In this bulletin:

• Despite U.S. pressure, Afghan government won't spray heroin-producing poppies
• Bush Plans New Focus On Afghan Recovery
• US DoD Announces Afghanistan Force Adjustment
• US plans big spending boost for Afghanistan
• Bush meets incoming NATO chief in Afghanistan
• Peace Jirga will be constituted within a month, says Afghan official
• EU troika-Afghanistan meeting to be held in Berlin next week
• Taliban Afghanistan`s headache: Musharraf
• Geopolitical Diary: Considering Mullah Omar's Location
• MPs venture outside the wire in Afghanistan
• Probe Afghan role, Dion urges - Liberals will push to have Commons hearings on how reconstruction, military are faring
• Grits support mission
• More diplomats for Afghanistan
• Steps needed to protect wildlife
• Afghans determined to rebuild, no matter the obstacles
• Pakistan's day of reckoning

Despite U.S. pressure, Afghan government won't spray heroin-producing poppies - Thursday, January 25, 2007 - Canadian Press

KABUL (AP) - Afghanistan's heroin-producing poppies will not be sprayed with herbicide this year despite a record crop in 2006 and U.S. pressure for President Hamid Karzai to allow the drug-fighting tactic, a spokesman said Thursday.

Karzai's cabinet decided on Sunday to hold off on using chemicals for now, according to Said Mohammad Azam, spokesman for Afghanistan's Ministry of Counter Narcotics. "There will be no ground spraying this year," Azam told The Associated Press.

However, Karzai told foreign and Afghan officials this week that if Afghanistan's poppy crop is not reduced this year he would allow spraying in 2008, according to a western official who requested anonymity because of the matter's sensitivity.

He said there would be more pressure to destroy poppy crops with "traditional" techniques - typically sending teams of labourers into fields to batter down or plow in the plants before they can be harvested. "If it works, that is fine," Azam said. "If it does not, next year ground spraying will be in the list of options."

Fuelled by the Taliban, a powerful drug mafia and the need for a profitable crop that can overcome drought, opium production from poppies in Afghanistan last year rose 49 per cent to 6,000 tonnes - enough to make about 600 tonnes of heroin. That's more than 90 per cent of the world's supply and more than the world's addicts consume in a year.

However, Afghans are deeply opposed to aerial spraying, and Karzai has said herbicides pose too big a risk of contaminating water, kill legal crops and harming local residents. Any chemicals would have been spread at ground level, not by planes.

The decision caps months of behind-the-scenes pressure from the United States for Karzai to allow a technique already used in countries such as Colombia. Afghan officials have deployed similar arguments in previous years to reject spraying.

"We always said that the ground based spraying is a decision for the Afghans to make," said Joe Mellott, the spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. "So we understand they are going to focus on a robust manual and mechanical program to eradicate poppies this year," he said.

The U.S. will provide assistance in that, Mellott said, and also "if they want to use herbicide."

John Walters, the director of the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said last month that that poppies would be sprayed, although he did not say when. Walters, on a December visit to Kabul, said Afghanistan could turn into a narco-state unless "giant steps" were made toward eliminating poppies.

However, no top Afghan officials have said publicly that the government would carry out spraying.

U.S. Ambassador Ronald Neumann said this week that Afghanistan has already eradicated some 600 hectares of poppies this year. U.S. and Afghan officials agree that eradication must be matched with a crackdown on traffickers and programs to help farmers switch to legal crops.

"We have done an enormous amount of alternative livelihood, but you are not going to have a full meaning of alternatives until we build a rural economy and until you can move a crop to the market," Neumann said.

Few crops in Afghanistan can be transported far without spoiling or damage. By comparison, poppy resin, the main ingredient in heroin, is robust and can keep for years.

Afghan farmers have sometimes turned to violence to protect the precious poppy plants, whose profits are believed to flow partly to Taliban militants.

Police said two members of an Afghan government eradication team were shot and wounded by unidentified gunmen as they destroyed poppies in western Herat province on Wednesday.

Bush Plans New Focus On Afghan Recovery

The Washington Post 01/25/2007 By Michael Abramowitz - Extra $7 Billion Would Go to Security, Roads

After the bloodiest year in Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion, the Bush administration is preparing a series of new military, economic and political initiatives aimed partly at preempting an expected offensive this spring by Taliban insurgents, according to senior U.S. officials.

Even as it trumpeted a change of course in Iraq this month, the White House has completed a review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. It will ask Congress for $7 billion to $8 billion in new funds for security, reconstruction and other projects in Afghanistan as part of the upcoming budget package, officials said.

That would represent a sizable increase in the U.S. commitment to the strife-torn country; since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that toppled the Taliban, the United States has provided a little more than $14 billion in assistance for Afghanistan, the State Department says.

The U.S. military said yesterday that about 3,500 soldiers in the Army's 10th Mountain Division will have their tours in Afghanistan extended by four months, as part of an effort to beef up U.S. troop strength. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will meet with other NATO foreign ministers in Brussels on Friday to discuss Afghanistan, part of a new diplomatic offensive U.S. officials say is aimed at securing more international support for the government of President Hamid Karzai.

Although U.S. officials say the Taliban insurgency does not pose an immediate threat to the Karzai government, they are eager to nip in the bud a potentially bloody Taliban spring offensive that could erode Afghani confidence in the central government and in the staying power of the international coalition that is trying to establish security across the country.

Violence escalated last year in Afghanistan as allied forces confronted an emboldened Taliban movement in the south, and the central government encountered continuing problems providing basic services. Many government and outside experts on Afghanistan are also worried that the border regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan are once again turning into safe havens for Taliban militants and their al-Qaeda allies. One senior official said the Taliban maintains "command and control" of the insurgency from Pakistan.

"Everyone talks about the Taliban military offensive this spring," said Kurt D. Volker, a senior State Department official involved with NATO policy. "We should be the ones taking the offensive if there is an offensive to be done. . . . It needs to be across the board. It's not just a military issue; it's a comprehensive issue -- development, counternarcotics, reconstruction and military." Volker said U.S. officials want to cut off the Taliban's ability to impose its will on groups in Afghanistan.

