In this bulletin:

• UNSC mission in Afghanistan for security review
• Afghan conflict deaths quadruple
• Joint intelligence centre being built in Kabul - Dawn
• Afghans positive on Italy's proposal for international conference
• JCMB says no letting up on Afghanistan Compact despite insurgency
• Ms Merkel emphasizes Afghanistan deployment
• Afghan religious scholars say suicide attacks un-Islamic
• 'Die-hard Taliban will have to be eliminated'
• Opinion: Some sobering thoughts
• The face of Afghanistan five years after fall of the Taleban
• Pakistan: singed by its own terror tactics
• In Pakistan, Recent Attacks Shred Hopes for Regional Peace Model
• Afghan people are the key to peace: freedom fighter
• Afghanistan poses challenges for a more global Nato
• Kabul, five years on!
• Afghan observer says country not yet ready for repatriation of refugees

UNSC mission in Afghanistan for security review - Daily Times 12 November 2006

KABUL: A high-level delegation from the United Nations Security Council arrived in Afghanistan Saturday to review efforts to establish stability after the bloodiest period of growing Taliban-led violence.

The delegation included UN ambassadors from Argentina, Britain, Denmark, France, Greece, Japan, Qatar, Russia, Slovakia and the United States, the UN said in a statement.

The group was due to meet President Hamid Karzai and other government officials and UN agencies during its four-day visit.

It would also travel to the south of Afghanistan to “demonstrate solidarity with local Afghan communities most affected by recent fighting between anti-government elements and military forces,” according to the statement. Southern Afghanistan has seen the most of this year’s spike in Taliban violence, which NATO commanders deployed in Afghanistan have admitted took them by surprise and showed new sophistication and outside influence.

Taliban attacks and military operations against the militants have killed 1,000 civilians this year, Human Rights Watch said Friday in a statement that urged the UN mission to push for compensation for victims of the violence.

While Afghanistan “has emerged from being a fractured, lawless state to a democratic Islamic nation, major challenges still lay ahead if we are to build on the progress of the last five years,” the Japanese ambassador to the UN, Kenzo Oshima, said on arriving at Kabul airport. Afp

Afghan conflict deaths quadruple – BBC

There has been a four-fold rise this year in the number of people killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, according to a report on the insurgency. It suggests that more than 3,700 people have died so far this year - about 1,000 of them civilians.

The report came as Afghan officials said Nato and Afghan troops had killed about 60 Taleban fighters in a six-day operation near the Pakistan border. The operation, in the eastern province of Paktika, ended on Sunday.

Meanwhile a visiting UN delegation said Afghan leaders face huge challenges five years after the Taleban fell.

The study on the situation in Afghanistan was compiled by the Joint Co-ordinating and Monitoring Board - made up of the Afghan government, its key foreign backers and the UN.

It says more than 3,700 people had been killed since January this year and that the frequency of insurgent or terrorist-related security incidents had now risen four-fold to 600 a month.

The BBC's Matt Prodger in Kabul says the accuracy of fatality figures is hard to gauge, as they are frequently the result of aerial surveillance.

The majority of the dead appear to be insurgents, but it is estimated that 1,000 civilians have also been killed this year, along with members of the Afghan army, the Nato-led international security assistance force, and a separate US contingent of soldiers.

The deteriorating security situation has undermined vital development work and forced the closure of schools in the south.

The report also highlights corruption and says that alienation among the Afghan people is hampering those fighting the insurgency.

The head of the visiting Security Council delegation, Japanese ambassador Kenzo Oshima, told reporters in Kabul that the most important challenge was the fight against the Taleban insurgency, and that opium production, which was fuelling the violence, was also a major problem.

But he added that the international community would continue to support Afghanistan in its efforts towards peace and reconstruction. The delegation is due to visit the troubled southern provinces in the next few days.

Afghan officials said the bodies of 20 Taleban militants had been recovered after recent fighting in Bermel district in Paktika.

In addition, two trucks carrying Taleban fighters were destroyed by artillery or aircraft fire. Another 40 were thought to have been killed in these attacks, the officials added.

Nato spokesman Luke Knittig could not confirm the casualty figures but told the Associated Press news agency the figure of 60 dead sounded "about right".

Joint intelligence centre being built in Kabul - Dawn

KABUL, Nov 11: Military commanders from Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO reviewed plans on Saturday to build a jointly staffed centre to share intelligence in their battle against extremist militants, an official said.

The commanders were in Kabul for the 19th meeting between the three forces that are together fighting unrest that spans the Afghan and Pakistan border and involves groups such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Part of their discussions focussed on a planned joint military intelligence sharing centre expected to be based in the Afghan capital, an official with the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force said.

The centre will be staffed by Afghan, Pakistani and ISAF officials and will “work to understand what information can quickly be shared in a mutually beneficial fashion,” he said.

The meeting -- led by Afghanistan's General Sher Karimi, Pakistan's Major General Ahmad Shuja Pasha and ISAF's General David Richards -- also heard reports on border security and efforts to counter improvised bombs regularly used by the rebels.—AFP

Afghans positive on Italy's proposal for international conference

Text of report by Afghan independent Tolo TV on 11 November

[Presenter] The challenges and problems facing Afghanistan will be reviewed. President Hamed Karzai has approved a new plan proposed by the government of Italy to hold a conference attended by representatives from the international community and neighbouring countries of Afghanistan.

Addressing a news conference with his Italian counterpart in Kabul, Afghanistan's foreign minister [Dr Rangin Dadfar-Spanta] said the plan would also be presented to the international community for their comments. He did not say anything about a date or venue for the conference.

[Correspondent] Foreign Minister Dr Rangin Dadfar-Spanta told a news conference today that the plan proposed by Italy has been discussed with Hamed Karzai during his meeting with the Italian foreign minister and that he has voiced support for the plan.

Massimo D'Alema, the Italian foreign minister, said his country supported the government of Afghanistan. He stressed that Italian troops will remain in Afghanistan and continue to fight terrorism in the country.

Mr D'Alema says Afghanistan's problems cannot be addressed by military means alone but should be addressed through negotiations, the implementation of reconstruction and development projects and meeting public needs. He said Italy would continue to help the peace and stability process in Afghanistan.

[Foreign ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Bahin] It is still a draft plan that was just discussed today during meetings between the president and foreign minister. It needs more discussions to specify a date, time and venue for the conference.

JCMB says no letting up on Afghanistan Compact despite insurgency

KABUL: The high-level Afghan-International body charged with overseeing the Afghanistan Compact met today to examine progress so far and ensure continued momentum despite an ongoing insurgency in the south and east of the country.

