In this bulletin:

• Korean hostage crisis - Afghan governor blames Pakistan
• Taliban seeks neutral venue for hostage talks
• Afghan airstrikes kill ‘100’ Taliban
• US assistance to drop by more than half next year
• Tribal elders threaten to boycott Pak-Afghan jirga
• Karzai to meet with Bush amid crises
• Pakistan blamed for hostage crisis
• US sees uphill fight against Afghan opium
• Tribal elders boycott jirga
• PESHAWAR: Rehabilitation of repatriated Afghans stressed
• PESHAWAR: Inclusion of Taliban in jirga sought
• Musharraf, Karzai to attend Joint Jirga in Kabul
• Tribesmen refuse to attend jirga
• Two arrested in Gardez
• Inclusion of Taliban in peace jirga demanded Umair Muhammadzai
• Few civilian deaths from Afghan bombing: Officials
• ‘I don’t want one Afghan to die for me’
• Pakistan: 'Economic Development' Needed To Fight Taliban
• Campaign Memo: "Barack Obama Was Right"
• Afghanistan Under fire
• Brown courts Ashdown to be Afghan overlord

Korean hostage crisis - Afghan governor blames Pakistan

The News, Sunday August 5, 2007

GHAZNI: The governor of the Afghan province where Taliban militants took 23 South Koreans hostage accused Pakistani Taliban working with Pakistani intelligence agents of holding them captive.

“In the beginning it was the local Taliban, but after a few days, Pakistani Taliban and ISI officers disguised as Taliban arrived in the region and they took control of the situation,” Ghazni Governor Merajuddin Pattan told Reuters in an interview on Saturday.

Afghan officials often accuse Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) of secretly supporting and harbouring Taliban insurgents. Pakistan strongly denies the charge. Pakistani officials were not immediately available for comment on Pattan’s accusation, which could spark another downturn in relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, both frontline allies of the United States. Afghan President Hamid Karzai was due in the United States on Sunday and Monday for talks with President George W. Bush.

Taliban militants seized 23 Korean church volunteers from a bus in Ghazni province on the main road south from Kabul on July 20. The kidnappers have shot dead two male hostages after Kabul refused to give in to their demand and free Taliban prisoners.

Pattan, a soft-spoken U.S.-educated economist, has been closely involved in talks between the Taliban kidnappers and an Afghan negotiating team sent from Kabul.

He said that during one telephone conversation, he had heard one of the kidnappers translating from Pashto to Urdu, Pakistan’s national language. He also noted that the kidnappers had stopped setting deadlines since South Korean presidential envoy Baek Jong-chun travelled to Islamabad on Thursday to ask Pakistan’s government and Islamist political leaders such as Fazal-ur-Rehman to use their influence to obtain the hostages’ release.

“I spoke to the Korean diplomats and I told them that if you want this problem to be ended very soon, please put pressure on Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, they will put pressure on the ISI,” Pattan said. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf this week, asking for help to free the hostages.

Ban “was told that Pakistan had no links with the Taliban, no contacts,” a spokesman for Musharraf said. Pattan accused ISI of trying to show Afghanistan was weak and use the hostage crisis to overshadow a Jirga between Afghan and Pakistani tribal elders next week that aims to find common ways to combat the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Taliban seeks neutral venue for hostage talks

GHAZNI, Afghanistan: Afghanistan’s Taliban was holding out on Saturday for a neutral venue for talks with South Korea over the fate of 21 hostages they are threatening to kill. The al-Qaeda-backed militants, who are demanding that some of their men are freed from jail in exchange for the captives, have agreed to talks with the South Koreans, but are refusing to meet them in government-controlled territory.

The South Korean aid workers, most of whom are female, are said to be ill after being held for more than two weeks in sweltering southern Afghanistan. Two are said to be in a serious condition, but the hardliners on Friday refused to allow an Afghan medical team access to them.

The dragging crisis was set to overshadow talks beginning on Sunday in the United States between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his US counterpart George W Bush.

South Korea is pressing the US to intervene in the crisis and has sent eight senior legislators to Washington to rally international support for its efforts to save the Christian aid workers. Two of the group have already been killed. The rebels say they have been in regular contact with South Korea, which has told them it is doing what it can to pressure Afghanistan and the US to drop their objections to a prisoner exchange.

They told us that they are in negotiations with the Afghan and American governments to convince them to free Taliban prisoners in exchange for the South Korean hostages, Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP on Friday.

The Taliban would agree to talks if they were held in areas that the rebels control, in another country or under a UN guarantee of a safe return for its negotiators, he said.

The hardliners said after the latest deadline expired on Wednesday they had not killed any more hostages, as they waited for direct talks with the South Korean delegation.

Seoul has however made it clear it has little room for manoeuvre. The Korean

government is not in a position to give a direct answer to the Taliban’s demand that its prisoners be swapped for Korean hostages, presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-Seon said on Friday.

Afghan airstrikes kill ‘100’ Taliban

Kabul, Aug. 4: The Afghan government said on Saturday it believed more than 100 Taliban may have been killed in an airstrike in the south of the country and did not rule out civilian casualties.

But General Mohammad Zahir Azimi, a defence ministry spokesperson, rejected some media reports that scores of civilians were killed or wounded in the United States-led coalition strike on Thursday in Helmand province.

Mr Azimi said it was unclear how many people had been killed in the attack on a large gathering of Taliban. "But the enemy casualty is very high," he told a press conference in the capital, Kabul. "There might be more than 100 killed."

Hospitals in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand, and in the nearby city of Kandahar, said on Friday that nearly 40 civilians had been brought in for treatment. But Mr Azimi questioned this figure, saying, "Even if there were civilians, there were very few of them. Their number would not reach 10."

He added, "How can you distinguish when someone is a civilian or not? When he has his gun laid on the ground, he’s a civilian but when he has it on his shoulder, he is not?" The area had been under aerial surveillance for more than 24 hours before the strike, Mr Azimi said. (AFP)

US assistance to drop by more than half next year

Pajhwok - 08/04/2007 By Lalit K. Jha

NEW YORK - The financial assistance from the United States to Afghanistan is likely to drop from the existing $10.1 billion to $4.7 in 2008.

US' Additional Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher said 2007 was an exceptional year as such a high aid was given to kick-off certain crucial projects and developmental activities in this war-torn country.

"This year (2007) is a jump-start to get a number of very important and big programmes, particularly police and military training, started," he told reporters.

"The amount in 2006 was about $3.3 billion, and then in 2007, because of the supplemental, we're up to $10.1 billion. So even when we drop back in 2008 to $4.7 billion, we're still 50 percent higher," Boucher elaborated.

Defending the decision of the Bush Administration, Boucher said the increase during 2007 was supplemental and that was intentionally designed to step up the efforts and make funds available for major increase, particularly in training of police and Afghan military.