The U.S. politics surrounding Afghanistan offer an intriguing counterpoint to the U.S. politics regarding Iraq. While most Democrats fiercely oppose President Bush's plan to send another 21,000 troops to Iraq, they support a more invigorated battle in Afghanistan. If anything, they say, the administration has neglected Afghanistan, failing to insist that NATO allies assume more of the burden in maintaining stability there.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the leading Democratic presidential contender for 2008, returned from a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq last week saying U.S. priorities are "upside down" in the focus on Iraq. She told reporters, "We should be adding more American military forces [in Afghanistan], and we should be requiring the NATO countries to fulfill their commitments to the forces that they had promised us."

Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he complained sharply to Rice this week about what he called an "appalling" lack of willingness to share the burden in Afghanistan by key allies like Germany and France. "I sense that fundamentally she agrees with me," Lantos added.

The issue of burden-sharing has been a flashpoint for trans-Atlantic relations as NATO has gradually taken over much of the responsibility for security in Afghanistan in the past two years. There are about 34,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, including about 12,000 U.S. soldiers, and another 12,000 U.S. troops operate there under U.S. command, according to Pentagon figures.

Bush and other U.S. officials have been pressing countries such as Germany, Italy and Spain to lift restrictions on their troops being deployed to the more violent southern areas of Afghanistan, where the Taliban insurgency is strongest. NATO countries did not fully meet former NATO supreme commander James L. Jones's calls for additional troops and equipment.

Jones's successor as NATO commander, Army Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, is working on a new assessment of troop and equipment needs for Afghanistan, and when that is complete, U.S. officials say, they will be pressing allies to help provide additional support for the mission. As officials described it, they are talking about a possible increase of several thousand troops for Afghanistan -- not all in U.S. contributions.

One senior administration official said that Rice's trip this week, coupled with follow-up visits by her subordinates and defense officials, are intended to demonstrate to European governments that the United States is committed to Afghanistan and would not abandon it to NATO simply because it was overwhelmed by the turmoil in Iraq.

There are "serious questions across the board" in Europe about the depth of the U.S. commitment, the official said, including worries that the buildup in Iraq would take troops from Afghanistan. The official, like several others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because the results of the administration's Afghanistan review are not public.

Officials said the review began in the middle of last year and was prompted by a desire to reevaluate U.S. strategy in the wake of political changes in the country, as well as the resurgent Taliban militia. One senior official said a major conclusion of the review was the need to accelerate efforts to build roads, schools and other reconstruction projects in the wake of efforts to clean out insurgents. "We are talking about large amounts of money to kick-start the effort," this source said.

Another senior official involved with Afghanistan policy, offering a private briefing recently, said allied troops are facing a "bloody year in the south" in fighting the Taliban and slow progress in tackling the problems in the country, including corruption, opium production, and lack of roads and other infrastructure. "We still can succeed," he said, but "it is going to be a long project."

Staff writers Ann Scott Tyson, Thomas E. Ricks and Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.

US DoD Announces Afghanistan Force Adjustment

            The Department of Defense announced today Secretary of Defense Robert Gates approved a request from commanders to extend for up to 120 additional days 3,200 soldiers of the 3 rd Brigade, 10 th Mountain Division currently operating in Afghanistan. This extension will provide military capability for NATO to maintain the initiative and build upon the success achieved in promoting stability and security, while denying safe haven for the Taliban.

Force levels in Afghanistan continue to be conditions-based and will be determined in consultation with the Afghan government and NATO. The United States remains committed to leading the counter-terrorism operations in Afghanistan, training and equipping the Afghan national security forces and assisting with reconstruction.

The United States continues to be NATO-International Security Assistance Force’s largest troop contributor. This request for forces by U.S. commanders as part of NATO’s forces in Afghanistan was endorsed by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe as a commitment to the NATO-ISAF mission in Afghanistan as NATO continues to identify capabilities needed to meet enduring requirements.

The Secretary and department recognize the additional sacrifice and continued contributions of the 3 rd Brigade Combat Team and their family members.  Army leadership is diligently working with service members and their families to provide support and resources to meet their needs.

US plans big spending boost for Afghanistan

Washington (AFP 1.25.07) - The United States is planning a sharp increase in spending on security and reconstruction in Afghanistan to counter an anticipated offensive by Taliban forces this spring, the Washington Post has reported.

The White House will ask Congress for seven to eight billion dollars on top of already budgeted funds for Afghanistan in its upcoming budget proposal, the Post said, citing unnamed officials of the administration of President George W. Bush.

The military is also extending by four months the Afghanistan tours of 3,500 troops of the 10th Mountain Division to keep up the strength of US forces.

The move comes after the administration conducted a sweeping review of US policy in Afghanistan, starting from the middle of 2006, as violence across the country rose sharply.

It also comes as US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to discuss coalition troop strength in Afghanistan with European allies at a meeting Friday in Brussels of NATO foreign ministers.

A senior administration official told the Post that Rice wants to show European governments that the US is not trying to abandon the Afghanistan effort to NATO partners while Washington focuses on the Iraq war.

The Europeans have "serious questions across the board" about the US commitment to the Afghanistan fight, the official said. The alliance has some 33,000 troops fighting the Taliban, some 10 percent less than NATO members have promised.

On Wednesday Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Volker said Rice would press her counterparts for a more vigorous effort both to fight the Taliban, which is expected to launch a new offensive this spring, and to bolster reconstruction efforts.

"We want to have our own offensive and it should be civilian and military, it should be broad gauged, it should be reconstruction, development, it should be counter-narcotics and it should be security and military as well," he said.

The first Afghan, Pakistan and NATO intelligence sharing centre is due to open formally in Kabul in a drive to improve coordination in the protracted fight against the Taliban and other extremists.

The joint intelligence and operation centre is staffed by six intelligence agents from each of the Afghan, Pakistan and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) militaries -- all fighting the resurgent Taliban.