The meeting was the third quarterly session of the Joint Coordination and Monitoring Body. Among those attending was a visiting delegation of the United Nations Security Council.

Professor Ishaq Nadiri, senior economic advisor to the Afghan President and the JCMB’s co-chair, said there was recognition on all sides that the Compact must remain on track.

“Good progress has been made in reconstructing the country despite increased insurgency in the south and southeast,” he said. “But more needs to be done.”

The JCMB oversees implementation of the goals of the Afghanistan Compact – the five-year blue print for reconstruction that was signed in February 2006 at the London Conference on Afghanistan.

The JCMB found that security, financial bottlenecks, and Government capacity are the major problems needing to be overcome.

“We need to see a strong, coordinated effort by the Afghan Government and international community to meet the challenges ahead,” said Professor Nadiri. “They need to be met directly and immediately, and that will require a firm commitment.”

Substantial new resources and energies have been deployed over the past months through the Policy Action Group, a high-level taskforce convened by President Karzai to address the security situation in the south.

“The international community must give strong backing for the Government’s anti-corruption measures and focus on improving aid effectiveness so that more people benefit as development projects roll out across Afghanistan,” said Tom Koenigs, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General in Afghanistan and JCMB Co-Chair.

“We can and must cement peace, stability and progress for all Afghan people” Koenigs added.

Ms Merkel emphasises Afghanistan deployment

German News 10 November 2006 - Chancellor Merkel spoke out in favour of coupling military actions in Afghanistan with civilian reconstruction of the country, and the upcoming NATO Summit in Riga will also put this issue on their agenda. At the same time, Ms Merkel emphasised that Germany would do her job as far as safety and rebuilding in Afghanistan were concerned, and would also help out in the south of the country, if asked to do so. The Defence Ministry stated that currently KSK Special Forces were being deployed in Afghanistan, not for 'Enduring Freedom' but in a support role for NATO's ISAF.

Afghan religious scholars say suicide attacks un-Islamic

Text of report by Afghan independent Tolo TV on 11 November

[Presenter] A verdict issued by religious scholars of Khost Province says that carrying out suicide attacks and fighting the government of Afghanistan is against Islam.

The statement, distributed in Pashto in Paktia, Paktika, and Khost Provinces of Afghanistan and in South Waziristan, North Waziristan and Peshawar in Pakistan, says Hamed Karzai's government is an Islamic government elected by the public.

[Correspondent] The verdict includes verses from the Holy Koran and words of the Prophet [Muhammad] describing suicide attacks as against Islam.

According to the verdict, this represents stepping up jihad against a country where all Islamic principles and rules are safe and there are no limitations on Islamic rituals.

It is worth mentioning that this verdict was issued in the end of a gathering of religious scholars and tribal elders of Khost Province.

A similar gathering held by scholars and members of the provincial council of Khost Province described suicide attacks as non-Islamic and said the current government was elected by the people.

'Die-hard Taliban will have to be eliminated'

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent - Telegraph.co.uk 12/11/2006

All "hardcore" Taliban fighters will have to be killed or captured before peace in Afghanistan can finally be declared, the commander of British forces there believes.

Brigadier Jerry Thomas, in charge of the 4,200 strong United Kingdom Task Force based in Helmand province, said that a small core of "ideological" Taliban was fuelling the insurgency. The Brigadier, who has been in command of the force for just four weeks, said that a "cadre" of Taliban fighters would have to be dealt with. If they attacked British forces they would be "engaged and killed".

Speaking at Kandahar Air Base, Brig Thomas said: "The hardcore Taliban, in my view, are probably irreconcilable and therefore you have to deal with them as irreconcilable people. If they fight us, we will fight them and we will use all of the forces at our disposal to make sure they are defeated.

"Within the group collectively known as the Taliban are those who are definitely reconcilable and what we have to do is make sure that we create the conditions where reconciliation and rehabilitation can take place because it is only by separating them from the ideological hard core that progress can be made."

Brig Thomas, who is also the commander of 3 Commando Brigade, which is composed of Royal Marines and Army Commandos, said he believed that just a small number of "ideological Taliban" were motivating and coercing others to fight for their cause.

He went on: "I would suggest that the ideological core of the Taliban is not as big as reported. It depends in which areas you look. In some areas they number tens and in some areas they number less than 10.

"What we are here to do is to identify those cadres, isolate them from the main bulk of the population and then, having isolated them, they will either withdraw or, if they engage us, we will fight and, if necessary, kill them."

Opinion: Some sobering thoughts

By Shahid M. Amin - Dawn 12 November 2006

LET us suppose that the Taliban succeed in Afghanistan and the US and Nato troops decide to quit that country. Judging by what some of our writers and analysts have been saying in the Pakistani news media, that outcome should be a moment of triumph and rejoicing. According to their reasoning, the hated Americans would have been defeated and the Afghan people would have won, and that would usher in an era of peace and freedom, not only in the region but also in the world beyond.

But would this really be the case? Let us try to visualise the scenario in the event of a victory for the Taliban starting with the internal dimension. The first victim of Taliban rule would be the Afghan women. In effect, they would all be ‘imprisoned’. They would be confined to their homes for most of the time and if they have to venture outside their homes, they would be required to wear the shuttlecock burqas. Girls’ schools would be shut down and there would be a ban on women holding any job. Since the last 30 years of warfare in Afghanistan have produced a large number of widows, and many households have no male breadwinners, such families would be faced with great hardship, including the possibility of starvation. During Taliban rule (1994-2001), many women had been left with no option but to turn to the oldest profession — prostitution.

Apart from the fate that awaits Afghan women, the other features of Taliban rule would be a ban on television, films, music, entertainment and even sports. Newspapers would not have any photographs and, indeed, there would be no freedom of expression.

The news media would be required to print only what the regime would want to be published. All adult males would have to keep the prescribed size of beards and attend prayers five times a day in mosques, and wear the traditional dress, or else they would be punished, including being lashed in public.

Of course, unIslamic activities like drinking alcohol or gambling would result in much more severe punishments, including public executions.

Since the Taliban are strict Sunni Muslims, other Muslim sects would be subjected to severe discrimination. As in the previous Taliban era, the Hazara Shias would probably be singled out for the worst treatment. The non-Muslims might be required to put on a prescribed dress so as not to be confused with the believers. In short, Taliban rule would be marked by gross violations of human rights, and life would be conformist, regimented, dull and bereft of all kinds of pleasure and merriment.