Tribal elders threaten to boycott Pak-Afghan jirga

By Iqbal Khattak - Daily Times, Sunday August 5, 2007

PESHAWAR: Tribal elder Malik Mamoor Khan told Daily Times after meeting NWFP Governor Ali Jan Orakzai on Saturday that no elders would participate in the Pak-Afghan jirga starting from August 9 in Kabul if security forces were not withdrawn from all checkposts in North Waziristan. The Ahmedzai Wazir tribes in

South Waziristan have already boycotted the jirga, stating that it was useless to talk to Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the presence of “US occupational forces” in Afghanistan. “We cannot stop fighting in our own area, how can we do it for Afghanistan?”

Malik argued. The government was told about the boycott, he said, but denied that the boycott was a result of “Taliban threats”. Around 50 delegates from North and South Waziristan were nominated for the 700-strong jirga. It will be inaugurated by President Pervez Musharraf and President Hamid Karzai and

will take up a seven-point agenda, with decisions to be implemented by a permanent commission at the end.

Akhtar Amin adds: Participants at a national jirga organised by the Pakistan NGOs Forum said that the Pak-Afghan Jirga would fail without the participation of Taliban representatives, and unless Pakistan stopped “interfering in Afghanistan’s internal matters”. “The Pak-Afghan jirga is not independent, nor does it have sufficient representatives,” they said.

Karzai to meet with Bush amid crises

Daily Times Monitor LAHORE: Afghan president Hamid Karzai is preparing for a twoday meeting with President Bush at Camp David starting on Sunday while his government is facing pressures over how to secure the release of the 21 surviving South Korean hostages, combat the Taliban insurgency and rein in Afghanistan’s opium poppy trade, reports Pamela Constable for the Washington Post.

According to the report, Bush administration officials have described the meeting as a private “strategy session” between partners and a chance to reiterate unwavering US support for Karzai’s government. The most urgent issue is that of the Taliban. It’s recent kidnapping of 23 Korean church volunteers

shows how the insurgency is getting closer to driving out foreign troops and restoring strict Islamic rule, according to Constable.

She writes that Karzai prefers to negotiate his way out of problems. Many Afghans also support a negotiated peace with insurgents. But, she adds, US officials reject this approach, especially in hostage situations.

According to the report, the Taliban have made their presence known in “widening swaths” in recent months. “The government has lost the confidence of our people, and the Taliban are getting more powerful,” said Roshanak Wardak, a rural obstetrician and parliamentarian from Wardak, a poor region currently plagued by the Taliban. US diplomats and analysts have also repeatedly

expressed concern about Karzai’s government having a stronger presence outside Kabul by providing better services and security in poor areas that are vulnerable to the Taliban. State Department officials said Karzai and Bush would discuss the need to assert central authority in rural areas. Much of the US military’s emphasis, however, remains on killing or capturing insurgents and American military officials are sceptical of efforts to negotiate with the Taliban. However, Constable adds that such pursuits have produced the problem of civilian casualties, mostly in bombing raids. The deaths have inflamed public opinion, turned many Afghans against the foreign forces and further

strained Karzai’s credibility. The third issue in which Karzai faces

contradictory pressures is how to stop the spread of opium poppy cultivation and trafficking. The Bush administration, which largely ignored the poppy problem for several years, is now extremely worried about the trade’s role in helping the new Taliban.

Richard Boucher, the senior State Department official for South Asia, said this week that, “the tie between insecurity and poppy production is more and more clear”.

But, according to the report, US and Afghan officials differ on the solution. The US endorses aggressive eradication along with alternative agricultural programs and better law enforcement.

But Karzai has rejected such plans after threats of revolts by farmers and public opposition. Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit Executive Director Paul Fishstein said eradicating crops would alienate the farmers from the government and completely obliterate any chance of winning the hearts of the

Afghanis.

Pakistan blamed for hostage crisis

GHAZNI: The governor of the Afghan province where Taliban militants took 23 South Koreans hostage accused “Pakistani Taliban working with Pakistani intelligence agents” of holding them captive.

“In the beginning it was the local Taliban, but after a few days, Pakistani Taliban and ISI officers disguised as Taliban arrived in the region and they took control of the situation,” Ghazni Governor Merajuddin Pattan told Reuters in an interview on Saturday. He said that during one telephone conversation, he

had heard one of the kidnappers translating from Pashto to Urdu.

He also noted that the kidnappers had stopped setting deadlines since South Korean presidential envoy Baek Jong-chun traveled to Islamabad on Thursday. Reuters

US sees uphill fight against Afghan opium

WASHINGTON: US goals for eradicating opium poppies in Afghanistan, where it has been resurgent in Taliban-ruled areas, are unrealistic and this year’s crop may exceed that of 2006, a government report said on Friday. The $420 million spent by US government agencies on poppy eradication in the war-torn country in 2006 was “dwarfed by the roughly $38 billion ‘street value’ if the entire Afghan poppy crop were converted to heroin,” it said. The report by State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard said initial US eradication goals for 2007 in

Afghanistan, the source of about 90 percent of the world’s opium, were “not realistic.” The Taliban drastically reduced poppy growing throughout the country in the years before it was ousted by the US-led 2001 invasion for harboring al Qaeda militants. But in recent years poppy growth has increased dramatically, especially in southern provinces where the Taliban has

encouraged the profitable crop. Reuters

Tribal elders boycott jirga

Dawn, Sunday August 5, 2007, briefing By Zulfiqar Ali

PESHAWAR: Tribal elders from North and South Waziristan Agencies, who were nominated on the Pakistan-Afghanistan grand jirga, on Saturday boycotted a briefing here at the Governor’s House and left the premises.

They said: “When our own houses are not safe, how can we extinguish fire

in others’ houses.” Rustum Shah Mohamand, a former ambassador to Kabul,

briefed members of the jirga about the agenda and other engagements in

Kabul on Aug 9.

Malik Alamzeb Dawar, a jirga member from the North Waziristan agency,

told journalists outside the Governor’s House that “how we can help restore

peace in Afghanistan when our own land and people are not safe in

Waziristan. Our first priority is to put our house in order.”

About 40 nominees from both agencies boycotted the briefing. Apart from

tribal elders, six MNAs and senators, including Noorul Haq Qadri, Senator

Habibullah and Hafiz Abdul Malik from Fata also boycotted the briefing

because they had reservations about the nomination of the members on the

jirga. MNA Khalilur Rehman said that why Taliban had not been included in

the jirga process. He said that they disagreed with the nomination process.

Rustam Shah Mohamand, while briefing the members of the jirga, said that

they were not optimistic about the joint jirga because it had a limited role to

resolve disputes among small tribes. He said that the prevailing situation

across the border was internal affair of Afghanistan.