"The centre will allow the sharing of information and reports to be able to better coordinate military operations," Afghan defence ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi told AFP.

"Now how useful and significant it will be -- we will wait for the results. Lots has been discussed in the past, lots of commissions and meetings were formed. We will wait and see if this will be useful," he said. Commanders of the three militaries already meet every two months in a Tripartite Commission.

The intelligence centre's establishment comes amid growing tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan over the Taliban-led insurgency, which has grown steadily stronger since its launch after the hardliners' rout from government in 2001.

Afghanistan has been joined by Western sources in saying elements in Pakistan, including in its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, are backing the insurgency, which was its bloodiest last year with 4,000 dead -- most of them rebel fighters.

President Pervez Musharraf has angrily rejected the accusations. "I take extremely strong exception to anybody (accusing) ... any government agency of Pakistan of cooperating with these extremist forces and sending them into Afghanistan," Musharraf said Wednesday.

ISAF spokesman Brigadier Richard Nugee said this month the new centre was an "extremely significant step forward" against the extremists, who also carry out attacks in the Pakistan border areas.

Nugee said that the Afghan and Pakistan militaries would be brought "much closer together" by sharing intelligence information.

Bush meets incoming NATO chief in Afghanistan

Washington (AFP)- US President George W. Bush discussed efforts to crush Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan with the new commander of NATO's forces there, the White House said.

Bush met with US Army General Dan McNeil, the first US officer to hold the job, on Wednesday to "discuss the importance of success in Afghanistan as it relates to the war on terror," spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters.

"The United States is fully committed to providing the necessary resources to President (Hamid) Karzai," she said.

Later, Bush was to hold talks with the US joint chiefs of staff and leaders of US combatant commands around the world as part of an annual get-together that includes an Oval Office meeting and dinner at the White House, she said.

"This is an opportunity for the president to commend the senior defense leaders for their hard work and accomplishments in fighting the war on terror, defending our homeland, and maintaining a strong joint force," she said.

"I expect they will discuss progress to date on the new Iraq strategy, and then the continued efforts to counter the Taliban in Afghanistan. He'll also talk about budgetary issues and working with Congress to ensure that they have the needed support" for military operations, said Perino.

Peace Jirga will be constituted within a month, says Afghan official

KABUL: Deputy Chief of the Afghan commission on formation of Peace Jirga, Farooq Wardak has said that efforts to constitute the Jirga have entered in final stage and the Jirga will be constituted within a month.

Talking to BBC, Farooq Wardak said that the Afghan government is all set to launch awareness campaign pertaining to the Jirga and date would be announced for holding the Jirga after negotiating it with Pakistan.

Expressing his optimism regarding the formation of Jirga, Afghan official said that both Pakistan and Afghanistan has decided earlier for the formation of Jirga and no new decision could hamper the Peace Jirga.

Commenting on the mining and fencing of border areas, Farooq Wardak said that our Pakistani friends either fence the Durand Line or mine it, was not solution of any problem.

EU troika-Afghanistan meeting to be held in Berlin next week

Berlin, Jan 25, IRNA - Officials from the European Union troika and Afghanistan will meet in Berlin on Monday, the German Foreign Ministry announced here Thursday.

Talks will focus on assessing the developments in Afghanistan over the past year, the EU's activities in Afghanistan as well as Afghanistan's relations with its neighbors.

Chaired by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the meeting will include EU High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana and EU Commissioner for External Relations Benita Ferrero-Waldner.

The Afghan delegation will be headed Foreign Minister Rangin Spanta. Within the framework of the EU troika, Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amado will also take part in the talks.

In other related news, the German Foreign Ministry will also host on Tuesday a two-day, high-level coordination conference (JCMB) on the reconstruction of Afghanistan, which Germany is organizing in its capacity as president of the G8 group of industrialized countries.

Taliban Afghanistan`s headache: Musharraf

ABU DHABI: President Gen Pervez Musharraf has said that the problem of Taliban is solely that of Afghanistan as it houses the Al-Qaeda leadership and rumors of their presence in Pakistan are distortion of facts.

In an exclusive interview with Al-Arabia TV President Musharraf said that a perception is being created that Taliban is more of Pakistan`s problem than Afghanistan, which is not true as they are solely the problem if Afghanistan. However Pakistan can help Afghanistan in this regard by taking action against Pakistani religious parties who are providing funds to the Taliban.

He said that the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan near the Pak-Afghan border would be monitored more closely however Afghanistan should also take practical measures in this respect

President Musharraf said the main Al-Qaeda leadership Osama bin Laden and Aiman Al-Zawahri are in Afghanistan while the Taliban are being aided by Jalal ul Din Haqqani and Mullah Dad Allah, who are also in Afghanistan therefore Afghanistan instead of charging us of harboring terrorists should look into its home and arrest them.

He said that we want peace in Afghanistan as peace and stability there is in the interest of Pakistan and other countries in the region.

He said we have taken numerous measures against terrorism, which the world community has also acknowledged.

President also told that differences have emerged between Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and his right hand man Aiman Al-Zawahri and they are now working separately, however he cannot say this with total conviction, he added.

He told that Osama bin laden is suffering from serious kidney failure and cannot work.

In response to a question president said Pakistan does not support any military offensive against Iran.

In response to another question he said that Pakistan has no diplomatic ties with Israel and we support an independent Palestinian state and we are willing to talk with Israel on this issue.

He said that durable peace in Middle East is imperative and for that the Palestinian issue needs to be settled.

Commenting on the hanging of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussain President Musharraf said that the manner and timing of Saddam`s execution was inappropriate.

Talking about the situation in Waziristan he said that the peace agreement in Afghanistan is not 100 percent successful but positive outcomes have been yielded adding that anyway who says that this agreement was wrong has no knowledge of ground facts.

In response to another question he said that PPP is one of the largest political party of Pakistan however no deal with them has been made.

Geopolitical Diary: Considering Mullah Omar's Location

stratfor.com January 23, 2007 - Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is not harboring Taliban leader in Afghanistan Mullah Muhammad Omar, a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said on Monday. She added that Mullah Omar is probably in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar gathering fighters.

