Karzai Wants End to U.S.-Led Operations

Kabul (AP) - President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday challenged the need for major foreign military operations in Afghanistan, saying air strikes are no longer effective and that U.S.-led coalition forces should focus on rooting out terror bases and support networks.

Karzai also demanded an immediate end to foreign troops searching people's homes without his government's authorization. "I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore," he told reporters in Kabul. "The nature of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan has changed now.

"No coalition forces should go to Afghan homes without the authorization of the Afghan government. ... The use of air power is something that may not be very effective now." In suggesting a new approach to fighting militants, Karzai said foreign governments should "concentrate on where terrorists are trained, on their bases, on the supply to them, on the money coming to them" — a veiled reference to alleged support that the militants get from neighboring Pakistan.

Afghan officials have repeatedly accused Pakistan of aiding Taliban rebels and other militants, a charge Islamabad vehemently denies. Karzai's comments came amid the biggest resurgence in Taliban violence since U.S.-led forces ousted the hard-line regime in 2001. More than 1,200 people have been killed in the past six months, many of them suspected rebels slain in coalition air strikes, according to information from Afghan and U.S. officials.

The country held legislative elections Sunday, the final step toward democracy on a path laid out in 2001. Just hours before Karzai spoke, coalition commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry warned that he expected "more fighting in the weeks ahead."

"We are staying on the offensive against the enemies of Afghanistan, and we will continue that process throughout the fall and throughout the winter," Eikenberry told journalists. But Karzai played down the militant threat, saying, "We do not think a serious terrorist challenge is emanating from Afghanistan." The president did not specify whether he was referring to a threat from al-Qaida terrorists, Taliban rebels or both.

Karzai: "End house searches now " - BBC 09/20/2005

Afghan President Hamid Karzai says there should be an end to foreign forces carrying out house searches unless authorised by his government.

He told journalists in the capital, Kabul, that "the nature of the war on terror in Afghanistan" had now changed. "I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan any more," he said. Earlier this week, Mr Karzai told the BBC the US needed a new approach to fighting terror in the country.

Afghan Electorate's Message: The Provinces Need Public Works and Restoration of Order - By CARLOTTA GALL and SOMINI SENGUPTA KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 19 -

The winners and losers of the landmark Afghan elections on Sunday will remain a mystery for another several weeks, but whoever makes it to the legislature will quickly be tested against the universal axiom of parliamentary democracy:

that all politics is local. With widespread frustration over the pace by which the central government in Kabul is distributing reconstruction aid to the provinces, diplomats and election observers said, the test of credibility for the new Parliament will be its ability to deliver on the peace dividend, from roads and bridges to law and order.

Speaking to reporters on Monday, the United States ambassador, Ronald E. Neumann, acknowledged that citizens' expectations for internationally financed reconstruction projects were running high, for everything from public works to a functional justice system. "These expectations of the people will have to be met," Mr. Neumann said. "What the election does is give the Afghan people a new channel to voice their opinions and demands." He took pains to offer reassurance that the United States and other foreign donors would stay the course in Afghanistan's recovery.

"It's going to be long term," he said. "This job is not done. For Afghanistan to be stable and peaceful, the international community is going to have to stay involved for a long time." In the elections on Sunday, in which Afghans voted for a 249-seat lower house of Parliament and for 34 provincial councils, an estimated six million people voted. The turnout of a little over 50 percent was far lower than expected, election officials said. Results are expected by Oct. 22. The provincial councils and the president will in turn select members of the 51-seat upper house. Parliament is to convene in December.

Mr. Neumann, as well as European election observers and Afghan election officials, insisted that despite threats from insurgents linked to the country's former Taliban rulers, violence was scattered and lower in intensity than had been feared. The chief of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, Jean Arnault, said that to maintain their credibility, the executive and legislative branches would have to answer to a public increasingly frustrated about the lack of visible improvements. "One of the very, very widespread complaints about reconstruction process today is where is the money going," Mr. Arnault said.

"There is a sense out there that resources are not fairly allocated." An elected Parliament, he said, will prompt accountability on the part of President Hamid Karzai's administration and his international backers. Likewise, a preliminary assessment of the reconstruction efforts, issued last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, based in Washington, found that while security had improved in the nearly four years since the American-led military overthrow of the Taliban, good governance, a working criminal justice system and economic development remained dangerously lacking. The report described the Karzai government as weak.

"A broad foundation for success is being built, but too few needs have been met in Afghans' day-to-day-lives," the report said. "The formal justice system in Afghanistan remains unable to confront impunity, adjudicate land disputes, unravel criminal networks or protect citizens' rights. Economic growth has been significant but uneven." Peter Erben, the chief of the United Nations-assisted Joint Election Management Board, said Monday that the election turnout was satisfactory, considering that post-conflict elections usually begin with high participation and then level off.

He gave the example of Bosnia, where he said turnout was about 70 percent in 1996, shortly after the end of the war there, only to drop to about 55 percent by 2002. In Afghanistan there were other explanations for the turnout beyond the threat of violence. Voters and election observers said the ballot was confusing, with voters in Kabul, for instance, having to sift through a list of roughly 400 parliamentary candidates to make their one selection. Some voters appeared not to understand the function of a Parliament, a weakness that critics attributed to weak civic education in the prelude to elections.

More worrying was a creeping sense of disillusionment with the fairness of the democratic process. "I thought it might be again the same spaghetti and the same plate," said Zubair Ahmed, 29, who is unemployed. He said he tore up his voting card after the election for president last October. "There was no motive for voting again," he said.

"We expected a change after the presidential election, but nothing happened." Humayoun, 24, a farmer from a village in the Shomali plain, just north of Kabul, said: "Why we should bother to vote? The people in the Parliament are already selected. They come sealed and stamped from America, like Karzai." Those who did turn out Sunday said they had come with hope that their choice for Parliament would bring their communities a greater share of reconstruction assistance.

"I'm hoping for security first, then roads, then education," said Muhammad Tahir, 45, a Kandahar shopkeeper. Nur Alam, 54, a farmer in a village north of Kabul, said, speaking of the newly elected officials: "They should definitely do it for us, because they cannot sit on their chair and do nothing. Of course if they don't do anything, people will not vote for them the next time."

Observers say 50% turnout in Afghan election a success

Slightly more than half of Afghanistan's voters cast ballots Sunday in parliamentary elections, far fewer than in last year's presidential vote, early reports indicated Monday. Still, many election observers called the balloting a success. There was little violence, despite Taliban threats to disrupt the vote, and workers seemed to run the election smoothly.

"We consider the turnout in this year's election satisfactory," chief election officer Peter Erben said. "It compares well with other countries." Results from about 35 percent of polling stations suggested that slightly more than 50 percent of eligible Afghans--about 6 million people--voted Sunday, Erben said. About 70 percent voted in presidential elections in October 2004.

