In this bulletin:

• Afghan schoolgirls attacked, six wounded
• Suicide attack on UN vehicle in Afghanistan, no casualties
• Durable peace in Pak-Afghan interest: Zahir Shah
• Afghanistan downplays Hekmatyar's alliance with al-Qaida
• Osama back in the US crosshairs
• Afghan parliament functions but faces risk: group
• Canada asked to lead in Kabul
• Vote Wednesday: NDP opposes extending Afghan mission; Liberals, BQ undecided
• NDP accuses Tories of 'Rambo-style' tactics on Afghan vote
• Harper says Afghan debate important for Canada
• Afghan tab $4.1B and counting, group says
• We can't abandon Afghans now
• Afghan Ambassador on the Canadian mission
• In Afghanistan, cries for a party, any party

Afghan schoolgirls attacked, six wounded

Source: Reuters Foundation Date: 16 May 2006 By Tahir Atmar

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan, May 16 (Reuters) - Suspected Taliban insurgents tossed a crude bomb into an Afghan girls' classroom, wounding a teacher and five students, a headmaster and police said on Tuesday.

Taliban have launched numerous attacks on schools as part of an intensified insurgency that has produced some of the worst levels of violence since the end of Taliban rule in 2001.

Headmaster Gul Mohammad said a small bomb was thrown through a window into a girls' class at his school, in the Chamtol district of the northern province of Balkh, on Monday.

A teacher was seriously wounded and five girls were slightly hurt with burns in the attack, he said. Another school in the district was burned down early on Tuesday after its guards were beaten up, police said.

"The Taliban are behind this," said district police chief Mohammad Hashim, referring to both attacks.

The militants attack schools as symbols of the Western-backed government and foreign influence. Seven children were killed when a rocket hit a school in an eastern town last month.

The Taliban were ousted by U.S.-led forces in late 2001 after refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden, architect of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. But nearly five years later, their insurgency shows no sign of ending.

Violence has surged in recent months and more than 500 people have been killed this year. The unrest comes as NATO members are sending reinforcements to boost their peacekeeping force from 9,000 to 16,000.

With about 23,000 troops, the United States now has its largest force in Afghanistan since its military involvement began in October 2001. The United States had been hoping to trim its Afghan force to 16,500 by early this year.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, U.S.-led forces killed four militants in an air strike in Uruzgan province in the volatile south, the U.S. military said.

"The extremists were responsible for launching numerous attacks against civilians and the Afghan National Army," the U.S. military said in a statement.

In other violence, Taliban raided two police posts near the Pakistani border, killing two policemen and wounding six. A government office in the same area was attacked and a woman in a nearby house was wounded, a Khost provincial police spokesman said. Security forces later captured 13 suspected Taliban, including some who were burying a body, he said.

In the southern province of Helmand, where British forces are in charge of security, police found the beheaded bodies of two government workers who had gone missing last week.

In Ghazni province, just south of the Kabul, a man had his hands blown off and was blinded when a mine he was planting exploded. His target was believed to have been a U.S.-funded road project, a provincial security official said. (Additional reporting by Yousuf Azimy and Kamal Sadaat)

Suicide attack on UN vehicle in Afghanistan, no casualties

Kandahar (AFP) - A suicide bomber detonated an explosives-filled car near United Nations mine clearance vehicles in southern Afghanistan but there were no casualties, police and the UN said.

The unmarked cars were returning from the airport some 10 kilometers (six miles) east of the volatile southern city of Kandahar when the attacker drove his car between them, they said.

It was the second attack involving the United Nations in less than a week. Two men were killed and one was hurt in an ambush on a UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) vehicle in the western province of Herat on Friday. The bomber was the only person who died in Wednesday's attack.

"Before the attacker's car exploded, the driver was able to jump out of the vehicle and he's safe and sound. There were no casualties but the attacker himself," police colonel Sher Shah said.

The attacker struck an unmarked vehicle of UN Mine Action Centre for Afghanistan, UN spokesman Adrian Edwards said in Kabul.

"There were two UNMACA vehicles heading from the airport towards town. Our understanding is that the suicide bomber was in a vehicle that drove between the two and struck one in the front and detonated at the point.

"Our drivers are safe. There are no UN casualties involved," he said, adding that the front vehicle was badly damaged.

An AFP correspondent saw human flesh near the mangled vehicles. The bomber's car lay in small pieces.

Edwards said Wednesday's attack and the one on the UNICEF last week appeared to be isolated incidents.

"These were unmarked vehicles, so if there were a campaign to do this we would have to have some evidence that the bomber recognised these were UN vehicles, which we don't," he said.

"There isn't enough evidence at the moment of there being any campaign to target the UN... We don't think there is a pattern at the moment."

Last week insurgents fired rockets at the UNICEF vehicle. A UN driver was killed instantly and an Afghan doctor working for a German-based group managed to run away but was shot and killed while fleeing. A UN project manager had to have a leg amputated.

There has been an increase in Iraq-style suicide attacks in Afghanistan in recent months, mostly targeting forces from the US-led coalition, NATO-led peacekeepers and Afghanistan's fledgling army. Most occur in the south and east of the country, where militants from the Taliban regime toppled by US-led forces in late 2001 are leading an insurgency.

Durable peace in Pak-Afghan interest: Zahir Shah - Wednesday May 17, 2006

Kabul: The father of nation, Mohammad Zahir Shah held a meeting with the two visiting Awami National Party (ANP) Leaders in Kabul. The two political leaders from Pakistan included Mohammad Afzal Khan Lala and Iqbal Afridi.

Expressing happiness to meet the father of nation, Mohammad Afzal Khan lauded his role in bringing peace, national unity and brother hood in Afghanistan. Stressing the need to peace and stability in the region, he said that concreted effort should continue to achieve it.

