In this bulletin:

• Civilians killed' in Nato raids
• NATO says Taliban using civilians as shields, as high toll feared
• STATEMENT BY THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE UN ASSISTANCE MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN ON REPORTS OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN KANDAHAR PROVINCE
• Taliban to use suicide bombers more: militiaman
• Tories criticise BBC over Taleban- BBC
• US official: Britain seeks Iraq pullout in a year to focus on Afghanistan
• Pakistan official says Afghan-specific pact with NATO to be made public
• Breeding ground of terrorism must be destroyed: Russian expert
• NATO, Afghan police seize 10 tons of pot
• MP calls for licensing of opium
• Militias impose Taliban rule on Afghan border
• A Border Affair
• Editorial: Pakistan's Sovereignty
• No Evidence of Starving Children in Afghan Refugee Camp: O'Connor
  Think tank calls for new approach in Afghanistan
• Army Identifies Six German Soldiers in Afghan Desecration Probe
• Afghan analysts pessimistic about NATO withdrawal from southern district
• Expert says crisis will continue in Afghanistan
• Editorial: Taliban in command?
• Avoiding the Violence in Afghanistan
• $94 million helps progress in Afghanistan

'Civilians killed' in Nato raids – BBC

Scores of civilians have been killed during Nato operations against Taleban fighters in southern Afghanistan, local officials and civilians say.

The Afghan Defence Ministry has launched an investigation into the reported deaths in Kandahar province. Nato said it had "credible reports" of civilian casualties but could not confirm reports of 50 dead civilians.

The alliance said 48 militants had been killed. In September it said it had routed the Taleban in the area. Nato said there had been three separate clashes this week in Kandahar province.

NATO says Taliban using civilians as shields, as high toll feared

Kabul (AFP 10.25.06) - The NATO force in Afghanistan has accused the Taliban of using civilians as human shields, as authorities scrambled to verify reports that at least 60 people were killed in military strikes.

The International Security Assistance Force said it could not say how many civilians were killed in a series of operations in the southern province of Kandahar late Tuesday, but was helping Afghan authorities to find out.

ISAF said late Wednesday that 48 Taliban were killed in three engagements, including air strikes, in Kandahar's Panjwayi area late Tuesday.

However, the chief of Panjwayi district, Niaz Mohammad Sarhadi, said he had reports that about 60 locals were killed in aerial bombing that also destroyed a number of houses.

Deputy director of Kandahar provincial council, Bismellah Afghanmal, put the figure as high as 85, but national authorities could not immediately confirm the local reports, which have in the past been exaggerated.

Asked about civilian casualties, NATO civilian representative Mark Laity said "at the moment we don't know", adding any that had occurred were deeply regretted.

ISAF took great care to avoid civilian casualties, but the Taliban were mixing themselves among residents when attacked, NATO officials told reporters in the capital, Kabul.

"With insurgents who regard the population as a form of human shield for themselves, it obviously makes life very difficult for us, but it doesn't stop us making every effort to ensure we minimise any problems," Laity said.

"We know that the public rely on us and expect us to take every care, and if they (civilians) are accidentally killed then it can affect (public) faith in us," he said.

ISAF was working with an Afghan defence ministry team that had been tasked to find out what had happened, he told reporters in Kabul.

"We are helping Afghan leaders there fly over the area to make an assessment," added ISAF spokesman Major Luke Knittig at the same briefing. The force would also attend a shura (council) being convened in the area to discuss the matter, he said.

STATEMENT BY THE SPOKESMAN FOR THE UN ASSISTANCE MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN ON REPORTS OF CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN KANDAHAR PROVINCE - Kabul, October 26, 2006

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan is very concerned by reports that a great number of civilians may have died during the conduct of military operations on Wednesday 25 October in Nangawat village of Panjwai district in Kandahar province. The United Nations has always made clear that the safety and welfare of civilians must always come first and any civilian casualties are unacceptable, without exception.

It is clearly in the interests of everyone that the facts be established regarding these events and it is imperative that a thorough investigation is carried out.

At this difficult time, the thoughts of the entire United Nations family in Afghanistan are with those who have suffered as a result of this tragedy.

Taliban to use suicide bombers more: militiaman

London (AFP) - The Taliban will increasingly resort to using suicide bombers to fight NATO troops in Afghanistan, one of the militia's members told the BBC.

Speaking to the broadcaster, the hard-line Islamist militia's official spokesman also denied accusations that the Taliban has been burning schools in the country.

"So far, you see just individual suicide attacks. But in the future, you might see us when we are six people committing attacks," Hajimullah Wahidullah, one of the Taliban's fighters, told the BBC here on Wednesday.

"Countless people have enlisted to become suicide bombers. This upsurge is the result of the pressure we are under," he said. Meanwhile, Mohammed Anif, the Taliban's spokesman, told the BBC that accusations that the militia burned schools were false.

"To destroy a school building or a hospital causes damage to the people. The mujahedin do not do anything that can cause damage to the people," he said. Anif said that those who were burning schools were the Afghan army, "to discredit the Mujahedin."

But Wahidullah disputed Anif's comments, saying that his forces were "against those schools that teach secularism."

"We do burn those schools. We are not against education. But while they burn our religious schools and our Koran, we want to stop those schools that teach girls to wear a kind of uniform that reveals their bodies," he said.

Anif also rejected suggestions that coalition forces were in Afghanistan to reconstruct the country's infrastructure.

"That's completely wrong. It's just an excuse for the British and American governments when they say they've come here to rebuild Afghanistan."

Asked why the Taliban declined to participate in democratic elections in the country, the militia's spokesman said: "America used force and attacked us, they invaded our country and occupied it. They killed our women and children. That's why the Mujahedin want to throw them out of the country."

"Democracy set up under the shadow of B-52 bombers, and elections under the shadow of F-16s is not acceptable for the Afghan nation," he said.