Erben joined Western observers in saying there no was no evidence of major irregularities. About 120,000 ballot boxes from 6,270 polling stations are being transported to 32 counting centers in the country. Counting is expected to start Tuesday, and results could be available in about two weeks.

The parliamentary elections are seen as the final major step in an internationally sponsored agreement to establish a democracy in Afghanistan, still recovering from decades of war and the repressive Taliban rule. Now many international observers, including the U.S. ambassador, are talking about the possibility of another international conference to plot Afghanistan's future. "It's not the end of the international commitment," U.S. Ambassador Ronald Neumann said.

Also Monday, Al Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri--who is thought to be hiding along the rugged Afghan-Pakistani border--criticized the legitimacy of the Afghanistan elections in a tape broadcast by Qatar-based Al Jazeera TV, saying they took place under the control of the "lords of war."

He also said his terrorist network carried out the July 7 London bombings, marking the group's first direct claim of responsibility for the attacks that killed 52 people. Some people questioned whether it was too early in Afghanistan's young democracy to see such a drop in voter turnout. Apathy in the West is one thing; apathy in a new democracy is another.

Sarah Lister, head of the Afghan Research Evaluation Unit, an independent research group in Kabul, told The Associated Press that the low turnout figures underscore the need for President Hamid Karzai, international donors and the new parliament to act quickly to fix pressing problems.

The Taliban called for an election boycott, but observers and Afghans did not think that was a major factor in turnout. Instead, they blamed disappointment with the country's progress, frustration with warlords being on the ballot and confusion with the complicated ballot.

The ballots were thick, especially in Kabul. Voters were asked to elect 249 members of the lower house and representatives for the country's 34 provincial councils. They faced a daunting slate of 5,800 candidates, including former refugees, communists, Taliban leaders and militia leaders. There also were plenty of candidates no one knew.

"The voters didn't know what candidates stood for," said Joanna Nathan of the International Crisis Group think tank. On the streets of Kabul, several Afghans showed off their voting cards Monday. They cast votes last year but not Sunday. None said threats of violence played a role in their decision. "All of the candidates were useless," said Ahmadfawad Sekandari, 19, a high school student.

Jamaluddin Waee, 53, who has no job, said he did not want to vote because some of the candidates had blood not only on their hands, but all the way up to their shoulders. "We could not find a candidate among them," Waee said.

But some international backers said such decisions were not necessarily a bad thing--they are simply part of any democracy. "One thing about democracy is people are free to vote or not to vote," Neumann said.

41% Afghan voters were women: election official - Xinhua 09/20/2005

KABUL - Women in post-Taliban Afghanistan overwhelmingly used their franchise in the key parliamentary elections as over 40 percent of the voters were females, Chief Electoral Official of the Joint Electoral Management Body (JEMB) said Tuesday.

"Forty-one percent of those voted in Sunday's elections were women while the remaining 59 were men," Peter Erben told journalists at a press briefing.

Some six million or 50 percent out of over 12 million Afghans registered to vote in the landmark Sept. 18 elections went to polling stations across the country to elect the members of parliament and provincial councils in the war-torn nation.

The lowest turnout of women to the election, according to the official, was southern Zabul province, the hotbed of Taliban where only 13 percent of female voters dared to use their vote.

Counting of the ballots, which began Tuesday, would continue for 16 days and the final result of the polls is scheduled to be made public on Oct. 22. The official also added that the intake of 120,000 ballot boxes to counting centers would be completed within the 16 days stipulated for.

Intake process of the ballot boxes is a challenging task for the JEMB as parallel to helicopters and trucks, hundreds of donkeys, horses and camels are used to transport the ballot boxes from mountainous far-flung areas to counting centers in provincial capitals.

The intake process of the ballot boxes and counting of the ballots will go on simultaneously. Counting of the votes has already begun in three provinces this morning while the process in the remaining part of the country will commence through the day.

Rumsfeld Applauds Afghan Elections

WASHINGTON - (AP) Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday applauded Afghanistan's ability to hold parliamentary elections without major violence, saying it marked a historic step toward stability.

"The country that hosted Osama bin Laden, that supported training camps for al-Qaida, endured decades of civil war, Soviet occupation, drought, Taliban brutality, is now a democracy that fights terrorists instead of harboring them," Rumsfeld said.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld noted that in the fall of 2001, in the early weeks of the U.S. war to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, some U.S. newspapers raised the specter of a military quagmire.

"Thankfully, millions of Afghans were determined to prove them wrong," he said.
Washington and other governments have poured in billions of dollars to foster a civic system in Afghanistan after a quarter-century of conflict and to ensure the country does not return to being a staging post for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

But a wave of insurgent attacks has killed more than 1,200 people in the six months leading up to the ballot, underlining the threat that remains.

In Kabul on Tuesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai challenged the need for major foreign military operations in his country, saying that U.S.-led coalition forces should focus on rooting out terror bases and support networks. He also demanded a stop to foreign troops searching people's homes without government authorization.

"I don't think there is a big need for military activity in Afghanistan anymore," Karzai told reporters in Kabul. "The nature of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan has changed now."

NATO SENIOR CIVILIAN REPRESENTATIVE'S OFFICE IN AFGHANISTAN - Kabul, 20 September 2005

Statement on the voting phase of the Parliamentary Elections by H.E. Minister Hikmet Cetin, NATO Senior Civilian Representative for Afghanistan Afghans, men and women went to the polls for a second time in less than a year on 18 September to vote and to be voted in the Parliamentary and Provincial Council elections. The voting phase of the ongoing electoral process went smoothly and peacefully with no major incidents. The voting was a truly historic event, of which, the great Afghan nation, NATO and the entire International Community can be justifiably proud. To observe the elections NATO Parliamentary Assembly sent a delegation that was satisfied with the conduct of the polling.

On behalf of NATO, I would like to congratulate the Afghan people, their government and all those involved in preparing, securing and executing the electoral process on the successful 18 September voting. Following the NATO Secretary General's recent statement, I would like to take this opportunity to echo his sentiments that "millions of brave Afghan men and women grasped on 18 September the opportunity to exercise that most fundamental of human rights; to choose freely their political representatives. Afghanistan has sent a loud and clear message to the world that with the determination, enthusiasm and confidence of its people, it will continue along the path to democracy, despite continuing challenges."

In overall terms, the outcome represents a triumph for Afghanistan, for the International Community and for democracy. This achievement could not have been achieved without the participation of the Afghan people themselves as well as the outstanding cooperation among and support of the Afghan authorities, the United Nations, NATO-led ISAF, CFC-A, and the entire International Community.

At this stage, NATO's expectation is that all candidates and their supporters wait calmly for the official results and cooperate fully with the election authorities to ensure that the ongoing electoral process concludes in a peaceful and orderly manner.