Let us now turn to the external dimension of any kind of return of Taliban rule in Afghanistan. The world in general would be alarmed by the upsurge of Islamic extremism and fanaticism as represented by the Taliban. The Al Qaeda and diverse terrorist groups would find a sanctuary in Afghanistan. The West would see this as a direct threat to its security and, probably, Russia, India, Israel and even China would look at the Taliban as a danger. Iran is the principal Shia Muslim state and would be unhappy to see a strident Sunni regime as its neighbour: it had very strained relations with the previous Taliban regime. The Central Asian republics are Sunni but secular-minded: they would be very uncomfortable with the fanatical Taliban regime in their neighbourhood.

How about Pakistan? A victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would give a boost to the religious extremists in Pakistan. The internal tensions in Pakistan would grow further. In the Pakhtun tribal areas, unilateral attempts would be made to impose the Taliban model. There would an increase in Shia-Sunni tensions, and sectarian violence in Pakistan might reach alarming proportions. In the event that the religious parties increase their strength in Pakistan and manage to come to power at the centre, the Talibanisation of Pakistan would have devastating consequences. Pakistani women would be the greatest sufferers: they would be denied education, jobs and, in sum, would lose their freedom. Women would not any more be sitting in legislatures or public bodies. There would be no free press. Indeed, there would be no freedom of expression of any kind.

Entertainment would be severely curtailed, television would be banned, and films would be outlawed. Of course, the seizure of power in Pakistan by Islamic extremists would send alarm bells ringing all over the world because Pakistan happens to be a nuclear state. The US, Europe, Russia, India and Israel would probably join hands in a bid to destroy Pakistan’s nuclear assets. At the minimum, Pakistan would be ostracised and would be denied aid and access to markets.

The Kashmiri freedom fighters would be dubbed Islamic terrorists and India would be encouraged to take on Pakistan in whatever way possible. In fact, India would be the biggest gainer if the Islamic extremists come to power in Pakistan. Though smaller than India, Pakistan has, over the last 50 years, managed to find equalisers against India through its friendship and alliances with the West and China. In the event, Pakistan loses the friendship and support of these countries, its ability to resist Indian encroachments would diminish significantly. This would suit India entirely. Faced with a hostile external environment, Pakistan’s internal vulnerabilities would be exposed. In such circumstances, Pakistan’s viability as a state might be open to question.

Matters involving survival of the state and its economic welfare need cool-headed thinking and sound evaluation. It is no use pandering to emotions, giving vent to biases and prejudices and living in a world of make-believe. Just now, it seems that anti-Americanism has clouded the judgment of a great many people in Pakistan. This is paradoxical since, over the years, Pakistan has received more economic aid from the US (approximately $15 billion) than from any other country.

The US has also been a major supplier of arms to Pakistan and is, at present, the largest export market of Pakistan. Pakistani policymakers cannot afford to ignore these hard realities.

Even putting that aside, it should be clear that Pakistan’s national interests would be seriously impaired in the event of victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan would lose internally as well as externally. The Taliban had been grudgingly tolerated in 1996 but, after 9/11, world realities have changed.

Pakistan is a leading Islamic country that has, from its very inception, chosen the liberal path in politics, education and human values. We cannot afford to allow the religious fanatics of the Taliban model to turn our back on all that.

The writer is a former ambassador

The face of Afghanistan five years after fall of the Taleban

By Anthony Loyd and Tahir Luddin - The Times (UK) November 11, 2006

On November 13, 2001, rebel forces marched on Kabul to oust the Taleban. But the triumph and hope have given way to despair and disappointment

IT WAS nearly five years to the day since I had last seen Gul Haider. Sitting in a Kabul garden with the trilling of caged songbirds drifting across the rose beds, that last encounter seemed a lifetime away. Then, on the morning of November 13, 2001, the Mujahidin commander was about to lead his victorious Northern Alliance forces to recapture Kabul from the Taleban.

There were no trimmed beards or birdsong in that battle. Instead, clothed in a grimy combat smock, his head wrapped in a dismal scarf, Gul sat on the wall of a shelled strongpoint on the Shamali frontline. His peg leg stuck out accusingly toward the Taleban positions — like so many Afghans he had his foot blown off by a mine. Binoculars around his neck, radio in hand, he looked like a raiding pirateer, a Makarov pistol in place of a cutlass.

“Go, go, go,” he screamed at his men as the Taleb lines broke beneath the punches of airstrike and artillery fire. “Don’t let them escape.” And from the walls beneath him thousands of Mujahidin had swept forward to fight. It was all over within 24 hours. Dawn of Kabul’s liberation day revealed dead and dying Taleban on the heights above the city, as the Mujahidin regrouped to enter the capital. “For years we had waited for that moment,” he recalled. “It was all we had wanted, and it was a great day: my finest fight. I thought at last we may have a broad-based government and peace in Afghanistan.”

His optimism was shared. It seemed at last, that after nearly a quarter century of war, Afghanistan may be about to find peace. The Taleban were finished, foreign troops welcomed, and billions of dollars assigned to reconstruct the shattered country. But after five years of squandered opportunity and missed chances, Gul is no longer sure that he has fought his last battle against the Taleban.

His Mujahidin fighters were disarmed and demobilised nearly two years ago, replaced by fledgeling units from the Afghan National Army, and technically Gul has no more command. But he sits and waits, looking at the situation with increasing doubt.

“Believe me, I haven’t closed my eyes to what is going on. I study it every day,” he said. “And I am worried. It all seems open to question again. A weak Afghan Army, weak police, governmental corruption, burning schools, enemies everywhere, instability in the provinces. Once more it feels like it is coming into our homes. Next year, if the mistakes continue, it will be even worse.”

Last month in Washington Nicholas Burns, the American Under Secretary for Political Affairs, said that the Taleban posed no strategic threat to the Kabul government. While correct in the assumption that the Taleban remain militarily weak, and that the majority of Afghans have no natural desire to see them return, Mr Burns appeared to have forgotten that the Taleban first appeared in 1994 as an apparently insignificant force of little more than a few hundred men along the Pakistan-Afghan border.

Their subsequent rise to power originated not from force of arms or rapturous popular support, but owing to the stability they offered to an exhausted population sick of corruption and tired of their criminalised local leadership.

In southern Afghanistan now, those same dynamics are in play, illuminating Gul’s fears. Foreign officials share his concerns. “Everywhere we’ve gone downhill here,” said Talatbek Masadykov, head of the UN assistance mission in Afghanistan’s southern headquarters in Kandahar.