Tories criticise BBC over Taleban- BBC

The BBC has been criticised by the Conservative Party after it broadcast an interview with a Taleban spokesman. Dr Mahammed Anif told Newsnight that the UK and US had wanted an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan, and foreign armies would be thrown out of the country.

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said the interview was "obscene" and accused the BBC of broadcasting propaganda on behalf of Britain's enemies. The BBC said it was "entirely legitimate" to air the Taleban's views.

During the interview, with the BBC's David Loyn, other members of a Taleban group in Helmand province were also filmed vowing to fight to the death against the British troops.

In the film, broadcast on Wednesday, a Taleban fighter who gave his name as Mullah Assad Akhond said: "We see the English as our enemy since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. They are our enemies now and they were then.

"We will fight them to our death. We will not let them into our country. They can't deceive us about their propaganda that they are here for reconstruction or rebuilding this country."

Another member, Hajimullah Wahidullah, warned that the militant group planned to step up suicide bombings, which until recently had been rare in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Dr Anif - who the BBC said was giving his first broadcast interview as an official spokesman for the group - said: "Americans used force and attacked us. They invaded our country and occupied it.

"They killed our women and children. That's why mujahideen want to throw them out of the country. "Democracy set up under the shadow of B52 bombers and elections held under the shadow of F16s is not acceptable for the Afghan nation."

The spokesman also denied claims that the Taleban had burnt down many schools which they accuse of teaching children non-Islamic values.

Dr Fox said the entire interview had been "obscene". "I am disgusted that the BBC should broadcast an interview with a Taleban 'adviser' while our troops are being murdered by them," he said. "The brave men and women of our armed forces rightly feel nothing but revulsion at the BBC's actions.

"We have become used to a non-stop anti-war agenda from the BBC but broadcasting propaganda on behalf of this country's enemies - at a time when our armed forces are being killed and maimed - marks a new low."

In a statement, the BBC said: "It was entirely legitimate for BBC News to broadcast the Taleban's views.

"Reporter David Loyn made the Taleban's intention to increase suicide attacks patently clear. "BBC News also regularly reports on the British troops and have interviewed their officers and soldiers on many occasions."

Also on Newsnight, defence minister Adam Ingram was asked whether the government believed the war in Afghanistan could be won. Of course we do. There are many indications that it is being won," he said. "Our brave soldiers are bringing peace and stability to that country."

British forces have been in the country since 2001, when they took part in the US-led invasion designed to destroy the al-Qaeda terrorist network.

The Taleban was swept from power and UK troops remained in the country to assist the transitional government as part of the Nato-led International Security Assistance Force (Isaf).

UK forces are now leading Isaf in the volatile southern province of Helmand, where their duty to make the area secure for reconstruction regularly brings them into conflict with Taleban fighters.

"A lot of nervousness" about British deal in Afghanistan: US Ambassador

AFP - 10/24/2006 LONDON - The US ambassador to Afghanistan has questioned Britain 's deal to pull out of a previously insurgency-hit town, saying there is "a lot of nervousness" about it, The Daily Telegraph has reported.

British troops pulled out of the Musa Qala district in the southern Afghan province of Helmand about a week ago, following a request from war-weary residents.

"There is a lot of nervousness about who the truce was made with, who the arrangement was made with, and whether it will hold," Ronald Neumann told the newspaper in an interview in Kabul. Neumann added that the "jury is out" on whether the deal was a positive move.

International Security Assistance Force commander General David Richards said at the time that the move was a "redeployment", stressing there had been no negotiations with the Taliban militia.

It was the first time the NATO force had moved out of a district following a deal with residents, and could prove to be a model for peace in others, an alliance spokesman said.

The ambassador said the consequences of the takeover by local forces must be "rigorously tested" to ensure Musa Qala did not just morph into "a sanctuary for an area governed by the Taliban".

Neumann also said that an analysis carried out by the United States and NATO this summer indicated that local tribes in parts of Helmand were siding with the Taliban because of frustration over bad local governance.

"If you have an area that is under the Afghan government flag but is not under the actual authority of the Afghan government then you are losing in a very big way," Neumann said.

The truce, he said, "certainly shouldn't be replicated until those questions have been answered." He went on to criticise European countries with troops serving in peaceful parts of Afghanistan which refuse to allow them to join in fighting in the south of the country.

"There was a NATO decision to go to Afghanistan ... I think it is appropriate to ask all nations to respect the decision that they participated in making. Not everyone has respected that decision," he said.

Neumann declined to name which countries he was referring to. "We need more troops in the south of Afghanistan ," he said.

US official: Britain seeks Iraq pullout in a year to focus on Afghanistan

Reuters 10/25/2006 By Kristin Roberts - WASHINGTON - The British military hoped to withdraw troops from Iraq within about a year and London wanted to focus on the war in Afghanistan, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.

British officials had told U.S. counterparts the British military was "near the breaking point" due to long deployments in Iraq and weak retention of personnel, said the official, asking not to be identified.

The official's comments offered the first hint Britain's military may have a timetable for withdrawal in mind. "It's about a year, give or take a few months," the official said.

But another U.S. defense official played down the withdrawal issue, and no immediate comment was available from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government.

The official said British discussions about troop levels were part of regular, internal military reviews and that the British government had not approached senior U.S. officials with adjustment plans or timetables.

On Sunday, British Defence Secretary Des Browne said Britain was "quite far down" the road toward transferring responsibility for security in Iraq to Iraqi forces but British troops would leave only when the job was done.

About 7,200 British troops are based in southern Iraq and Blair has been U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally over Iraq.

Britain has launched a large new operation in Afghanistan this year, and commanders have acknowledged they had hoped to accelerate force reductions in Iraq.

Blair and Bush face intense pressure at home over Iraq because of the unrelenting violence.

An opinion poll published on Tuesday showed more than 60 percent of Britons want their troops to be withdrawn this year, and surveys show Bush's policy on Iraq may cost his Republican Party control of Congress in Nov. 7 elections.

A British withdrawal could put more stress on U.S. forces, already facing equipment and funding shortfalls and the possibility of repeat tours of duty in Iraq.