The denial comes a day after The New York Times published a report that details the role ISI played in supporting the Taliban resurgence. On Jan. 17, Afghanistan's intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security, released a video in which captured Taliban spokesman Abdul Haq Haqiq confesses to his role in the Pashtun jihadist movement and says Mullah Omar is hiding in Pakistan under the ISI's protection in the southwestern city of Quetta.

These are the latest in a flurry of recent statements alleging the Taliban leader is in Pakistan and that Islamabad supports the jihadist movement to maintain its influence over Afghanistan. U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte recently told a Senate committee hearing that al Qaeda and Taliban leaders are seeking refuge in Pakistan's frontier areas, namely Quetta. There are a few explanations for the sudden increase in discussion about the Pakistani connection to the Taliban and the whereabouts of Mullah Omar.

The Taliban are expected to resume their operations on a grand scale in spring. Given the problems that U.S., NATO and Afghan forces faced before the winter snow brought the fighting season to an end, Kabul and the West hope to increase the pressure on Pakistan to cooperate in order to help thwart Taliban attempts to strike.

Afghanistan and NATO also want to get as much cooperation as they can from Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf before his time is devoted to the upcoming elections. Musharraf needs to promote domestic political stability, and knows any U.S. action on Pakistani soil would stir up jihadist and Islamist groups inside Pakistan, as well as secular groups opposed to what they consider U.S. violations of Pakistani sovereignty.

The Pakistani Taliban are now regularly targeting Pakistani security forces. Both Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government and NATO think this threat could force Musharraf to cooperate in fighting the Taliban. The United States also hopes that U.S. airstrikes on jihadists inside Pakistani territory could further aid in pushing Musharraf into a corner during an election year.

Though Mullah Omar's location is not known for certain, he likely is in an area that affords him security as well as the ability to lead the insurgency. This means he can probably cross the Afghan-Pakistani border when needed. However, he is probably more secure on the Pakistani side of the border since it offers some protection from the Afghan and NATO forces searching for him.

However, Mullah Omar's likely location must also let him directly communicate with his commanders -- whose base of operations is in southeastern Afghanistan in the provinces of Zabul, Kandahar, Helmand and Uruzgan. Mullah Omar's hideout in Pakistan is likely near these areas -- he is not hiding in the North-West Frontier Province, and is unlikely to be in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas since it is the focus of global attention and the target of U.S. airstrikes and Pakistani operations. Mullah Omar also must be in a tribal and religiously conservative Pashtun region.

Taking all of these factors into consideration, only one area is left -- the Pashtun belt in the northwestern part of Pakistan's Balochistan province, as it is directly located opposite the Taliban stronghold areas in Afghanistan.

MPs venture outside the wire in Afghanistan

Updated Thu. Jan. 25 2007 - CTV.ca News Staff

A group of eight Canadian MPs ventured outside the wire in Afghanistan on Thursday after being told earlier that they wouldn't be allowed to.

The MPs -- members of the House of Commons all-party defence committee -- arrived in Afghanistan on Tuesday to review the progress in the war against the Taliban.

They had been told by Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor that they wouldn't be allowed to leave the Kandahar base due to security risks, but O'Connor relented Thursday and said they could venture out as long as the military could ensure their safety.

"After all the fuss about not being allowed to leave the base, the MPs were put into military vehicles this morning and taken just a short distance to an area where the Afghan army is being trained," said CTV's South Asia Bureau Chief Paul Workman, reporting from Kandahar.

"It was outside the wire, as they call it here, but still within the perimeter of the camp." The Canadian soldiers are helping to train and develop the Afghan National Army.

"So the MPs did in fact get to meet and to see some other aspect of military life here. They're having more briefings here today, however, and are still hoping that perhaps they will be able to get even further outside of the base," Workman told Canada AM.

Earlier, Liberal Ujjal Dosanjh, who is a member of the visiting delegation, accused O'Connor of trying to hamstring the committee.

The members had hoped to meet directly with Afghan officials and view reconstruction projects currently underway.

The Canadian Press reported Thursday that members of the visiting committee said more diplomacy needs to be injected into Canada's efforts in Afghanistan, though they disagreed on what exactly that should look like.

Dawn Black, the NDP defence critic and a member of the committee, says Canada's role is supposed to be what's called a three-D approach: defence, development and diplomacy.

However, Black said the members haven't heard anything about diplomacy in their visit to Kandahar, particularly when it comes to dealing with Pakistan, which provides safe haven to Taliban militants.

Tory MP Rick Casson, the chair of the committee, said Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has been working to engage other countries in the region, including Pakistan.

He argued that diplomatic efforts should be aimed at urging NATO allies to commit more troops to the effort.

Dossanjh says the Conservatives need to be tougher with the alliance so they "cough up more resources, particularly more troops."

He said Prime Minister Stephen Harper should have secured more NATO support before Parliament voted to extend the mission by two years.

With files from The Associated Press

Probe Afghan role, Dion urges - Liberals will push to have Commons hearings on how reconstruction, military are faring

January 25, 2007 - Sean Gordon Les WhittingtonToronto Star

QUEBEC CITY–With Afghanistan looming as a major issue in the next federal election, Liberals are trying to carve out a position that allows them to be sharply critical of the government's conduct of the war. But at the same time, party leader Stéphane Dion wants to avoid being painted as an advocate of pulling out Canadian troops.

Dion announced yesterday that the Liberals will push for a probe by the Commons foreign affairs committee to shed new light on Canada's role in the Afghan conflict and to hold Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to account.

"We want hearings about the situation in Afghanistan," Dion told a news conference wrapping up a three-day caucus retreat here.

The opposition has "no confidence at all in the capacity of this (Conservative) government" to construct a mission that balances military security with the need to rebuild Afghanistan, Dion said.

It's deplorable that Canada spent only $10 million in aid for the reconstruction effort last year, he said, especially when exactly how the money was spent is not known. Liberals stressed their unified stance in demanding a full investigation of the conduct of the war.