“We’ve never improved the situation. The security issue isn’t just to do with the Taleban — it’s to do with bad, weak governance. Fifty per cent of this problem is internal. People don’t naturally want the Taleban back, not at all, but they increasingly think the Government offers them nothing but insecurity, and that though the Taleban offer them nothing either, they may perhaps give them some stability and an end to corruption.”

Pakistan bears a strong degree of responsibility in the resurrection of the Taleban, but the Kabul Government carries equal blame. Dithering and inefficient, its corruption is legendary, and the country’s leadership is riven with druglords and profiteers. Efforts to create a police force have produced an organisation regarded as predatory and cruel, not dissimilar to the bandit officialdom toppled by the Taleban.

And riding the uneasy raft of its alliance with these stained authorities, Nato is beset by problems of its own. On paper its forces may look strong, but the Italian, French, German and Turkish contingents in Afghanistan are shy of fight, reluctant to go south, and governed by their own unilateral rules of engagement prioritised by force protection concerns.

Reconstruction has taken a back seat in the deflated hopes of most Afghans. Though Kabul is a relatively stable and affluent oasis, its post-Taleban experience is shared by few other centres of population.

Kandahar still has only enough electricity for a maximum six hours in every forty-eight. Bad roads, open sewage systems, and a lack of fresh water are seen in the city as inconveniences very low down on the list of complaints. Kidnapping, banditry and police corruption rank much higher.

“When we saw the Taleban go and the foreign soldiers come we were so full of hope,” said Abdul Shakoor, a 24-year-old shopkeeper. “We were 100 per cent sure that, with the world behind it, our Government would improve our lives. But now our hopes are crushed.

“Since then, in this city we have had three different governors. None of them has done anything for us. Our problems are getting worse. Now we are not interested any more in reconstruction. We don’t need roads, schools, and buildings. All we want is peace.”

The Taleban still have a huge credibility problem. More than 4.7 million Afghan refugees have flooded back into the country from Pakistan and Iran since the Taleban’s downfall, demonstrating the strength of the remaining hopes of Afghans for a future without their ultra-fundamentalist Government. Yet the Taleban know that they have time on their side, and that it is much easier to destabilise than stabilise, and that instability brings power. Interviewed by The Times in the province of Ghazni last month, one Taleban commander, Mullah Safurrahman, made a telling remark.

“We are in no hurry,” he said. “But look at how far we have come from nothing. We’re in a guerrilla war. It isn’t a matter of two or three years. It might take us ten, even thirty-five years. Will the foreign soldiers last that long here?” Gul insists that he will join celebrations on Monday for the fifth anniversary of Kabul’s liberation, but he has reservations. “The Taleban are almost knocking on the door of Kabul. They are not so far away from us as we sit here,” he concluded, looking around the peaceful garden. “There is sometimes fighting now in districts right at the edge of this city. But if they get too close my Mujahidin will not tolerate it. We would take up our guns and fight for Kabul again. And right now it feels like we will have to.”

CHANGING TIMES

• 39 per cent of children under the age of 5 were malnourished last year
• 61 per cent relied on untreated drinking water
• 16 per cent did not survive to the age of 1
• two million girls in schooling, none under Taleban
• $21.5 billion GDP (£11.3 billion) in 2004, $0.5 billion more than under the Taleban

Pakistan: singed by its own terror tactics

By Amulya Ganguli - Telugu Portal (India) November 11, 2006

The Pakistani military and Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the state within a state as it has been called, must have realized after the suicide attack on an army camp how dangerous it is to play with fire. Yet, for decades, starting from the time of another dictator, Zia ul-Huq, Pakistan has been encouraging the fundamentalists to marginalize the mainstream political parties and to needle India with jehadi attacks.

The Afghan war gave an added impetus to these retrogressive forces by lending a spurious legitimacy to the battle against the Soviets, the atheistic infidels. Unwisely, the US went along with the Islamic radicals and was an ally of Osama bin Laden at the time.

After the Pakistani "conquest" of Afghanistan via the Taliban following the eviction of the Soviets, Islamabad turned its full attention to organising terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere in India, secure in the knowledge that Afghanistan gave it "strategic depth" in the event of a war with India.

As is known, these endeavours to bleed India with a thousands cuts went swimmingly till 9/11. After that, a reluctant Pakistan pretended to join the US war against terror on being threatened by Washington that, otherwise, it would be bombed into the stone age.

But while Pakistan's mind told it that it would be prudent to distance itself from terrorism, its heart wouldn't listen.

Since the country remained a "nursery" of terrorism, in the words of India's External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee - a charge which would be endorsed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai - it was inevitable the US would have no option but to carry out bombing raids itself on the hideouts and training camps or ask Pakistan to do so.

The attack on a madrassa (religious school) in Bajaur near the Afghanistan border might have been carried out by the Pakistani Air Force, but the militants believe that it was the Americans. In any event, they suspect America's hand behind the incident in which more than 80 people, mainly children, were killed.

The retaliatory attack by a suicide bomber on a Pakistan Army camp in Dargai, in which nearly 50 soldiers were killed, was an event waiting to happen. In the "eye for an eye" and "tooth for a tooth" world inhabited by the fundamentalists, the attack on the madrassa could not go unpunished.

Nor could it have been too difficult for the terrorists to carry out the attack because the Taliban has perceptively grown stronger in recent months, as Hamid Karzai would vouchsafe. And their success in bouncing back cannot be unrelated to the truce Islamabad concluded with the tribal leaders of Waziristan, which is Taliban country.

Arguably, the Dargai episode is the first serious terrorist attack on a Pakistani target. True, there have been several attempts on the life of President Pervez Musharraf. But he escaped unhurt, a fortunate reprieve which may have convinced him that the terrorists did not pose as much of a danger to Pakistan as they did to the rest of the world. After all, they could not afford to burn down their own "nursery", especially when US and NATO presence has made them lose their earlier sanctuary in Afghanistan.

However, the Waziristan truce must have convinced them that Islamabad can be made to yield ground because of two reasons. First, it cannot court the risk of antagonizing the religious parties, which are a force to reckon with in the northwest of the country. Secondly, Pakistan hasn't yet abandoned the use of its terrorist option against India lest the world should forget about the Kashmir "problem" if genuine peace and friendship prevail between the two countries.

