther al-Sa'adi, and help all Muslim prisoners."

On Thursday, al Jazeera television said that al Qaeda has appointed a new leader in Afghanistan, Mustafa abu al-Yazid, and broadcast excerpts from his speech in which he said support for the group was growing.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Coalition Forces Kill Three Rebels in Afghanistan
Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty
KABUL, May 25, 2007 -- U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan say they have killed three rebels in the southern Helmand Province.

In a separate development, a suspected Taliban militant was captured in Helmand during a joint operation by the coalition and Afghan forces early today. There were no civilian casualties in the operations, according to the coalition forces. Mass protests have taken place in Afghanistan recently over civilian deaths resulting from foreign forces' operations.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Canadian soldier killed in Afghanistan
May 25, 2007
KABUL (AFP) - A NATO soldier was killed and two wounded in overnight attacks by Taliban fighters in southern Afghanistan, the force said Friday as Canada and Portugal announced casualties.

In one incident a bomb struck a group of International Security Assistance Force troops, killing one and wounding another, ISAF said in a statement.

In the second, ISAF troops were shot at with guns and rocket-propelled grenades, leaving one soldier wounded, it said.

The 37-country ISAF does not release the nationalities of its casualties. It gave no more details of the attacks.

However Canadian television reported that the Canadian force in the southern city of Kandahar had announced that it had lost a soldier in an explosion that wounded another trooper.

And the Portuguese military said in Lisbon said one of its soldiers was wounded in an ambush while on foot patrol near Kandahar.

Sixty-two foreign soldiers involved in the international operation in Afghanistan have now lost their lives this year, most of them in combat and most of them US nationals.

Three German soldiers were killed in a suicide blast on Saturday last week and Finland's small deployment of about 70 troops lost its first soldier on Wednesday.

Both attacks were in the north of the country, which usually sees less of the Taliban-led violence than the south -- the extremist movement's stronghold and birthplace.

An international coalition led by the United States drove the Taliban out of government in late 2001 for not handing over their allies in the Al-Qaeda leadership after the 9/11 attacks.

The insurgency has grown steadily since then, despite the efforts of nearly 50,000 foreign soldiers working alongside the Afghan security forces.

The violence has killed around 1,500 people this year, according to an AFP tally based on reports. Suicide bombings and other attacks have risen and spread into parts of the country that had previously been relatively untouched.

Most of the dead are rebels.

Lawmakers from NATO countries were expected to focus on the alliance's efforts to quell the unrest at a meeting under way in Portugal Friday.

"Afghanistan continues to be NATO's top priority," the president of NATO's parliamentary assembly, Portugal's Jose Lello, told a news conference on the island of Madeira at the start of the four-day gathering.

"I am convinced that our commitment there is the best hope for the Afghan people," he said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
G8 wants Iran's help in fight against Afghan opium
By Louis Charbonneau / May 25, 2007
BERLIN (Reuters) - The G8 industrial nations are concerned about the rise of opium production in Afghanistan and want to enlist Iran and other neighbouring countries to crush trafficking of the drug, Germany said on Friday.

Opium production in Afghanistan rose by as much as 50 percent last year to supply more than 90 percent of global heroin, according to a United Nations estimate.

"We have made a big effort (to combat drug production in Afghanistan) but the results are not very satisfying, since drug production has increased and trafficking has increased," German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said after a meeting of G8 interior and justice ministers.

Germany is currently president of the Group of Eight, which also includes the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Japan and Russia. It will host the G8 summit in the Baltic resort town of Heiligendamm June 6-8.

In a statement, the G8 called for a "strengthening of cooperation with Afghanistan's neighbouring countries" to stop the flow of narcotics out of Afghanistan and prevent smuggling of substances needed to make drugs into the country.

"We also agreed that we have to further involve neighbouring countries, including Iran, in this cooperation, despite all the problems we may have with Iran," Schaeuble said. "Iran also suffers a great deal because of this drug trafficking."

Iran, which the West accuses of secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons, shares a 900-km (560-mile) border with Afghanistan, the world's number one producer of the opium poppy which is the key ingredient for heroin.

Tehran denies wanting the bomb but has been punished with U.N. sanctions for refusing to halt its nuclear fuel programme.

The scale of heroin and other drug abuse in Iran, which straddles a major smuggling route, is a growing problem -- and one which the conservative Islamic state shares with the United States and its other Western foes.

COMBATTING TERRORISM
In its statement, the G8 welcomed progress in reducing opium cultivation in the north and centre of Afghanistan, but expressed concern about the increase in the unstable south.

