 |
||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serving you since 1998 | ||||||||||||
|
|
Leaders Renew Vows of Support for Afghanistan
By New York Times ALISSA J. RUBIN, RICHARD A. OPPEL, Jr. and MARK LANDLER July 20, 2010
KABUL, Afghanistan — American, European and other foreign leaders met here Tuesday to pledge anew their support for Afghanistan as they committed to complete transition of security and budgeting responsibility to the Afghan government by 2014. They acknowledged that neither the people of their own countries nor those in Afghanistan had much patience left.
Afghanistan aims for full security handover by 2014
By the CNN Wire Staff July 20, 2010
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Afghanistan is "determined" to be responsible for its own security operations by 2014, President Hamid Karzai told an international donors conference in Kabul Tuesday.
Clinton speaks out for Afghan women in Kabul conference
Tue Jul 20, 8:58 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used part of her address to a key conference in Kabul on Tuesday to defend Afghan women concerned that peace efforts with the Taliban could jeopardise their rights.
US surge not helping Afghanistan: Iran FM
KABUL (AFP) – Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday that a US-led surge of troops into Afghanistan had failed to stabilise the country, addressing a key international conference attended by his American counterpart.
Can We Really Hand Over Afghanistan Security by 2014?
Erik Hayden Erik Hayden – The Atlantic Wire via Yahoo! News - Tue Jul 20, 8:31 am ET
WASHINGTON, DC – International leaders, foreign ministers and figureheads gathered at Tuesday's Kabul conference to assess the fate of Afghanistan and draft a tentative arrangement moving forward. With delegates on hand, President Hamid Karzai signalled that he is "committed" to having the capacity "to provide for our own security" by 2014.
Afghanistan: Send less money for drug war, give us more control
By Dan Murphy – Mon Jul 19, 4:15 pm ET
Kabul, Afghanistan – Afghanistan's Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal says he’s hoping that international donors convening Tuesday in Kabul will agree to better enable the country to be self-reliant. To do so, he says, the donors must cut down on the waste and fraud that has hampered development programs, and entrust the government with greater control of aid money.
Militants killed, detained in connection with Kabul Conference raid
By the CNN Wire Staff July 20, 2010
(CNN) -- Several insurgents were killed and two were detained while troops were looking for a Taliban facilitator who was believed to be in the final stages of planning an attack against an international conference in Kabul, authorities said Tuesday.
NATO: Afghan Soldier Kills Two U.S. Civilians
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty July 20, 2010
An Afghan soldier thought to be an army trainer has shot dead two U.S. civilians and a fellow Afghan soldier during a weapons-training exercise at a military camp in northern Afghanistan.
Canadian soldier acquitted of Taliban murder charges
July 19, 2010
(AFP) – OTTAWA — A military panel acquitted a Canadian officer Monday of murder of an unarmed and badly wounded insurgent in Afghanistan but sentenced him to up to five years in jail for "disgraceful conduct."
U.S. cleric warns Yemen could be next Iraq or Afghanistan
DUBAI (Reuters) – A U.S.-born Muslim cleric linked to al Qaeda and wanted dead or alive by Washington warned U.S. President Barack Obama that he risked getting the United States bogged down in Yemen as it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Clinton vows US, world will stand with Afghanistan despite growing fears about course of war
Associated Press July 20, 2010
KABUL - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday vowed the United States and its allies will stand by Afghanistan even as fears are growing about the course of the nearly 9-year-old war and the Obama administration plans to begin withdrawing American troops from the country next year.
Afghanistan: What does "ready to withdraw" mean?
Xinhua By Matthew Rusling 20-07-2010
WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is expected to visit Afghanistan on Tuesday, and the question on many people's minds is how the security handover from U.S. to Afghan forces is shaping up.
Keep Afghanistan elections on track
Washington Post Tuesday, July 20, 2010
In her July 11 op-ed column, "Afghanistan's crucible," Candace Rondeaux argued that if Afghanistan's parliamentary elections go ahead in September, "almost every candidate will wonder whether the risk was worth it." The flip side of this (posed to Afghans) is: Would you have rather postponed last year's elections?
White House shifts Afghanistan strategy towards talks with Taliban
Senior Washington officials tell the Guardian of a 'change of mindset' over Obama administration's Afghanistan policy
The Guardian Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Simon Tisdall Monday 19 July 2010
The White House is revising its Afghanistan strategy to embrace the idea of negotiating with senior members of the Taliban through third parties – a policy to which it had previously been lukewarm.
Back to Top
Leaders Renew Vows of Support for Afghanistan
By New York Times ALISSA J. RUBIN, RICHARD A. OPPEL, Jr. and MARK LANDLER July 20, 2010
KABUL, Afghanistan — American, European and other foreign leaders met here Tuesday to pledge anew their support for Afghanistan as they committed to complete transition of security and budgeting responsibility to the Afghan government by 2014. They acknowledged that neither the people of their own countries nor those in Afghanistan had much patience left.
President Hamid Karzai promised to make concrete efforts to reduce corruption and find a way to end the fighting in his country — areas in which he has pledged improvement in the past. He painted a picture of a country that could flourish, lifting its “people from poverty to prosperity and from insecurity to stability.”
“Our vision is to be the peaceful meeting place of civilizations,” he said in an address. “Our location in the center of the new Silk Road makes us a convergence point of regional and global economic interests.”