Michael Ignatieff, labelled a hawk during his leadership bid last year, in part for his unbending support of the Afghan war, told reporters: "The key issue here is accountability. The key issue is to make sure the Canadian people know where the aid money is being spent, what the strategy is in respect of incursions from Pakistan."

In a reference to O'Connor's explanation last week that Canada is in Afghanistan seeking payback for the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the U.S., Dion said, "We are not there to seek retribution. We are in Afghanistan to help the population have greater security and to give itself, in the coming years, a functional government. We need to know if the mission is working well, what's really happening."

The Liberals, who first sent Canadian troops into the Afghan theatre, are steering clear of what Dion called the "shameful attitude" of NDP Leader Jack Layton, who is demanding that Canadian forces be pulled out of Afghanistan.

It's also clear that Dion will pursue a Liberal offensive on climate change in the coming weeks. Dion intimated his party would try to short-circuit parliamentary debate on the Conservatives' Clean Air Act, "for the very simple reason that we already have a clean air act. It is the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, CEPA, which gives us all the capacities to regulate the substances that we want. And we will request ... cap-and-trade regulations, strong and meaningful regulations for the industry about greenhouse gas emissions."

Dion voiced considerable skepticism that Harper would put together a credible plan but asked the government to come forward with new proposals.

Even U.S. President George W. Bush – whose administration consistently questioned the science behind climate change – put forward "the kind of plan we need everywhere," Dion said.

Dion sought to play down comments he made to the Quebec City newspaper, Le Soleil, in which he appeared to suggest he would be willing to readmit former provincial Liberal cabinet minister Marc-Yvan Coté to the party. Coté admitted doling out $120,000 cash to campaign workers in eastern Quebec during the '97 federal election – in direct violation of electoral law.

Dion backpedalled at a news conference, insisting, "I have no recommendations to make ... I don't want to reopen this file."

Former prime minister Paul Martin banned Coté from the party for life – along with several other Liberals, including former Quebec lieutenant Alfonso Gagliano – in the fall of 2005.

Coté was fingered by the Gomery inquiry as one of the organizers who paid out money allegedly from kickbacks advertising agencies paid to win lucrative contracts promoting the federal government in Quebec after the 1995 sovereignty referendum.

Grits support mission
Dion says united Liberals don’t want dishonourable exit from Afghanistan

QUEBEC — Canadian troops shouldn’t be pulled from Afghanistan "with dishonour," said Stephane Dion, who called for parliamentary hearings into the mission now that federal Liberals have papered over their differences on the issue.

The newly minted Liberal leader said Wednesday that MPs are now united in wanting to improve the dangerous mission, putting more emphasis on diplomacy and development.

"I’m optimistic, I’m very confident that . . . there is a way to have a mission that will really make progress and we’ll work very hard for that," Dion said.

Dion said Liberals are opposed to immediately withdrawing Canadian troops "with dishonour," as he accused NDP Leader Jack Layton of wanting to do.

But Dion was less clear whether Liberals would support eventual withdrawal of Canada’s soldiers if the mission remains largely a combat effort aimed at rooting out Taliban insurgents.

"I prefer to not contemplate that," he told reporters after wrapping up a two-day caucus meeting to prepare for next week’s resumption of Parliament.

Dion said he’s confident that Liberals can strike a balance between Layton’s "shameful" support for unilateral withdrawal and Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s "blind" support for the mission as currently constituted.

Although it was the previous Liberal government that committed Canada’s soldiers to the combat mission, Liberals were split last year when Harper held a snap vote on extending the mission to 2009.

More than two dozen Liberal MPs, including then leadership front-runner Michael Ignatieff, supported the motion while the rest, including Dion, voted against it.

The issue was also divisive throughout the leadership contest. One leadership contender, Joe Volpe, called for immediate redeployment of Canadian soldiers out of the combat zone in Kandahar province to areas where they could concentrate on humanitarian aid and reconstruction — essentially the same position advocated by Layton.

Another contender, Gerard Kennedy, now Dion’s election readiness adviser, called for eventual withdrawal if Canada’s NATO allies could not be persuaded to reconstitute the mission.

Differences were less stark Wednesday but not entirely smoothed over. Ignatieff, now Dion’s deputy leader, was much less equivocal than his leader when asked if he could contemplate any circumstance in which Liberals would call for the withdrawal of Canadian troops.

"I can’t see any," Ignatieff told reporters. He said there is "absolutely clear water" between the Liberal and NDP positions. "Our position is we support the mission, we support the troops but we have very strong questions about the way the mission is being handled and managed."

Dion said the Liberals will call on the Commons foreign affairs committee to hold hearings on the mission. He said they want more information about the mandate of Canada’s soldiers and on how $10 million in development aid is being spent.

He said Liberals want Harper’s Tory government to pressure Canada’s NATO allies into shouldering more of the mission’s combat role. They also want more pressure applied on Pakistan to close its borders to Taliban insurgents.

"(Tories) have all this very wrong and we want these hearings to improve this mission and we are strongly backing our troops," he said. Dion dodged when asked if he’d support extending the mission beyond 2009, saying the hearings must come first.

The Liberals also intend to hold the Harper government’s feet to the fire on a host of other issues, including health care wait times, the decision to abolish income trusts and the failure to create child care spaces.

Most importantly, Dion said Liberals will demand swift, concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including "strong and meaningful regulations" on large emitters. With even U.S. President George Bush, whose government has doubted the science behind global warming, now calling for a 20 per cent reduction in emissions, Dion said Canada is increasingly alone in failing to come to grips with the problem.

"It’s the kind of plan we need everywhere. The world is moving. This is the worst ecological threat that the world is facing," he said.

More diplomats for Afghanistan

BBC 01/24/2007 By Frank Gardner - The government is to send up to 35 extra diplomatic staff to Afghanistan, the BBC has learned. The deployment will make the country one of the Foreign Office's biggest overseas postings.

Whitehall sources said the move is an attempt to prevent the country suffering the same level of chaos and violence as Iraq. Officials said staff will focus on tackling drug production and corruption as well as building institutions.

