In this bulletin:

• Afghan Forces Retake Western Town
• Afghan refugee beheaded in Pakistan
• 3 Police Killed in Afghan Bomb Attack
• US soldier killed in Afghanistan
• UK Forces Claim Success in Major Afghan Operation
• Iraqi rebels help train Taliban in Pakistani safe havens
• Pakistan must ‘clarify its position’ on Taliban: UN
• Why Bush turns deaf ear to Karzai’s pleas for showdown with Musharraf
• Pakistan to Build Fence
• ‘US should press Afghanistan for Durand Line recognition’
• Poland sends special troops to Afghanistan
• Azerbaijan may send more peacekeepers to Afghanistan - Russian website
• Taliban not massing for offensive, NATO commander says
• AP Enterprise: Afghan army said improving, but years away from operating unaided
• Pakistani police search for Afghan link in suicide bombing
• Islamabad-Washington nexus on Afghan crisis
• Blaming Europe: NATO doesn't deserve the rap on Afghanistan
• Tom Koenigs, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan
• Afghan opium lobby group opens Ottawa office
• According to a World Bank study released in November, Afghanistan's poppy fields produce 90 per cent of the world's illegal opium, and trade in the drug accounts for one-third of the Afghan economy. Afghan officials have said the Taliban use the profits to fund their military insurgency.

Afghan Forces Retake Western Town

By AMIR SHAH The Associated Press Tuesday, February 20, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Afghan security forces supported by NATO troops on Tuesday retook a town in western Afghanistan that briefly had fallen to Taliban militants, an official said.

About 200 Afghan police and soldiers moved into the remote town of Bakwa in Farah province at 5 a.m. and faced no resistance, said Gov. Muhajuddin Baluch. He said some NATO troops joined the operation.

The Afghan forces were searching the vicinity for the militants, who moved into Bakwa on Monday and briefly held it and then left, taking three seized vehicles with them, he said.

It was the second time this month that the government has lost control of a district in the region. Meanwhile, a U.S. soldier was killed during combat operations on Monday in the Naray area of eastern Kunar province, the U.S. military said in a brief statement.

At least 297 American soldiers have died in and around Afghanistan since U.S. forces invaded in late 2001 to topple the hard-line Taliban regime. The name of the latest fatality was being withheld pending notification of next of kin, the statement said.

U.S.-led coalition forces dropped a 2,000-pound bomb on a cave where insurgents retreated after a clash in southern Uruzgan province on Monday, U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. David Accetta said. He had no details on insurgent casualties.

Afghan refugee beheaded in Pakistan

AP- MIRAN SHAH, Pakistan -- Suspected Islamic militants killed an Afghan refugee they accused of spying for the United States and dumped his beheaded body by a road in a Pakistani tribal region, an intelligence official said Tuesday.

The man's body, with its severed head and limbs, was found Monday near Ghulam Khan, a town in North Waziristan close to the Afghan border, the official said on condition of anonymity because he is not an official spokesman.

A note found with the corpse identified the dead man as Nek Amal, from Zozak village in Afghanistan's neighboring Khost province. It said Amal was "a spy of America," the official said.

Afghan refugees from Khost living in Ghulam Khan identified Amal's body and transported it to Khost for burial, he said.

Scores of people, including tribal elders and even some clerics, have been killed by suspected militants in recent years in the border region for alleged collusion with Pakistani authorities or spying for the United States.

Many have occurred in North Waziristan, where Taliban and al-Qaida militants are believed to have found refuge among sympathetic tribesmen since the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001.

Pakistan says it has 80,000 troops in the border region, but has failed to crush the militants or prevent Taliban guerrillas from slipping over the mountainous border to attack Afghan and foreign troops on the other side.

3 Police Killed in Afghan Bomb Attack

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- A roadside bomb targeting police involved in poppy eradication killed three officers and wounded three others in western Afghanistan, officials said Monday.

The policemen were returning to their base Sunday after a day of destroying poppy fields in western Farah province when a roadside blast hit their vehicle, said police spokesman Barijalaj Khan.

In Ghor province, meanwhile, a clash between poppy farmers and police conducting eradication left one civilian dead and two wounded, said deputy provincial governor Kramuddin Rezazada.

Some 500 people had gathered to protest government attempts at poppy eradication following last year's record crop.

Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium poppy. In 2006, production in the country rose 49 percent to 6,700 tons -- enough to make about 670 tons of heroin.

The government rejected U.S. offers of ground-spraying and pledged it would step up poppy eradication using tractors and manpower.

US soldier killed in Afghanistan

BBC 20 Feb 07 - An American soldier has been killed in fighting in eastern Afghanistan, the US military says. The soldier was killed during "combat operations" near Naray in Kunar province, it said in a statement released in Kabul.

In a separate incident, Afghan and US-led coalition forces battled Taleban fighters in western Uruzgan province. The fighting comes as international forces prepare for an anticipated spring offensive by the militants.

A coalition statement said that the coalition forces dropped a 2,000 pound bomb on a cave in the Uruzgan province where the Taleban fighters had "retreated".

It said that there were no damages or injuries to civilians or Afghan and coalition forces during the operation. The coalition did not say whether the Taleban had suffered any casualties in the fighting.

On Monday, Taleban fighters launched their heaviest attack to date on the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, targeting a Canadian army convoy.

None of the Nato-led forces were hurt, but the Canadians say their fire killed an Afghan policeman and a civilian in clashes that followed. Last year more than 4,000 people died in political violence in Afghanistan - the most since the Taleban were ousted in 2001.

Separately, the US-led coalition said that they had completed inspections at the site of a helicopter crash in south-eastern Afghanistan on Sunday.

Eight US troops were killed and 14 wounded when a Chinook came down after the pilot reported engine trouble in Zabul province, bordering Pakistan.

Coalition forces destroyed the wreckage of the helicopter late on Monday to "clear the area of a large debris and to prevent exploitation of the site by terrorist groups," the statement said. Initial reports indicated that Sunday's crash was purely accidental.

UK Forces Claim Success in Major Afghan Operation

February 19, 2007 - LONDON (Reuters) - British forces claimed success on Monday in what they described as NATO's biggest operation yet in the southern part of the restive Afghan province of Helmand.

More than 250 British NATO troops attacked what they called a ``major Taliban headquarters and stronghold'' in Garmsir, a sprawling, crescent-shaped town along the Helmand River in a province that produces nearly a third of the world's opium.

``We were able to hit them hard in the largest deliberate operation there has been down there, and disrupt their command and control,'' military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Rory Bruce said by telephone from the British task force headquarters.

He said they had killed a ``significant number'' of enemy fighters, but did not give a precise figure. No British troops were wounded or killed. There was no independent confirmation of Taliban casualties.