Britain has handed over authority to Iraqi forces for two of the four provinces in its area of responsibility in the south. (Additional reporting by Peter Graff in London)

Pakistan official says Afghan-specific pact with NATO to be made public

Text of report by Qudssia Akhlaque headlined: "Pact with NATO to be made public"; published by Pakistani newspaper Dawn website on 25 October

Islamabad, 24 October: Salient features of an Afghanistan-specific agreement that Pakistan is negotiating with the 26-member North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would be made public, well-placed government sources told Dawn on Monday [23 October].

The agreement for transit facility was requested by NATO exclusively for its peace mission in Afghanistan early this year and it has been in the works for more than six months now.

"The salient features of the agreement with NATO would definitely be made public," a senior military official told this correspondent on Tuesday.

Officials at the ministries of Foreign Affairs, Interior and Defence keeping a close watch on it also endorsed the view.

The thinking in official circles is that it would be the right move as it would address the likely concerns about it and counter unnecessary speculations in the public domain.

The draft agreement that basically relates to providing logistical support to NATO forces in Afghanistan is now in its final stages and may get the green light when the Nato chief visits Pakistan next month.

Foreign Office spokesperson Tasneem Aslam told Dawn on Tuesday that the two sides were "very close" to firming up the agreement and said Pakistan had already given its inputs on the draft proposal.

Earlier, the spokesperson had categorically stated that the transit facility would be confined to logistic support and was not for military operations.

Under the agreement with ISAF, Pakistan has been providing transit route facility to ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] into Afghanistan for lifting supplies but not for military action. The airfields in Karachi and Islamabad have been used as a transit point for logistic support and Pakistan had provided the overflight facility as well.

Notably this will be Pakistan's second agreement with NATO. Last year, Pakistan entered into the first agreement in the aftermath of the 8 October earthquake. It was for the NATO Disaster Relief Mission in Pakistan for humanitarian assistance in quake-hit areas. The arrival of 800-strong NATO relief team became a major controversy, raising concerns and questions about the real motive behind the move.

However, the NATO team left in February this year at the end of the mutually agreed 90-day period of the relief operation.

NATO'S presence in Pakistan created two "firsts" - it was the first NATO presence in Pakistan and it was the first-ever NATO relief operation in a non-NATO state.

Earlier this year, NATO was inducted as a full member of the Tripartite Commission comprising senior military and foreign ministry officials of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the United States.

Breeding ground of terrorism must be destroyed: Russian expert

IANS - 10/25/2006 - New Delhi - Likening the scourge of terrorism to the dengue fever swamping huge swathes of the country, Russia's top counter-terrorism expert says breeding grounds must be destroyed if the disease has to be stamped out.

'It won't help if doctors cure some afflicted patients or if a few mosquitoes are killed through fumigation. You have to dry up the swamps and fertile grounds that they (mosquitoes) best breed. Similarly, if terror networks are to be disabled, then one has to hit out at the areas they come from,' said A.E. Safonov, President Vladmir Putin's special representative on terrorism and transnational organised crime.

'Everyone must be wary of Islamic radicalisation and the groundswell of sympathy that terror networks have been able to generate,' Safonov told IANS in an interview.

In Delhi as part of the Indo-Russia joint working group discussions on counter-terrorism, Safonov minces no words when he says that cooperation among countries is woefully inadequate to combat the scope of the threat.

'There are double standards on the definition of a terrorist itself. There is no such thing as a good Taliban and a bad one. But what many fail to realise is the threat posed by the Al Qaeda,' he maintained.

'This network has breached boundaries, has got past security networks in countries and is now self-starting.'

In his view, the continuing theatre of war played out in Iraq and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan with the rise of the residual Taliban elements are ominous signs.

Safonov believes that several countries face 'a real and present danger' of further suicide bombings and there should be no room for complacency amongst the police and intelligence establishment.

However, Safonov's primary concern is on the issue of terror financing and his attention is immediately directed to Afghanistan, which he believes is on the verge of being declared a 'narcotics state'.

'Cartelisation is in the final stages and none of the programmes initiated by the government to stop poppy cultivation have worked. In fact, it has just had the opposite effect and has increased exponentially,' said Safonov.

'Unfortunately, President Hamid Karzai's writ has not worked. He has only expressed the will to fight drug cartels but both he and the US do not have the wherewithal to take the drug lords head on.'

This year, Russian intelligence reports indicate a bumper crop of 6,200 tonnes of opium of which 15 percent will transit through Russia for various destinations in Europe. A good part will also transit India for other destinations and Safonov says that authorities have to be vigilant and it is in this arena that cooperation is vital.

Referring to the 7/11 serial bombings in Mumbai, Safonov believes that Indian investigators had done a creditable job by cracking the case and zeroing in on the terror trail.

'India has faced terrorism much before the twin tower attacks of Sep 11, 2001. The enemy was not born on 9/11. He stood and delivered and everyone ignored the signals. That is why I stress on cooperation in every way to combat terror.'

NATO, Afghan police seize 10 tons of pot

QALAT, Afghanistan, Oct. 25 (UPI) -- NATO troops and Afghan police seized 10 tons of marijuana from a truck in the southern Zabul Province, the multinational force said Wednesday.

Police recovered the drugs at a vehicle checkpoint in the Zabul capital, Qalat, officials said. Four people in the truck were detained.

Marijuana is illegal in Afghanistan, but the government generally concentrates on fighting the trade in opium, which rose 59 percent so far this year, the Integrated Regional Information Networks reported.

Afghanistan produces more than 90 percent of the world's opium, with most of it smuggled through central Asia to Russia and Western Europe. U.S. and Afghan troops recovered more than 120 pounds of opium from a car in Farah province in western Afghanistan, NATO said Tuesday.

MP calls for licensing of opium

BBC News / Tuesday, 24 October 2006

Afghanistan's huge opium trade should be licensed as a way to undermine the Taleban, a Tory MP has suggested. Tobias Ellwood said UN licensing of poppy crops would also alleviate the world shortage of morphine and codeine.