Whether Afghanistan can get there without an enormous infusion of further foreign aid and the presence of a significant number of foreign troops seems doubtful — at least for the next few years. That point was underscored by the vague language around the timeline for handing over security responsibility.
The goal of a transition by 2014, which Mr. Karzai outlined last year, is nonbinding and essentially unenforceable. Much depends on how and when security responsibility will be transferred, for instance whether province by province or district by district. More specific plans will be developed later this year, according to the document.
Transition to Afghan control is the basis of the exit plan for NATO troops and member countries have differing senses of urgency. The western European democracies with the most troops in the country — Britain, France and Germany — are under great domestic pressure to reduce their contingents while the United States, which has by far the heaviest military presence, is somewhat more focused on how to give the best chance to its counter-insurgency strategy.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the unpopularity of the war in remarks to foreign leaders gathered in a large conference room at the Afghan Interior Ministry, saying that that winning popular support for the continued mission here, given the relatively limited progress so far, would be a challenge.
“We know the road ahead will not be easy,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible — and if so, whether we all have the commitment to achieve it.”
She pledged to answer those doubts with actions. She also endeavored to reduce somewhat the significance of the July 2011 date, which President Obama set in his speech outlining his Afghan policy last fall as the date when he would begin to bring troops home.
“The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve,” Mrs. Clinton said. “The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely. But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement.”
Mrs. Clinton tried to dispel concerns about the transition, saying the Afghans had presented the most detailed plans yet for how to hand off control to Afghan security forces.
“Today was a real turning point,” Mrs. Clinton said.
However, the overall significance of the conference was hard to gauge because much of the final statement was a list of boards and commissions to be created, laws to be drafted and enforced and schedules to be fleshed out. The same themes, if not always the exact pledges, have been sounded many times before by Mr. Karzai’s government to little effect.
Mr. Karzai spoke only briefly about the reintegration and reconciliation with the Taliban although it is a major effort of his government and of considerable concern both to many Afghans and to NATO troops who are fighting here. The sparse commentary seemed to signal that there was still little agreement on exactly how to proceed after months of meetings and consultations both within the Afghan government and with American, United Nations and NATO allies.
In some respects, the most significant elements were in what was not said or what occurred during behind-the-scenes meetings. Mrs. Clinton met with Afghan women leaders before the conference began and heard their concerns that their interests would be left behind in the peace effort with the Taliban.
Fouzia Kofi, a former deputy speaker in the Afghan Parliament, said she was concerned by recent signals from Mr. Karzai’s government. If the reconciliation process is mishandled, she warned, it could “take the country back hundreds of years.”
“We need to make sure that not only we are protected, but also our children,” Ms. Kofi said.
Arezo Qani, who works with disadvantaged women in northern Afghanistan, expressed fears that rearming local militias, something the United States has pushed, would also threaten women. And she said women needed to be consulting in the drafting of new laws.
Mrs. Clinton said protecting women’s rights was a “personal commitment of mine.” While she said the United States was open to an Afghan-led reconciliation, “it can’t come at the cost of women’s lives,” she said.
The security transition timetable, though not the main focus of this meeting, is perhaps the most significant element for NATO leaders most of whom will face election challenges well before 2014. The European countries are looking for a more concrete withdrawal plan for their troops that they can advertise to their voters, while the United States military leadership, is hewing to a “conditions-based” approach that allows them to slow down in areas where the insurgency appears more tenacious or where Afghan troops and police appear to have inadequate capabilities.
The Iranian Foreign Minister used the conference as an opportunity to get in some digs at the foreign forces. The criticism came just a few weeks after the United Nations Security Council voted to enforce sanctions against Iran for failing to halt its nuclear program.
“The presence and increase in the number of foreign forces is one of the factors in the insecurity, violence and dissatisfaction of the public,” said Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran’s foreign minister.
A moment later the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, interrupted and told him to get to the point. On Monday, the new American and NATO commander for Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, traveled to the south of the country together.
According to one NATO official, they have had “frank discussions.”
“There are indications that the timeline and what constitutes the conditions for transition are possibly different in terms of what NATO is thinking and what Petraeus may be thinking as he settles into an understanding of what he is dealing with in this insurgency,” said the NATO official, who, like several other diplomats and officials interviewed on Monday, refused to be identified by name because of the delicacy of the issue.
But another official from the American-led NATO coalition insisted that General Petraeus and Mr. Rasmussen were not in disagreement. “They see eye to eye,” that official said, “and anyone who reports otherwise clearly has missed key conversations, which is understandable, because some have been one on one.”
A Western diplomat in Kabul praised what he described as General Petraeus’s effort to “bring a sense of realism” to the debate. “He’s being very careful, especially in the first month, to not give a sense of expectations and promises that he will then not be able to deliver,” the diplomat said.
An administration official added that the general was focusing on the evaluation of the Afghan war due at year’s end. “He’s got four and a half months until the review, and he’ll brook no dissent,” the official said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan aims for full security handover by 2014
By the CNN Wire Staff July 20, 2010
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- Afghanistan is "determined" to be responsible for its own security operations by 2014, President Hamid Karzai told an international donors conference in Kabul Tuesday.
Karzai said that Afghanistan will work with NATO and other nations on a transition for security by that date.