Kasuri invited to Afghanistan - Wednesday May 17, 2006 (0138 PST)

Kabul: Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dr. Dadfar Spanta has invited Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri to visit Afghanistan.

This invitation was given by Dr. Rangeen Dadfar Spanta in response to a letter sent by Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri following his assumption of charge as Afghan Foreign Minister recently.

Stressing the need for resolving problems currently emerged between the two countries, Dr. Spanta said he had invited Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri to visit Afghanistan during the period between 23rd to 30th May, Radio Kabul reported.

Afghanistan downplays Hekmatyar's alliance with al-Qaida - Source: Xinhua 5/16/06

Afghanistan government downplayed Tuesday the recent announcement of dissident warlord and former Prime Minister Gulbudin Hekmatyar to join al-Qaida network.

"Hekmatyar's announcement is merely a propaganda to demonstrate that terrorists are alive while terrorists have already been defeated in Afghanistan," Presidential spokesman Mohammad Karim Rahimi told journalists.

Leader of his own Islamic party the outlawed Hizb-e-Islami, Hekmatyar in videotape aired by the Arabic television channel the Al-Jazeera weeks ago said that he was ready to fight Americans and its western allies alongside al-Qaida in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine.

"Afghanistan's armed forces and their international backers are vigilant to foil any conspiracy and strengthen stability in the country," Rahimi added. However, he acknowledged that armed militants could conduct subversive activities.

"No doubt they can carry terrorist attacks in order to sabotage the peace and reconstruction process but can not block the way towards progress," the official pointed out.

A wanted man by U.S. government, Hekmatyar has gone underground immediately after return from Iran in 2002 and began supporting Taliban in their attacks against the U.S.-led foreign troops in Afghanistan.

Osama back in the US crosshairs - Asia Times Online By Syed Saleem Shahzad
5/16/06

"According to everything we know, he [Osama bin Laden] really is living in Pakistan, near to the Afghan border. Our neighbor [Pakistan] could certainly catch him and put him in court. But to our knowledge, their efforts to do this have always been half-hearted."

- Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta, May 14

PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN border - The Pakistani government has dismissed Foreign Minister Spanta's accusations out of hand, saying that the problem lies with Afghanistan, which is where al-Qaeda leader bin Laden his actually hiding.

The Americans, for now at least, are keeping their options open in their quest to hunt down the world's most wanted man.

Asia Times Online investigations, after a harrowing journey to some of the most inhospitable territory in the Hindu Kush mountains, confirm that US and Pakistan forces are now

preparing for a large-scale operation to track down bin Laden, or other big fish, on whichever side of the border they might be.

The focal point in the "war on terror" has thus firmly shifted to the maze of mountains and rivers that stretches from remote Chitral in the northwest of Pakistan's North West Frontier province to Nuristan and Kunar provinces in Afghanistan.

The Durand Line, the border, dissects this region, but it is a barrier in name only: for those who know their way along tortuous passes, unrestricted passage between the countries is possible.

The presence of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents in the Chitral Valley has been the subject of much discussion recently. From the chief minister of the province to the man in the

street, the word is that the Americans have established a vigilance center in Chitral town after what is said to be a "credible" tip-off of al-Qaeda activity in the region.

There has been no official word from the United States on the speculation of a FBI presence, but feedback gathered by Asia Times Online from various quarters confirms frequent visits by Americans to the Chitral Valley recently. At the same time, there is an extraordinary large presence of Pakistani security forces all along the border area, especially near Arandu, armed with heavy weapons.

Local residents explain that the Pakistani military built many bunkers around Arandu during the 1980s when the Soviet Union occupied Afghanistan. They abandoned these after the Soviets pulled out in 1989, but now they have manned them with Chitral Scouts, a paramilitary force, along with heavy weapons.

"Compared with the southern region of Afghanistan, the eastern region is quiet. There is resistance in Kunar and Nuristan, but nothing on the pattern of southern Afghanistan. Perhaps the eastern zone is best suited to hide instead of carrying out regular combat operations," a person who only called himself a mujahid (Islamic fighter, singular of the Persian/Arabic term mujahideen) told Asia Times Online.

In support of this, the mujahid referred to persistent reports that Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former Afghan prime minister and now leader of the anti-US movement, was hiding in the Kunar Valley. There have also been any number of wild guesses about the presence of bin Laden in the area.

However, the mujahid dismissed this notion about bin Laden. "There is no doubt that in places like Nuristan and Kunar one can easily hide, compared with other parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but there is a special threat to Osama in this region as the local Afghan Salafis [80% of the population ] are dead against the Taliban.

"During the Taliban's rule [1996-2001] Osama played a role in persuading many of the Afghan Salafis to pledge their allegiance to [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar. That created a lot of bad blood between Afghan Salafis and Osama, and that is why Osama would not be safe in Nuristan," the mujahid elaborated.

Nevertheless, many middle-ranking veterans, such as Commander Faqirullah of the Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan and Abu Ikhlas of al-Qaeda, are operative in the Nuristan and Kunar area and are well placed to orchestrate guerrilla operations against US-led allied forces.

At the same time, the Taliban-led resistance has steadily taken over control of some strategic areas. This indicates another trend, how the Taliban has blended in with local vested interests.

The Pechdara region is a strategic part of the Kunar Valley, east of Jalalabad and touching Nuristan province. It has become a nucleus in the hands of the Taliban, notably the village of Korangal, where fighters of Chechen, Chinese, Arabic and Uzbek origin are entrenched and from where they carry out insurgency attacks.