Destroying the crops ruins livelihoods and "allows the Taleban to continually recruit disenfranchised Afghans," the Bournemouth East MP said. The UN estimates that 92% of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan, with just under 50% grown in Helmand.

Mr Ellwood said: "Until we recognise that crop eradication destroys livelihoods and allows the Taleban to continually recruit disenfranchised Afghans, we will not be able to sustain the peace long enough for reconstruction programmes to have any impact on communities."

Despite a massive programme to destroy poppies and offer help to farmers to grow alternative crops, under way for two years, the UN predicted Afghanistan's cultivation would soar by 59% this year to 92% of worldwide production.

Mr Ellwood gave the example of licensing of opium in Turkey as a model to follow. "In 1974 Turkey sought UN assistance to establish licensed cultivation of opium. "Today 600,000 people earn their living in related trade and Turkey earns $60 million (£32m) a year from exported opium.

"If Turkey can successfully make the transition from a culture of widespread unregulated poppy cultivation to a licensed, controlled system of poppy cultivation, a similar proposal should be tested in Afghanistan."

The UN says the $2.7bn (£1.44bn) drugs trade accounts for about a third of Afghanistan's economy. Mr Ellwood is shortly to visit the country, where he will meet President Hamid Karzai and government officials, British troops and international development organisations.

The MP said he was concerned about British troops, who are mainly based in Helmand, having enough military equipment, and was keen to see if Tony Blair's promise of supplying whatever they needed was being kept.

Militias impose Taliban rule on Afghan border

10/25/2006 11:57 PM | By Isambard Wilkinson, Telegraph group

Islamabad: Taliban militias in Pakistan have set up offices, introduced taxes and taken control of justice in the tribal agency of North Waziristan, where last month the government signed a peace agreement with militants.

In violation of the agreement, a Taliban shura, or council, distributed pamphlets of its policies at the weekend, while militants have begun to patrol the area's streets and have already killed numerous "American spies".

A "tax schedule" detailed how businesses are liable to pay charges to the Taliban. Trucks entering the agency will pay for a six-month pass and petrol-pump owners will have to make contributions to the council. The taxes were described as a "donation" in the pamphlet.

The deal signed by the government on September 5 stipulated that Al Qaida fighters were to be expelled from North Waziristan and pro-Taliban militants were not to run a "parallel administration" or take part in fighting against coalition forces across the border.

In return, Pakistani forces, who had been fighting local militants over the summer, withdrew from combat. The army retained the right to launch strikes in the area if militants do not adhere to the deal.

It was later discovered by Pakistani journalists that the deal was signed with wanted militants and not with tribal elders, as was officially claimed. Pakistani officials hoped the deal would empower tribal elders to control militants in their region but an estimated 120 of them have been murdered in the past year.

Following the withdrawal of the army, a power vacuum has been filled by mullahs and their long-haired, bearded, AK47-toting militants.

According to Pakistani reporters, some of the militants wear badges that read: "Appointed by the office of the Taliban, the mujahideen of the North Waziristan Agency".

Power is now in the hands of a so-called "mullahcracy" and people who President Pervez Musharraf recently dismissed as "charasi", or hashish-smoking, Taliban - thugs who use the Taliban's mantle to coerce locals.

Maulana Abdul Khaliq Haqqani, a member of North Waziristan's Taliban shura, said his followers were abiding by the pact. But he said they still offered "moral support" to those fighting in Afghanistan. "There is no doubt that we support this jihad against infidels, against these Christians who have invaded a Muslim land."

Instead of crossing from Waziristan, fighters continue to cross into Afghanistan from other areas. A fighter from North Waziristan said: "If you can't go into Afghanistan from Waziristan, you can go from other areas. There are many, many other ways to go".

Nato officials in Afghanistan said militant activity has increased 300 per cent in the border regions since the pact was signed.

Under the peace accord mediated by a council of tribal elders, militants pledged not to attack security forces and state property and to stop cross-border movement for raids in Afghanistan.

Foreign militants were to leave the area or, if they could not, they should disarm and live peacefully according to the law of the land. The government had released arrested tribesmen and had agreed not to launch any ground or air operations.

The militants also said they would not engage in any target killing of tribal elders or any other person and under the accord the writ of the state shall prevail in the region.

The peace pact was generally welcomed in the country, but fears had also been expressed that the peace deal has given a boost to the influence and standing of the local Taliban.

A Border Affair - The Wall Street Journal - COMMENTARY By BARNETT R. RUBIN October 25, 2006

It will take more than a dinner at the White House -- such as the one held for Pervez Musharraf and Hamid Karzai last month -- to overcome the longstanding antagonism between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Of course, the political clumsiness on the part of the U.S. does not begin or end there. Had we paid more attention to pre-9/11 history, we might not face a rising Taliban insurgency with sanctuary in Pakistan.

U.S., NATO and Afghan intelligence agree that the Taliban leadership's safe haven in Pakistan, especially in the city of Quetta and some tribal agencies, is essential to the insurgency's ability to exploit Afghanistan' s internal weaknesses. Gen. Musharraf admitted in Kabul on Sept. 7 that while Pakistan had worked against al Qaeda, "the focus had now shifted to the Taliban." In other words, Pakistan had theretofore done nothing to hinder them.

On Sept. 5, Gen. Musharraf's government signed an agreement in the North Waziristan tribal agency with tribal elders, local mujahadeen, Taliban and ulama (Islamic clergy), under which the Pakistani army would withdraw to bases, and the fighters would end attacks into Afghanistan. The number of such attacks, however, has tripled since the agreement.

Pakistan has never fully acted on U.S. demands to fight the Taliban, not because Gen. Musharraf is "against us" rather than "with us," but because the Pakistan army sees its interests in a regional context, not as part of the U.S. war on terror. The conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the anomalous status of Pakistan's tribal areas, the contest between Talibanization and Pashtun nationalism in the borderlands, the struggle over military control of the Pakistani state, and the refuge for terrorists along the Pakistan-Afghanista n border are all linked, as are the policies that could address these problems.