The holding of Parliamentary Elections, which will bring an end to the Bonn Political Process, provide an opportunity to impart fresh momentum to our joint commitment to assist in securing the long-term future of Afghanistan. As expressed by the Secretary General, NATO, together with the UN, the EU and G-8 and other international actors will continue to support Afghanistan and assist the Afghan government in addressing the needs of the Afghan

No Future Without Islam, Says Qanooni - AKI, Italy 09/20/2005

Kabul  - As vote counting continues after landmark parliamentary elections, Afghani power broker, Younus Qanooni, has warned that the country's future cannot be modelled on a Western liberal democracy. "Afghans will never agree on any secular or liberal system. Islam is the modern system and Afghanistan's future is tied with Islam," he said, in an exclusive interview with Adnkronos International (AKI) on Tuesday. Qanooni, who was a key figure in the Northern Alliance which helped the US overthrow the Taliban in 2001, heads the 12-party National Understanding Front.

"The Taliban distorted the image and teachings of Islam, otherwise Islam is a very tolerant and progressive religion which co-exists with the international community very well," he asserted.

Qanooni maintained that the Mujahadeen cannot be ignored in the democratic process, arguing that they are the real leaders of Afghanistan who sacrificed their lives during the resistance against the former Soviet Union and liberated Afghanistan.

Younus Qanooni, was a lieutenant to the slain Mujahadeen leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, assassinated on 9 September 2001, and considered by some his heir. He ran a poor second to Hamid Karzai in last year's presidential race, and was dropped from the cabinet in a subsequent reshuffle.

He told AKI that the Taliban are still getting support from Afghanistan, which is "neither in the long term interests of Pakistan nor of Afghanistan" and argued that president Karzai's policy for dialogue with the Taliban is responsible for the violence - he says this has allowed them to establish safe havens in the south and south eastern Afghanistan."

Qanooni also took a swipe at the incumbent Afghan government for the spread of the narcotics trade - Afghanistan remains the world's biggest opium producer. "When I was interior minister in Afghanistan I devised a comprehensive plan to stop the narcotics trade. It is the international cartel which should be blocked with the cooperation of Interpol-like agencies," he argued.

Afghan drug trade linked to terrorist financing - official

MOSCOW, September 20 (RIA Novosti) - The Afghan illegal drug trade is directly linked to terrorist financing, the director of Russia's drug enforcement agency said Tuesday.

Viktor Cherkesov, head of the Federal Service for Control of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Circulation, said at a meeting with Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), that the illegal drug trade in Afghanistan led to much more than ordinary drug abuse because of its link to corruption and terrorist financing.

Cherkesov said a record 3.9 metric tons of heroin was seized in Russia in 2004. Costa said 20% of farmers who grew opium poppies in 2004 refused to continue growing the crop in 2005, which he said was a good indicator for Europe, the main consumer of Afghan heroin.

According to a UNODC report, land dedicated to growing opium poppies decreased in 2005 by 21%, compared to 2004, to 104,000 hectares. Despite that, Afghanistan still leads the world in heroin production - UN experts estimate 5,000 metric tons of opium, or 500 tons of heroin, will be produced this year.

Taliban Reorganizing with Support and Training from Iraq – NewsBlaze 09/20/2005

KABUL - Afghanistan's Defense Minister Abdur Rahim Wardak has been quoted as saying that Taliban forces are now larger, more aggressive, better armed and more organized than at any time since the end of 2001.

The Minister blames Bin Laden but it is actually Tehran that is using the insurgency in Iraq as a training ground for the Taliban forces they found useful after the Talibans defeat in late 2001. Wardak did however add that the Taliban are acquiring weapons from Pakistan, Iran and Iraq.

It should not be surprising that although Iran is not opposed to President Hamid Karzai, and Tehran has invested very heavily in Herat, western Afghanistan, close to Iran's border, the Council of Guardians find it convenient to tie NATO forces down in other parts of the country.

Tehran had a meeting with Karzai earlier this year and the current action is the result of what they told him. Any effort in Afghanistan is only half-measure until Iran is attacked.

Three police, four Taliban killed in southern Afghan ambushes

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept 20 (AFP) - Seven people were killed Tuesday in two separate ambushes in southern Afghanistan in the wake of parliamentary polls, officials said.

The first attack was at 10:00 am (0330 GMT) in the Gizab district of Uruzgan province when Taliban rebels attacked the district police chief Haji Said Wali, wounding him and killing three of his colleagues.

"He was wounded with three other policeman. Three police and one Taliban were also killed in the fighting," said Jan Mohammad Khan, Uruzgan governor told AFP.

Three Taliban were killed after a group of rebels attacked a police patrol in neighbouring Zabul province's Mizan district on Tuesday.

"Three Taliban were killed in the fighting and there were no casualties among police," district chief Mohammed Yunus said.

Some six million Afghans turned out to vote in Sunday's legislative elections which election observers said were peaceful in most of the country. Nine people were killed Sunday in election-related violence.

Afghanistan has been wracked by a wave of attacks which has left more than 1,000 people dead since the start of the year, most of them blamed on the Taliban in the country's restive south and east.

Candidates pour scorn over UNAMA's 'interference' in polls

KANDAHAR CITY, September 21 (Pajhwok Afghan News): A number of candidates complained against banning their representatives to observe vote counting at the Kandahar regional centre.

Contenders including, Shahida Hussain, Latifa Shikhal, Nafisa Amajana, Abdul Nafi Himmat, Bismillah Afghanmal and Haji Abdulllah criticised the officials for not allowing their agents to observe the ballot counting.

The candidates also spurned the decision regarding announcement of poll results after completion of the process. The number of votes secured by each contestant should be declared as soon as the counting of ballot box completes, they demanded.

Haji Abdullah, a parliamentary candidate, told Pajhwok Afghan News employees of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) were present inside the polling centres and were performing the duty of electoral staff which is contrary to the electoral law.

Bismillah Afghanmal, another aspirant, said the JEMB officials remained unmoved despite repeated complaints from representatives of the candidates. Abdul Qahar Wasifi, UNAMA's official in Kandahar, however, said there might be some negligence in some parts of the country. But such grumbles had been raised by those who were sure of their defeat.

Afghanistan polls – T he News Int (PAK)

After more than three tumultuous decades, Afghanistan went to the polls on Sunday to elect a legislature that many hope will bring a measure of stability to the war-ravaged nation. Amid heavy security, men and women braved threats from the Taliban and the treacherous terrain to cast their ballots in makeshift polling stations across the country. The looming threat of large-scale attacks by opponents of the polls failed to materialise, even though at least 15 persons, including a French soldier, lost their lives in scattered acts of violence. The Taliban, however, have claimed that the casualties were on a far larger scale.

Most analysts agree that the turnout was far lower than during the presidential elections last year. The reasons for this are diverse. Apart from the fear of threats from opponents of the polls, there was also a disillusionment over the slow pace of reconstruction, hostility towards the types of candidates allowed to run and a complex and confusing system designed to baffle the largely illiterate electorate. However, one positive sign was the conspicuous participation of women even in highly conservative areas.