The Kunar Valley, unlike many other parts of Afghanistan, is devoid of poppy fields, except for the Pechdara area. Buyers converge here every day to buy small quantities of poppy, ranging from 5-10 kilograms at a cost of about US$233 per kilo.

Although the Taliban have a strong foothold, some of the main players (warlords) in Pechdara are in fact non-Taliban, with ties to Kabul. These include Commander Najamuddin, once of Hekmatyar's Hizb-i-Islami Afghanistan, Jahandad, a former governor of Kunar, and Malik Zarin Khan, who was an aide of slain Ahmad Shah Masoud, the legendary Tajik leader in northern Afghanistan.

These players initially helped allied forces carry out operations against the Taliban. However, subsequently they struck a deal with the Taliban, who in turn stopped harassing the warlords. Pechdara became relatively peaceful, with the warlords growing poppy and sharing the proceeds with the Taliban. As mentioned above, though, relative to the south of Afghanistan, the Kunar Valley is quiet in terms of the insurgency.

During the Soviet occupation, the belt was a strategic high point and key supply line of the resistance up to the Panjshir Valley. Nuristan was a real tough nut as the mujahideen had seized complete control and never allowed the Soviets a foothold.

"This is not the case today. The Soviets were brutal. Every family in Kunar and Nuristan complains that at least one of their members was butchered by the Russians," another person associated with the Taliban-led resistance told Asia Times Online. He identified himself only as a "Servant of Allah".

"This is not the case with the Americans," he said. "They are not tyrants as the Russians were. On the contrary, the Americans have bribed locals and bought their cooperation. As a result, there is no open revolt-like situation.

"Nevertheless, the resistance is all over, up to Nuristan," the "Servant of Allah" said. "For instance, on September 18, 2005, we attacked an American convoy in Mudagal, Nuristan. We stormed the convoy with rockets and then surrounded it from all four sides and sprayed bullets. We witnessed eight bodies before we fled from the scene. The next day in the media, we heard of only two casualties," the person maintained.

"Similarly, in Bazgal near Nuristan, two vehicles were destroyed with IEDs [improvised explosive devices] in which 10 soldiers were confirmed dead. The incident happened in December 2005. The media only reported a few injuries," the "Servant of Allah" said.

Asia Times Online learned that local support, after being neutral for some time, is now in favor of the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which have comfortable places to hide and carry out random attacks at their convenience.

The blame for this, from the US perspective, lies largely with the Afghan National Army (ANA), which has turned out to be untrustworthy.

Two years ago, US forces received confirmed information, with photographs, of the presence of high-profile al-Qaeda and Afghan operatives in Bazgal near Nuristan. It was impossible for US troops to take the risk of going after them alone in the maze of jungle and mountains, so they asked the ANA for assistance.

After many hours, the forces reached the area, but all the suspects had fled. Ground inquiries showed that they had left immediately after the Americans shared information with the ANA.

To improve the situation, the US is developing a special "Peace Force" in which the benchmark for recruitment is not military aptitude but staunch anti-Taliban tendencies. Many of the news force's members are either former communists or local villains. Perhaps they are attracted by the extremely generous pay - US$500-$1,000 a month.

The situation on the east remains in this state of balance, with the Taliban and some al-Qaeda operatives well bedded with a sympathetic local population, but in essence lying low.

A massive operation, such as one in search of the elusive bin Laden, could ignite the tinder, and open up another front, as in the south of the country. All the pieces are already in place.

Afghan parliament functions but faces risk: group

KABUL, May 16 (Reuters) - Afghanistan's new parliament is beginning to function properly but it risks being dominated by old power-brokers unless political blocs emerge, an international think-tank said on Tuesday.

The parliament was elected in landmark polls last September with candidates running as individuals, not as members of parties. But parties are vital for the development of a robust democracy, the International Crisis Group said.

"In its opening months, the bicameral legislature has functioned slowly but encouragingly steadily," the Brussels-based group said in a report.

"(But) the success of the fledgling institution remains delicately poised, particularly because of the absence of a formal role for political parties," it said.

"The lack of such organised blocs has seen power-brokers of past eras try to dominate proceedings. New moderate forces need to move quickly now to establish formal groups within the houses to ensure their voices are heard," it said.

The parliament, the first after decades of war, convened in December and performed its first major task last month when it approved most of the members of President Hamid Karzai's new cabinet.

The parliament includes members of factions that battled Soviets occupiers in the 1980s, and each other in the 1990s, former communists, former Taliban, women's activists and young professionals.

While members of old factions, several accused of abuses during the civil war, are seen as being in a slight majority, parliament should, nevertheless, be supported, the group said.

"That the legislature contains warlords, commanders and drug traffickers is undisputed, but it is the institution, not the individual members, that is important," it said.

"Their presence must not be used as an excuse to marginalise the body."

The International Crisis Group said Karzai's government appeared to calculate that a weak, fragmented legislature would mean more power for itself. Karzai won a presidential election in 2004 and does not have a political party.

But a weak assembly could have dangerous consequences, the group said.

"If the national assembly is not seen to be achieving anything, citizens are likely to lose faith in democratisation as a whole, allowing old power-brokers to reassert themselves outside constitutional structures," it said.

The government should coordinate its business with parliament and involve parliamentary leaders in state functions and decision-making, the group said. The international community should help build up the prestige of parliament and help develop the expertise of its members, it said.

Canada asked to lead in Kabul - NATO wants Ottawa to assume command of entire Afghan mission starting in 2008 - JANE TABER From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Canada has been asked by NATO to consider taking over the command of the entire Afghanistan mission in 2008, a senior government official says. This request, as well as a NATO meeting scheduled for next week in which the future of the Afghanistan mission will be discussed, is in part behind the government's sudden decision to hold a vote tonight on whether to extend Canada's commitment to the mission by two years, according to the official.