He said that he would submit and provide some proposal to establish peace

and eradicate terrorism. For this purpose, he said, the Pakistan delegation

would propose to establish peace committees in areas along both sides of the

border. He said the Pakistani delegation would also propose to engage

traders from Pakistan and Afghanistan to initiate economic activities in the

border area.

He said that there was a suggestion to form a commission comprising elders

from both sides of the border to hold negotiations between parliament and

the Karzai government. He said that he could also propose deployment of

the forces from Muslim countries.

PPI adds: Mr Mohamand said the inaugural session would be addressed by

President Gen Pervez Musharraf and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. He

said that seven jirga working committees would be formed to deliberate

upon different issues and submit recommendations to Mr Aftab Ahmad

Khan Sherpao, chairman of the executive committee of jirga.

He said that a permanent jirga commission would also be formed to oversee

decisions of jirga and ensure its implementation.

PESHAWAR: Rehabilitation of repatriated Afghans stressed

PESHAWAR, Aug 4: NWFP Governor Ali Mohammad Jan Aurakzai has

said interests of repatriated Afghan refugees should be taken care of in their

homeland, otherwise they will attempt to return to Pakistan.

He was talking to UNHCR’s assistant high commissioner Judy Cheng-

Hopkins who called on him at the Governor’s House on Saturday. The two

discussed matters relating to repatriation of Afghans from the Frontier

province, said a handout.

The governor underlined the need for ensuring proper rehabilitation of the

refugees in their homeland. Apart from lack of infrastructure facilities, he

said, the refugees might face social problems and law and order issues when

they return home. He said efforts should be made to protect the refugees’

interests in Afghanistan. Otherwise, he said, they could return back to

Pakistan, turning the whole exercise into a futile one.

Meanwhile, talking to journalists, Ms Hopkins said the situation in

Afghanistan was not favourable to absorb a large number of Afghans

returning from Pakistan. She said about five millions Afghans had been

repatriated from Pakistan and Iran since 2002 and the remaining three

million in the two countries would be sent home gradually.

Chief commissioner of Afghan Refugees Abdur Rauf Khan was also present. Ms

Hopkins said that despite renewal of the agreement governing voluntary

repatriation of registered refugees from Pakistan, Islamabad was committed

to gradual return of the remaining two million Afghans on its territory.

Pakistan, Afghanistan and the UNHCR renewed the agreement in Islamabad

on Aug 2 to extend the voluntary repatriation process to December 2009. Ms

Hopkins said a major hurdle in the voluntary repatriation of the refugees was

making up their minds to return to their homeland. She expressed

satisfaction over the closure of the Kacha Garhi camp in Peshawar. Earlier,

she visited the Jalozai camp near Peshawar and met refugees. The camp will

be wound up by Aug 31.

The UN official, on the last leg of her regional visit, proceeded to Iran to

discuss issues pertaining to the repatriation of Afghan refugees.

PESHAWAR: Inclusion of Taliban in jirga sought

PESHAWAR, Aug 4: The Pukhtun Qaumi Jirga on Saturday urged Islamabad to redraw

its Afghan policy and called for ensuring the presence of the Taliban in the upcoming Pak-Afghan Grand Jirga, scheduled to be held in Kabul from August 9 to 11. Speakers at the jirga, organised by an NGO, also voiced concern over the composition of the Grand Jirga from the Pakistani side, saying a majority of the members were serving and retired bureaucrats, pro-government tribal elders and politicians.

The Pukhtun Qaumi Jirga was arranged by the Community Appraisal and Motivation

Programme (Camp) at the Peshawar Press Club on Saturday, which was attended

representatives of various civic society organisations, politicians, writers, intellectuals, lawyers and journalists. Meraj Humayun Khan of the Da Lass Gul (NGO) performed as convener of the jirga while Afrasiab Khattak and Haji Adeel of the ANP, Dr Syed Alam Mehsud of the PMAP, Anwar Kamal Marwat of the PML-N, Mukhtar Bacha of the NP, Shakeel Waheedullah, Begum Jan, Professor Qibla Ayaz, Ali Gohar, Shahab Khattak, Zar Ali Khan Musazai, Murtaza Shaheen, Shamim Shahid and others expressed their views and suggestions.

The jirga passed a resolution unanimously which called upon Pakistan to stop ‘meddling and infiltration in Afghanistan’ and take serious measures for making the upcoming grand jirga successful. One of the resolutions stressed the need for inclusion of Taliban and Mujahideen groups in the jirga, as it said they were the main players in the process besides asked the foreign elements in the tribal belt to quit the area.

Another resolution stressed the need for making efforts for putting an end to the ongoing terrorism and bloodshed in tribal areas and settled areas of the Frontier province besides underlined the need for giving tribesmen political, constitutional and legal rights. A resolution also demanded of the federal government to ensure the participation of women and representatives of civil societies and writers in the Pak-Afghan Jirga.

Addressing on the occasion, Dr Syed Alam Mehsud, provincial vice- president of the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party (PMAP), said major Pukhtun tribes from settled and tribal areas were not included in the Pakistani side and a squad of pro-government Maliks and bureaucrats had held sway over the list, unfolded the other day.

He went on to say that the people of both the countries have attached great expectations from the Jirga and its failure would be a great setback for the Pukhtun-belt living in Pakistan and Afghanistan. “What needs to be done is that Pakistan secret agencies and army should withdraw their hands from the internal affairs of Afghanistan,” he asserted.

He further said some elements which were against peace in Afghanistan, were providing legal grounds to foreign forces to stay in the war-hit country. He called for establishing a grand Jirga comprising Pukhtuns from Afghanistan, Balochistan, NWFP and Fata under the patronage of the United Nations who could decide and resolve the lingering issues being faced by the Pukhtun nation.

Afrasiab Khattak, provincial president of Awami National Party, said one of Pakistan's secret agencies had prepared the list of participants therefore, one could expect less from such dialogues, saying the presence of the Isaf or Nato-led forces in Afghanistan was not big issue but 'interfering of neighbouring countries' into Afghanistan was a big challenge to be solved by the jirga members. Anwar Kamal Marwat, MPA of Pakistan Muslim League-N, said the main bone of contention was the presence of Nato forces in Afghanistan, therefore, they should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan, and saying for the sake of their vested interest, the US wanted to grab resources of the Muslim world, especially the Persian Gulf.

Moreover, other speakers termed holding of a peace jirga between two neighbouring countries as a good omen for restoring peace and stability in the region, however, they said until and unless all the people, including the Taliban, are given equal representation in the Jirga process, the success of the three-day jirga would be at stake. They said that Afghanistan government had already announced the names of the participants and also organised various meetings of them to discuss ways and means for the success of the Jirga but the Pakistani government had kept secret the names, mostly dominated by serving and retired bureaucrats.