But the high hopes raised by the elections must be tempered with some pessimism about the future. The main challenge facing President Hamid Karzai is the security situation that has in recent months worsened further. Apart from the larger cities, where foreign troops are stationed, Afghanistan continues to be in the hands of competing warlords and the Taliban remain an ever-present threat. Even four years after the US dislodged their government, Afghanistan remains a volatile and insecure country. The world, meanwhile, will have to wait several weeks before they learn the outcome of the polls that will determine the country's future course.

Treading too cautiously to give any detailed account of significant Taliban-era developments in his book Afghanistan and Taliban, Mutawakil insists Pakistan never meddled in his country's internal affairs, something which would be hard to believe for anyone with even the minimum knowledge of the relations between the two countries.

Is Pakistan doing its part in the war on terrorism? By Paul Wiseman, USA TODAY / September 20, 2005

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Police commandos burst into an all-girls madrassa here in what was meant to be a dramatic example of Pakistan's commitment to cracking down on Islamic extremism and religious schools that promote it. But the July 19 raid turned into a debacle.

Caught without their veils, the teenage girls screamed — and then rallied. Grabbing mops, brooms, stones and knives, they drove the commandos out. The retreating police fired back with tear gas. The girls staggered into the street, where the melee continued; 62 students had to be hospitalized after the police beat them with batons.

The target of the raid was extremist mullahs from Islamabad's Red Mosque, which runs the school and is famous for organizing anti--American, pro-Taliban demonstrations. No one was arrested, and police even missed a chance to nab one of the mosque's top clerics: Hours before the raid, Abdul Rashid Ghazi had been in police headquarters for a routine meeting with the commissioner. "They could have arrested me there," Ghazi says.

So goes Pakistan's campaign against homegrown religious extremism: considerable drama, few results. President Pervez Musharraf has taken huge risks — he has survived two assassination attempts — to hunt down al-Qaeda fugitives. He has sent thousands of troops to battle militants along the lawless border with Afghanistan. But his government has been reluctant to go after its former allies: the Taliban in Afghanistan and groups that have fought a proxy war against Indian troops in disputed Kashmir. It also has been slow to crack down on madrassas that teach intolerance and glorify jihad, or holy war.

As a result, Pakistan is still turning out young militants burning to kill and die for their extreme interpretations of Islam. Pakistani forces also have been unable to find two of the world's most-wanted men — Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — after four years of searching. The fugitives are believed to be hiding along the Afghan border.

Musharraf's pledge to eradicate extremism is coming under closer scrutiny four years after the U.S. began its military campaign to topple the Taliban. A recent upsurge in Taliban attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan near the Pakistani border is raising questions about the degree to which the militants are receiving sanctuary, training and supplies inside Pakistan.

There also is concern that the militants might be getting support from rogue elements of Musharraf's own security services.

"It's very obvious (the militants) are interfering in Afghanistan," says Gen. Abdul Manan Farahi, head of counterterrorism at the Afghan Interior Ministry. "They are coming into Afghanistan from Pakistan. They are being trained in Pakistani madrassas."

Pakistani officials reject the criticism. "We should not be accusing each other," says Jehangir Karamat, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States. Although Pakistan once supported the Taliban, the government insists it has no incentive to do so now. "Pakistan has absolutely nothing to gain from a destabilized Afghanistan," Karamat says.

Pakistan is developing its southern port of Gwadar in anti-cipation of increased trade with Afghanistan and central Asia. "This can happen only when Afghanistan is at peace," says Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan, Pakistan's military spokesman.

Pakistan has dispatched more than 80,000 troops to hunt militants along the rugged Afghan border. They've captured 700 al-Qaeda suspects and endured heavy losses: 270 Pakistani troops killed, another 600 wounded, Sultan says.

But Pakistan has been more aggressive rounding up foreign al-Qaeda fighters than militants with origins closer to home. Musharraf "has been making a distinction between al-Qaeda, the Taliban and homegrown Pakistani groups," says Husain Haqqani, a visiting scholar from Pakistan at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

Sultan says only 46 Taliban leaders have been arrested. Pakistan's military, which overthrew an elected government in a bloodless 1999 coup that put Musharraf in power, has old ties to the Taliban and to domestic extremist groups.

The United States and Pakistan encouraged Muslims to wage a successful jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Emboldened by the Afghan triumph, Pakistan recruited militants to fight the Indian army in Kashmir, a low-budget way to bleed the Indian occupation of territory Pakistan claims as its own. Pakistan also threw its support behind the Taliban as the militia seized power in Afghanistan, convinced that a friendly, anti--Indian government in Kabul was crucial to Pakistan's security.

But Sept. 11 changed everything. Under pressure from Washington, Musharraf agreed to abandon the Taliban and support the U.S.-led war on terrorism. On Jan. 12, 2002, Musharraf delivered a much-anticipated speech in which he banned extremist groups, pledged to end support for militant attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir and promised to crack down on madrassas. He said they would have to register with the government.

Since then, militant infiltrations into Kashmir have decreased, and Pakistan has entered into diplomatic talks with India to resolve the long-standing dispute. But inside Pakistan, nothing much came of Musharraf's pledges.

The International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based, non--profit organization that works to prevent conflict, reported that hundreds of militants were detained — but then released. Militant groups re-formed under new names, most madrassas never registered and militant leaders continued to operate openly, the report said.

In the most extreme example noted by the International Crisis Group, the government allowed Sunni extremist Maulana Azam Tariq to run successfully for parliament in 2002 even though he was facing terrorism charges. His political career ended when he was gunned down in October 2003.

In many madrassas, textbooks and teachers promote intolerance against different sects and religions. Even in public schools, textbooks glorify jihad and warn children to be ever vigilant against enemies of the state. "Intolerance is deeply ingrained in the culture," says Mariam Abou Zahab, a French expert on Pakistan.

Worries about Pakistan's madrassas grew after the July 7 London bombings. At least one of the four suicide bombers had visited a Pakistani madrassa before the attacks; he and two others were Britons of Pakistani ancestry.

In June, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, set off a diplomatic furor when he pointedly said he didn't believe bin Laden or Omar was hiding in Afghanistan. The implication was clear: The fugitives had instead found sanctuary in Pakistan. Musharraf challenged skeptics to "please come and show us where he is."

"The Pakistan government is playing a double game," says retired U.S. diplomat Dennis Kux, author of The United States and Pakistan 1947-2000: Disenchanted Allies. "It is a firm ally in the war on terror," he says, "but at the same time wants to preserve its options to use the Taliban."

Musharraf can't risk moving aggressively against homegrown extremists. "He is walking a tightrope," Zahab says. His government has marginalized secular democratic political parties and forged a partnership with a coalition of religious parties.

"Both Musharraf and the Islamic parties have a stake in the continuation of the current policies," says political consultant Hasan Askari Rizvi.