"I am committed to having the ability by 2014 to reach the level of strength and ability and capacity in our own forces to provide for our own security," Karzai said at a joint news conference with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the end of the conference.
"We hope the international community will help Afghanistan reach that objective," Karzai said. "This is a national objective we have to fulfill -- and we must."
The conference brought together representatives from more than 70 countries and international and local institutions to discuss Afghanistan's plan for development, governance, and stability. Among the delegates were Ban and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The participants also discussed aid for the country and agreed to channel at least 50 percent of all donor money directly into the Afghan government's budget.
In her speech, Clinton said that while the transition to Afghan control of security could not be put off indefinitely, the United States' involvement in the country will continue. Too many nations, she said, have suffered too many losses to see Afghanistan slide backward.
"We know the road ahead will not be easy," she said. "Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible -- and, if so, whether we all have the commitment to achieve it. We will answer these questions with our actions. "
Karzai's government is under pressure to cut down on corruption and take over security.
Ban reiterated that concern at the end of the conference and said that the aid pledged to Afghanistan should be disbursed in an effective and transparent manner.
Last year, U.S. President Barack Obama called for Afghanistan to increase the number of its troops to 134,000 and the number of police to 109,000 by October 2010. Afghanistan is close to reaching those targets, but some question whether more emphasis has been placed on quantity over quality.
Coalition forces are fighting a tenacious Taliban insurgency, with a wave of fatalities that made June the bloodiest month so far for U.S. and international troops in the Afghan war.
The war is also unpopular among many people in coalition countries, and Obama's administration recently made a major change in the war's leadership: replacing Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top international commander in Afghanistan, with Gen. David Petraeus, who was the architect of the U.S. "surge" strategy in Iraq.
Petraeus, in a July 4 letter to troops, framed the conflict as a "contest of wills" as he exhorted them to win the fight against militants.
Karzai, in his speech, also preached patience.
"I also want to highlight the patience and dignity with which our civilian population has borne the brunt of the conflict and the attacks of our common enemies," he said. "But do not mistake our will to overcome them. Let our friends and partners be assured of the justness of our cause. With your support and commitment, Afghanistan will further strengthen its rightful place in the community of nations; and we thank you for this."
The meeting went off without incident. Monday night, however, several insurgents were killed and two were detained while coalition troops were looking for a Taliban facilitator who was believed to be in the final stages of planning an attack on the conference.
The alleged facilitator got away, a spokesman with the NATO-led coalition force said.
CNN's Atia Abawi contributed to this report.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Clinton speaks out for Afghan women in Kabul conference
Tue Jul 20, 8:58 am ET
KABUL (AFP) – US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used part of her address to a key conference in Kabul on Tuesday to defend Afghan women concerned that peace efforts with the Taliban could jeopardise their rights.
"I speak from experience when I say that the work of Afghan women and civil society groups will be essential to this country?s success," she told the gathering of 70 representatives from international organisations and nations.
"If these groups are fully empowered to help build a just and lasting peace, they will help do so. If they are silenced and pushed to the margins of Afghan society, the prospects for peace and justice will be subverted."
Clinton, the most high profile woman politician in the West, congratulated Afghan President Hamid Karzai for saying he would not sacrifice the rights of women, ethnic minorities or civil society groups in the quest for peace.
Before the conference, Clinton raised the same issues with a group of 12 hand-picked Afghan women aid workers at the US embassy.
She encouraged them to share their concerns about a process of reintegration of Taliban footsoldiers, which the United States is supporting on condition that the insurgents renounce violence and take part in the democratic process.
Karzai last month also won the endorsement of Afghan leaders to start peace talks with insurgent leaders and called on the international community to back his efforts -- despite at least initial scepticism from the United States.
"An Afghanistan that is stable, peaceful and secure is in everyone's interest, particularly women and children," said Clinton. "But it cannot come at the cost of women," she warned.
Afghan lawmaker Fawzia Koofi told Clinton: "We want peace with justice, bringing the Taliban on board and compromise with women's rights would take this country back hundreds of years."
Clinton's interest in gender equality and defending women's rights has been a policy favourite since her tenure as American first lady from 1993 to 2001.
Washington is to commit 37 million dollars in the next four years to increase the number of women in health professions, particularly midwifery.
Aid group Save the Children has described Afghanistan as the worst country in the world in which to be a mother.
According to statistics provided by US officials, the average life expectancy for women in Afghanistan is 44 years old and one women in eight die during childbirth -- one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.
Back to Top
Back to Top
US surge not helping Afghanistan: Iran FM
KABUL (AFP) – Iran's foreign minister said Tuesday that a US-led surge of troops into Afghanistan had failed to stabilise the country, addressing a key international conference attended by his American counterpart.
Representatives from 70 organisations and countries gathered in Kabul to hear President Hamid Karzai say that his government was prepared to take over security responsibility from tens of thousands of US-led NATO troops by 2014.
Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki told the gathering that NATO and US troops had failed to defeat the Taliban, nine years after bringing down their Islamist regime, and instead had exacerbated violence in Afghanistan.
"With increased foreign troops the security situation is getting worse and a positive change is not foreseeable in the near future," he told the meeting.
"Recent surveys show that insecurity compared to last year has increased tangibly.
"That is why it is clear that increased deployment of foreign forces and foreign military operations has not only not helped the problem but has added to the level of violence," he added.