“It would be a futile exercise on the part of both governments if the real representatives of the people from both sides were not given the opportunity to speak their hearts in the Jirga,” they said, adding the Jirga process should be continued as only one round of the Jirga would not resolve the entire issues.—PP

Musharraf, Karzai to attend Joint Jirga in Kabul

The Nation, Sunday August 5, 2007

President General Pervez Musharraf and his Afghan counterpart will attend the Pak-Afghan Jirga Peace Commission’s meeting on August 9 in Kabul. Governor NWFP Lt-Gen (r) Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai told Pakistani Jirga members in Peshawar that both the presidents will address the jirga on the occasion, adding that the jirga aims at establishing an amicable atmosphere of friendship between the two countries and doing concerted efforts to eliminate terrorism. On the

first day of jirga, seven working committees will be instituted, which will present their recommendations to Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Sherpao who is the Executive Chairman of the Joint Jirga. Talking to the occasion, Jirga Member former Secretary Rustom Shah Mehmand said a constant jirga would also be constituted to ensure the implementation on Jirga decisions.

Afghan president travels to US to meet Bush Afghan President Hamid Karzai headed Sunday for the United States and talks with US counterpart George W. Bush that risk being overshadowed by the Taliban's detention of 21 South

Koreans. Karzai is due to meet Bush at the US presidential retreat of Camp David in Maryland later Sunday and Monday. Their talks are likely to focus on Afghanistan's reconstruction, civilian casualties and the fight against terrorism and narcotics, among other issues, said a statement from Karzai's office announcing his departure. The United States led the invasion that drove the hardline Islamic Taliban out of government in late 2001 and is the

main backer of Karzai's government, giving the most support to military efforts to defeat a Taliban insurgency and rebuild.

US, Afghan presidents to discuss Taliban US President George W. Bush is to welcome Afghanistan's leader Hamid Karzai to his Camp David retreat Sunday for talks expected to focus on the Taliban insurgency and mounting civilian casualties.

The White House said they would discuss security and the US-led "war on terror" and "review their work together to enhance Afghanistan's long-term democracy, prosperity, and security." They would also discuss ways of improving governance and fighting corruption including the drug trade, as well as measures to boost

the Afghan economy and step up the battle against Taliban and other militants, the office of the US president said.

Tribesmen refuse to attend jirga

The Frontier Post, Sunday August 5, 2007

ISLAMABAD (NNI): Tribal elders from the troubled Waziristan region on Saturday refused to attend the three-day Pak-Afghan joint grand Jirga, to be held in Kabul on August 9-11, a senior tribal elder said.

President General Pervez Musharraf and his Afghan counterpart Hamid

Karzai agreed on holding the grand Jirga when they held a meeting

hosted by President George Bush at the White House in September last year. Both the Presidents are scheduled to speak at the opening session of the council, the first ever joint jirga, aimed at promoting peace in Afghanistan and tribal parts of Pakistan and countering the threat posed by terrorism and extremism. “We have refused to attend the jirga as our own Waziristan region is burning and we have not established peace in our areas so how can we restore peace in other country,” Malik Mamoor Khan, the chief of Turi Khel tribe in North

Waziristan said. Malik Mamoor was among the tribal elders who were invited by the governor of North West Frontier Province Ali Jan Orakzai to chalk out strategy for the grand jirga. Pakistan has handed over the list of 350 would-be delegates to the Afghan authorities. A total of 700 delegates will attend the jirga. Four members of the parliament from Kheyber tribal region also refused to attend the jirga, saying that the jirga would not be representative as it convened by two governments and not by tribal elders. “It would be a sham for us that our own house is not in order and we are going to Afghanistan to bring peace in other country,” Malik Mamoor said. “The army is conducting operation

in Waziristan. People are being killed and many have migrated. It would be difficult to go for peace jirgas to other country,” he said.

Two arrested in Gardez

GARDEZ (PAN): Two men were arrested Saturday on suspicion of blowing up a police vehicle with a remote-controlled bomb in Chamkani district of the southeastern Paktia province. Gul Muhammad Mangal, spokesman for the southeastern zone police headquarters, told Pajhwok Afghan News the incident happened as a three-vehicle police convoy was heading to Chamkani from Khost City. A Ranger pick-up truck was destroyed in the blast but the security personnel escaped unhurt, the spokesman added. The suspects were held with

AK-47 assault rifles, remote- control equipments.

Inclusion of Taliban in peace jirga demanded Umair Muhammadzai

PESHAWAR: ‘Pakhtun Qaumi Jirga’ has urged Pakistan to review its Afghan policy and demanded ensuring the presence of Taliban in the upcoming Pak-Afghan Grand Jirga here at Peshawar Press Club on Saturday.

The speakers in the seminar organised by Pakistan NGOs Forum (PNF) also voiced concerned over the composition of Jirga from Pakistani side saying majority of the Jirga members were serving and retired bureaucrats, pro-government tribal elders and politicians. The seimar was attended representatives of various civic societies, politicians, writers and intellectuals, lawyers and journalists. Meraj Hamayun Khan of the Da Lass Gul (NGO) performed as convener of the Jirga while Afrasiab Khattak, Haji Adeel of the ANP, Dr Syed AlamMehsud of the PMAP, Anwar Kamal Marwat of the PML(N), Mukhtar Bacha of the NP, Shakeel Waheedullah, Begum Jan, Professor Qibla Ayaz, Ali Gohar, Shahab Khattak, Zar Ali Khan Musazai, Murtaza Shaheen, Shamim Shahid and others expressed their views and suggestions.

The Jirga passed a resolution unanimously which called upon Pakistan to stop ‘meddling and infiltration in Afghanistan’ and take serious measures for making the upcoming Jirga successful. One of the resolutions stressed the need for inclusion of Taliban and Mujahideen groups in the Jirga as it said they were the main stakeholders in the process besides asked the foreign elements in the tribal belt to quit the area. Another resolution stressed the need for making efforts for putting an end to the ongoing terrorism and bloodshed in tribal areas and settled areas of the Frontier province besides underlined the need for giving tribesmen political, constitutional and legal rights. A resolution also demanded of the Pakistani government to ensure the participation of women and representatives of civil societies and writers in the Pak-Afghan jirga.