"Even if the Pakistani government wished, it could not fully control the extremists," Kux says. "For too long it coddled them or just looked the other way. Moreover, Musharraf, I assume, fears pro-Islamist elements in the military. Otherwise, he would not back down every time he says he is going to put the lid on madrassas or take other measures that offend the extremists."

The Pakistani public, inflamed by scenes of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, is increasingly hostile to the U.S.-led war on terrorism and Pakistan's official support of it.

Musharraf may be taking an even greater risk by making tentative overtures to Israel, a close U.S. ally shunned in most of the Muslim world. He met briefly with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week at the United Nations.

"We want to try to influence Israel to establish a Palestinian state," the Pakistani president said in an interview published Saturday in the Arabic-language Asharq al-Awsat newspaper. "We won't have a role if we don't deal with them."

"There is an increasing gap between the state and society," says Muhammad Waseem, political analyst at Islamabad's Quaid-i-Azam University. "The state is supporting America. The society is increasingly anti--American. If the government ignores the public sentiment, it can't be legitimate."

After the London bombings, Musharraf repeated the pledges he'd made 3½ years earlier. Pakistani police began another roundup of extremist suspects — a campaign that included the ill-fated July 19 assault on the girls school. The government last month passed an ordinance requiring madrassas to register.

Musharraf's critics are waiting to see whether he pushes ahead this time with the registration and regulation of madrassas, something religious groups pledge to resist. "What one looks for is evidence, not rhetoric," says Samina Ahmed of the International Crisis Group.

Former Taliban FM Economizes on Truth to Stay Politically Correct - By S. Mudassir Ali Shah – South Asia Tribune

KABUL, September 12: Taliban’s former Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Mutawakil has obviously tried to be more “politically correct” in his book about Afghan relations with Pakistan than any honest intellectual, but he admits that it was Pakistan which gave birth and muscle to Taliban, the Madrassa students movement.

Obviously for political reasons, he prefers to stay implicit in discussing Pakistan-Taliban relations, which continue to raise perturbing questions to date.

Despite his bid to eschew touching a raw nerve, Mutawakil has quoted a number of instances that imply Islamabad enjoyed a lot more influence on Taliban's Afghanistan than Mutawakil would admit.

A passing reference on Page-63 to an implacable Pakistan-Iran rivalry in Afghanistan suggests how the neighbors Iran and Pakistan jockeyed for clout in his country struggling with a host of challenges, including a debilitating civil strife and terrorism.

"When Afghanistan started sliding into chaos, the face-off between Islamabad and Tehran became all too visible, because Iran viewed the Pakistan-Taliban partnership as a potential threat to its strategic interests," writes the former minister. Apprehensive of Pakistan's proximity to the United States, Iran considered an anathema American foothold in the region, much less in Afghanistan.

"When our movement gained momentum, Benazir Bhutto was the Prime Minister of Pakistan, while Naseerullah Babar, an ethnic Pashtun, was Interior Minister in her cabinet. Its ideological differences with Taliban notwithstanding, Bhutto's secular PPP desired a pro-Pakistan administration in Kabul that could bring stability to Afghanistan while living in peaceful co-existence with neighbors."

Following the Soviet disintegration, Mutawakil points out, Pakistan eyed an unhindered access to the vast Central Asian market - an objective whose realization was impossible without rock-solid support from regional Afghan commanders. Islamabad particularly dreamed up a weird idea to capture Ashgabat's precious natural resources, but the plan went awry, he says.

Pakistan wanted to dispatch a convoy of relief supplies to the nascent Central Asian states via Kandahar and Herat, in a move to win over the newborn nations. Regional Afghan commanders, who had assured the Pakistani Consulate in Kandahar of a safe passage to the convoy through Afghanistan, later backed out of their commitment owing to internecine bickering.

Around the same time, the Taliban appeared on the scene in Kandahar - a phenomenon that hogged the headlines in newspapers across the world, reinforcing a widespread impression that the primary objective behind the birth of the movement was to hasten the achievement of Pakistan's geo-strategic designs in Central Asia.

Though the former minister takes great pains to establish Islamabad had played no proactive role either in creating or propping up Taliban, he concedes that Sunni Pakistan rushed to set up a consulate in Kandahar, headed by Maj. Gul, a Pashtun familiar with key players involved in the jihad against the Soviets, to checkmate the Shiite Iran.

Importantly, Mutawakil's denials are diluted in some measure by his own admission that Madrassa students from Pakistan streamed into Afghanistan to swell Taliban ranks. His statement that many Pakistan-based jihadi groups and religious forces were supportive of the student militia and the wounded mujahideen were treated in Pakistani hospitals equally weakens his assertion.

Islamabad's botched initiative to bring about a patch-up between the then Afghan rulers and the Jumbish-i-Islami of northern warlord Rashid Dostum was essentially driven by its robust relationship with Taliban. The understanding was short-lived, though Taliban freed a large number of Jumbish loyalists captured in fighting west of Kabul.

Again, it was Pakistan which brokered a compromise of sorts between Taliban and Gen. Abdul Malik. Their shared animus towards Dostum was another crucial factor in bringing the two sides closer, so much so that Gen. Malik caught Ismail Khan, ex-governor of Herat and sitting minister for water and power, and handed him over to Taliban. The Tajik strongman, clapped into a Kandahar prison, somehow managed to escape in a jailbreak to reach Iran, which stoutly supported him.

At times, the author touches on events and incidents that reflect Pakistan 's soft corner for what was then called a rag-tag student militia whose seven-year rule had indisputably brought a measure of peace to the impoverished country.

But there is no denying the reality that Taliban also incurred international ire and crippling sanctions against Afghanistan as a result of their isolationist policies.

He admits Pakistan, one of the three countries which had accorded recognition to a government globally reviled for its radical political credo, was the only nation to have a full-fledged embassy in Kabul. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had tasked their embassies in Islamabad with maintaining diplomatic relations with Afghanistan under Taliban.

Finding a fleeting mention in the gripping book is the jihad-infused faith fostered in the crucible of Afghanistan and Kashmir. With the Pakistan-Taliban links growing, the minister recalls, some jihadi outfits active in Kashmir (like Al-Badr) came to Afghanistan to run training camps in the southeastern Khost province and elsewhere.

Much to the chagrin of the world at large, 'mujahideen' from Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Arab countries had also established similar camps in different parts of Afghanistan, where the Khost province came under a deadly Tomahawk missile attack from the US forces stationed in the Persian Gulf on August 20, 1998.

The use of Pakistan's airspace for the attack on the militant base, which was reportedly frequented by Osama bin Laden, sparked a wave of anger among religious groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In a desperate attempt to retain its sway, Iran also cultivated ties with Taliban on the one hand and simultaneously wooed their foes on the other. Clinging to its finely nuanced policy of carrots and sticks, Tehran would occasionally dispatch delegations to Kabul to keep Taliban engaged and warn the enigmatic Afghan rulers in no uncertain terms against harming its interests, Mutawakil says.