He said that Western troops, expected to peak at 150,000 within weeks, was a cause of "insecurity, violence and dissatisfaction for the Afghan public."
Mottaki also blamed a surge in drugs production in Afghanistan, which is Iran's eastern neighbour, on "Western money laundering systems".
Washington has in the past accused Tehran of providing low-level help to some militants in Afghanistan, but former NATO commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, said in May that most of Tehran's role was legitimate.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Can We Really Hand Over Afghanistan Security by 2014?
Erik Hayden Erik Hayden – The Atlantic Wire via Yahoo! News - Tue Jul 20, 8:31 am ET
WASHINGTON, DC – International leaders, foreign ministers and figureheads gathered at Tuesday's Kabul conference to assess the fate of Afghanistan and draft a tentative arrangement moving forward. With delegates on hand, President Hamid Karzai signalled that he is "committed" to having the capacity "to provide for our own security" by 2014. While the pledge to a firm deadline was lauded, this promise comes at a time when many western journalists have begun to advocate for a swift withdrawal from the nation. Here's how the new time-table changed the debate:
Success Is Probably Not Possible opines The Economist's "Asia View" columnist. While it seems as if "many of the delegates are putting their hopes in a grand political deal with insurgents...remarkably little was said about efforts to encourage insurgent leaders to "reconcile" with the government." That sentiment doesn't bode well for Karzai's newly established time line, nor for their next international conference in Lisbon this November.
Reconciliation Is No Blank Check writes Anders Fogh Rasmussen (the Secretary General of NATO) in a New York Times op-ed contribution. He explains, "Starting the transition does not mean that the struggle for Afghanistan’s future as a stable country in a volatile region will be over. Afghanistan will need the continued support of the international community, including NATO. It is important that we send a clear message of long-term commitment. The Afghan population needs to know that we will continue to stand by them as they chart their own course into the future."
It's Not Worth It declares Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a heavily-covered Newsweek cover story. He argues: "The time has come to scale back U.S. objectives and sharply reduce U.S. involvement on the ground. Afghanistan is claiming too many American lives, requiring too much attention, and absorbing too many resources. The sooner we accept that Afghanistan is less a problem to be fixed than a situation to be managed, the better."
We Need Unity urges Senator Edward Kaufman in an op-ed contribution to The Hill. The Democrat notes: "Unfortunately, there are many factors in Afghanistan — starting with the government in Kabul — which fall outside the realm of U.S. control. President Hamid Karzai must do more to eliminate widespread corruption and institute rule of law that is transparent and fair...This ongoing trend of tolerating corrupt and unlawful behavior has made attempts to gain Afghan popular support difficult, if not impossible."
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: Send less money for drug war, give us more control
By Dan Murphy – Mon Jul 19, 4:15 pm ET
Kabul, Afghanistan – Afghanistan's Finance Minister Omar Zakhilwal says he’s hoping that international donors convening Tuesday in Kabul will agree to better enable the country to be self-reliant. To do so, he says, the donors must cut down on the waste and fraud that has hampered development programs, and entrust the government with greater control of aid money.
“Our expectation from the international community … is to respect Afghan leadership and to be serious about building Afghan institutions – not undermine them,’’ said Mr. Zakhilwal in a briefing with a small group of reporters ahead of the Kabul Conference.
Senior officials from about 40 countries – including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – are expected to attend the event, the ninth major donor conference since the country was invaded in 2001.
Taking place against a backdrop of unprecedented civilian and military casualties, both Afghan and international, governments and aid groups alike are under pressure to demonstrate that the billions they have poured into projects here have been well spent.
In the world of Afghan aid spending – where a government with $1.5 billion in domestic revenue is running an $11 billion budget and the US has committed more than $50 billion to infrastructure and creating a national army and police force from scratch – there is plenty of criticism about where that money is going, and why.
Zakhilwal: Only 5 percent of US aid channeled through governmentAfghans say they’ll be pressing for more government control over international spending. Foreign donors such as the US will be seeking guarantees that the money they provide won’t be diverted or wasted. They also may give their agreement to the government’s effort to “reintegrate” Taliban fighters into society.
US officials say they expect no new aid to be announced at the conference, though Zakhilwal says he’s hoping that $1 billion to $2 billion for infrastructure will be announced.
The meeting itself will effectively be a ratification of already agreed upon measures to improve aid spending here by better aligning international aid programs with priorities identified by the Afghan government.
Zakhilwal said he hoped the donors in attendance would agree to “wasteâ€
The US has channeled only about 5 percent of its spending here through the government, he says, compared to about 50 percent by Britain and “well over” 50 percent by Scandinavian countries.
“I say: ‘Give me more control.' They say: ‘You don’t have the capacity, so we’re going outside [the government],' " he says, describing the dynamic. "I say: ‘How do you have the capacity?’ They buy it at a very steep price,” he answers, pointing to the international consultants who work on aid projects here. For a “fraction” of the money spent, he said, the US could help build capacity within the Afghan government.
In a written response to questions, the US Embassy in Kabul said that 13.5 percent of US aid is being channeled through the government in the current fiscal year. Next year, the embassy says it will be 25 percent, assuming “the Afghan government establishes the necessary accountability and administrative procedures.”