Addressing on the occasion, Dr Syed Alam Mehsud, provincial vice president of Pakhtoonkhwa Milli Awami Party (PMAP) and a vocal speaker said major Pakhtuns tribes from settled and tribal areas were not included in the Pakistani side and a squad of pro-government Maliks and bureaucrats had held sway over the list, unfolded the other day. He went on to say that the people of both the countries have attached great expectations from the Jirga and it failure would be a great setback for the Pakhtoon-belt living in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“What needs to be done is that Pakistan secret agencies and Army should withdraw their hands from the internal affairs of Afghanistan,” he asserted. He further said some elements which were against peace in Afghanistan, were providing legal grounds to the foreign forces to stay in the war-hit country. The nationalist leader called for establishment of a grand Jirga comprising of Pakhtoons from Afghanistan, Balochistan, NWFP and FATA under the patronage of the United Nations who could decide and resolve the lingering issues being

faced by the Pakhtoon nation. Afrasiyab Khattak, provincial president of Awami National Party on the occasion said one of Pakistan’s secret agencies had prepared the list of the participants therefore, one could expect less from such dialogues, saying the presence of the ISAF or NATO-led forces in Afghanistan was not big issue but ‘interfering of the neighboring countries’ into Afghanistan was a big challenge to be solved by the jirga members. Anwar Kamal Marwat, MPA of Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) said the main bone of contention was the presence of Nato forces in Afghanistan, therefore they should immediately withdraw from Afghanistan saying for the sake of their

vested interest, US wanted to grab the resources of Muslim world especially the Persian Gulf. Moreover, other speakers termed holding of a Peace jirga between two neighboring countries as a good omen for restoring peace and stability in the region, however, they said until and unless all the stakeholders including the Taliban are given equal representation in the jirga process, the success of the three-day jirga would be at stake. They said that Afghanistan government had already announced the names of the participants and also organized various

meetings of them to discuss ways and means for the success of the jirga but the Pakistani government had kept secret the names, mostly dominated by serving and retired bureaucrats. “It would be a futile exercise on the part of both governments if the real representatives of the people from both sides were not given the opportunity to speak their hearts in the jirga,” they said, adding jirga process should be continued as only one round of the jirga would not resolve the entire issues.

Few civilian deaths from Afghan bombing: Officials

KABUL (Agencies): Afghan and Western military forces said on Saturday there were minimal civilian casualties from an air strike in southern Afghanistan this week that targeted Taliban leaders and may have killed up to 150 people. Aircraft from the US-led coalition in Afghanistan launched a strike in the Baghran area of Helmand province on Thursday, targeting known Taliban commanders, the U.S military said. The following day, Afghan authorities said they were checking reports of civilian casualties in the raid and said some 20

wounded had been brought to the main hospital in Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital. British forces said 17 adult males and an eight-yearold boy were in hospital in Lashkar Gah suffering from blast injuries.

The Afghan Defence Ministry said some 40 men had also been brought to hospital in the main southern city of Kandahar. "It is interesting there were no females," said British Lieutenant-Colonel Charlie Mayo, suggesting the wounded adult males may have been Taliban fighters.

"We are very confident we hit a large meeting of Taliban and they are very sore about it." "We were closely monitoring the Baghran district from August 2 in the morning," said Afghan Defence Ministry spokesman General Zahir Azimy. He said there was a large group of armed men gathered to watch the execution of six Afghans accused of cooperating with the government. Some six senior Taliban

commanders were present, including Mansoor Dadullah, brother of Mullah Dadullah, the fierce Taliban commander for southern Afghanistan who was killed in a raid by British special forces in May.

Some of the commanders and a number of foreign Taliban fighters had been killed in the air strike, Azimy said, but it was not yet clear if Dadullah was among them. "According to our sources, there were 150 people killed, maybe less, but not more," he told a news conference.

"If there were civilian casualties, they were very limited and should not exceed 10." NATO and U.S.-led coalition troops target Taliban leaders in the hope of splitting them from rank-and-file fighters. Already facing criticism over perceived lack of development, corruption and crime, growing insecurity and a booming drugs trade, President Hamid Karzai has warned that civilian deaths could have dire consequences for his government and the foreign troops. Afghan and Western officials accuse the Taliban of deliberately courting civilian deaths by launching attacks from ordinary homes and carrying out indiscriminate bomb attacks. A suicide car bomb targeting foreign forces killed two Afghan civilians in the city of Kandahar on Saturday, witnesses and Afghan

troops said. Canadian troops are the biggest contingent of foreign soldiers from the 37-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Kandahar. Two apparently wounded foreign soldiers were taken away from the scene, Afghan troops said.

‘I don’t want one Afghan to die for me’

ATLANTA (NNI): "A hundred times, I asked him, a hundred times, he gave me the same answer: 'I don't want one Afghan to die for me.'" Afghans buried their last king in Kabul earlier this week. In Atlanta, the Osman family watched the solemn ceremony on the satellite channel Ariana Afghanistan. An emptiness saturated them; the last symbol of Afghan national unity was gone, they feared. The "shadow of God" no longer graced their sun-drenched nation. "It is a big loss.

Nobody can take his place," said Touryalai Osman, who, after fleeing his homeland in the 1980s, eventually settled in Atlanta. To understand why Zahir Shah's passing meant more to Osman than just the death of a king requires a revelation of the Afghan immigrant's own life ? one that was inextricably linked with the king's since Osman was a little boy. Zahir Shah frequented Osman's grandmother's house, even addressed her as "aunt." Osman has not always been an admiring servant, blindly bowing to royalty. But he carried in his heart a hope that Zahir Shah, who reigned for 40 years, would rescue Afghanistan from its troubles. It's the kind of hope that one has for a

homeland when everything else seems lost, reports The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. At one time, Osman served as first secretary in the Afghan embassy in Rome.

He was there in 1973 when the king was forced to abdicate and go into exile. He spent many months watching the beleaguered monarch take contemplative evening walks in the embassy compound. The king always did strike him as more of a philosopher than a statesman. Over the years, Osman attempted to convince his beloved ruler to return to his homeland. Osman felt then, as he did again after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that Afghanistan needed the king to hold the nation together. The hope that Afghanistan, torn apart by decades of bloodshed, would heal in Osman's lifetime eroded this week as he gathered several generations of his family in front of a TV set.

They watched common folks and dignitaries bow their heads as the funeral procession left the Royal Palace and went to the hilltop mausoleum overlooking Kabul, a oncemagnificent capital wasted by waves of civil war, foreign occupation and fanatical Islam. Had history taken a different course, Osman might have been part of the king's last journey. He might have been able to offer condolences to a family linked by blood to his own? the Osmans hail from the same Pashtun tribe, Mohammed Zai, as the king. Osman grew up in the king's Afghanistan, where elements of democracy flourished and the people progressed economically. He, like other Afghans, remembers that era with nostalgia, comparing it with the years of brutality that followed and unraveled an entire nation. "If they had given him power, Afghanistan would not be like this." Osman said.