It said this is "where more than 60 percent of Afghanistan's opium was grown last year, and drug traffickers, insurgents and terrorists are making common cause against the government and international forces."

Schaeuble said the group also agreed on some specific steps to be taken in the fight against global terrorism. Those steps included enhanced sharing of information about the Internet and increased protection of key buildings and installations, such as utilities, chemical plants and information technology sites.

"We have to do more to combat terrorists' use of the Internet," he said.

He added they would try to make terrorists' use of the Internet for planning and propagating terrorism a criminal act, which he said was proving difficult to legislate in some countries, including the United States.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Protest against suspension of Afghan female MP
Fri May 25, 3:15 AM ET
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (AFP) - A rowdy protest of about 200 people, half of them women wearing burqas, demanded that parliament reinstate a female MP suspended for comparing her colleagues to animals.

The demonstrators marched in the eastern town of Jalalabad to the offices of the        United Nations where they were to hand over a letter expressing anger at the suspension on Monday of outspoken legislator Malalai Joya.

Protesters said parliament did not have the right to bar the MP because she had been elected by her constituency in the western province of Farah.

Former commanders of the anti-Soviet resistance who are now parliamentarians had targeted Joya because she has accused them of war crimes and abuses, they said.

One placard said parliament had "once again shown its real face" by removing Joya, who has been suspended until the end of the parliamentary term before the 2010 elections.

"Malalai Joya is chosen by the people, not the parliament," one demonstrator named Mariam told AFP as the mob chanted slogans.

"The situation of        Afghanistan right now is that it is in the hands of killers," she said, referring to the former commanders.

A similar protest of about 150 people in Farah province on Thursday also said that parliament should not be able to suspend an MP elected by the people.

Joya, 28, enraged her colleagues by saying in a television interview that parliament was worse than a stable because in a stable, at least, there are "cows which provide milk and you have got donkeys which can carry loads."

Leading international rights watchdog Human Rights Watch said Thursday that that while parliament's rules forbid lawmakers from criticising one another, MPs had regularly done so without anyone else having been suspended.

"Joya's comments don't warrant the punishment she received," Brad Adams, the rights watchdog's Asia director said in a statement.

"Malalai Joya is a staunch defender of human rights and a powerful voice for Afghan women," he said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Bush On Afghanistan
Voice of America / May 25, 2007
Editorial Reflecting the Views of the United States Government
One of the main topics of discussion between President George W. Bush and NATO Secretary General Jaap De Hoop Scheffer has been Afghanistan. "Afghanistan," said President Bush, "is a vital mission for the United States; it's a vital mission for our allies in Europe, because what happens in Afghanistan matters to the security of our countries."

The U.S. has contributed fifteen-thousand troops to the NATO-led thirty-seven-nation International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. An additional ten-thousand American troops lead a second multinational force that is training well over one-hundred thousand new Afghan soldiers and police officers.

But Taliban insurgents have adopted new tactics deliberately aimed at increasing civilian casualties. They include staging attacks on troops from compounds located in crowded neighborhoods and the use of suicide bombers and roadside bombs. Unlike the Taliban, coalition forces aim to avoid civilian casualties, said President Bush:

"The Taliban likes to surround themselves with innocent civilians. That's part of their modus operandi. They don't mind using human shields because they devalue human life. That's why they're willing to kill innocent people to achieve political objectives."

Nearly one-thousand six-hundred Afghan civilians have been killed in insurgency-related violence so far this year. This has led to protests against Afghan President Hamid Karzai. But both President Bush and NATO Secretary General De Hoop Scheffer urged continued resolve. "Afghanistan," said Mr. De Hoop Scheffer, "is still one of the front lines in our fight against terrorism."

Ultimately, defeating Islamic extremists in Afghanistan requires more than military action. The U.S. and NATO support a long-term strategy to strengthen Afghanistan's democratic institutions and create economic opportunity that will help the young democracy prosper.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghans Divided on Regional Integration
Membership of a South Asian economic grouping may not be all it is cracked up to be.
Institute for War & Peace Reporting By Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi in Mazar-e-Sharif (ARR No. 254, 24-May-07)
Officials in Afghanistan say accession to a major regional economic grouping should help the domestic economy grow and will open up trade with the country’s southern neighbours. Critics of the move dispute this, saying the domestic economy will reap few benefits from closer integration with neighbours who are themselves poor and argumentative.

Afghanistan was accepted as a member of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, SAARC, last month, joining India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and the Maldives.