Zakhilwal’s tone of independence was echoed by Afghan National Security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta, who says that “Afghanistan is beyond the point where the international community can tell us what to do.”
'The impact could have been greater'Contractors for USAID and other agencies, which have channeled some of the billions of US dollars spent here, privately say that hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted, from petty instances of buying extra laptops for personal use to large-scale problems such as programs meant to attract foreign investment here yielding meager results.
A survey released by Integrity Watch Afghanistan earlier this month found that 1 in 7 Afghans have to pay bribes to receive government services, that many government employees must pay kickbacks to their bosses to receive their salaries, and that the country’s judiciary and security agencies are considered the most corrupt branches of government.
Mr. Zakhilwal accepts that his own government has been part of the problem but bristles at suggestions that corruption and inefficiency on the Afghan side is largely responsible for the $4 billion that he says flows out of the country each year. Last month, Congress withheld $4 billion in Afghanistan spending due to such concerns.
He says that money has often been spent recklessly to create an “illusion of development.” The international approach “leads to quick spending because they have to show” they’re doing something and the “money spent is used as a success indicator” rather than effectiveness. “I don’t want to sound ungrateful… but the impact could have been greater.”
He says that he welcomes US criticism in turn and that the government recognizes it needs to do more to control corruption on its end. “If [the Afghan government] is trusted by the international community but not by our own people, then we are in trouble.”
Is US aid responsible for drop in opium production?In Zakhilwal’s estimation, “not a single penny” spent on counternarcotics has been effective or to the nation’s benefit. “What was the aim of this spending? Find a single farmer, find a village” and they’ll tell you that poppy cultivation remains a mainstay for tens of thousands of Afghans, he said. The US is spending about $700 million on counternarcotics in Afghanistan this year.
The US Embassy in Kabul disagreed and said that opium production has fallen by about a third since 2008, that Helmand province received a $10 million grant as a reward for reducing land under poppy cultivation by 33 percent, and that 373 “high value narcotics” cases have ended in convictions in the past yar.
Like any other commodity, heroin is subject to market cycles. Two years ago the poppy crop hit a record high, and many middlemen stockpiled supplies. The UN estimated 2009 production at 6,900 tons of opium (the raw material for heroin), against global demand of about 5,000 tons.
That mismatch between supply and demand has pushed down prices. This year’s crop was also hit by poppy plight, according to farmers, whose yields have also become dramatically more efficient in recent years. For instance, 2009 production fell 10 percent over the previous year with a 30 percent fall in land under cultivation.
$100 million to clean ditches; Afghans used to do it for freeMr. Zakhilwal says US money channeled to emergency employment programs has been actively harmful because he said it has paid money to Afghans to maintain irrigation canals that they previously looked after on their own, and for no pay.
“When it gets to the project level, $100 million is spent on cleaning ditches ... that takes away self-help,” he says.
The US embassy wrote that “ 'cash-for-work' projects offer short-term solutions for Afghanistan, which suffers from massive unemployment both on a rural and urban scale. USAID direct implementation or cash-for-work projects seek to avoid rehabilitating canals and roads where the Afghan government or local authorities can provide their own means of repair or construction of these projects.”
Back to Top
Back to Top
Militants killed, detained in connection with Kabul Conference raid
By the CNN Wire Staff July 20, 2010
(CNN) -- Several insurgents were killed and two were detained while troops were looking for a Taliban facilitator who was believed to be in the final stages of planning an attack against an international conference in Kabul, authorities said Tuesday.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is attending the gathering, known as the Kabul Conference.
The operation occurred Monday night near Kabul, the International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.
Troops targeted a compound and were fired upon as they approached, the statement said.
After a gun battle, the NATO-led coalition force was able to enter the compound, detain the two suspects and confiscate several automatic weapons.
The alleged facilitator was not captured, a spokesman with the coalition force said.
Meanwhile, a service member with the International Security Assistance Force was killed in a roadside bombing in southern Afghanistan Tuesday, the force said.
Per policy, the agency did not release any further details.
Back to Top
Back to Top
NATO: Afghan Soldier Kills Two U.S. Civilians
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty July 20, 2010
An Afghan soldier thought to be an army trainer has shot dead two U.S. civilians and a fellow Afghan soldier during a weapons-training exercise at a military camp in northern Afghanistan.
NATO said in a statement that it was investigating with Afghan authorities whether it was a deliberate attack or an accident.
The gunman himself also died in the July 20 incident, in unclear circumstances.
A NATO soldier and an Afghan service member were also wounded at the training facility near Mazar-e Sharif, the largest city in the relatively peaceful north of the country.
compiled from agency reports
Back to Top
Back to Top
Canadian soldier acquitted of Taliban murder charges
July 19, 2010
(AFP) – OTTAWA — A military panel acquitted a Canadian officer Monday of murder of an unarmed and badly wounded insurgent in Afghanistan but sentenced him to up to five years in jail for "disgraceful conduct."
After two days of deliberations, Captain Robert Semrau, 36, was found not guilty of second-degree murder, attempted murder or negligent performance of military duty, despite the four-member military panel concluding he had indeed shot and killed an unarmed Taliban fighter.
The lesser disgraceful conduct charge carries a sentence of up to five years in prison. The Canadian National Defense Department said Semrau's sentence would be determined at a later date.
If Semrau had been found guilty of first-degree murder, he could have faced life in prison, which in Canada means he must serve 25 years behind bars before he can be eligible for parole.