He recalled his own history with the king and how, out of fear, he had buried photographs of the two men together when the Soviets marched into Kabul. Osman fled Soviet occupation in the 1980s. He spent years advising the Mujahedeen fighters struggling to free Afghanistan. Osman traveled six times back to Rome to plead with the exiled king. He argued vehemently with Zahir Shah that he must get involved again in Afghanistan's affairs. He said Zahir Shah always

fancied himself as a purveyor of human rights and self-determination.

But for whatever reason, the king was not willing to take the risks. "

A hundred times, I asked him," Osman said. "A hundred times, he gave me the same answer: 'I don't want one Afghan to die for me.'" The king, Osman recalled, told him to not let sentimentality cloud his judgment. He patted him on the back and told him to be quiet. "How can you be quiet when Afghanistan is finished?" Osman said. "My son, this is not so easy," the king told him. Osman believes the king let down his nation with his stony silence. "I blame him for this," he said.

"He might have changed the course of history."

Pakistan: 'Economic Development' Needed To Fight Taliban

August 3, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Philip H. Gordon is a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy with the Washington-based Brookings Institution who has authored numerous books or articles on counterterrorism and security in the broader Middle East. He spoke recently with RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan correspondent Abubakar Siddique about U.S.-Pakistani relations. Gordon described Islamabad's results against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as "mixed," and argued that "economic development and modernization" are the best weapon against extremism.

RFE/RL: You advocate more economic and humanitarian aid for Pakistan. Why?

Philip H. Gordon: I think, in the long run, it's really economic development and modernization that are going to help with the problem of extremism. I think in the United States right now -- especially with the talk of Al-Qaeda reorganizing and extremism growing -- there's a temptation to want to deal with these issues with military force. And I think that there is a real risk that that would backfire and alienate the populations of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and I think that in the long run it's not the right approach.

RFE/RL: The U.S. Congress in late July passed legislation that would tie all U.S. aid to Pakistani efforts against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, and also its effort to promote democracy and reduce poverty and corruption. Do you think that this legislation will have a similar effect to that of the Pressler amendment targeting Pakistan's nuclear-weapons program in 1992, when Pakistan was sanctioned up to its eyeballs?

Gordon: That, of course, was very unpopular in Pakistan and that caused a lot of resentment in Pakistan -- and, I might add, didn't really deal with the problem because Pakistan pursued its nuclear program anyway. And I worry that this could have a similar effect in alienating the Pakistani population, in impeding Pakistan's development, and yet not actually getting the government to take the measures that the United States wants it to do.

RFE/RL: How do you respond to other experts who point to the dismal performance that Musharraf has shown in curbing Al-Qaeda and Taliban?

Gordon: I agree with those critics who say that Pakistani action in those areas has been mixed. I think, on one hand, there is a sign that Pakistan is helping -- a number of the so-called high-value detainees that the United States has captured have been captured in Pakistan [and] Pakistan has deployed soldiers and lost some of them in battles with extremists. So there is some sign that Pakistan is helping. There are also signs that it is not, and that Taliban from Afghanistan get refuge in Pakistan and that Pakistan's efforts are not 100 percent. But the question is whether cutting off American aid to Pakistan would lead to the sort of whole-hearted successful effort that the United States, understandably, would like to see. I'm not sure that it would, and I fear that it could backfire.

RFE/RL: What would be the likely fallout of U.S. military strikes inside Pakistan against Al-Qaeda? Senior administration officials have been talking about such actions for some time now.

Gordon: The National Intelligence Estimate [in July] suggested that Al-Qaeda is reorganizing along the border and in some places in Pakistan. And the [Bush] administration has said that nothing is ruled out, including strikes on actionable targets. And that has led to a lot of speculation about what the United States might do. I think if there really were clear and obvious targets -- of people training and plotting to attack the United States in a terrorist attack -- inevitably the United States would act and should act. That's what any country would do if it were able to prevent a horrific attack on its soil.

But I am concerned that we don't have such clear and obvious targets, and I think we shouldn't underestimate the negative results that would come in Pakistan if the United States started undertaking military strikes without the authorization of the Pakistani government in Pakistan. So I would much prefer -- to the extent possible -- that Pakistanis deal with this problem that, I should add and stress, they are also opposed to.

A vast majority of Pakistanis don't want extremist elements in Pakistan, don't want to support terrorism, and would want to fight it. And I would rather see the United States working with them than undertaking attacks that could lead to a backlash in Pakistan against the United States and make things worse.

RFE/RL: How real do you think the Al-Qaeda central regrouping is in Pakistan and how big a threat is it to international security -- U.S. security in particular?

Gordon: I do think it's real and I do think it's a threat. There seems to be no doubt that some of the [Al-Qaeda] leadership has found sanctuary in these ungoverned areas, and it's a good place to hide. I think, though, it can be exaggerated in this notion that there is some organized multinational Al-Qaeda movement that is directed in a centralized way from big camps in Pakistan. I don't think there is much evidence of that.


I think rather that what we call "Al-Qaeda" covers a whole range of different smaller groups -- some acting on their own, some acting in part with training and direction from Al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan, and some perhaps acting more directly. So I think it's very complicated, but [the] bottom line [is], yes, it's a problem, it's a threat, and it's a serious one.

RFE/RL: Hearing news about the U.S. wanting to arm Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, where do you see Pakistani-U.S. cooperation going vis-a-vis Iran?

Gordon: It is fair to see the recent proposal to sell large amounts of weapons to the Gulf states in the context of Iranian influence or in the context of containing Iranian influence in the region. I think also that the Bush administration initially hoped that it could pressure these [Gulf] regimes to move in a more democratic direction. The reality is it knows that it's not going to happen anytime soon and it needs to have good security relations.

I really haven't heard Pakistan mentioned in that context. It is true that good military relations with Pakistan might help in containing the threat from Iran. But at the same time, it's linked to the other issue of Pakistani efforts on Al-Qaeda. The more Pakistani cooperation you see on efforts to contain Al-Qaeda, the more enthusiastic the United States would be about weapons sales and military cooperation. But if on the other hand, it appears that Pakistani military establishment is not prepared to fully move against Al-Qaeda, it would be a hard sell to the Congress to authorize military sales so long as that's the perception.

RFE/RL: Why do you think the United States has largely failed to reconcile Musharraf and Karzai, while it has been successful in kind of de-escalating the tensions between India and Pakistan, which are supposed to be archrivals?

Gordon: I think the United States is doing what it can and trying. The reality is that when you have such insecurity, leaders -- and it's true of Musharraf or Karzai -- want to blame somebody else for it. And as Karzai gets in trouble at home for insecurity in his country, it is very tempting for him to say that the problem lies on the other side of the border because Pakistan isn't doing enough. That similar dynamic, I think, applies on the Pakistani side, where Pakistan doesn't want any blame for that and says, "No, if there are Taliban fighting against NATO and against Karzai, they are Taliban on the other side." And Musharraf doesn't want to take the blame, and he doesn't want to alienate his Pashtun population by cracking down too hard.