Both culturally and economically, Afghanistan lies at the crossroads between Iran and the Middle East to the west, former Soviet Central Asia to the north, and the Indian subcontinent to the south, and offers a convenient land trade route between these regions. Afghanistan itself has much to gain from closer economic ties with the Indian subcontinent, despite its fraught relationship with its immediate neighbour Pakistan.

"By joining the SAARC, we will strengthen our political relationships over time, and gain other advantages," Sultan Ahmad Bahin, spokesman for the Afghan foreign ministry affairs, told IWPR.

"South Asian countries, particularly Bangladesh and India, need our raw materials, and now we will be able to sell them to these countries more easily. For their part, the South Asian countries want to get their products to Central Asian markets, and Afghanistan is the cheapest route. We will also earn substantial revenues from freight transit fees.”

India and Pakistan feature high on the list of destinations for Afghan exports, which include dried fruit and nuts, wool and animal skins, cotton, precious stones and carpets.

Ainuddin Alawi, a merchant in northern Afghanistan who imports foodstuffs from Pakistan, explained that at present, complex custom arrangements are a major obstacle to trade.

In addition, Afghanistan is heavily dependent on Pakistani goodwill for the free flow of goods – and that is not always forthcoming given the difficult diplomatic relationship between the two countries. Kabul has repeatedly accused Islamabad of not doing enough to reduce the Taleban’s capacity to launch raids over the border into Afghanistan. The Pakistani authorities have argued that the insurgency is ultimately an Afghan problem.

"Our goods sit and go to waste in the Pakistan’s free ports. We have a lot of problems. When Pakistan so wishes, it holds up our goods at the port of Karachi port, sometimes for months on end. And we suffer considerable losses because when they do allow our goods out of their ports, they are spoiled,” said Alawi.

"Once I was importing soft drinks, and my containers were delayed in Karachi for two months. So when they allowed them to be shipped, they were completely unsaleable and I was [nearly] bankrupted."

Bahin insists that SAARC membership will resolve most of these problems. "We’ll be able to take advantages of custom privileges, which means non-stop transit, and this will help our traders a lot,” he said. “In addition, our traders will be able to invest in other member states easily, just as those from other countries will be able to invest in Afghanistan."

Nazir Ahmad Shahidi, the deputy economy minister, argues that Afghanistan will benefit from being able to import technology and know-how at the relatively cheap prices.

"South Asian countries have both cheap technology and inexpensive human resources, so we can use them to develop our economic infrastructure,” he said. "An expert from India currently costs a tenth of the rates charged by a European one.”

He explained his vision of how SAARC membership would pay for itself, saying, "We will earn money from transit fees and we will use it to buy in experts and technology from [other] member countries, and in that way increase our manufacturing capacity and eradicate poverty.”

Ramazan Bashardost, a former planning minister who is now a member of parliament and an outspoken critic of the government, is less enthusiastic about SAARC membership, saying any economic advantages are likely to be obstructed not only by tensions between Kabul and Islamabad, but also by the animosity between Pakistan and India.

"There is a deep sense of dislike rather than rapprochement between some of the member countries, for example between India and Pakistan and between Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said. "Political rivalries between the member countries will prevent Afghanistan from developing as it should.”

Given the historical interest that both Delhi and Islamabad have had in gaining the advantage over each other by engaging with or intervening in Afghan politics, Bashardost warns that even within SAARC, “Afghanistan may become a plaything in their hands".

Bahin argues that the SAARC framework at least imposes fair rules for all its members, and suggests that a revival of economic and trade ties will ultimately serve to defuse more aggressive forms of regional competition.

"Right now there are plenty of problems with transporting goods from Afghanistan to India via Pakistan, but at least when we are bound by a treaty, Pakistan will have to respect the regulations set out in the charter….We will not lose out; this is a step forward," he said.

"Another point is that the expansion of economic relationships between the various countries will have a direct effect on security and political problems. All of SAARC’s members believe that when economic ties are strengthened, military and political rivalries will be supplanted by free enterprise."

Bashardost and other critics also make the point that the Afghan economy is at such a low point that it is in no condition to take part in a competitive regional market.

"Afghanistan would need to have high levels of production in order to be an active member of SAARC, but right now we have nothing to offer [other] markets, and we will merely see [other] SAARC members growing while Afghanistan remains only a destination for their exports. All the money that Afghanistan earns [in transit fees] will disappear on purchases of goods from SAARC states."

Bashardost concluded that joining SAARC was a wasted effort. “Afghan leaders… have miscalculated, and took Afghanistan into SAARC without looking at the current domestic economic situation," he said.

Nabi Assir, an economic analyst in northern Afghanistan, agrees that a country like Afghanistan will not benefit. "The nature of this incongruous group of countries suggests that a new and especially poor member is not going to reap any benefit - these countries are themselves broke, and will grasp at any way of improving their own economies," he said.