British commanders describe Garmsir as the ``gateway'' to Helmand province and say they believe Taliban guerrillas are massing south of it for an offensive in coming months.

The expected spring offensive in southern Afghanistan could be a make-or-break moment for NATO's mission in the country, which last year entered its most violent phase since Taliban rulers were driven from power in 2001.

``We achieved our objective of destroying and clearing Taliban compounds whilst pushing enemy forces further south from the district center,'' the commander of the operation, Lieutenant Colonel Rob MaGowan, said in a statement.

After launching strikes from artillery and aircraft, the British troops swept south for several km (miles) into territory that had been heavily fortified by Taliban fighters. Bruce said they destroyed a network of trenches and underground tunnels.

The British have held the northern tip of the town and have made a number of raids on targets further south, but have so far not attempted to control the bulk of the town. Bruce said they would not try to hold territory seized in the latest operation.

``We don't need to hold that ground. The time will come when the Afghan national security forces are capable of moving out (into the area),'' he said.

Iraqi rebels help train Taliban in Pakistani safe havens

Ian Bruce, Defence Correspondent - The Herald February 20 2007

Veteran Iraqi insurgents loyal to al Qaeda are in Pakistan helping to train the Taliban in "best practice" for attacking Nato troops with roadside bombs, according to US intelligence sources.

The disclosure follows a doubling of incidents involving booby-traps in Afghanistan in the past year and a fivefold rise in suicide attacks.

Intelligence agencies also think al Qaeda's surviving leadership has regained control over its network from safe havens in North Waziristan, although sources have no idea where Osama bin Laden is.

His deputy, Ayman al Zahwari, has issued almost 20 statements, some within days of events in Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon and Afghanistan, a sign he feels secure.

"The chain of command has been re-established and the leadership is robust. We are seeing clear linkages between the network's leading figures and events in the wider world," a senior official said yesterday.

John Negroponte, former US director of national intelligence, warned last month that al Qaeda's core elements were "resilient" despite five years on the run and the loss of at least one-third of their original commanders.

He also said he had evidence that "al Qaeda is cultivating stronger operational connections and relationships that radiate outwards from their leaders' secure hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe".

Although Islamabad denies the presence of Taliban training camps on Pakistani territory, government forces withdrew last year from North Waziristan, the largest of seven self-governing areas along the Afghan border.

New camps run by Arab, Pakistani and Afghan fighters have been identified there by aerial and satellite reconnaissance, including one thought to be grooming volunteers for attacks against the West. A number of British Asians awaiting trial for terrorist offences in the UK are believed to have visited the camps.

Lieutenant-General Kark Eikenberry, outgoing US commander in Afghanistan, has warned neither America nor Nato could win against the Taliban until the training camps issue was tackled.

Pakistan must ‘clarify its position’ on Taliban: UN

Daily Times 20 February 2007 - KABUL: The Pakistani government must clarify its position on Taliban rebels in Afghanistan after the NWFP governor likened them to a liberation movement, the United Nations said on Monday. The Afghan foreign ministry made a similar demand on Sunday, condemning the weekend comments by Governor Jan Orakzai as “provocative and untrue”. UN representative Tom Koenigs said he was “very astonished” by the statement. The governor said the Taliban rebellion was “developing into some kind of nationalist movement, a resistance movement, some sort of liberation war against the coalition forces”.

“I totally disagree,” Koenigs said at a media briefing. “I think the Pakistani government has to clarify whether this is its official position or whether it is the position of a governor who should be corrected by the central government.” Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said Afghanistan’s complaints were based on a “distorted report” of Orakzai’s words.

The governor had mentioned what militant Taliban were saying to win the sympathies of the Afghan population living in south and east Afghanistan,” Aslam told a weekly news briefing. “Some reports have wrongly presented this as the assessment and views of the governor himself.” In Kabul, Koenigs also said that Talibanisation posed a threat to the region, particularly Pakistan. There is “a danger of Talibanization of the region ... particularly of Pakistan,” Koenigs told reporters. “Other states should look at this experience (of Afghanistan) and make it very clear that they don’t want to repeat this experience.” Koenigs also criticized Maulana Fazlur Rehman, chief of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam party in Pakistan, for his pro-Taliban stance. agencies

Why Bush turns deaf ear to Karzai’s pleas for showdown with Musharraf

By Khalid Hasan - Daily Times 20 February 2007

* Political analyst slams US misperception that hardline extremist Islamic force would replace Musharraf
* Says extremist forces flourishing under protective umbrella of military intelligence agencies
* Calls for Congress to tie further US economic-military aid to improved anti-Taliban measures
* Urges banning of all Pentagon subsidies to Pakistan’s armed forces

WASHINGTON: Some American political observers are growing increasingly impatient with Washington’s apparent refusal to act on the pleas of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and stage a showdown with President General Pervez Musharraf over what Kabul believes is Islamabad’s support for the Taliban.

Writing in Boston Globe on Monday, Selig Harrison - who is generally critical of Pakistan and its policies - argues that since the administration of US President George W Bush has routinely ignored Karzai’s requests, it now remains “up to Congress to force administration action by conditioning further US economic and military aid to the Musharraf regime on definitive measures by Pakistan to shut down Taliban bases in its territory”.
He points out that “buried” in the recent omnibus Homeland Security legislation passed by the House of Representatives is a clause banning further economic and military aid to Islamabad unless President Bush certifies that “the Pakistani government is making all possible efforts to prevent the Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control”.

However, he also points out that the bill leaves a “glaring loophole”, which he identifies as the president’s power to waive the ban if he certifies that “it is important to the national security interest of the United States to do so”.

Harrison goes on to lament the bill’s failure to cover disguised Pentagon subsidies to the Pakistan armed forces. The Senate, he suggests, should therefore remove or qualify the presidential waiver and include the Pentagon subsidies in the ban.

According to Harrison, the cost of Musharraf’s post-9/11 cooperation with the US has reached a “staggering” US $27.5 billion

Offering a breakdown of figures, he says: “Economic and military aid has totalled $4.5 billion. In addition, the United States is providing $5 billion in credit guarantees for the purchase of 62 nuclear capable F-16 fighter planes and has orchestrated the postponement of debt repayments to aid donor countries totalling another $13.5 billion. The subsidies to the armed forces - $4.5 billion so far and set to reach $7.5 billion in 2008 - are papered over in Pentagon statistics and have received little congressional scrutiny.

What Pakistan gets, nominally as reimbursement for the cost of its counter terrorism operations, is lumped together with other counter terrorism funding. The payments continue to flow whether or not Pakistani forces come out of their barracks in Afghan border areas during a given month.”

However, Harrison does concede that it is unclear whether Pakistan government agencies are themselves aiding the Taliban or whether they simply look the other way when “Musharraf-backed” Islamic extremist groups do so.