Except for the five years of Taliban rule in Kabul, Pakistan and Afghanistan have had largely hostile relations since Pakistan was created almost 60 years ago. Even under the Taliban, Afghanistan never accepted the incorporation of Pashtun and Baluch territories into Pakistan. This dispute had led Afghanistan' s monarchy to seek Soviet military aid to counter Pakistan's U.S.-aided army, and to align itself diplomatically with India.

Pakistan's military has used jihadi militants to accomplish several goals: to wage asymmetrical warfare in Kashmir and Afghanistan; to spread Islamism among Pashtuns on both sides of the border to counter Pashtun and Baluch nationalists who it feared would break up the country; and to cement its alliance with Islamist parties, whose street power intimidates and marginalizes the centrist parties that have dominated fair elections in Pakistan. The Pashtun tribal agencies (known as the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA), play a key role in this strategy: The absence of national administration or political institutions creates a space where Islamist militias can organize and train, while the Pakistani state denies responsibility for it.

Pakistan's rulers depict these tribal areas as repositories of ancient traditions, but they are actually relics of colonialism. In 1901, Lord Curzon, viceroy of India, promulgated the Frontier Crimes Regulations under which FATA is still run. The "tribal elders" of whom Gen. Musharraf speaks are not representatives of traditional society, but objects of manipulation by the government's "political agents," who wield slush funds with no accountability. Elders who oppose the Taliban are summarily executed. Such murders are so common that the term used for them, "target killings," was incorporated in English into the Urdu-language text of the Waziristan agreement. Two of these supposedly banned killings took place within a week after the agreement was signed.

Pakistan thus pursues the goal, inherited from the British Empire, of using violence and manipulation to assure that no hostile forces gain a foothold along the border, or in Afghanistan. The main force that concerns Pakistan is India, which has opened consulates in Jalalabad and Qandahar, near the Pakistan border. Pakistan charges that Indian intelligence uses agents to spy on and destabilize Pakistan, for instance by fomenting unrest in Baluchistan, where Islamabad faces the fifth insurgency since its government incorporated the area in 1947.

Gen. Musharraf's ethnic charges -- that the Afghan government is dominated by Tajiks who marginalize Pashtuns like President Karzai and the majority of his cabinet and provincial governors -- are linked to the goal of purging Afghanistan of Indian influence. By "Tajiks," Gen. Musharraf means the remaining officials (head of the intelligence agency and army chief of staff) from the Northern Alliance faction that received aid from Iran, Russia and, worst of all, India, during its resistance to the Pakistani-supported Taliban. At last month's White House dinner, President Karzai refuted these erroneous ethnic charges, while President Bush pointed out that the U.S., not India, is supporting the Afghan military and intelligence services.

This archaic border arrangement has created a space for Pakistan to allow militant parties and former intelligence agents to support the Taliban. Firm pressure to shut down the Taliban command and control must be accompanied by efforts to support democracy and civilian rule in Pakistan, which would empower the centrist and nonsectarian parties that have actually won elections in Pakistan. Democratization should be extended to the tribal areas, where political parties are now outlawed, giving radical militias a political monopoly. Several mainstream Pakistani parties have proposed such reforms.

The U.S. and Afghanistan should also recognize legitimate Pakistani concerns. The sizes of Indian consulates should be limited, and the U.S, Afghanistan and India should agree to confidence-building measures about their roles. Once Pakistan acts against Taliban sanctuaries, President Karzai should also take the courageous and politically difficult step to initiate a political dialogue in both Afghanistan and across the border over resolution of all outstanding issues, including the recognition of an open border between the two countries. In return, landlocked Afghanistan will need guaranteed access to Pakistani port facilities.

The U.S. and other NATO countries would have to act as guarantors of this process and provide aid to develop the border area, where unemployment and illiteracy facilitate recruitment to armed groups. These policies would address the roots of instability and violence in this region, and make those on both sides of the frontier genuine partners in protecting both their own security, and ours.

Mr. Rubin is director of studies and senior fellow at the Center on International Cooperation, New York University.

Editorial: Pakistan's Sovereignty

The Wall Street Journal October 25, 2006 REVIEW & OUTLOOK
 
Our finest foreign-policy minds have been abuzz lately trying explain how and why the U.S. and its NATO allies are, as a recent Newsweek International cover has it, "Losing Afghanistan." But no need for deep thoughts here: The largest part of the problem is neighboring Pakistan.

In September, the Pakistan government of Pervez Musharraf agreed to abandon its North Waziristan province -- which shares a long border with Afghanistan -- to the de facto rule of its "tribal elders" and the Taliban and mujahadeen terrorists they harbor. Since then, as Barnett Rubin observes nearby, the number of cross-border raids into Afghanistan has risen threefold.

It's true that the agreement the Pakistan government signed with these elders explicitly forbids such raids. But General Musharraf surely knew that the Taliban would not keep idle in Waziristan for long, especially since he also agreed to the release and pardon of all Taliban prisoners and the return of their confiscated weapons.

From day one in the war on terror, the Bush Administration has said it would make no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them. So far, Mr. Musharraf has earned an exception to this rule by helping to capture al Qaeda suspects early on, and then by pleading that his government cannot control its unruly tribal areas. But then he cannot also refuse to allow NATO troops and U.S. Predator missiles to do the job for him.

We don't know what General Musharraf promised President Bush and Afghan President Hamid Karzai during their recent conclave in the White House. But we hope it was more tangible cooperation than we have been seeing of late. Sovereignty has responsibilities, and General Musharraf is not exercising them.

No Evidence of Starving Children in Afghan Refugee Camp: O'Connor
Josh Pringle - Thursday, October 26, 2006 CFRA

Canada's Defence Minister says there's no evidence to support allegations Afghan children are starving in a refugee camp near Kandahar. Gordon O'Connor says he's spoken to Canadian commanders about the report of starving children in a camp 15 minutes away from a major military base.