Canada has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan. The official said that Canada could just "barely" take over the command in two years. All of this is expected to come out later today from the government in the debate on extending Canadian involvement in the mission to 2009, the official said.

But Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay hinted at it yesterday outside the House of Commons: "What has changed, obviously, is there is going to be a command change in the near future," he said of the need for a debate and vote.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the Commons yesterday that because there will be no need for "large-scale commitments of Canadian troops elsewhere," including Darfur, he is asking the opposition to "back our decision to continue to send a significant Canadian contingent to Afghanistan and to accomplish the work of the international community there."

The Harper government took the opposition by surprise on Monday when it informed them that it was putting a motion forward asking for support for its decision to extend the Canadian mission.

The issue will be debated for six hours this afternoon and put to a vote tonight. The vote is not binding, but it is instructive, and the government says it will send a message to Canadians and the world about Canada's commitment to help rebuild Afghanistan.

The United States, now leading the mission in Afghanistan, called Operation Enduring Freedom, wants to downsize its troop contingent soon. It is expected that the British will be the next country to assume command of the NATO mission, of which Canada is part.

When that change of command is to take place has not been announced. The Canadian military is now in command of the international coalition in southern Afghanistan.

The Liberal government committed Canadian troops to the Afghanistan mission for one year. That commitment ends in February of 2007, but the Harper government is now asking the opposition, in the motion it released yesterday, to "support the Government's two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan."

This motion, and the abrupt way in which the government has dealt with it, set off howls of criticism from the opposition yesterday, as MPs demanded to know why the Harper government suddenly wanted yet another debate as well as a vote on the mission.

"I wouldn't presume that it is politics that is driving this issue. Three weeks ago, we had a debate on this issue," Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said, referring to the April 10 debate on the current mission. "I don't know what has intervened between then and now to make this urgent now."

Liberal MP and former defence minister John McCallum said it's "perfectly obvious":

". . . Stephen Harper would like to divide our party. I can tell you that there is absolutely no reason other than Conservative politics that any decision had to be made now. . . . speaking from my time as defence minister and with NATO, some advance planning is needed, but nowhere near this much time."

Opposition House Leaders were informed on Monday morning about the government's plan to extend the mission and its plans for a debate and vote. It is not clear yet how the Bloc will vote.

Both the NDP and Liberals were holding special caucuses last night to discuss issues around the extension and what to do about the vote. The 29-member NDP will not support the government's motion to extend the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan, Leader Jack Layton said after the meeting.

"We've looked at the proposition that the Conservatives are bringing forward and we're troubled by it," Mr. Layton said. "We don't think there's a fully developed plan."\

Vote Wednesday: NDP opposes extending Afghan mission; Liberals, BQ undecided - Jennifer Ditchburn , May 17, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) - The Conservatives sent their rivals scrambling to position themselves on the politically charged issue of Afghanistan by calling a parliamentary vote on extending Canada's military mission there by two years.

New Democrats decided late Tuesday not to support extension of the mission but the Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, caught by surprise when Conservative House leader Rob Nicholson approached them with a request for the vote, remained undecided.

After weeks of hounding the government for a clear indication of how long the troops would be in the region, the parties agreed to a debate and vote for Wednesday.

At an emergency caucus meeting Tuesday evening, New Democrats decided to oppose the extension or, as NDP Leader Jack Layton termed it, the "new mission."

"We will not be supporting the new mission, with so many questions, that's being proposed by the Conservatives," Layton told reporters.

New Democrats supported the current deployment, which entailed diplomacy and peacekeeping, as well as a combat component. But Layton said the extension involves a "very different kind of mission." "It's a mission that engages us in warfare on the border with another country."

Layton added that the NDP believes Canada's military is needed elsewhere in the world, not just in Afghanistan.

The Liberals also met Tuesday evening to discuss the issue but were not expected to reach a consensus until their regular caucus meeting Wednesday, if at all.

However, Liberal MPs were angry that they're being rushed into making a decision with little information. Few seemed disposed to support the motion.

Even Michael Ignatieff, one of the frontrunners for the Liberal leadership and one of the more bullish supporters of the Afghanistan mission, sounded a note of caution. "I don't want blank cheques here. This is a serious matter. Canadians are getting shot at," he said on his way into the caucus meeting.

Ignatieff said he wants to know how many troops would be involved and what their strategic objective would be. "Before I vote for anything I want to know what I'm voting for."

Toronto MP John Godfrey said the government needs to answer a host of questions, including "are we winning or are we losing" the current campaign against Taliban insurgents in Kandahar province.

"My inclination would be to vote no at this stage, although I'm open to persuasion," Godfrey said.

Opposition MPs called the vote a bald political ploy by the Conservatives, who no longer want to bear sole responsibility for the rising death toll in Afghanistan.

"It does seem to be forcing an early decision," said Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale. "The government has chosen to play that card in a very political way.

"We're going to try our best to treat the subject in as non-partisan fashion as we can."

In the United States, senior Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and John Kerry found it difficult to criticize President George Bush's Iraq policy because they voted in favour of sending troops there.

The Conservative motion reads: "That this House support the government's two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension."

Regular parliamentary business was to be put on hold Wednesday for the six-hour debate followed by an evening vote. The government was not allowing changes to the motion.

Canada has 2,200 troops helping to reconstruct and protect the province of Kandahar. The mission began in February and was to end next February, but the Conservatives already want permission to extend it to 2009.

"We want to project an image of commitment to this mission, to not only our soldiers first and foremost but our allies, and we do not want to embolden or give in any way the impression to the Taliban that we are weakening in our commitment," said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.