But, quoting US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, he goes on to point out that “there are more attacks coming across the border”. Thus, Harrison suggests that the best way for Pakistan to allay suspicions concerning the Taliban would be to give foreign journalists “unimpeded access” to its border areas.

Instead, as the situation currently stands, Harrison says that Islamabad bars from these areas journalists without a government permit, adding that requests for such documentation are routinely denied.

He goes on to offer an explanation for Washington’s unwillingness to confront Musharraf: the fear that a showdown would lead to the emergence of a hard line Islamic extremist in his place.

This anxiety, Harrison reasons, is based on the increasingly discredited premise that the Pakistani leader is a bulwark against Islamic radicals, when the fact is that the Islamic parties are flourishing under the protective umbrella of military intelligence agencies.

The only way for their growth to be slowed, he argues, is if secular political forces were allowed to assert themselves through free elections.

“If Musharraf wants to run for President, he should step down as army chief of staff, and exiled prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif should be permitted to oppose him. A return to civilian rule in Pakistan offers the best hope for neutralising the disquieting growth of Islamic extremism in Pakistan and Afghanistan alike.”

Pakistan to Build Fence

Published: February 19, 2007 - ALWARA MANDI, Pakistan (AP) -- Protected from frostbite by thick rubber boots, the Pakistani soldiers shivering on these remote mountains on the Afghan frontier know that when the snow melts their job will only get harder.

Taliban fighters will return -- and find ways to slip past them to attack Afghan and foreign forces on the other side.

Under international pressure to stop a Taliban spring offensive that threatens Afghanistan, Pakistan is planning to fence small sections of this vast rugged frontier despite widespread skepticism that it will be effective.

Pakistan's wild tribal belt has been a refuge for Taliban and al-Qaida militants since the U.S.-led invasion that ousted the hardline militia from Afghanistan at the end of 2001. But over the past year, an alarming escalation in violence has raised concern over whether Pakistan is doing enough to contain the insurgents.

''It's easy to cross,'' said Maj. Mohammed Fazl, a 35-year-old commander of a clutch of lookouts on a frigid pass through the forested mountains. ''There is a lot of cover and if they are in a valley it's hard to pick them up. They know the ground very well, because this is where they are from.''

Stung by the mounting criticism, President Gen. Pervez Musharraf this month announced plans to fence 22 miles on the 1,470-mile border. Over the weekend, the Pakistan military ferried journalists to see the badlands of North Waziristan where several sections of the barrier are to go up.

Maj. Gen. Azhar Ali Shah said the fencing would help stop militants but could not guarantee it would seal the border. ''There could be areas where they go through unobserved, but we have made it very, very difficult for them,'' he said.

Pakistani officials say the barriers will help secure areas not visible from 900 pre-existing posts along the vast frontier, or will block known insurgent paths. Tripwires, booby traps and patrols are planned to stop insurgents from simply cutting a hole in the fence.

A second phase foresees using both fencing and mines to secure 150 miles of border further south in Baluchistan province.

Musharraf defends the plan by pointing to the Indian fence on the cease-fire line that divides Kashmir, or to the U.S. barrier against illegal immigrants from Mexico. But some experts say those examples only demonstrate the tactic's ineffectiveness.

''The effect is usually very short-term because those who wish to cross the border are almost always able to find a way round,'' said Christian Le Miere, an analyst at Jane's Country Risk in London.

Embattled Afghan President Hamid Karzai complains that the plan would unfairly divide families living on both sides of the frontier, which cuts through ethnic Pashtun territories. Mines will kill civilians, both he and the U.N. have warned.

Karzai also has accused Pakistan of secretly supporting the Taliban-led guerrillas -- allies of Pakistan until after the Sept. 11 attacks -- and says fencing the border misses the point: that Taliban and al-Qaida militants continue to find secure refuge in Pakistan's tribal areas.

''We appreciate that Pres. Musharraf ... has recognized the threat posed by cross-border terrorist excursions into Afghanistan and is intending to do more,'' Said Tawad, Afghanistan's ambassador to the United States, wrote in an article published in the Wall Street Journal this month. ''However, the border is not where the problem lies. Terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan are the real threat to regional stability and global security.''

Robert Oakley, a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, suspects that retired commanders and some serving agents of Pakistan's ISI intelligence service, which helped the Taliban seize power in Afghanistan in the 1990s, are still supporting them.

''But the biggest problem has been the tendency by the Pakistani army, ISI and police to look the other way at Taliban networks,'' particularly in Baluchistan, said Oakley, now a consultant with the International Defense University in Washington.

Musharraf acknowledged earlier this month that outgunned Pakistani guards have sometimes ''turned a blind eye'' to bands of guerrillas crossing the border. However, he angrily dismissed the charge of collusion, claiming that hundreds of Pakistani troops have died in operations against al-Qaida and pro-Taliban militants in the tribal areas.

Pakistani officials say Karzai is trying to obscure how Taliban militants were gaining ground in their southern Afghan heartland because the U.S-backed government there has failed to deliver security and badly needed reconstruction.

The Afghan National Army and NATO have relatively few border posts of their own, Pakistani officials complain.

In North Waziristan, Musharraf's government has shifted its emphasis from bloody search-and-destroy raids to using promises of financial aid to persuade tribal leaders to rein in extremists.

Some U.S. officials are alarmed at that policy, reporting a surge in cross-border attacks since Islamabad signed a peace deal with tribal leaders and pro-Taliban militants in North Waziristan in September.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday there had been ''some disappointments'' with that plan, though the Bush administration has been publicly supportive of Musharraf.

The Pakistani military says there is no evidence of a surge, but Maj. Gen. Shah acknowledged that it would take years to dry up support for the Taliban in the Pashtun tribal regions, where every family living in fortress-like compounds is armed.

''Some teenagers who have nothing to do idolize these people,'' Shah said. ''The religious feeling is there, and firing a weapon is no problem.''

‘ US should press Afghanistan for Durand Line recognition’

* Terrorism expert says Pakistan unwilling or incapable of containing Taliban

By Khalid Hasan – Daily Times 20 February 2007

WASHINGTON: The United States should pressure Afghanistan to recognise the Durand Line as the international frontier with Pakistan as its non-recognition aggravates tensions with Pakistan and helps the militants move back and forth across the border, according to a leading expert on terrorism.

Peter Bergen, CNN’s terrorism expert, testifying before the House Committee on Foreign Relations, said that 2007 will likely be a “make or break year” for Afghanistan, for the international efforts there, and, conversely, for the efforts of the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies to turn the country back into a failed state. What happens will have a large impact on US national security interests as a failed Afghan state will help empower jihadist terrorists who are planning to attack the US and its allies.