O'Connor says it's possible there may be a small group of people, near the main airfield or the provincial reconstruction base, who need help. Since Operation Medusa wrapped up, there have been a number of refugees forced to flee to the city.

Think tank calls for new approach in Afghanistan

CTV, Canada - 10/25/2006 - "Approximately one dollar in aid is spent for every nine dollars on combat..."

An international think tank wants Canada to maintain but refocus its commitment to Afghanistan, as the NDP again called for the Conservative government to rethink the mission.

"The mission in Afghanistan is fundamentally unbalanced," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday in Parliament's question period.

"Approximately one dollar in aid is spent for every nine dollars on combat ... will the prime minister heed the calls of Canadians, including more and more military families, and rethink this mission?"

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the country's efforts in Afghanistan are multi-faceted.

"Obviously, there remain important security challenges in southern Afghanistan. Those security challenges are the very things that are threatening the well-being and economic development and social development of the people of Afghanistan," he said.

"Which is why we're making sure we can promote security in that part of the country so we can promote development and help the people with the very real challenges that the leader of the NDP mentions."

A paper written by the Senlis Council argues that Canada should be very concerned about the Taliban and al Qaeda's return to Afghanistan -- for Canada's security, if not the Afghan people themselves.

Norine MacDonald, the Canadian who founded the think tank, described Kandahar province as "a complete war zone." She is the lead field researcher in Kandahar province, which is the Taliban's heartland.

More troublingly, MacDonald said the Taliban there are winning both the military conflict and the battle for hearts and minds of Afghans. "If we don't change our policy right now ... drastically, we will suffer more losses and we will lose southern Afghanistan," she said.

Having Canada pull out now would make it complicit in a crime against humanity, she said. In addition, the international community would be "making a gift to al Qaeda of a geopolitical home for terrorist extremism" if it pulls out before stabilizing Afghanistan. The report was actually written in June but released at a symposium in Ottawa on Tuesday.

Controversial policy prescriptions - While she thinks the international community must stay, MacDonald said Canada needs to develop a different military strategy than the one used by the United States in Afghanistan.

"The U.S.-led international community's narrow, homeland security interpretation of security has misdirected urgent development funds towards physical security-related objectives, to the extent that military spending outpaces development and reconstruction spending by a colossal 900 per cent."

Her report includes a chart showing that total military expenditures in Afghanistan were US$82.5 billion between 2002 and 2006. In comparison, development spending totaled US$7.3 billion over that period.

Afghans see foreigners as putting their own security needs ahead of those of Afghans, it said.

"The heavy-handed tactics the international military forces have used to pursue this 'security' has led to severe disillusionment with the international community, and a widespread and deepening distrust of the western world."

Focusing on security and counter-narcotics polices while ignoring extreme poverty is destroying nation-building efforts and aiding the Taliban's revival, it said.

"Our Military base in Kandahar has a Burger King and a Tim Hortons. And 15 minutes away, there are children dying of starvation," said MacDonald.

Some of the policy prescriptions include controversial recommendations like allowing a poppy-licensing system in Afghanistan to grow poppies for the production of pain-killing medications for developing countries.

Opium poppy production, on an acreage basis, increased by 59 per cent, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime's 2006 survey. Afghanistan provides 92 per cent of the world's opium supply. The 6,100 tonnes of opium is estimated to be worth more than US$50 billion annually.

Brian MacDonald, of the Conference of Defence Associations, said there likely wouldn't be enough incentive for Afghan farmers to participate.

"Mind you,'' he wrote in response to the Senlis paper, "it would only cost about $760 million a year to meet the druglord price, which might well be a bargain.

"On the other hand, the druglords might have a different view of the Senlis buyers and the potential loss of their US $2.3-billion-per-year revenue stream.''  

MacDonald endorsed the hardline approach of Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime. Costa wants the Afghan Army and NATO troops to attack the opium trade.

"In the turbulent southern region,'' Costa said, "counter-insurgency and counter-narcotics efforts must reinforce each other so as to stop the vicious circle of drugs funding terrorists and terrorists protecting drug traffickers.''

In a related story, the UN and Afghan government warned Monday that nearly two million people in southern Afghanistan will need food aid this winter because of drought.

Part of the food shortage is also being blamed on the fighting and the cultivation of opium instead of food crops.

With a report by CTV's Roger Smith and files from The Canadian Press

Army Identifies Six German Soldiers in Afghan Desecration Probe

By Claudia Rach - Oct. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The German army has identified six soldiers, who were involved in the desecration of human remains while serving in Afghanistan in 2003, Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said.

The army yesterday started a probe after Germany's biggest- selling newspaper Bild published five photos, one of which showed a skull attached to a military vehicle while another showed a soldier baring his penis next to a skull. They were taken by members of a German patrol near Kabul and the origins of the remains are unknown.

``Four aren't members of the army anymore, the other two will have to face the consequences,'' Jung said in an interview with ZDF television late last night.

Germany has 2,730 troops attached to the United Nations ISAF mission in the north of Afghanistan. The photos prompted a public outcry and stirred concern that troops still stationed there may loose their credibility and become the target of attacks.

They also raised the question of leadership and preparation of Germany's troops in Afghanistan as its allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Afghan analysts pessimistic about NATO withdrawal from southern district

Text of report by Afghan independent Tolo TV on 25 October - [Presenter] A number of analysts say that the security crisis in Afghanistan has reached a point in which no one can predict what is going to happen next.

They say the withdrawal of the NATO forces from Musa Qala District, Helmand Province, has prepared the ground for further activities of armed insurgent fighters.

[Correspondent] Analysts believe the lack of coordination between the Afghan and NATO forces, and hasty decisions made by the NATO troops without consultation of the Afghan authorities, has given rise to insurgent activities.