The fidayeen attack in Dargai is therefore a reminder to Pakistan that it has to go much further than merely reach an agreement in Waziristan, about which the US is known to be uneasy. It has also to refrain from carrying out the kind of attack in Bajaur, where an American Predator drone is said to have detected the presence of Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

The delicately balanced double game which Pakistan has been playing, therefore, by doing little to control the anti-Indian jehadis while assuring the US that it is with it in the war against terror, is obviously running into troubled waters.

Not surprisingly, voices of reason have begun to be heard inside Pakistan as well.

Writing in Dawn, well known commentator Ayaz Amir has said that "encouraging or assisting the Taliban is not in our interest ... We should curb the cross-border movement of militant elements ... If there are training camps of any sort on our soil, we should do what we can to uproot them".

But if this wise advice falls on deaf ears in the Pakistani military and ISI, the reason is not only the adherence to fundamentalism which Zia ul-Haq encouraged among officials in these organisations but also the belief that in a nuclear age where a war is out of the question terrorism is Pakistan's only weapon against India.

If the Dargai incident sends the message about the double-edged consequences such dangerous tactics, it will have served a purpose.

In Pakistan, Recent Attacks Shred Hopes for Regional Peace Model

By Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan

Washington Post Foreign Service - Saturday, November 11, 2006

PESHAWAR, Pakistan -- Two months ago, Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, triumphantly announced a peace pact with Islamic extremists in the North Waziristan tribal district near the Afghan border, saying he hoped it would become a model for curbing domestic Islamic militancy and cross-border insurgent attacks in Afghanistan.

Today that model lies in shreds. Northwestern Pakistan's fragile political peace has been shattered by two devastating attacks: a government missile strike that killed 82 people at an Islamic school in the Bajaur tribal district on Oct. 30, and a retaliatory suicide bombing Wednesday that killed 42 army recruits at a training camp in the Malakand tribal district.

The missile strike was based on U.S. intelligence reports that the school was being used as a training site for Islamic insurgents, who have found sanctuary across the semi-autonomous tribal areas where Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figures may also be hiding. Now, officials are predicting a new wave of violence, as anti-government anger spreads and religious extremists call for holy war against the Pakistani military and Western forces fighting in Afghanistan.

"This is a disaster. We all recognize the gravity of the situation," said a senior military official in this northwestern provincial capital, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's a nightmare to have an army being attacked on its own soil and by its own people." After the two incidents, he added, "the doors to peaceful negotiated settlements are closed. I am afraid we are on a war course in the tribal areas."

Public condemnation of the missile attack has been almost universal in Pakistan. Many people say they believe it was actually carried out by a U.S. Predator drone, which witnesses described as circling overhead before Pakistani helicopter gunships arrived. U.S. and Pakistani officials have denied that.

Local leaders have also vehemently asserted that the school, run by a cleric from a banned extremist group, was used only for religious studies and that many young students were killed in the strike. No physical evidence of a training camp has been publicly produced, journalists have been barred from the site, and most of the victims' bodies were too disfigured to identify.

"This was a crime against humanity. Everyone hates America now, and they hate Musharraf for giving in to American pressure," said Bashir Ahmed, 25, a produce trader in a Peshawar market crowded with crates of bananas and pomegranates. "America is the enemy of all Muslims, but they will never defeat us, because we are all becoming al-Qaeda now, even me."

Pakistani military and intelligence officials said they had little choice but to bomb the site after they received overwhelming proof from U.S. intelligence sources that it was being used as a training center for insurgents. A refusal to act, the Pakistanis said, would have badly damaged their relations with the United States, which counts Pakistan as a key ally in the war against al-Qaeda and fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.

"They loaded us with evidence. The strike was absolutely inevitable," said a senior intelligence official, also speaking on condition of anonymity. Another official called the attack a "major test" of military and intelligence cooperation between the United States and Pakistan. "We thought about other options, but the Americans weren't ready to take any chances," he said. "We were caught between the devil and the deep sea."

Public outrage has also flared over Wednesday's suicide bombing, in which a man wrapped in a cloak strolled among army recruits exercising on a field and detonated powerful explosives, killing more Pakistani troops than any previous terrorist attack. But many Pakistanis view that bombing as a predictable response to an ill-conceived military action taken under U.S. pressure.

Ansar Abbasi, Islamabad bureau chief for the News International newspaper, called the Bajaur attack "outrageous" and argued in a column that while it might have raised Musharraf's tough-guy image in the West, it served no national interest and could only exacerbate conflict between the army and the civilian populace. "Have we not fallen into a U.S. trap?" he asked.

One political leader in Peshawar said the Bajaur site was definitely a terrorist base but that it was not "politically correct to say so" in the region. Bajaur elders had reached a peace accord similar to the Waziristan pact, he said, but the missile strike came just hours before they were to sign it. "People find this mind-boggling and impossible to understand," he said.

The Musharraf government has long been caught between conflicting domestic and international pressures. Western powers have demanded that it crack down on religious extremists and hunt down al-Qaeda fugitives, widely reported to be hiding in the semi-autonomous tribal belt. But Islamic groups are politically dominant in Pakistan's northwest, and many tribal fighters have fiercely resisted military efforts to dislodge Islamic militants from their midst.

Musharraf's recent attempt at compromise, a series of negotiated settlements with armed Islamic groups and tribal leaders, has been controversial. Critics charge that pacts in North and South Waziristan left both areas under the control of extremists who continue to export violence to Afghanistan. They say the deals were aimed only at extricating army troops from the tribal areas, where they had suffered heavy casualties and public hostility during months of fighting.

At the same time, however, the growing violence has led to urgent calls for mass tribal conflict-resolution meetings, known as jirgas. Afghan President Hamid Karzai recently proposed a series of jirgas in both countries, and the Awami National Party, which represents the ethnic Pashtuns who predominate in Pakistan's northwest, has called for a separate tribal jirga. Party leaders say the only antidote to Islamic radicalization is the ancient tribal code known as Pashtunwali, which prescribes consensual pacts to halt feuds.

"Even though Talibanization is spreading, Pashtunwali is still in people's blood," said Afrasiab Khattak, an Awami party official and human rights activist in Peshawar. "We don't want to settle scores or embarrass the government. Our only agenda is to stop this conflict from getting worse."

The dominant political group in the northwest, a religious party called Jamaat-e-Islami, responded to the Bajaur attack by staging nationwide protests. While Jamaat officially opposes terrorism and has played a responsible leadership role in provincial government for the past several years, it issued calls for jihad after the missile strike, and several key leaders resigned from their government posts or seats in parliament.