Pointing out that the coalition forces are now battling the Taliban on a scale not witnessed since 2001 when the war against the Taliban began, Bergen maintains that bolstered by a compliant Pakistani government, hefty cash inflows from the drug trade, and a population disillusioned by battered infrastructure and lacklustre reconstruction efforts, the Taliban are back.

Bergen is of the view that the rise of the Taliban is to be ultimately linked to the mistakes made by the US in the first years of occupation. These early errors helped pave the way for the resurgence of the Taliban.

The Pakistani government, argues Bergen, has proven unwilling or incapable (or both) of clamping down on the religious militia, despite the fact that the headquarters of the Taliban and its key allies are allegedly located in Pakistan. Pakistan’s upcoming 2007 presidential election means the Pakistani government is doing even less than in the past because the Musharraf government is aware how unpopular military action against the Taliban is in their border regions with Afghanistan. The Taliban, however, consider the Musharraf government an “infidel”. The recent suicide attacks show that the Taliban have the Pakistani government in their crosshairs. Bergen notes that the Pakistani government denies that it is providing a safe haven for the Taliban leadership.

The Musharraf government does not completely control its own territory or security agencies, and that ISI, the Pakistani military intelligence agency, at some levels continues to tolerate and/or maintain links with Taliban leaders. Also, many members of the Taliban grew up in refugee camps in Pakistan and so are very familiar with the country. In addition, an alliance of Pakistani religious political parties broadly sympathetic to the Taliban controls both the NWFP and, to some degree, Balochistan. In the last few years, the Taiban have increasingly identified themselves as part of the global jihadist movement.

Bergan points out that Iran has played “something of a useful role” in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. Iran could have acted as a spoiler in post-Taliban Afghanistan; instead it has been something of a stabilising influence in western Afghanistan.

The CNN expert predicts that the spring of 2007 will be a bloody one. The present NATO strength is insufficient by around 5,500 soldiers. NATO member states must increase their troop strength and reduce the number of “national caveats” that hamper the effectiveness of their forces on the ground.

He said that it was also time for the US to institute a long-term mini-Marshall plan for Afghanistan. In early 2006 the Afghan government published the Afghanistan National Development Strategy, which estimated that $4 billion a year in aid for the next five years was needed to reconstruct the country. For this reason the US should contribute at least half that sum every year for many years to come. Given the fact that the 9/11 attacks emerged from Afghanistan and cost the American economy at least $500 billion, aid for Afghanistan so that it does not to return to a failed state is a good investment.

Poland sends special troops to Afghanistan

WARSAW, Feb. 19 (Xinhua) -- Soldiers from Poland's Operational Mobile Reaction Group (GROM) will leave for Afghanistan soon to support other Polish units there, reported the Polish news agency PAP on Monday.

The troops on Monday received an official farewell from Defence Minister Aleksander Szczyglo and military Chief of Staff General Franciszek Gagor.

Established on July 13, 1990, GROM is a special unit of the Polish army, which can also serve in counter-terrorist operations. Currently, there are over 100 Polish soldiers in Afghanistan, and the Polish government last year vowed to send 1,000 more in the first half of 2007.

But the plan has been strongly opposed by Poles. The latest opinion poll conducted by the Polish National Public Opinion Center showed that nearly 80 percent of Poles are against the deployment of Polish troops in Afghanistan.

Azerbaijan may send more peacekeepers to Afghanistan - Russian website

Excerpt from report by Russian website Kavkazskiy Uzel on 19 February

18 February: Azerbaijan may increase its military contingent in Afghanistan by 300 servicemen. So the number of Azerbaijani servicemen in Afghanistan will increase to 450 people, informed military sources have told our Kavkazskiy Uzel correspondent.

According to the sources, agreement of principle on an increase in the number of Azerbaijani peacekeepers in Afghanistan was reached during the visit to Baku by US Assistant Secretary of Defence for International Security Affairs Peter Rodman. The new batch of Azerbaijani soldiers is expected to be dispatched to Afghanistan in the near future.

We should note that NATO coordinator Lorenz Meyer Minneman, who visited Azerbaijan recently, also confirmed this information. He said in an interview with Azerbaijani journalists that President Ilham Aliyev had promised in Brussels to increase the number of peacekeepers in Afghanistan.

Taliban not massing for offensive, NATO commander says

Paktribune February 20, 2007 - KABUL: There is no evidence that the Taliban are assembling to launch a major offensive in Afghanistan, despite recent warnings, NATO's commander in the southern region says.

"We haven't seen anything to indicate they're massing," Dutch Maj.-Gen. Ton Van Loon told reporters the other day. And even if the Taliban were preparing an offensive, NATO and the Afghan government plan to disrupt it by taking the initiative, he said.

International forces and the Afghan army and police will "go into as many areas as we possibly can to make sure the Taliban cannot go back and bully the population."

There have been repeated warnings from U.S. and Taliban sources that the militants are preparing an attack once the winter lifts. It could involve as many as 10,000 militants, including specially trained suicide bombers.

While NATO has been bracing for attack, some experts have said that the Taliban lack the resources to launch a serious offensive.

But the Taliban takeover of the town of Musa Qala two weeks ago showed that they still had some strength - at least when there were no NATO soldiers around. NATO had pulled out under a peace deal with the Taliban.

Some NATO countries have been pushing others to contribute more soldiers to the fight in the south, where Canada, the U.S. and Britain have suffered the heaviest casualties.

But Van Loon said there was no need for more combat soldiers. Any reinforcements should be devoted to reconstruction, he said.

AP Enterprise: Afghan army said improving, but years away from operating unaided

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - KABUL, Afghanistan: The Afghan army is struggling with old weaponry, low pay and desertions, yet performs better than the troubled Iraqi army and could defend Afghanistan without U.S. and NATO support in five to 10 years time, military officials and analysts say.

The fledgling force's success is viewed as critical to the Western-backed mission of stabilizing Afghanistan, which faced a record number of insurgent attacks last year. Renewed violence expected this spring threatens President Hamid Karzai's government.

Recruitment for the Afghan National Army is being accelerated, and $8.6 billion (€6.56 billion) in new American funding for Afghan security needs will help equip the 32,000-strong force that U.S. military officials say is proving increasingly resilient in battle.

Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press that a goal of 70,000 Afghan soldiers has been pushed forward to December 2008 from 2011, and it is hoped to have 46,000 in place by April.

"We don't like that international forces suffer here. We think it's a disgrace to us that sons of a faraway land come and shed their blood on our soil," Wardak said. "Our intention is that we ourselves take on the physical security and international forces take a supporting and mentoring role."

The ANA got its first troops in summer after the ouster of the Taliban regime in November, 2001. U.S.-led coalition officials initially hoped to have the force at full strength by the end of 2006, but recruitment and training started slowly and the timetable slipped.

Officials say it will take at least five more years, and likely longer, for the ANA to stand alone, allowing the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces which currently number a record 47,000 and are still struggling to quell the volatile south and east.