Currently there are between 50 and 100 UK-based diplomats in Afghanistan, including counter-narcotics specialists. The new staff are expected to be deployed to the British Embassy in Kabul and to Lashkar Garh in the south over the coming months.

Foreign Office officials say the priorities will be to combat corruption, help build government institutions in the south and to tackle the production of opium.

The newly enlarged embassy staff will be headed by one of Britain's highest profile diplomats, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, who is currently ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

A fluent Arabist, he was previously ambassador in Tel Aviv where he learnt to speak Hebrew.

The increased diplomatic presence comes at a time when Taleban insurgents are proving to be a more resilient and dangerous enemy than many in the West had expected.

In April, Britain will take over command of Nato forces in the south from the Canadians, giving British commanders overall responsibility for some of the most violent provinces in Afghanistan.

There are currently close to 6,000 British troops in the country, mostly deployed in the southern province of Helmand. The British government had hoped that its mission in Afghanistan would be primarily aimed at stabilisation and humanitarian assistance.

Only last year the defence secretary at the time, John Reid, was quoted as saying that it would be good if British forces could complete their mission in the south without a shot being fired in anger.

But the Taleban have done exactly what they said they would: resist what they see as a foreign army of occupation.

Using bases and popular tribal support on the Pakistani side of the border the resurgent Taleban have been able to mount frequent attacks on Nato forces despite suffering heavy casualties themselves.

They have carried out a campaign of intimidation in parts of the south and east, warning the local population not to cooperate with the elected government of President Hamid Karzai.

They have also burned down dozens of schools, threatened aid workers and killed Afghan school teachers.

Although British and Nato forces have been winning almost every fire fight at the tactical level, partly thanks to their ability to call in close air support, their battle to win over Afghan hearts and minds has not been going so well.

Many of the clashes result in the wholesale destruction of local property and some civilian loss of life.

Nato forces have also not been helped by a return to widespread corruption and banditry in rural areas, an endemic problem which helped usher in the reign of the Taleban with their draconian punishments in the 1990s.

The Taleban have also been vigorous in spreading their message to the Afghan population in the south and east that they are here to stay while Nato's presence will only be temporary.

Steps needed to protect wildlife

KABUL, Jan 22 (Pajhwok Afghan News): The skins of wolves and wild cats hang from the fur shops in Kabul, along with rabbit-skin rugs and full-length fox coats. Nearby stores offer carpets, Soviet belt buckles and old British pistols.

"This was killed two months ago," said a young trader as he produced a prized snow-leopard skin from a closet. Its head and paws were intact; its shiny grayish fur and long bushy tail left no doubt about its pedigree. The prices are $850, a bargain compared with one across the street for $1,400.

On Kabul's famous Chicken Street, almost anything is for sale, including the pelts of some of the world's most endangered animals, despite a nationwide ban on hunting and international laws prohibiting their trade. Foreign soldiers and aid workers who have come to protect and rebuild the country are the main buyers, according to conservationists.

"They check their ethics at the door," said Alex Dehgan, head of the Afghanistan programme for the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society. He said he knew of one aid worker who had a comforter made from two or three snow-leopard skins. "It is stuff like that that gets us really worried," he said.

Dehgan, a former Spokane resident, and others from the Pacific Northwest are at the forefront of an effort to save the precious cats from extinction. But it is a tough battle in a country Dehgan likens to the Wild West.

Aside from poaching, poor herders kill the snow leopards to protect their valuable sheep and goats. The two-fold threat has left only 50 to 100 snow leopards in Afghanistan, where nearly three decades of war have taken their toll on natural areas and wildlife, conservationists said.

The snow leopard is very beautiful, charismatic and emblematic, said Brad Rutherford, executive director of the Seattle-based Snow Leopard Trust. "It's a great, flagship species."

Globally, the snow-leopard population is believed to be between 3,500 and 7,000, on a par with endangered pandas and tigers, according to Snow Leopard Trust. More than half of the leopards live in China. The rest roam the high, arid mountains of Central Asia, from Mongolia to Nepal.

Most scientists agree snow leopards are in decline, but how fast is not known, Rutherford said. The animals are elusive and live in remote mountain ranges, often on narrow ledges and steep slopes above 10,000 feet.

Scientists are trying to learn more about the secretive cats' range and habitat, partly through trapping and tracking. In November, a team of scientists led by the trust's conservation director Tom McCarthy of Redmond, caught a female snow leopard in northern Pakistan, just across the Afghan border.

A Global Positioning System (GPS) collar was attached to it to follow a snow leopard's movements via satellite for the first time. The cats' huge range means they regularly cross into Afghanistan.

That's one reason conservationists are pushing for the creation of an international park in a vast region, including Afghanistan's northeastern panhandle and parts of Pakistan, Tajikistan and China.

Because the cats are at the top of the food chain, their extinction would throw nature into imbalance in the region, wildlife experts said. Already the leopards' world has been compromised.

Their primary prey, the ibex, a type of wild mountain goat, and the Marco Polo sheep, are disappearing because of grazing competition from domestic herds. So, snow leopards have turned to eating marmots.

But when marmots hibernate in the long Afghan winters, the leopards turn to killing livestock.

One immediate challenge is persuading impoverished, war-torn Afghans not to kill snow leopards even though a pelt and bones - used in traditional Chinese medicine - can fetch up to $1,000 on the black market. "They're living on less than a dollar a day," Rutherford said. "These people have no give."

In 2002, the Snow Leopard Trust paid Afghanistan's only environmental civic group, Save the Environment Afghanistan, to educate village elders and tribal leaders on the leopard's peril.

"We explained there were only a few left," said Ghulam Malikyar, the group's founder. He said villagers supported creating protected areas for the cats that might draw tourists and their money. One herder said, he would not kill it even if attacked his sheep, said Malikyar.

A ban on wildlife hunting in Afghanistan has reduced the supply of all wildlife skins by roughly 40 per cent, according to Malikyar. But government officials said they lack the resources to properly enforce such environmental laws, so wildlife activists also have targeted those who create the demand.