The drama unfolded on October 19, 2008, as Canadian soldiers faced an increasingly tough insurgency as they defended key positions in the region. Semrau was mentoring Afghan soldiers under a NATO program.
Following several clashes, British and Afghan troops along with their Canadian mentors came across two "presumed" Taliban fighters: one dead, the other too severely wounded for treatment on site.
According to prosecutors, the wounded man was "insulted, spat upon and kicked" by Afghan soldiers in Semrau's company. His rifle, ammo and vest were taken and the patrol moved on, deciding to leave his fate "in Allah's hands."
Semrau, a Canadian private under his command and an Afghan interpreter codenamed Max soon returned to photograph the two insurgents, after deciding they could be "high value targets."
They found the wounded man still breathing, prosecutors said.
The private snapped two pictures of the wounded man as Semrau stood guard.
Semrau then told Max and the private to "head back" as they "should not have to see this," prosecutor Captain Thomas Fitzgerald had said in earlier proceedings. The pair walked a short distance "when they heard two distinct shots," he added.
The private "whirled around thinking he'd been caught in another ambush," his gun ready. He saw the victim was "no longer moving."
Semrau is alleged to have told the private under his command "that he couldn't live with himself if he had left a wounded human being and nobody should be made to suffer like that."
Later that day, Semrau was overhead saying that he fired the shots that killed the insurgent and that "anyone would do the same for any other human being in that situation. He is still a human being and should not suffer like that."
But neither Canadian, nor international law recognizes mercy killings.
Back to Top
Back to Top
U.S. cleric warns Yemen could be next Iraq or Afghanistan
DUBAI (Reuters) – A U.S.-born Muslim cleric linked to al Qaeda and wanted dead or alive by Washington warned U.S. President Barack Obama that he risked getting the United States bogged down in Yemen as it was in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The warning by Anwar al-Awlaki was posted on an Islamist website late on Monday, days after the U.S. Treasury blacklisted him as a "specially designated global terrorist," a move that freezes any assets he may have under U.S. jurisdiction.
The remarks appeared to be a repackaged fuller version of an audio clip initially aired on CNN in March, reissued with Arabic and Russian subtitles, rather than a fresh appearance of Awlaki, who is thought to be in hiding in the south of Yemen.
The U.S. government has stepped up its assistance to Yemen in a recent crackdown on a resurgent Yemen-based al Qaeda wing, and in April authorized operations to capture or kill Awlaki.
"If George W. Bush is remembered as being the president who got America stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's looking like Obama wants to be remembered as the president who got America stuck in Yemen," Awlaki said in his message.
"Obama has already started his war on Yemen by the aerial bombings of Abyan and Shabwa," Awlaki said, referring to two provinces in south Yemen where airstrikes have been carried out against al Qaeda members.
Yemen, next to top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, leapt to the forefront of Western security concerns after a Yemen-based regional al Qaeda wing claimed responsibility for a failed attempt to bomb a U.S.-bound plane in December.
The U.S. Treasury said New Mexico-born Awlaki had helped direct the failed bomb attack and had also facilitated training camps for militants in Yemen.
U.S. officials say Washington plays a supporting role in Yemen by helping its forces track and pinpoint targets, while Washington has downplayed any direct role in strikes, wary of stoking anti-American sentiment and widening al Qaeda's appeal.
In another message also posted on Monday, Al Qaeda's No.2 leader Ayman al-Zawahri mocked Obama for voicing confidence over victory in Afghanistan and said Arab government leaders allied to the West were more harmful to the Palestinians than Israel.
Zawahri is thought to be in hiding in mountainous territory close to the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
(Reporting by Raissa Kasolowsky; Editing by Jon Loades-Carter)
Back to Top
Back to Top
Clinton vows US, world will stand with Afghanistan despite growing fears about course of war
Associated Press July 20, 2010
KABUL - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday vowed the United States and its allies will stand by Afghanistan even as fears are growing about the course of the nearly 9-year-old war and the Obama administration plans to begin withdrawing American troops from the country next year.
Clinton acknowledged deepening opposition to international involvement in the conflict amid the rising death toll of foreign troops in the country. But she told an international conference on Afghanistan's future that the "world is with Afghanistan" and that the planned drawdown of U.S. forces was not a sign of flagging commitment.
"The July 2011 date captures both our sense of urgency and the strength of our resolve," she said of U.S. plans to accelerate the process of turning over security to Afghanistan's police and military. "The transition process is too important to push off indefinitely."
"But this date is the start of a new phase, not the end of our involvement," Clinton told the conference, which is being attended by senior officials from about 70 countries. "We have no intention of abandoning our long-term mission of achieving a stable, secure, peaceful Afghanistan."
Mounting concerns about the war and rampant corruption in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government have prompted many in the U.S. and allied countries to raise serious questions about the wisdom of carrying on the fight.
Clinton allowed that "the road ahead will not be easy," particularly given those concerns, which could threaten funding for military operations.
"Citizens of many nations represented here, including my own, wonder whether success is even possible — and if so, whether we all have the commitment to achieve it. We will answer these questions with our actions," she said, pledging to step up U.S. civilian assistance to help rehabilitate and reconstruct the war-shattered nation.