"I think to operate alone and still defeat potential insurgents, you're looking at probably a decade," said Seth Jones, an analyst with the RAND Corp. who traveled to Afghanistan last month to study the ANA.

"Current force levels have insufficient capability and capacity, making them heavily reliant upon U.S. and coalition forces," Anthony Cordesman, an expert on Afghanistan and Iraq at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote in an analysis last month titled "Winning in Afghanistan: Afghan Force Development." He said "far more aid" was needed.

The new funding announced recently by the Bush administration should help answer that call, providing M4 or M16 rifles, body armor, Humvees, aircraft and communications for troops sometimes equipped with little more than uniforms and aging guns inherited from past guerrilla forces.

New weaponry should bring some comfort to soldiers such as Nimmatullah, whose dated AK-47 assault rifle malfunctioned during a battle against Taliban insurgents in remote Nuristan province last summer. The Afghan soldier, who goes by one name, says his gun fired three bullets and then jammed. He nearly quit the army in frustration, he said.

Salary and spartan living conditions are also a sore point among the rank and file, despite recent a pay raise — from $70 to $100 (€50 to €75) a month — which compares well with the average monthly income of about $50 (€38) in Kabul.

Adbul Wazim, an ANA soldier standing guard in the capital in a crisp green and brown camouflage uniform, said that despite the increase, he doesn't plan on re-enlisting after his three-year army commitment is up in six months.

"I will go back to my home area, though I don't know what I'll do," he said. "The salary just isn't enough."

In another example of discontent, 10 ANA soldiers at a security checkpoint in southern Kandahar province last month told U.S. Special Forces soldiers there that they wanted to quit. The Afghan soldiers complained that they had been away from home too long, that they only had one uniform — and that they didn't get enough meat to eat.

Still, U.S. officials say the Afghan soldiers who fight alongside American and NATO troops are playing an increasingly important role in battle.

In November, just north of Kabul, 800 Afghan troops and 250 U.S. forces cleared out a cell of suicide bombers who had been targeting the capital. U.S. officials also championed the grit shown by ANA soldiers who charged up a hill in eastern Paktika province in October to battle Taliban fighters who had ambushed U.S. soldiers.

But the true strength of the army is unclear. Defense Minister Wardak says he has "close to 40,000" soldiers, though Lt. Cmdr. John Daniels of the U.S.-led training program, said the number is really 32,300 after counting desertions.

He said the desertion rate has declined significantly, to 14 percent from 23 percent in 2003-04. However, other NATO officials say that when recruits who abandon basic training are counted, the rate jumps to 40 percent.

Five Afghan battalions, with 600 to 2,000 soldiers each, are now skilled enough to fight on their own, but lack three things: secure communications, air support and medical expertise, said Brig. Gen. Douglas A. Pritt, who oversees the U.S.-led ANA training program.

Despite its shortcomings, the ANA is better positioned to succeed than Iraq's 135,000-strong army, because its adversary is weaker, said Jones at RAND Corp. It also started training more than a year before the post-Saddam Hussein army battalion graduated.

Ethnic and sectarian tensions are also less divisive than in the Iraq force, dominated by Shiites and distrusted by many Sunnis. U.S. and Afghan officials boast that despite minor flare-ups and turf disputes, the ANA's broad tribal makeup is a positive step in a country once torn apart by ethnic civil war.

Pakistani police search for Afghan link in suicide bombing

Sunday, February 18, 2007 - CBC News - Pakistani police are focusing on Afghan refugees in their search for information about the suicide bomber who killed 16 people on Saturday.

Police have detained 36 people, including 22 Afghan refugees, said the police chief in Quetta, the site of the bombing. "We will investigate them to determine whether anyone among them has any link with the incident," police Chief Raho Khan Brohi said Sunday.

There is a concern in Pakistan that militants in the population, which could include Afghan refugees, may be trying to weaken the country's support for the NATO fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There have been nearly a dozen bombings in Pakistan this year. Quetta has been identified as a city with many Taliban sympathizers. The attack killed a judge and 15 other people, and wounded 24.

Islamabad-Washington nexus on Afghan crisis

Tehran Times Opinion Column, Feb. 20, By Behnam Elmi

TEHRAN, Feb. 19 (MNA) -- To successfully deal with the Afghanistan crisis and to ensure a long-term military presence in the country, the United States is trying to shore up its points of vulnerability in connection with Pakistan.

U.S. and European officials have been focusing on Afghanistan over the past few days. During a recent visit to Islamabad for a meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed the United States’ long-term commitment to fight the Taleban in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the NATO chairman predicted that the violence and unrest would be over by the end of 2009 and the stage would be set for lasting peace.

Afghanistan has become the center of attention because the NATO mission in the country has run into a crisis. Taking command of the International Security

U.S. and European officials have been focusing on Afghanistan over the past few days. During a recent visit to Islamabad for a meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates stressed the United States’ long-term commitment to fight the Taleban in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, the NATO chairman predicted that the violence and unrest would be over by the end of 2009 and the stage would be set for lasting peace.

Afghanistan has become the center of attention because the NATO mission in the country has run into a crisis. Taking command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and expanding its mission to the entire country, NATO began a new war against the Taleban, but some of the original objectives have still not been accomplished. The resurgence of the Taleban is proof of this.

Currently there are 40,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, half of them U.S. forces and the rest provided by other NATO countries. However, given the large scope of the goals of this mission, troop strength seems insufficient, probably due to the fact that the U.S. military is overstretched in Iraq, which has led to the debacle in Afghanistan.

Of course, the countries involved in the Afghanistan crisis have adopted various approaches to resolve the issue, such as increasing troops and funding, but without an appropriate modification of the current strategy, these moves will most likely not make much difference.

There are a few factors which are necessary for the success of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The coalition forces’ failure to pay proper attention to these factors has led to their inability to reach their goals.

After the Taleban was toppled, the world made promises to the Afghan people about the reconstruction of their country, but these promises were not kept. The reconstruction process seems rather symbolic these days and the few major construction projects implemented so far have not brought any noticeable improvement to the people’s everyday lives.

Meanwhile, the violent and disrespectful behavior of U.S. and NATO forces and their mistakes in targeting during air raids have created animosity toward foreign forces and caused some Afghans to seek shelter with the Taleban.

In addition, the process of establishing the government and laying the foundation for democracy has not been satisfactory. Widespread corruption, chaos, and the fact that warlords accused of war crimes and drug mafia kingpins have attained government posts have increased the people’s dissatisfaction with the government.

The Taleban has bases outside of Afghanistan, especially in Pakistan. They are inaccessible to the coalition forces, and thus the Taleban enjoy unhindered access to training bases and logistical and political support.