Mutawakil reveals that Tehran came close to a war with Taliban when we seized Iranian truckers soon after wresting control of Mazar-i-Sharif from Dostum. Iran's threats coupled with its military drills near the border with Afghanistan prompted Taliban to deploy soldiers in force to Herat and Farah, but the UN intervened to defuse the tension.

At the end of the book, the man from Maiwand narrates the tale of his sneaking into Pakistan after the ouster of the Taliban Government in 2001 in the wake of sustained air strikes by the US military and a ground offensive by the Northern Alliance.

But he gives no details of his escape from Afghanistan after the fall of Taliban. He remained in Pakistan for quite some time before surrendering in Kandahar to Afghan authorities, who handed him over to the US military on February 8, 2002.

During detention at Kandahar Airport and the Bagram Airbase, Mutawakil writes, he was grilled hard and fast but never tortured.

However, his story, far from complete, does not add up. Unfortunately for students of history and international relations, his description of momentous events is at best sketchy, a wee bit partial, incomplete to some extent and somewhat hazy. A man in his position, who is not politically callow at all, can be genuinely expected to tell the whole truth about events and developments in a seminal discourse like Afghanistan and Taliban.

Whisky and vodka show Afghan warlord's power - AFP 09/20/2005

SHEBERGHAN - Waiter Shukrullah has a special offer that he whispers into the ear of almost every new guest at the hotel where he works in northern     Afghanistan's dusty town of Sheberghan.

"We have American whisky, original Russian vodka and Heineken beer -- do you want some, sir?" he asks discreetly, aware his offerings would be strictly taboo elsewhere in the conservative country.

Alcohol is banned by both the Afghan constitution and Islam but the laws of the rest of the country do not apply in Sheberghan, part of the fiefdom of one of Afghanistan's most feared warlords, Abdul Rashid Dostam.

"This is Dostam's kingdom: you can drink whatever you want," boasts Shukrullah, who uses only one name. It is not cheap though: 20 dollars for a whisky, 10 for a vodka, four for a Heineken. "Johnny Walker is a bit expensive -- 50 dollars, sir," says Shukrullah. Under Afghanistan's constitution -- ratified by a council of tribal chiefs and religious leaders in 2003 -- drinking alcohol is strictly forbidden.

But Dostam's northern fiefdom has always been known to be more liberal than other parts of the country, a reputation that counted in his favour at weekend parliamentary elections, the first in three decades.

The commander, who is army chief of staff in President Hamid Karzai's US-backed government, did not stand in Sunday's poll but more than a dozen candidates represented his feared Junbish Islami faction.

While he is hated by many for his role as a ruthless militia leader who frequently changed sides in the country's decades of war, the charismatic former communist general has a strong following among his ethnic Uzbek people, who call him "Rahbar Sahib" or "Mr. Leader."

"I voted for Faizullah Zaki -- he is Dostam's representative," said baker Shamsullah Qol on Sunday, referring to Dostam's spokesman. "I'll choose Abdul Qader Dostam," said government employee Jawad Ahmad of Dostam's brother, who stood for a seat on one of the country's 34 provincial councils.

"Everyone in Dostam's faction is liberal -- they've given the people lots of freedom," said the 31-year-old. "We vote for freedom," he said.

Sunday's election was a milestone in a transition to democracy that the war-shattered and poverty-stricken nation embarked on after the hardline Taliban was chased from power in a US-led campaign in late 2001. Turnout was around 50 percent according to early estimates, electoral officials said.

But Karzai still faces major challenges, including to curb the power of warlords and opium barons, many of whom stood in the elections and are likely to find their way into the new parliament and provincial councils after the results are announced next month.

"It is widely expected Dostam's supporters will win elections in three major provinces," said Khalil Hemati, a political analyst with the National Democratic Institute. These would be Jawzjan, of which Sheberghan is the capital, Faryab and Sar-i-Pul, all dominated by the nation's minority Uzbeks and Turkmans, he said.

Dostam, in his early 50s, started out in the 1980s fighting for the Soviet Union against Afghan mujahedin commanders and then backed communist president Najibullah after the Russians left.

During the civil war that followed the fall of Najibullah he switched sides twice, first backing late resistance leader Ahmad Shah Masood and then going over to rival warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

US-Pakistan: An elaborate pas de deux- Asia Times 09/20/2005 By Ramtanu Maitra

Washington's policy toward Pakistan as its ally since September 11 in America's "war on terror" has become so erratic that it  appears at times to verge on confusion. To many observers, the Bush administration improvises its Pakistan policy script as conditions in Pakistan progress, or regress.

Nonetheless, the broad outline set forth in the wake of September 11 and the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States in the winter of 2001 has held the wobbly bilateral relationship together. Briefly, the outline involves the following:

Pakistan's cooperation remains the key in Washington's efforts to eliminate the Taliban militia in Afghanistan and maintaining an extremely shaky Hamid Karzai regime in Afghanistan
 
The United States, after procuring Islamabad's continuing assistance to eliminate the Taliban from Afghanistan, must protect Pakistan from a socio-political takeover by a Taliban-like orthodox Islamic militia.

Washington would work toward bringing in a democratic system in Islamabad, albeit slowly and carefully, while acknowledging at every step the commitment of the present pro-Washington military leadership in Pakistan to the well-being of the United States.

Washington must protect Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf physically from hostile forces within Pakistan and also make available to him some financial aid to help Pakistan's flagging economy.

Beyond this broad outline, directly related to the US-Pakistan alliance in the "war on terror", the Bush administration appreciates the usefulness of the Musharraf government in two other areas - its relations with Sunni Arabs and its proximity to the resource-rich and Islamic Central Asia.

Economic aid
The Bush administration's policy toward Pakistan is most obvious in economic areas. In June 2003, President George W Bush vowed to work with Congress on establishing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan. Annual installments of $600 million each split evenly between military and economic aid began in fiscal year 2005. The Foreign Operations FY2005 Appropriations bill (PL 108-447) established a new base program of $300 million for military assistance for Pakistan; half of this FY2005 funding came from a May emergency supplemental appropriations bill (PL 109-13). PL 108-447 also allows for up to $200 million in FY2005.

Economic Support Funds (ESF) may be used for the modification of direct loans and guarantees for Pakistan (Congress made identical provisions in two previous foreign operations appropriations bills and Pakistan has used that $400 million in ESF to reduce its concessional debt to the US by $1.48 billion, leaving a balance of some $1.3 billion).

When additional funds for development assistance, law enforcement and other programs are included, the aid allocation for FY2005 is about $692 million. Congress also has appropriated funds to reimburse Pakistan for its support of US-led counterterrorism operations. PL 108-11 provided that $1.4 billion in additional defense spending may be used for payments to reimburse Pakistan and other cooperating nations for their support of US military operations. A November 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations act (PL 108-106) made available another $1.15 billion for continuing reimbursements. A May supplemental appropriation (PL 109-13) provided another $1.22 billion for such purposes.