"The world is with Afghanistan, and the world stands in opposition to al-Qaida, the extremist militant Taliban, and to those who are trying to deny Afghanistan the future it deserves," Clinton said.
Government corruption, including the reported payment of protection money to militants by U.S. contractors, has raised eyebrows in Congress, with one U.S. lawmaker putting a hold on nearly $4 billion in assistance.
Clinton said Karzai's pledges of reform and increased efforts to fight graft must be followed through on. "There are no short cuts to fighting corruption and improving governance," she said. As the Afghan government improves its accountability, the U.S. and others will support it, she said.
Another topic of U.S. and international concern is Karzai's plan to reintegrate militants into society, a prospect that had alarmed many Afghan women who fear a return to the days of Taliban rule, when women's rights and issues were severely restricted and ignored.
Clinton warned that reintegration must only be allowed for insurgents "who are ready for peace," willing to renounce violence and al-Qaida, and willing to agree to respect the Afghan constitution and the country's laws, particularly as they apply to women's rights.
Shortly before the conference opened, Clinton and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton assured Afghan women they will not be forgotten.
Peace in Afghanistan "can't come at the cost of women and women's lives," Clinton said, promising a group of women's rights activists that the issue is "a personal commitment of mine."
Ashton echoed that sentiment on behalf of the E.U. "We're not going away," she said. "We are going to support you."
Fouzia Kofi, a former Afghan legislator, told Clinton and Ashton that she understood it was difficult to convince Westerners of the importance of the issue, given deepening fears of a "never-ending war."
"They need to realize that peace here with the Taliban, and bringing Taliban on board with a compromise of basic human rights and women's rights, means taking this country back hundreds of years," Kofi said.
Back to Top
Back to Top
Afghanistan: What does "ready to withdraw" mean?
Xinhua By Matthew Rusling 20-07-2010
WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is expected to visit Afghanistan on Tuesday, and the question on many people's minds is how the security handover from U.S. to Afghan forces is shaping up.
Moreover, while U.S. President Barack Obama's administration said conditions on the ground will dictate the scope and pace of the U.S. withdrawal, critics wonder what that means exactly.
Will U.S. troops stay on after the July, 2011 pullout deadline? Will Washington accept partial Taliban control of the war ravaged country? What factors will determine a full U.S. pullout?
"The president has not been forthcoming about the details of his withdrawal," said Malou Innocent, foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute. The Obama administration said a scale-down will simply begin on the stated deadline, and officials said that has been misunderstood to mean that all forces will leave the war torn country on that date.
Indeed, some experts said the United States could maintain a large troop presence well beyond the timeline for withdrawal. Obama could be pressured by the military and the development community to leave an unknown number of U.S. forces in the country, Innocent said.
Washington may eventually be forced to allow Taliban factions a degree of control in certain areas of Afghanistan, as long as they are not tied to al-Qaeda or subscribe to radical ideology, she said. The analyst added that the U.S. military may already be leaning in that direction.
Kabul is looking at ways to re-integrate into Afghan society those foot soldiers who joined the Taliban for reasons other than ideology, although critics said similar efforts over the years have made little headway.
The process is expected to begin after Tuesday's international conference in Kabul, where Afghan leaders will seek endorsement for the program, Reuters reported on Monday.
Meanwhile, critics have voiced a slew of additional concerns, among them how Afghan forces can provide security when most cannot so much as read an ID card, as literacy rates are less than 30 percent in Afghanistan. Charges of widespread corruption also plague the administration of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan, said training for Afghan police and troops will continue after the deadline, so long as Congress and the U.S. president approve it.
Speaking at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday, Holbrooke said he is wary of setting a deadline for absolute troop withdrawal, but added that it is important to show Afghans that the United States remains uninterested in an open ended occupation.
Critics blasted Holbrooke for what they viewed as vagueness in describing U.S. goals in Afghanistan.
"I hear a lot of mixed signals," said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn, at the hearing. "What I feel, because of this lack of clarity, is that we're in Afghanistan because we're in Afghanistan and we don' t have the will to be successful and we don't have the will to leave."
According to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 58 percent of Americans said they support Obama's withdrawal plan, whereas 38 percent rejected the idea.
At the recent G20 summit in Toronto, Obama said he was more focused on completing the mission in Afghanistan than on the timetable and declined to comment on whether a five-year exit strategy endorsed at the meeting was reasonable.
When questioned on whether the United States is on schedule for the security handover, Holbrooke pointed to a mix of improvements and challenges. The attrition rate for the army and police has dropped, but the Helmand district of Marja lacks local police and judges and is not moving forward as rapidly as expected, for example.
"I do not yet see a definitive turning point in any direction," he said.
Editor: Mu Xuequan
Back to Top
Back to Top
Keep Afghanistan elections on track
Washington Post Tuesday, July 20, 2010
In her July 11 op-ed column, "Afghanistan's crucible," Candace Rondeaux argued that if Afghanistan's parliamentary elections go ahead in September, "almost every candidate will wonder whether the risk was worth it." The flip side of this (posed to Afghans) is: Would you have rather postponed last year's elections? The headlines after the 2009 presidential vote were about corruption, but many observers were glad the election was held at all. Cultural mores such as voting along tribal lines (and often in unanimity) will always characterize Afghanistan. State institutions have heard enough foreign lecturing; they now need to make policy and govern.