These are the vulnerable points of the Western forces in Afghanistan. Perhaps, understanding these points, Gates visited Pakistan to cut one of the most important lines of support for the Taleban. His visit was neither for criticism nor for delivering warnings. Rather, it was meant to show appreciation to Pakistan for its cooperation with U.S. and NATO forces and to encourage Islamabad to continue this process.

It is evident from Gates’ use of the phrase “long-term commitment to oppose the Taleban” that the U.S. government is dreaming of a long-term presence in Afghanistan, and to make this a reality it needs the cooperation of regional powers like Pakistan.

It seems that NATO intends to stay in Afghanistan to accomplish its mission, in line with its new cold war policy of control and management of international crises.

However, as long as the West is not really committed to the reconstruction of Afghanistan and does not consider cooperation with Afghan armed groups, the current problems will remain unresolved.

Blaming Europe: NATO doesn't deserve the rap on Afghanistan

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Editorial - 02/19/2007

President Bush clearly signalled in a speech on Thursday, first, that there is a strong risk that the Taliban will retake Afghanistan this spring and, second, that he intends to try to scapegoat NATO and the Europeans for not having provided enough troops to prevent that from occurring.

The war in Afghanistan -- or, better, the struggle to put Afghanistan in the democratic, economically developing nation category -- arose from the fact that the Taliban government there had hosted al-Qaida as it prepared its Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the United States. The first steps were relatively successful. U.S. forces worked closely with the Afghan Northern Alliance, already the enemies of the Taliban, to drive the Taliban out of office and out of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.

The second step was more difficult, introducing democracy in a political climate that does not lend itself easily to it. But a good man was found, Hamid Karzai, eventually elected president. More or less democratic elections were held and more or less democratic institutions set up. The aid that was supposed to underpin the Karzai government was slow in coming and plagued with the culture of corruption that reigns in Afghanistan -- and always has reigned in Afghanistan.

The most important event in the planned reconstruction and development of Afghanistan happened in Washington and was, in the end, fatal to the process. The Bush administration basically lost interest in the country and fell all over itself to take America to war with Iraq. Afghanistan's economy lapsed back into its pre-Taliban condition, including almost total dependence on opium production for cash. Its new government's authority did not prevail across the country.

The Europeans provided some troops for the effort to try to keep Taliban and al-Qaida out. They currently have some 22,000 troops in Afghanistan; the United States has 22,000. However, having been initially drawn into the Iraq war's "coalition of the willing" by the same scam the Bush administration worked on the American people, the Europeans fast tired of providing troops at U.S. behest. Their reasoning ran, if the United States can devote 140,000 troops to the Iraq war, which the Europeans do not support, why should the Europeans provide troops for Afghanistan only to free up U.S. forces for use in Iraq? At this very minute, as Mr. Bush calls on the Europeans to increase their forces in Afghanistan, he is increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by 21,500.

The president now believes that the water is rising on the Karzai government in Kabul. The United States has solicited the Europeans many times to increase their forces in Afghanistan, with little success. That sets them up in Mr. Bush's eyes to take the rap for the impending collapse in Afghanistan. It is not unlike his current effort to blame the mess in Iraq on Iran.

Tom Koenigs, Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Afghanistan –

Press Conference - Kabul – 19 February 2007

SRSG: Good morning. Today I will speak about three main issues – firstly about our outreach to the provinces, secondly my visit to the Security Council, and third about human rights.

UNAMA is going to the provinces. A year ago we had ten offices around the country, by mid-2007 we will have almost doubled this number of offices. Over the past months I have opened offices in Kunar, Badghis, Zabul, and Khost. On Saturday last I opened our newest office in Nimroz province. In the coming months we will open further offices in Daikundi and Ghor. And maybe others will follow.

This commitment to outreach [in the provinces] is shared by UN headquarters and by both Secretary Generals (SG), the ex-SG Kofi Annan and the new SG Ban Ki-moon.

This outreach to the provinces reflects a critical need. Afghanistan needs stability, it needs peace, governance and development. The attention paid to the provinces so far has not been sufficient. In some places corruption in the provincial administrations has served to alienate segments of the population. We have tried to assist the provincial government to establish provincial development plans and to identify the provincial priorities that are to be integrated into the interim Afghanistan National Development Strategy (i-ANDS). We also monitor human rights performance together with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC).

Human rights violations including the violence of war, particularly against civilians, occur locally. Allegations of human rights violations have to be verified locally. Human rights must not be compromised by the conflict. Lessons out of these verifications must be learned and wherever possible the victims must be helped. What we find in all the provinces is that people want more development and faster development. UNAMA will be there to bring other agencies and donors into the provinces, to support the local Governors and help co-ordinate the efforts of other aid agencies to ensure that development is efficiently planned. To advocate development support for Afghanistan, over the past month I have traveled to the conference of NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels, the meeting of the Joint Co-ordination and Monitoring Board (JCMB) in Berlin, and to meet with the UN Security Council in New York. I have spoken to the new Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and found that he is highly interested and engaged in the [UN] mission in Afghanistan. He has been to Kabul several times during the 1980’s and knows the President well. On my own and on behalf of the President I have invited the SG to Afghanistan and he said that he will [come] and it’s only a question of his schedule. The SG was very supportive of our strategy to expand into the provinces. Soon I will see him again and I will also brief the UN Security Council again towards the end of March 2007. Among the issues raised [at my last meeting] with members of the UN Security Council were regional cooperation, certainly the security situation, the drug economy as a principal spoiler of the reconstruction effort and the human rights situation.

Everybody agreed that everything has to be done to avoid humanitarian tragedies and civilian casualties in pursuit of counter insurgency operations. I will repeat this again – human rights must not be compromised by the conflict.

Afghanistan is not a post conflict country. It’s a country in conflict. One can even put it more dramatically – it’s a post-devastation state facing a war of insurgency. The aspirations of the Afghans lay in the direction of progress and we should under this difficult situation not forget that enormous progress has been made and continues to be made. Dealing so much with the problems, we have to recall that Afghanistan has made enormous progress in infrastructure, construction, roads, services and telecommunications but also in the democratic process.

We have to consolidate this progress. One important aspect of this progress is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I have had reports of journalists being intimidated. I have seen the Head of RTA [Afghanistan’s National TV station] being made to resign. And I hear of efforts to have the Parliament amend the proposed media law in a manner which would harm media development in Afghanistan. It’s often said that the first victim of war is truth. We must prevent this from becoming the case in Afghanistan. We don’t realistically expect the Taliban to stop its propaganda war, but we must on our side ensure that a space for free media is open. I say again that it is a great achievement of the last five years that we have a free media [in Afghanistan]. Fighting the insurgency we must not forget what we are fighting them for – we are fighting to maintain these successes and maintain democratic freedoms. That’s why I repeat again that human rights must not be compromised as we fight this insurgency.