Assir also disputed the notion that there is a direct correlation between security and international trade. Quoting figures cited by President Hamed Karzai, he said, “Pakistani exports to Afghanistan in 2002 were worth 50 million [US] dollars. In 2005, even though the security situation was much worse than in 2002, Pakistani exports increased to 1.2 billion dollars.”

Shahidi, however, insists that integration is the only way forward, saying, "We should have done this 20 years ago. Now that there’s an opportunity to do it, why should we miss out? The principal reason for our lack of economic success is that our participation in regional trade has been so minimal."

Alawi, the Afghan trader, is pleased that his country has joined SAARC.

He said, "I don’t know much about these sorts of associations, but one thing I do know is that with the exception of Afghans, traders [in these countries] are not facing difficulties - maybe because they are [SAARC] members.”
Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi is an IWPR staff reporter in Mazar-e-Sharif.
Back to Top
Back to Top
PM trying to rewrite the Afghan narrative
TheStar.com May 24, 2007 James Travers
Who can argue when Stephen Harper says Canada is doing a lot for Afghanistan? A mission now costing a fortune in blood and money is making that country marginally safer, more stable and modern.

That's not only as it should be, it's the least to expect. When foreigners topple a local government they assume the burden of cleaning up the mess.

Measured today, the price of that effort is 55 Canadian lives and more than $6 billion. So the Prime Minister has a sizable stake in the progress telegraphed home this week.

Those messages are important to Harper.

Afghanistan hasn't been good to Conservatives lately and the Prime Minister needs the sweet smell of a success to wash away the bad taste left by careless controls over the treatment of prisoners.

To that end, history will footnote Harper's second Afghanistan trip as markedly different from the first.

Gone is jarring U.S. jingoism, replaced by a typically more modest and soothing Ottawa narrative about "helping the country to build a democratic, economically viable future of lasting peace and prosperity."

Up to a point, the Prime Minister has a point.

Given the inherent advantages enjoyed by insurgents everywhere, the military is doing well in countering the Taliban while even the much-maligned Canadian International Development Agency is playing a useful role in, among other things, providing the micro-financing that makes poverty a little less grinding.

But the overarching question for this government, and ultimately this country, is where do these bits and pieces fit in the complex puzzle of a fissured and, in many ways, still feudal state? As clearly as it is in Harper's political interest to boast that the export of Canadian values is booming, Afghanistan remains trapped by opium economics, regional politics and a culture steeped in violence.

The distance between our values and their reality is enormous. To bridge it will require resources and compromises that will test Canadian patience as well as generosity.

It's those demands – along with the pressing need to re-energize a flagging party – that took Harper to Afghanistan this week. Wisely or not, this Prime Minister chose to make a Liberal mission his own and now is stuck with convincing an ambivalent nation to stay what promises to be a long and torturous course.

What makes that so difficult is what made it so easy to "sell" the first operation to a country reeling from 9/11. Bringing down the Taliban made obvious sense to Canadians who then knew even less about Afghanistan than they do today.

True, a minority still cling to the lingering war-to-end-all-wars fantasy of a clear-cut military victory. But many more now grasp that factors beyond Canadian, NATO and even U.S. control will decide Afghanistan's future.

Two stand in particular relief. One is Pakistan, the other, poppies.

There can be no lasting or even temporary peace without the blessing of Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf or his successors. And there will be no meaningful development as long as warlords, a corrupt central government and peasant farmers profit most from an economy high on narcotics.

Demonizing the Taliban and torching cash crops are feel-good Western reflexes that only exacerbate the problem.

So, too, are opposition proposals to fix a withdrawal date and to skew the three Ds of defence, diplomacy and development to the latter rather than the former.

Much more innovative political and economic remedies are needed if Afghanistan is to accelerate away from its dark past. Canada's part in that process is to improve the security that is both a chip in the inevitable power-sharing negotiations and a precursor to the long-term development that civilian agencies deliver so much more capably than armies.

Politicians dislike plunging voters into those layers of perplexing nuance as much as admitting that some events are beyond their influence. They prefer, instead, to speak in bromides while advancing anecdotal shards in the hope they will be mistaken for the whole story.

In reinforcing that pattern this week, Harper skimmed lightly over the hardest truths for his government and for Afghanistan. A ruling party that now "owns" the mission has no alternative than to point to modest successes and shout loudly about creating a model state from chaos.

Canadians have done a lot for Afghanistan and the Prime Minister is right to recognize the human sacrifice and good works.