[Musa Fariwar, political analyst] The NATO forces are looking for their own special goals. They have not developed the necessary coordination with the Afghan armed forces and other policy-making departments of the government of Afghanistan.

[Sher Mohammad Barzgar, political analyst] I believe the withdrawal of the NATO forces can offer no guarantee for the future. The move would actually further encourage insurgent fighters.

[Correspondent] Insurgency has increased in several provinces of Afghanistan, even in the capital, over the past one year. Afghan government authorities still stress that terrorists enter Afghanistan from the other side of the [Pakistani] border. They describe Pakistan as a hideout for terrorists. This has caused a war of words between the presidents of the two countries.

The establishment of jergas [councils] involving tribal elders from both sides of the border is currently a hot topic of discussion, attracting everyone's attention.

Afghan authorities are looking forward to positive results from the jerga meetings.

[Sher Mohammad Barzgar] Terrorism and interferences by the government of Pakistan are the main causes of disaster and destruction in Afghanistan, not the brotherly people living on the other side of the border. The government of Pakistan and the ISI intelligence services have spread their roots among the people living on the Pakistani side of the border.

I therefore believe the delegation assigned to represent the people from the Pakistani side of the border would follow and raise policies developed by the ISI and the Pakistani leaders.

Expert says crisis will continue in Afghanistan

Aspen Times - 10/25/2006 By Charles Agar - "Without a quick turnaround, we will have another Iraq"

While in Aspen for a radio interview, Afghanistan expert James Ritchie said Tuesday that the prognosis there is bad barring major changes in U.S. policy. "There is no government in Afghanistan. It is a failed state," Ritchie said, warning that the Taliban will eventually return to power.

"Loya Jirga is the only thing that will bring stability to the country," Ritchie said of the national meeting of local and regional councils. He said that the U.S. must hand power to local and town councils, called "shura," which report to regional "jurga" before the nationwide Loya Jurga. Without that community mandate in traditionally tribal Afghanistan, the corruption will only get worse, he said.

Ritchie spends roughly a third of his time in Afghanistan, running the International Foundation of Hope nonprofit. He spent four years of his childhood in Afghanistan - his father was a civil engineering professor - and returned in the mid-70s as a student, and again in 1994. A former commodities trader, Ritchie owns fruit groves in Washington state, but calls Meeker his home (he owns the Meeker Hotel).

Since the 1980s, when the U.S. government funneled millions of dollars to Afghan warlords - some of whom were later implicated in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - the U.S. has only fueled conflict there, Ritchie said.

Ritchie talked with "anyone who would listen" in the years before 9/11, but his pleas fell on deaf ears, he said. His group gave members of Congress two DVDs about the Afghan government in the late '90s. Then, in December 2000, Ritchie brought a panel of Afghan dignitaries, including Hamid Karzai (now the president) to Washington to plead the case for building a new government peacefully, but to no avail.

The current security situation in Afghanistan is getting worse and worse, he said. Ritchie's nonprofit has succeeded where big government has failed, he said. The British tried to pay farmers to stop growing opium, but production doubled. Ritchie's group, working with limited funding, cooperated with local councils in the eastern province of Nangarhar to decrease opium production by 96 percent, he said.

"We spend about a billion dollars a month just to be there," Ritchie said. "And what we spend we waste." "We create the problem," Ritchie said, adding that the only solution is to work with local councils. He said the problem "gets more and more unfixable every day." Without a quick turnaround, he said, we will have another Iraq.

Editorial: Taliban in command?
Dawn 26 Oct 06 editorial (Pakistan)

EMBOLDENED, it seems, by the September 5 accord with the government, militants in North Waziristan are now institutionalising their authority over the tribal agency. There is now at least one Taliban ‘office’ in Miramshah, the regional headquarters, and there is no doubt as to who is calling the shots in terms of administration. The militants’ jurisdiction has lately been formalised by the Taliban council of advisers, with a clearly defined territory in and around Miramshah demarcated as an “area of operations” where criminal activities are banned. Here it is the Taliban, not the political administration, who will lay down the law for crimes ranging from theft to murder. Punishment is to be meted out in accordance with the Taliban’s peculiar interpretation of the Shariat, not the state law applicable to the tribal areas. Penalties include execution, imprisonment and fines. Taxes in the form of involuntary ‘donations’ have been imposed on petrol pumps as well as trucks entering the agency. The ragtag Khasadar force, meanwhile, is a mere bystander, unable to intervene in the affairs of the Taliban. With a parallel administration, judiciary, prison system and taxation regime taking shape, the writ of the state is conspicuous only by its absence.

The Taliban’s clampdown on ‘crime’ notwithstanding, these disturbing developments do not bode well for peace and stability in the region. They also appear to substantiate allegations that the September 5 agreement was, first and foremost, meant to guarantee that the militants would not attack the armed forces, and vice versa. Indeed, it is only this aspect of the deal that seems to hold the ground. As for the accord’s other clauses, no system has been put in place to monitor the conduct of foreign militants, nor — if Nato officials are to be believed — has there been any let-up in cross-border movement into Afghanistan. On this side of the Durand Line, ‘spies’ continue to be assassinated by the militants, in clear violation of the clause prohibiting targeted killings. This emergence of a state within a state needs to be looked into and checked forthwith. Since independence, the politics of expediency has prevented the integration of the tribal areas into the national mainstream. Historical mistakes must be rectified, not repeated.

Avoiding the Violence in Afghanistan

Der Spiegel 10/25/2006 By Joshua Gallu - Southern Afghanistan is in trouble. But what can NATO do about it? With commanders in the field in need of support, Germany prefers staying in the relatively secure northern part of the country. Criticism is growing louder.

What to do about Afghanistan? On the one hand, the 37 countries taking part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's mission in the country remain in the country trying to secure democracy and provide Afghanis with a future. On the other, fighting is on the rise -- as are tensions within the alliance. Some countries feel they are shouldering a disproportionate share of the war's risk and lethality.