The power to deploy troops rests in the hands of the government, not Parliament. But if the motion fails to pass, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would be honour-bound not to extend the deployment during this mandate.

The vote could be an enormous challenge for the Liberals, in particular. It was their party that approved the mission in the first place, but its leadership candidates are divided on the deployment.

MP Joe Volpe has said Canada should return to its predominantly peacekeeping duties in Kabul, rather than continue engaging in combat in Kandahar. Other contenders such as Stephane Dion, Gerard Kennedy and Bob Rae have called for a better explanation of the mission's goals and timeframe.

Former Liberal foreign affairs minister John Manley, a supporter of a strong Canadian military, says his party should reject the motion as premature and simplistic.

Manley, now practising law in Ottawa, pointed out that previous Canadian deployments to Bosnia and Afghanistan always had a plan in place for an eventual handover to a NATO ally.

"Two more years without a clear strategy is too long and too far in advance to decide this now," Manley said in an interview. "Why do we even need to decide this in May when our current commitment goes until next February?"

It was easier for the NDP to reach a decision. Their party has a strong pacifist constituency, and many have been pushing for more resources to be sent to Sudan's Darfur region.

The Bloc Quebecois complained Tuesday at having so little time to explore the issue in depth, but also didn't declare a position. The Bloc is faced with an electorate in a province that is traditionally wary of military operations, and a caucus that is divided on the issue. Some of the questions the parties said they would pose during the debate include:

-How will success in Afghanistan be measured?

-Why is the extension set at two years?

-What kinds of resources does the military need to do its job?

-Will the government provide Parliament with regular updates on the mission and whether it is meeting its goals?

-What does this mean for the possibility of sending peacekeepers to Sudan's Darfur region? Harper has already said staying in Afghanistan will preclude a big Darfur commitment.

NDP accuses Tories of 'Rambo-style' tactics on Afghan vote - TERRY WEBER Globe and Mail Update

NDP defence critic Alexa McDonough accused the Conservatives Tuesday of “Rambo-style” tactics by scheduling a surprise debate and vote this week on whether Canada's mission in Afghanistan should be extended another two years.

MPs will vote Wednesday on a motion: “that this House support the government's two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan and the provision of funding and equipment for this extension.”

Appearing on CBC, Ms. McDonough called the move “premature” and said scheduling a vote immediately on the matter was “almost unprecedented.”

“This is a kind of Rambo-style approach to what is a deadly serious issue, and I think not respectful either of Canadians wanting to be engaged in this debate because they're struggling with it,” she said. “It's certainly not respectful of our troops and others who are in harm's way in Kandahar.”

The Conservative move took the members of the Opposition off guard this week. Canada's current mission in Afghanistan is scheduled to end in February, 2007. If the motion passes, that will be extended to February, 2009.

Last week, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, while visiting troops in the war-torn nation, suggested there was a need for a “longer-term plan and commitment” by Canada.

“I assured the President [Hamid Karzai] that Canada is here and intends to continue to work with our international partners and with the Afghan people to achieve results,” Mr. MacKay said during his trip.

In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismissed suggestions that the government was acting too quickly.

He also said the Parliament has never had the opportunity until now to vote on the issue, calling it a large and important commitment aimed not just at protecting national interests but also “providing international leadership and providing real advancement to the standard of living and the human rights of the Afghan people.”

“I think it is appropriate that it do so at some time,” Mr. Harper said, responding to questions on the debate from NDP leader Jack Layton.

“Members of this house have had five years to decide what their position is on this mission. We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward.”

Canada now has about 2,300 troops in Afghanistan. But public opinion about Canada's role has become increasingly divided as troops take on a greater combat role.

It remains unclear how opposition parties will vote. The Liberal caucus fully supported the mission while in office, but, since then, criticism of the mission by some MPs has increased as the number of casualties rises and Canada's participation has moved from Kabul to the more dangerous Kandahar region.

Ms. McDonough, who accompanied Mr. MacKay on his recent trip, did not say specifically that the NDP would vote against the extension. She did say, however, that “it's very difficult to imagine supporting the motion now that we've seen it, because it simply misrepresents what's happening.

“I think it's profoundly disrespectful of our troops and of other Canadians engaged in Afghanistan to be paying political games here, to be just sort of ramming through a yes-or-no, up-or-down motion without there being an opportunity to amend it, to really deal with the substance of it,” she said.

“Even to call it an extension of the mission in Afghanistan is itself not really accurate.”

She also said the motion is “extremely misleading because it creates this sense that we are operating on sort of a multipurpose basis in some kind of equal balance” between defence activities and diplomatic initiatives. Earlier, the NDP had pushed for a vote before any decision is made to extend Canada's participation. With a report from Canadian Press

Harper says Afghan debate important for Canada

Last Updated Tue, 16 May 2006 19:28:06 EDT CBC News

Prime Minister Stephen Harper will lead off Wednesday's debate on whether to extend Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. The debate, scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. ET, will decide whether Canada's 2,300 troops will come home next February or stay in Afghanistan until early 2009.  On Tuesday, Harper said the mission is a vital one. 

What we are doing there is not just protecting our national interests, but [we are] providing international leadership and providing real advancement to the standard of living and human rights of the Afghan people. These are important things for which Canada should stand." 

The opposition parties believe that if Canada extends its stay in Afghanistan it won't be able to respond to other trouble spots such as Darfur, Sudan.  "Did [the prime minister] realize that this would render Canada incapable of responding to other situations in the world?" asked NDP Leader Jack Layton. 

Harper says that, for Canada, the priority is Afghanistan.  "We understand that a commitment of this magnitude creates some real constraints on our ability elsewhere," he said. 