A report of the House Armed Services Committee said the Secretary of Defense expected to disburse that entire amount to Pakistan in FY2005. Pentagon documents indicate that Pakistan received coalition support funding of $1.32 billion for the period January 2003 to September 2004, an amount roughly equal to one-third of Pakistan's total defense expenditures during that period.

What, however, really does not factor in the Bush administration's policy towards Pakistan is India. Despite what many analysts claim, the India factor in Washington-Islamabad bilateral relations since September 11 has remained constrained to preventing the two from going to war against each other. To begin with, it is arguable that the two countries were in fact willing to go to war in recent years, despite ominous posturing.

Brigadier Feroz Hassan Khan, formerly of the Pakistan army, wrote in a recent issue of the journal of the Center for Contemporary Conflict, Monterey, California, that American objectives vis-a-vis Pakistan today are non-proliferation, regional stability and the end of support to radical Islamists. Washington wishes to prevent a repeat of nuclear proliferation from Pakistan, incursions into Indian territory and the Taliban, all springing from "Pakistan's security drivers".

The former military official predicts that the US alliance with Pakistan against terrorism and the US strategic partnership with India will always have higher priority than India-Pakistan conflict resolution. As a result, an end to India-Pakistan military competition will remain a "distant goal". Some cynics may point out that selling arms to both India and Pakistan, and modernizing their militaries with American arms, is good for the US military establishment.

It is evident, however, that the Bush administration is having a lot of difficulties, even in following the wide tracks laid out in the broad outlines. On September 13, 2001 the US presented Pakistan with a list of demands in its fight against al-Qaeda. When Musharraf agreed to them, Pakistan was reenlisted as an ally, this time in the "global war on terrorism". Sanctions from Pakistan's nuclear test in 1998 and Musharraf's bloodless coup in 1999 vanished in the light of this new cooperation. A new military aid and equipment package was agreed to, and by 2003 Pakistan was designated a major non-North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally.

But from the very outset of the US invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan was watched very carefully by a large number of officials in Washington. The reason was obvious. Pakistan was in the thick of things in building up the Taliban and helping them to oust the fractious opposition in Afghanistan, including the Tajik-Uzbek-led Northern Alliance, and seize power in Kabul in 1996. Moreover, Pakistan's hands-on involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s became so overwhelming that it had direct fallout on Pakistani society, whether as a result of regional compulsions or so chosen by the Pakistani establishment.

Washington's objective in the winter of 2001 was to eliminate the Taliban, get hold of the Osama bin Laden-led al-Qaeda members who had established a presence in the country and establish a regime in Kabul that would be protected by the Tajik-Uzbek alliance in particular. Washington realized the process would turn Pakistan's friends into Pakistan's enemies. In addition, the Northern Alliance was a known beneficiary of Russia and India, and Islamabad considers both these nations as anti-Pakistan. It was a bitter pill to swallow for Pakistan.

It soon became obvious to Washington that Islamabad would not abide by all the demands the Bush administration had made. It would give up some - not all - of its human assets to the US slowly. As a result, Pakistan was blamed directly, or indirectly, for the continuing presence of the Taliban inside Pakistan, and main al-Qaeda leaders remaining fugitive somewhere either in Pakistan or on the border areas.

Included in that rhetoric were statements of the then-Afghan-American US ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalizad, blaming Pakistan for protecting America's enemies. Khalizad, a member of the inner circle that surrounded Bush in the early days of his presidency, vehemently said that the Taliban supremo Mullah Omar and bin Laden were somewhere in Pakistan. His claim that the Taliban and al-Qaeda militants had infiltrated from Pakistan, in an organized manner, was termed as baseless and irresponsible by Pakistan.

Khalizad's charge was followed by statements by Afghan government officials, the officially controlled news media and Karzai himself. In other words, verbal volleys accusing each other were issued from both Kabul and Islamabad.

No doubt, Washington had instigated such verbal accusations against Islamabad, using Khalizad and the hand-picked Afghan president Karzai, a close friend of the then-US ambassador. Nonetheless, the Bush administration conveyed to the Musharraf government in the midst of such flaps that while the Americans appreciated Pakistan's efforts to get the Islamists, it was more important to maintain an alliance with Pakistan, despite all the difficulties. It was becoming evident that at the operational level in Afghanistan, and along the Afghanistan-Pakistan borders, such an alliance remained on paper.

It is no secret that the US-led coalition troops in Afghanistan do not trust the Pakistani troops with ground intelligence and the Pakistani troops' main objective at this point is to prevent US troops from running amok in the tribal areas along the borders inside Pakistan. The presence of US troops in operations with Pakistani soldiers raises the level of fierce tribal resistance, observers point out. Nonetheless, Islamabad has allowed Washington to set up four air bases inside Pakistan to help operations inside Afghanistan.

According to the Lahore-based Daily Times, there is little hope of differences on that score being resolved. In fact, a crisis in US-Pakistan relations is brewing just beneath the surface despite expressions of unity in the war against al-Qaeda.

The article points out that Musharraf and Bush are in a state of "cautious compromise", with Washington continuing to express confidence in the former's government and offering increased military assistance to his country. Islamabad believes that Pakistan's importance as a US ally is likely to dissolve if bin Laden is ever captured or killed.

Washington has been attempting to strengthen its ties with India and is even trying tentative negotiations with Iran, with the eventual goal of warmer relations. All these policy shifts, the article claims, are to undermine the Musharraf government.

Be that as it may, Pakistan maintains about 80,000 troops in the tribal and adjoining areas with Afghanistan. Islamabad claims the borders are completely sealed with latest reconnaissance devices and that the possibility of the Taliban entering Afghanistan in an organized manner is inconceivable, and blames the Afghan security apparatus for infiltrations.

In reality, however, more than Pakistan's role in helping to ferret out the Taliban and bin Laden, what make US-Pakistan policy interactions like the pas de deux (step of two) are the nuclear proliferation episode and the training of orthodox Islamists in Pakistan's thousands of madrassas (seminaries).

In pas de deux , the man quite often does not stand in a ballet position or appear to be dancing at all. He can do this because the audience will almost always watch the lady. The man acts as a "third leg" for the lady by stabilizing, lifting and turning her. In essence, more often than not, Washington resembles the man.

The static role of the US in the entire episode of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation (to which a rogue scientist has claimed to have been acting on his own) is an eye-opener of how confusing the US-Pakistan relationship has been for years.

The most interesting aspects of the almost three decades-long proliferation operation by the most important Pakistani engineer associated with its nuclear facilities (Abdul Qadeer Khan) is that the operation went unhindered for that length of time.

Islamabad also did very well to convince the Bush administration that Khan was not helped in his nefarious ventures by the Pakistani establishment at any point. Islamabad has also restrained Washington from questioning Khan by not making him available to the Bush administration for interrogation. Islamabad must be credited for this astonishing feat since the Bush administration has made nuclear non-proliferation as important as a crusade.