In interviews here, several Jamaat leaders echoed the current ambivalence, saying they were horrified by suicide bombings but furious at Western military interference in the region and opposed to the moderate version of Islam promoted by Musharraf.

Abdul Akbar Chitrali, a cleric and Jamaat politician who directs an Islamic academy for boys in Peshawar called the Garden of Knowledge, said he believes in spreading Islam by peaceful means. "But when someone invades you, you have no choice but to resist," he said. "The Americans and NATO have no right to occupy Afghanistan. They are the hooligans causing our problems, not the Taliban or al-Qaeda."

It may never be known whether the tiny Islamic school in Bajaur's Chingai village was a garden of knowledge or a staging ground for terrorists. A group of lawyers from Peshawar who visited the site last week said they saw no evidence of training or weapons.

What they did see was disturbing enough: a tense, angry crowd that surrounded their vehicles, shouting for holy war against the Pakistani and U.S. governments, less than a week after local leaders had been ready to sign a peace pact with the government.

"If it was a military camp, I found no sign of it. But the people were very inflamed," said Barrister Baachaa, one of the lawyers. "Bajauris are known to be quiet and not carrying guns, but the mood is becoming very militant. If Bajaur can fall into Talibanization, so can the other tribal areas, and then I fear it can spread to the settled areas, too," he said. "This has to be contained, but the way they did it in Bajaur has only made it worse." Khan reported from Karachi.

Afghan people are the key to peace: freedom fighter

BILL GRAVELAND Canadian Press

KABUL, Afghanistan — The people of Afghanistan will continue to be terrorized by the Taliban until they learn to stand together against the terrorist group, a former freedom fighter said Sunday.

And support for Canadian and NATO troops in the country is higher than critics would suggest, argued Neamat Arghandabi, leader of the National Islamic Society of Afghan Youth.

“The only thing is they're silent—they're the quiet majority because if they express their support then they're dead people,” Mr. Arghandabi said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

“Many people appreciate (Canada's) presence in Kandahar but they can't say so publicly because they're afraid. This is what terrorism is all about—to scare you off because they can come in the night and kill you because you told the media you like the Canadian presence here,” he added.

Mr. Arghandabi, now 37 and living in London, was just 16 when he joined the mujahedeen — or holy warriors — in the battle against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan. Following the Soviet retreat, many of the larger mujahedeen groups began to fight one another. After several years of fighting, a village mullah organized religious students into an armed movement which became known as the Taliban.

His group is now working with the young men of Afghanistan who are being actively recruited by the Taliban, which is always looking for new members.

“Five years ago we encouraged the youth to study in computers and then we opened a computer and English centre for them,” said Mr. Archandabi. “But now we are more engaged in how to keep people in the schools from getting recruited by the Taliban as suicide bombers.”

Although the differences between the mujahedeen and the Taliban are many, the one thing that has remained the same is the recruiting methods.

“All they're saying is there is a jihad (holy war) and there are infidels in the country. They're taking advantage of your background. They check that you're from a poor background. You don't have a job — you don't have money,” explained Mr. Arghandabi.

“There is no school for you to study so you're hanging around like any other teenager looking for trouble. They say you will go to paradise — there is nothing in this life and when they get you into the trap, they brainwash you so you don't see anything but how to die quickly and go to paradise.”

Mr. Arghandabi said another problem is that Afghanistan's youth know little about the Taliban or how harsh living under a Taliban regime can be. He is returning to his native Kandahar this week and for the next several months will continue speaking out against the Taliban — something he realizes can be dangerous.

“This is very, very risky, my friend. The Taliban are very ruthless people and they can come and kill you and they don't care how many die.”

Meanwhile, NATO forces have had their hands full with the resurgence of the Taliban, acknowledged an official with the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

“We recognized there are a good percentage of people with the Taliban and the wider insurgencies that are misguided, misled and intimidated,” said U.S. Major Luke Knittig.

“They are stronger this year but we're stronger this year too, and we realize we have to concentrate our efforts on certain areas where people can see a real effort in their lives, and that is what will make the Taliban irrelevant,” he said.

Mr. Arghandabi said despite the risks, it is time for the Afghan people to take a stand against the Taliban — and that goes for elected officials in the government of Prime Minister Hamid Karzai.

“We say why don't these people in the Parliament raise their voice against (Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad) Omar—they don't because they are scared of him.

“The Taliban don't care if 30 or 40 Afghans are killed as long as a single Canadian soldier dies.”

Afghanistan poses challenges for a more global Nato

By Arshad Mohammed – Dawn - THE United States is pushing Nato to shoulder more global burdens but the alliance's Afghan deployment illustrates the challenges of getting the 26-nation group to project its power beyond its borders.

Ahead of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's Nov 28-29 summit in Riga, US officials are making the case that Afghanistan is a model for the Western alliance to take on more security challenges around the world.

But analysts argue, and US officials acknowledge, that Nato has had trouble getting some members to send troops to the south of Afghanistan, where British, Dutch and Canadian forces are fighting a revived Taliban insurgency.

Nato's top commander called on Sept 7 for 2,000 to 2,500 more troops to go to Afghanistan. Most members of the alliance -- which has about 32,500 troops in the country, including about 11,800 US forces -- have not jumped to fill the gap, although Poland has committed to provide about 1,000 soldiers.

“Only a handful of Nato members are prepared to go to the south and east and to go robustly -- mainly the, UK, Canada, the Netherlands, Romania, Australia and Denmark,” the International Crisis Group said in a report issued this month.

“Hard questions need to be asked of those such as Germany, Spain, France, Turkey and Italy who are not,” it added.

“Obviously, there is some concern in capitals that there is, in fact, a shooting war going on,” said a US official who asked not to be named given the sensitivity of the issue.

There is a feeling of “whoa -- you guys are in an insurgency -- is that what we signed up for?” he added.

Over 3,100 people, about a third of them civilians, have died in the fighting this year, the bloodiest since US-led forces ousted the Taliban's strict Islamist government in 2001 after the Sept 11 attacks.

Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried argued the alliance should honour its commitment to Afghanistan both to help the Afghan people and to protect its members' interests.

Fried painted a nightmare scenario if the Taliban, which harboured Al Qaeda before the Sept 11 attacks, went unchecked.

“Suppose the Taliban had remained in Afghanistan and not attacked the United States on Sept 11 but strengthened their base, spread into Pakistan, spread into Central Asia ... and then attacked. How much greater would the problem have been? How much more horrible the result?” he said.

“The downside risk is real,” he said.