Questions and Answers:

RFE: We have some reports that local officials in some provinces of Afghanistan are highly involved in human rights violations. Do you have any comments or assessments of this situation?

SRSG: The question is very general and we have to go into the details. That is what our provincial offices try to find out – what the real case is, support the victims and criticise those government officials and inform the Governor so that he can take the appropriate action. For instance one phenomenon that is quite frequent is illegal detention. We try to follow these cases which come to our attention and stop these practises. To be able to follow these cases up we have our local offices and also cooperate closely with the Afghan Independent Human rights Commission (AIHRC). Our focus on human rights and our focus on cooperation with the AIHRC is very well demonstrated by our last two office openings in Khost and Zaranj with the presence of the Head of Deputy Head of the AIHRC at these openings. In some cases it is very difficult to follow up these violations because we have to find out the truth and powerful people are involved. Nonetheless we are working hard to change this situation.

Good Morning Afghanistan: You say you are monitoring the human rights situation. Are you talking about those high-ranking officials who have been frequently named by Human Rights Watch as human rights violators? Do you believe that these officials should be brought to trial?

SRSG: I was very happy when on International Human Rights Day, 10th December, the President launched the Action Plan for Transitional Justice. The President has declared this day, 10 th December every year as the day for victims. As activists for human rights we have to be on the side of the victims. This action plan is meant to enable the victims to speak about reconciliation but also to find out the truth. In Afghanistan we are at the very beginning of this process and a lot has to be done to put things right for the victims. This is the most important aspect. The second most important aspect is the need to find out the truth. After finding out the truth one can speak about forgiving and everything else. But it must be the victims who forgive, not others who think that the victims should forgive. I cannot make on the information available any statements about any persons and I will not do that. But one thing must be very clear – amnesties for gross violation of human rights and war crimes should not exist. I think one of the big progresses in the field of human rights is that the international community has established mechanisms to address gross violations of human rights in times of conflict. The International Criminal Tribunal is one such mechanism. The basic principle of this is to put things right for the victims and prevent any further violations. I have said it here before – this is not a process that can move very fast and we should not expect Afghanistan to be the champion in expediting the process of transitional justice. In some countries this has taken 20, 50 or 60 years. Nevertheless we should do everything to establish the truth, to give victims back their dignity and to proceed to a real reconciliation.

DPA: You were just talking about the expansion of your offices, while the Taliban is talking about an upsurge in violence – aren’t you concerned about the safety of your staff, particularly in the southern provinces? And secondly it has been over two weeks since the Taliban have been controlling a town in southern Afghanistan, Musa Qala. What is the UN’s stance on this? Are you concerned about the local residents? If the Government of Afghanistan wanted to secure a second similar deal would the United Nations support such a deal?

SRSG: Regarding your first question, we are certainly very concerned about the security situation and we do everything to mitigate the risk. The most important thing is to have good links with the local population and the local authorities. We will not open an office in any area where we see a conflict coming or where it’s just too dangerous for us to operate. One of the most difficult situations was our office in Kandahar but we hope that the situation there has now stabilized.

The ceasefire agreement in Musa Qala was a valuable and necessary action to bring peace without further or additional military intervention. We still believe in ceasefire agreements and locally brokered peace deals as a possible future out of the armed conflict. The positive point about the Musa Qala agreement was that the local authorities and the local elders, the people of Musa Qala have kept this agreement going for four months. And they have had no war for four months. I certainly think that it is worthwhile to try such local agreements again but it must be ensured that the security forces are strong enough to prevent spoilers and that was not the case in Musa Qala. I am happy that Governor Wafa is trying to resolve this conflict without further violence because those that would suffer would be the citizens of Musa Qala. In all the conflicts that the United Nations has seen in the world we must over and over again see that we must never lose the perspective of securing a peaceful settlement. Because that is what will prevent civilian casualties. My fear in Musa Qala is for the civilian population. They are afraid and some of them have left the town creating more internally displaced people and refugees so we have to prevent a tragedy wherever we can.

Question (translated from Dari): The question is about the Human Rights Watch report where they name some of the Afghan officials who enjoy support amongst the people. If UNAMA wants to try these people, do you think you will face a reaction by the people? Secondly, UNAMA made comments previously which were responded to by the Foreign Minister Spanta who in one case said that UNAMA has no right to express views on certain issues. How do you respond to this?

SRSG: There are two questions. The first on Human Rights Watch report I have tried to answer already. The second, I have spoken with foreign Minister Spanta and I have discovered that there is a misunderstanding along the line. He has reacted to a piece of news which later was revoked by the news agency itself. He has reacted to something which has not been said by UNAMA. Most of you will know that. We have rectified this and so the matter is resolved.

As you might know, UNAMA has excellent relationships with the Foreign Ministry and as you also know, I have a very close relationship with the Minister. So, it is very easy to overcome such misunderstandings.

Question (translated from Dari): The question is about the expressions by [opposition leader in the Pakistan National Assembly] Fazlur Rahman who supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and also called on the Pakistani Government to support Pakistan. The Governor of the North West Frontier Province called on the foreign troops to withdraw from Afghanistan and he also asked the US Government to withdraw its support for the Afghan Government. What is UNAMA’s view on this?

SRSG: I have read the statements of [North West Frontier Province] Governor Aurakzai and I was very astonished. I think the Pakistani Government has to clarify whether this is their official position or whether it is the position of a Governor who should be corrected by the central Government. If you want me to answer the question bluntly - I thoroughly disagree. Those politicians in Pakistan who support the Taliban should make it pretty clear what they mean by that and how they react to the actions of Taliban and other terrorists in their country, in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world.

I know that these voices in the political spectrum of the political parties in Pakistan exist, but I do not think that they are voices from the Government of Pakistan. I think there is a danger and this danger is being seen in the whole region: A danger of Talibanisation of the region, not only part of the regions, but in the neighbouring states and particularly Pakistan. The Afghans know very well where this leads to because they had Taliban rule [before], and other states should look at this experience and make it very clear that they do not want to repeat this experience. In addition to the Taliban there is an international threat to peace and security, and the international community is very well aware of it.

Fazlur Rahman and Aurakzai wouldn’t be the first to underestimate the threat for international peace and security which originates from the Taliban. In the ‘80s and ‘90s the whole international community made this mistake – one shouldn’t repeat it. This is more or less the same. I tell all those who think that an engagement against the Taliban and an engagement in favour of the peace-loving citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan isn’t worthwhile that it is. And it’s a lesson we should learn from history. So to be very clear, I say no twice to Rahman and Orakzai.

Question (translated from Dari): You referred to trials for human rights violators. In an interview that I did with the human rights commission they have recorded 120 cases of human rights violations being perpetrated by foreign troops. Does that mean that foreign troops will also be brought to justice or is it just Afghans that will face trial?