In June 2004, months after the Khan "secret" proliferation exploits had appeared all over the media, Bush designated Pakistan as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA) . The designation, long enjoyed by Japan, South Korea, Australia and other allies, makes Pakistan eligible for expedited access to excess defense articles and other privileges and is perhaps related to Pakistan's planned purchase of American weapons.

On November 16, 2004, the Department of Defense notified Congress of possible military sales to Pakistan of six Orion P-3C maritime patrol aircraft, 2,000 TOW-2A missiles, 14 TOW Fly-to-Buy missiles, six Phalanx close-in weapon systems and an upgrade of six earlier models of the Phalanx shipboard anti-missile defense systems, along with associated equipment for all of the systems.

Media reports in early December 2004, following a visit to Washington and a meeting between Musharraf and Bush, indicate that the Pakistani leader did not get the answer he wanted on the aircraft. However, the subject of F-16s reportedly was on the agenda of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's March trip to New Delhi and Islamabad

As if to underscore the possibility that US arms sales to Pakistan could be destabilizing, Pakistan tested a Shaheen nuclear-capable short-range (700 kilometers) ballistic missile on December 8, 2004, the very day that US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld arrived in New Delhi.

Again, as one watches the dance around the Khan episode and the Bush administration designating Pakistan with MNNA status, one is immediately reminded of the pas de deux , with Washington helping Pakistan to put up a dazzling show.

Another area in which US-Pakistan policy seems blurry, if not downright amorphous, is the noisy discussion about madrassas. The US claims with near contempt that these Islamic schools not only make young Pakistanis narrow-minded Islamists, but are the breeding ground of anti-US terrorists. There are reasons to believe that such statements are highly exaggerated. But, the US officials continue to press the Musharraf administration to "do something" about it.

But not everyone in Islamabad believes what Washington says about the madrassas. Recently, one of Musharraf's cabinet ministers said, "Our madrassas are the biggest NGOs [non-government organizations], they are not promoting terrorism, but work to safeguard Islam."

On July 14, just one week after the major terrorist bombings in London, Musharraf ordered a fresh crackdown on extremist and terrorist elements in Pakistan. On July 18, Pakistani officials confirmed that three of the four suspects in the London bombings had visited Pakistan during the past year and two may have spent time at a religious school near Lahore. More than 200 suspected Islamic extremists were arrested in nationwide sweeps over a period of several days, spurring modest-sized protests by Islamist parties.

The Bush administration points out that Musharraf demanded in 2002 that the thousands of madrassas operating within Pakistan must be registered. The demand was not well received in the cleric community, and as a result most madrassas remained unregistered.

It seems Washington really did not mind Musharraf's failed attempt to register the madrassas. But Washington jumped on the British bandwagon right after the London bombings to point fingers at the madrassas and claim once again that these are the terrorist-training centers.

500 Pakistani Imams in UK Face Expulsion – Gulf Times

LAHORE: Some 500 Pakistani imams in British mosques may face deportation under the new UK laws, a letter issued by the Britain Home Office London said yesterday.

On receiving instructions from the UK government, the Pakistani High Commissioner in UK has informed the foreign ministry in Islamabad about the development.

He is reported to have conveyed to the government that a list of individuals, facing deportation from Britain, was being prepared and would be published shortly for enforcement. The High Commissioner has not yet been informed about any specific Pakistani national who was being considered for deportation.

The sources in the foreign ministry said the imams hailing from Pakistan may face the threat of deportation. Around 500 mosques in the UK have imams of Pakistani origin, they said.

It is learnt that the interior ministry has passed on instructions, received from High Commissioner of Pakistan in London, to all the home secretaries, chief commissioner Islamabad and Director General FIA for information and necessary action.

After the 7 July London blasts, the British government took various steps to save the country from terrorist acts. On the reports of the law enforcement agencies, the British Home Office has released a list people for deportation on the basis of their behaviour.

The list includes those non-UK citizens who are engaged in fomenting terrorism, or inciting others to commit terrorist acts. The unacceptable behaviour includes production, publication and distribution of provocative hate material, and running of offensive websites.

Justifying or glorifying terrorist violence has also been declared a serious criminal activity. British Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the terrorist threat facing the UK remained real and significant and it was the right of the government and law enforcement agencies to take all possible measures to counter the menace. The campaign aims at sending a strong message to all those who seek to foster hatred or promote terrorism in Britain, he said. – Internews

Uzbek uprising 'chief' confesses – BBC

The man accused of being a key planner behind the popular uprising in the eastern Uzbek town of Andijan in May has confessed to the charges.

Muidin Sobirov was speaking on the second day of the trial of 15 men the Uzbek authorities say led the revolt. All 15 are accused of being Muslim extremists.

Human rights groups claim that Uzbek troops killed hundreds of unarmed civilians when they opened fire to quell the anti-government protest. The Uzbek government said 187 people died.

The BBC's Ian MacWilliam, in Tashkent, says Mr Sobirov spoke for nearly two hours without a break, recounting his supposed connection with an Andijan religious group known as the Akramists.

He spoke from inside a metal cage before a row of state prosecutors in blue, military-style uniforms. Mr Sobirov explained at length how the group had made plans to start a revolution in Andijan in order to set up an Islamic state.

All the details of his account exactly match those of the government's version of events, already given by the state prosecution and widely published in the state-controlled media.

Our correspondent says Mr Sobirov spoke rapidly without pauses, frequently looking at the ceiling, as if repeating details memorised beforehand. He then answered questions for further details from the judge, prosecutors and lawyers.

But there was no attempt to verify the facts or assess the truth of his account. Similarly, no evidence has been provided to back up the state's version of events. The lawyer assigned to Mr Sobirov made no attempt to defend him.

Human rights groups say the Uzbek authorities routinely force people to make false confessions, and they have described this trial as an attempt to cover up what they say was a massacre of civilians in Andijan.

In his account of events, Mr Sobirov also repeated again what the government has said many times about the supposed role of foreign journalists. He said they had told the Akramist militants to organise a protest and advised them to start the military action quickly.

The Andijan unrest began on 12 May after supporters of 23 local businessmen - on trial for alleged Islamic extremism - broke into the town's jail and freed them. The armed men then occupied the town hall and a huge anti-government protest began.

Three of the Andijan businessmen - recaptured after being freed - are among the 15 defendants now being tried by the supreme court. Another three men are citizens of neighbouring Kyrgyzstan.

As the trial opened, the New York-based group, Human Rights Watch (HRW), called on the US and the European Union to impose an arms embargo and other sanctions on Uzbekistan.

It released a report on Tuesday documenting a "brutal" security service crackdown in which local residents were allegedly forced to make false confessions that they belonged to militant organisations and that the Andijan protesters carried weapons.

[Disclaimer: The content of this news bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view or policy of the Afghan Government, unless specifically stated as such. The collection of articles and commentaries from Afghan and international news sources is provided for informational purposes, and accuracy of the news is the responsibility of the original source.]