The Afghan deployment is part of a larger debate over how to adapt Nato -- whose original mission was protecting its members from Soviet attack -- to confront global threats.

“It's a challenge for Nato ... I concentrate on what Nato has achieved but my job is to push for more,” Fried said.

“The Bush administration is not very well positioned to make this plea because .... it has walked into a huge debacle in Iraq that is an object lesson in what could go wrong,” said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute.“The Europeans watched what happened to the Soviet forces in Afghanistan and, given how remote and backward Afghanistan is, they must be wondering whether there is any chance over the long run of changing the culture of the place,” he added.

Rand Corporation analyst Seth Jones said it typically takes 14 years to defeat an insurgency and questioned whether many Nato members would have the patience for such a deployment.

“I just have doubts that over the long run either the Dutch or the Canadians are going to be willing to stick this out over let's say a decade,” he said, saying the effort may turn out to be “Nato in name, but a coalition of the willing in the end.”

Fried said Nato's lengthy deployments in Kosovo and Bosnia showed its stamina. “I will accept that analysis of it taking a while. I have not heard anybody debate that we ought to be pulling out. The debate is how best to succeed,” he said.—Reuters

Afghanistan sliding back into chaos

Shreevatsa Nevatia - Hindustan Times November 11, 2006

Afghanistan is no stranger to harsh winters. However, the gloom that has started to set in this year over the Arg, the Presidential Palace in the Capital, is unprecedented. It threatens not only the Palace’s foremost inhabitant Hamid Karzai, but also the rest of Afghanistan.

Riding a powerful wave of resurgence in the southern and eastern provinces of the country, the Taliban has promised that “there will be no winter pause” in their attempts to regain control of Kabul. Rejecting all possibilities of peace talks, Taliban leader Mullah Omar has stated that he intends to put the President up for trial at an Islamic court for “the massacre of innocent Afghans”.

By many counts, this has been the worst of the five years of Karzai’s presidency. A recent CIA assessment has reportedly placed him effectively as the mayor of Kabul — as one who is struggling to assert his authority beyond the Capital. The report also concluded that an increasing number of Afghans are viewing his government as weak and corrupt.

Karzai has said he would not contest the next presidential elections, scheduled for 2009. But even his remaining years in office will be quite a challenge. And the implications would go far beyond the contested boundaries of his country. An Indian diplomat in Kabul puts it rather eloquently, “Problems such as corruption and poppy cultivation might be considered social, economic and cultural. But the problem of terrorism in Afghanistan is geopolitical. It has ramifications for us all.”

Growing insurgency: Black turbans fill the vacuum - The Americans took their eye off the ball. This is what some Western liberals and a majority of Afghans consider to be the primary cause for the Taliban’s resurgence. Just after the regime of black turbans fell in 2002, both Karzai and the United Nations had urged the US to expand its troops and secure the whole country. But White House refused to increase the number of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops from 4,500 to the required 25,000.

One effect of this myopia is that even the current 31,000-strong contingent of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is not being able to resist a regrouped Taliban. Moreover, its allegedly high-handed methods are helping add cadres to the insurgency.

Political analyst Hafizullah Gardish believes that the NATO/ISAF operations such as aerial bombing often resulting in civilian losses, house searches in the dead of the night, and frisking of women are all adding mass to the disgruntlement. He argues, “You mainly find Pashtuns in the southern provinces. They are a very proud tribe and strictly adhere to the pre-Islamic religious code of honour, Pashtunwali. They will not bear their women being touched or their houses being searched by foreigners. Once they lose a family member in an air raid, they become even more inclined to join the Taliban, which is also a Pashtun movement.”

However, ISAF spokesman Major Luke Knittig argues that though his forces bear the responsibility for civilian casualties, ISAF’s perceived heavy-handedness is a result of propaganda.

But there are few takers for Knittig’s line of defence. In late October, for instance, Knittig claimed that air strikes in Kandahar had claimed the lives of 38 insurgents and only 12 civilians. Residents of the area, however, said that the civilian toll was closer to 90.

So Taliban’s successful recruitment drive does not surprise taxi driver Mohammad Aslam. He says, “Karzai is not giving us enough employment opportunities.” Some 30 per cent of the population is unemployed, while another 30 per cent is estimated to be underemployed.

On the other hand, Taliban fighters are reportedly paid more than $5 a day, which is twice of what the new Afghan National Army’s 30,000 soldiers receive. Moreover, some Afghan army and police officials are believed to be extracting tolls from local populace in southern Afghanistan. This is the sort of behaviour the Taliban had ended in 1996. The vacuum of lawlessness was filled by Taliban’s draconian strictness.

The same vacuum has started forming again, making some nostalgic of a horrific past. Aziz Rahman, who is in his twelfth year of school, strokes his clean-shaven face and says, “I don’t want the Taliban to come back because then I would have to grow my beard again. But we felt safe when they were in power.”

Major Knittig argues, “They are now following hit-and-run policies and are resorting to measures like suicide attacks, both of which have a high media impact.”

The Pakistan conundrum: Love thy neighbour?  - Being a woman under the Taliban regime, it was impossible for Shukria Barak Zai to think of becoming a member of parliament. “Thinking of a parliament itself was unthinkable,” says Barak Zai, now an independent MP. With more at stake than most others, she believes that Pakistan needs to be blamed singularly for a stronger Taliban.

She says, “Pakistani madrasas continuously abuse the feelings, patriotism and sensibilities of ordinary Afghans. Feeding the Taliban has been our neighbour’s policy for long. They have never respected our policies or the constitution.”

It is now widely accepted that after their fall in 2001, Mullah Omar and his men found refuge in Pakistan’s Balochistan and North Western Frontier Provinces (NWFP). While there is no hard evidence of ISI’s or the Pakistani Army’s involvement, here is where Karzai’s accusations at Musharraf finds justification — Taliban’s main political ally in Pakistan, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, is a constituent of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal alliance, which is a part of the ruling coalition in Islamabad along with Musharraf’s Muslim League.

A recent report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) stated, “The Pakistan military government’s political survival rests upon accommodation with the very Islamist parties who continue to support the Taliban.”

Added to this, Musharraf signed a peace accord with pro-Taliban tribals in NWFP’s North Waziristan on September 5. NATO officials now concede that the ‘signing on the other side’ has resulted in increased cross-border infiltration into Afghanistan.

Joanna Nathan, ICG’s Afghanistan analyst, believes Musharraf can surely do more. She says, “Nothing has been done to reform fundamental madrasas along the Pak-Afghan border, which prove to be a ready recruiting ground for the Taliban.”