But that's a far cry from having the political permission to stay as long as necessary to do what may not be possible.
Back to Top
Back to Top
NATO concerned about civilian deaths in Afghanistan
Friday, May 25, 2007 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
KABUL, Afghanistan— Recent U.S. special forces operations that killed 90 Afghan civilians have caused friction with America’s NATO partners, who are concerned that such deaths hurt the standing of Western troops fighting the Taliban insurgency.

The deaths involved troops from the 12,000-member U.S.-led coalition and not NATO’s 37,000-member International Security Assistance Force. But NATO officials fear that Afghans and others don’t understand the distinction.

Mounting civilian casualties have already dented support for the international mission, sparking angry demonstrations and a warning from President Hamid Karzai that Afghans can accept them no longer. 

German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said Wednesday that the recent operations by U.S.-led troops exposed the need for restraint.

“We have to do everything to avoid that civilians are affected,” Jung said on Germany’s ZDF television.

“We are in talks with our American friends about this.”

Insurgency-related violence has spiked in 2007, with more than 1,800 people killed, according to an Associated Press count based on U.S., NATO and Afghan reports.

They include about 135 civilians killed by U.S. or NATO action, a figure that also could undermine support in Western countries, especially in Europe, for the faraway deployment.

About 135 civilians have also been killed by Taliban suicide bombs and attacks.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Secretive work that not all survive
Tom Blackwell National Post Friday, May 25, 2007
SPERWAN GHAR, AFGHANISTAN - Every day, Saleh comes to the Canadian forward operating outpost to wash floors, empty garbage and do other odd jobs. Although his daily pay of $6 may seem meagre, it is enough to support a family of 10.

Almost as regularly, the Taliban show up at night in his village, he says, leaving letters in the mosque threatening to kill any local who continues to work for the Canadian soldiers. One of the half-dozen villagers on the base's payroll quit last week in terror.

"I am scared, and my friends as well," admits Saleh, a typically wizened-looking Afghan man who says he's only 35 and wants only his first name used.

"When the Taliban catch me, they would just slit my throat. No talk, no investigation, just slit."

Even so, he says he has no choice but to keep showing up for the menial work. His wage is more than twice what he would earn at his regular job as a teacher, and he has no land on which to grow grapes, poppies or other cash crops.

Saleh embodies the plight of many Afghans who have chosen to work directly for Canadian and other NATO forces, ignoring intimidation from insurgents who have a habit of carrying through on their threats. This week, for instance, suspected Taliban terrorists beheaded a man and dumped his body in Herat province, with a note warning that anyone working for foreign military forces would be killed.

The hundreds of interpreters attached to foreign troops may face the greatest risk -- several have already been killed in targeted attacks.

They can also be caught up in assaults aimed at the NATO soldiers. Last week, a rocket fired randomly into the Canadian-held Ma' Sum Ghar forward operating base killed one translator and seriously injured another.

The interpreters, or "terps" as the soldiers call them, often work with their faces covered by balaclavas or scarves.

Many of the local employees, however, seem sanguine about the perils of their work. Although frightened, they say they are grateful to take home what, by Afghan standards, are handsome salaries and proud to stand up to the insurgents.

The U.S.-owned company that supplies most of the interpreters to coalition forces says there is not nearly enough work for all those who apply.

"We don't have anything to do besides this job," says Taz, one of the interpreters with Charlie Company at Sperwan Ghar operating base. "Afghanistan doesn't have factories, it doesn't have any jobs, so we have to do this ... We should serve our country. Who else is going to do it?"

For the custodial work at Sperwan Ghar, the Canadians employ an equal number of men from each of the two tribes in the immediate area, in part just to create local employment, said Captain Andrew Vivian, the base commander. He added he has nothing but respect for the interpreters and their indispensable role as a bridge to the Afghan people.

"It's not an easy job," he said. "We've gone to places before and some of them have been heckled by the locals. Some people aren't nice to them. They call them names because they are supporting us."

In just a few weeks last summer, the Taliban killed 10 interpreters.

International Management Services, the region's main source of English translators, cautions employees to keep quiet about where they are working. Moles are everywhere, says Ash, an Egyptian- American who helps manage the firm's operation at Kandahar Airfield.

"Sometimes they don't [even] tell their families," he says. "They tell them that they're working overseas or abroad. It's a dangerous job."
Back to Top

 Back to News Archirves of 2007
 
Disclaimer: This news site is mostly a compilation of publicly accessible articles on the Web in the form of a link or saved news item. The news articles and commentaries/editorials are protected under international copyright laws. All credit goes to the original respective source(s).