Three years ago, Malikyar lobbied the commanding officer of NATO's International Security Assistance Force, who ordered soldiers not to buy pelts from endangered species. But high turnover in the military means such orders have to be reinforced regularly, conservationists said.

This winter, the Wildlife Conservation Society made posters to hang up near military bases that warn that possession of a snow-leopard pelt is against the law in the United States, Europe and elsewhere.

Business cards also have been tacked up in Kabul restaurants where foreigners go. The cards portray a snow-leopard cub under the caption, "My friends don't buy snow leopard pelts."

In addition, the Wildlife Society's Dehgan has talked to postal officials about improving the detection of illegal furs. At the moment, US troops can send skins home through the Army Post Office, skirting regular customs.

The good news is that wildlife laws are no longer so openly flouted in Kabul. Soon after the fall of the Taliban regime, environmentalists reported widespread display of snow-leopard pelts. But recently, no exotic species could be found at the weekly markets at NATO forces' headquarters or at Camp Eggers, the US military base in Kabul.

When one trader was asked about such skins, he whispered: "Come to my shop."

Back on Chicken Street, a popular shopping strip for foreigners, traders are more cautious than they once were, thanks to periodic crackdowns. Snow-leopard pelts are usually hidden or kept off the premises. One exception is shopkeeper Haji Sahib Taj Mohammad, who has sold furs his entire life.

The pelts of two Persian leopards, also endangered, and a young snow-leopard skin were displayed prominently inside the shop.

Taj Mohammad, 62, claimed he has had those skins for 10 years. He offered the Persian leopards for $800 a piece. The snow-leopard skin was missing the tail. He offered it for $400.

"It's just a few," Taj Mohammad said of his stock. "It's not too much. The government doesn't have a problem with these. It's not for export."

But to Dehgan, the skins are far too many. "People don't realize how unique, how precious, the wildlife is," he said. "We should do everything to protect it." Jeff Hodson is a reporter based in Thailand

Afghans determined to rebuild, no matter the obstacles

United Nations Children's Fund - 01/24/2007 - UNICEF

UNICEF's External Relations Officer Roshan Khadivi offers personal reflections on the progress she has seen for children in Afghanistan since her first assignment there more than five years ago.

KABUL, Afghanistan, 23 January 2007 ? Prior to my first trip to Afghanistan in 2001, I remember a time when the horrible pictures of group killings of people in Kabul football stadiums reached the rest of the world. News reports spoke of oppressive restrictions and daily torture of innocent people. Worldwide, many wondered how things would turn out here.

I came to this country in late 2001 on a short assessment mission, followed by a two-year assignment in 2002. I have been back in Afghanistan for about month, and this most recent visit has been a real opportunity to see how things have changed.

Progress on the ground - Kabul is still one of the main hubs for the journalists. There are the many regulars and then there are the ?firefighters? ? reporters who come and go on three-day visits. The stories that seem to get the most media coverage are those about security in the southern and eastern parts of the country.

There is no doubt about the security and access problems here, but there also has been significant progress on the ground. Somehow, stories of these extraordinary works hardly make it to the main news bulletins around the globe.

For example, more than 4.89 million children in Afghanistan, including even those in remote villages, attend 1,782 literacy centres ? astounding for a country where just few years ago, education was banned and any progress for youth seemed unattainable.

Education strengthens communities - My friends who live outside Afghanistan always seem amazed when I talk about UNICEF?s support of literacy courses for women in Kandahar Province, where over 4,000 individuals will learn basic writing and reading skills and gain access to vocational training this year alone.

This is because to outsiders, Kandahar is a place spoken of direly on the evening news, a place filled with insurgents. They have no idea that despite the efforts of those who try to intimidate people through the burning of schools or attacks on civilians, communities are more than eager to send their children to school or attend literacy classes in order to improve their lives.

The universal saying that it is easy to destroy something but always takes much longer to repair it applies very much in this case ? especially with so many years of war and destruction of infrastructure and morale.

Afghans know from real experience that war and fear do not work. They have seen destruction on a daily basis and have experienced the pain of losing loved ones. They know that when a community becomes strong by educating itself, negative forces can no longer use fear or violence to stop them.

From what I have seen, despite the daily economic challenges, people in Afghanistan are more determined than ever to move forward. They know that by educating their children they are building a foundation for a country that is based on progress and peace, not the destruction of the past.

In 2007, with support from local communities, UNICEF staff members are planning to immunize Afghan children against polio in hitherto inaccessible areas. They plan to reach out to ensure that over 400,000 girls be will enrolled in schools. They aim to improve the quality of education, in part through the building of 200 cost-effective schools around the country. In addition, over 62,500 women of all ages will be enrolled in literacy courses.

Extraordinary things do and will continue to take place in this country.

Since my first visit to Afghanistan, extraordinary changes have taken place ? this despite the attacks of those who fear peace and progress for a country whose children are as deserving as those in the rest of the world.

Pakistan's day of reckoning
25 January 2007 – Domain-b.com

The only way to restore lasting peace in Afghanistan is for Pakistan and India to work together in and brokering talks between NATO, the US, the Karzai government and the Taliban.

India has the necessary credibility both in Kabul and the Western capitals, and with the erstwhile Northern Alliance to complement Pakistan's clout with the Pashtoons and the Taliban. And together they can offer NATO and the US an honourable way out of Afghanistan.

But India and Pakistan will only be able to do so if they cease to be mired in the past, shed the inherited burden of distrust and learn to work with each other.

Only one Indian newspaper has highlighted the US Congress' move to make all defence-related assistance to Pakistan conditional upon a Presidential certification that it is doing all it can to 'prevent Taliban from operating in areas under its sovereign control'. But this could become the turning point at which Pakistan loses control of its future and starts down the slippery slope that Iraq and Afghanistan have travelled.

Were that to happen, we in India will not go unscathed.