Dr Hamidullah Tarzi, advisor to the Afghan vice-president and former Cabinet minister, is of the opinion that ethnic ties across the porous Pak-Afghan border will continue to constrain peace efforts. According to him, the outcome of the recent dinner hosted by George W Bush and attended by both Karzai and Musharraf is an ideal map for the road ahead. At the dinner, the two leaders agreed to hold loya jirgas (grand councils) of Pashtun tribals in their countries.

Sceptics, however, doubt whether the format of tribal councils is effective enough a solution, especially with the Afghan government being seen increasingly as pro-India. Pakistan has for long accused India of using its consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad as bases to spread insurgency in Balochistan.

Countering such claims, Indian Ambassador to Kabul, Rakesh Sood, says, “India enjoys a very friendly relationship with Afghanistan. We also respect Afghanistan’s right to have good relations with all its neighbours. Therefore we would not, in any way, take any action that could undermine the trust.”

Kabul, five years on!

The News International 12 November 2006

KABUL: From the flocks of schoolgirls dodging traffic to Britney Spears advertising a cell phone shop, and posters of Bollywood actresses, Kabul is a changed city.

These scenes were unthinkable when the Taliban was in power and can now almost be taken for granted five years after the hardliners fled a wave of US bombs and Northern Alliance troops in the night of November 12, 2001. But much has stayed the same, like the poor power supply, or even got worse, like the corruption. And this has made the capital a bitter-sweet mix of the old and new where talk is rife that at least under the strict Taliban there was less crime and no foreign troops to trigger attacks that kill more civilians than soldiers.

There are still signs of the city that the Taliban regime abandoned after cowing an already battered population for five years: mangled roads, bombed buildings, the traffic police post from which they strung up the battered body of president Najibullah when they seized Kabul in 1996.

Today though, some women have shed the Taliban-imposed Burqa, and a handful even drive. There is always a kite in the sky and music, also banned by the religious fundamentalists, thumps out from teenagers’ rusty cars. Some residents never look back.

“I feel like I am reborn now,” says Nasreen Hashimi, 49, out buying vegetables in a market for her family. Before the Taliban took the city, ending a four-year civil war that left it in ruins, Hashimi and one of her daughters had jobs and her other three children were students. Then the fundamentalists came and stopped women from working and girls from going to school. “We all were imprisoned at home,” she says. “The only way we could live was the financial support of my brother in Canada.”

Now her children are earning money or studying and she can afford to stay at home to care for her husband, paralysed by shrapnel from the civil war. Also upbeat is bus driver Mohammad Salim, 38. “Obviously there is a big change,” he laughs as he cleans the windows of his bus, its cabin plastered with pictures of Indian actresses.

“I used to drive this same bus under Taliban. Then it was always half-empty with only bearded men with turbans and shalwar kameez as passengers.” Now at least a quarter of his seats are taken by young women from Kabul University, outside which he has parked. “There are still thousands of problems but at least today there is hope for the future,” he says.

Yet the signs of progress only lightly mask deep-rooted problems. Construction is booming but most of it is by private investors, including exiled Afghans who are not ready to return and commit themselves to their homeland, and usually take their profits away with them. Fancy new homes are going up, but most are said to be funded by drug money or corruption, while the arrival of the expatriate post-conflict crowd has led to runaway rents that are beyond the reach of most Afghans. And never since the retreat of the al-Qaeda-backed Taliban, security has been tight with roadblocks, barbed wire, patrols and soldiers on the lookout for the regular fare of suicide attacks, bombings, demonstrations or kidnappings.

“For me nothing has changed for the better,” pants 52-year-old Ghulam Ali grimly, as he struggles up a hill of mudbrick houses with a 30-litre jerry can filled with water from a hand pump strapped to his bicycle. “There was no running water or electricity under the Taliban and it is same now. The government and Western countries talk of spending billions of dollars. Where that money is, I don’t know.”

For Ali the 40,000 Nato and US-led troops trying to help the government take control have only brought fear. “There was a good thing under Taliban which was security. But now when I ride my bicycle on the road and see any military vehicle or foreigners, I get scared that they will be targeted by a bomb and I will die.”

Afghan observer says country not yet ready for repatriation of refugees

Text of report by Iranian radio from Mashhad on 11 November

[Presenter] One of the points for discussion between the Iranian president and the Afghan delegation headed by the Senate Speaker [Sebghatollah Mojaddedi who is currently in Iran along with Lower House speaker Mohammad Yunos Qanuni for a conference] was the situation of Afghan refugees in the Islamic Republic of Iran. There are reports that Iran is forcing Afghan refugees to return to their country. However, Iranian officials have said that only illegal refugees will be forced to return. To shed more light on this issue, my colleague has arranged an interview with Ms Shedah Habib, an Afghan observer living in Iran. She recently visited some Afghan provinces and assessed the programme for the return of Afghan refugees to their places of origin.

[Habib] The situation in Afghanistan is not suitable for refugees to return. Apart from security, unemployment and the lack of health and education facilities, there are other dilemmas facing returning Afghan refugees. I do not want to talk about minimal or zero health and education facilities in the country. There is also the fact that winter is approaching and finding shelter remains a challenge for refugees. The Islamic Republic of Iran should take all these factors into account and Afghan refugees should be provided with another extension. I recently visited some provinces of Afghanistan and assessed the situation for the return of refugees. Not only me but all those living in Afghanistan know that it is very difficult for refugees to return to their country at this time.

[Reporter] You know that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been hosting a large number of Afghan refugees for the last three decades now. What is the solution to this problem? I mean what measures should the government of Afghanistan take to pave the way for the repatriation of refugees to Afghanistan.

[Habib] According to a recent census by the UNHCR, in comparison with the last two years, this year there has been at least a 50 per cent drop in the repatriation of refugees from Pakistan and Iran. This shows that the situation is not appropriate for the repatriation of refugees. The government is currently mainly concerned about the deteriorating security situation in the country. They do not even have time to think about preparing for the repatriation of refugees. In fact, they do not want the refugees now as they cannot provide jobs and security for those living inside the country. This is a long-term project.

[Reporter] Speaking on behalf of Afghan refugees in Iran, what is your request to officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran?

[Habib] Afghans are really grateful to Iran for its help with the refugees over the last 30 years. Speaking on behalf of others, I would like to urge Iranian officials to secure an extension for refugees to stay in Iran for a few more months.

[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.]