On Wednesday night, after a six-hour debate, MPs will vote on a motion for a two-year extension of Canada's diplomatic, development, civilian police and military personnel in Afghanistan, including funding and equipment. 

Increasing casualties, including the deaths of 15 soldiers since 2002, have caused many Canadians to question how long Canada should be in Afghanistan. 

The Liberals suggest that may be why Harper is putting it to a vote now — so that the mission extension is dealt with well before a possible election looms next year. 

"It's not about whether or not the mission should be until February 2009," said Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh.  "Now the question is whether or not it should be extended." Layton also says MPs haven't been given much time to prepare. 

"What we don't know is the nature of the extended mission. Canadians have not been told about it. MPs have not been told about it, yet they're going to be asked to vote on it after a few speeches on the House of Commons."  But Harper says MPs have had lots of time to decide. 

"Members of this House, the parties of this House, have had five years to decide what their position is on this mission. We want to be sure that our troops have the support of this Parliament going forward." 

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has just returned from a trip to Afghanistan. He says Afghan President Hamid Karzai has asked about Canada's involvement after next February. "They want to know that Canada is going to be there," said MacKay. 

Afghan tab $4.1B and counting, group says - May 17, 2006

OTTAWA (CP) — An Ottawa-based think tank says the federal government has spent more than $4.1 billion on its Afghan operations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed 25 Canadians in New York's twin towers.

The Polaris Institute says Afghanistan and related operations account for 68 per cent of the $6.1 billion spent on international missions between the fall of 2001 and the end of March 2006.

The institute says Canada currently contributes only 59 military personnel to UN missions around the world, while about 2,200 troops are stationed in Afghanistan.

Once a Top 10 contributor, Canada now ranks 50th out of 95 countries currently contributing military personnel to UN missions. The group says the total spending was calculated from figures reported in annual editions of the Defence Department Report on Plans and Priorities.

We can't abandon Afghans now - May 17, 2006. ROSIE DIMANNO Toronto Star

There is a hand gesture common to Afghans that always catches my breath.

A flat palm pressed gently against the heart. It can be a greeting, a farewell, an emphasis. But mostly it's a semaphore of sincerity: "I pledge my friendship."

Canadians can learn something from Afghans — about the value of one's word and not abandoning a nation in desperate need, about keeping faith.

This country is among 30 nations that have made a promise of military and strategic alliance, to help ensure that Afghanistan has a shot at rehabilitating itself as a safe and functioning member of the international community.

For decades, Afghans have sought such alliance from the rest of the world. I have copies of speeches and imploring letters that the great, beloved leader, Ahmad Shah Massoud, sent to presidents and prime ministers and the United Nations, pleading for assistance against the Taliban, and warning that the terrorists he was fighting — including Al Qaeda — would some day turn their full fury against the West.

Precious few were listening or gave a damn while there was still time to avert catastrophe. Massoud was assassinated by Al Qaeda on the eve of 9/11.

We can't change the past. But the future still has possibilities, genuine hopes that can be realized, that are being realized.

The dismal news bulletins out of Afghanistan are constant, of roadside explosions and suicide bombings and Taliban remnants coalescing anew. Yet the actual threat of a resurgent Taliban — or of Afghanistan sinking again into dubious status as training ground central for militant fundamentalists — is marginal. What's often ignored is the tremendous progress Afghanistan has made in almost every province and region; how lively Kabul has become again, what tremendous aspirations the people have for reinventing themselves as a society; how curious they are about the outside world and generally welcoming of the multinational troops sent to help.

This military assignment has been quite tasking for Canadian soldiers because they've been deployed to the "belly button" of the insurgency in Kandahar province. Casualties have caused many Canadians to lose their nerve — though not among military families, who have the most to lose — while boosting a different kind of insurgency: The kind being waged by isolationists here, in this country, who turn themselves inside-out to connect the non-existing dots between Afghanistan and Iraq, between an honourable mission of security and reconstruction under NATO command and purported obsequy to U.S. adventurism abroad.

It is wise for the Conservative government in Ottawa to put Canada's political resolve to the test tomorrow with a debate and parliamentary vote on extending the Afghan mission, which was due to conclude in February 2007.

The work of nearly 2,300 Canadian troops has hardly begun and already a great many Canadians were clamouring for them to be yanked home, even before the deadline.

It will be interesting to see if the Liberals play politics on a cause they championed and initiated while in power. A rallying point for objections to the Afghanistan deployment could very well be the tragedy in Darfur that has suddenly gained traction with the same faction that steadfastly argues against our military presence in Kandahar. The logic of this position escapes me.

We're not talking about fashion hemlines here. You can't dump one commitment because something more optically appealing comes along. Yes, by all means, contribute Canadian troops to a multinational peacemaking force in Sudan, although putting the UN in charge is a recipe for disaster.

Except — we don't have the means. Too many commentators — including the same constituency that has reviled the military over the years, applauding funding cutbacks that caused its depletion and diminishment — now demand that some of Canada's 60,000 regular (active) forces be dispatched to Darfur. Surely, they insist, there is room for both undertakings.

It would be a very tight squeeze and probably insupportable for Canadian Forces, even as they are in the process of expanding by some 23,000 (full time and reservist), now that the military has received, in the last federal budget, $5.3 billion more in funding over the next five years (on top of the $12.8 billion earlier promised by the Liberals).

The army component of the CF is only 21,000 at the moment. Soldiering — the heavy slogging by combat troops that "engage the enemy" — comprises three occupations, or the combat arms: infantry, armour and artillery.