So I think it's easy for them -- when things aren't going well, and the rise in violence suggests they're not -- to blame the other side rather than work together on the issue. That's clearly an important concern of the United States, to get them to stop blaming each other and start working together on it.

RFE/RL: Why do you think United States has failed precisely on this issue to convince Pakistan to give up what some say are its Taliban proxies in Afghanistan?

Gordon: I think a lot of Americans are very frustrated with Pakistan's apparent unwillingness to do that. My understanding is that Pakistan has always seen the idea of having a sort of "client" in Afghanistan -- dependent on it -- as an important part of its overall strategy. And given the ongoing tensions with India -- even though things are better than they have been in the past -- but given the perceived threat from India, and especially with the U.S.-Indian cooperation flourishing, some in Pakistan are reluctant to see Afghanistan develop in a direction that it would be very close to the United States -- and even, frankly, close to India -- and Pakistan would feel encircled if it didn't have a friend or client in Afghanistan. So that -- plus the ethnic element, where there are obvious links, ethnic and historical, between especially Pashtuns on both sides of the border -- there is a tendency in parts of Pakistan to see the Taliban at least as people who are going to defend Pashtun interests in both places.

So if you put these both things together, then you can understand, a little bit, why Pakistan is not willing to cut off the Taliban. I say you "understand" that; it seems to me a sort of analytical explanation. But I think a lot of Americans are appropriately frustrated with that -- because in the long run, Pakistan's interests really are to have a stable, democratic Afghanistan on one side and a stable, democratic India on the other. And with that, I think that Pakistan could ensure its security and its development and its growth and its prosperity -- but I think it's hard for some in Pakistan to see it that way.

Campaign Memo: "Barack Obama Was Right"

Has Sen. Barack Obama had a bad few weeks on foreign policy? Or is his a new approach representing "change"?

His campaign is naturally arguing the latter. After causing an uproar by ruling out using nuclear weapons against terrorists in Pakistan or Afghanistan -- a view that other Democrats dismissed as a sign of inexperience and naivete -- his campaign issued the following memo. Their hope is to tie together the threads of the last few weeks -- his spat with Sen. Hillary Clinton over rogue leaders; his speech on Pakistan; his nukes comment -- into a coherent campaign message.

Find the full memo penned by Samantha Power, a former journalist and Harvard professor who is advising the campaign below:

August 3, 2007
To: Interested Parties
From: Samantha Power -- Founding Executive Director, Harvard University Carr Center for Human Rights Policy
Re: Conventional Washington versus the Change We Need

It was Washington's conventional wisdom that led us into the worst strategic blunder in the history of US foreign policy. The rush to invade Iraq was a position advocated by not only the Bush Administration, but also by editorial pages, the foreign policy establishment of both parties, and majorities in both houses of Congress. Those who opposed the war were often labeled weak, inexperienced, and even naïve.

Barack Obama defied conventional wisdom and opposed invading Iraq. He did so at a time when some told him that doing so would doom his political future. He took that risk because he thought it essential that the United States "finish the fight with bin Laden and al Qaeda." He warned that a "dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq would result in an "occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."

Barack Obama was right; the conventional wisdom was wrong. And today, we see the consequences. Iraq is in chaos. According to the National Intelligence Estimate, the threat to our homeland from terrorist groups is "persistent and evolving." Al-Qaeda has a safe-haven in Pakistan. Iran has only grown stronger and bolder. The American people are less safe because of a rash war.

Over the last few weeks, Barack Obama has once again taken positions that challenge Washington's conventional wisdom on foreign policy. And once again, pundits and politicians have leveled charges that are now bankrupt of credibility and devoid of the new ideas that the American people desperately want.

On each point in the last few weeks, Barack Obama has called for a break from a broken way of doing things. On each point, he has brought fresh strategic thinking and common sense that break with the very conventional wisdom that has led us into Iraq.

Diplomacy: For years, conventional wisdom in Washington has said that the United States cannot talk to its adversaries because it would reward them. Here is the result:

The United States has not talked directly to Iran at a high level, and they have continued to build their nuclear weapons program, wreak havoc in Iraq, and support terror.
The United States has not talked directly to Syria at a high level, and they have continued to meddle in Lebanon and support terror.
The United States did not talk to North Korea for years, and they were able to produce enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear bombs.

By any measure, not talking has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us continue this policy; Barack Obama would turn the page. He knows that not talking has made us look weak and stubborn in the world; that skillful diplomacy can drive wedges between your adversaries; that the only way to know your enemy is to take his measure; and that tough talk is of little use if you're not willing to do it directly to your adversary. Barack Obama is not afraid of losing a PR battle to a dictator - he's ready to tell them what they don't want to hear because that's how tough, smart diplomacy works, and that's how American leaders have scored some of the greatest strategic successes in US history.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era of tough, principled and engaged American diplomacy to deal with 21st century challenges.

Terrorist Sanctuaries: For years, we have given President Musharraf hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, while deferring to his cautious judgment on how to take out high-level al Qaeda targets - including, most likely, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Here is the result:

Bin Laden and Zawahiri - two men with direct responsibility for 9/11- remain at large.
Al Qaeda has trained and deployed hundreds of fighters worldwide from its sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.
Afghanistan is far less secure because the Taliban can strike across the border, and then return to safety in Pakistan.

By any measure, this strategy has not worked. Conventional wisdom would have us defer to Musharraf in perpetuity. Barack Obama wants to turn the page. If Musharraf is willing to go after the terrorists and stop the Taliban from using Pakistan as a base of operations, Obama would give him all of the support he needs. But Obama made clear that as President, if he had actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan - and the Pakistanis continued to refuse to act against terrorists known to be behind attacks on American civilians - then he will use highly targeted force to do so.

Barack Obama's judgment is right; the conventional wisdom is wrong. We need a new era that moves beyond the conventional wisdom that has brought us over-reliance on an unreliable dictator in Pakistan and an occupation of Iraq.

Nuclear Attacks on Terrorist Targets: For years, Washington's conventional wisdom has held that candidates for President are judged not by their wisdom, but rather by their adherence to hackneyed rhetoric that make little sense beyond the Beltway. When asked whether he would use nuclear weapons to take out terrorist targets in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Barack Obama gave the sensible answer that nuclear force was not necessary, and would kill too many civilians. Conventional wisdom held this up as a sign of inexperience. But if experience leads you to make gratuitous threats about nuclear use - inflaming fears at home and abroad, and signaling nuclear powers and nuclear aspirants that using nuclear weapons is acceptable behavior, it is experience that should not be relied upon.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. Conventional wisdom is wrong. It is wrong to propose that we would drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps in Pakistan, potentially killing tens of thousands of people and sending America's prestige in the world to a level that not even George Bush could take it. We should judge presidential candidates on their judgment and their plans, not on their ability to recite platitudes.