It's not a difficult conclusion to arrive at. Countries like Canada, the Netherlands, Britain and the US have faced a fierce and rejuvenated Taliban in Afghanistan's southern provinces, while other countries -- like Germany -- have avoided conflict by staying in the relatively stable northern provinces.

Those in the firing lines are becoming increasingly unhappy with this state of affairs. NATO countries holding the southern part of the country have recently stepped up diplomatic pressure on their allies reluctant to put themselves more in harms way than they already are.

"We're pushing hard for as many allies as possible to lift the caveats on their forces and to be as flexible as they can," US Ambassador to NATO Victoria Nuland told SPIEGEL ONLINE. She said the moment was especially ripe given the upcoming NATO summit scheduled for late November in Riga, Latvia.

US Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, in Berlin on Monday for a defense conference, was more specific: "Wouldn't it be better if Germany and France ... could be willing to have those troops sent sometimes on a periodic, temporary basis to help the Dutch, British, US and Canadians that are undertaking the major share of fighting?" he asked.

Even Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay entered the fray last week by saying more was needed from certain allies in the dangerous Kandahar region.

"We're calling upon the other NATO countries inside Afghanistan to similarly volunteer and participate in this difficult part of the mission where we are making progress," MacKay said in Ottawa in a speech to some 80 foreign diplomats, including many heads of mission from NATO countries.

The fighting in southern Afghanistan has steadily increased throughout this year, making it by far the most deadly since the invasion in late 2001. Canada, which commands NATO operations in the south, has lost 34 soldiers this year alone -- an overwhelming majority of the total of 42 lost since 2002. Only the US, with 282 deaths, has lost more.

Yet even as diplomatic pressure mounts, it may not, for Germany at least, be quite so simple. Sending German soldiers to participate in Operation Enduring Freedom was -- despite a sense of urgency following the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks -- a controversial issue. Caveats were included to prevent German troops from engaging in combat outside the areas of Afghanistan they are responsible for securing. Indeed, the German mandate sees its 3,000 troops more as a peacekeeping unit than as a combat force.

And any change to that mandate has likely just become more politically untenable. The tabloid Bild Zeitung on Wednesday published five photos disturbingly reminiscent of Abu Ghraib showing German soldiers playing with a skull found near Kabul. Allegations that German special forces may have abused Murat Kurnaz, a victim of the US practice of extraordinary rendition, in an Afghani prison have also been on front pages recently.

In other words, try as the German army might to reinforce the image of the friendly Bundeswehr soldier helping the helpless in poverty-stricken Afghanistan, real life seems to be getting in the way.

Up until now, keeping troops in Afghanistan incurred few political costs for the government. Indeed, the mission was extended for another year in late September. The caveats, though, remained in place -- hardly the message NATO wanted to hear as the Riga Summit approaches.

"The hope is that everybody will look at the way they're arrayed," says Nuland, "and the Riga summit will give energy to all (heads of government) to go back and continue to make the case to their publics and to their parliaments to do as much as they can. We just want to keep making NATO stronger and stronger and getting every ally to do as much as they can."

Germans would argue that they already are doing all they can. Not only do Germans have troops committed to hotspots around the world, but those in Afghanistan are responsible for huge swathes of the north. "The north is extremely important, and they do it well," Nuland praises.

Plus, as Stephan Bierling, professor of international politics at Regensburg University, argues, "German politicians and the German public believe that security has only a financial price and that participation in multinational operations is a value in itself."

On the ground in Afghanistan, though, the point of view is slightly different. There have been more attacks against NATO forces this year than any other since the 2001 US invasion. And opium production now accounts for some 60 percent of Afghanistan's gross domestic product, according to an estimate earlier this month by Supreme Allied Commander US General James Jones. The Taliban, he indicated, weren't shy about profiting from the drug trade. "We're losing ground and it bothers me," he said.

Other military leaders in the country have pointed to the caveats as being partially responsible for the loss of ground. Indeed, even as ISAF commanders have some 31,000 troops at their disposal, they are limited in their ability to move them around as necessary.

"Wouldn't it be better if our NATO commanders had the ability to shift troops from the north or west to help where our offensive is underway in the south and east?" Burns asked on Monday. "That is currently not possible because unfortunately so many of our NATO countries have put restrictions on the use of their military forces."

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has backed calls by General Jones to send up to 2,500 more troops to the troubled south. But NATO and its allies have not managed to get some governments reluctant to enter the Kandahar region to step forward. The Secretary General did applaud the additional almost 1,000 Polish troops and several hundred Danes, Czechs and Romanians that have either recently gone or are currently making their way there. "Many nations have stepped up to the plate," he said.

$94 million helps progress in Afghanistan

KABUL , Afghanistan – The United States awarded $94 million on Oct. 19 to seven Afghan firms to build or improve road and water distribution systems in six Afghan provinces.

The funds will help build more than 390 kilometers of roads in Kandahar , Uruzgan, Nuristan , Kunar, Paktika and Ghazni provinces and establish water distribution systems in Bamyan and Kunar provinces.

The new construction funds were awarded under the Commander’s Emergency Response Program, a U.S. program to fund projects that are of urgent need.

“Overall, roads are what provide the foundation for continued growth and prosperity in Afghanistan ,” said Lt. Gen. Karl W. Eikenberry, commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan.

Eikenberry, along with Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, the U.S. Army chief of engineers and commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Col. William E. Bulen, Commander of the USACE Afghanistan Engineer District, were all present for a CERP partnership signing ceremony with representatives from the selected construction firms.

The companies that were awarded 12 contracts are: Afghan Builders Consortium; Al-Watan Construction Company; AMERIFA; Kainaat Construction Logistics and Trade Company; Pro Sima International; Tatekan and Afghan Bakhter Companies; and Zurmat Construction Company.

“Afghan firms have stepped up to the plate as they foster their nation’s engineering capacity by submitting proposals on projects that will help rebuild their country,” said Strock.

More than 80 percent of the work done on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in Afghanistan is performed by Afghans.

[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.]