At present, some 2,700 Canadian troops are deployed on operational missions overseas, overwhelmingly in Afghanistan. Of those 2,300 troops — that's Operation Archer — only about a thousand compose the actual battle group that is Task Force Orion, or the "pointy end" of the arrow: 450 infantry, the rest in armour and artillery regiments, support trades (engineer squadrons, signal, medical), logistics, services and HQ. And still the greater number of troops — the remaining 1,300 or so — are there in an even broader support capacity, mostly remaining at base at the Kandahar Airfield. They don't fight. Unless, of course, attacked.

It's a complicated undertaking, putting a soldier in the field and keeping him there, especially in a Third World country with little existing infrastructure. The rough rule of thumb is 2.5 support troops per one infantryman.

At any given moment, only 20,000 of the overall 60,000 Canadian troops are available for operational deployment. But, also at any given moment, one-third of that 20,000 is already overseas, one-third is preparing to go overseas (as the 1st Battalion, Royal Canadian Regiment is training now in Wainwright to replace, come August, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry presently in Afghanistan) and one-third has just come back from overseas, where the rules demand a one-year respite — for family and "career advancement" by way of professional course-taking etc. — before being sent again overseas.

To accommodate Darfur, something major would have to give, probably time spent at home with family, and that's a recipe for poor morale, disgruntlement and burnout.

Also, make no mistake, deployment to Darfur — even more deranged than the worst parts of Afghanistan — would be no peacekeeping mission. It would be combat, against a war-hardened and pitiless militia.

Those who claim Kandahar is unacceptably risky — 15 Canadian soldiers killed since 2002, only one in a firefight, a small enough number that we know all the casualties by name — had best prepare themselves for the bloodshed that awaits foreign troops inserted into Sudan.

I happen to believe stopping genocide in Darfur is worth it, indeed demands it.

But Canada doesn't have the supply to meet that urgent demand beyond extremely limited involvement. And shuffling the soldiers — because Darfur has more savour than Afghanistan to some — would destroy what's left of our reputation.

It would be treachery, if not downright traitorous.

Afghan Ambassador on the Canadian mission - Globe and Mail Update

Afghanistan's ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad, will be on-line Thursday, May 18 at 11 a.m. EDT to take your questions on the parliamentary debate and vote Wednesday on whether to extend the controversial Canadian mission there by two years until February, 2009.

Join the conversation then or submit a question or comment in advance. This is Ambassador Samad's second visit to globeandmail.com.

Back in March, he took questions from globeandmail.com readers on the situation in his country, which has been devastated for the past 25 years by a Russian invasion and occupation, guerrilla warfare, warlords, the Taliban government, the U.S.-led war after the 9/11 attacks, and the continued insurgency.

In Afghanistan, cries for a party, any party - Icg says political blocs are desperately needed to mediate internal conflicts - The Daily Star- Canada Tuesday, May 16, 2006

Editor's note: The following is the Executive Summary and Recommendations from the latest report from the International Crisis Group titled, "Afghanistan's New Legislature: Making Democracy Work." The full text is available at www.crisisgroup.com

The new National Assembly has the potential to play a vital role in stabilizing Afghanistan, entrenching pluralism, institutionalizing political competition and giving voice to the country's diverse population. By being accountable to the Afghan people it can demand accountability of the presidential government. However, the success of this fledgling institution remains delicately poised, particularly because of the absence of a formal role for political parties, essential for mediating internal tensions. The lack of such organized blocs has seen power-brokers of past eras try to dominate proceedings. New moderate forces need to move quickly now to establish formal groups within the houses to ensure their voices are heard.

The Single Non-Transferable Voting (SNTV) system used in the 2005 legislative election all but excluded political parties, which are vital for the development of robust democracy. President Hamid Karzai has done all he can to marginalize these parties, leaving him isolated and dependent on unstable alliances in a fragmented body. He probably can win votes of confidence by relying in the main on Pashtun conservatives together with pro-government moderates and members of the smaller minority communities. However, the absence of solid political blocs means he will have to assemble ad hoc support on every issue. Ethnic politics has been, and indeed will likely remain, one of the main organising factors but would be better brought out into the open within formalized blocs.

The rules of procedure allow these as mechanisms - called parliamentary groups in the Lower House (Wolesi Jirga), and political groups in the Upper House (Meshrano Jirga) - to facilitate efficient parliamentary operation. However, many impulses for their creation - regional, linguistic and tribal - are barred, rendering them all but meaningless. And even then the formation of such emasculated groups has been delayed in the lower house. If parties were required to have charters stipulating internal democratic functioning, their formation based on any criteria should be encouraged also as a means to stimulate the development of true political parties. Given that no one ethnic group has a majority in either house, ongoing compromise would be demanded.

In its opening months, the bicameral legislature has functioned slowly but encouragingly steadily, emphasising procedural decision-making. Tedious discussion and repetitive voting on the same topics have hopefully demonstrated to lawmakers the importance of building more formal blocs to organize proceedings as well as the importance of following well-defined procedures.

There have been victories for the opposition, with a Karzai rival elected to head the more important Wolesi Jirga, though the government secured confirmation of major ministers in a key vote. Fears of deadlock through obstructionism, the sheer amount of work to get through and inexperience have translated into a tendency toward a lack of oversight and acceptance of governmental preferences. But as legislators gain confidence and experience, such acquiescence cannot be relied on. Building good relationships between the institutions of state needs to be a priority now.

That the legislature contains warlords, commanders and drug traffickers is undisputed, but it is the institution, not the individual members, that is important. Their presence must not be used as an excuse to marginalize the body, which in this sense is not unique among the branches of the Afghan state. A policy of co-option over the last four years has entrenched notorious figures in the executive, from the highest central government posts to district level. Those who have committed and are still committing atrocities - in many cases with remarkable continuity - are not held answerable, highlighting the urgent need to reform the third branch, the judiciary. Commitments to disarmament that many candidates made to qualify to stand for election must also be rigorously monitored.