Vision: American foreign policy is broken. It has been broken by people who supported the Iraq War, opposed talking to our adversaries, failed to finish the job with al Qaeda, and alienated the world with our belligerence. Yet conventional wisdom holds that people whose experience includes taking these positions are held up as examples of what America needs in times of trouble.

Barack Obama says we have to turn the page. We cannot afford any more of this kind of bankrupt conventional wisdom. He has laid out a foreign policy that is bold, clear, principled, and tailored for the 21st century. End a war we should never have fought, concentrate our resources against terrorists who threaten America. End the counter-productive policy of lumping together our adversaries and avoiding talking to our foes. End the era of politics that is all sound-bites and no substance, and offer the American people the change that they need.

Barack Obama's judgment is right. It is conventional wisdom that has to change.

Afghanistan Under fire

Aug 4th 2007 | DELHI From Economist.com

“AFGHANISTAN is in a much better position now than it ever was before as a nation.” So said Richard Boucher, America’s assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, on Thursday August 2nd. If that were true, the meetings scheduled on August 4th and 5th between President George Bush and Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai would be an uneventful affair—a matter of mutual congratulation on a hard job well-done. On his inaugural visit to Camp David, Mr Karzai might even find time for a bracing walk in the surrounding Maryland hills.

That would make a nice change from the heavily-fortified compound in Kabul where he spends most of his time cooped up. On a rare, recent venture outside, Mr Karzai was lucky to survive a Taliban rocket attack—at least the third assassination attempt since he took charge of Afghanistan, under heavy American steerage, in 2001. Others have been less fortunate. In 18 months of appalling and worsening violence in Afghanistan, some 6,000 people have been killed—some 1,500 of them civilians.

This is despite a big increase over the past year in the number of NATO peacekeepers in Afghanistan. There are currently 35,500 of these troops, in addition to a smaller American-led counter-terrorism force. Indeed, as they have deployed across southern Afghanistan, including to many places where the Taliban’s rule had not previously been challenged, the conflict has intensified. In the three months to July 22nd, according to Human Rights Watch, America and its allies dropped at least 407 bombs on Afghanistan—more than four times the number dropped in Iraq over the same period.

The Taliban control most roads in southern Afghanistan for most of the time. The kidnapping of 23 Korean Christians on the country’s main highway last month—and subsequent murder of two of them—illustrates the Taliban’s measure of control. As a result, foreigners must now obtain police permission, and possibly an armed guard, before leaving Kabul by road. Not that the capital is much of a haven. In an unusually deadly recent suicide attack, 35 bus passengers were killed in Kabul.

The Taliban has a refuge in the tribal areas of Pakistan, across Afghanistan’s eastern border. At America’s urging, Pakistan has tried to rout them there, at the cost of some 800 Pakistani troops. The attempt has failed. The Taliban’s influence is now spreading across northern Pakistan, contributing to a wave of Islamist terrorism in every big Pakistani city. Nonetheless, Mr Karzai, and most western diplomats in Kabul, maintain that Pakistan is behind much of the mayhem in Afghanistan. This puts America in a bind—caught between two unstable, bickering and strategically critical allies.

And the Taliban has funds. The UN will soon announce that this year’s opium crop in Afghanistan, in which the militants have a stake, pipped last year’s record crop. That amounted to 6,100 tonnes, about 92% of the world’s total. Despite around to $1 billion devoted to the task, America and its European allies have come up with no effective way to reduce the blight.

In a sense, neither opium nor the insecurity that it breeds is Mr Karzai’s own most pressing concern. These problems are still largely in foreign hands, not least because of the inadequacy of Afghanistan’s own security forces. To Mr Karzai falls the task of building a government, and keeping people happy in those parts of the country over which he has some control. Neither task is easy.

Furthest from the insurgency, in the border towns of northern Afghanistan, life is improving daily. The evidence of double-digit economic growth is visible in new buildings and burgeoning trade. Kabul also is booming. Yet only a minority is profiting from this growth and the extension of state help to the majority has been desperately slow. The capital, for example, still has no reliable power supply.

As for state-building, in a country ravaged by war and criminality for a quarter of a century, that is in all ways proving a headache. Afghanistan’s now has a functioning parliament; but it is dominated increasingly by an alliance of Mr Karzai’s tribal and political enemies. In May, before its summer recess, parliament voted to sack the foreign minister, Rangeen Dadfar Spanta. Mr Karzai’s cabinet says it has no powers to do so. A solution to the stand-off is yet to be found.

Amid such troubles, Mr Bush’s forthcoming meetings with the genial Mr Karzai might reasonably be described as crisis talks. Yet America’s administration has consistently tried to extract good news from Afghanistan as a counterpoint to its more high-profile afflictions in Iraq. Mr Boucher’s gilded words suggest that this remains its policy.

Brown courts Ashdown to be Afghan overlord

August 5, 2007 - Gordon Brown is lining up Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, for a role coordinating international efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

It is the second attempt to bring Ashdown into a “government of all the talents” after an offer to give him a cabinet post as Northern Ireland secretary was rebuffed in June.

The move comes as many experts fear Afghanistan is sliding into chaos because the European Union, the United Nations and Nato are not working closely enough together.

Brown visited the country in March before taking over as prime minister and has been privately emphasising the need to “get a grip” on the many different a gencies. Taliban hi-tech weapons to fight British

Ashdown, who has previously held a key coordinating role in Bosnia, is seen as the ideal man for the job and discussed the role with David Miliband, the foreign secretary, last month.

One senior Foreign Office official said: “We’re keen to get Paddy on board but we know he won’t do it unless he gets the right mandate. The international community needs to see sense and work together.”

Another official said American forces had until now concentrated on hunting for Osama Bin Laden and quelling violence while Nato forces had focused on winning hearts and minds. “We now need to find a common purpose for us to make any progress in that country,” he said.

Mandarins have already briefed Ashdown on the threat posed by a resurgent Taliban.

While not commenting directly on the proposed job Ashdown said: “My view, for what it is worth, is that there needs to be a single figure out there pulling all the strands together. At the moment there is little or no coordination and the country is starting to work against itself.”

It is understood that approval from the United States will be decisive in whether Ashdown accepts the role.

Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, today travels to Washington to meet President George W Bush to discuss how best to consolidate his leadership and confirm the support of international agencies.

Senior Lib Dems accused Brown of “dirty underhand politics” when he made the offer of a cabinet post to Ashdown. It came after Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, had made it clear that no member of his party should take a job in Brown’s government.

However, it is understood Campbell has been kept informed about the Afghan discussions.

[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.]