Although the bill requiring Presidential certification has been framed by the new, Democrat-dominated Congress, and although it is being described as the first step in the implementation of the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, it has fitted seamlessly into the Bush administration's graduated campaign to make Islamabad reverse course and take drastic military action once again to seal the highly porous Durand line and deny the Taliban sanctuary in Waziristan and Balochistan.

It had begun to apply pressure soon after the Pakistan government signed an agreement with the tribal chiefs of North Waziristan at Miranshahr on 5 September, 2006, in which it agreed to stop army operations aimed at the Taliban in exchange for a commitment by the chiefs to police the area themselves.

A spate of articles, with provocative headlines such as "Pakistan gives up on lair of Osama", and "Pakistani pullout a deal with the devil" appeared in highly respected newspapers from Montreal to Melbourne within days of the agreement. These were based on briefings by American officials based in Pakistan and Washington.

During his visit to the US in September to attend the opening of the UN General Assembly President Musharraf was able to convince Bush to give his method of dealing with the Taliban a chance, but US intelligence officials in Pakistan continued to call it a sell-out and to predict dire consequences.

Within three weeks of the Miranshahr agreement they began to claim that there had been a 300-per cent increase in Taliban attacks. Although this increase took place over a four-month period from June onwards, the timing of their statements created a link in newspaper readers' minds with the Miranshahr agreement and made Pakistan responsible.

In December Newsweek disclosed that Al Qaeda was training Western-born jihadis in camps in Pakistan to set loose in their home countries. Only days later the US director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, made a bald assertion that Pakistan was harbouring Mullah Omar in Quetta.

There was nothing new in either of these claims. Every major terrorist from Ramzi Youssef, who attacked the World Trade Centre in 1993 to the perpetrators of the Nairobi bombings, had been found to have a Pakistan connection, and not just Mullah Omar, but Osama and Ayman al Zawahiri were known to have taken refuge in the barely governed lands between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

But the timing of these disclosures was significant. By then Western analysts had begun to draw parallels openly between Pakistan today and Afghanistan on the eve of 9/11. The demand for Presidential certification is an inevitable consequence, but it is also the latest turn of the screw

If the US Senate endorses the bill, it will destroy whatever space remains for ambivalence. Pakistan will face a stark choice between two evils: reversing its policy and starting to pound suspected Taliban hideouts in the tribal areas once again, and foregoing first military, then bilateral economic, and finally multilateral economic assistance. This could plunge Pakistan into another 'lost' economic decade.

Pakistan has already tried the first course. Before its agreements with the Tribal chiefs of South and North Waziristan, Musharraf had committed more than 80,000 troops to a 30-month campaign to close the border and drive the Taliban out of the tribal areas.

But all he had succeeded in doing was to enrage the tribes and send streams of young Pashtoons into the Taliban ranks. What is worse, the attack spurred and, in the eyes of many Pashtoons, justified a Taliban campaign to kill tribal leaders it considered allied to the central government.

This not only eliminated precisely the people who could have controlled them but also threw the tribal hierarchy into disarray. This may be one of the reasons why the policy of maintaining peace through the tribal chiefs has failed.

The truth, which neither the US nor the NATO command wish to hear, is that it is the confusion in their policies towards Afghanistan that is mainly to blame. In 2001 the US won the war and drove the Taliban out of Kabul. But it could not make peace, because peace, like war and diplomacy, presupposes the existence of a contending state, government or movement.

If the aim of the victor becomes to destroy that state, government or movement altogether, then there is no one left with whom it can broker a peace. The US' aim has been to eradicate the Taliban because it had nurtured Al Qaeda and could do so again. So over five years, as it and then other members of NATO have chased their 'enemy' across the hills and valleys of Southern Afghanistan, they have lost any clear idea they may once have had of who the enemy is.

Today they do not know whether they are fighting the remnants of Mullah Omar's cohorts, Islamic fanatics who have joined them, or young Pashtoons who had nothing to do with the Taliban but have been so dangerously angered by the incessant bombing and the daily toll of human lives and blighted futures that they have picked up the gun to drive the foreign invader out as their forefathers and fathers did.

Thus, far from lecturing Musharraf on what he should be doing, the US and NATO should be asking themselves what their own goal is. For their current strategy of wooing ordinary Pashtoons away from the Taliban through economic reconstruction and then eradicating the hard core that remains, has little chance of succeeding, because it is creating more enemies than it eliminates.

As for Pakistan, Musharraf really has no choice but to confront the West, because the loss of military, and possibly economic, aid is by far the lesser price to pay. But this does not mean that he should fall in line with the hawks in his military establishment who still cling to the belief that they can ride to power in Kabul on the Taliban's backs and give Pakistan the 'defence in depth' that they have coveted for so long. After 9/11 and all that has followed, that is one outcome that the West, Russia and even Iran, will not tolerate. And the West has already made it clear that it will hold Pakistan accountable.

The only constructive course left open to Pakistan is to somehow rediscover the road to peace that the NATO and US have somehow lost. This will involve getting them to declare a cease-fire, and brokering talks between them, the Karzai government and the Taliban. That can only happen if NATO and the US are prepared to accept that their present goal is unattainable. As New Delhi has found out in Kashmir, there are no economic remedies for political problems once blood has begun to flow.

But Musharraf's government is too heavily compromised by its past ambivalence towards Islamist militancy and jihad, to command the necessary credibility in Western eyes. It is also regarded with deep suspicion by Kabul. It cannot, therefore, bear this burden alone.

The only alternative – indeed possibly the only way to restore lasting peace in Afghanistan is for Pakistan and India to work together. India has almost as vital a stake in preventing the disintegration or Talibanisation of Pakistan as its own people do. It also has the necessary credibility both in Kabul and the Western capitals, and with the erstwhile Northern Alliance to complement Pakistan's clout with the Pashtoons and the Taliban. And together they can offer NATO and the US an honourable way out of Afghanistan.

But India and Pakistan will only be able to do so if they cease to be mired in the past, shed the inherited burden of distrust and learn to work with each other. The rise of global terrorism, the Bush national security doctrine, and the destruction of the Westphalian international order has given us ample reason to do so.

[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.]