Undoubtedly risks remain, such as insurgent intimidation and ballot-box stuffing. Yet the democratic process cannot occur if voters have a bunker mentality. During a counterinsurgency, elections ought to be held; postponement hands a victory to insurgents.
Afghan National Army soldiers sometimes resist their patrols, fearing insurgents. "Please clear the route," they ask NATO soldiers. Coalition commanders remind them politely that this is their country and that they need to do their job. For the same reason, the world should not hold Afghan electoral managers' hands and wait for ideal conditions. The strength of governance is forged through its being challenged.
Jason Anderson, Washington
The writer was a field program officer in Afghanistan for the U.S. Agency for International Development from 2006 to 2007.
Back to Top
Back to Top
White House shifts Afghanistan strategy towards talks with Taliban
Senior Washington officials tell the Guardian of a 'change of mindset' over Obama administration's Afghanistan policy
The Guardian Ewen MacAskill in Washington and Simon Tisdall Monday 19 July 2010
The White House is revising its Afghanistan strategy to embrace the idea of negotiating with senior members of the Taliban through third parties – a policy to which it had previously been lukewarm.
Negotiating with the Taliban has long been advocated by Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, and the British and Pakistani governments, but resisted by Washington.
The Guardian has learned that while the American government is still officially resistant to the idea of talks with Taliban leaders, behind the scenes a shift is under way and Washington is encouraging Karzai to take a lead in such negotiations.
"There is a change of mindset in DC," a senior official in Washington said. "There is no military solution. That means you have to find something else. There was something missing."
That missing element was talks with the Taliban leadership, the official added.
The American rethink comes in the aftermath of the departure last month of General Stanley McChrystal, the top US commander in Afghanistan.
Barack Obama, apparently frustrated at the way the war is going, has reminded his national security advisers that while he was on the election campaign trail in 2008, he had advocated talking to America's enemies.
America is reviewing its Afghanistan policy which is due for completion in December, but officials in Washington, Kabul and Islamabad with knowledge of internal discussions said feelers had been put out to the Taliban. Negotiations would be conducted largely in secret, through a web of contacts, possibly involving Pakistan and Saudi Arabia or organisations with back-channel links to the Taliban.
"It will be messy and could take years," said a diplomatic source.
The change of heart by the US comes as Afghanistan hosts the biggest international gathering in its capital for 40 years, with representatives from 60 countries including Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
The dominant theme of the Kabul conference is "reintegration", which involves reaching out to low-level insurgents to encourage them to lay down their arms.
Earlier this year Richard Holbrooke, Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, distinguished between "reintegration", which the US supported, and "reconciliation" or negotiating with senior Taliban. Holbrooke said: "Let me be clear. There is no American involvement in any reconciliation process."
There is growing disenchantment in the US with the war in Afghanistan and members of the Senate's foreign relations committee last week questioned Holbrooke over what they described as a lack of clarity on an exit strategy.
The US has no agreed position on who among the leaders of the insurgency should be wooed and who would be beyond the pale. The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, would be a problem as he provided Osama bin Laden with bases before the 9/11 attacks.
The US would also find it problematic to deal with the Pakistan-based insurgents led by Sirajuddin Haqqani, whose group pioneered suicide attacks in Afghanistan. The third main element in the insurgency is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who has hinted he is ready to break ranks.
A source with knowledge of the process said: "There is no agreed US position, but there is agreement that Karzai should lead on this. They would expect the Pakistanis to deliver the Haqqani network in any internal settlement."
The US has laid down basic conditions for any group seeking negotiations. They are: end all ties to al-Qaida, end violence, and accept the Afghan constitution.
A senior Pakistani diplomat said: "The US needs to be negotiating with the Taliban; those Taliban with no links to al-Qaida. We need a power-sharing agreement in Afghanistan, and it will have to be negotiated with all the parties.
"The Afghan government is already talking to all the shareholders‚ the Taliban, the Haqqani network, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and Mullah Omar. The Americans have been setting ridiculous preconditions for talks. You can't lay down such preconditions when you are losing."
Some Afghan policy specialists are sceptical about whether negotiations would succeed. Peter Bergen, a specialist on Afghanistan and al-Qaida, told a US Institute of Peace seminar in Washington last week that there were a host of problems with such a strategy, not least why the Taliban should enter negotiations "when they think they are winning".
Audrey Kurth Cronin, a member of the US National War College faculty in Washington, and the author of How Terrorism Ends, said talks with Mullah Omar and the Haqqani network were pointless because there would be no negotiable terms.
She said there could be talks with Hekmatyar, but these would be conducted through back channels, potentially by a third party. Given his support for jihad, she said, "it would be unreasonable to expect the US and the UK to do so".
Asked how Obama's Afghan strategy was progressing, a senior former US government official familiar with the latest Pentagon thinking said: "In a word, poorly. We seriously need to be developing a revised plan of action that will allow us a chance to achieve sufficient security in a more sustainable manner."
Officials have mentioned possible roles in negotiation for the UN and figures such as the veteran UN negotiator, the Algerian Lakhdar Brahimi, who heads, along with the retired US ambassador Thomas Pickering, a New York-based international panel which is looking at such a reconciliation.
Another name mentioned is Michael Semple, an Irishman based in Boston at Harvard's Kennedy School who has extensive contacts with the Taliban.
Back to Top
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).