The National Assembly could force religious and factional leaders, who have long claimed to speak for the Afghan people, to prove their real levels of support, which there is good reason to believe is in some cases far less than they assert. It is also a place in which the first stirrings of new national thinking may appear. Under a quota system, around one quarter of its membership is female, in noticeable contrast to the executive. As it moves into substantive work, the National Assembly has real potential to draw the regions to the centre in a way that has not happened in Afghanistan's history.

But for the legislature - and democratic values - to take root, domestic recognition and international support are required. This is not just about finances, resources and training, but also executive branch and international community interaction with it. National Assembly leaders as well as the emerging moderate voices need to be given appropriate recognition and encouragement. Thus far Karzai's government does not seem to have learned the lessons of the past, appearing instead to calculate that a weak, fragmented legislature would mean more power for itself rather than a lost opportunity for the country. It is imperative that the executive and legislative branches not approach their relationship as a zero-sum game.

One of the primary tasks of elected representatives in a democracy is usually to mediate the allocation of resources. Afghanistan is in an unusual situation in that donors control nearly all its resources. Nevertheless, the international community can expect to find the National Assembly a demanding interlocutor. Amid growing disillusionment at the pace of political and economic reconstruction, this is the forum from which to start managing expectations and hearing the priorities of the Afghan people. It must also perform a vital role if the ambitious regulatory and legislative benchmarks laid down in the Afghanistan Compact as conditions for ongoing international commitments are to be met.

It is also vital that Afghanistan have functioning institutions to implement the decisions of its democratic law-making body. If the National Assembly is not seen to be achieving anything, citizens are likely to lose faith in democratization as a whole, allowing old powerbrokers to reassert themselves outside constitutional structures. The need to ensure implementation of laws highlights again how vital it is to reform and strengthen the civil service, police and other institutions of state.

The National Assembly's creation was just one further step in the country's political transition, certainly not its end. A well-established, accountable and respected legislature would add to stability by allowing a wide spectrum of voices to be heard at the centre and to participate in setting the country's future course. The considerable goodwill and energy that is at hand now needs to be harnessed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the National Assembly:

1. The Wolesi Jirga should quickly establish parliamentary groups as provided for in the rules of procedure to help make operations more efficient, and both houses should ensure such groups have a strengthened role in proceedings by:

(a) removing regional, linguistic and ethnic bars to their creation;

(b) requiring them to have charters providing for democratic internal functioning;

(c) building links between the groups of the two houses; and

(d) aiding their further transformation into political parties by establishing offices outside Parliament for each group.

2. Strengthen expertise and diversity on the standing committees by:

(a) re-constituting their membership after parliamentary groups are formed in the Wolesi Jirga;

(b) setting quotas for women members; and

(c) seeking seats for members on the relevant Consultative Groups, the joint government, NGO, donor and UN agency mechanisms to facilitate and coordinate development plans.

3. Focus during this legislative period on establishing the necessary legal framework for a functioning state and on meeting development goals, with priorities to include:

(a) administrative units, court and ministry structures;

(b) speeding development and meeting the benchmarks under the Afghanistan Compact; and

(c) revising the Electoral Law and the Political Party Law, including by replacing the SNTV voting system with a party list system and otherwise strengthening the role of parties.

4. Use the standing committees for members' immunities, salaries and privileges to ensure individual accountability by creating and strictly enforcing:

(a) a code of conduct for members which includes commitments to disarmament and a subcommittee tasked with enforcing this in consultation with the Disarmament and Reintegration Commission;

(b) a register listing the interests of all members; and

(c) a code of conduct for lobbyists.

5. Help ensure accountability by providing week-long recesses at major holidays which can be used to travel back to constituencies to maintain contact with voters.

To the government of Afghanistan :

1. Change the role of Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs into that of a representative for parliamentary affairs heading a small staff in the president's office, tasked to:

(a) co-ordinate government business with the National Assembly; and

(b) draft, in cooperation with its leadership, a formal memorandum of understanding regarding regular and institutionalised interaction.

2. Create liaison points within every ministry for technical queries related to legislative work.

3. Ensure that when parliamentary groups are formed, their leaders are invited to take part in important state functions and relevant decision-making forums.

4. Appoint a legislative coordinator to the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Board of the Afghanistan Compact, in consultation with international members and the National Assembly.

5. Work with the National Assembly and heads of Provincial Councils toward the necessary constitutional amendments for a functioning state and the next National Assembly and presidential elections, including:

(a) creating mechanisms to deal with deadlock between the executive and legislature;

(b) re-examining the 30-day deadline pursuant to which legislation introduced by the executive automatically becomes law unless otherwise acted upon;

(c) revising the electoral timetable; and

(d) defining who is responsible for overseeing members' credentials once election results are certified.

6. Ensure adequate security for members, especially women, as they travel to and from their electoral districts and throughout the country.

To the International Community:

1. Help build up the prestige of the National Assembly and the capacity of its members by:

(a) ensuring that visiting officials, parliamentarians and other senior delegations always call on the National Assembly leadership and members of the relevant committees, including women and minority representatives;

(b) meeting regularly with the international affairs committee and helping its individual members develop expertise in different geographical regions; and

(c) distributing study tours equitably among members, with particular emphasis on visits to regional legislatures, extending most invitations for legislative recess periods so work time is not lost, coordinating invitations between host countries, and making special efforts to ensure that women parliamentarians are given opportunities to participate in such tours.

2. Donors should help develop the expertise of standing committees by:

(a) funding international and national specialist technical advisors for each committee; and

[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.]