SRSG: The first thing to say is that everybody understands human rights actions as trials. That is not true, we are far from a trial, for instance of violators of human rights in the past periods. This is a question of through investigation and truth finding. Nevertheless, I agree that human rights violations perpetrated by anybody should be put to a trial. Those cases of human rights violations committed by anyone, international or non-Afghan, in Afghanistan. We have seen lately that a US soldier has been convicted by an American trial for eight years. We think that it is necessary that in cases of proven human rights violations that the perpetrators have to be convicted.

The investigations made for instance by the ISAF troops in incidents of civilian casualties have always the possibility to end up in a trial - if there is criminal wrongdoing involved. But also there, we have a broad range of actions which are not criminal. The so-called collateral damage of a bombing, is a tragedy. Nevertheless, behind that, in no case that I know has there been criminal activity involved.

The verifications are necessary, first to bring victims into their rights and second to prevent further collateral damage. In this debate we should never forget that we have one party in the conflict, the Taliban, that don’t care about civilian casualties. Nevertheless, I join the call made by the international Red Cross and the Red Crescent for both parties to do everything to prevent civilian casualties. And we do so in all those cases we verify, and call on all parties involved to do everything they can to prevent collateral damage. I say that very clearly because that is the justification and the aims of our verification work in the provinces. I am happy that the ISAF forces are receptive to that. Receptive in the detail, to change their rules of procedure at both an operational and programmatic level. You have listened to the speech of the recently departed General Richards who stated that the main problem and concern for him was civilian collateral damage.

Question (translated from Dari): The question refers again to Governor Aurakzai where you said that the Government of Pakistan needs to clarify its position. But in the meantime, he is the Governor of the North West Frontier Province. He is also a member of the Commission for the regional peace jirga. Do you think that if such expressions continue by the Governor that this undermines holding of the regional peace jirga in the future which are supposed to be held at the end of February and the beginning of March.

SRSG: I see that in the United States on that subject and [about] engaging Pakistan into the fight against the Taliban there has been a lot of debate, information and declarations. The Secretary of State has issued statements. The Secretary of Defence has issued statements. I hope that this will help to come to a better cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight the Taliban. The three Governments – the US Government; the Afghanistan Government; and the Pakistan Government say that they engaged in the fight against the Taliban and in this light, a statement that Aurakzai apparently made is not helpful. But, additionally, I think it is not true what he says.

Question: I’d like to go back to a couple of things that you mentioned in your opening remarks. First was your reference to the amnesty resolution and the attempted changes to the media law. Both of these emanate from Parliament, currently dominated by a powerful minority. The international community, which pushed through Parliament quite early in the stages of the development of this country, which as you pointed out, is still in a state of conflict. How will you deal with this problem?

SRSG: First, to the so-called amnesty reconciliation resolution. We have made a very clear statement on this and we continue to argue along these lines. We will lobby, try to raise consciousness and we will try to convince. I am very happy that the President apparently did not agree at least with the element of amnesty on this so-called amnesty reconciliation bill. The Parliament has in front of it a press law which represents the call for press freedom. Apparently, the Religious and Cultural Affairs Commission tries to introduce some amendments which are not going in the direction of press freedom but in the opposite direction. The United Nations and UNAMA has taken a position that the original draft to the law was much better than the amendments and we should stick to the original draft. As you know, it’s our mandate to defend human rights and press freedom is one and we try to be very clear on this. Thank you.

Afghan opium lobby group opens Ottawa office

Last Updated: Monday, February 19, 2007 - CBC News

A group pushing for legal licensing of the Afghanistan opium poppy crop instead of its destruction has opened a Canadian office in Ottawa. The Senlis Council has been fighting against the eradication of Afghan opium poppy fields during the war on the Taliban.

Profits from the crop, which is used to make illegal drugs such as heroin, are allegedly used to fund Taliban warlords. The Senlis Council wants the crop licensed for the production of medical painkilling drugs instead of being destroyed.

The international think-tank, which researches and recommends foreign policy and policy on security, development and counter-narcotics, already has offices in Kabul, Paris, Brussels and London.

But now Canada's increased role in Afghanistan has led it to open the Canadian branch, said spokesman Almas Zakhilwal.

"We want to provide Canadians and [the Canadian] government with research that we have done in Kandahar … so they can make better [decisions] for their troops, for their people, and for the Afghan people and for Afghanistan in general," said Zakhilwal from the group's new Byward Market office, which was filled with furniture and computers just in the past week and a half.

According to a World Bank study released in November, Afghanistan's poppy fields produce 90 per cent of the world's illegal opium, and trade in the drug accounts for one-third of the Afghan economy. Afghan officials have said the Taliban use the profits to fund their military insurgency.

Zakhilwal said his group's research shows the Afghan government's campaign to eradicate the crop has been largely unsuccessful. "There's no…visible result yet. People still grow opium," he said. "Still, Afghanistan is the No. 1 opium producer in the world."

Meanwhile, he added, the destruction of the crop has hurt many Afghan families. "They eradicate poppies, but there's no alternative crops for the farmers or alternative livelihoods for the farmers."

Zakhilwal said his group is pushing instead for deals that will allow the farmers to legally grow the crop under contracts with drug companies that will use them to manufacture medical painkillers such as morphine and codeine. It wants a pilot project in place by the end of the year.

The group argues that similar licensing programs have been effective in Turkey, France and India. But so far, the Afghan government has rejected the idea.

Canada does not have a specific policy on the issue, but Zhakhilwal said his group has already met with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and hopes to meet with the Conservative government soon, in an effort to sell the idea anyway.

Meanwhile, some local experts are unsure that the plan could work in Afghanistan. Carleton University Prof. Elliot Tepper said it will only be successful if farmers can make as much money from the licensing deals as they do now from the illegal drug trade.

"The best price will win, and if the best price remains the illegal trade, that's the way it will go," said Tepper, who researches local governance, security and human development in Asia. Military expert Col. Pat Stogran said money is not the only factor that will come into play.

"In the absence of security, if the crops were licensed and protected for the narcotics industry, the drug lords would merely come into the villages, and kill families or threaten and intimidate with a view to taking the opium harvests themselves," said Stogran, the first Canadian commander in Afghanistan. "There is no silver bullet."

Stogran is now the military's liaison at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, which conducts research, and provides education and training about peacekeeping.

Mirwais Nahzat, president of the Afghanistan Peace Ambassadors, a group that raises awareness about the situation in Afghanistan, said even if the poppy licensing solution isn't feasible, the opening of a Senlis Council office in Ottawa is still positive.

"Organizations like Senlis Council and any organization that works on putting the spotlight on Afghanistan would definitely make an impact on Canada for sure."

[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.]